AN ASSESSMENT OF THE VULNERABILITY OF TUKTOYAKTUK TO

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHANGES

A Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of Graduate Studies

of

The University of Guelph

by

MARK ANDRACHUK

In partial fulfilment of requirements

for the degree of

Master of Arts

November, 2008

© Mark Andrachuk, 2008 Library and Bibliotheque et 1*1 Archives Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition

395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Canada Canada

Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-47749-6 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-47749-6

NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives and Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par Plntemet, prefer, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans loan, distribute and sell theses le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, worldwide, for commercial or non­ sur support microforme, papier, electronique commercial purposes, in microform, et/ou autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.

The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. this thesis. Neither the thesis Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de nor substantial extracts from it celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement may be printed or otherwise reproduits sans son autorisation. reproduced without the author's permission.

In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne Privacy Act some supporting sur la protection de la vie privee, forms may have been removed quelques formulaires secondaires from this thesis. ont ete enleves de cette these.

While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires in the document page count, aient inclus dans la pagination, their removal does not represent il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant. any loss of content from the thesis. Canada ABSTRACT

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE VULNERABILITY OF TUKTOYAKTUK, NWT TO ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHANGES

Mark Andrachuk Advisor: University of Guelph, 2008 Professor Barry Smit

This thesis assessed the ways that the Inuvialuit community of Tuktoyaktuk is vulnerable to climate change in the context of ongoing socio-economic and environmental changes. Stresses to livelihoods are occurring due to changes in demand for sport hunting and tourism, health issues, and limited availability of employment opportunities. Aspects of food security are stressed due to changes in the abundance and distribution of wildlife, the amount of time that Tuktoyaktuk residents spend harvesting, and the high cost of store-bought foods. Infrastructure is also at risk due to coastal erosion, flooding, and permafrost degradation. Existing adaptations have not taken the form of planned actions in response to specific changes in climate. In light of projected intensification of climate change and a proposed natural gas pipeline in the Tuktoyaktuk area, the community will experience new stresses and changes in adaptive capacity in the future. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I want to thank everyone in Tuktoyaktuk who supported and participated in my research. As research assistants, Tessa Dillon, Rebecca Pokiak, and

Frank Umoak made the interviews possible and helped me appreciate their community.

Thanks you also to James and Maureen Pokiak and their family for providing me with so many opportunities to participate in their day-to-day lives and experience life in Tuk.

Special thank you to Rebecca, Ning, and Edward for welcoming me in their home.

Barry, your insights and guidance were essential for completing this thesis. I value the opportunities that you have provided me and the trust that you place in your students.

Derek, I found your perspectives and comments to be very constructive. You enabled me to take a step back and see larger issues surrounding my work. To my classmates and the

Global Environmental Change Group, thank you for all of the interesting discussions, fun times, and sharing of frustrations.

Funding for my fieldwork was provided by ArcticNet, an Aurora Research Institute

Fellowship, the Aurora Research Institute's Research Assistant Program, a Lattornell

Travel Scholarship, and the Northern Scientific Training Program. Two Ontario Graduate

Scholarships provided me with support as a student.

Leah: you are the best

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements i

Table of Contents ii

List of Tables vi

List of Figures vii

List of Acronyms x

Chapter One Introduction 1

1.1 Rationale 1

1.2 Aim and Objectives 3

1.3 Outline of Thesis 4

Chapter Two Theoretical Context for Research 6

2.1 International Context 6

2.2 Conceptualizing Vulnerability 7

2.3 Approaches to Assessing Vulnerability 14

2.4 Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Research in the Arctic 17

2.5 Summary of Research Context 18

Chapter Three Study Area 20

3.1 People 20

3.2 Governance 23

ii 3.3 Environment 26

3.4 Infrastructure and Services 31

3.5 Economy 32

3.6 Socio-Cultural Changes 33

Chapter Four Research Approach 36

4.1 Researcher-Community Relationship 36

4.1.1 Ethical and Cross-Cultural Considerations 41

4.2 Data Collection 43

4.2.1 Semi-Structured Interviews 43

4.2.2 Participant Observation 48

4.2.3 Secondary Sources 49

4.2.4 Limitations of Data Collection 49

4.3 Data Analysis 51

4.4 Reporting Research Results 53

Chapter Five Current Vulnerability 54

5.1 Exposure-sensitivities and Adaptations Related to Livelihoods 55

5.1.1 Sport Hunt Guiding as a Livelihood Alternative 57

5.1.2 Tourism as a Livelihood Alternative 65

5.1.3 Summary of Exposure-sensitivities Related to Livelihoods 66

iii 5.2 Exposure-sensitivities and Adaptations Related to Food Security 69

5.2.1 Use, Availability, and Management of Caribou 73

5.2.2 Use, Availability, and Management of Waterfowl 84

5.2.3 Use, Availability, and Management of Fish 90

5.2.4 Use, Availability, and Management of Beluga Whales 95

5.2.5 Use of Store-bought Foods Compared to Harvested Foods 100

5.2.6 Summary of Food Security 104

5.3 Exposure-sensitivities and Adaptations Related to Infrastructure 106

5.3.1 Shoreline Protection 112

5.4 Summary of Current Vulnerability 119

Chapter Six Future Vulnerability 122

6.1 Climate Change 122

6.1.1 Implications for Future Exposure-sensitivities 123

6.2 Mackenzie Valley Pipeline 139

6.2.1 Implications for Future Exposure-sensitivities 143

6.3 Future Adaptive Capacity 146

6.3.1 Operational Issues Influencing Future Adaptive Capacity 147

6.3.2 Strategic Issues Influencing Future Adaptive Capacity 153

6.4 Summary of Future Vulnerability 157

iv Chapter Seven Conclusions 161

7.1 Summary of Results 161

7.2 Contributions From This Research 164

7.2.1 Practical Contributions 164

7.2.2 Scholarly Contributions 167

7.3 Further Research Opportunities 167

References Cited 170

Appendix A 190

Appendix B 194

Appendix C 199

Appendix D 200

v LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Purposes of climate change adaptation research (summarized from Smit &

Wandel,2006) 15

Table 2: Interview guide. The sample questions presented here were preceded with some information about the researcher to establish rapport. Interviews ended with the opportunity for interviewees to express any other views 47

Table 3: Topics raised during interviews according to elements of the vulnerability framework 52

Table 4: Stresses identified through interviews and participant observation; grouped in relation to livelihoods, food security, and infrastructure 55

Table 5: Breakdown of types of infrastructure in Tuktoyaktuk according to use 107

Table 6: Summary of adaptive strategies in Tuktoyaktuk 121

vi LISTOFFIGURES

Figure 1: Conceptualization of vulnerability 9

Figure 2: Analytical framework of the vulnerability approach (adapted from Smit et ah,

2008) 17

Figure 3: The Inuvialuit Settlement Region, showing location of all six present day communities (note: Holman Island is now known as Ulukhaktok) 21

Figure 4: Co-management organizations in the ISR and their participants (taken from US

2004). The full names of the organizations listed in the centre column are as follows:

Environmental Impact Screening Committee (EISC), Environmental Impact Review

Board (EIRB), Fisheries Joint Management Committee (FJMC), Wildlife Management

Advisory Council for the North Slope (WMAC - NS), and Wildlife Management

Advisory Council for the Northwest Territories (WMAC - NT) 26

Figure 5: Satellite photograph of Tuktoyaktuk (courtesy of ILA) 28

Figure 6: Average temperature and precipitation in Tuktoyaktuk based on normals

between 1971 and 2000 (data from Environment Canada, 2004) 30

Figure 7: Level of schooling for population aged 20-64 (data from Statistics Canada,

2002a) 33

Figure 8: Habitat range for southern Beaufort Sea polar bears (from Regehr et al, 2007).

This population lives within the boundary identified by IUCN (the International Union

for the Conservation of Nature) 60

Figure 9: Relationships associated with livelihood exposure-sensitivities 69

vii Figure 10: Range of the Cape Bathurst caribou herd (from Nagy et at, 2005) 76

Figure 11: Range of the Bluenose-west caribou herd (from Nagy et ai, 2005) 76

Figure 12: Population estimates for the Cape Bathurst and Bluenose-west caribou herds

(Environment and Natural Resources, 2006b; Nagy & Johnson, 2006) 78

Figure 13: Number of waterfowl harvested by Tuktoyaktuk residents between 1988 and

1997 (values from Joint Secretariat, 2003) 88

Figure 14: Harvest times for fish species (sources: Community of Tuktoyaktuk et ai,

2000; Joint Secretariat, 2003; Harwood etai, 2007) 92

Figure 15: Beluga harvesting areas in the ISR. Inuvialuit in Tuktoyaktuk make use of the

Kugmallit Bay area (from DFO, 2008) 97

Figure 16: Movement of the eastern Beaufort Sea beluga whale stock during spring, summer and fall (from DFO, 2000) 98

Figure 17: Relationships associated with food security exposure-sensitivities 106

Figure 18: Historical rates of erosion and accretion, showing the shoreline position in

1947 (solid line), 1972 (dotted line) and 2001. Some sections of the shoreline were rebuilt since 1947 (from Johnsons ai, 2003) Ill

Figure 19: Relationships associated with infrastructure exposure-sensitivities 113

Figure 20: Location of coastal erosion protection measures from 1976-1998 (Couture et al, 2002) 116

Figure 21: Cross sections of ice conditions in the Beaufort Sea during in late winter (from

Carmack & Macdonald, 2002) 125

viii Figure 22: Projected maximum shoreline progression after 10 and 25 years (from Johnson etal., 2003) 138

Figure 23: Crude oil prices 1970-2007 (source: WTRG, 2008) 141

Figure 24: Route of the proposed Mackenzie Valley Pipleline. Red dots indicated location of three proposed anchor fields. Tuktoyaktuk is located slightly east of the anchor fields. (Map from www.mackenziegasproject.com) 142

Figure 25: Age distribution of Tuktoyaktuk in 2007 (data from Statistics Canada, 2007).

150

IX UST OF ACRONYMS

ACIA - Arctic Climate Impact Assessment AMAP - the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme ARI - Aurora Research Institute DEW Line - Distant Early Warning Line DFO - Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada DIAND - Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development ENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources, GNWT FJMC - Fisheries Joint Management Committee GNWT - Government of Northwest Territories HTC - Hunters and Trappers Committee IDC - Inuvialuit Development Corporation ICC - Inuit Circumpolar Council IFA - Inuvialuit Final Agreement IHDP - International Human Development Program ILA - Inuvialuit Land Administration INAC - Indian and Northern Affairs Canada IPCC - International Panel on Climate Change ISR - Inuvialuit Settlement Region ITK - Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami JRP - Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project MACA - Department of Municipal and Community Affairs, GNWT MGP - Mackenzie Gas Project MRT - Mackenzie River Transport NTCL - Northern Transportation Company Limited NWT - Northwest Territories RWED - Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, GNWT TCC - Tuktoyaktuk Community Corporation TK - Traditional knowledge UNFCCC - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change WMAC (NWT) - Wildlife Management Advisory Council (Northwest Territories) WMAC (North Slope) - Wildlife Management Advisory Council (North Slope)

x CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Rationale

Impacts from climate change, as well as political, social and economic influences, are creating new risks and opportunities for people who live in the Arctic. Inuit organizations and researchers based in the Canadian Arctic have called for research that works in collaboration with communities to deal with multiple drivers of change (climatic and non-climatic) and, at the same time, builds local capacity (Berkes & Jolly, 2001; Krupnik

& Jolly, 2002; Nickels et al, 2006). This thesis has used a community-based vulnerability approach (Lim & Spanger-Siegfried, 2005) as a means of carrying out such research. Community-based vulnerability assessments have become prevalent internationally as a means of identifying ways that people are sensitive to climatic and other environmental changes in the context of dynamic political, social and economic conditions (O'Brien et al, 2004c; Belliveau et al, 2006; Adger et al, 2007; Keskitalo,

2008).

There is substantial evidence that climate change is underway and its impacts are experienced in different ways around the world (ACIA, 2005; JPCC, 2007). While some regions may experience greater frequency and intensity of extreme events (for example, heat waves, droughts, floods, or storms), others experience more subtle variations in average temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns. Human responses to climate change vary considerably, depending on the nature of climatic and environmental variations in particular regions, the extent to which people are exposed to those variations, and the resources available to people living in the region (Smithers & Smit, 1997; Chapin et al,

1 2004; Brooks & Adger, 2005; Haque & Burton, 2005). Not everyone is equally prepared

(even within communities) to respond to stresses or opportunities that arise as a result of climate change. There is a need for further research into the particular ways that people are at risk due to climate change and to identify options for reducing negative consequences. The relationship between the ways that people are exposed and sensitive to climatic and other forces (exposure-sensitivities) and the ways that they are able to deal with those exposures (adaptive strategies) is understood here as vulnerability.

Documentation of changing climatic conditions in the Arctic has been provided by indigenous peoples and scientific researchers (Krupnik & Jolly, 2002; ACIA, 2005;

Hinzman et al, 2005; Nickels et al, 2006; Anisimov et al, 2007; Ford et al, 2007).

These changes include rapid warming in spring, warmer summer and winter temperatures, decreased sea ice extent and thickness, melting permafrost, and altered patterns of prevailing winds. Inuit, whose livelihoods and culture depend on close relationships with Arctic environments, are highly sensitive to these climatic variations.

Historically, Inuit have persisted through harsh conditions and periods of rapid change.

However, current rates of environmental change coupled with social and economic changes have raised concerns about their ability to respond to risks associated with climate change. There is a need to identify community-specific vulnerabilities and inform the process of adaptation.

"Although history is instructive, there is also a need to carry out place-specific

analyses of adaptation to climate change in the present-day world. This is

because the inevitable surprises of climate change will unfold on a regional and

local stage where adaptive response becomes central. Understanding the dynamic

2 interaction between nature and society requires case studies situated in particular

places and cultures."

(Berkes& Jolly, 2001, p. 1)

Research conducted for this thesis has focused on the community of Tuktoyaktuk, located in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region in the western Canadian Arctic.

1.2 Aim and Objectives

This thesis was guided by a central aim of understanding the ways that the community of

Tuktoyaktuk is vulnerable to climate change in the context of ongoing socio-economic and environmental changes. The following objectives guided the research through an exploration of determinants of vulnerability in Tuktoyaktuk:

1. To document and characterize the nature of past and current stresses faced by

the community

2. To identify past and current strategies for dealing with stresses

3. To estimate future stresses and risks in light of climate change and other forces

4. To assess the capacity of Tuktoyaktuk residents for dealing with future stresses

and risks

While these four objectives reflect the logical structure of a vulnerability assessment, the focus of empirical work in this thesis is on objectives one and three. Objectives one and three will be addressed by drawing on the insights of residents of Tuktoyaktuk about the nature of the stresses they face and using scientific information to better understand the nature of interactions among forces acting upon the community. A broad range of environmental and socio-economic forces that act on local, regional and global scales are

3 considered. Objectives two and four are addressed in a similar manner but less substantive attention is given to these objectives.

1.3 Outline of Thesis

This thesis is comprised of seven chapters, including this introduction. The introductory chapter has outlined the broad context and rationale for the research.

Through a review of pertinent literature, Chapter 2 "Research Context" provides a practical and theoretical basis for the research, with an emphasis on providing an overview of conceptualizations of vulnerability and an outline of the vulnerability approach that guided the research. Chapter 3 "Study Area" presents an introduction to the people, governance, environment, infrastructure, and economy of the community of

Tuktoyaktuk. This chapter provides a foundation for interpreting the research results.

Chapter 4 "Research Approach" begins with a discussion of important considerations for community-based research and cross-cultural research. The chapter then provides details of the methods used for data collection, analysis and reporting.

Chapter 5 "Current Vulnerability" provides a broad understanding of Tuktoyaktuk's past and current stresses (understood as exposure-sensitivities). Exposure-sensitivities are broadly grouped according to livelihoods, food security and infrastructure. Throughout this chapter, the adaptive strategies used by residents of Tuktoyaktuk for dealing with exposure-sensitivities are also documented. Chapter 6 "Future Vulnerability" builds upon the previous chapter through an overview of projected changes in exposure-sensitivities as a result of climate change and other influences. Chapter 7 "Conclusions" provides an

4 overall review of the findings, a summary of scholarly and practical contributions, and highlights opportunities for further research. CHAPTER TWO

THEORETICAL CONTEXT FOR RESEARCH

This chapter reviews literature pertinent to understanding the sensitivity of Arctic communities to changing environmental and socio-economic conditions. The first section situates the research for this thesis within the context of international research and politics. The second section reviews several conceptualizations of vulnerability and outlines rationales for choosing particular definitions. This chapter concludes by presenting the vulnerability framework used as an analytical guide for this thesis.

2.1 International Context

Vulnerability research has been fueled by the United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC). Under the UNFCCC (1992), distinctions were made between developed countries (Annex I and II countries) and developing countries. Under Articles 4.3 and 4.4 of the UNFCCC, Annex II countries are obliged to provide financial resources and appropriate technology to countries that are "particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change" in order for them to implement adaptation strategies. Use of the term

'vulnerable' here has prompted research into the nature and extent of vulnerabilities at regional, national, and local scales. Much of this research has focused on identification of countries and regions that are most affected by climate change and means of minimizing negative impacts. The Kyoto Protocol (1997) provided more specific guidelines for creating and managing an Adaptation Fund that would be used for funding adaptation projects. All Arctic countries (USA, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden,

6 Finland, and Russia) fall under Annex I and are not eligible to receive such funding and are assumed to have the financial and institutional capacity to address climate change on their own. Thus, residents in the Canadian Arctic (mostly indigenous peoples who do not enjoy the same standards of living as their fellow citizens) can only appeal to their home country for assistance in dealing with impacts of climate change (Arctic Human

Development Report, 2004; ACIA, 2005).

2.2 Conceptualizing Vulnerability

The concepts of vulnerability and adaptive capacity have roots in geography and natural hazards research (Blaikie etal, 1994; Cutter, 1996; Haque & Burton, 2005; Haque &

Burton, 2005; Janssen et al, 2006) but they have also been closely associated with a variety of other research fields, most notably food security (Sen, 1981; Watts & Bohle,

1993), social-ecological resilience (Folke, 2006) and climate change adaptation (Smithers

& Smit, 1997; Handmer et al, 1999). Janssen et al. (2006) found that there has been a rapid increase in the number of publications on the topics of vulnerability and adaptive capacity in the last decade. Use and meaning of these terms is widely variable and sometimes conflicting. The following section will outline vulnerability and related concepts in order to provide context for research on Arctic community vulnerability and adaptation.

Vulnerability

Conceptualizations of vulnerability generally account for a range of risks, thresholds, and responses, and recognize that stressors operate on multiple scales (Kasperson &

Kasperson, 2001; Turner et al, 2003a; McCarthy & Martello, 2005; Adger, 2006).

7 Research in the field of natural hazards has influenced the development of vulnerability as a concept:

[Vulnerability is] the characteristics of a person or group and their situation that

influence their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from the

impact of a natural hazard.

(Wisner etal., 2004, p. 11)

As demonstrated in this quote, there is an emphasis on factors that constrain or enhance adaptations. Vulnerability can also be understood in general terms:

[Vulnerability is] the state of individuals, of groups, of communities defined in

terms of their ability to cope with and adapt to any external stress placed on their

livelihoods and well-being.

(Adger & Kelly, 1999, p.253)

With this definition, there is an implicit recognition of multiple sources of change and stress. In the field of climate change adaptation, many scholars (for example, Smit &

Pilifosova, 2001; Burton et al, 2002; Yohe & Tol, 2002; Ford & Smit, 2004; O'Brien et al, 2004c) now identify vulnerability as a function of the stresses experienced by a community (exposure-sensitivity) and the community's ability to deal with those stresses

(adaptive capacity). The conceptualization used in this thesis and depicted in Figure 1 is expressed in terms of climatic and non-climatic forces. While vulnerability is generally defined relative to harm, it is also recognized here that changes or stresses related to climate change have the potential to provide benefits for communities.

Some authors emphasize the dynamic or transient nature of vulnerability (and its component) but use of the term 'dynamic vulnerability' has not been broadly used,

8 suggesting that many scholars believe that dynamism is already contained within the concept of vulnerability (O'Brien et ai, 2004a; Ford et ai, 2006b). The conceptualization of vulnerability in this thesis allows for ongoing change. Vulnerability, exposure- sensitivity, and adaptive capacity are recognized as variable over time, in addition to location and situation (this is consistent with Adger & Kelly, 1999; Turner et ai, 2003a;

Smit & Wandel, 2006). As discussed in section 2.3, the framework used for assessing vulnerability includes consideration of past, current and future conditions.

Exposure-sensitivity

1 Adaptive Capacity

Vulnerability

Figure 1: Conceptualization of vulnerability.

Exposure-sensitivity

Exposure and sensitivity reflect the likelihood that a system (community) will experience, and be influenced by, particular socio-economic and environmental changes and risks

(Smit & Wandel, 2006). Gallopin (2006) defines exposure as the magnitude, frequency, spatial dispersion, duration, speed of onset, timing, and temporal spacing of environmental stimuli. This interpretation places exposure outside of the system of

9 interest. Scholars in the climate change adaptation field who view exposures in this way tend to define sensitivity as the degree to which a community is affected by stimuli, either as benefit or harm (Smit & Pilifosova, 2001; Burton et al, 2002). Sensitivity, as understood here, provides an indication of the extent to which a community is susceptible to particular stresses or risks. In contrast, Ford and Smit (2004) conceptualize exposure as a property of a system that reflects its interaction with external or environmental stimuli.

Sensitivity (also as a property of the system of interest) is understood as the situational conditions of a community (i.e. place, demographics, economy, and local environmental resources) that make them susceptible to particular stimuli (Turner et al, 2003a). Since both exposures and sensitivity arise from characteristics of a community and are interconnected, the term exposure-sensitivity can be used to combine these concepts.

Consistent with Smit et al. (2008), this thesis makes use of the term exposure-sensitivity to reflect the physical and socio-economic characteristics of a community (including governance and political systems), the susceptibility of people or livelihoods to particular stimuli, and the dynamics of those stimuli over time.

Adaptations and Adaptive Capacity

Adaptations are adjustments to processes, plans, or actions that are intended to reduce stresses or take advantage of new opportunities (Smit et al, 1999; Adger et al, 2007).

Early scholarship on climate change adaptation emphasized that assessments of adaptation should consider what is being modified and who the actors are (Burton, 1997;

Smit et al, 1999; Wheaton & Maclver, 1999). Smit & Skinner (2002) suggested that adaptations can be distinguished by characteristics related to four categories: intent and purposefulness, timing and duration, scale and responsibility, and form. Identifying the

10 intent and purpose of actions or plans differentiates adaptations that are spontaneous

(autonomous) from adaptations that are planned in light of specific risks or stresses.

Autonomous adaptations are generally viewed as an extension of the inherently adaptive nature of society since people have always adapted to changing climatic and other conditions (Adger, 2003). Autonomous adaptations occur in response to events or changing mean conditions on the part of individuals or groups without the involvement of public institutions or agencies (Klein, 2003; Lindseth, 2005). Planned adaptations can be reactive or anticipatory. They originate from private (individuals or groups) or public (all levels of government) realms with the intent of minimizing negative impacts or maximizing benefits that may results from current or future conditions (Lindseth, 2005).

Since adaptations occur in the context of dynamic demographic, cultural, and economic conditions, it is difficult to separate adaptations to climate change from adaptation to other changes or stresses (Adger et al, 2005). In the category of timing and duration adaptive actions can be anticipatory (proactive), concurrent (active), or responsive

(reactive) (Smit & Skinner, 2002). The duration of adaptations can be classified as either tactical (occurring within a single season or year) or strategic (involving permanent or semi-permanent adjustments). Categorizing scale and responsibility of adaptations involves the recognition of spatial scales in order to provide insights into who is undertaking adaptations and who is supporting or influencing adaptations (Smit &

Skinner, 2002). Understanding the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders and actors is important for understanding how adaptations can and do occur. In the final category, the form of adaptations can be distinguished according to institutional, policy,

11 practical, financial, and technological characteristics. Identifying exactly what is being

(or can be) modified outlines the suite of actual and potential adaption options.

Adaptive capacity refers to the ability of a system to perform adaptations. Climate change literature conceptualizes adaptive capacity as a community's potential or ability to moderate potential damages, take advantage of opportunities, or cope with the consequences of climate change (Smit & Pilifosova, 2001; Yohe & Tol, 2002; Brooks &

Adger, 2005). As noted by Smit and Wandel (2006), some scholars view adaptations as a manifestation of adaptive capacity. Another concept sometimes related to adaptive capacity is "coping range" (a type of adaptation threshold), which is the range of conditions within which a community can cope or function successfully. That is, a community, or individuals within the community, can deal with variation within a certain range of exposure-sensitivities, but certain extremes will be beyond their coping range

(Hewitt & Burton, 1971; Smit et al, 2000). In Figure 1, adaptive capacity overlaps with exposure-sensitivity because many of the characteristics of a community that make it susceptible to stresses, also play a role in enhancing or constraining adaptations.

Much attention in adaptation literature has focused on social and economic processes that serve to facilitate or constrain adaptive capacity and adaptive strategies.

Some literature favours entitlement theories and focuses on power structures and the ability of individuals or groups to make use of available resources (Liverman, 1994;

Adger & Kelly, 1999; Comfort et al, 1999). Armitage (2005) expands on these notions and provides a theoretical framework for adaptive capacity. Technical, financial, social, institutional, and political variables contribute to "operational issues" that influence adaptive capacity. These variables represent the formal structures and processes that

12 influence adaptations. Other, often informal, variables that influence adaptive capacity include power dynamics, scale, knowledge, community, and culture. Armitage (2005) calls these variables "strategic issues". Adaptations can be facilitated or constrained by the interaction between operational and strategic issues (Condon et al, 1995; Adger &

Kelly, 1999; Brooks & Adger, 2005). Adaptive capacity is not uniform over space, time, or within any community. As this theoretical perspective of adaptive capacity illustrates, individuals or groups may not be able to carry out certain adaptations at any given time or in different circumstances.

Literature in fields such as political ecology (e.g. Blaikie & Brookfield, 1987; Pretty

& Ward, 2001), food security (e.g. Smith et al, 2000; Gombay, 2005), and resource management (e.g. Turner, 1999; Kull, 2002) have considered practices and processes that would contribute to adaptation, although they may not identify it as such (Alwang et al,

2001; Smit & Wandel, 2006). Furthermore, many practitioners and authors have recognized the complementarity of climate change adaptation research with existing development work (related to food security, poverty reduction, resource development, or other livelihood needs) and have advocated for 'mainstreaming' adaptation plans into existing development programmes and initiatives (Burton et al, 2002; Huq et al, 2003;

Klein et al, 2007). In the climate change field, some scholars (for example, Ford & Smit,

2004; McCarthy & Martello, 2005) have asserted that the concept of resilience is roughly similar to adaptive capacity since both concepts allude to a property of a system to absorb or adjust to stress. Despite a theoretical basis for understanding adaptation, only modest progress have been make in climate change literature in understanding the processes and mechanisms of adaptation and means of enhancing adaptive capacity.

13 2.3 Approaches to Assessing Vulnerability

O'Brien et al. (2004b) categorized vulnerability assessments according to the relative position of vulnerability within research frameworks. Vulnerability as a "starting point" refers to research that begins by examining the social and economic determinants of vulnerability. In contrast, vulnerability as an "end point" is used by research that views vulnerability as an outcome of climate change impacts minus adaptations. Fussel and

Klein (2006) offered another perspective on different types of vulnerability assessments and described the evolution of vulnerability assessment in relation to climate change adaptation policy. They identified four stages of evolution in vulnerability assessments, beginning with impact assessments (i.e. making use of climate scenarios and generally assume that adaptation does not take place), followed by first-generation vulnerability assessments (i.e. includes consideration of non-climatic stressors for society and potential adaptation), second-generation vulnerability assessments (i.e. greater consideration of adaptive capacity and a distinction between potential and feasible adaptation), and finally adaptation policy assessments (i.e. focusing on policy development for enhancing adaptive capacity and implementing adaptation strategies). Smit and Wandel (2006) identified four purposes of climate change adaptation research, as summarized in Table 1.

This way of thinking about vulnerability assessments is broadly similar to Adger (2006) who noted that methods for assessing vulnerability reflect a diverse range of research goals and purposes. As reflected in section 1.2 Aim and Objectives, the intent of the research carried out for this thesis is broadly similar to the fourth purpose in Table 1.

That is, this thesis identifies and documents conditions that give rise to exposure- sensitivities and adaptive capacity, in the spirit of vulnerability as a "starting point".

14 Table 1: Purposes of climate change adaptation research (summarized from Smit & Wandel, 2006).

Type Purpose Intended Application Climate change impact as­ To estimate impacts of cli­ Contribute to assessment of sessment; based on future mate change and model the the degree to which climate climate change scenarios affects of adaptations change may be "dangerous" and impact models Aggregate vulnerability as­ To compare relative vulne­ Identify areas with greatest sessment; develop ratings rabilities of countries or re­ vulnerability in order to tar­ and rankings based on pre­ gions get adaptation efforts determined surrogates for climate conditions and adaptive capacity Evaluation of adaptation To identify "best" adapta­ Provide guidance to select options; compares selected, tion options from a prede­ and implement adaptations discrete climate change termined set to climate change adaptation options and scores them on particular criteria Identification of vulnerabili­ To documentation the ways Development of particular ty and adaptation processes; that communities expe­ measures that are tailored to includes investigation of rience changing conditions the adaptation needs and adaptive capacity and the processes through governance realities of a which adaptation is under­ region or community taken

The Vulnerability Approach

The vulnerability approach (sometimes called the vulnerability-based approach) guided the research process by providing a framework for organizing and understanding how socio-economic and environmental stimuli interact and affect community susceptibility and adaptability. The analytical framework used in this thesis is based on a conceptualization of vulnerability as dynamic (changing over time), influenced by multiple forces (climatic and non-climatic), and place-based (investigation of local conditions in the context of regional and global interactions). This analytical framework is presented in Figure 2. The four main elements of this framework (current exposure-

15 sensitivity, current adaptive strategies, future exposure-sensitivity, and future adaptive capacity) provide a means of structuring results that is complimentary to the thesis objectives. In order to learn about ways that climatic and other changes may affect a community, the vulnerability approach starts with an examination of livelihoods and resources that are particularly important for the community. Information about how people in the community have experienced, and responded to, past and current stresses

(including environmental variability and extremes) is empirically derived from community residents and existing documentation (Smit et al, 2000; Downing &

Patwardhan, 2005; Lim & Spanger-Siegfried, 2005; Sutherland et al, 2005; Smit et al,

2008). Future vulnerability is assessed by estimating changes in socio-economic or environmental conditions that are relevant for existing exposure-sensitivities and identifying institutions, resources, and relationships that will enhance or constrain adaptations.

16 Current Exposure- sensitivity

Current Adaptive Strategies

Current Vulnerability

Future Exposure- i r i ' sensitivity Socio-economic and environmental changes Future Adaptive Capacity

Futur e Vulnerability

Figure 2: Analytical framework of the vulnerability approach (adapted from Smit et ai, 2008).

2.4 Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Research in the Arctic

There has been an abundance of research on climate change impacts and adaptations in the Arctic in recent years (e.g. Cohen, 1997; ACIA, 2005; Hinzman et ai, 2005;

Anisimov et ai, 2007; Lemke et al., 2007; Furgal & Prowse, 2008; GNWT, 2008) but few studies have used a vulnerability approach. Much of this research has focused on measuring changes in climatic conditions and estimating their impacts on snow and ice, wildlife, and/or humans (vulnerability as an "end point"). Several studies have carried out research that is broadly consistent with the approach used for this thesis but have made use of different analytical frameworks or focused only on particular aspects of the

17 relationship between community livelihoods, resources, and climate change adaptation

(e.g. Berkes & Jolly, 2001; Arctic Human Development Report, 2004; Chapin et al,

2004; Armitage, 2005; Wolfe et al, 2007). Working Group 10 of the Second

International Conference on Arctic Research Planning (ICARPII) affirmed the need for research that characterizes the patterns of rapid changes in social-ecological systems in the Arctic, examines linkages within these systems that give rise to resilience and vulnerabilities, addresses drivers of change at various scales, identifies opportunities and constraints for adaptation, and seeks to inform public policy (Kofinas et al, 2005).

Furthermore, they specifically advocated for the use of vulnerability frameworks and context-dependant research that is only possible at the local (community) level. Examples of studies that have addressed these research needs, and are consistent with the approach used for this thesis, include, Turner et al. (2003b), Ford and Smit (2004), Wesche and

Armitage (2006), Tyler et al. (2007), Ford et al. (2008), and Keskitalo (2008). Given that development of policies and programmes that support adaptability require understanding of local, contextual conditions, there is a need for more research that focuses on the needs of particular communities.

2.5 Summary of Research Context

Although research on climate change impacts and adaptations increasingly includes consideration of potential options for adaptation and conditions related to vulnerability, there has been less investigation of the processes and mechanisms that stimulate or constrain adaptive capacity and promote or impede adaptive action (Smit et al, 2000;

Adger, 2006; Armitage et al, 2007). The need for this type of research is especially important in the Arctic, where changes in climate are occurring at an accelerated pace

18 and climate change adaptation research has tended to focus on impacts-based approaches.

Risks must be understood in particular contexts so that adaptation needs and opportunities can be identified, and practical actions can be initiated, either by reducing exposure-sensitivities or enhancing adaptive capacities (Janssen et al., 2006; Smit &

Wandel, 2006). The research carried out for this thesis addresses the critical need for community-based impacts and adaptation research in the Arctic that uses a vulnerability approach and emphasizes the importance of locally generated insights and information about the social and physical determinants of current and future vulnerability.

19 CHAPTER THREE

STUDYAREA

Tuktoyaktuk is located east of the Mackenzie Delta, along the shores of the Beaufort Sea in the Northwest Territories. The latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates of the community are 69°27'N, 133°05'W.

3.1 People

Tuktoyaktuk is one of six communities in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) (see

Figure 3). Tuktoyaktuk's population of roughly 900 people is primarily composed of

Inuvialuit, a self-identified group of Inuit living in the Beaufort Sea and Mackenzie Delta areas (Alunik et al., 2003; Statistics Canada, 2007). Inuvialuit in Tuktoyaktuk are descendants of trappers, hunters, whalers, and reindeer herders from Cape Bathurst,

Banks Island, and Alaska. Prior to permanent settlement, the site of the town had been used for centuries for fishing and hunting caribou. Beginning in the 1930's, families began to settle permanently in the town for access to a Hudson's Bay trading post

(established in 1934). The community slowly grew with the arrival of Anglican and

Roman Catholic churches (late 1930's), employment opportunities for building the

Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line sites (commencing in 1955), and employment opportunities from oil and gas exploration (commencing in the early 1970's) (Hamlet of

Tuktoyaktuk, 1984; Alunik et al, 2003; Inuvik Community Corporation et al, 2006). By the 1980's, the last families remaining on the land had moved permanently to the town.

With the exception of some elders, most current residents of Tuktoyaktuk speak fluently in English. Over 93 percent of the population speak mostly English at home, while only

20 three percent speak Inuvialuktun (Siglitun dialect) at home (Lowe, 2001; Alunik et al,

2003; Statistics Canada, 2007).

1

i

\ \ / Tuktoyaktuk /

Canada

Sachs Harbour ^Tuktoyaktuk Aklavik Inuvik Holman Island Paulatuk

Figure 3: The Inuvialuit Settlement Region, showing location of all six present day communities (note: Holman Island is now known as Ulukhaktok).

Inuvialuit in Tuktoyaktuk do not view traditional knowledge (TK) as entirely

distinct from other forms of knowledge. Over the last century Inuvialuit (including

1 The term traditional knowledge will be used in this thesis because it is the term used by residents of Tuktoyaktuk. Other related terms that are often used in literature include traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), local ecological knowledge (LEK), indigenous knowledge (IK), and, in the case of Inuit of Nunavut, Qaujimajatunqangit (IQ) 21 elders) have become increasingly more aware of science and the information generated by scientists, have adopted new technologies (such as snow mobiles and communications devices), and have engaged in formal management of their lands and wildlife. Several

Tuktoyaktuk residents described how TK goes beyond knowledge of places and skills and includes guidance for action, as demonstrated here:

"Traditional knowledge is so broad. It takes in the environment, the weather, the

social side, economic side, how to raise a family, and how to do certain things,

dealing with dogs, dealing with the water, dealing with ice, dealing with the

plants, dealing with fish, you know species by species; the atmosphere and your

cross-cultural relations that you have. Besides being Inuvialuit, that cross-

cultural is you. You know, we've had contact with Inupiat, Inuit and Indians, so

we had this cross-cultural thing and the reactions and the things that comes with

it. This is all TK. It's so broad, you know."

Randal Pokiak (Tuktoyaktuk resident)

As Usher (2000) has explained, and is evident in the quote above, use of the word

"traditional" need not imply a static or archaic form of knowledge - for Inuvialuit in

Tuktoyaktuk, TK is current and evolving.

More than half of all adults in Tuktoyaktuk report that they participate in harvesting

(hunting and fishing) and that harvesting provides most or all of the meat consumed in their households (Statistics Canada, 2002b; GNWT, 2007). Beluga whales, fish, waterfowl, and caribou provide a nutritious source of food staples and provide a foundation for cultural identity (Alunik et al, 2003; Inuvik Community Corporation et ai, 2006).

22 3.2 Governance

In 1984 the Inuvialuit and the Government of Canada signed a land claim agreement.

This agreement was formally accepted into Canadian law as the Western Arctic Claim but is more commonly known as the Inuvialuit Final Agreement or IFA. The IFA takes precedent over all other Canadian legislation and laws when inconsistency or conflict emerges (Government of Canada, 1984). Benefits for Inuvialuit under the IFA were financial compensation, formal land ownership, and participation in wildlife management. The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation (IRC) was established with the mandate to implement and manage provisions outlined in the IFA and promote economic, social and cultural well-being of Inuvialuit. The IRC is controlled by a board of directors, which is made up of representatives from Community Corporations in each of the six

Inuvialuit communities. The Community Corporations provide a voice for beneficiaries at the regional level and administer IRC actions at the community level. The IRC also oversees a group of corporations that are intended to advance the interests of Inuvialuit through promotion of culture, growth of funds received for financial compensation, and generation of business and economic opportunities. These corporation include the

Inuvialuit Land Corporation (holds title to Inuvialuit-owned lands), Inuvialuit Investment

Corporation (maintains an investment portfolio established with proceeds from the IFA),

Inuvialuit Petroleum Corporation (a medium-sized petroleum development company), and Inuvialuit Development Corporation (invests in business ventures of interest to

Inuvialuit).

Lands that are owned by the Inuvialuit Land Corporation are managed by the

Inuvialuit Land Administration (ILA). As part of the IFA, the land traditionally used by

23 the Inuvialuit was delineated along with guidelines for who has surface and subsurface rights to resources in the ISR. The ISR covers 906,430 square kilometers, with Inuvialuit owning 90,649 square kilometers of land. The Inuvialuit-owned lands fall into two categories; Inuvialuit own surface and sub-surface rights to 13,000 square kilometers

(including oil, gas and mineral rights) and only surface rights on the remaining 77,649 square kilometers. Effectively, Inuvialuit have rights to sand and gravel around each community but they have limited rights to oil and gas reserves. The ILA does not have decision-making powers on crown owned lands but it can comment on activity anywhere in the region through an environmental impact assessment process (Government of

Canada, 1984). Nevertheless, Inuvialuit do see the creation of the IFA as a step towards self determination, as demonstrated in this passage from the Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk's

Community Plan (1984):

"The Inuvialuit people, in an attempt to come to terms with [impacts from greater

influence of southern interests], have recognized that with greater self-control

over the development of the communities, residents also have greater control over

those external influences which may negatively impact traditional culture. Such

control, manifested in part through strong community involvement in land use

decisions, is a positive contribution to determining the future"

(Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk, 1984, p. 16)

This passage was implicitly referring to oil and gas exploitation and its impacts on

Tuktoyaktuk. As will be discussed later in this thesis (Chapter 6 Future Vulnerability), the matters of land ownership and sub-surface rights are particularly important because oil and gas reserves have been discovered in the Tuktoyaktuk area.

24 A set of organizations that is separate from the corporate group was set up for wildlife management in the ISR. Although Inuvialuit do not own all of the land within the

ISR, they are wildlife stewards throughout the entire region (Government of Canada,

1984; Fast et al, 2001). A fundamental goal of the IFA was to "protect and preserve

Arctic wildlife, environment and biological productivity through the application of conservation principles and practices" (Government of Canada, 1984). To that end, the

IFA initiated the establishment of a series of co-management organizations (originally referred to as "joint management"), as outlined in Figure 4. The Inuvialuit Game Council

(IGC) is understood as the voice of Inuvialuit concerning the management of wildlife and wildlife habitat. The IGC is made up of two representatives from each community's

Hunters and Trappers Committee (HTC). According to this structure, each co- management body should have direct input from Inuvialuit harvesters through participation of HTC members (Binder & Hanbidge, 1993). A central role of the IGC is to create policies for wildlife management and land use by incorporating advice from both the HTCs and the various co-management bodies, and reporting back to communities through the HTCs (Binder & Hanbidge, 1993). It should be noted that the

Inuvialuit have also entered in many co-operative agreements with neighboring

Aboriginal groups for specific species that have transboundary migratory patterns (for example, polar bears and beluga whales).

25 INUVIALUIT CO-MANAGEMENT GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS GROUPS AGENCIES

Akluvtk Ltavwuam Hunters and Trappers Osremirta* (HTC) Inwvik HTC

Oiokhafoomlut HTC INUVIALUI1 r-JfflC UNtM(N«) GAME Tuktoyaktuk COUNCIL HTC WMAC UGC) CJuttM(«r*) Paulatiik HTC

Sachs Harbour WMAC mnftn« (NT)

HTCs *p[:uliit ICC appoints members to Co '•iiiiiiiigemnni Covernm*nt agendas Tc-nboro to appoint memt»rs to •crm the liiC CO is ctavernment management i«iid Im vijliii; co-ma negarrmrrf ms

Figure 4: Co-management organizations in the ISR and their participants (taken from US 2004). The full names of the organizations listed in the centre column are as follows: Environmental Impact Screening Committee (EISC), Environmental Impact Review Board (EIRB), Fisheries Joint Management Committee (FJMC), Wildlife Management Advisory Council for the North Slope (WMAC - NS), and Wildlife Management Advisory Council for the Northwest Territories (WMAC - NT).

3.3 Environment

Tuktoyaktuk is built on a narrow peninsula that reaches into Kugmallit Bay. The land's surface is characterized by low, shrubby vegetation and loose glacial and alluvial deposits that range in 'texture' from silts and clays to gravel and pebbles. This active surface layer can be over two metres thick and lies over permafrost (soil that is frozen for at least two consecutive years) with roughly 80 percent ice content (Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk, 1984;

Manson et al., 2005). The shorelines of the Beaufort Sea, including the area around

26 Tuktoyaktuk, are known to be prone to long-term erosion and regularly retreat at rates of one to two metres per year (Solomon, 2005). Storm events are responsible for most of the erosion since tidal currents in the Beaufort Sea are generally weak (Carmack &

Macdonald, 2002; Solomon, 2005; Manson & Solomon, 2007). As seen in Figure 5, a large portion of the community is located near these eroding shorelines (on the western side facing the open sea).

27 Figure 5: Satellite photograph of Tuktoyaktuk (courtesy of ILA).

The low, gently rolling land surrounding Tuktoyaktuk is scattered with countless small lakes and ponds. Tundra polygons are common and pingos that rise up to 50 metres above the landscape give the Tuktoyaktuk area a distinct character (Hamlet of

Tuktoyaktuk, 1984). The pingos can serve as landmarks while traveling on the land and

28 provide a draw for tourists (Manson et al, 2005). Vegetation in the area includes grasses, sedges, mosses and lichens, as well as dwarf willows and birches (Pielou, 1994). Land mammals found in the area include caribou, reindeer, grizzly bears, moose, musk ox, muskrats, white foxes, ground squirrels, wolverines, lynx, martens, and wolves

(Community of Tuktoyaktuk et al, 2000; Inuvik Community Corporation et al, 2006).

Birds can be found around inland lakes and along the shores of the Beaufort Sea and include tundra swans, snow geese, ross's geese, brants, king eider, ptarmigans, arctic terns, sandhill cranes, red-throated loons, bald eagles, and snowy owls (Community of

Tuktoyaktuk et al, 2000; Inuvik Community Corporation et al, 2006). Marine wildlife is also abundant in the area and includes polar bears, beluga whales, bearded seals, ringed seals, arctic cisco (herring), whitefish, and inconnu (Pielou, 1994; Community of

Tuktoyaktuk et al, 2000; Inuvik Community Corporation et al, 2006; Cobb et al, 2008).

The climate in the Tuktoyaktuk area is characterized by long, cold winters and short summers. Figure 6 provides an overview of the climate normals between 1971 and 2000.

Precipitation is very low, with the months July through October receiving the most rainfall and snowfall. Winds predominantly come from the northwest at an average 17.4 kilometres per hour (Alunik et al, 2003). July has a mean high temperature of 15.2°C and a mean low of 6.8°C. January has a mean high temperature of -23.4°C and a mean low of -30.8°C. Sea ice typically begins forming in late September and freezes over in

Kugmallit Bay by mid-October (Carmack & Macdonald, 2002; Manson et al., 2005;

Solomon, 2005; Cobb et al, 2008). Ice break-up typically occurs by early- to mid-June

(Manson et al, 2005). Thus, the ice-free season is roughly three months long but it should be noted that variations have been considerable (Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk 1984).

29 Ice has remained as late as August and freeze-up has commenced early in September. As will be discussed in chapters 5 and 6, there is strong evidence that climate change is already occurring in the western Canadian Arctic. The western Canadian Arctic has experienced a warming of 2 to 3°C over the last 50 years (Zhang et ai, 2000; Furgal &

Prowse, 2008). Variations in sea ice thickness and extent, weather patterns, permafrost,

and animal populations have been documented and described by Inuit and scientists

(Berkes & Jolly, 2001; Carmack & Macdonald, 2002; Krupnik & Jolly, 2002; ACIA,

2005).

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Average Precipitation (mm) •Average Temperature (°C)

Figure 6: Average temperature and precipitation in Tuktoyaktuk based on normals between 1971 and 2000 (data from Environment Canada, 2004).

30 3.4 Infrastructure and Services

The municipal boundaries of Tuktoyaktuk encompass 11.07 square kilometers of land

(Statistics Canada, 2002a; Statistics Canada, 2002b). The community can be accessed year-round by scheduled flights, chartered flights, and helicopters. An outcome of oil and gas exploration in the 1970's was the expansion of the airport so that it is now capable of landing Boeing 737 aircrafts, although scheduled flights do not use these large aircrafts

(Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk, 1984). The community can also be accessed by ice road in the winter and by boat in the summer. The ice road links Tuktoyaktuk to Inuvik (and the

Dempster Highway to the south) and is usually traversable between December and April.

Tuktoyaktuk's harbour is approximately six and a half kilometres long and up to two kilometers wide (Harwood et al., 2007). The harbour is generally understood as the safest harbour for ships in the Delta region. Parts of the harbour were dredged but the harbour is still considered a "shallow water port" with depths ranging between 5 and 22 metres

(Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk, 1984). The harbour is used as a re-supply point by the Northern

Transportation Company Limited (NTCL) in the summer for barges that transport goods down the Mackenzie River and then shipped to other communities. The "clear dates" for

Tuktoyaktuk harbour (when it is ice free and safe for ships) generally last from the middle of June until the middle of September (NTCL, 2008).

Out of approximately 350 buildings in Tuktoyaktuk, there are 270 private dwellings

(Statistics Canada, 2007). Most of these private dwellings are rented (170) and some are independently owned (100). Buildings in the community receive electricity through power lines but water, sewage, and propane are shipped by trucks. The Hamlet of

Tuktoyaktuk is the municipal authority responsible for the provision of water and sewage

31 and is also responsible for the maintenance of most roads (they share the responsibility for roads that are shared by industry outside of residential areas). In light of constant truck traffic, the community's 18 kilometres of gravel roads receive considerable wear and require continual maintenance during summer months. Water is piped in from

Kudlak Lake (located to the east, across the harbour) once per year and is stored in a reservoir. Sewage disposal has been an ongoing dilemma, as the original sewage lagoon was located adjacent to the dump where treatment water was mixing with leachate from the dump (Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk, 1984). In addition, both the sewage lagoon and dump site have been inundated with water from the Beaufort Sea, causing pollution of the local shoreline.

3.5 Economy

Tuktoyaktuk's economy has elements of subsistence harvesting and wage employment.

Subsistence harvesting is culturally important but it is also an affordable food source

(Community of Tuktoyaktuk et al, 2000; Usher, 2002; Alunik et al, 2003; Joint

Secretariat, 2003). The expenses of modern life require Tuktoyaktuk residents to also have cash income. The main sources of employment in the community are government, health services, social services, education, resource-based industries (oil and gas, mining), shipping, retail, and construction (Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk, 1984; Statistics

Canada, 2002a; GNWT, 2007). With eight registered outfitters in the community, sport hunting is another significant source of income and short-term employment. The unemployment rate in Tuktoyaktuk has varied between 26 and 29 percent since 2000

(Statistics Canada, 2002a; GNWT, 2007), compared to Canada as a whole where the unemployment rate has stayed below eight percent in the same period (Akyeampong,

32 2007). With these high rates of unemployment it is important to note that most adults who are employed have full time work (70 percent) and that there is a high rate of self- employment (Statistics Canada, 2002b; GNWT, 2007). Education levels in Tuktoyaktuk are low, as seen in Figure 7. Since there are very few employment prospects at home for those individuals who do complete high school or college, there is little incentive for

youth in Tuktoyaktuk to attain higher education. It is apparent that people's desire to stay

in town to live with family and friends is greater than their desire to seek an education

and move away from home for employment.

4% H less than a high school graduation certificate

• high school graduation 12% certificate and/or some postsecondary • trades certificate or diploma

56% l college certificate or diploma

19% l university certificate; diploma or degree

Figure 7: Level of schooling for population aged 20-64 (data from Statistics Canada, 2002a).

3.6 Socio-Cultural Changes

Inuit culture has never remained static, as evidenced by differences among Inuit groups

across the Arctic in relation to dynamic environmental and socio-economic pressures

33 (Freeman 2000). Nevertheless, the nature of socio-economic pressures on Inuit from

European and other non-Inuit over the last century has resulted in rapid social and cultural changes that are unprecedented. In the western Canadian Arctic, European influences have brought waves of economic interest in the form of whaling, the fur trade, and, most recently, exploration for minerals and oil and gas. Whaling and the fur trade initiated Inuit (Inuvialuit) reliance on trading with Europeans but these activities were short-lived due to the decline in demand for whale and certain fur-bearing mammals attributed to pressures from environmental and animals rights groups in North America and Europe (Wenzel 1991). Settlement into permanent communities occurred concurrently with these economic changes. The difference in the social setting of small hunting camps with family groups compared to larger, permanent settlements with more families and non-Inuit represented further socio-cultural changes for Inuit (Irwin 1999;

Damas 2002; Duhaime et al, 2004b). Kinship relations were the foundation for traditional Inuit social organization but the introduction of new livelihoods, lifestyles, and technologies has contributed to the transformation of traditional culture (Krai 2003).

Residence in permanent communities has altered the ability of Inuit to participate in subsistence harvesting and has facilitated participation in schooling programs (including residential schools), the spread of Christianity, and the introduction of new values and ideas through radio, television, and the internet (Alunik et al, 2003; Krai 2003; Chapin et al, 2004; Senecal & O'Sullivan, 2006).

Social and economic pressures have resulted in intergenerational divisions. Socio- cultural changes have been so dramatic that Inuit youth now have life experiences that only scarcely resemble that of their elders who are still living (Krai 2003). The set of

34 ambitions and preferences related to entertainment, food, and lifestyles among Inuit youth today is very different from their parents (Condon et al, 1995). A decline in the transmission of traditional knowledge to younger generations is an outcome of these changes (Usher 2000; Ford et al., 2006a). While many Inuvialuit youth still value traditional foods, their appreciation for harvesting and preparation of those foods is different from older generations. Many Inuvialuit youth report enjoyment in being on the land, but they lack the commitment to, and enjoyment of, harvesting and associated activities (Condon etal., 1995; Alunik et al., 2003; Senecal & O'Sullivan, 2006). These changes are further related to issues that are persistent in Tuktoyaktuk (and many communities in the Canadian Arctic) including, declining social cohesion, substance abuse, lack of entrepreneurial or occupational motivation, and suicide. These issues will be discussed further in chapters 5 and 6 in the context of the stresses faced by the community and their ability to adjust to those stresses.

35 CHAPTER FOUR

RESEARCH APPROACH

The vulnerability approach (introduced in section 2.3) guided the research process by providing a framework for understanding and describing how social, economic, political, and environmental conditions interact and affect community vulnerability. A key feature of the vulnerability approach was drawing on the experiences of people in Tuktoyaktuk to learn about the ways that changing conditions may affect their lives and livelihoods

(Sutherland et al., 2005). Community-based research was essential for identifying and assessing exposure-sensitivities and adaptive capacity. This chapter begins with a discussion of ethical and practical aspects of working with an Arctic community.

Methods for data collection and analysis are also described, and the chapter concludes with an outline of ways that the results will be reported.

4.1 Researcher-Community Relationship

Within the last ten years momentum has been building for research projects that actively engage local people in collaborative research (Gibbs, 2001; Laidler, 2006). In particular, researchers working in the Canadian Arctic are becoming more aware of Inuit concerns over the potential negative impacts that their activities can have on Arctic communities.

According to ITK and NRI (2007) some of the specific concerns that need to be addressed include:

• Inadequate involvement of Inuit in identifying research needs and

developing research plans

36 • Lack of local involvement in data collection and analysis or communication

of results

• Token inclusion of local expertise in the research outcomes

• Inadequate recognition of locals' time and expertise through credit on

publications or financial compensation

• Inappropriate data collection techniques

• Seldom reporting of research results to communities (and reporting to

communities is often provided in a manner that is inaccessible to

communities)

While many Inuit are supportive of research of all kinds, some Inuit are skeptical of research that does not have any apparent, tangible benefits to their community (UK &

NRI, 2007). Inuit tend to resist research that seems redundant with what they already know through traditional knowledge or may conflict with their interests as wildlife harvesters. Many of these concerns can be addressed by initiating contact with communities as early as possible and maintaining their involvement throughout the entire research process. As Gibbs (2001) notes, there are many good reasons for researchers to develop collaborative relationships with communities. Maintaining the reputation of scientists so that research can continue in the future, accessing the wealth of information held by local people (sought as "data"), and ensuring that researchers have spoken to the right people or accessed all available information may only be possible through strong, collaborative researcher-community relationships (Gibbs, 2001; ITK & NRI, 2007). This

37 section will outline the ways that such relationships were developed for the research that contributed to this thesis.

Eric Loring, a Senior Researcher in ITK's Health and Environment Department, has advocated for researchers to carry out a "community review" - much in the same way that they would conduct a literature review - prior to making contact with a community

{personal communication, December 2006). The intent of the exercise is to familiarize researchers with research that has already been conducted in the community, sensitive topics for community residents, governance structures in the community and region, and to identify relevant people to contact. A community review for Tuktoyaktuk was accomplished by drawing on information from colleagues who have done research in the

ISR and the wealth of information available on the internet about ISR governance structures and contact information for key individuals. A preliminary visit to Tuktoyaktuk in August 2006 provided the opportunity for meeting residents of the community, learning some culturally appropriate ways of conducting research in the community, and making contact with representatives of the TCC, HTC, and Hamlet. Early contact with the community organizations was complimented with periodic updates to contact people, which together facilitated dialogue about ways to take advantage of community involvement and instilled a sense of trust from the community organizations.

All research conducted in the Northwest Territories is required to have a Scientific

Research Licence. The research licencing process is administered by Aurora Research

Institute (ARI), which requires information about informed consent from research participants, maintenance of confidentiality, storage and use of data, and how research results will be communicated, in addition to documentation of ethics approval from the

38 researcher's home institution. Once ARI has reviewed applications, they send a condensed version of the application to certain community organizations for review or approval. In the case of the research for this thesis, approval was required from the

Hamlet and Tuktoyaktuk Community Corporation (TCC), while the application was only sent to the Hunters and Trappers Committee (HTC) for review. Both organizations approved the licence on the condition that a copy of a final research report is left with each organization and that any research assistants are hired locally. It should be noted that all three organizations had the opportunity to provide feedback regarding research questions and methods but had no comments in these areas (in part because they already had some familiarity with the researcher through ongoing communication). Along with their endorsement of the research project, the TCC provided a list of candidates who would be ideal to interview on the grounds that these individuals have knowledge relevant to the research topic. This list provided the names of six elders who have an interest in the topic and were known to be willing to participate in research.

Research Assistants

A significant aspect of the researcher-community relationship was hiring two

Tuktoyaktuk residents as research assistants. The intent was to hire two individuals who would become full research partners and participate in all aspects of the research, including identifying potential interviewees and conducting interviews. Upon arrival in

Tuktoyaktuk in early June 2007,1 consulted with contact people at the TCC and Hamlet to determine an appropriate way to hire these research partners. A job posting was created and circulated to all organizations and businesses in Tuktoyaktuk and posted on bulletin boards at the community's two stores. Decisions regarding whom to hire was

39 based on advice from the TCC's Employment Officer and a contact person at the Hamlet since they were able to provide advice on candidates. The research process had early setbacks as there was a very limited response to the job posting and then the person who was hired initially decided to quit the project for personal reasons. These issues were eventually resolved and two part-time research assistants were hired and trained. The research assistants became familiar with the objectives of the research, the elements of the vulnerability approach, operation of audio recorders, and the types of questions to be asked in interviews. The research assistants set up interview times, made introductions between the lead researcher and interviewees, and were encouraged to become familiar with the style and flow of questions so that they could take the lead in conducting interviews. Despite opportunities for taking on responsibility for leading interviews, neither research assistant was willing or able to do so. The preferred language for most interviewees was English but several elders were more comfortable speaking

Inuvialuktun than English. A translator was hired and trained (familiar with the research objectives and types of questions to be asked) for facilitating those interviews. The benefits of working with local residents became apparent with their abilities to establish a rapport between the lead researcher and interviewees, identify place names and clarify terminology used by interviewees, and prompt discussion on topics that the lead researcher had not initially been aware of (for example, mention of specific places or events of relevance for particular interviewees); these benefits are consistent with those cited in literature (for example, Huntington, 1998; Smit & Wandel, 2006).

40 4.1.1 Ethical and Cross-Cultural Considerations

Since this research involved human participants, it required consideration of potential impacts on those people. Of prime importance was ensuring that the research process itself or the outcomes of the research did not produce any negative impacts on residents of Tuktoyaktuk, and the research participants in particular. Deception, misinterpretation of participants' actions or words, and catering to specific interest groups are some of the common ethical concerns when conducting field research (Palys, 1997; Booth et ah,

2003; Neuman, 2003). These issues were addressed through the process of applying for

(and receiving) a Scientific Research Licence from ARI and ethics clearance through the

University of Guelph (see Appendices A and B for copies of the ARI Research Licence and University of Guelph ethics clearance). These agencies ensured that the research was in accordance with established protocols and provided consistent messages regarding the importance of confidentiality, consent of participants, respect for dignity, and egalitarian exchange of information.

While setting up the research and conducting the research in Tuktoyaktuk open and honest communication was always maintained so that all research participants were aware of the intended use of research results. Prior to participating in interviews each individual was informed of the nature of the research and intended outcomes and asked to sign consent forms (that is, indicate their informed consent). It was anticipated that there may be some resistance among participants to filling out forms but this was never an issue. It is suspected that this is because Tuktoyaktuk residents are very familiar with research and knew what to expect, the forms were simple and straight-forward, and the research assistants did an excellent job of explaining the purpose of the forms and putting

41 participants at ease (see Appendix C for a copy of the consent forms). Participants had the option of remaining anonymous and were informed that there were able to remove themselves from the research at any time. Confidentiality was maintained by storing interview recordings and transcripts on a password-protected computer.

In spite of a researcher's best intentions, there are always issues to consider when conducting research outside of one's own culture (Gibbs, 2001). In Tuktoyaktuk the cultural norm is to conduct interviews in the home of interviewees. Accepting tea and snacks is important in Inuvialuit culture and acceptance of these (even if it is the sixth interview in a day) showed an interest in local activities and openness to interviewees' perspectives. One of the challenges faced during the field season was achieving a balanced representation of perspectives in Tuktoyaktuk since the research assistants tended to associate themselves with particular groups of friends and families. This challenge was addressed by reviewing the list of interviewees with respected members of the community and receiving suggestions for other people to interviewee (new potential interviewees were identified on the basis of gender, representation of families, and perspectives of people with differing livelihoods). Since only a handful of elders were not fluent in English, language barriers were generally not an issue during interviews. While conducting five interviews with the translator, however, several issues did arise when the interviewees did not seem to be answering the question that had been initially posed. It became apparent that this was occurring mainly in relation to future conditions and the researcher came to understand, through the aid of the interpreter, that the interviewees were not willing to talk about anything that they perceive as negative. The researcher later came to learn through literature on Inuit that there is a belief that if someone talks

42 about bad things, then those things will come to pass (Bates, 2007). Thus, the elders' unanimous silence regarding the future could be taken as an indication that they are concerned about the future of their community (their silence was particularly profound on the topics of weather changes and oil companies). Since very few elders in Tuktoyaktuk are not fluent in English, the remainder of interviews (beyond the initial five conducted with a translator) were in English. Discussion of future conditions was not problematic with the remainder of interviewees so this challenge was eventually resolved.

4.2 Data Collection

Primary data was collected through semi-structured interviews and participant observation. During the development of a research design, there were also intentions of using focus groups as a further method for gathering information. Due to challenges in the field related to inconsistency in the efforts of the research assistants and a resulting lack of preparedness and support to carry out the focus groups (in terms of arranging a location and time for focus groups, and generating interest among community members), the decision was made to abandon this method. This section will outline the design and implementation of strategies for gathering information, the means of analyzing this information, and reporting of the research results. All of these methods are oriented towards meeting the objectives outlined in Chapter 1.

4.2.1 Semi-Structured Interviews

Residents of Tuktoyaktuk were a primary source of information for this research since they are the ones affected by socio-economic and environmental changes. During the field season, from June until August 2007, a total of 38 semi-structured interviews were

43 conducted. Two of these interviews included both a husband and wife so a sum of 40

Tuktoyaktuk residents participated in the interviews. In total, 15 interviewees were women and 25 interviewees were men. While attempts were made to interview an equal number of women and men, many households often chose to have only one representative participate in the interviews and the women often deferred to their spouses.

Among the interviewees were full-time hunters, board members of the HTC and TCC, members of the Elders Council, Hamlet employees, a former mayor, and school employees (many interviewees have taken on more than one of these roles currently or in the past). Although several of these interviewees could be considered "key informants" due to the insights they could provide into community organizations or government, they were treated the same as all other interviewees because they were given the opportunity to discuss conditions in the community according to their own perspectives. As mentioned previously, five interviews were conducted with a translator and all other interviews were conducted with one or the other of the research assistants. Most interviews took place in the home of the interviewee since this was a socially and culturally appropriate option. Several interviewees commented that it was nice to have researchers visit them instead of having to attend meetings at public buildings. By conducting interviewees in homes, interviewees were automatically more at ease and comfortable answering questions.

Interview participants were selected using purposive (seeking out individuals who are known to be knowledgeable or insightful in relevant areas), opportunistic (taking advantage of willing interviewees), and snowball sampling techniques (seeking out individuals who were recommended by previous interviewees) (Palys, 1997; Berg, 2001).

44 The goal was to interview a sample that reflected a cross-section of the community in terms of age, gender, types of employment or livelihood, and participation in traditional activities. Purposive sampling was necessary for targeting groups such as members of the

HTC, elders, and community leaders, who have been identified as important sources of information regarding environmental changes and their effects on people (Huntington,

1998; Ford & Smit, 2004). The research assistants generated an initial list of potential interviewees that included the elders recommended by the TCC. The potential interviewees were identified based on reaching a diversity of people in the community, people who are respected as trustworthy sources of information, and people who would likely be willing to participate in interviews (Palys, 1997; Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Berg,

2001). The list of interviewees was continually modified as some people declined to participate in the interviews and more potential candidates were identified through recommendations of interviewees. On the topic of an appropriate number of interviews,

Strauss and Corbin (1998) recommend that interviews should continue until no significant new information is being unearthed and any new material will not affect major patterns. In the case of this research, no new major information or insights emerged after approximately 20 interviews but the researcher and research assistants decided to continue interviewing until a satisfactory cross-section of the community had been represented in the sample. The remaining interviews served to be highly useful for refining information on certain topics, clarifying observations and ideas, and ensuring that key individuals in the community had the opportunity to participate in the research.

Efforts were made to ensure that the sample of interviewees was not biased towards one group or segment of the community by seeking advice from respected individuals in the

45 community who were able to comment on whether certain groups or individuals needed better representation in the interview sample (these individuals were also able to provide recommendations for more potential interviewees).

The interviews were semi-structured so that discussion could progress similar to conversations, with the direction onto specific topics being largely under the influence of interviewees (Huntington, 1998; Seal et al, 1998; Berg, 2001; Legard et al, 2003). The researcher and research assistants typically initiated the interviews by asking some general questions that were intended to make the interviewee more relaxed and comfortable sharing their experiences and knowledge. As the interviewees became more comfortable with speaking in the interview context and on the topic at hand, they were able to speak freely and control the direction of conversation. The researcher and research assistants made use of an interview guide (Table 2) that served mostly as a checklist to make sure that all relevant topics were covered (Patton, 1990). In some cases, the interviewers had to actively bring the discussion back in line with the interview guide but this was not a common problem. All but two of the interviews were recorded using small audio devices so that the researcher did not have to take extensive notes during the interviews and could focus on maintaining a conversation. Interviewees provided their written consent for recording and were assured that the recordings would be used solely for review by the researcher.

46 Table 2: Interview guide. The sample questions presented here were preceded with some information about the researcher to establish rapport Interviews ended with the opportunity for interviewees to express any other views.

Topics Sample Questions Interviewee background infor­ -How long have you lived in Tuktoyaktuk? mation -What is your occupation? -What activities are you involved with at different times of the year? Experiences with change and -How often do you go out on the land? How long are stress (exposure-sensitivities) your land trips? -What are the challenges you face while in the commu­ nity? -What are the challenges you face while on the land? Are there specific challenges you face in relation to particular harvesting activities? -In what ways do these challenges affect you and your livelihood? -Do you experience these challenges always, or only in some years or in certain times of the year? How long have you experienced these challenges? -Do other people face similar challenges? Adaptive strategies -How have you dealt with these challenges? -Are you able to avoid social/environmental changes that may have negative effects? -How have other people dealt with similar challenges? Adaptive capacity -Is there anything that makes it easier or more difficult to deal with these challenges? -Would more time/money/help you respond to chal­ lenges? -Have any organizations or agencies helped you re­ spond the challenges? -Are some people in Tuktoyaktuk affected by these challenges more than others? Why? -Have you experienced any changes that are beneficial for your occupation or livelihood? Future conditions -In what ways will vou be affected if challenges continue or become more severe in the future? -Are you concerned about any changes in the future? (for yourself? for community?) -How may these changes affect you? -Do you think you will need to make changes to your daily life to deal with these changes? -What resources will you need in order to deal with fu­ ture changes/challenges?

47 4.2.2 Participant Observation

Participant observation provided contextual information that supplemented and supported the interviews by providing further insight into the lives of Tuktoyaktuk residents and the challenges they face. In the interview context it was evident that research participants attempted to answer questions fully but that certain topics, experiences, or knowledge only come to light while people are going about their everyday lives. Interviewees commonly commented during interviews that they would probably think of more things to say later that day or the next day. Participant observation was on-going throughout the entire field season and included on-site observation or phenomena or activities, informal conversations about research-related topics, and participation in activities such as checking fish nets or preparing traditional foods. DeWalt and DeWalt (2002) described participant observation as a way to "collect data in a naturalistic settings where researchers observe and/or take part in the common and uncommon activities of the people being studied." There is an emphasis on everyday interactions and observations, rather than specific inquiries. Participant observation helped the researcher understand the meaning of tacit aspects of culture, thus enhancing the quality of the data collection and the quality of data interpretation (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002). As suggested by Patton

(1990) field notes were taken and organized according to information needs; in particular, exposure-sensitivities, adaptive strategies, and factors that constrain or facilitate adaptations. Living in Tuktoyaktuk for an extended period also provided the opportunity to build rapport with individuals in the community and take opportunities to experience day to day life with those people.

48 423 Secondary Sources

Information provided by interviewees and gathered through observation was complemented by review of secondary sources. Secondary sources made it possible to draw connections between the experiences and observations of interviewees and broader forces such as climate change and globalization. Since Tuktoyaktuk has been the focus of a considerable amount of research activity, this thesis was able to draw on a wealth of information. Several reports that were generated as part of the impact assessment process for the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline provided useful information about the timing, location, and type of harvesting in the Tuktoyaktuk area (e.g. Kavik-Axys Inc., 2004; Inuvik

Community Corporation et al, 2006). Documents produced by HTC's and government agencies were also valuable in these areas (e.g. Community of Tuktoyaktuk et al, 2000;

Joint Secretariat, 2003; Nagy & Johnson, 2006). Extensive studies from the Geological

Survey of Canada and other researchers have provided a wealth of information about processes associated with coastal erosion and flooding in Tuktoyaktuk (e.g. Johnson et al, 2003; Manson & Solomon, 2007). Publication of research in journal articles was common in some areas of interest in this thesis but scarce in others (e.g. there is a dearth of empirical research that has assessed the impacts of changes in climatic conditions on wildlife in the Tuktoyaktuk area).

4.2.4 Limitations of Data Collection

Several limitations relating to empirical data collection and availability of secondary data influenced the outcomes of this thesis. Given the scope of a Masters thesis and only one field season, it was not possible to gather detailed information for all elements of a vulnerability framework. Empirical research focused on identifying and characterizing

49 exposure-sensitivities in Tuktoyaktuk (objectives one and three), while less attention was paid to adaptations and adaptive capacity (objectives 2 and 4). The decision to pay most attention to exposure-sensitivities follows from the structure of vulnerability assessments, which identify exposure-sensitivities as a starting point (O'Brien et al, 2004b; Sutherland et al, 2005). Although this chapter outlined empirical methods for addressing all four objectives, limitations during fieldwork necessitated focus on certain elements. The two research assistants, who were essential for setting up and carrying out interviews, were inconsistent in their commitment to the research. Greater support from the research assistants may have enabled more interviews to be conducted and more in-depth issues to be covered (especially in relation to adaptive strategies and constraints to adaptation). A further shortcoming of the research was characterization of the role of institutions and governance in influencing future adaptive capacity. Due to the limited time frame for field work the decision was made to focus on the perspectives and actions of individuals instead of organizations and government agencies in the community and region.

Data pertaining to existing and future exposure-sensitivities was inconsistent. For example, a great deal of research has been conducted on coastal processes around

Tuktoyaktuk and results are available through reports and journal articles. The nature of exposure-sensitivities and existing adaptive strategies was well-documented in this area.

In contrast, much less information was available regarding trends in wildlife populations

(e.g. abundance of fish in Tuktoyaktuk harbour over time). Data was generally available for harvests, but this information does not always reflect the abundance of species across an entire population over time. Without information about projected changes in fish (and other species), projections for future food security are mostly speculative. Future changes

50 in exposure-sensitivities and adaptive capacity were also difficult to assess beyond projection of current trends. The status of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline is another example of speculation in this thesis since decisions have not yet been made to move forward with this project. Acknowledging the potential impact of the pipeline and associated oil fields is critical since they will have profound influences on future exposure-sensitivities and adaptive capacity if they do proceed.

4.3 Data Analysis

Following completion of the field season in August 2007 all interviews were transcribed then imported into coding software (NVivo 7.0) that facilitated compilation and organization of the data. Use of coding software is common for interview data since it provides a means of structuring and viewing large amounts of data and aids analysis

(Patton, 1990; Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Bernard, 2000; Spencer et al, 2003). The data was coded into categories ('nodes') that were reflective of the vulnerability framework discussed in section 2.3. Insights gained through participant observation and these categories revealed several topics that were particularly important for Tuktoyaktuk residents (outlined in Table 3). There was considerable overlap of topics across elements of the vulnerability framework, which was expected since the conditions that give rise to exposure-sensitivities and adaptive capacity are related. Interpretation and analysis of the topics (i.e. characteristics of exposure-sensitivities, adaptations, and adaptive capacity) was complemented with reports and journal articles on wildlife, coastal processes, nutrition and contaminants, and Inuit culture. While the community-based research revealed conditions that are important for Tuktoyaktuk residents, secondary data provided further evidence and explanation of underlying processes and interactions. For

51 example, interviewees emphasized the importance of beluga whales as a food source and described the timing and methods of harvesting, and secondary sources provided information about the movement of belugas beyond the ISR, abundance and health of the beluga stock, and conditions that may threaten the belugas in the future. Reports from co- management organizations and government were important sources of information for analyzing institutional factors that constrain or enhance adaptations. The outcomes of data analysis are presented in chapters 5 and 6.

Table 3: Topics raised during interviews according to elements of the vulnerability framework.

Elements of Vulnerability Emergent Topics Framework Exposure-sensitivities -Harvesting (caribou, belugas, fish, waterfowl) -Spring hunt (family time, recreation) -Food preparation -Nutrition and health related to food -Weather and climatic conditions (snow, ice, wind, temperature, precipitation) -Shoreline erosion -Oil and gas development (potential degradation of habitat) Adaptive strategies -Wildlife management -Store foods -Employment opportunities -Shoreline protection -Relocation of infrastructure Adaptive Capacity -Traditional knowledge -Education -Employment / livelihoods -Substance abuse -Land claim settlement -Inuvialuit institutions -Government agencies

52 4.4 Reporting Research Results

A post-research visit to Tuktoyaktuk will involve dissemination of research findings with community members and community organizations. Communication of research results back to the community will be in the form of presentations to community organizations, household visits, and written reports to be left in the community. This step in the research process is critical since Tuktoyaktuk residents have welcomed many researchers and journalists into their community and some are becoming more skeptical of those researchers who do not contribute to the community in return.

53 CHAPTER FIVE

CURRENT VULNERABILITY

This chapter presents findings on current exposure-sensitivities and adaptations in

Tuktoyaktuk. Insights from Tuktoyaktuk residents regarding the types of stresses they face and the ways that they deal with these stresses provided the basis for analysis in this chapter. Since interviews were open-ended they did not pre-determine the types of stresses that could be identified by interviewees. During and after the field season it became apparent that stresses tended to related to the themes of livelihoods, food security, and infrastructure. An inductive approach was used to select these themes on the basis that they were broad enough to capture all of the stresses that had been identified.

While many of the stresses do not fall exclusively within one category, these groupings facilitated further analysis of exposure-sensitivities and adaptations. A summary of the stresses that were identified through interviews and participant observation are presented in Table 4 and grouped in relation to livelihoods, food security, and infrastructure.

Livelihoods and food security are closely interrelated but the centrality of food systems for Inuvialuit culture warranted separate attention here. Conversely, interviewees tended to separate risks associated with coastal erosion from stresses and risks related to harvesting or their livelihoods. Discussion in this chapter is organized around the three categories, with particular attention given to conditions that give rise to stresses and to adaptations that have been undertaken. The chapter concludes with a summary of current vulnerability and emphasizes the dynamic and multi-faceted nature of exposure- sensitivities and adaptive strategies.

54 Table 4: Stresses identified through interviews and participant observation; grouped in relation to livelihoods, food security, and infrastructure.

Stresses Related to Live­ Stresses Related to Food Stresses Related to Infra­ lihoods Security structure

Declining numbers of caribou in Erosion of the point and island in Limited sources of financial income Tuktoyaktuk area harbour

High cost of living in Arctic (including Hard to travel on sea ice in some Risk of flooding with strong west food, gas, and other goods) years (rubble ice can be very rough) wind

Hotter summers require people to be more careful when preparing Permafrost is melting (concern for Suicide among youths harvested foods (dryfish, drymeat, cemetary, buildings, pingos) muktuk)

Some years have a hard time har­ Substance abuse (alcohol and vesting certain fish or waterfowl No funding at the community level drugs) species (low numbers, miss the for erosion prevention main run, etc.)

Some years there is a small beluga Students must upgrade education in No funding at the community level harvest (less whales in Kugmallit Inuvik after finishing high school for relocation of infrastructure Bay, too windy)

Some years the ice road can't be Youth need to experience harvest­ built until December (less time for Loss of Inuvialuktun language ing first-hand more often and for visiting family and keeps price of longer periods food and goods higher for longer)

Degradation of wildlife habitat due to Many youth are not learning enough Availability for rental housing is not oil and gas development (actual and traditional knowledge keeping up with demand potential)

Store foods are expensive and not Renters have limited access to wa­ Potential negative social impacts of as nutritious or satisfying as har­ ter and removal of sewage (home oil and gas development vested foods owners pay per use) No market for furs (despite fur- Not able to predict the weather as bearing animals being in abun­ well as their ancestors dance) Uncertainty about future of sport hunting (e.g. less demand for polar Timing of seasonal events is not bear after listed as threatened" in consistent as it used to be US) Bears coming closer to town pose Contaminants in harvested foods new safety risks

5.1 Exposure-sensitivities and Adaptations Related to Livelihoods

The term livelihoods refers to means of supporting households, and encompasses aspects of both formal (income, employment, cost of living) and informal (subsistence

55 harvesting) economies (Yaro, 2004). This section assesses past and current livelihood conditions in Tuktoyaktuk as they relate to exposure-sensitivities and vulnerability.

Interviewees often brought up the high cost of living in the Arctic and lack of employment opportunities in their community.

"The cost of living is too high. The wages and our jobs is another thing that...

people in the north's wages never really change as the market of gas and fuel

climb up. We're still underpaid people here. Living wise, there are no rebates to

most of us people in the north. I mean, with the high cost of everything. I know

everything goes up but when the stuff goes up, the wages should go up and the

government should think about stuff like that and give us a break at the end of the

year or something. Nowadays there are a lot of people losing their traditional

ways because of gas and fuel and everything and all the computers that we have

nowadays. Nobody's doing nothing, ah. They're staying home, playing games."

Ricky Wolki

When Inuvialuit first settled in Tuktoyaktuk, they were lured by employment prospects from DEW Line construction, oil and gas exploration, and opportunities to sell furs at the

Hudson's Bay post. These livelihood shifts were in many ways autonomous, long-term adaptations by individuals who saw opportunities for easier, more comfortable lives.

Currently, permanent employment positions in the community are offered by the ILA,

TCC, Housing Corporation, Hamlet, Northern Store, Stanton's (grocery store), school, E.

Gruben's Transport (locally owned construction company), NTCL, and the airport, but several positions are filled with workers from the south. An interview with the employment officer (based at the TCC) revealed that there is a lot of variability in the

56 availability of jobs in the community. Some jobs are only seasonal and in some years there are more opportunities than others (for example, during the summer of 2007 a local company had been contracted to clean up an old DEW Line site up the coast from

Tuktoyaktuk).

Financial income is typically spent on goods such as food and clothing but many families also invest in snowmobiles, boats, nets, firearms, and other 'production capital'

(Usher, 2002). Despite speculation that traditional (subsistence) livelihoods would decline following the oil boom of the 1970s (Berger, 1977; Usher, 1993), there are strong indications that diversification of the local economy has merely changed the livelihood and employment patterns. Indeed, Inuvialuit are very passionate about their culture and the role it plays in their lives. While many adults now depend on cash incomes and may only participate in harvesting seldom or part-time, they do partake in the consumption of traditional foods for cultural and nutritional needs. Furthermore, technologies such as skidoos and powerful firearms (the uptake of which was a strategic adaptation at the individual level) have increased the efficiency of hunting and allow people to make shorter trips on the land.

"/ travel quite a bit but since I am working most of the time now I don't get too

much time to be out on the land. That's what I really miss is the life of the land."

Ricky Wolki

5.1.1 Sport Hunt Guiding as a Livelihood Alternative

Harvesting activities can provide cash incomes from the sale of prepared meats, hides, or bones or "in-kind" value through the provision of food or material for clothing (Usher,

2002). Harvesters are able to sell meats, furs (wolverine, grizzly bear, polar bear, white

57 fox), or act as Inuvialuit guides for sport hunters. There are six outfitters in Tuktoyaktuk who guide sport hunts for polar bears, musk ox, grizzly bears, and caribou (Pokiak,

2004). The following section will focus on the economic and management implications of polar bear sport hunts since they provide substantial income to the community and have been at the centre of recent controversies.

Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) were traditionally harvested by Inuvialuit for fur and sometimes hunted for food (Community of Tuktoyaktuk et ai, 2000). Their cultural importance continues today but their importance in Inuvialuit livelihoods is now centered on economic benefits generated through guided sport hunts and sale of furs. Sport hunters

(often Americans) pay up $30,000 for the opportunity to go on a polar bear hunt (whether they are successful or not). Two-thirds of that money goes directly to the Inuvialuit guide, who in turn needs to cover the costs of equipment and food and pay a helper (often a family member) to set up camp and cook (Robbins, 2007). Out of the 26 polar bear tags that are allocated each year in Tuktoyaktuk (this number is fairly consistent since the quotas have been adjusted very little since they were introduced in 1968), no more than half (13) can be used for sport hunters. The income generated through polar bear sport hunting has a significant ripple effects through the community and NWT. On an annual basis, polar bear sport hunts bring approximately $400,000 into the ISR and $1.2 million into the NWT (Usher, 2002; Campbell & Lunau, 2008). The hunting season for polar bear lasts from the 1 st of December until the 31 st of May, but most hunting is done between February and April when there is enough sunlight and ice conditions are safest.

Although the season for polar bear sport hunting is brief, it is an area of sensitivity in

Tuktoyaktuk because of the livelihood assets it generates.

58 Canada has 14 populations of polar bears that are distinguished genetically, by their denning grounds, and their fidelity for seasonal ranges (Stirling, 2002; Derocher et al,

2004; Dyck et al, 2007). The population accessed by harvesters from Tuktoyaktuk is known as the southern Beaufort Sea population (bears are also occasionally taken from the Northern Beaufort Sea population but the focus here will be on the former). The southern Beaufort Sea population's range goes from the Point Barrow area of Alaska to the Paulatuk area in the eastern portion of the ISR (seen in Figure 8) and has a population of roughly 1,800 (Amstrup et al, 2001; Brower et al, 2002; Stirling, 2002; Campbell &

Lunau, 2008).

59 - - - SBSIUCN Boundary © Northern settlements \ Enlarged' 'f . N Area 0 100 200 300 400 500 < ,t~,l t L km ~A "\s

Beaufort Sea

i,....

, Barrow »Wainwright .©>. yi*" PaulatukN \ J3~~^ vV-«j Kaktovik : .. J^©Tutctoyatrtuk V/*™1^ PrudruxT ^-^~^^__- Y Bay T Northwest Territories Alaska

Yukon ^7 %3 urtvvi 1S4*»lh ll rtMl ^

Figure 8: Habitat range for southern Beaufort Sea polar bears (from Regehr et aL, 2007). This population lives within the boundary identified by IUCN (the International Union for the Conservation of Nature).

Quotas on polar bears were put in place in NWT in 1968 amid concerns that

'trophy' hunting was resulting in overharvesting (an example of a planned, strategic adaptive strategy that was implemented by government agencies responsible for wildlife in the ISR). Guided sport hunting was introduced by GNWT in 1970 in response to

Inuvialuit concerns over their loss of income from selling polar bear hides (Stirling,

2002). (Canada is the only country that currently allows sport hunting of polar bears; other countries restrict harvests to indigenous people for subsistence or cultural activities). Prior to research in the 1980s it was not known that polar bears in the ISR, 60 Yukon, and Alaska are part of the same population. The population became known as the southern Beaufort Sea population and the Inuvialuit (the Inuvialuit Game Council) signed a co-management agreement with the Inupiat of Alaska (the North Slope Borough) in

1988 called the Inuvialuit-Inupiat Management Agreement for Polar Bears in the

Southern Beaufort Sea (Brower et al, 2002; Stirling, 2002). This agreement was formalized in 1990 and then renegotiated and reaffirmed in 2000. The Inuvialuit-Inupiat

Management Agreement is unique in that it is a user-to-user agreement that does not involve government parties. It has no legal force in either country, although most aspects of the agreement are now reinforced through other means (Brower et al, 2002).

Management of the southern Beaufort Sea population is guided by annual meetings between the North Slope Borough and the IGC, and carried out at the local level through

Community Polar Bear Management Agreements, community bylaws, and the NWT

Wildlife Act (Brower et al, 2002). Management initiatives include not killing females with cubs less than one year old, no more than one-third of harvest are females, bears in dens are not disturbed, hunting is only allowed between 1st December and 31st May, and identification and protection of important habitats (Community of Tuktoyaktuk et al,

2000). In addition, sport hunters must carry out their hunts using dog teams, not snowmobiles (this is done partially for cultural education). These management initiatives are examples of planned, strategic adaptive strategies that require the support of individuals and co-management organizations. No evidence is available for determining the degree to which the parties respect the management initiatives but Inuvialuit and

Inupiat insist that it is in their own best interest to protect the bears. Actual harvest levels have remained below quota levels since sport hunters are not always successful in their

61 hunts due to rough ice and weather conditions. That is, not all of the 13 polar bear tags distributed each year for sport hunters in Tuktoyaktuk result in kills. Conversely, the other 13 tags that are allocated for subsistence harvesting each year typically result in successful hunts (Joint Secretariat, 2003). It is believed that harvest levels are sustainable given current circumstances (Amstrup et al, 2001; Brower et al, 2002; Stirling, 2002).

Ice conditions are critical for the life cycles of polar bears. It is believed that the bears spend most of the winter in nearshore areas because food is more plentiful in shallow water and weather conditions occasionally provide open water conditions in these areas (Mauritzen et al, 2003; Durner et al, 2007). Late spring (late May until mid-

June) is the most important time of year for polar bears because they take advantage of hunting seal pups that are fat, easy to hunt along open water leads (flaw polynyas), and abundant (Stirling et al, 1999; Carmack & Macdonald, 2002; Stirling & Derocher,

2007). The bears build up stores of fat during this period and are able to fast during the open water season. Their main source of food is ringed seals since they share similar habitats year-round but they are opportunistic hunters and scavengers and will also eat bearded seals, beluga whales or other animals (Community of Tuktoyaktuk et al, 2000;

Carmack & Macdonald, 2002; Bentzen et al, 2007). In years with early sea-ice break-up and longer open water seasons, polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea population aren't able to build up their fat stores as much and are known to have lower survival rates

(Derocher et al, 2004; Regehr et al, 2007). As sea ice breaks up in late spring, the bears remain on multi-year pack ice, which can be as close as a few kilometers from the mainland shores or over 300 kilometers to the north (Stirling, 2002). The health and

62 location of the bears influence their availability for harvesting and represents an area of exposure-sensitivity.

In Canada, polar bears have had the status of 'special concern' since 1991

(COSEWIC, 2002). The federal Ministry of the Environment is expected to come to a decision later in 2008 on whether or not they will elevate this status to 'threatened', which is one level below 'endangered'. Stirling and Derocher (2007) have pointed out that the 14 populations in Canada, with a total population of 15,000, are not all at risk and shouldn't receive the same status. Decisions outside of Canada are also having an effect on polar bear hunting within Canada. In January 2007, the United States Fish and

Wildlife Service proposed that polar bears be elevated to the status of 'threatened' in light of habitat loss due to climate change. An assessment was initiated to determine the likelihood that the species will become endangered in the near future (within 45 years, as defined for the assessment). After lengthy delays, a decision to list polar bears as threatened was finally announced in May 2008. This new status has implications for

Inuvialuit because it is expected that Americans will no longer be allowed to import any part of polar bears (including their hides). It is widely anticipated that sport hunting will decline dramatically since sport hunters will be unwilling to pay such high prices if they are not allowed to bring their hunting trophies home. For outfitters in Tuktoyaktuk (some of whom receive two tags for sport hunters per year), a central source of income may now be gone (roughly $20,000 per polar bear tag, with some outfitters receiving more than one polar bear sport hunt tag per year).

Even more frustrating for the outfitters is that although they noticed changes in sea ice and polar bear behaviours, they have not noticed a decrease in the number of polar

63 bears in their area (interview data). They see themselves as victims of animal rights groups and environmentalists who have their own agendas that don't take into the consideration the lives and well-being of the people actually living in the Arctic. Some polar bear scientists, on the other hand, argue that polar bears really are at risk due to changing ice conditions since ice is their main habitat. They assert that polar bears roam far beyond the areas where they are seen by hunters and it is not possible to make population estimates based on such localized observations (Bentzen et al., 2007; Stirling

& Derocher, 2007). Conflicts between Inuit and scientists are being fueled by media reports that use the "charismatic megafauna" qualities of polar bears to depict them as the prime victims of climate change (Dyck et al, 2007). According to Dowsley and Wenzel

(2008), the root of the conflict is ineffective integration of TK and scientific information and inadequate communication between parties.

For the near future, it appears as though Inuvialuit guides may have lost a valuable source of income and co-management relations within the WMAC may become more strained as trust is lost between Inuvialuit and scientists. Keeping in mind that caribou sport hunts have also been shut down in recent years, it is apparent that a livelihood option that has a unique fit with Inuvialuit culture is now severely stressed.

"Right now for me its really hard to adjust to the drop in revenue and income to

be out [on the land], and then you've got bills to pay. You know, harvesters like

myself are wondering if it's worth it to go out and get a job or something instead

of being out there. It's not like you don't want to be out there, you just don't even

have the financial resources. It just takes so much more to be out there. Costs

keep escalating for gas and oil and the groceries and it makes it very difficult."

64 Randal Pokiak

Due to the sensitivity of outfitters to income generated through sport hunts, they are exposed to changes in the population of polar bears and caribou. The regulations that influence their access to game are perceived as a further source of stress by local outfitters but it is also a form of strategic adaption for protecting polar bear populations in the long term.

5.1.2 Tourism as a Livelihood Alternative

Tour operators in Tuktoyaktuk have attempted to capitalize on outside interest in

Inuvialuit culture and Arctic wildlife. The two tour operators in Tuktoyaktuk run tours that are booked by a larger company Arctic Nature Tours, based in Inuvik. Tourists generally fly into the community for a half or full day and have the opportunity to learn about various aspects of historical and modern Inuvialuit life and the land claims process, and experience activities unique to the community. Tourists come from southern Canada,

United States, and sometimes Europe and Asia and are often seeking an "authentic" cultural experience, a view of pingos, a chance to dip their toes in the Arctic Ocean, or visit a functional ice house (Notzke, 1999). This demand generates both benefits and stresses for tour operators. On the positive side, the income generated through tourism enables the tour operators to maintain traditional ways of life by providing a source of income to cover their expenses. Demands on their time, however, challenge the ability of tour operators to participate in subsistence activities. The tourist season (June through

August) overlaps with the timing for harvesting fish, belugas, and wild berries. In addition, tourists' demands for experiences includes tasting and sampling of traditional foods, requiring tour operators to sometimes 'scrounge' for supplies of dryfish, drymeat,

65 or other foods. Tuktoyaktuk has a limited ability to draw tourists since there is no road access during the tourism season and visitors must fly in by plane from Inuvik. The cost for tourists is quite high and limits the demographic of tourists to those who can afford a trip to Tuktoyaktuk (for example, a day-trip tour to Tuktoyaktuk costs between $300 and

$400). Overall, tourism has had positive influences on the community by providing cash income to the tour operators and other spin-off benefits such as a market for craft goods.

The implication for livelihoods is that tour operators and people selling crafts are dependant on income generated through visitors to the community and are sensitive to changes that influence the number of visitors. The main current exposure is that transport to Tuktoyaktuk is limited to air travel during the main tourist season, which is expensive.

Adaptive options that have been utilized by Tuktoyaktuk residents (mainly autonomous and tactical) include selling crafts and art at fairs, art stores, and through business opportunities facilitated by the IRC. Tour operators have joined with the larger Arctic

Nature Tours to attract attention to Tuktoyaktuk as a destination (an example of autonomous, strategic adaptation), but there are still limited returns since harsh Arctic weather limits the appeal of winter tourism.

5.1 J Summary of Exposure-sensitivities Related to Livelihoods

The livelihood options profiled above (wage employment, outfitters, and tour operators) are not sufficient for sustaining Tuktoyaktuk's entire population. The relationship between livelihood options and exposure-sensitivities are summarized in Figure 9.

Without a means of generating income, households face stresses related to covering their basic needs for housing and food. Relying more on subsistence harvesting is an autonomous, tactical adaptive option for some people, but many families have been

66 relying on cash income for over 30 years and now lack the equipment and knowledge required for harvesting. More people are finishing high school now and going on to college or technical training - but the limited number of permanent jobs in Tuktoyaktuk have low turnover rates because people stay in those positions as long as possible.

"You take the education of the average student around here, whether they

graduate or not. Especially in a community like Tuk, where you don't have

infrastructure like all weather roads. You can get all of the education that you

want but when you go back home, what are you going to use it for? There are no

jobs here. Now you start seeing a lot of them moving away because they know

what's going to happen if you get your education and come back here. You are

not guaranteed a job around here anyway. I noticed a lot of them are moving

away."

Chuck Gruben

Many interviewees expressed dissatisfaction with the education that is provided in

Tuktoyaktuk. High school graduates that wish to continue their education at college or university must complete an extra 'upgrade' year in Inuvik in order to qualify for post- secondary institutions. When faced with the prospect of being educated but unemployed, many youth simply don't view education as a useful route unless they are prepared to move away from their families. The housing system in Tuktoyaktuk has also contributed to the lack of motivation among many residents to seek or create employment.

"The other sad part about renting is that they encourage you not to work. And I

say that because if you are unemployed, not working, the highest rent you can pay

and you are entitled to subsidized housing is $32 a month. You know, when you

67 look at it, why work when your rent is only $32 a month and you have a nice

warm place to stay? There's people who are unemployed that mainly take

advantage of the $32 a month. The ones that work and the ones that don't work.

There's a big gap."

Eddie Dillon

This quote alludes to the heterogeneous nature of the community and different choices related to livelihoods. It was apparent through interviews and participant observation that some families and groups within the community take more pride in their livelihoods than others (whether they focus on subsistence harvesting, entrepreneurial ventures such as tourism or construction, or wage employment). Depending on the livelihoods they choose, Tuktoyaktuk residents are subject to a variety of exposure-sensitivities. For example, people who solely depend on wage employment are subject to changes in availability or duration of jobs. People involved with sport hunting tend to have a greater reliance on environmental conditions and have exposure-sensitivities related to changes that limit the abundance or access to particular resources. Adaptive strategies tend to be autonomous and tactical on the level of individuals and families since Tuktoyaktuk residents take advantage of employment and other livelihood opportunities as they arise.

68 Livelihoods

Tourism operators Seli crafts Wage Outfitter Outfitters Sell furs employment assistants X Subsistence Number of Southern Trophy Food harvesting tourists markets Availability Education / hunts (fairs, stores J of jobs training (seasonal, part-time, permanent) Demand Demand Access to the for for tourist community trophy experience (e.g. charter species | Abundance of trophy species (polar bears, caribou, musk-ox, Cultural Affordabiiity grizzly bears, etc.) experience

Arctic experience (pingos, wildlife, 'toe dip')

- exposure-sensitivity Climate CZD - adaptive strategy

Figure 9: Relationships associated with livelihood exposure-sensitivities.

5.2 Exposure-sensitivities and Adaptations Related to Food Security

Although the vast majority of literature on food security focuses on developing countries

(for example, Sen, 1981; Bassett, 1988; Bohle et ah, 1994), the concepts employed in recent literature and development programmes are useful in many contexts, including the

Arctic. The definition of food security used by FAO is widely accepted by scholars and practitioners (FAO, 2006): "Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life". This definition

69 incorporates availability, access, nutrition, consistency, and preferences as elements of food security. The distinction between availability and access to food is a recognition that while sufficient quantity of foods may be available, certain people may not be able to obtain those foods due to power dynamics or entitlement to financial, social or capital resources (Bryant, 1998; Smith et al, 2000; Freeman, 2001; Yaro, 2004). Nutrition and preferences are particularly meaningful elements of food security in the Arctic context since they recognize the importance of a balanced, healthy diet and the importance of harvesting traditional foods for Inuvialuit cultural identity (Van Esterick, 1999; Duhaime et al, 2002). These considerations have provided a basis for understanding the nature of food security in Tuktoyaktuk and the motivations and consequences of choosing between traditional foods and store-bought foods.

Reports on food systems in Arctic communities invariably include descriptions of diets that are comprised of both traditional and store-bought foods (e.g. Kuhnlein &

Receveur, 1996; Wein et al, 1996; Duhaime et al, 2002). Diets in Tuktoyaktuk fit this description, with frequency and quantity of consumption of traditional foods ranging greatly among individuals (Statistics Canada, 2002b). Traditional foods, understood here as animals and plants that are harvested from the local environment, have importance that goes beyond mere dietary needs - the process of acquiring, preparing, and sharing locally harvested foods is central for Inuvialuit identity (Day, 2002; Usher, 2002; Alunik et al,

2003). As Kuhnlein (1995) described, "traditional food systems provide an anchor to cultural expression, food items of excellent nutritional quality, and opportunities for environmental awareness and enjoyment as well as physical fitness". Studies of food systems among Inuit in Alaska, Greenland, and Canada have demonstrated how

70 traditional foods make people feel strong, warm and satisfied and how there is a direct connection between particular foods and traditional knowledge and culture (for example,

Kuhnlein, 1995; Wein et al, 1996; Freeman, 2001; Pars et al, 2001).

"The Inuit report a loss of vitality, an increased propensity to illness, and a

lessened sense ofwellbeing when not eating their customary local foods... This is

not to say that many Inuit do not enjoy eating a variety of imported or non-local

foods, but rather, that they consider their diet markedly incomplete if it does not

provide access to traditional food"

Freeman (2001)

During the field season for this research, 35 of the 40 interviewees indicated that traditional foods are important in their diets and, hence, are sensitive to changes that limit their ability to consume those foods. Stresses to food systems were evident since 27 interviewees indicated that they are not able to harvest as often or as much as they would like (due to financial, time, or conservation constraints), 12 interviewees discussed challenges related to preparing and storing traditional foods, and 14 interviewees expressed concerns about the quality and nutrition of store foods. Fish, beluga whales, and waterfowl are the main sources of traditional foods for resident of Tuktoyaktuk.

Interviews and participant observation in Tuktoyaktuk indicate that caribou meat is the preferred food for taste and enjoyment. The spring hunt for fish and waterfowl is an important time of year for spending time with family and enjoying recreational activities.

Diets in Tuktoyaktuk today, though, are no longer based solely on traditional foods. As

Inuvialuit in the Tuktoyaktuk area settled into sedentary lifestyles between the 1930's and

1970's, they became more reliant on store-bought food. Opportunities in the wage

71 economy brought with it the means for purchasing more imported foods, less time for available for harvesting, and new technologies such as the snowmobile (Kuhnlein, 1995;

Hart, 2001; Duhaime et al, 2002).

The wage economy and sedentary lifestyle also introduced non-traditional values and culture to residents of Tuktoyaktuk. Participant observation in Tuktoyaktuk indicated that caribou meat is the preferred traditional food but elders (and some adults) enjoy a greater variety of traditional foods compared to young people (for example, some youth prefer store foods compared to dried fish or beluga muktuk). These observations are consistent with other recent reports in the ISR and across the Arctic (Kuhnlein, 1995;

Bromley, 1996; Wein et al, 1996; Blanchet et al, 2000; Day, 2002; Usher, 2002; Ayles et al, 2007). Another pattern that has emerged is that young people often choose to purchase foods from the store instead of consuming traditional foods and, consequently, their connection with traditional culture has changed (Wein et al, 1996). Many Inuvialuit fear that their culture is also being lost as young people do not express the same connections with the harvesting, preparation, and consumption of traditional foods as their elders.

Harvest studies in the ISR in the 1960's, 1970's, and 1990's revealed several changes in the ways that Inuvialuit have made use of wildlife resources (the results of these studies are not specific for Tuktoyaktuk but are assumed to be broadly representative of the community due to similarities across the ISR). While the total number of harvesters in Tuktoyaktuk has increased, the rate of growth has been at a slower rate than population growth; thus, harvesters, as a proportion of the entire

Inuvialuit population, have decreased from 21 in the 1960's to 16 percent in the 1990's

72 (Usher, 2002). Despite these trends, Usher (2002) argued that subsistence harvesting has persisted as a significant economic and cultural aspect of Inuvialuit livelihoods. A key reason for the drop in number of harvesters is that most Inuvialuit men were full-time hunters in the 1960's but by the 1990's many of them gained at least a moderate income from employment and only hunted part-time. Another significant shift in harvesting patterns is the mean annual harvest of traditional food per hunter declined from 2,082 kg/year to 707 kg/year between the 1960's and 1990's (Usher, 2002). Keeping in mind that Inuvialuit began to abandon dog teams in favour of snowmobiles in the early 1970's

(due the shift to a greater reliance on wage employment discussed in chapter 3) and that feeding dog teams required a substantial quantity of food, it is probable that the amount of traditional food available for humans may not have changed much. In fact, the amount of traditional food available per person in Tuktoyaktuk is higher than in other parts of the

Canadian Arctic (Usher, 2002; Kuhnlein & Receveur, 2007).

In the following sections, each of the main food sources for residents of

Tuktoyaktuk will be discussed in terms of availability, cultural relevance, and management practices. Given that people in Tuktoyaktuk rely on particular foods, they are sensitive to changes that influence the availability or access to those foods on a consistent basis. The following sections provide a basis for understanding exposure- sensitivities and adaptations relating to food systems in Tuktoyaktuk and the implications of choices related to food and diets.

5.2.1 Use, Availability, and Management of Caribou

Tuktoyaktuk, like many Arctic communities, relies heavily on caribou as a food staple and source of cultural identity (Nuttall et al, 2005). Harvest studies have demonstrated

73 that a greater number of Tuktoyaktuk residents participate in caribou harvesting than for any other species and caribou account for one-third of total traditional food harvested by weight (Usher, 2002; Joint Secretariat, 2003). During the 1990s a mean of 915 caribou were harvested per year in Tuktoyaktuk (Joint Secretariat, 2003). Insights gathered from interviews and participation observation indicated that Tuktoyaktuk residents invariably enjoy the taste of caribou meat and find satisfaction in the cultural activities associated with caribou harvesting. Over three quarters of interviewees indicated that they frequently participate in caribou harvesting or consumption of caribou meat. Given the number of caribou that are harvested and the importance placed on caribou by interviewees, it is clear that Tuktoyaktuk residents are highly sensitive to changes in the availability of caribou and conditions that limit their ability to access caribou for meat.

Many interviewees also expressed the importance of caribou for the community in terms of social and cultural activities.

"You know, the one thing I really noticed is when the caribou are close by people

are really active and really happy. And I think because they have lots to eat when

the caribou are around. When the caribou started declining noticeably two years

ago, people don't go out as much, they 're not as active. You really could notice

that part."

anonymous Tuktoyaktuk resident

The two herds closest to Tuktoyaktuk are the Cape Bathurst and Bluenose-west herds, as seen in Figure 10 and Figure 11. Both herds belong to the subspecies barren ground caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) but the individual herds are distinguished by their calving grounds (Theberge & Nagy, 2001). The herds calve in the

74 easternmost portions of their ranges in late May or early June and then begin westward migrations during the summer (Community of Tuktoyaktuk et al, 2000; Nagy et al,

2005). Both herds overwinter in areas southeast, east, and northeast of Inuvik. Towards the end of the winter, the Cape Bathurst and Bluenose-west herds head eastward again, separating towards their respective calving grounds. Caribou harvesters from

Tuktoyaktuk are most active in the fall and early winter (November, December) when the caribou are preparing for breeding season ('the rut') because the bulls have healthy furs and they are fat from summer feeding (Joint Secretariat, 2003; Inuvik Community

Corporation et al, 2006). At that time, the herds are also relatively close to the community and there is snow on the ground so it is possible to access the caribou by snowmobile. Although this is the most popular time for harvesting, caribou are harvested at any time of the year. During summer months, when most caribou are migrating east, there are generally a few stragglers that stay around the Mackenzie Delta and

Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula areas that can be hunted by boat along the coasts. Harvesters make use of their knowledge about the usual movements of the herds, information about recent sightings of the herd's movements, and knowledge about the quality of the caribou's food sources when making decisions about exactly where and when to hunt

(Inuvik Community Corporation et al, 2006).

75 Figure 10: Range of the Cape Bathurst caribou herd (from Nagy et at, 2005)

Frequency of Use Bluenose-West low ^^| moderate

0 100 200

Figure 11: Range of the Bluenose-west caribou herd (from Nagy et al, 2005). 76 A survey of Cape Bathurst and Bluenose-west herds in 2005 by the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources (ENR), Government of Northwest Territories

(GNWT) revealed that the herds appeared to have declined dramatically since the 1990s.

Surveys conducted in 2006, aiming to verify the size of the herds, found that the populations continued to decline from the previous year (Environment and Natural

Resources, 2006a; Nagy & Johnson, 2006). Figure 12 shows the population estimates for both herds between 1987 and 2006. In addition to the population estimates, studies have also noted that there are proportionally fewer calves than would be expected and that many calves are being born much later in the season, requiring them to join the summer migration much younger, weaker and more vulnerable to predation (Inuvik Community

Corporation et al, 2006; Nagy & Johnson, 2006). Several interviewees also described similar observations. Recent studies in Greenland have shown that these breeding challenges may be the result of peak demand for food resources by caribou (particularly pregnant cows) no longer coinciding with the peak availability of food resources due to climatic changes (Post & Forschhammer, 2008; Post et al, 2008).

77 120,000

98,900 100,000

\ •H 80,000 74,200 ^64,700

£ -•— Cape Bathurst 60,000 •D -#—• Bluenose-west TO E 1 40,000 \ UJ \ \ 18,000 . 14,500 17'500 20,800 20,000 10,000 ^ _ —, 2,400 1,800 • 1987 1992 2000 2005 2006

Figure 12: Population estimates for the Cape Bathurst and Bluenose-west caribou herds (Environment and Natural Resources, 2006b; Nagy & Johnson, 2006).

Harvesters are especially concerned about the herds but they also believe that they are merely witnessing the low end of a 30 to 40 year cycle for caribou. In conversation and interviews, elders and adults recalled periods in recent history when caribou did not migrate near the community. During the 1950s and 1960s, when many people first settled in the community for wage employment opportunities, there were very few caribou in the area and it was not a significant source of food during that period (Hart, 2001; Usher,

2002; Inuvik Community Corporation et ai, 2006). When the caribou returned by the early 1970s they became the favoured traditional food, especially among the younger generation (autonomous adaptation to take advantage of opportunity).

"Before I started settling here full time and you didn 't have caribous reaching

this area, you had to go 2, 3 days out to get caribou. And then gradually they

started moving and it seemed like they moved their feeding grounds and their 78 migration changed. And you reflect back on those things now and you start seeing them changing their migration patterns again. You wonder if it's the weather or you wonder if it's the activity that's around the area. If it was the activities hindering them, then in the 70s, 80s there should have been no caribou around, but then they started coming around. And the last 15, 20 years you see them move into the area. And we were able to get them on day trips. And now it looks like you might have to go camping again to and get your meat that you need for the winter."

Eddie Dillon

"Its getting less and less every year for the last 10 years - when I first started noticing it, start seeing less and less caribou. I don't believe its from the hunters overharvesting. I think a lot of it has to do with migration route range."

Chuck Gruben

"... they don't eat themselves out of house and home, ah. They are gonna move, ah. They know when there's not much food in one area they'll go to a different area. So that's part of the... that's probably part of the problem that we're having right now. Everybody says there's a decline in the caribou, the scientists like

RWED [Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development] and the

Caribou Management Committee. They are telling us there's no more. The elders are saying they are not going to eat themselves out of house and home. They are moving. They'll come back later."

79 Charles Pokiak

There is general agreement that the herds are not as numerous but, as these quotes allude, there are disagreements about the causes. Inuvialuit harvesters believe that the caribou herds have shifted migration routes rather than died off in huge numbers. Inuvialuit doubts of government estimates are further fuelled by well-published errors in other parts of the country2. However, the circumstances today are much different than when the herds were low in numbers in the 1950s and 1960s. Pressures from humans have increased due to oil and gas exploration, contaminants, more efficient hunting methods, a greater number of harvesters targeting caribou, and increased traffic from aircrafts, boats, and terrestrial vehicles. There is also speculation that impacts from climate change have already affected barren-ground caribou but no studies to date have provided conclusive evidence (Gunn, 1995; Russell et al, 2002; Kofinas & Russell, 2004; Nuttall et al, 2005;

Environment and Natural Resources, 2006b). Some scientists believe that the herds may be pushed beyond acceptable thresholds due to these pressures (e.g. Environment and

Natural Resources, 2006b; Nagy & Johnson, 2006).

A further difference between the low caribou numbers in the 1960's compared to today is that management of the herds has become institutionalized (signifying planned, strategic adaptation). Ultimately, decision-making power rests with GNWT as set out in the NWT Wildlife Act. The IF A defined harvesting rights for Inuvialuit, but GNWT sets the number, location, and season for harvesting wildlife, such as caribou (Environment

2 In the early 1980s, it was revealed that concerns about the health of the Beverly caribou herd were unfounded and restrictions that had been placed on the herd were not necessary (Struzik 2008). In 2008, the Nunavut government announced that their estimates of 5,000 Bowhead whales as recently as 2005 were inaccurate and the population is actually closer to 14,400 (Canadian Press 2008). In both cases, Inuit harvesters always claimed that the populations were higher than scientists had estimated. 80 and Natural Resources, 2006b). Harvesting, habitat, and research of caribou in the ISR is the responsibility of the Wildlife Management Advisory Council for the Northwest

Territories (WMAC (NWT)), a co-management organization comprised of representatives from the IGC, GNWT, and the Government of Canada. Conservation measures include identification and protection of important habitats, avoidance of shooting mature males during the rut, harvesting only what is needed, and encouraging traditional means of using the whole animal and discouraging the waste of meat

(Community of Tuktoyaktuk et al, 2000). These measures are planned, strategic adaptive strategies that are initiated at the territorial level but carried out by government agencies, co-management organizations, and harvesters. Since the Cape Bathurst herd is harvested by six communities and the Bluenose-west herd is harvested by 13 communities, co­ operation is required amongst Inuvialuit, Gwich'in, Sahtu Dene, and Metis (Community of Tuktoyaktuk et al., 2000; Nagy et al, 2005). That is, the WMAC (NWT) co-ordinates its efforts with other co-management boards that were created under other land claim settlements since the herds move amongst several settlement regions.

At the territorial level, several management initiatives have been introduced since the 2005 and 2006 surveys. The "Barren-ground Caribou Management Strategy for the

Northwest Territories 2006 - 2010" was released in 2006 with the intent of providing a unifying context for management of individual herds (Environment and Natural

Resources, 2006b). (At that time, five out of the eight barren-ground caribou herds in

NWT were in decline). The document outlines 16 strategies that address five key components:

• Engaging partners in management

81 • Ensuring information is available for management decisions

• Managing impacts of human activities

• Public education and compliance

• Addressing hardships from low caribou numbers.

These strategies are representative of planned, strategic adaptations but the form of the adaptations is social and institutional, rather than focusing on actions that influence the herds' health. As a follow-up to the Management Strategy, the GNWT convened a

Caribou Summit in early 2007 to bring together stakeholders and encourage all co- management boards to work together and develop policies aimed at reversing the decline of several barren-ground caribou herds (Environment and Natural Resources, 2006a). A moratorium has been placed on sport hunting as another means of limiting the number of caribou that can be taken from each herd. This strategic, planned adaptation focuses on the health of the herds but influences outfitters on an individual scale. As mentioned in the previous section on livelihoods, Tuktoyaktuk used to receive approximately 80 tags for sport hunters per year, but this source of income is (at least temporarily) gone.

Subsistence harvesters historically never required tags and Inuvialuit were able to bring in as many caribou as they needed for food, but new bylaws have been put in place through the HTC to limit when and where they are able hunt. In addition to the long-term conservation strategies listed in the previous paragraph, these adaptive strategies represent an attempt to prevent more severe food shortages (an exposure-sensitivity) in the future.

82 Since many people in Tuktoyaktuk rely on caribou meat as a food staple (whether they harvest it themselves, or acquire it through sharing or purchasing), they are sensitive to recent declines in the Cape Bathurst and Bluenose-west herds. Stresses have arisen due to the (apparent) decline in number of caribou in both herds and management strategies that have been put in place. The exposure-sensitivity experienced by Tuktoyaktuk residents, thus, relates to the availability and access of their preferred food source.

Harvesters (and other residents who buy meat from harvesters) are not able to acquire as much caribou meat, they are forced to rely more on other species or store-bought foods as alternative food sources. The autonomous, tactical adaptation of substituting food sources is carried out by individuals in response to issues to access to foods.

"But now the caribou's declined drastically so we have to look to alternate foods

like fish and whale, geese. I don't know what we 'd do without all that stuff. The

cost of living is too high."

Ricky Wolki

"I am a hunter and a trapper and I never shot a caribou for 18 months because of

that decline and the concern we've got in regards to the herd. The numbers... the

management plan we are trying to put into place. So there's been a lot of barter

and trading going on. Instead of me going out hunting I been able to, for instance

this winter, to barter two caribou carcasses. And that's a drop in income also

cause before we knew about this drop we were making a good revenue for dry

meat. And now that's gone. You know, and that's going to be gone as long as the

83 herd is in jeopardy of diminishing on both recruitment and also because [I am

getting older],"

Randal Pokiak

When caribou numbers were low during the 1920s and 1930s, the Canadian government initiated a plan (planned, strategic adaptation) to import reindeer from Asia so that

Inuvialuit could be trained as herders and have a consistent source of meat and livelihoods (Hart, 2001; Alunik et al, 2003). Conditions were very difficult for both the reindeer and herders and the herds never thrived. A small remnant of the reindeer herds still exists and is owned by a man in Inuvik but it is too small to be harvested as a food source for local residents.

5.2.2 Use, Availability, and Management of Waterfowl

Over half of all interviewees indicated that harvesting waterfowl is important for their culture and diets. The value of the waterfowl harvesting has also been emphasized in several publications (e.g. Bromley, 1996; Day, 2002; Usher, 2002; Alunik et al, 2003).

Waterfowl are harvested during spring migration and the spring hunt is an important time for culture, family, and community in Tuktoyaktuk. Tuktoyaktuk residents consistently expressed their fondness for spending time in spring on the land with family while hunting for waterfowl and fish. Everyone helps with preparing fish and geese, getting water and firewood, and still has lots of time for recreation. The following section will demonstrate that while Inuvialuit place social and cultural importance on harvesting waterfowl, the contribution of waterfowl as a food source is less substantial.

The spring hunt commences by early May and lasts until shortly before sea ice break-up in early June, when travel conditions on water bodies and land become difficult

84 and dangerous. Families, including children who receive a break from school, stay on the land for one to three weeks at a time. Families disperse inland around the Husky Lakes area and along the Beaufort Sea coast as they take advantage of major migratory movements that arrive from the Mackenzie River Valley or the Alaskan coast (Bromley,

1996). From the 1950s to 1970s, while Inuvialuit were moving into permanent settlements but skidoos had not yet replaced dog teams, the spatial extent of harvesting areas were contracted (Freeman 1976 in Bromley, 1996). However, traditional waterfowl harvesting areas have been reoccupied and even expanded since skidoo use became common amongst Inuvialuit. Despite increased mobility, many interviewees cited difficulties harvesting waterfowl in recent years since the geese no longer come close to the community and the price of gas limits the distances that they are able to travel.

"You know, the main run for the geese used to be by the river. And then in the 70s

when the oil companies take all the space in there, they stopped going by there. I

mean, some do, but their route changed."

Billy Emaghok

"When I was young there used to be just loads of geese. Lots. Now there's

nothing. Once every two years maybe. They used to come up by the coast. Now

they go by different routes."

anonymous Tuktoyaktuk resident

The common belief among Tuktoyaktuk residents is that the waterfowl have shifted their migration routes further east, rather than actually decreasing in population size (this matter is addressed more thoroughly below). Regardless of the actual cause, the

85 implication for Tuktoyaktuk residents is the exposure-sensitivity of decreased availability of waterfowl for harvesting.

Many residents who work full-time jobs are not able to spend extended periods on the land during spring but still participate on weekends or take holidays at that time of year. In some years, these people are lucky enough that the main migrations coincide with their weekends/holidays, but in other years they may see very few waterfowl. Since the focus of the spring hunt is social and cultural, many interviewees did not express a strong sense of concern over the amount of waterfowl that they harvest. Some residents also partake in waterfowl harvesting during fall migrations (September) but this is much less common and the vast majority of harvesting is completed during spring migrations.

The most comprehensive, recent study of waterfowl harvests is the Inuvialuit

Harvest Study, which estimated that the mean annual waterfowl harvest was around

4,000 during the 1990's (Joint Secretariat, 2003). As with all harvest studies, this number is likely low due to underreporting by harvesters and incomplete records. Figure 13 presents the contribution of various species to the total annual waterfowl harvest.

Evidently, lesser snow geese {Anser caerulescens caerulescens), white-fronted geese

(Anser albifrons frontalis), and brant (Branta bernicla nigricans) are the most commonly harvested waterfowl species by Tuktoyaktuk residents (Bromley, 1996; Dickson &

Gilchrist, 2002; Joint Secretariat, 2003). While harvest counts do provide insights into important species and allow for comparison between years, measures of edible weight can provide more information relevant for food security. Usher (2002) found that although participation in waterfowl harvests is very high, the contribution to diets by weight is actually very low. Values were not available for Tuktoyaktuk but aggregate

86 values for the six Inuvialuit communities showed that participation in harvesting of lesser snow geese was only surpassed by participation in caribou harvesting. By comparison

(again, for all six communities), the total edible weight for caribou was 110,730 kg/year and was only 9,981 kg/year for lesser snow geese (Usher, 2002). It should be noted that waterfowl harvesting is more extensive in Tuktoyaktuk than the other communities but the relative contribution is not significantly different. The corollary of these data is that harvests of waterfowl may not provide substantial quantities of food but they have cultural importance, are widely enjoyed for their taste, and are important for dietary diversity (Blanchet et al, 2000; Kuhnlein & Receveur, 2007). Thus, Tuktoyaktuk residents are sensitive to changes that influence their participation in harvesting activities, preparation and storage of waterfowl as food, and consumption of waterfowl as a component (albeit small) of diverse diets. Since these conditions are dependant upon availability of waterfowl. It is evident that Tuktoyaktuk residents have strong interests in managing harvests and other activities so that waterfowl continue to thrive.

87 2500 2196

XJ 2000 V *a W a> a 1500 •Q 1028 | 1000 c c (S 443 I 500 281

39 14 0 lesser snow white-fronted brant ptarmigan tundra swan Canada geese geese geese

Figure 13: Number of waterfowl harvested by Tuktoyaktuk residents between 1988 and 1997 (values from Joint Secretariat, 2003).

There is some uncertainty and disagreement over whether or not waterfowl

populations harvested by Tuktoyaktuk residents are increasing or decreasing, although it

appears that the species that they depend upon most are either stable or increasing in

population size (Bromley, 1996; Community of Tuktoyaktuk et ah, 2000; Dickson &

Gilchrist, 2002; Joint Secretariat, 2003; Inuvik Community Corporation et al, 2006).

Management is a challenge for Inuvialuit since waterfowl are present in the ISR for only

a few months per year and spend the rest of their time migrating or in wintering areas as

far away as Texas, California, and Mexico (Dickson & Gilchrist, 2002). Whether or not

current harvest levels by Inuvialuit are sustainable must be considered in light of stresses

that are experienced by each species throughout their entire range. Dickson and Gilchrist

(2002) note that some threats to waterfowl can be managed at a local level since they are

a result of local activity (e.g. oil spills, coastal development, overharvesting), but others

88 stem from activities beyond the ISR and must be addressed at broader scales (e.g. impacts of climate change, contaminants, loss of wintering habitats).

In attempts to gain a better understanding of the entire life cycles of waterfowl found in the ISR, and to support management efforts at regional, national, and continental scales, Inuvialuit participate in several management plans and agreements. These plans and agreements are listed in the Tuktoyaktuk Community Conservation Plan (Community of Tuktoyaktuk et al, 2000):

• Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994)

• Co-management Plan for Caribou, Muskox, Arctic Wolves, Snow Geese and

Small Herbivores on Banks Island (RWED / WMAC(NWT) 2000)

• North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) (1986)

• Arctic goose Joint Venture (part of NAWMP)

• Draft Management Plan for the Western Arctic Population of Lesser Snow

Geese (1986)

• Draft Pacific Coast Brant Management Plan (1991)

• Eastern Tundra Swan Management Plan

• White Front Goose Management Plan

Specific management efforts (a form of planned, strategic adaptations) undertaken by

Inuvialuit at local and regional levels through HTCs, IGC, and WMAC (NWT) include harvesting only what is needed for subsistence, identifying and protecting key habitat areas within the ISR (e.g. for breeding), and conforming to national and international

89 agreements such as NAWMP. Interviewees were hesitant to discuss details about compliance with local or international management plans, although, as with other species, they pointed out that it is in their best interest to promote conservation.

Exposure-sensitivities associated with waterfowl harvesting arise due to

Tuktoyaktuk residents' dependence on waterfowl for cultural events and as a source of food. At the individual and household level, Tuktoyaktuk residents have some ability to adapt to decreased success in spring hunts by shifting when and where they set up their camps (an example of autonomous, tactical adaptation). Effectiveness of wildlife management regimes as a venue for adaptation is limited for Ihuvialuit because waterfowl travel far beyond the ISR and are influenced by factors beyond their control.

5.23 Use, Availability, and Management of Fish

Interviews, informal conversations with residents of Tuktoyaktuk, and literature (e.g.

Alunik et ai, 2003; Ayles et ai, 2007) all indicate that fish have traditionally been one of the most important dietary staples for Inuvialuit in Tuktoyaktuk. Although only 16 interviewees mentioned that they harvest fish, more than half of all interviewees indicated that fish is part of their diets. Indeed, when there are shortages of meat, fish becomes a main food source for many residents (Inuvik Community Corporation et ai,

2006). Numerous fish species are found in the Tuktoyaktuk area and residents have enjoyed consistently abundant populations. Fishing occurs nearly year-round but with shifts in the location and methods of harvesting, owing to the existence of a variety of habitats in the area. Some species use strictly marine (saltwater) habitats or fresh water habitats, while others move between fresh and salt water (called anadromous species).

Documentation of harvests in the Inuvialuit Harvest Study indicate that Arctic cisco

90 (Coregonus autumnalis), inconnu {Stenodus leucichthys), lake trout {Salvelinus namaycush), broad whitefish {Coregonus nasus), lake whitefish {Coregonus clupeaformis), and Pacific herring {Clupea pallasi) are the most abundant fish species near Tuktoyaktuk (Joint Secretariat 2003). Figure 14 shows a breakdown of the times of year that these species are harvested. As above with waterfowl and caribou, Usher (2002) provided the total edible weight of fish across the whole ISR as nearly 70,000 kg/year

(this figure omits char since it is uncommon around Tuktoyaktuk). Comparatively, fish contribute a substantial amount of food but not as much as caribou at their peak in the

1990s. Since fish are not sold commercially, the exposure-sensitivities of Tuktoyaktuk residents associated with fish arise due to the availability and access to fish as a food source.

Anadromous species (cisco, herring, inconnu, and whitefish) move between their winter fresh water habitats and summer salt water habitats during the summer months and pass through Tuktoyaktuk harbour, providing residents with easy access for harvesting

(the harbour has three freshwater inlets). Harvesters set 3/5" and 4" gillnets perpendicular to the shore to catch fish as they migrate out to sea or are returning to fresh rivers and lakes (Harwood et ah, 2007). For Arctic cisco, a preferred species for making dryfish, harvesters use smaller meshed nets that are long and deep to perform 'sweeps' to net the fish from boats. During the fall and winter, many harvesters continue fishing by setting nets under the ice (this practice is limited by January when the ice becomes very thick).

In the spring (May), when many families head inland to the Husky Lakes area or along the coast to harvest waterfowl, many harvesters also make use of cracks in the ice or bore

91 holes so that they can fish for lake trout and other species. Some interviewees also reported that they set nets under lake ice in the fall when they go inland to hunt caribou.

Figure 14: Harvest times for fish species (sources: Community of Tuktoyaktuk et al, 2000; Joint Secretariat, 2003; Harwood et al, 2007).

While interviewees were optimistic about abundance of fish species, there were some indications that conditions have changed in recent years. A common comment from interviewees was that there have been much fewer Arctic cisco and Pacific herring for the past 5 or 10 years.

"When I was growing up there used to be really a lot of herring in September. We

used to pull the net out and just bring it back in. They call it a sweep net. When

they do that and then come back in. I remember at one time we got ten 45 gallon

drums. We filled up ten 45 gallon drums in one sweep. And that was pretty

92 common. You could do that almost every year. But now in the fall time here, the

same herring you have to go five miles up the coast to get herring [but still don't

get as many] "

anonymous Tuktoyaktuk resident

"They don't come in here as plentiful as long ago. We used to set up the sweep

net long ago and everybody used to go home with lots. I mean, that was our

survival long ago. Now you are maybe lucky to have one barrel"

Joseph Felix Jr.

According to Stephenson (2004), harvests of Arctic cisco had traditionally been very high but the quantity and timing of migrations has been inconsistent in recent years. There is speculation that these decline in cisco and herring populations (exposure-sensitivity) is related to habitat destruction as a result of dredging of the harbour in 1985-86 (for acquiring gravel for the building the community's reservoir) since the decline began shortly afterwards (interview data; Kavik-Axys Inc., 2004).

Other recent changes have influenced the ability of people to make dryfish, which is often done in large quantities so that it can be stored for the winter. Some interviewees, especially elders, commented on how the town is dirty or dusty due to vehicles on the gravel roads and that they can't make their dryfish in town anymore. They opt instead to set up temporary camps across the harbour (autonomous, strategic adaptation related to food preparation) and need to boat out there on a regular basis during fish runs.

Interviewees also commented on warmer water temperatures and the impact that it has on the fish.

93 "When we do our fishing we start getting fish that's got red flesh. This year it's

really bad. The fish is more red than white and they spoil really easy... they get

soft, the water get warmer. Never used to be that warm. Fish spoil right away, eh.

We have to pull our nets out. Too spoiled to cook."

anonymous Tuktoyaktuk resident

"I've been fishing for a long time - probably all my life. And we have good fish

all the time. Every year. The last 5, 6 years I notice you have to look at the net...

long ago you used to leave it overnight. You put your net in the morning, next day

you look at it. The fish are good. Today the difference the water gets so warm you

have to look at your net every four hours or so because of the warmth. If you

don't look at it you are going to see lots of dead fish cause the water is so warm."

Roy Cockney

Elders have passed on lessons to not eat fish that are already dead by the time they check their nets because the fish can make people ill. Checking nets more regularly is a tactical, autonomous adaptation of harvesters in response to unpredictable conditions.

The Fisheries Joint Management Committee (FJMC), with representatives from

HTC, the IGC, and DFO, is the co-management board responsible for fish and marine mammals in the ISR. Fisheries management ranges from passive management to bylaws of the local HTC (mainly in the form of requirements of minimum catch size) to agreements with neighbouring aboriginal groups that draw on the same populations (in the form of Integrated Management Plans). The Integrated Fisheries Management Plans establish conservation, socio-economic, and ecosystem objectives and outline strategies

94 and plans for meeting those objectives (Ayles et al, 2007). Since these are new initiatives, there is no information available regarding their effectiveness in maintaining fish stocks.

Thanks to the variety of fish species available for Tuktoyaktuk residents, exposure- sensitivities related to shortages of fish have been limited to particular species. Adaptive strategies have mainly been autonomous, tactical adjustments of individual harvesters who simply focus their attention on different species (sometimes requiring movement of nets to different locations and times of year).

5.2.4 Use, Availability, and Management of Beluga Whales

While technologies and methods of harvesting of beluga whales have changed over the last 100 years, belugas are still an important food source for Inuvialuit in Tuktoyaktuk. 14 interviewees indicated that they are either actively involved with harvests each summer

(directly participating in the hunt and/or helping with preparing foods for storage) or that they belugas are an essential part of their diet. This low participation rate (35 percent of all interviewees) is due to the equipment and time required for harvesting belugas.

Participant Observation and informal conversations with Tuktoyaktuk residents indicated that although a relatively small number of families participate in beluga harvesting (due to lack of equipment, time, or interest), the families that do harvest belugas view beluga muktuk (skin and blubber), oil, and drymeat as a central part of their diets. Reliance on this source of energy rich and nutrient-filled food source makes many families in

Tuktoyaktuk highly sensitive to conditions that stress their ability to hunt or process the whales.

95 Beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) are toothed whales that feed on fish and invertebrates. Inuvialuit in Tuktoyaktuk harvest belugas in the open water of Kugmallit

Bay, especially around Hendrickson Island (see Figure 15 for location), using aluminum boats (15-18 feet), harpoons, and rifles (DFO, 2000; Day, 2002). Hunters will occasionally travel further east or west along the coast but most hunting is done relatively close to the community. Although the waters of Kugmallit Bay are murky from discharge from the Mackenzie River, the area is ideal for hunting belugas since the whales enter shallow waters for calving and molting their skin (Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk, 1984; Usher,

2002). According to Harwood and Smith (2002), it is believed that the whales feed mostly offshore in deeper waters where they dive for fish and invertebrates.

Whales arrive in Kugmallit Bay once it is ice-free and offshore ice conditions permit their movement, generally in late June or early July; migration out of the bay starts in July but it is not uncommon for Inuvialuit to still see whales in early August (DFO,

2000; Carmack & Macdonald, 2002; Day, 2002; Harwood & Smith, 2002; Alunik et al,

2003). Documentation of scientific research complements information provided by harvesters, who indicated that the ideal time to hunt belugas in Kugmallit Bay is mid- to late July, when the number of whales has peaked and there are usually days or nights that are calm and ideal for hunting. Periods of little or no wind allow the small boats to travel faster and keep up with the whales and provide the hunters with the opportunity to use their harpoons and rifles with better accuracy. Hunting the whales and preparing the muktuk (the skin with some blubber still attached), uqsuq (blubber that is turned into oil), and dry meat for eating and storage require communal efforts among family groups or

96 friends. These foods are important sources of energy in the winter, with most of it being stored in the community ice house or privately owned chest freezers.

Kugmallit Bay area (from DFO, 2008).

The belugas harvested by Inuvialuit are part of the Eastern Beaufort Sea stock.

Population estimates vary from a minimum of 20,000 to more than 40,000, with even the

larger number considered a conservative estimate by many experts (Harwood & Smith,

2002; COSEWIC, 2004; DFO, 2008). Much of the Eastern Beaufort Sea belugas' range

lies outside of their summering areas, where they are harvested by Inuvialuit. Figure 16

shows the general movement of the belugas between their summering areas and wintering

areas. After making use of the warm waters from the Mackenzie Delta in the summer,

97 some of the whales move northeast towards Amundsen Gulf and Viscount Melville

Sound before migrating westward in August along the Alaskan coast (DFO, 2000). It is believed that the Eastern Beaufort Sea stock overwinters in the Chuckchi Sea along with at least three other groups of belugas that summer in Russian waters: Bristol Bay, Norton

Sound, and the eastern Chuckchi Sea (Harwood & Smith, 2002). Combined, these four groups are known as the Bering Sea stock. Little is known about the extent with which the four populations interact during the winter, or exactly where each population resides within the Chuckchi Sea (COSEWIC, 2004).

Spring movements Chukchi Sim Mid to late summer movements <*^S.Beaiff

rT- v ^ r4 isscn 7 Banks \ Siefai island ^iri^^\ •V /Sachs 5' fqfnhlesStrail •^(arbour j \i •^•j?" \ **•' \Holmarv/£_ " Victoria 4>nk Island, Herschel 1___ '""<*,* 1/7 GMr C

/yi Paulatuk p.. yM-,, ^Tuktoyaktuk Aklavih Inuvik Mackenzie River

Figure 16: Movement of the eastern Beaufort Sea beluga whale stock during spring, summer and fall (from DFO, 2000).

98 The most recent data on beluga harvests in Tuktoyaktuk estimate that an average of

47 whales were harvested per year between 1988 and 1997 (Joint Secretariat, 2003). For comparison purposes with the values provided for other wildlife, belugas provide approximately 43,000 kg/year in edible weight across the ISR (Usher, 2002). It has been estimated that less than 200 whales are removed from the entire Eastern Beaufort Sea stock each year - accounting for harvests in Inuvialuit communities, harvests in Alaskan communities (including Diomede, Kivalina, Point Hope, Point Barrow and Kaktovik), and whales that sink and are lost during harvest (Adams et al, 1993; Harwood & Smith,

2002). Harvest data show that the number of belugas harvested has only slightly decreased since monitoring began in the 1970's (Harwood et al, 2002). The main sources of natural mortality for belugas are predation by polar bears or killer whales, disease, or entrapment by ice (Harwood & Smith, 2002). Based on population estimates and, the rate of removal (less than 1%) is believed to be sustainable since it is well below the rate of population growth for belugas (2.5 to 3%) (DFO, 2000; Harwood & Smith, 2002;

Harwood et al, 2002).

Co-management of the Eastern Beaufort Sea belugas is the responsibility of the

FJMC (co-management body with representatives from local HTCs, the IGC, and federal government) in accordance with the IFA. The Alaska and Inuvialuit Beluga Whale

Committee (AIBWC) was established in 1988 with the aim of promoting beluga conservation and monitoring stocks (Adams et al, 1993; Harwood & Smith, 2002). The

FJMC has also created a Beaufort Sea Beluga Management Plan (2001) and worked with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) to develop the Beaufort Sea

Integrated Management Planning Initiative (2003), which outline community-specific by-

99 laws that govern harvesting and set out recommendations for the development of beluga management zones. The zones distinguish between areas of prime beluga habitat that should have strict limits on the types of activities allowed and areas that can support certain types of non-subsistence activities (BSIMPI Working Group, 2003). The harvesting guidelines and management zones are examples of planned adaptation measures that are intended to maintain beluga stocks in the interest of Inuvialuit subsistence (hence, reducing exposure-sensitivities). The main benefit of the co- management organizations and international agreements has been to provide Inuvialuit and other indigenous groups with exclusive rights to harvesting belugas and protect the stocks from declining. Protection of the stocks (from threats such as commercial harvesting and habitat disruption) has meant families in Tuktoyaktuk who rely on belugas as a food source have not faced stresses related to availability of stocks. The main exposure-sensitivities that they continue to face are related to access to the belugas due to variations in weather conditions or socio-economic constraints. Since alternative options for harvesting belugas in years with poor weather conditions are limited, the main adaptation employed by individuals and families is to substitute with other harvested or store-bought foods.

5.2J5 Use of Store-bought Foods Compared to Harvested Foods

As is common in Arctic communities, store-bought foods are central to diets of

Tuktoyaktuk residents today. Even full-time harvesters make use of supplies such as butter, milk, tea, coffee, sugar, and canned goods on a daily basis, but they are able to acquire more protein and energy from harvested foods. The choice between store-bought and harvested foods is mediated by the high cost of living in Tuktoyaktuk. For

100 comparison, the Government of Northwest Territories (GNWT, 2007) calculated that the cost of living in Tuktoyaktuk was 1.6 times the cost of living in Edmonton in 2005 and food was more than double the cost of food in Yellowknife in 2004. If Tuktoyaktuk residents are able to cover the high upfront costs of gas and equipment, it can be very cost effective (and an effective strategic adaptive strategy) for them to obtain meat from harvesting (Usher, 2002). According to Struzik (2008), a single caribou can provide over

$500 worth of meat. Many people have debts to pay between paycheques and often need to pick up groceries using store credit, so they cannot afford to invest in capital needed for harvesting. For Tuktoyaktuk residents that are able obtain full-time employment, time is their biggest constraint and they are not able to sacrifice their work responsibilities for harvesting and preparing traditional foods (Kuhnlein, 1995). Duhaime et al. (2002) found that in families where the female is employed and bringing in a reliable income and the male has time for harvesting, there are higher proportions of traditional foods consumed.

More than half of the residents of Tuktoyaktuk report participation in harvesting and consumption of traditional foods (GNWT, 2007). Although some harvesting is done for selling furs or income through sport hunt guiding, approximately 97 percent of harvested wildlife is intended as food (Statistics Canada, 2002b). The previous sections provide strong indications, however, that high participation rates in harvesting do not necessarily translate into high consumption rates. This is particularly evident with fish and waterfowl harvesting since many residents participate in the spring hunt but not other harvesting activities. Waterfowl harvests do not provide large quantities of food. Fish harvests are substantially larger but when broken down by species it is apparent that contribution to diets from lake trout (the main species harvested during spring hunt) is very small (Usher,

101 2002; Joint Secretariat, 2003). Interviewees indicated that it is mainly full-time harvesters who gather large quantities of traditional foods, but no more than a quarter of

Tuktoyaktuk's harvesters would fall into this category (keeping in mind that there are variations between years depending on employment prospects and income generated by other family members). The implication of these findings for exposure-sensitivities is that while interviewees emphasized the importance of traditional foods and were more apt to discuss stresses associated with harvesting, many Tuktoyaktuk residents are highly dependant on store-bought foods. Thus, availability and access to store foods are sensitivities in Tuktoyaktuk.

"Well, we try and do stuff traditional ways. But at the same time too [we have

store-bought foods]. [My husband] goes hunting with his parents and he helps his

parents as much as he can to store food for the winter. And helps prepare it and

everything. So a little bit of both I guess but mainly trying to do it the traditional

way... Some people, all they want is junk food and stuff like that. They don't

really want to eat what we used to have long ago."

anonymous Tuktoyaktuk resident

"I think that some people who may speak to how they are affected by changes are

probably the ones that didn't start living off the land to begin with... or have any

traditional food on their table. They are just so used to going to the store and

buying something and putting it on the table. Its culturalized. Its colonialized. But

I think you will find more and more people that are in the wage economy will

speak to that because they don't have the time or the ability to go out and get the

102 traditional food that's needed to balance your food. I think too many people are

depending on the store."

Eddie Dillon

In terms of health, there are several benefits of consuming a higher proportion of traditional foods compared to store-bought foods. Obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases have all been linked to consumption of store-bought foods, which tend to be high in fats and sugars (Kuhnlein & Receveur, 1996; Duhaime et al., 2002; GNWT,

2008). People who rely mostly on store-bought foods also tend to be less physically active, compounding these problems. Thus, people who have a high dependence on store- bought foods are more susceptible to health problems (exposure-sensitivity). Traditional foods tend to be higher quality energy sources and provide a variety of important nutrients (Blanchet et al, 2000; Kuhnlein & Receveur, 2007). For example, bones in stews, blubber, and fish are good sources of vitamin A and calcium, which are important for childhood growth (Kuhnlein & Receveur, 2007). Green and yellow vegetables and dairy products are also good sources of these nutrients but long transport distances of these foods diminishes their quality by the time they reach the Arctic (Pars et al., 2001).

The only downside of traditional foods is risk associated with contaminants such as heavy metals and organic toxins. Several studies have concluded that the nutritional and cultural benefits of traditional foods outweigh the risks from contaminants since the presence and density of contaminants in below accepted thresholds of tolerance

(Kuhnlein, 1995; DFO, 2000; Dewailley & Furgal, 2003; Northern Contaminants

Program, 2003; Duhaime et al., 2004a). Interviewees indicated that their concerns over

103 contaminants do not outweigh their preference for harvested foods and, hence, no autonomous adaptive strategies were identified. Some strategic adaptation has been initiated by organizations such as ITK and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada's

Northern Contaminants Program in the form of information campaigns but these initiatives have not influenced the actions of individuals in Tuktoyaktuk.

5.2.6 Summary of Food Security

"Everybody's not going to be affected the same way. It all depends on the lifestyle

you choose to live. If you don't go out and harvest any of the animals and that,

you are not going to be affected by it. I sure would be affected if I can't have

caribou on my table anymore. That means I have to go to the grocery store and

buy my meat. But there are people that are in the community that absolutely will

not be affected by any of these changes out there because they have the Northern

store to go to. If you are not active on the land, whether you are fishing, hunting,

trapping or whatnot - if you are not active on the land, regardless of what the

weather is going to be like, regardless of the erosion, people like that are not

going to be affected at all. Because all they got to do is get a good paying job and

go to the grocery store and buy whatever they want. But as a user of the land and

a person who has a subsistence lifestyle, definitely I will be affected a lot if the

weather actually changes more drastically from year to year or animals start

going further and further away. That's a big impact. And it's not to say that

everyone won't be affected. Everyone will be affected but they will be affected in

different ways."

James Pokiak

104 This quote provides a strong reflection of the heterogeneity of livelihoods and experiences for residents of Tuktoyaktuk. Exposure-sensitivities differ among

Tuktoyaktuk residents, depending on the extent that they choose to participate in subsistence harvesting and the wage economy. Shifts towards more reliance on employment in Tuktoyaktuk have resulted in greater reliance on store foods, and less time spent harvesting. The implication of these changes is that many Tuktoyaktuk residents have less flexibility in terms of when and where they can participate in harvesting, hence restricting the quantity and variety of traditional foods consumed

(Usher, 2002; Nuttall et al., 2005). The relationships between factors that influence food security exposure-sensitivities are shown in Figure 17. People who rely heavily on subsistence harvesting are exposed and sensitive to changes that influence the availability

(abundance and location) of caribou, waterfowl, fish, and beluga whales. Harvesters have not faced severe stresses in these areas since they have been able to adapt to shortages of one species by harvesting more of others (that is, their autonomous, tactical adaptations have been successful). Strategic adaptations aimed at maintaining the health of wildlife populations have been implemented by co-management organizations. Of particular concern currently is the decline of the Bluenose-west and Cape Bathurst caribou herds because many people in the community have been dependant on caribou as a food source that is culturally satisfying and financially affordable. People who are highly dependant on wage employment have a different set of exposure-sensitivities related to the nutrition provided by store-bought foods. Many people in the community do not participate in harvesting on a consistent basis (due to time constraints, lack of interest, or lack of skills and equipment) and mainly rely on store foods (aside from occasional consumption of

105 harvested foods from sharing). Since employment opportunities in Tuktoyaktuk are limited, some people face stresses due to affordability of nutritious food on a consistent basis. Obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases are common negative health outcomes of these exposure-sensitivities.

Food Security

Subsistence harvesting

Figure 17: Relationships associated with food security exposure-sensitivities.

5.3 Exposure-sensitivities and Adaptations Related to Infrastructure

Infrastructure in Tuktoyaktuk is highly susceptible to damage due to degradation of permafrost and coastal erosion. Roads, building foundations, and other infrastructure are dependant upon the stability of the permafrost upon which they are built (there is no exposed bedrock in Tuktoyaktuk). Table 5 outlines the types of infrastructure present in

Tuktoyaktuk. It is interesting to note that the historical presence of the DEW Line site, military, and oil exploration companies have left a variety of structures that are not

106 typical in Arctic communities, such as worker camps and transmission towers (Couture et al, 2002). Interviewees universally expressed concerns about coastal erosion and the possibility that the community will have to be relocated. Their fears over further damage to property and the possibility of community relocation are indicative of the community's sensitivity to coastal processes that put infrastructure at risk. Interviewees of all ages have witnessed changes to the community's shorelines and efforts of the Hamlet to slow down the erosion. Formal and informal interviews conveyed a sense of inevitability and an acknowledgement that natural forces would eventually compel the community to move to higher ground or further inland.

Table 5: Breakdown of types of infrastructure in Tuktoyaktuk according to use.

Service ! Type of infrastructure j i ! single, duplex, multi-unit (includes senior's residence and Housing some apartment style buildings)

Educational Mangilaluk School, adult education centre

Administrative / Hamlet office, Community Corporation, Housing Government Corporation, HTC, ILA, etc.

Health health centre

Recreational arena, Kitty Hall, indoor pool

Commercial NTCL shipyard, Gruben's camp, hotels (abandoned), etc.

water trucks & resevoir pumping station; sewage trucks and Utilities sewage lagoon; hydro poles and diesel generating station

roads, airstrip, airport hangar, public wharf, boat ramp, ice Transportation road (winter)

ice house, storage garages, fire hall, airport hangar, Other churches, cemetary

107 Several sources have identified Tuktoyaktuk as 'highly sensitive' to sea level rise due to the community's location on low-lying land (Shaw et al, 1998; ACIA, 2005;

Solomon, 2007; UK, 2008). The mainland coast of the Beaufort Sea is characteristically prone to erosion, with average retreat rates of one meter per year (Carmack &

Macdonald, 2002). The shorelines of the community itself (prior to shoreline protection measures, which were initiated in the 1970s) are known to have eroded on average one to two meters per year, but erosion of several meters has occurred during individual storms

(Reimnitz & Maurer, 1979; Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk, 1984; Solomon et al, 1993;

Solomon & Hart, 2000; Couture et al, 2002; Johnson et al, 2003; Manson et al, 2005).

Figure 18 provides a visual representation of these rates of erosion.

Propensity for coastlines to erode results from a combination of several factors

(Manson et al, 2005; Manson & Solomon, 2007; Solomon, 2007):

• Physical characteristics of the shoreline (sediment size, ice content,

arrangement of elements)

• Relative sea-level (RSL) rise

• Air and water temperatures

• Intense storms events during the open water season

• Presence of sea ice

The nature, quantity, and distribution of ice in the permafrost (e.g. ice wedges, massive ice or soil pores) plays a large role in the way that the coastline deteriorates and erodes

(Couture et al, 2002). The permafrost underlying Tuktoyaktuk is characterized by massive ground ice, which can be subject to rapid melting and formation of depressions

108 under certain conditions. Tuktoyaktuk is built entirely on this ice-rich permafrost since there is no exposed bedrock in the area (Manson et al, 2005). These conditions make infrastructure in Tuktoyaktuk highly sensitive to environmental forces. Permafrost is generally stable but it is well known that any infrastructure built on it can be prone to hazardous conditions because disturbance of the upper, 'active' layer can lead to melting of permafrost ice (Johnson et al, 2003; ACIA, 2005; GNWT, 2008). Engineering and construction techniques on permafrost have improved over the last 50 years but the inherent challenges associated with fluctuations in air and ground temperatures can lead to shifting buildings, sinkholes along roads or other damages to infrastructure (GNWT,

2008). To date, there is no evidence of such changes causing significant problems for infrastructure in Tuktoyaktuk (Couture et al, 2002). The main concern in this area is that continued warming trends (especially a lengthened warm season) will allow the permafrost's 'active layer' to melt deeper during summer months and roads and building foundations may not perform as well under those conditions (Couture et al, 2002;

Manson & Solomon, 2007).

Relative sea-level rise has been occurring over thousands of years due to isostatic subsidence and eustatic rise and has been calculated to occur at a rate of 3.5 ± 1.1 millimeters per year in the southern Beaufort Sea over the last half century (Carmack &

Macdonald, 2002; Manson & Solomon, 2007). Higher water levels contribute to exposure-sensitivities by enabling larger wave action on the coastline and greater risk of flooding. Another factor affecting the rate of coastal erosion is warming of air temperatures by 1.7°C over the last century (Couture et al, 2002). Warmer average summer and winter temperatures are resulting in a greater variability in the timing of sea

109 ice break-up and freeze-up and increasing the duration of the open water season (ACIA,

2005; Manson & Solomon, 2007). It is generally thought that since sea ice provides protection for shorelines by suppressing the development of waves, longer open water seasons are enabling greater rates of erosion (Carmack & Macdonald, 2002; Rachold &

Cherkashov, 2003; Manson et al, 2005; Manson & Solomon, 2007). Average daily energy acting upon shorelines has a relatively small impact on shorelines compared to strong storm events can cause considerable change in relatively short periods of time with winds blowing from the northwest (Atkinson, 2005; Manson & Solomon, 2007). Such events of rapid coastal retreat tend to occur in the late August and September in

Tuktoyaktuk when strong storm events are more frequent (Reimnitz & Maurer, 1979;

Couture et al, 2002; Johnson et al, 2003; Manson et al, 2005). According to Atkinson

(2005) Tuktoyaktuk receives the highest frequency of storm events in October but ice cover is present at that time so there less impact on shorelines. (The exception to sea ice providing protection is when the ice is thin and can be driven ashore and cause scouring and erosion (Atkinson, 2005; Manson & Solomon, 2007). Thus, in years with later freeze-up and more storm events, the likelihood of rapid erosion is a greater risk.

110 Figure 18: Historical rates of erosion and accretion, showing the shoreline position in 1947 (solid line), 1972 (dotted line) and 2001. Some sections of the shoreline were rebuilt since 1947 (from Johnson et al., 2003).

Ill 53.1 Shoreline Protection

Manson and Solomon (2006) pointed out that these risks to infrastructure are not considered 'catastrophic' in terms of large losses of life or infrastructure and that coastal erosion can be effectively managed through adaptation strategies. Figure 19 outlines the relationship between infrastructure exposure-sensitivities, drivers of change, and adaptive strategies. Erosion is a relatively slow and observable process, which allows for appropriate planning. A large storm event in 1970 caused more than 13 meters of erosion in one portion of the shoreline and prompted the Canadian government to commission a series of studies to investigate the cause of erosion and identify alternatives for preventing future damage. The outcome of these studies was the introduction of an experimental shoreline protection measure called a Longard Tube System that was installed in 1976 (see Appendix D for a schematic diagram of the Longard Tube System).

This system was not completed according to the original design due to a lack of funds and, although there was some initial success in slowing erosion, it was completely destroyed by a storm in the early 1980s (Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk, 1984; Johnson et al,

2003). In 1986, another study was commissioned to review a variety of shoreline protection alternatives for their effectiveness and economic viability. The outcome of this report was a program of "beach nourishment", whereby sandbags were filled with sand that was dredged from the harbour and then stacked along the shoreline (Johnson et al,

2003). The sandbags were intended to protect the shoreline from wave action and release their sand slowly to provide additional material to replenish material lost from erosion but the bags tended to break open during storms, undermining their usefulness. GNWT provided $100,000 per year to replenish the sandbags until 1994 when this program was

112 finally abandoned. These shoreline protection measures were planned, strategic adaptive strategies that required funding from levels of government beyond the community.

Infrastructure

Height of land

Affordabitity

Expertise

Length Climate [~ 1 = exposure-sensitivity summer C^) = adaptive strategy

Figure 19: Relationships associated with infrastructure exposure-sensitivities.

In 1997, the Hamlet imported limestone boulders (known as riprap) from Inuvik in order to supplement the remaining sandbags. Funding for the riprap was provided by the

Department of Municipal and Community Affairs, GNWT (MACA). Transport of the riprap was only possible during the winter via the ice road but the Hamlet brought in several shipments between 1997 and 2003 (planned, strategic adaptation at the community level). In 1998, a set of concrete slabs (2.5 x 10 x 0.5 meters) were placed along approximately 100 meters of shoreline. The concrete slabs were donated by an oil company which no longer need them for footings. This adaptation contributed to long- term planned adaptation strategies, but it was tactical rather than strategic since the

Hamlet simply took advantage of opportunity. Figure 20 shows the location of the 113 various shoreline protection measures, including the riprap and concrete slabs that now cover most of the ocean-facing side of the community (note that the riprap now covers the entire area from the old school to Flagpole Point and extends slightly further around the point). The current measures appear to be effective and have remained stable following at least two major storm events since they were installed (Couture et ah, 2002).

The Hamlet and MACA are currently waiting to see the long-term effectiveness of this strategy before making further decisions about next steps to take.

The possibility of relocating the community has received considerable attention.

Such an adaptation would be planned and strategic and would require the involvement of the territorial and federal governments, contractors, and Tuktoyaktuk residents. A study in 1994 recommended gradual relocation of the community, beginning with buildings and historic objects that were deemed to be at greatest risk (UMA Engineering Ltd., 1994).

Despite being advocated as the most cost-effective long-term strategy, the Hamlet and

MACA have continued to focus efforts on erosion control through shoreline protection.

Out of necessity due to damage or imminent risk, several buildings have been demolished or moved within the last 15 years: RCMP buildings, a curling rink, a few houses, and the old school. With the exception of the curling rink (which began to fall into the ocean due to erosion), these actions were planned, strategic adaptations. Interviews with Hamlet staff indicate that their budget is severely limited and constrains them from exploring many options (an operational constraint to adaptation that will be discussed further in chapter 6). The Hamlet receives funding from GNWT through MACA and would need to receive a significant financial commitment in order to cover the up-front costs of relocating elements of the community. (Even if funding did become available, there may

114 be some protest amongst community members stemming from emotional attachment to the present location). A further reason why relocation has not been an option is that the community has very few options for locations within the existing municipal boundaries.

A subdivision, known as Reindeer Point, does exist further inland but very few families have opted to move there since it is not in close proximity to stores, the school or recreational facilities.

115 Figure 20: Location of coastal erosion protection measures from 1976-1998 (Couture et al., 2002).

The placement of the initial loads of riprap was not carried out under the advice of scientists who had studied the nature of Tuktoyaktuk's erosion and were likely not as

116 effective as they could have been (Couture et ai, 2002). In fact, the riprap protected the immediate areas where it was placed, but exacerbated erosion of two spits (one at

Flagpole Point and one south of the riprap) because it limited the amount 'supply' material that maintained the size of the spits (location of the spits can be seen in Figure

20). Subsequent shipments largely rectified this problem (Manson et ai, 2005). Manson and Solomon (2006) suggested that the most pressing concern now is that the northern tip of the community and the island at the entrance of the harbour (to the east of the tip) will continue to erode since they have not been reinforced with riprap and there reduced movement of materials along the coast supplement them. There are no buildings or infrastructure in these areas but if they disappear there will be no protection for

Tuktoyaktuk's inner harbour. Exposure of the harbour to storms will likely be hazardous for low-lying areas of the community due to flooding and accelerated erosion and for critical infrastructure such as NTCL's shipyard. Since Tuktoyaktuk is used as a resupply point for barges delivering food and supplies to other communities, the financial and food security implications of such damages would be significant.

Construction aggregate (generally referred to in Tuktoyaktuk as gravel) is used as a base material for certain types of building foundations and for road construction. It is also critical for maintenance and repair of these features. A significant challenge for

Tuktoyaktuk is that there are no gravel sources remaining within the municipal boundaries (the harbour has been dredged in the past to build the DEW Line station, water reservoir and other features) and there are no viable means of transporting aggregate into the community other than the winter road. An adaptation of the Hamlet is to stockpile gravel that is imported during winter months when the ice road is open and

117 then make use of it as needed during summer months (these actions represent planned, tactical adaptations). Requests have been made to GNWT for funding to build a road inland to a known gravel source but no plans have been finalized to date. Such a road would provide access to much-needed material; an all-weather road stretching further inland would also create more options for relocating elements of the community that are most at risk from erosion or flooding (interviews with Hamlet employees indicate that the cemetery, sewage lagoon, and garbage dump would be among top priorities). Thus, an inland road would represent a planned, strategic adaptation that would enable the community to address immediate and long-term risks to infrastructure.

Financial constraints manifest themselves in many ways regarding threats to buildings and infrastructure. One interviewee explained the constraints of the Hamlet very well and placed their responses to physical threats in the context of other social challenges such as a growing population:

"If your population grows you are going to have more demand on your

infrastructure in the communities. Having to operate and keep up with the

demand of more services kind of hinders the Hamlet because they don't have the

resources necessary to create the infrastructure needed to meet the demand that's

out there. Like, if you 've got more people living and relying on the community

services you are going to get... infrastructure and the equipment used to give

those services are going to get tired and have to be replenished. I think its really

frustrating for the municipal, Hamlet and council to try and meet the demand for

their population in town growing. And the needs of people, understanding that

they know a better way of life and are more demanding to get better service. And

118 your resources aren't there to build those resources up, in terms of infrastructure.

Its been really hard to meet."

Eddie Dillon

With attention focused on meeting the current needs of a growing population, it is difficult to generate the funding or develop plans required for the widely conceded need to eventually relocate the community. Another constraint related to population growth is finding space for new housing. There are a number of buildings and lots within the community that have been abandoned and can be redeveloped to make more space but such efforts are only buying time since erosion has never been completely halted.

5.4 Summary of Current Vulnerability

Despite presentation of exposure-sensitivities under three themes in this chapter, the ways that people experience and deal with these stresses overlap a great deal. Lack of livelihood alternatives and food security risks are closely associated with one another, both in terms of causal forces and means of coping with stresses. Options for adapting to food security exposure-sensitivities vary for individuals and families, depending on the extent that they participate in harvesting and are able to secure consistent financial income. While most adaptive strategies are tactical at the individual and household levels

(in the form of food substitutions), several planned, strategic adaptations have been initiated by co-management organizations (aimed at maintaining health of wildlife populations). Outfitters are facing stresses due to the moratorium on sport hunting for caribou and negative influences on demand for polar bears due to new endangered species legislation in the USA. The resulting loss of income that they are experiencing affects their ability to continue with their preferred livelihood choices (need income for

119 equipment and supplies) and choice to consume more harvested foods than store-bought foods. On the other hand, people who rely very little on harvested foods do not have flexibility in times of financial constraint (due to extended periods of unemployment and high costs of living in the Arctic) and face increased stresses related to access to adequate foods.

Exposure-sensitivities related to infrastructure arise due to the location of the community on low-lying land that is susceptible to erosion and flooding. Protection of coastlines and relocation of buildings require funding from the territorial and federal governments but such funds have only been available on a limited basis. Existing shoreline protection measures have taken the form of strategic, planned adaptations initiated by the Hamlet, but facilitated by the territorial government. Individuals and families do not have the financial means to address these exposure-sensitivities on their own.

Very few climate-specific adaptations have been developed by Tuktoyaktuk residents. As seen in the overview of adaptive strategies in Table 6, very few tactical and strategic adaptations specifically target changes in climatic conditions. When asked about the ways that they adjust to changing weather or wildlife conditions, most interviewees said that there has always been variability and differences between years and they haven't changed what they do. They acknowledge that they have experienced changes in weather, ice, and wildlife but that these haven't required them to alter their livelihoods or lifestyles. The main insight drawn from these assertions is that changes that have been experienced are generally within expected variability and that autonomous adaptations have been sufficient to deal with past and current exposure-sensitivities.

120 Table 6: Summary of adaptive strategies in Tuktoyaktuk.

Tactical Adaptations Strategic Adaptations • Take advantage of employment outside • Quotas for sport hunting to maintain Tuktoyaktuk to obtain wage income (of­ long-term health of wildlife populations ten short term)

• Participate in both wage employment and subsistence harvesting (e.g. har­ • Restrictions on the location and timing vesting of traditional foods offsets high or harvesting for game species Livelihoods cost of store foods) Exposure- sensitivities • Selling crafts and art as a source of income

• Small enterprises (e.g. tour operators, outfitters) take advantage of marketing with larger companies in Inuvik for mar­ keting

• Uptake of new technologies (e.g. snow • Substitution of food sources in years machines and rifles) to make harvesting with shortages for particular species more efficient

• Focus harvesting attention on species • Management plans for protecting im­ that are readily available (e.g. caribou portant species (e.g. protected zones for when they are close to the community) beluga whales)

Food Security • Quotas or moratoriums on species that • Shift location and timing of hunts in re­ Exposure- have experienced drastic population de­ sponse to movements of wildlife sensitivities clines

• Altered food preparation practices for harvested foods

• Changes in the frequency of harvesting activities (e.g. check fish nets more regu­ larly)

• Move buildings with immediate damage • Shoreline protection (e.g. sandbags, risk riprap, concrete slabs)

Infrastructure • Cover disturbed areas around build­ • Stockpile gravel during winter months Exposure- ings with gravel to prevent permafrost to take advantage of transport on ice sensitivities degradation road

• Relocation of entire community (possi­ bility has been raised but no plans have been developed)

121 CHAPTER SIX

FUTURE VULNERABILITY

The previous chapter discussed conditions giving rise to exposure-sensitivities that are stressing livelihoods, food security, and infrastructure in Tuktoyaktuk. In this chapter, insights about these existing exposure-sensitivities are combined with evidence of likely future environmental and socio-economic changes to highlight potential future stresses and opportunities in Tuktoyaktuk. Changes in climate and the proposed Mackenzie

Valley pipeline were emphasized by interviewees as areas of great importance for

Tuktoyaktuk. An overview of each of these drivers of change is presented in this chapter, followed by discussion of the implications that they will have for exposure-sensitivities related to livelihoods, food security, and infrastructure. The chapter concludes with an assessment of the ways that future forces are expected to influence adaptive capacity and overall implications for future vulnerabilities.

6.1 Climate Change

This section highlights projected changes in climate that are relevant for existing exposure-sensitivities in Tuktoyaktuk. While there is some uncertainty about the nature and extent of some changes, climate models generally agree on the following projections for the Tuktoyaktuk area:

• Warmer air temperatures, with winters not being as cold and summers reaching

higher maximums (Kattsov et al., 2005; Christensen et al, 2007; Lemke et al,

2007)

122 • Increased precipitation, especially during winter (Carmack & Macdonald, 2002;

Christensen et al, 2007; Solomon, 2007)

• Increased storm frequency, especially in the autumn (Carmack & Macdonald,

2002)

• Greater variability of weather and timing of seasonal events (Carmack &

Macdonald, 2002; Hinzman et al, 2005; Nuttall et al, 2005)

These changes will be most noticeable as changes in the cryosphere (sea ice, ground ice/permafrost, snow, glaciers, and ice sheets), which in turn will affect wildlife and contribute to further climatic changes through feedback loops (Earner, 2007; Lemke et al, 2007). In relation to existing exposure-sensitivities in Tuktoyaktuk, the major areas of concern due to warming air temperatures are permafrost and sea ice. As will be discussed later in this section, both of these areas (as well as sea level rise, which is expected to occur due to melting of ice sheets and massive glaciers in Greenland and Antarctic) pose threats for Tuktoyaktuk's infrastructure (Kattsov et al, 2005; Anisimov et al, 2007).

Decreased sea ice extent and thickness will result in a longer open-water season and alter ecosystem and habitat conditions for marine wildlife (Carmack & Macdonald, 2002). In addition to these marine impacts, shifts in precipitation and temperature patterns will likely result in shifts in the movement and breeding success of terrestrial mammals (e.g. caribou) (Klein et al, 2005; Nuttall et al, 2005).

6.1.1 Implications for Future Exposure-sensitivities

Existing exposure-sensitivities in Tuktoyaktuk include the abundance and distribution of wildlife (sources of both food and financial income), factors that limit their ability to

123 access wildlife (e.g. cost of fuel and supplies, and limited time availability due to employment), demand for sport hunting (an important source of income in the community), health implications associated with store-bought foods (e.g. diabetes and hearth disease), availability of employment opportunities, and demand for tourist experiences (e.g. community tours and purchasing crafts). Potential changes that may exacerbate these conditions or create new opportunities are discussed in the following section. Projected changes in exposure-sensitivities related to infrastructure (coastal erosion, flooding, and permafrost degradation) are discussed in section 6.1.1.2.

6.1.1.1 Food Security and Livelihoods Exposure-sensitivities

Marine Species

Given that harvesting of polar bears, beluga whales, and fish (anadromous and marine) are dependant on seasonal events associated with sea ice, residents of Tuktoyaktuk are sensitive to future changes in the sea-ice dynamics of the Beaufort Sea. Climate has a dominant influence on the thickness and extent of sea ice, freshwater discharge from the

Mackenzie River, formation and location of flaw polynyas, and water temperatures, among other conditions. Several researchers have suggested that alterations to the timing of these conditions and seasonal events (e.g. timing of freeze-up and break-up) will have the most profound influences on ecosystems and wildlife, although predictions of precisely how these changing conditions will affect wildlife because little is known about the adaptability of particular species (Carmack & Macdonald, 2002; Hinzman et al.,

2005; Anisimov et al, 2007). Despite limitations in predictability, there are concerns that degradation of habitat or feeding conditions will cause dramatic declines in many wildlife

124 populations that residents of Tuktoyaktuk depend on for subsistence and livelihoods

(Ono, 1995; Solomon, 2007).

During winter months, several zones can be identified in the Beaufort Sea. Figure

21 depicts these zones as landfast ice, the stamukhi (rubbles), flaw leads (polynyas), and pack ice. Landfast ice can be up to two metres thick and extends over near-shore areas up to 20 metres in depth. At the outer edge of the landfast ice is the stamukhi ice, which is formed when chunks of ice are piled together by winds and currents. Stamukhi ice can extend to the seafloor, which enables the creation of a large freshwater lake under the landfast ice when the Mackenzie River discharges large amounts of water in early spring

(Carmack & Macdonald, 2002). Beyond the stamukhi are flaw polynyas, or patches of water that open and close intermittently, depending on wind conditions. Finally, there is pack ice, made up of single- and multi-year ice that extends northward.

Stamukhi First- Year Multi-Year I Flaw / Pack \ / Pack Landfast Ice Lead

LL t-r-v^- s/ v/ ' PML 10 Convectiovn ^ River Inner • Toy* 100 Shelf fiddle Qu^ f ML Shelf Ventilation (a) Winter -34- 1000

Figure 21: Cross sections of ice conditions in the Beaufort Sea during in late winter (from Carmack & Macdonald, 2002).

125 Changes related to timing are of prime concern in the Beaufort Sea, where variations in freeze-up and break-up events, nutrient and energy balances, and circulation patterns have dominant influences on fish, whales, and other marine animals (Dickson &

Gilchrist, 2002; Anisimov et al, 2007). According to Carmack and Macdonald (2002), the shallow areas of Kugmallit Bay are biologically productive in summer months due to mixing of nutrients, organic carbon, plankton, and sediments that come from both the

Mackenzie River and the Arctic Ocean. The timing of ice cover influences the light available for primary production and the mixing of nutrients between near-surface and deep waters. Each marine species is unique in the ways that it makes use of ice and saline and fresh water - these characteristics will determine the ability of particular species to adjust to changes since some changes may be tolerable and others not.

Interviewees in Tuktoyaktuk described how they have difficulties harvesting belugas in some years because ice conditions early in the summer season prevented many of the whales from entering the bay, or because weather conditions were not calm enough for harvesting while the whales were in the bay. Given the current health of the Eastern

Beaufort Sea stock, it is not anticipated that the population will suffer severe declines in the near future (DFO, 2000; Harwood & Smith, 2002; Harwood et al, 2002). The greater concern is that belugas may not enter Kugmallit Bay if ice conditions are not ideal (e.g. stamukhi blocking their passage), thus affecting the ability of residents of Tuktoyaktuk to access them for harvesting. If such mismatches in timing become more frequent, the ability of Tuktoyaktuk residents to use beluga as a reliable source of food could be at risk. There are currently very limited data available on specific ways that changes in

126 climate and ice conditions are expected to affect belugas, so it is difficult to assess whether these mismatches will become more frequent.

As highlighted in the previous chapter, anadromous fish are an important source of food for Tuktoyaktuk residents because most species have been consistently abundant and they are easily accessible in Tuktoyaktuk's harbour. Anadromous fish are particularly sensitive to changes in ice conditions since their life cycles are dependant on physical access to the Beaufort Sea and salt concentrations in nearshore areas (Community of

Tuktoyaktuk et al, 2000; Carmack & Macdonald, 2002; Inuvik Community Corporation et al, 2006; Cobb et al, 2008). Alterations in the timing of ice events could limit the ability of anadromous fish to access adequate food or make them more susceptible to predation and would have profound impacts on the availability of many fish species for residents of Tuktoyaktuk. An example of such a change is that the magnitude of freshwater discharge from the Mackenzie River would decrease if the length of the spring season increases (Carmack & Macdonald, 2002). The total quantity of freshwater discharge may not decrease (or may even increase due to increased winter precipitation) but if it is spread out over a longer time period, the concentration of freshwater in delta area will be lower. The concentration of freshwater in the delta area can also be affected by decreased extent of land-fast ice in the winter. If the stumakhi zone is closer to the shore, the volume of space available for trapping early spring freshwater discharge from the Mackenzie will be smaller.

Tuktoyaktuk residents are exposed and sensitive to both the abundance of polar bears and changes that influence the demand for polar bear sport hunts (an important source of income). Existing observations have revealed that survival rates of polar bears

127 in the southern Beaufort Sea are lower in years with a longer ice-free season since the bears have less time for hunting and building up fat stores (Stirling et al, 1999; Derocher et al, 2004; Bentzen et al, 2007; Regehr et al, 2007). Factors that are expected to affect polar bears in the future include the following (Stirling & Derocher, 1993; Derocher et al, 2004; Bentzen et al, 2007; Durner et al, 2007):

• Decrease in the overall extent of sea ice

• Decrease in multiyear ice

• Increased density of polar bears due to loss of habitat area

• Stresses on denning areas that could result in lower cub survival rates

• Decreased ability to travel on sea ice

• Availability of prey

• Increased human-bear interactions (around communities and with shipping

traffic)

• Increased exposure to contaminants and disease

Changes in polar bear populations would result in the loss of a species that has great important for livelihoods in Tuktoyaktuk.

As discussed in section 5.1.1, significant declines in the number of polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea have not yet occurred. The decision in the U.S.A. to list polar bears as a 'threatened' species relates to projected loss of critical sea ice habitat for the bears within the next 45 years. Some polar bear scientists believe that there is insufficient empirical data to support claims that climate change will cause significant habitat loss,

128 and that the adaptability of polar bears is being downplayed. Dyck et al. (2007) argued that long-term human-polar bear interactions (capture for research, wandering into towns, and interactions with boats, oil platforms, harvesters, and tourists) and adjustments in habitat use and foraging techniques indicate that polar bears will have success in adjusting to anticipated changes in sea ice. Other polar bear scientists who are skeptical of predicted polar bear declines (including Mitchell Taylor, Government of Nunavut and

Lee Foote, University of Alberta) have gone on the record publicly with their views

(Robbins, 2007) but they do not have not have recent data or publications to support their arguments. In general, they do not discount the likely negative synergistic effects of climate change and other human influences, but they do not believe that they will result in extreme declines of the species as a whole (Robbins, 2007). The important aspect of these debates is that they restrictions on importing polar bear products into the U.S.A. is having immediate influences on the demand for polar bear sport hunts. Since American sport hunters are not longer certain about their ability to import polar bear products, it is expected that there will be a sharp decline in the number of sport hunts in Tuktoyaktuk and a loss of income for outfitters and their families.

Terrestrial Species

On the basis of Tuktoyaktuk residents' dependence on caribou and waterfowl for food and cultural needs, changes in climate that may influence these terrestrial species are particularly important. As indicated in the previous chapter, declines in the abundance of caribou have been a major source of stress for Tuktoyaktuk residents. In a study of climate change impacts on caribou in Greenland, Post et al. (2008) use the term 'trophic mismatch' to describe temporal and spatial shifts in resource (food) availability relative

129 to migration movement of caribou herds. There are indications that warmer spring temperatures are leading to earlier commencement of primary production in vegetation, but that caribou have not begun their migrations sooner. Early results indicate that timing of caribou migrations and calving are cued by daylight so they do not reach their calving grounds in time for the earlier peak availability of food resources and, consequently, have lower reproductive success (Post & Forschhammer, 2008; Post et al., 2008). Studies of these phenomena have not been carried out for barren-ground caribou near Tuktoyaktuk but it is reasonable to speculate that they are having or will have similar experiences since they display the same dependence on seasonality. Studies that emphasize the magnitude of climatic changes, have speculated that increased snowfall or rain during autumn and winter will limit the foraging ability of caribou and cause them to move slower, making them more prone to predators (especially wolves) (Gunn, 1995). There are concerns that if natural fluctuations in population sizes are compounded with these changes, caribou herds may not recover. While caribou populations are known to fluctuate in 30 to 40 year cycles, new pressures may prevent them fully recovering in the future, thus removing an important food source for Tuktoyaktuk residents.

Harvesting of waterfowl is an important cultural and social activity for residents of

Tuktoyaktuk. Projections of climate change impacts on waterfowl are extremely difficult since their lifecycles involve a great range of ecosystems and climates. Of greatest relevance for Tuktoyaktuk residents is the timing of their arrival, their migration routes, and their health when the reach the ISR. Some interviewees described how geese follow marks on the land each year that mark their migration routes and said that if snow melts earlier they could end up taking different routes north. Appropriate habitat along

130 migration routes and in the ISR is of great importance for waterfowl to feed and have reproductive success (Community of Tuktoyaktuk et al, 2000). As mentioned with caribou, mismatches in arrival of waterfowl and availability of high quality food sources could pose great risks for their health.

Existing observations indicate that in years when the spring break-up occurs early, harvests of lesser snow geese, Canada geese, and white-fronted geese tend to be greater

(Bromley, 1996; Joint Secretariat, 2003). Thus, earlier spring break-up due to decreased overall sea ice extent may provide greater availability of waterfowl for residents of

Tuktoyaktuk. On the other hand, timing of spring melt and break-up could become more variable, making it difficult for harvesters to have the right timing and location to capitalize on the main migration runs (Dickson & Gilchrist, 2002). Residents in

Tuktoyaktuk who have jobs but want to participate in the spring hunt may not be successful in their efforts because of limited flexibility in time. Furthermore, even if earlier spring break-ups do become more regular and Tuktoyaktuk residents have successful harvests, the amount that waterfowl contribute to diets is relatively small, as shown in the previous chapter. The main benefit of being able to continue the spring hunt would be maintaining cultural and community identity.

Many reports on climate change in the Arctic have pointed to increased safety risks while travelling on snow and sea ice (e.g. Krupnik & Jolly, 2002; Nuttall et ah, 2005;

Ford et al, 2006a; Nickels et al, 2006; Anisimov et al, 2007), but interviewees in

Tuktoyaktuk did not express similar sentiments. Their self-perceived safety is partly on account of confidence in their awareness of hazardous areas and conditions, and partly on account of the type of travel they do in various seasons. For example, they do not travel

131 to the edge of ice floes during spring and are not subject to risks associated with thin ice in those areas or drifting on breakaway ice floes. Towards the end of the spring hunt, when residents are inland or along the coast, they are very aware of ice and snow conditions and there have been no reported instances of injury or death due to unpredictable conditions. This is expected to continue since many residents only spend a small fraction of their time harvesting on the land; even full-time harvesters rarely travel far distances from the community or put themselves at risk during break-up and freeze- up. This is not to say that accidents do not happen, but there are no indications that

Tuktoyaktuk residents will be at greater risk in these areas on account of changes in cryospheric or other environmental conditions.

Preparing Harvested Foods

Most residents of Tuktoyaktuk have sensitivities to changes in harvested foods since they rely on them as either as a main food source, a part of a diverse diet, or connections with

Inuvialuit culture. Changes in climate are expected to cause increasing challenges related to preparation of harvested foods. As indicated in the previous chapter, extreme heat or extended periods with warm temperatures will limit the ability of Tuktoyaktuk residents to prepare dryfish, drymeat, and muktuk. Some interviewees stated that they have already begun to experience days that are not suitable for drying fish or meat and that if the frequency of hot days increases, they will have challenges in preparing food for storage.

If such changes do occur, Tuktoyaktuk residents will have to adapt new ways of preparing and storing their harvested foods, or they may have to rely more on store- bought foods. In the latter case, stresses related to nutrition and health will become more prevalent in the community.

132 Transportation and Tourism

Given the limited sources of employment and income in Tuktoyaktuk, transportation and tourism may play important roles in the changing livelihoods in Tuktoyaktuk. Reduced extent of sea ice and longer open water seasons are very likely to increase the volume of shipping traffic in the Arctic and allow more exploitation of natural resources (ACIA,

2005). In particular, if the Northwest Passage becomes a navigable sea route on an annual basis, there will be more ship traffic passing Tuktoyaktuk moving east and west. The

Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (sponsored by the Arctic Council) is currently undertaking a study of the environmental, social and economic impacts of current and potential future impacts of Arctic shipping. The results of this study are expected in 2009.

Although the results of the study are not available, the magnitude of such a study provides an indication that Arctic nations, including Canada, are hoping to take advantage of new economic opportunities. Wilson et al. (2004) caution that even if the

Northwest Passage becomes more navigable through reduced sea ice, there will still be a great deal of interannual variability of conditions and narrow channels could still pose navigation problems and hazards.

For Tuktoyaktuk, the social and economic impacts of shipping are not likely to be too significant. Although Tuktoyaktuk does have a sheltered harbour that is active with shipping activity, the harbour is not deep enough for the draft requirements of large vessels. Increased shipping activity associated with opening of sea routes or industrial activity will largely make use of large tankers that would not be able to enter

Tuktoyaktuk's harbour. While there currently are no other large ports in the western

Canadian Arctic, some potential sites have been identified that could accommodate deep-

133 draft vessels (Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk, 1984). Tuktoyaktuk's harbour, however, is expected to maintain its role as a re-supply station for NTCL so that it can bring supplies to other Arctic communities on barges. Indeed, if the ice-free season becomes longer, there will be more potential shipping days for supplies coming from the south via the

Mackenzie River.

Transportation via the winter ice road (connecting Tuktoyaktuk to Inuvik) is another exposure-sensitivity that will likely be affected by changes in climate. In years when there is very little precipitation in the autumn, the ice road is constructed earlier since the ground is able to reach cool temperatures quickly. Snow cover acts as insulation and prevents the ground from cooling to necessary temperatures. If climate change does result in more precipitation in the autumn, the length of the ice road season could be shortened.

It is very unlikely that changing conditions will prevent the ice road from being built in the foreseeable future. A shortened ice road season, however, will have implications for the availability and cost of food and other consumable goods. Many Tuktoyaktuk residents rely on travelling on the ice road to Inuvik for Christmas shopping and to visit family so delays in its construction could cause considerable frustration and financial stress.

Recent interest in the Arctic provides some indication that new tourism opportunities could arise. As marine navigation becomes more affordable and safe, there is a possibility that more cruise ships will pass through the area, bringing a potential market for crafts and other cultural goods. Tuktoyaktuk also receives a tourist draw from the pingos that dot the surrounding landscape. Negotiations for the creation of a 'Pingo

National Landmark' were initiated with the signing of the IFA in the early 1980s but the

134 full set of plans for a boardwalk and other tourist-friendly features are yet to be implemented. The Pingo National Landmark contains two of the largest pingos in the region (one of the pingos, called Ibyuk, is the second highest pingo in the world).

Increased ease of transportation could enable greater tourist demand and opportunity for

Tuktoyaktuk, thus providing new livelihoods opportunities.

6.1.1.2 Infrastructure Exposure-sensitivities

The three exposure-sensitivities for Tuktoyaktuk's infrastructure are stability of permafrost under buildings, flooding, and coastal erosion. Given that all of Tuktoyaktuk is built on permafrost, there are risks associated with disturbances to the permafrost's thermal regime that can cause shifting and damage to buildings and other infrastructure.

Couture et al. (2002) estimated that more than 40 percent of Tuktoyaktuk's buildings were constructed using 'shallow' foundation systems that are very susceptible to frost heaving and slippage. Warmer summer air temperatures and a longer summer season that are projected for the western Canadian Arctic will exacerbate existing risks to

Tuktoyaktuk's infrastructure (Manson & Solomon, 2007). Projections of climate change indicate that permafrost melting may cause significant damage to infrastructure within the next 50 years (Furgal & Prowse, 2008). There is some risk for personal safety if changes are rapid, but the greatest risks are damage and loss of personal or public property. Most of this damage can be avoided through construction techniques that minimize disturbance to the upper layer of permafrost because they do not initiate the disturbance of the permafrost.

Flooding is an exposure-sensitivity for Tuktoyaktuk since most of the community is located on low-lying land. As described previously, storm surges from the north and west

135 can cause sea level to rise substantially around Tuktoyaktuk. Strong storm events and flooding have been experienced in both autumn (September 1993) and winter (December

2001). Manson and Solomon (2006) modeled what would happen if a storm of that same magnitude as the 1993 storm (with 2.20 metre sea level rise) hit in the year 2050. With a projected 0.31 metre RSL rise, such a storm even would flood many roads in the community and cut off access to the airport. Given statistical probabilities, it is unlikely that such an event will occur within the next 20 years, but the potential is there for it to occur at any time (Manson & Solomon, 2006). Given this potential increases in storm magnitude and frequency, Couture et al (2002) caution that extreme storm events would flood most of Tuktoyaktuk, including houses and the sewage and garbage lagoons.

As explained in the previous chapter, coastal erosion (an exposure-sensitivity) is greatest in years that have late freeze-up and strong storms in the late summer and fall.

Several projections of impacts from climate change are particularly relevant for coastal processes and rates of erosion:

• Warmer summer temperatures will cause melting of ice-bonded sediments

(Manson et al, 2005; Manson & Solomon, 2007)

• Decreased extent of sea ice will allow longer open water seasons and a

longer period for storms to impact shorelines (Manson et al, 2005; Manson

& Solomon, 2007)

• Frequency of storm events in general may decrease, but frequency of severe

storm events may increase in the late summer and autumn (Manson &

Solomon, 2007)

136 • RSL rise is expected to continue at a rate of 3.5±0.1 mm/year and possibly

accelerate (Manson et al, 2005)

Shoreline protection has slowed the recent rates of erosion along Tuktoyaktuk's north­ west shoreline. Future rates of erosion are difficult to project since it is unknown how the shoreline protection will respond to extreme storm events. Johnson et al. (2003) made an attempt at projecting the future progression of erosion by assessing historical retreat rates and existing information about effectiveness of shoreline protection measures. These projections are depicted in Figure 22 (note that they have assumed that no more shoreline protection will be added). According to Johnson et al.'s (2003) projections, approximately 10 buildings would be damaged or destroyed within 10 years; after 25 years, 5 more buildings may be damaged or destroyed. Slightly less extreme projections were made by Couture et al. (2002), who estimated that the sandspit at Tuktoyaktuk's northern tip (Flagpole Point) and Tuktoyaktuk Island (located just east of the tip, at the mouth of the harbour) will be below average sea level within the next 25 to 50 years. It is commonly believed that once these protective barriers disappear, Tuktoyaktuk's inner harbour will be very susceptible to rapid erosion.

137 Legend

Roads Existing Shoreline czi Buildings

Erosion Estimate 10 year prediction of maximum extent of storm erosion 25 year prediction of maximum extent of storm erosion

40 0 40 80 120 Meters

Figure 22: Projected maximum shoreline progression after 10 and 25 years (from Johnson et at, 2003).

138 6.2 Mackenzie Valley Pipeline

The proposed Mackenzie Valley Pipeline will have several impacts on food security and livelihood exposure-sensitivities if development proceeds. In particular, the abundance and distribution of wildlife, harvesters' to access wildlife, and availability of employment opportunities are expected to be influenced by the pipeline and associated anchor field development. These implications will be discussed in this section. The Mackenzie Valley

Pipeline is also expected to influence future adaptive capacity in Tuktoyaktuk, as will be discussed in the next section.

Oil and gas exploration began in the Mackenzie Delta in 1962 and in the Beaufort

Sea in 1973 (Fast et al, 2001). Following discovery of oil in 1970 by Imperial Oil, there was a boom of activity and interest and explorations expanded throughout the Delta and

Beaufort Sea areas (National Energy Board, 1998). Tuktoyaktuk became a base for operations for several oil and gas companies due its harbour and proximity to the Delta.

Its airstrip was also extended to accommodate large planes (Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk,

1984). Despite optimism about the size and quality of the oil and gas reserves, the feasibility of commercial development was in question because of the challenges associated with transporting oil and gas to markets in the south. Shipping is considered dangerous due to Arctic sea routes and is limited by the short summer season. A natural gas pipeline has been widely viewed as the most viable option (Chapin et al, 2004;

Huntington, 2007). A natural gas pipeline that would follow the Mackenzie Valley and end at Alberta's tar sands was proposed but concerns over socio-economic and environmental impacts prompted the federal government to commission an assessment.

The assessment was led by Justice Thomas Berger, who made the unprecedented move of

139 carrying out extensive consultations with all aboriginal communities that could be affected by the pipeline. In his 1977 report, Berger made several recommendations, including the creation of new national parks to protect wildlife, alterations to the proposed pipeline route, and a ten year moratorium on granting exploration licenses.

Operational costs of oil and gas development in the Arctic is considerably higher than for southern regions due to the technical challenges and risks associated with harsh winters and ice conditions (Huntington, 2007). When oil prices dropped in the 1980s, the prospect of development became much less financially feasible and exploration came to a halt. By 2000 oil prices were rising again and exploration work resumed in the Beaufort

Sea. The peaks in oil prices seen in Figure 23 correspond with periods of activity in the

Mackenzie Delta and Beaufort Sea areas and demonstrate the influence of global economic forces. With oil prices at all-time highs in 2008, the possibility of producing oil has become more lucrative for oil companies again and a new pipeline proposal is under review3. The proposal for the Mackenzie Gas Project (MGP) is based upon development of three anchor fields west of Tuktoyaktuk, known as Parsons Lake, Taglu, and

Niglintgak. These anchor fields and the proposed pipeline route can be seen in Figure 24.

3 The proposal for the Mackenzie Gas Project was put forward by Shell Canada Limited, Conoco Phillips Canada (North) Limited, ExxonMobil, Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited, and the Aboriginal Pipeline Group (of which, the Inuvialuit are a party through the Inuvialuit Development Corporation) and was initially estimated to cost $7.5 billion. More recent figures estimate that the cost of the project will be over $15 billion. 140 Crude Oil Prices 2006 Dollars $70 OPEC 10 % Quota Increase PDVSA Strike Iraq War Asian Econ Crisis Iran / Iraq Asian Growth $60 War

Iranian $50 Revolution til OC DC < CD. $40 «&

© © CM $30

$20 Yom Kippur War Oil Embargo $10 l—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 1947-Aug. 2007 WTRG Economics ©1998-2007 www.wtrg.com — U.S. 1st Purchase Price { Wellhead ) "World Price" * (479) 293-4081 Avg U.S. $29.08 Avg World $32.23 Median World $26.90

Figure 23: Crude oil prices 1970-2007 (source: WTRG, 2008).

Whereas all aboriginal groups who live along the pipeline route were opposed to its development when Berger undertook his assessment in the 1970s, many groups are now supporters and proponents of the project. Salokangas (2005) examined Inuvialuit opinions of the pipeline and development of the three anchor fields in the ISR and found several reasons for their change from opposition to support of the project:

• Settlement of the IFA and the perceived ability of Inuvialuit to influence

decision-making

Renewed trust of the federal government and oil companies

141 • Many Inuvialuit are more dependant on wage labour than they were in the

1970s

• Changes in the pipeline proposal itself

• Optimism about employment and training possibilities for Inuvialuit

Salokangas (2005) also found that Inuvialuit expressed concerns about loss of culture, environmental degradation, and socio-economic impacts (especially substance abuse and violence), and increased cost of living. Interviews and informal conversations associated with this thesis were consistent with these findings.

Figure 24: Route of the proposed Mackenzie Valley Pipleline. Red dots indicated location of three proposed anchor fields. Tuktoyaktuk is located slightly east of the anchor fields. (Map from www.imckenziegasproject.com).

142 Two new review processes have been initiated by the federal government for assessing impacts of the MGP. The National Energy Board carried out an assessment of the economic, technical and engineering aspects of the project and released their report in

2006. The Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project (JRP) was formed for assessing social and environmental impacts of the MGP. The JRP has had delays in completing its assessment but it is expected that their report will be released in early

2009. It is widely anticipated that the JRP's report will favour moving forward with development but long delays in these regulatory processes have raised concerns that one of two competing pipeline proposals (both originating from Alaska's North Slope) will break ground first and prevent MGP from being built because it would no longer be economically feasible.

6.2.1 Implications for Future Exposure-sensitivities

6.2.1.1 livelihood Exposure-sensitivities

Development of the MGP would have a substantial impact on the exposure-sensitivity of employment opportunities. As a major development project, the MGP would generate a boom of employment for construction of the pipeline and setting up drilling at the three anchor fields. Perspectives gathered from interviews and participation observations indicate that Tuktoyaktuk residents are anticipating that the MGP and spin-off businesses will provide employment for anyone who is willing. This optimism needs to be tempered by an understanding of the variable nature of the oil and gas industry. Tuktoyaktuk residents will be able to attain employment during the construction phases of the project but there will be fewer jobs during operation and it is likely that only those with sufficient education will be employed long term. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 23 above, oil

143 prices fluctuate greatly because of international events, so employment levels will go through boom and bust cycles. Nuttall (2006) estimated that 2,600 short-term positions will be available during construction of the pipeline and related facilities and 50 long- term positions will be available for operation and maintenance.

The large number of workers involved with construction of the pipeline and anchor fields will generate more demand for energy, food, and water resources. For the most part, these demands will not affect Tuktoyaktuk because the workers will be housed in camps that are self-sufficient. However, the influx of cash into Tuktoyaktuk's economy will generate new spin-off businesses and some new residents from the south who will stay in the community either part-time or full-time. These businesses and people will create new demand on infrastructure and resources within the community.

6.2.1.1 Food Security Exposure-sensitivities

Given the exposure-sensitivity of Tuktoyaktuk residents to changes in the distribution and abundance of wildlife, and the ability of Tuktoyaktuk residents to access wildlife

(influenced by affordability of supplies and time available for harvesting), the MGP poses great risks if development proceeds. During interviews for this thesis, many interviewees expressed concerns about degradation of habitat and disturbances to wildlife due to the MGP:

"Migration with caribou would change. They don't like noise. That's why we say

no to another airport at Parson's Lake. Noisy enough with Tuk and Inuvik. All

weather road will be better for sure. Less noise."

David Nasogaluak

144 "You know, you've got to go a long, long ways in order to get snow geese. And I

now see it with the climate change and now you know with the natural gasline

coming on you don't know how its going to affect the behaviour of the animals. Its

bad enough them trying to adjust to the environment, to the changes in the

weather and atmosphere. But now you know they have to deal with the impact of

activity in part of their habitat area."

Randal Pokiak

Infrastructure built up around the MGP (secondary pipelines, roads, drilling sites) will fragment and shrink habitat areas, which is especially problematic for caribou and waterfowl because they migrate over larger areas (Huntington, 2007). There is currently no published information about such potential impacts but the JRP's assessment is expected to cover these topics. There are also potential threats to marine species since roughly half of the oil and discoveries in the ISR are located in the Beaufort Sea

(National Energy Board, 1998). Since the three anchor fields that will be developed initially are onshore, most of the impacts in the near future will be related to habitat degradation, as described above. Once these areas are exploited, it is likely that attention will turn to the Beaufort Sea. The greatest area of risk for drilling in the Beaufort Sea is oil spills (Nuttall, 2006; Huntington, 2007). Some research has indicated that belugas may be able to survive the direct impacts of oil spills, but they would be detrimentally affected by impacts to the food chain (DFO, 2000). Fish and waterfowl are very susceptible to oil spills since they congregate in large numbers and do not occupy a wide range of habitat areas within the Beaufort Sea (Dickson & Gilchrist, 2002). There is currently a lack of infrastructure and training among Inuvialuit communities to support

145 clean-up activities if an oil spill does occur (Dickson & Gilchrist, 2002). Thus, exposure- sensitivities related to the abundance and distribution of caribou, waterfowl, fish and belugas may be exacerbated in the future and cause further food security risks.

Access to wildlife will be altered for many residents of Tuktoyaktuk who would be employed during the construction phase of the MGP. Their participation in subsistence harvesting would be limited due to decreased time available, thus affecting the type and variety of food available for their families. For many residents of Tuktoyaktuk, these changes would be short term since employment rates will decline sharply once construction of the pipeline is complete. Tuktoyaktuk residents who are able to secure long-term employment with the MGP would face long-term changes in their dietary choices.

6.3 Future Adaptive Capacity

As discussed in chapter 2, the adaptive capacity of Tuktoyaktuk residents, and the community as a whole, is influenced by operational and strategic variables that can facilitate or constrain adaptations. As noted earlier, there is a lot of variability in the capacity of individuals and groups within the community to adapt to particular exposure- sensitivities. Some people may be able to adapt to certain exposure-sensitivities but face constraints related to operational or strategic variables that limit their ability to adapt to other exposure-sensitivities. The discussion in the following sections offers some insights into operational and strategic issues.

146 63.1 Operational Issues Influencing Future Adaptive Capacity

Interview data and participant observation indicate that those who are able to take advantage of opportunities in both the wage economy and subsistence harvesting have the greatest capacity to adapt to changing conditions (this finding is consistent with reporting from Freeman, 2000; Berkes & Jolly, 2001; and Turner et al., 2003). For example, there is a family in Tuktoyaktuk that operates a tour company to provide an income during summer months. The flexibility in their time schedule allows some family members to also participate in subsistence harvesting and store food for the entire year. Financial stability is an important operational issue for adaptive capacity in terms of monetary income and control over resources for harvesting and other tourism related activities. If conditions for either tourism or harvesting become stressed, this family would have other income or food resources to draw upon.

Provisions of the JPA enable all Inuvialuit to harvest as much as they need for subsistence (barring cases such as the barren-ground caribou that have declined drastically and restrictions can be put in place under the advice of Inuvialuit). Despite the lack of institutional constraints, many Inuvialuit do not rely substantially on harvesting as a food source or for generating income. Some Tuktoyaktuk residents (mainly outfitters) do base their livelihoods on harvesting, while others try to balance employment with occasional harvesting. During interviews, experienced harvesters unanimously discussed the importance of spending time on the land in order to learn about the movements of wildlife, what to expect for travelling conditions, and how to avoid dangerous situations.

People who spend more time employed become distanced from the skills and knowledge they need for harvesting. Some interviewees described the great disparity between those

147 who have jobs or focus on subsistence harvesting, and those who seem unwilling to work hard.

"There are a lot of people that have the ability to work and are working. They can

make a living. There's some that rely on the government for the social assistance

that is available to them. And there's a lot of people that are balancing both the

wage and the traditional lifestyle. To me, those are the ones that seem to be

more... they have more success because they are able to live the lifestyle of the

past and then take advantage of the present in terms of wages and the commercial

opportunities that are out there."

Eddie Dillon

There are many young couples in the community who do not participate in subsistence harvesting on a regular basis (due to lack of financial capital for purchasing their own equipment or lack of interest in traditional activities) and also have difficulties finding consistent employment. These families have limited flexibility for dealing with stress because they are not able to supplement their diets with subsistence harvesting during times of financial constraint.

In light of potential future coastal erosion and flooding exposure-sensitivities it is apparent that the Hamlet lacks sufficient financial and technological resources to prevent damages to infrastructure through shoreline protection measures. The only long-term guarantee for avoiding damages to buildings and infrastructure is to relocate specific elements that are at risk. Several factors that constrain the possibility of relocating the community were discussed in the previous chapter, including substantial funding requirements that are not available at the community level and lack of an inland road that

148 would facilitate relocation. These issues are mainly financial and technical constraints since political leadership in the community has consistently supported the notion of working towards long-term or permanent adaptations. At present, the Hamlet relies on

MACA (GNWT) and the federal government to fund shoreline protection measures.

MACA has limited funds available since it oversees municipal issues across NWT (where construction and operational costs are very high due to remoteness and harsh environmental conditions).

The growth of Tuktoyaktuk's population will cause increased stresses associated with physical space in the community. The population of Tuktoyaktuk has experienced a natural growth rate (births minus deaths) of approximately 20 people per year over the last two decades (Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk, 1984; GNWT, 2007; Statistics Canada, 2007).

The age profile in Figure 25 demonstrates how this trend of growth will likely continue, as 56 percent of the population is under 30 years of age. Demand for residential land in

Tuktoyaktuk is already high and the number of houses required for the growing population is expected to increase by 30 to 50% over the next 20 years (Johnson et al,

2003). There are a number of abandoned buildings and empty lots in the community that could provide some flexibility for locating new buildings but these will only provide relief for a short time before more permanent solutions are found (i.e. relocation of part or all of the community). In addition to the financial issues described above, these pressures from population growth represent technical issues that constrain adaptive capacity since there is no space within existing community boundaries for relocating infrastructure.

149 onn 180 180 160 • 160 - Hi H 150 £140- 0 H„„ • • • 115 2 120 - •H • • a. Hn m HI 100 •• 100 o 100 • •H 1H H • •1 J! 80- E • • I • • • = 60 - • H H • • •j z n• j • n • ^^^^fl •• n 35 40 - m IH 25 20 0 1 • _ 0to19 10I to 19I 20 t o 29 301 to 39 401 to 49 501 to 59 60 to 69 70 to 79 80 years years years years years years years years years and over

Figure 25: Age distribution of Tuktoyaktuk in 2007 (data from Statistics Canada, 2007).

A proposed all-weather road between Tuktoyaktuk and Inuvik would have several benefits for the community, including increased ability to adapt to continued shoreline erosion and risks to buildings and infrastructure (alleviating some technical and financial issues). In the short term, it can provide access to much-needed gravel and aggregate sources that will enable the Hamlet to further protect the shoreline and slow down erosion is sensitive areas. In the long term, it will open up possibilities for relocating part or all of the community further inland. Advocates of the all-weather road also believe that the road would open up the community for new economic opportunities and enable more affordable transportation of food and goods into the community. Indeed, increased accessed to Tuktoyaktuk would alleviate some exposure-sensitivities related to livelihoods and food security by lowering the cost of food and supplies and generating new opportunities for tourism and employment.

150 Comparison of Tuktoyaktuk with communities in Alaska that are facing similar or more severe risks to infrastructure due to erosion provides some useful insights about adaptive capacity. Shishmaref is the most well-known and most extreme example of coastal erosion in the Arctic. Rates of erosion have been extreme due to degradation of permafrost during community construction and high tides during storm surges. In response to imminent threats to buildings and roads, the community formed the

Shishmaref Erosion & Relocation Coalition and has created a strategic plan for community relocation. The Coalition has also developed a media campaign for raising the funding needed for community relocation through private donations and lobbying support from the United States government. Thus, this community has acted to enhance its adaptive capacity by addressing restraints related to institutions (definition of roles and responsibilities) and financial support. Similar efforts could be initiated in Tuktoyaktuk through the formation of a committee or coalition that would co-ordinate efforts from organizations within the community and various government agencies that would be required for supporting relocation. With the absence of a long-term plan for Tuktoyaktuk, the territorial and federal governments will be called upon to provide funding for protecting additional portions of the shoreline (especially the spit at Flagpole point and

Tuktoyaktuk Island) or providing relief support in the event of flooding or rapid erosion.

Another concern for adaptive capacity relates to the ability of the community to respond to extreme weather events that can exacerbate flooding and coastal erosion exposure-sensitivities. At present, the community does not have any disaster management plans specifically addressing these scenarios. Interviews in Tuktoyaktuk indicated that

Hamlet staff, airport staff, and volunteer firefighters are aware of their responsibilities in

151 case of emergencies but the community as a whole is not prepared for coordinated plans.

Although the rate of erosion or flooding during a strong storm event would be slow enough to allow people to ensure their personal safety, damage to many buildings and infrastructure will be inevitable given their present locations.

Perhaps the largest external driver of change in future adaptive capacity will be the

MGP if development does proceed. Interviews and participant observation indicate that many Tuktoyaktuk residents see development of the pipeline as a source of long-term employment and financial stability. However, oil companies outside observers anticipate that employment opportunities associated with the pipeline and anchor field sites will decline once construction is complete and production commences. Some people in

Tuktoyaktuk who are able to obtain consistent long-term employment will have a stable income for meeting their family's needs. The downside for these people is that they will likely be dislocated from subsistence and cultural activities (mainly due to time constraints) and not be prepared to switch to subsistence harvesting as an alternative if they lose their jobs. Upon reflection of education levels presented in Figure 7 in chapter

3.5, there are indications that few people in Tuktoyaktuk will be qualified for skilled labour or management positions since high school and post-secondary completion rates are very low. Students who are currently in high school may be in ideal positions to take advantage of employment opportunities that require higher qualifications because they can direct their education accordingly. The implication for adaptive capacity is that while the MGP may provide some short-term alleviation of financial constraints for individuals and families, it may serve to further exacerbate livelihood exposure-sensitivities in the long term.

152 63.2 Strategic Issues Influencing Future Adaptive Capacity

One of the strongest aspects of adaptive capacity among Inuvialuit in Tuktoyaktuk is their willingness to work with oil and gas companies (and other companies) to generate positive changes in their community. Instead of protesting developments that they know will have some detrimental affects for wildlife and harvesting, they pushed forward to settle their land claim in the early 1980s and expressed willingness to compromise through submissions at the JRP hearings (personal observation during JRP hearing in

Tuktoyaktuk, July 2007). Many submissions to the JRP from Tuktoyaktuk residents advocated the construction of an all-weather road between Tuktoyaktuk and Inuvik.

Freeman (2001) emphasized the role of sharing and social networks in food security for Inuit. Willingness to share food and other resources are highly regarded in Inuit culture. Usher (2002) asserted that Inuvialuit households are linked through sharing, exchange, and partnership. While this may be true to some extent in Tuktoyaktuk, many interviewees talked about social divisions within the community and selfishness.

"A lot of people are asking for fish and muktuk this year. Some of them are

working and some of them have no way of going out hunting. Some of them are

just plain lazy. They like to take things when its just ready. And these are the ones

that I tell that they should be helping. Instead if they want something, they've got

to come and help me. I'm concerned about the ones that are lazy. They can't

really live on social assistance all the time. You know, you just go and help.

There's a lot of elders that are lonely. Some of them are disabled, like they could

do things but not really. They are the ones that I worry about. The ones that are

just staying at home and just waiting for somebody to give them something. A lot

153 of people could be just like that, they could live at home. My husband is 65 and he

could just live at home and ask people for this and that. But in life you can't do

that, you have to keep going."

anonymous Tuktoyaktuk resident

"When you think back in our history we wouldn 't exist if there wasn 't co­

operation amongst our people before. Helping each other get through the

toughest times of life. Not one person can go get a whale. It takes a whole family

to work at it, to put it away. And those days it took quite a bit of hunters to go out

there and get it together. And it was always sharing. You don't have that

nowadays. There are some that have and some that don't have. And those that

don't have are always pointing fingers at the ones that have. If they get out and

help themselves then they can share in the bounty too. I use the scenario about the

little seagulls in their nests... some of them act like that and just keep their mouths

open, wanting to be fed at home instead of going out there and chasing it and

getting it."

Eddie Dillon

As these quotes demonstrate, sharing networks within Tuktoyaktuk have become less reciprocal than they were in the past. Social divisions were also particularly apparent in discussions about some community leaders who have used positions of power to benefit their own friends and family. In terms of strategic conditions, these issues indicate that mistrust and social division are negatively influencing adaptive capacity.

154 Another issue related to Tuktoyaktuk's young and growing population is that many youth do not demonstrate interest in participating in traditional culture. Elders lamented how youth don't show respect, have no interest in learning Inuvialuktun, don't observe their parents and elders to learn about subsistence activities, and that time is running out for addressing these problems because many elders are passing away.

"I can feel the change around here. You know, the respect, really... the younger

kids got no more respect. But all the dollars. Changed you know. Perhaps you go

by dollar or... You learn from the schools or something. You learn from the books

or something. That's really got no respect. You know, long ago we were more

closer. We talked to each other. Right now somebody passes you on the street and

they don't even look at you or anything. In my young days we helped an elder

person or somebody when they needed help. We went down and helped, a whole

bunch of us, you know. Right now, they see when you're working and a bunch of

people pass you and some won't even look at you. That's the changes. That's

really hard."

David Nasogaluak

The implication of the loss of culture is a further degradation of community and loss of flexibility for livelihoods and food security.

Another strategic constraint to adaptive capacity in Tuktoyaktuk relates to substance abuse (cycles of physical and emotional abuse and lack of community building), which is already affecting people in Tuktoyaktuk. Substance abuse generates further cultural, community (mistrust), and power dynamic issues in the community. Participant observation and informal conversations revealed that many residents (especially youth)

155 end up spending money on alcohol and drugs when they are hired for short-term or contract jobs. The following quote touches on choices to sacrifice subsistence harvesting described above and the way that many people spend their time off when they have contract work.

"Well, now it seems they prefer to buy [food from the store] because they are

looking for jobs more during the winter now because there's a lot of camps that

open up during the winter. Drilling rigs. Surveying. And there's seismic work.

And because of that people have to spend a month or a couple weeks out in the

camps working, where that time could have been spent hunting like long ago. And

now instead of that they are only working at camps. Some of them will go and

hunt on their time off but its a bother if you can just go to the store and buy it.

Come back to town to party. You go out there to work for a few weeks. Come back

to town, drinking. Before you know it, you 've got to go back to work. Their time

off spent hung over. One week off, one week drink. That's the main affect I think,

is the drugs and alcohol."

Lucky Pokiak

The predominant pattern and cause for concern in Tuktoyaktuk (as in other Inuit communities) is binge drinking because it is known to be a factor in violence, accidents, employment and family problems, and unwanted sexual contacts (Korhonen, 2004).

Treatment of substance abuse is inadequate throughout NWT and especially within the

ISR. Institutional responsibility for these issues rests with the Department of Health and

Social Services, GNWT, which is based outside of Tuktoyaktuk. Individuals who choose to enter drug or alcohol rehabilitation centres must travel to Hay River or down to

156 Alberta. These centres do not provide service that is culturally appropriate for Inuvialuit and are generally ineffective in the long term because people tend to go back to old patterns once they return to their community (Korhonen, 2004; Jiwa et al, 2008).

"They are living in a really vicious cycle, you know. Self destructing. Which is

really sad because a lot of our people are smart. They're really smart people but

they don't have the inner strength to get out of the lifestyle that they are in that's

harming themselves and others. Like into drugs and alcohol and its just not... its

really sad because these people are really smart and they could make a difference

if they want. You know, with some support and that they could get out of it. If we

had real strong leadership that's therefor the whole community, then we would

see changes socially and in all areas of our lifestyles."

Rita Green

It is evident that strategic issues affecting the adaptive capacity of some people in the community leads to further inability to make use of financial or wildlife resources

(operational variables influencing adaptive capacity) that would assist them in dealing with change and stress.

6.4 Summary of Future Vulnerability

This chapter focused on two major drivers of future change, yet there are a variety of factors that will influence future exposure-sensitivities and adaptive capacity in

Tuktoyaktuk. Changes in climate and the MGP will have synergistic influences on each other and with demographic changes, political influences, and continued loss of

Inuvialuit traditional knowledge and culture.

157 The potential for climate change to significantly alter ecosystems is of great concern for Tuktoyaktuk residents that rely on subsistence harvesting. Changes that reduce the abundance of or limit access to key species (caribou, belugas, waterfowl and fish) will further stress food security exposure-sensitivities. Traditional foods provide important nutrients that are integral for health and provide a connection with Inuvialuit culture and identity. With the information that is presently available, it is impossible to know which species will be most affected by future changes. Since waterfowl provide a relatively small contribution to diets by weight, declines in their populations will have less of an impact compared to caribou or fish. The capacity of individuals and families to substitute food sources will be largely influenced by financial and technical issues, although loss of traditional culture and knowledge will also affect them. In terms of overall availability of food, there are no indications that climate change will cause shortages since store foods will still be obtainable (indeed, some species may even thrive and become more abundant under new climate conditions). Although the season for the winter ice road may be shortened, the number of days open for barges along the Mackenzie River will increase.

With the possibility of an all-weather road connecting Tuktoyaktuk to Inuvik and the south, issues relating to availability and affordability of food could be lessened further.

On the other hand, if Tuktoyaktuk residents rely more on store-bought foods, they will be more prone to health problems and sacrificing traditional culture and identity. Thus, there are some potential trade-offs in future food security exposure-sensitivities that will influence future vulnerability of people in Tuktoyaktuk.

In the event that the pipeline is built, there will be an influx of money and people into the area during construction (at least 5 years). During the operational phase of the

158 project, there will be relatively few employment opportunities directly associated with oil and gas so it is imperative that a diverse economy is established during the initial development years. An all-weather road to Tuktoyaktuk would help to enable new business opportunities but it would be up to Inuvialuit leaders and entrepreneurs to establish more businesses and employment opportunities within the community. In such a case, it is likely that Tuktoyaktuk residents would rely more on wage incomes and harvesting would end up being more of a recreational activity (as the spring hunt is today). Thus, the MGP may serve as both a source of enhanced stress on existing exposure-sensitivities and a source of enhanced adaptive capacity (at least in the short term). In the event that the MGP does not move forward, there are very few prospects for new livelihood options in Tuktoyaktuk.

Risks to infrastructure and buildings due to permafrost melting, flooding, and coastal erosion exposure-sensitivities are generally beyond the capacity of the community to adapt due to financial and technical constraints. Warming air temperatures are expected to exacerbate the disturbances to permafrost and reduce the stability of structures in Tuktoyaktuk. Strong storm events, which are projected to occur more frequently in the autumn, have the potential to cause rapid erosion and flood parts of the community. Individuals and families do not have the resources to protect the shorelines or relocate their property. As the community organization responsible for maintaining infrastructure, the Hamlet also does not have the financial resources required for addressing these risks. They are entirely dependant upon funding and support from the territorial and federal governments. Given this adaptive capacity and exposure-

159 sensitivities for infrastructure that will be exacerbated by climate change, this is a key area of future vulnerability for Tuktoyaktuk.

160 CHAPTER SEVEN

CONCLUSIONS

The overall aim of this research was to understand the ways that the community of

Tuktoyaktuk is vulnerable to climate change in the context of ongoing socio-economic and environmental changes. Four research objectives were developed for addressing this aim, with greater empirical emphasis placed on the first and third objectives. This chapter summarizes results for each of these objectives and then highlights practical and scholarly contributions from the research. The chapter concludes by recognizing limitations of the research, followed by suggestions for further research.

7.1 Summary of Results

Objective one: To document and characterize the nature of past and current stresses faced by the community

Stresses currently faced by Tuktoyaktuk residents are related to livelihoods, food security, and infrastructure. Stresses to livelihoods are occurring due to sensitivity and exposures to changes in demand for sport hunting, limited availability of employment opportunities, and changes in demand for tourism-related experiences. Aspects of food security (availability, access, nutritional value, and cultural preference) are stressed due to changes in the abundance and distribution of wildlife (caribou, waterfowl, fish, and beluga whales in particular), factors such as time availability and cost of equipment that limit their ability to access wildlife, health implications associated with store-bought foods, and the high cost of store-bought foods. Infrastructure is also at risk due to coastal erosion, flooding, and permafrost degradation, which are all influenced by the location of the community and changing climatic conditions.

161 Objective two: To identify past and current strategies for dealing with stresses

Adaptations in Tuktoyaktuk have not taken the form of planned actions in response to climate change. Livelihood and food security adaptations at the individual and family levels have mainly been autonomous and tactical and involved taking advantage of opportunities in subsistence harvesting as well as wage employment (e.g. harvesting and storing traditional foods and taking employment opportunities outside of the community).

Responses to particular exposures-sensitivities (e.g. declines in the nearby caribou herds) has been mostly reactionary and involved substituting one resource with another (e.g. eating more fish, beluga, or store-bought foods). Planned livelihood and food security adaptations have occurred in the form of decisions by co-management organizations to place limitations on when and where wildlife can be harvested.

Adaptation to infrastructure exposure-sensitivities has been planned and strategic and focused on slowing the rate of coastal erosion through shoreline protection measures.

These actions have been undertaken by the Hamlet, with financial contributions provided by the territorial and federal governments. Another strategy employed by the Hamlet has been to relocate or remove particular buildings that have been put at imminent risk due to coastal erosion. Individuals and families have very little means of adapting to risks to their homes due to financial and technological restraints.

Objective three: To estimate future stresses and risks in light of climate change and other forces

Existing exposure-sensitivities faced by Tuktoyaktuk are expected to be exacerbated by climate change and the proposed Mackenzie Valley Pipeline. Of particular concern are changes in the abundance and distribution of wildlife since harvesters rely on many species as both a food source and source of income through sport hunting or sale of

162 animals products. Affordability of store-bought foods is dependant on whether or not an all-weather road is built to connect Tuktoyaktuk to Inuvik and the south. In the even that an all-weather road is not built, affordability of store-bought foods will likely be negatively affected by a decrease in the length of time that the winter ice road is open.

Livelihoods will be influenced by development of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline

(should this occur) in many ways. A boom-bust cycle of employment opportunities will bring short-term employment opportunities but long-term sources of income may not be substantially increased.

Infrastructure exposure-sensitivities will be heightened due to climate change. Risks associated with coastal erosion and flooding will be greater when there are longer open water seasons and stronger storm surges occurring in the fall months. Permafrost instability may also become a greater concern since warmer air temperatures and a longer summer season will disturb the thermal regime of the permafrost that underlies

Tuktoyaktuk.

Objective four: To assess the capacity of Tuktoyaktuk residents for dealing with future stresses and risks

Based on current conditions, it is apparent that capacity to deal with future changes is highly variable in Tuktoyaktuk. People who are able to take advantage of opportunities in both the wage economy and subsistence harvesting have flexibility and have the greatest capacity to adapt to changing economic and environmental conditions. In contrast, people who do not participate in subsistence harvesting have fewer options available for obtaining food and other necessities when they are unable to secure employment. These operational constraints are further exacerbated by issues surrounding substance abuse and

163 decline in social cohesion within the community. There are indications that there is less trust within the community and that sharing networks are less reciprocal than they were in the past. The implication of these issues is that some Tuktoyaktuk residents face considerable constraints for dealing with current and future exposure-sensitivities related to livelihoods and food security. There are currently no institutions within the community that deal with this full suite of issues. Some financial assistance and opportunities for skills development are available through the Community Corporation but this organization does not have a broad mandate for addressing issues such as substance abuse and has a limited ability to generate employment opportunities.

The Hamlet, as the agency responsible for community infrastructure, lacks sufficient financial and technological resources to install additional shoreline protection measures.

Furthermore, the Hamlet does not have financial means or technological expertise for providing a long-term solution (e.g. community relocation) to infrastructure risks. At present, the Hamlet relies on funding from MACA, GNWT for shoreline protection measures. MACA itself has limited funds available since it oversees municipal issues across NWT (where construction and operational costs are very high due to remoteness and harsh environmental conditions). With these financial limitations, the community is not able to generate and implement a long-term strategy for preventing damage or loss of infrastructure.

7.2 Contributions From This Research

72.1 Practical Contributions

Practical contributions of the research pertain to insights into exposure-sensitivities and adaptations associated with livelihoods, food security, and infrastructure. This thesis has 164 made clear the need for action to be taken at individual, community, and broader scales to address existing and projected future exposure-sensitivities in Tuktoyaktuk. Livelihood exposure-sensitivities can be addressed by the Tuktoyaktuk Community Corporation and government agencies. The CC can play a role in developing skills for employment, coordinating youth programs (e.g. land-based skills camps), and supporting addictions programs. By proactively addressing these socio-economic conditions, more individuals in the community may have a higher capacity to deal with future changes and stresses.

Livelihood exposure-sensitivities can also be alleviated through support from the territorial and federal governments for supporting economic development (e.g. funding projects to enhance Tuktoyaktuk's harbour to allow better access for ships or constructing an all-weather road to connect Tuktoyaktuk to Inuvik and southern markets). Actions that diversify Tuktoyaktuk's economy can provide greater livelihood stability and more options for community residents.

Since food security exposure-sensitivities relate to both availability and access to nutritious, preferred foods, there are a variety of agencies that can play a role in alleviating stresses in these areas. Inuvialuit co-management organizations play a vital role in managing and protecting wildlife populations that are important food sources for

Tuktoyaktuk residents (especially caribou, fish, beluga whales, and waterfowl). These organizations require continued financial support and cooperation from GNWT to carry out these responsibilities. There is also a need to for more anticipatory actions and plans for protecting wildlife in light of future climate change. In terms of access to harvested foods, the CC can play a role in promoting food sharing programs and providing access to affordable store-bought foods. Programs can also be developed for providing youth

165 with mentors (experienced harvesters) who can provide guidance, confidence, and motivation for spending more time on the land and engaged in harvesting activities. Such programs would address concerns expressed by interviewees that many youth in

Tuktoyaktuk would have interest in harvesting but do not have role models within their own families to take them on the land and demonstrate harvesting skills.

Although the Hamlet has responsibility for maintaining infrastructure in the community, it does not have the financial or technical resources required for continued shoreline protection or relocation of the community. Support for long-term strategies for addressing risks to infrastructure is needed from higher levels of government. A viable option for the community is to initiate the formation of a committee with the intent of raising funds and coordinating plans for community relocation (similar to what is being done in Shishmaref, Alaska). Such a committee should include the participation of community representatives, officials from GNWT and the federal government, and advisors with technical experience relevant to construction and infrastructure in the

Arctic.

Results from this research will be shared with the community through plain- language reports, presentations to community organizations, and feedback to people who participated in the research. A further contribution of this research was the employment of three Tuktoyaktuk residents as part of the research process. While receiving short term employment opportunities, these residents also benefitted from training for conducting social research that is transferrable to future research opportunities.

166 7.2.2 Scholarly Contributions

The scholarly value of this thesis lies in its use of the vulnerability approach and its focus on empirically documenting conditions experienced by residents of Tuktoyaktuk. As discussed in Chapter 2.4, there has been relatively little use of vulnerability frameworks for assessing the implications for climate change for Arctic communities. Recognition of the interaction between environmental and socio-economic systems provided a holistic understanding of the nature of vulnerability in Tuktoyaktuk. While there is a substantial body of theoretical literature about vulnerability and adaptation in climate change literature, this thesis contributes evidence of vulnerabilities and adaptations as they are experienced in an Arctic community. Evidence of the process of adaptation, as well as factors that enhance or constrain adaptations, that have been generated through this research, thus contribute to climate change literature in general and literature on implications of climate change in the Arctic. Use of an established vulnerability framework for this thesis provides the opportunity for comparisons with similar research that is being carried out across the Arctic and in other parts of the world. Such comparisons can contribute to a greater understanding of the nature of vulnerability to climate change. There is further merit in identifying ways that exposure-sensitivities and adaptations are unique in Tuktoyaktuk and understanding the interaction among specific conditions and forces that shape vulnerability in this particular context.

7.3 Further Research Opportunities

The nature of exposure-sensitivities has been broadly characterized in this thesis but more attention needs to be given to conditions and circumstances that give rise to particular stresses. For example, data on the number of sport hunting tags used in Tuktoyaktuk each

167 year and the income for outfitters per tag would enable a greater characterization of the importance of sport hunting for livelihoods in the community. Similarly, data that demonstrate sharing and distribution of harvested foods within the community would be valuable for describing food security stresses in the community.

There is also opportunity to build on this research by further assessing processes of adaptation in Tuktoyaktuk and the influence of governance and institutions on adaptive capacity. Such information would provide a better understanding of the full range of adaptations undertaken in Tuktoyaktuk and provide further insights into factors that enhance or constrain adaptations. While some attention was paid to the 'operational' aspects of adaptive capacity (e.g. the structure and function of co-management organizations), fieldwork did not address 'strategic' elements of adaptive capacity (e.g. power dynamics amongst parties in co-management organizations or application of different types of knowledge). Such information would enable stronger conclusions regarding the ways that informal issues facilitate or constrain adaptations in the community. A greater understanding of these aspects of vulnerability will enable more action to be taken to limit the negative impacts of exposure-sensitivities and enhance adaptive capacities in the community.

In this thesis there was some recognition of differences in exposure-sensitivities and adaptive capacity among individuals and groups within Tuktoyaktuk. However, there is a need for better understanding of the extent to which specific groups and individuals in the community are vulnerable to particular forces and changes. In light of future exposure- sensitivities and adaptive capacity, further research should work closely with community

168 organizations to identify means of integrating adaptive actions and policies into existing plans and programmes.

As noted above, there is opportunity for comparing the outcomes of this research with similar research carried out in other communities. Such comparisons may provide insight into means of reducing vulnerabilities in Tuktoyaktuk and other communities.

169 REFERENCES CITED

ACIA. (2005) Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge Univer­ sity Press, 1042pp.

Adams, M., Frost, K. J., & Harwood, L. A. (1993) Alaska and Inuvialuit Beluga Whale Committee (AIBWC) - an initiative in "at home management". Arctic 46: 134-137.

Adger, N. (2006) Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16: 268-281.

Adger, W., & Kelly, M. P. (1999) Social vulnerability to climate change and the architec­ ture of entitlements. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change 4: 253- 266.

Adger, W. N. (2003) Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Economic Geography 79: 387-404.

Adger, W. N., Arnell, N. W., & Tompkins, E. L. (2005) Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environmental Change 15: 77-86.

Adger, W. N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M. M. Q., Conde, C, O'Brien, K., Pulhin, J. et al. (2007) Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. In Cli­ mate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, van der Linden, P.J. & C. E. Hanson (eds). Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, pp. 717-743.

Akyeampong, E. B. (2007) Canada's unemployment mosaic, 2000 to 2006. Perspectives on Labour and Income 8: 11 July 2008.

Alunik, I., Kolausok, E. D., & Morrison, D. (2003) Across Time and Tundra: The Inuvi­ aluit of the Western Arctic. Vancouver, Raincoast Books, University of Washington Press, and Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Alwang, J., Siegel, P. B., & Jorgensen, S. L. (2001) Vulnerability: A view From Different Disciplines. 0115: 41.

Amstrup, S. C, McDonald, T. L., & Stirling, I. (2001) Polar bears in the Beaufort Sea: a 30-year mark-recapture case history. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Envi­ ronmental Statistics 6: 221-234.

170 Anisimov, O. A., Vaughn, D. G., Callaghan, T. V., Furgal, C, Marchant, H., Prowse, T. D. et al. (2007) Polar regions (arctic and antarctic). In Climate change 2007: Im­ pacts, adaptation and vulnerability, contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, van der Linden, P.J. & C. E. Hanson (eds). Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, pp. 653-685.

Arctic Human Development Report. (2004) Arctic Human Development Report. Stefans- son Arctic Institute, 242pp.

Armitage, D. (2005) Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource manage­ ment. Environ Manage 35: 703-715.

Armitage, D., Berkes, F., & Doubleday, N. (2007) Adaptive Co-Management: Collabora­ tion, Learning, and Mulit-Level Governance. Vancouver, BC, UBC Press.

Atkinson, D. E. (2005) Observed storminess patterns and trends in the circum-Arctic coastal regime. Geo-Marine Letters 25: 98-109.

Ayles, G. B., Bell, R., & Hoyt, A. (2007) Adaptive fisheries co-management in the west­ ern Canadian arctic. In Adaptive co-management: Collaboration, learning, and multi­ level governance. D. Armitage, F. Berkes & N. Doubleday (eds). Toronto, UBC Press, pp. 125-150.

Bassett, T. J. (1988) The political ecology of peasant-herder conflicts in northern Ivory Coast. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 78: 453-472.

Bates, P. (2007) Inuit and scientific philosophies about planning, prediction, and uncer­ tainty. Arctic Anthropology 44: 87-100.

Belliveau, S., Smit, B., & Bradshaw, B. (2006) Multiple Exposures and Dynamic Vulner­ ability: Evidence from the Grape and Wine Industry in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, Canada. Global Environmental Change 16: 364-378.

Bentzen, T. W., Follman, E. H., Amstrup, S. C, York, G. S., Wooler, M. J., & O'Hara, T. M. (2007) Variation in winter diet of southern Beaufort Sea polar bears inferred from stable isotope analysis. Canadian Journal of Zoology 85: 596-608.

Berg, B. L. (2001) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Fourth Edition edn. Toronto, Allyn and Bacon.

171 Berger, T. R. (1977) Northern Frontier, Northern Homeland: Report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry. Vancouver/Toronto, Douglas & Mclntyre, 272 pp.

Berkes, F., & Jolly, D. (2001) Adapting to climate change: social-ecological resilience in a Canadian western Arctic community. Conservation Ecology 5: 18.

Bernard, H. R. (2000) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Ap­ proaches. Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Publications Inc.,

Binder, L. N., & Hanbidge, B. (1993) Aboriginal people and resource co-management: The inuvialuit of the western arctic and resource co-management under a land claims settlement. In Traditional ecological knowledge: Concepts and cases. J. T. Inglis (ed). Ottawa, International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Canadian Museum of Nature, pp. 121-132.

Blaikie, P., & Brookfield, H. (1987) Land Degradation and Society. London, Meuthen.

Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., & Wisner, B. (1994) At risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability, and Disasters. 1st Edition edn. New York, Routledge.

Blanchet, C, Dewailley, E., Ayotte, P., Bruneau, S., Receveur, O., & Holub, B. J. (2000) Contribution of selected traditional foods and market foods to the diet of Nunavik Inuit women. Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research 61: 50-59.

Bohle, H. C, Downing, T. E., & Watts, M. J. (1994) Climate change and social vulner­ ability - toward a sociology and geography of food insecurity. Global Environmental Change 4: 37-48.

Booth, W. C, Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2003) The Craft of Research. Second Edition edn. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

Bromley, R. G. (1996) Characteristics and management implications of the spring water­ fowl hunt in the western Canadian Arctic, Northwest Territories. Arctic 49: 70-85.

Brooks, N., & Adger, N. W. (2005) Assessing and enhancing adaptive capacity. In Adap­ tation policy frameworks for cliamte change: Developing strategies, policies and measures. B. Lim, & E. Spanger-Siegfried (eds). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 165-181.

Brower, C. D., Carpenter, A., Branigan, M. L., Calvert, W., Evans, T., Fischbach, A. S. et al. (2002) The polar bear management agreement for the southern Beaufort Sea: an 172 evaluation of the first ten years of a unique conservation agreement. Arctic 55: 362- 372.

Bryant, R. L. (1998) Power, knowledge and political ecology in the third world: a review. Progress in Physical Geography 22: 79-94.

BSIMPI Working Group. (2003) Ecological Assessment of the Beaufort Sea: Beluga Management Plan - Zone 1(a) as a Marine Protected Area of Interest. 77.

Burton, I., Huq, S., Lim, B., Pilifosova, O., & Schipper, E. L. (2002) From impacts as­ sessment to adaptation priorities: the shaping of adaptation policy. Climate Policy 2: 145-159.

Burton, I. (1997) Vulnerability and adaptive response in the context of climate and cli­ mate change. Climatic Change 36: 185-196.

Campbell, C, & Lunau, K. (2008) The war over the polar bear - who's telling the truth about the fate of a Canadian icon? Macleans.

Carmack, E. C, & Macdonald, R. W. (2002) Oceanography of the Canadian Shelf of the Beaufort Sea: a setting for marine life. Arctic 55: 29-45.

Chapin, F. S., Peterson, G., Berkes, F., Callaghan, T. V., Angelstam, P., Apps, M. et al. (2004) Resilience and vulnerability of Northern regions to social and environmental change. Ambio 33: 344-349.

Christensen, J. H., Hewitson, B., Busuioc, A., Chen, A., Gao, X., Held, I. et al. (2007) Regional climate projections. In Climate change 2007: The physical science basis, contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovern­ mental panel on climate change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt et al (eds). Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, pp. 847-940.

Cobb, D., Fast, H., Papst, M. H., Rosenberg, D., Rutherford, R., & Sareault, J. E. (2008) Beaufort Sea Large Ocean Management Area: Ecosystem Overview and Assessment Report. Winnipeg, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 196 pp.

Cohen, S. J. (1997) Mackenzie Basin Impact Study (MBIS): Final Report. Downsview, Ontario, Atmospheric Environment Services, Environment Canada, 372 pp.

173 Comfort, L., Wisner, B., Cutter, S. L., Pulwarty, R., Hewitt, K., Oliver-Smith, A. et al. (1999) Refraining disaster policy: the global evolution of vulnerable communities. Environmental Hazards 1: 39-44.

Community of Tuktoyaktuk, (NWT), Wildlife Management Advisory Council, & Secre­ tariat, a. T. J. (2000) Tuktoyaktuk Community Conservation Plan.

Condon, R., Collings, P., & Wenzel, G. (1995) The best part of life: subsistence hunting, ethnicity, and economic adaptation among young adult Inuit males. Arctic 48: 31-46.

COSEWIC. (2004) COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas in Canada. 70.

COSEWIC. (2002) COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the polar bear Ur- sus maritimus in Canada. 29.

Couture, R., Robinson, S., Burgess, M., & Solomon, S. (2002) Climate Change, Perma­ frost, and Community Infrastructure: A Compilation of Background Material from a Pilot Study of Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories. Geological Survey of Canada Open File 3867: 83.

Cutter, S. (1996) Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in Human Geography 20: 529-539.

Damas, D. (2002) Arctic Migrants / Arctic Villagers: The Transformation of Inuit Set­ tlement in the Central Arctic. Montreal & Kingston, McGill-Queen's University Press.

Day, B. (2002) Renewable resources of the Beaufort Sea for our children: perspectives from an Inuvialuit elder. Arctic 55: 1-3.

Derocher, A. E., Lunn, N. J., & Stirling, I. (2004) Polar bears in a warming climate. Inte­ grative & Comparative Biology 44: 163-176.

Dewailley, E., & Furgal, C. (2003) POPs, the environment and public health. In Northern lights against POPs: Combating toxic threats in the arctic. D. L. Downie, & T. Fenge (eds). Montreal & Kingston, Published for the Inuit Circumpolar Conference Canada by McGill-Queen's University Press, pp. 3-21.

DeWalt, K. M., & DeWalt, B. R. (2002) Participant Observation: A Guide for Field- workers. New York, AltaMira Press. 174 DFO. (2008) Beaufort Sea Integrated Ocean Management. Paper presented at Beaufort Basin Workshop, Ottawa. January 30, 2008.

DFO. (2000) Eastern Beaufort Sea Beluga Whales. Stock Status Report E5-38 (2000): 14.

Dickson, D. L., & Gilchrist, H. G. (2002) Status of marine birds of the southeastern Beaufort Sea. Arctic 55: 46-58.

Downing, T. E., & Patwardhan, A. (2005) Assessing vulnerability for climate adaptation. In Adaptation policy frameworks for climate change: Developing strategies, policies and measures. B. Lim, & E. Spanger-Siegfried (eds). Cambridge, Cambridge Uni­ versity Press.

Dowsley, M., & Wenzel, G. (2008) "The time of most polar bears": a co-management conflict in Nunavut. Arctic 61: 177-189.

Duhaime, G., Chabot, M., & Gaudreault, M. (2002) Food consumption patterns and so­ cioeconomic factors among the Inuit of Nunavik. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 41: 91-118.

Duhaime, G., Chabot, M., Frechette, P., Robichaud, V., Proulx, S. (2004a) The impact of dietary changes among Inuit of Nunavik (Canada): a socioeconomic assessment of possible public health recommendations dealing with food contamination. Risk Analysis 24 (4): 1007-1018.

Duhaime, G., Searles, E., Usher, P. J., Myers, H., & Frechette, P. (2004b) Social cohe­ sion and living conditions in the Canadian arctic: From theory to measurement. So­ cial Indicators Research 66: 295-317.

Durner, G. M., Douglas, D. C, Nielson, R. M., Amstrup, S. C, & McDonald, T. L. (2007) Predicting the Future Distribution of Polar Bear Habitat in the Polar Basin from Resource Selection Functions Applied to 21st Century General Circulation Model Projections of Sea Ice. 55.

Dyck, M. G., Soon, W., Baydack, R. K., Legates, D. R., Baliunas, S., Ball, T. F., & Han­ cock, L. O. (2007) Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: Are warming spring air temperatures the ' 'ultimate'' survival control factor? Ecological Complexity 4: 73-84.

175 Earner, J. (2007) Global Outlook for Ice & Snow. Birkeland, Norway, United Nations Environment Programme, 235 pp.

Environment and Natural Resources. (2006a) Press Release: 2006 Bluenose Herds Sur­ vey Results Released. Available from http://www.nwtwildlife.com/NWTwildlife/caribou/newsreleasesept06.htm

Environment and Natural Resources. (2006b) Caribou Forever - Our Heritage, Our Re­ sponsibility: A Barren-ground Caribou Management Strategy for the Northwest Ter­ ritories 2006 - 2010. 38.

Environment Canada. (2004) Canadian Climate Normals 1971-2000: Tuktoyaktuk A, Northwest Territories.

FAO. (2006) Food Security. FAO Policy Brief Issue 2: 4.

Fast, H., Mathias, J., & Banias, O. (2001) Directions toward marine conservation in Can­ ada's Western Arctic. Ocean Coast Manage 44: 183-205.

Folke, C. (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16: 253-267.

Ford, J., & Smit, B. (2004) A Framework for Assessing the Vulnerability of Communi­ ties in the Canadian Arctic to Risks Associated with Climate Change. Arcitc 57: 389-400.

Ford, J., Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006a) Vulnerability to climate change in the Arctic: A case study from Arctic Bay, Nunavut. Global Environmental Change 16: 145-160.

Ford, J., MacDonald, J., Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006b) Vulnerability to climate change in Igloolik, Nunavut: What we can learn from the past and present. Polar Record 42: 127-138.

Ford, J., Smit, B., Wandel, J., Allurut, M., Shappa, K., Ittusujurat, H., & Qrunnut, K. (2008) Resource harvesting in a changing Arctic: Current and future vulnerability to climate change in two Inuit communities in Canada. The Geographical Journal 174: 45-62.

Ford, J., Pearce, T., Smit, B., Wandel, J., Allurut, M., Shappa, K. et al. (2007) Reducing vulnerability to climate change in the Arctic: The case of Nunavut, Canada. Arctic 60: 150-166. 176 Freeman, M. M. R. (2001) Small scale whaling in north america. In Understanding the cultures of fishing communities: A key to fisheries management and food security. J. R. McGoodwin (ed). Rome, FAO.

Freeman, M. M. R. (2000) Endangered Peoples of the Arctic: Struggles to Survive and Thrive. Westport, Connecticut, Greenwood Press, 278 pp.

Furgal, C, & Prowse, T. D. (2008) Northern Canada. In From impacts to adaptation: Canada in a changing climate 2007. D. S. Lemmen, F. J. Warren, J. Lacroix & E. Bush (eds). Ottawa, Government of Canada, pp. 57-118.

Fussel, H., & Klein, R. J. T. (2006) Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolu­ tion of conceptual thinking. Clim Change 75: 301-329.

Gallopin, G. C. (2006) Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change 16: 293-303.

Gibbs, M. (2001) Toward a Strategy Undertaking Cross-Cultural Collaborative Research. Society and Natural Resources 14: 673-687.

GNWT. (2008) NWT Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Report. 31.

GNWT. (2007) Summary of NWT Community Statistics - 2007. 101.

Gombay, N. (2005) The commoditization of country foods in Nunavik: a comparative assessment of its development, applications, and significance. Arcticq 58: 115-128.

Government of Canada. (1984) The Western Arctic Claim: The Inuvialuit Final Agree­ ment.

Gunn, A. (1995) Responses of arctic ungulates to climate change. In Human ecology and climate change: People and resources in the far north. D. L. Peterson, & D. R. Johnson (eds). Washington, Taylor & Francis, pp. 89-104.

Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk. (1984) Community Plan for the Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T.

Handmer, J. W., Dovers, S., & Downing, T. E. (1999) Societal vulnerability to climate change and variability. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 4: 267-281.

177 Haque, E. C, & Burton, I. (2005) Adaptation options strategies for hazards and vulner­ ability mitigation: an international perspective. Mitigation Adapt Strat Global Change 10: 335-353.

Hart, E. J. (2001) Reindeer Days Remembered. Inuvik, Friesons.

Harwood, L. A., & Smith, T. G. (2002) Whales of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region in Canada's Western Arctic: an overview and outlook. Arctic 55: 77-93.

Harwood, L. A., Pokiak, F., & Walker-Larson, J. (2007) Assessment of subsistence fish­ ing and population structure of Arctic cisco in Tuktoyaktuk Harbour, NT, Canada, July-September 1997-1999.

Harwood, L. A., Norton, P., Day, B., & Hall, P. A. (2002) The harvest of beluga whales in Canada's western Arctic: hunter-based monitoring of the size and composition of the catch. Arctic 55: 10-20.

Hewitt, K., & Burton, I. (1971) The Hazardousness of Place: A Regional Ecology of Damaging Events. Toronto, Ontario, University of Toronto Press.

Hinzman, L., Bettez, N., Bolton, W., Chapin, F., Dyurgerov, M., Fastie, C. et al. (2005) Evidence and implications of recent climate change in northern Alaska and other Arctic regions. Climatic Change 72: 251-298.

Huntington, H. P. (2007) Arctic Oil and Gas 2007. 40.

Huntington, H. P. (1998) Observations on the Utility of the Semi-Directive Interview For Documenting Traditional Ecological Knowledge. Arctic 51: 237-242.

Huq, S., Rahman, A., Konate, M., Sokona, Y., & Reid, H. (2003) Mainstreaming Adapta­ tion to Climate Change in Least Developed Countries.

US. (2004) History of the Joint Secretariat. 2006.

Inuvik Community Corporation, Tuktuuyaqtuuq Community Corporation, & Aklarvik Community Corporation. (2006) Inuvialuit Settlement Region Traditional Knowl­ edge Report.

IPCC. (2007) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Contribution of Work­ ing Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 996 pp.

178 Irwin, C. (1999) Lords of the Arctic, Wards of the State: The Growing Inuit Population, Arctic Resettlement, and Their Effects on Social and Economic Change. Canadian Arctic Resources Committee. Available from: http://www.carc.Org/pubs/vl7nol/2.htm [accessed 20 April 2008].

ITK. (2008) Climate Change Report Highlights Need for Specific Measures in Arctic Regions. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami Media Release.

ITK, & NRI. (2007) Negotiating Research Relationships with Inuit Communities: A guide for Researchers. Ottawa and Iqaluit, Inuit Taparit Kanatami and Nunavut Re­ search Centre, 38 pp.

Janssen, M. A., Schoon, M. L., Ke, W., & Borner, K. (2006) Scholarly networks on resil­ ience, vulnerability and adaptation within the human dimensions of global environ­ mental change. Global Environmental Change 16: 240-252.

Jiwa, A., Kelly, L., & St. Pierre-Hansen, N. (2008) Healing the community to heal the individual: literature review of aboriginal community-based alcohol and substance abuse programs. Canadian Family Physician 54: 1000el-1000e7.

Johnson, K., Solomon, S., Berry, D., & Graham, P. (2003) Erosion progression and adap­ tation strategy in a northern coastal community. 8th International Conference on Permafrost.

Joint Secretariat. (2003) Inuvialuit Harvest Study.

Kasperson, J. X., & Kasperson, R. E. (2001) Global Environmental Risk. Tokyo, United Nations University Press & Earthscan, 574 pp.

Kattsov, V. M., Kallen, E., Cattle, H., Christensen, J., Drange, H., Hanssen-Bauer, I. et al. (2005) Future climate change: Modeling and scenarios for the arctic. In Arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, pp. 100- 150.

Kavik-Axys Inc. (2004) Tuktoyaktuk Traditional Knowledge and Land Use Studies.

Keskitalo, E. C. H. (2008) Climate Change and Globalization in the Arctic: An Inte­ grated Approach to Vulnerability Assessment. Sterling, VA, Earthscan, 254 pp.

Klein, D. R., Baskin, L. M., Bogoslovskaya, L. S., Danell, K., Gunn, A., Irons, D. B. et al. (2005) Management and conservation of wildlife in a changing arctic environ- 179 ment. In Arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, pp. 597-648.

Klein, R. J. T. (2003) Adaptation to climate change: What is optimal and appropriate? In Climate change in the mediterranean: Socio-economic perspectives of impacts, vul­ nerability and adaptation. C. Giupponi, & M. Shechter (eds). Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 32-50.

Klein, R. J. T., Eriksen, S. E. H., Naess, L. O., Hammill, A., Tanner, T. M., Robledo, C, & O'Brien, K. L. (2007) Portfolio screening to support the mainstreaming of adapta­ tion to climate change into development assistance. Climatic Change 84: 23-44.

Kofinas, G., & Russell, D. (2004) North america. In Report to the sustainable develop­ ment working group of the arctic council. B. Ulvevadet, & K. Klokov (eds). Univer­ sity of Troms0, Centre for Saami Studies, pp. 21-54.

Kofinas, G., Forbes, B., Beach, H., Berkes, F., Berman, M., Chapin, T. et al. (2005) ICARPII - Science Plan 10: A Research Plan for the Study of Rapid Change, Resil­ ience and Vulnerability, in Social-ecological systems of the Arctic. 15.

Korhonen, M. (2004) Alcohol Problems and Approaches: Theories, Evidence and North­ ern Practice. Ottawa, Ontario, Ajunnginiq Centre, National Aboriginal Health Or­ ganization.

Krai, M.J. (2003) Unikkaartuit: Meanings of Weil-Being, Sadness, Suicide, and Change in Two Inuit Communities. Ottawa, Final Report to the National Health Research and Development Programs, Health Canada.

Krupnik, I., & Jolly, D. (2002) The Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Climate Change. Fairbanks, Alaska, Arctic Research Consortium of the United States, 384 pp.

Kuhnlein, H. V. (1995) Benefits and risks of traditional food for Indigenous Peoples: fo­ cus on dietary intakes of Arctic men. Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharma­ cology 73: 771.

Kuhnlein, H. V., & Receveur, O. (2007) Local cultural animal food contributes high lev­ els of nutrients for Arctic Canadian indigenous adults and children. The Journal of Nutrition 137: 1110-1114.

180 Kuhnlein, H. V., & Receveur, O. (1996) Dietary change and traditional food systems of indigenous peoples. Annual Review of Nutrition 16: 442.

Kull, C. A. (2002) Empowering pyromaniacs in Madagascar: ideology and legitimacy in community-based natural resource management. Development and Change 33: 57- 78.

Laidler, G. J. (2006) Inuit and Scientific Perspectives on the Relationship Between Sea Ice and Climate Change: the Ideal Complement? Climatic Change 78: 407-444.

Legard, R., Keegan, J., & Ward, K. (2003) In-depth interviews. In Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. J. Ritchie, & J. Lewis (eds). London, Sage Publications.

Lemke, P., Ren, J., Alley, R. B., Allison, I., Carrasco, J., Flato, G. et al. (2007) Observa­ tions: Changes in snow, ice and frozen ground. In Climate change 2007: The physi­ cal science basis, contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt et al (eds). Cambridge, UK, Cambridge Univer­ sity Press, pp. 337-383.

Lim, B., & Spanger-Siegfried, E. (2005) Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Lindseth, G. (2005) Local Level Adaptation to Climate Change: Discursive Strategies in the Norwegian Context. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 7: 61-83.

Liverman, D. M. (1994) Vulnerability to global environmental change. In Environmental risks and hazards. S. L. Cutter (ed). New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

Lowe, R. (2001) Siglit Inuvialuit Eskimo Dictionary. 2nd Edition edn. Quebec, Editions Nota bene, 585 pp.

Manson, G., & Solomon, S. (2006) Hazards to Coastal Infrastructure in Canada and the Implications of Climate Change: With Special Reference to the Mackenzie Delta and Tuktoyaktuk.

Manson, G. K., & Solomon, S. M. (2007) Past and future forcing of Beaufort Sea coastal change. Atmosphere-Ocean 45: 107-122.

181 Manson, G. K., Solomon, S. M., Forbes, D. L., Atkinson, D. E., & Craymer, M. (2005) Spatial variability of factors influencing coastal change in the western Canadian Arc­ tic. Geo-Marine Letters 25: 138-145.

Mauritzen, M., Belikov, S. E., Boltunov, A. N., Derocher, A. E., Hansen, E., Ims, R. A. et al. (2003) Functional responses in polar bear habitat selection. Oikos 100: 112- 124.

McCarthy, J. J., & Martello, M. L. (2005) Climate change in the context of multiple stressors and resilience. In Arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge, UK, Cam­ bridge University Press, pp. 945-988.

Nagy, J., Wright, W. H., Slack, T. M., & Veitch, A. M. (2005) Seasonal Ranges of the Cape Bathurst, Bluenose-West, and Bluenose-East Barren-Ground Caribou Herds. Manuscript Report No. 167:43.

Nagy, J. A., & Johnson, D. (2006) Estimates of the Number of Barren-ground Caribou in the Cape Bathurst and Bluenose-West Herds and Reindeer/Caribou on the Upper Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula Derived Using Post-Calving Photography. 66.

National Energy Board. (1998) Probablistic Estimates of Hydrocarbon Volumes in the Mackenzie Delta and Beaufort Sea Discoveries. 8.

Neuman, L. W. (2003) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Ap­ proaches. Fifth Edition edn. Toronto, Allyn and Bacon.

Nickels, S., Furgal, C, Buell, M., & Moquin, H. (2006) Unikkaaqatigiit - Putting the Human Face on Climate Change: Perspectives from Inuit in Canada. Ottawa, Joint publication of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Nasivvik Centre for Inuit Health and Chang­ ing Environments at Universite Laval and the Ajunnginiq Centre at the National Aboriginal Health Organization.

Northern Contaminants Program. (2003) Highlights of the Canadian Arctic Contaminants Assessment Report II. 20 July 2008.

Notzke, C. (1999) Indigenous tourism development in the Arctic. Annals of Tourism Re­ search 26: 55-76.

NTCL. (2008) 2008 Sailing Schedule. 4.

182 Nuttall, M. (2006) The Mackenzie Gas Project: aboriginal interests, the environment and northern Canada's energy frontier. Indigenous Affairs 2-3: 20-29.

Nuttall, M., Berkes, F., Forbes, B., Kofinas, G., Vlassova, T., & Wenzel, G. (2005) Hunt­ ing, herding, fishing, and gathering: Indigenous peoples and renewable resource use in the arctic. In Arctic climate impact asssessment. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge Uni­ versity Press, pp. 649-690.

O'Brien, K., Sygna, L., & Haugen, J. E. (2004a) Vulnerable or resilient? A multi-scale assessment of climate impacts and vulnerability in Norway. Climatic Change 64: 193-225.

O'Brien, K., Eriksen, S., Schjolden, A., & Nygaard, L. (2004b) What's in a word? Con­ flicting interpretations of vulnerability in climate change research. CICERO Working Paper.

O'Brien, K., Leichenko, R., Kelkar, U., Venema, H., Aandahl, G., Tomkins, H. et al. (2004c) Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: climate change and globaliza­ tion in India. Global Environ Change 14: 303-313.

Ono, K. A. (1995) Effects of climate change on marine mammals in the far north. In Hu­ man ecology and climate change: People and resources in the far north. D. L. Peter­ son, & D. R. Johnson (eds). Washington, Taylor & Francis, pp. 105-121.

Palys, T. (1997) Research Decisions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives. Second Edition edn. Toronto, Harcourt Canada.

Pars, T., Osier, M., & Bjerregaard, P. (2001) Contemporary use of traditional and im­ ported food among Greenlandic Inuit. Arctic 54: 22-31.

Patton, M. Q. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Second Edition edn. London, Sage Publications.

Pielou, E. C. (1994) A Naturalist's Guide to the Arctic. Chicago, The University of Chi­ cago Press, 327 pp.

Pokiak, J. (2004) Sports hunting in the western Canadian arctic. In Conservation hunting: People and wildlife in Canada's north. M. M. R. Freeman, R. J. Hudson & A. L. Foote (eds). CCI Press, pp. 22-24.

183 Post, E., & Forschhammer, M. C. (2008) Climate change reduces reproductive success of an Arctic herbivore through trophic mismatch. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363: 2369-2375.

Post, E., Pedersen, C, Wilmers, C. C, & Forschhammer, M. C. (2008) Warming, plant phenology and the spatial dimension of trophic mismatch for large herbivores. Pro­ ceedings of the Royal Society B 275: 2005-2013.

Pretty, J., & Ward, H. (2001) Social capital and the environment. World Development 29: 209-227.

Rachold, V., & Cherkashov, G. (2003) Arctic Coastal Dynamics: Report of the 4th Inter­ national Workshop. St. Petersburg, Russia, International Arctic Sciences Committee (IASC), the International Permafrost Association (IPA) and a regional project of IGBP-LOICZ (International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme - Land- Ocean Inter­ actions in the Coastal Zone), 229 pp.

Regehr, E. V., Hunter, C. M., Caswell, H., Amstrup, S. C, & Stirling, I. (2007) Polar Bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea I: Survival and Breeding in Relation to Sea Ice Conditions, 2001-2006. 45.

Reimnitz, E., & Maurer, D. K. (1979) Effects of storm surges on the Beaufort Sea coast, northern Alaska. Arctic 32: 329-344.

Robbins, J. (2007) Saint Ursus Maritimus. Conservation Magazine 8.

Russell, D. E., Kofinas, G., & Griffith, B. (2002) Barren-Ground Caribou Calving Ground Workshop Report of Proceedings. Technical Report Series Number 390: 40.

Salokangas, R. (2005) Views of the Inuvialuit on Sustainable Development in the Mackenzie Gas Project in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, Northwest Territories, Canada. 155.

Seal, D. W., Bogart, L. M., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (1998) Small group dynamics: the utility of focus group discussions as a research method. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice 2: 253-266.

Sen, A. (1981) Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford, Clarendon Press.

184 Senecal, S., & O'Sullivan, E. (2006) The Well-Being of Inuit Communities in Canada.

Shaw, J., Taylor, R. B., Solomon, S., Christian, H. A., & Forbes, D. L. (1998) Potential Impacts of Sea Level Rise of Canadian Coasts. The Canadian Geographer 42: 365- 79.

Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006) Adaptation, Adaptive Capacity and Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16: 282-292.

Smit, B., & Skinner, M. (2002) Adaptation options in agriculture to climate change: a typology. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 7: 85-114.

Smit, B., & Pilifosova, O. (2001) Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustain­ able development and equity. In Climate change 2001. impacts, adaptation and vul­ nerability: Contribution of working group II to the third assessment report of the in­ tergovernmental panel on climate change. J. McCarthy, O. F. Canzianni, N. A. Leary, D. J. Dokken & K. S. White (eds). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 877-911.

Smit, B., Hovelsrud, G., & Wandel, J. (2008) CAVIAR: Community Adaptation and Vulnerability in Arctic Regions. 22.

Smit, B., Burton, I., Klein, R. J. T., & Wandel, J. (2000) An anatomy of adaptation to climate change and variability. Climatic Change 45: 223-251.

Smit, B., Burton, I., Klein, R. J. T., & Street, R. (1999) The science of adaptation: a framework for assessment. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 4: 199-213.

Smith, L. C, Obeid, A. E. E., & Jensen, H. H. (2000) The geography and causes of food security in developing countries. Agricultural Economics 22: 199-215.

Smithers, J., & Smit, B. (1997) Human adaptation to climatic variability and change. Global Environmental Change 7: 129-146.

Solomon, S. (2007) Geophysical Changes in the Arctic Region - Defrosting in the Arctic: Climate Change and the Coast.

Solomon, S., & Hart, E. (2000) Storminess in the Western Arctic: Extending the Histori­ cal Record Using Hudson's Bay Company Archives.

185 Solomon, S., Forbes, D. L., & Kierstead, B. (1993) Coastal impacts of climate change: Beaufort Sea erosion study. Geological Survey of Canada Open File 2890: 35.

Solomon, S. M. (2005) Spatial and temporal variability of shoreline change in the Beau­ fort-Mackenzie region, Northwest Territories, Canada. Geo-Marine Letters 25: 127- 137.

Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., & O'Connor, W. (2003) Analysis: Practices, principles and proc­ esses. In Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and re­ searchers. J. Ritchie, & J. Lewis (eds). London, Sage Publications.

Statistics Canada. (2007) 2006 Community Profiles: Tuktoyaktuk Northwest Territories (table). Available from http://wwwl2.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm7Lang =E [accessed 22 February 2008].

Statistics Canada. (2002a) 2001 Community Profiles: Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories (table). Available from http://www 12,statcan.ca/english/ProfilOl/CP01/Index.cfm?Lang=E. [accessed 22 February 2008].

Statistics Canada. (2002b) 2001 Census: Aboriginal Population Profiles. Available from http://www 12.statcan.ca/english/Profil01/AP0l/Index.cfm?Lang=E. [accessed 23 February 2008].

Stephenson, S. A. (2004) Harvest studies in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, Northwest Territories, Canada: 1999 and 2001-2003. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisher­ ies and Aquatic Sciences 2700: 34.

Stirling, I. (2002) Polar Bears and Seals in the Eastern Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf: A Synthesis of Population Trends and Ecological Relationships over Three Decades. Arctic 55: 59-76.

Stirling, I., & Derocher, A. E. (2007) Melting under pressure: the real scoop on climate warming and polar bears. The Wildlife Professional 24-27,43.

Stirling, I., & Derocher, A. E. (1993) Possible impacts of climatic warming on polar bears. Arctic 46: 240-245.

186 Stirling, L, Lunn, N. J., & Iacozza, J. (1999) Long-term trends in the population ecology of polar bears in western Hudson Bay in relation to climate change. Arctic 52: 294- 306.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Proce­ dures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd Edition edn. Thousand Oaks, Califor­ nia, Sage Publications.

Struzik, E. (2008) The Great Caribou Crash. Edmonton Journal.

Sutherland, K., Smit, B., Wulf, V., & Nakalevu T. (2005) Vulnerability in Samoa. Tiempo 54: 11-15.

Theberge, M., & Nagy, J. (2001) Bluenose-West and Cape Bathurst Caribou Herds Calv­ ing Ground Classification Surveys: June 2000, 2001. 25.

Turner, B., Kasperson, R. E., Matson, P. A., McCarthy, J., Corell, R., Christensen, L. et al. (2003a) A Framework for Vulnerability Analysis in Sustainability Science. Pro­ ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100: 8074-8079.

Turner, B. L., Matson, P. M., McCarthy, J., Corell, R. W., Christensen, L., Eckley, N. et al. (2003b) Illustrating the Coupled Human-Environment System for Vulnerability Analysis: Three Case Studies. 100: 8080-8085.

Turner, M. D. (1999) Conflict, environmental change, and social institutions in dryland Africa: limitations of the community resource management approach. Society & Natural Resources 12: 643-657.

Turner, N. J., Davidson-Hunt, I., & O'Flaherty, M. (2003) Living on the edge: ecological and cultural edges as sources of diversity for social-ecological resilience. Human Ecology 31: 439-461.

Tyler, N. J. C, Turi, J. M., Sundset, M. A., Str0m Bull, K., Sara, M. N., Reinert, E. et al. (2007) Saami reindeer pastoralism under climate change: Applying a generalized framework for vulnerability studies to a sub-arctic social-ecological system. Global Environmental Change, 17: 191-206.

UMA Engineering Ltd. (1994) Tuktoyaktuk shoreline protection study, phases 2 and 3.

Usher, P. J. (2002) Inuvialuit use of the Beaufort Sea and its resources, 1960-2000. Arctic 55: 18-28. 187 Usher, P. J. (2000) Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Environmental Assessment and Management. Arctic 53: 183-193.

Usher, P. J. (1993) Northern development, impact assessment, and social change. In An­ thropology, public policy, and native peoples in canada. N. Dyck, & J. B. Waldram (eds). Montreal and Kingston, McGill-Queen's University Press, pp. 98-130.

Van Esterick, P. (1999) Right to food; right to feed; right to be fed. The intersection of women's rights and the right to food. Agriculture and Human Values 16: 225-232.

Watts, M. J., & Bohle, H. G. (1993) The Space of Vulnerability: The Causal Structure of Hunger and Famine. Progress in Human Geography 17: 43-67.

Wein, E. E., Freeman, M. M. R., & Makus, J. C. (1996) Use and preference of traditional foods among the Belcher Island Inuit. Arctic 49: 256-264.

Wesche, S., & Armitage, D. (2006) Adapting to environmental change in a northern delta system. In Climate change: Linking traditional and scientific knowledge. R. Riewe, & J. Oakes (eds). Winnipeg, Aboriginal Issues Press, pp. 105-120.

Wheaton, E. E., & Maclver, D. C. (1999) A framework and key questions for adapting to climate variability and change. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change 4: 215-225.

Wilson, K. J., Falkingham, J., Melling, H., & De Abreu, R. (2004) Shipping in the Cana­ dian Arctic: other possible climate change scenarios. 3: 1853-1856.

Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. (2004) At Risk: Natural hazards, people's vulnerability and disasters. 2nd edn. New York, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Wolfe, B. B., Armitage, D., Wesche, S., Brock, B. E., Sokal, M. E., Clogg-Wright, K. P. et al. (2007) From isotopes to TK interviews: towards interdisciplinary research in Fort Resolution and the Slave River Delta, Northwest Territories. Arctic 60: 75-87.

WTRG. (2008) Oil Price History and Analysis. 2008.

Yaro, J. A. (2004) Theorizing food insecurity: building a livelihood vulnerability frame­ work for researching food insecurity. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift-Norwegian Jour­ nal of Geography 58: 23-37.

188 Yohe, G., & Tol, R. S. J. (2002) Indicators for social and economic coping capacity - moving toward a working definition of adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change 12: 25-40.

Zhang, X., Vincent, L. A., Hogg, W. D., & Niitsoo, A. (2000) Temperature and precipita­ tion trends in Canada during the 20th century. Atmosphere-Ocean 38: 395-429.

189 APPENDIXA

r1"* " SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH UCEMCE Licence #14173N File #12 410 694

ISSUED BY: Aurora Research Institute -Aurora College Inuvik, Northwest Territories

ISSUED TO: Mr. Mark Andrachuk University of Guelph Department of Geography Guelph.ON N1G2W1 Tel:(519)8?44120 .

ON; t2-Jun-07 TEAM MEMBERS: Tristan Pearce, Derek Armitage WFtUATiON University of Guelprt FUNDING: International Polar Year (Canada): ArcScNet (Theme 4.2)

TITLE: Building adaptive capacity in an Inuvialuii communily learning to deal with environmental change

OBJECTIVES OF RESEARCH: Fo document strategics that have been successful among the residents of Tuktoyaktuk in dealing with environment changes, and to identify the ways that the residents have made use of traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge when adapting to environmental changes.

DATA COllECTtON M THE NWT: OATE(S): June 12 to September 1,2007 LOCA TtON; Within the municipal bounds of Tuktoyaktuk

Jcence# 14113 expires on December 31,2007 ssued at the [Town of Inuvik on June 12,2007

Director. Aurar l Research institute

liiiPF

190 Aurora Research Institute - Aurora College P.O. Box 1450 'lnuvik NT XOE 0T0 Phone 867-777-4029 Fax 867-777-4264 Email: [email protected] 12410694 Tuesday, June 12, 2007 NOTIFICATION OF RESEARCH Scientific Research Licence No. 14173

I would.like to inform you that Scientific Research Licence Mo. 14173 lias been issued to: Mr. Mark Andtachuk University of Guetph, Department of Geography Guelph, OK N1G2W1 Canada Phone: 519 S24 4120 ext. 54174 Email: mandrach@uogueIph,ca to conduct the following study: "Building adaptive capacity in an lauvialuit community; loaning to deal with environmental change". Please contact, the researcher if you would like more information. SUMMARY OF RESEARCH: The aims of this research project, are to document strategies that have been successful among the residents of Tuktoyaktuk in dealing with environmental changes, and to identify the ways that the residents have made use of traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge when adapting to environmental changes.

Upon arrival in Tuktoyaktuk, the research team will discuss the research and identify research assistant candidates with representatives from various community organisations in Tuktoyaktuk. Then, data collection will commence with interviews with individuals. Some interviews may take place in groups of two to five individuals. Research assistants will help with arranging and conducting the interviews. Topics to be covered in the interviews will include: 1 )ways that people have been affected by environmental changes; 2) ways that social and economic changes have affected people's ability to deal with environmental changes; 3) types of information and knowledge that people have used when adapting to environmental changes; and 4) environmental and social changes that people expect to fece in the future

It is expected that between 20 and 30 interviews will be conducted. The research team will strive to interview a variety of residents who represent different interests and backgrounds. Interviews will be recorded using voice recorders (if permission is granted). If community participants express interest, there will be an opportunity to use video equipment to record the interviews or document people's experiences with environmental changes.

Page 1 of 2

191 i:"."»'"Y&» Aurora Research Institute - Aurora College ^SS| P.O. Box 1450 ltravik NT XOE 0TO Phone 867-777-4029 Fax 867-777-4264 Email: [email protected]

12 410 694 Tuesday, June 12,2007 NOTIFICATION OF RESEARCH Scientific Research Licence No. 14173 The results of this study will be verified with community research partners prior to dissemination in order to confirm proper interpretation of information provided during interviews and to ensure that community members are properly represented. Communication of research results to the community will involve presentations,. household visits and written reports to be left in the community in all local dialects (opportunities for research assistants to participate in this process will be provided and will contribute to skills development). A follow-up visit to Tuktoyaktuk in the spring of 2008 will allow (he Principal Investigator to communicate results to : individuals and community organizations. Research results will be communicated via presentations to organizations, household visits and written reports to be left in the community in all local dialects fin plain language). Research assistants will have the opportunity to participate in this process. Further opportunities to present research results to other Inuvialuit organizations and NWT residents will be identified as research progresses and contacts are established.

Research activities will take place from June 12 to September 1,2007 within the municipal limits of Tuktoyaktuk. Sincerely,

Karen Heikkila Manager, Scientific Services

DISTRIBUTION: Chief Councillor, Tuktoyaktuk Community Corporation, P.O. Box 350, Tuktoyaktuk NT XOE 1C0 Mayor, Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk, P.O. Box 120, Tuktoyaktuk NT XOE 1C0 Executive Director, Inuvialuit Community Development Division, P.O. Box 2120, Inuvik NT XOE 0T0 President, Tuktoyaktuk Hunters and Trappers Committee, P.O. Box 286, Tuktoyaktuk NT XOE J CO

Page 2 of 2

192 AURORA COLLEGE

FILE* 12 410 694

12-Jun-Q7 Mr. Mark Andrachuk University of Guelph Department of Geography Guelph, ON NIG2W1

Dear Mr. Andrachuk:

Enclosed you will findyou r 2007 Scientific Research Licence No. 14173 as prepared under the Northwest Territories Scientists Act and approved by the Science Advisor, Andrew Applejohn. Should you require support from the Aurora Research Institute's Research Centre(s), please contact the applicable Research Centre Managers) to discuss your research needs.

According to the Scientists Act, researchers issued licences must provide a summary report for each year of their research. Accordingly, upon completion of your 2007 fieldwor k m the Northwest Territories, please ensure that you provide a 200-word (maximum) non-technical summary of your research findings toou r office. This summary is due no later than June 30,2008, or with your 2008 application, whichever Is earlier. In addition, we require a copy-of your final report and copies of any papers that you publish that pertain to research conducted under this licence. Finally, if/as applicable, please provide to the communities copies of any reports that you have offered to tlieru or that they have requested as a condition of their support for your project. Such reports should be provided to the communities prior to submitting new applications. This is especially important on multi-year projects, for which it is to be expected that the communities would be particularly interested in inspecting the results of past work before approving future work.

Thank you for assisting in feepromotio n and development of a scientific research community and database within the Northwest Territories. The summary report and other information that you provide are utilized in our annual report compendium, which is distributed to communities and organizations in the N.W.T. as well as to researchers across Canada.

Best wishes for a successful study!

Sincerely, <•'

Karen Heikkila Manager, Scientific Services

Box 1450 Inuwk, NT XOE 0TO Tel: (367) 777-3298 Fax: (S67) 777-4264

193 APPENDIXB

esearch UKKVEESITY Reynolds Building, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1Q 2W1 b&{ COPY Certification of Ethical Acceptability to Involve Human Participants In Research

DATE: April 13,2004

APPLICANT: B. Smlt

DEPARTMENT: Geography

SPONSOR: ArcticNet NCE

REB NUMBER: MRQ16

TITLE OF PROJECT: Inuit Adaptive Strategies and Environmental Condition*

The members of the University of Gualph Research Ethics Board have examined the experimental protocol which describes the participation of the human subjects in the above- named research project and It considers the experimenlal procedures, as described by the applicant to conform to the University's ethical standards.

Approved:. Date: ST, i-ay

C. McKenna Associate Vice-President (Research)

Expedited Review £JD

194 RESEARCH ETHICS BOARD mmm Certification of Ethical Acceptability of Research Involving Human Participants

APPROVAL PERIOD: April 13,2004 to March 30,2008

REB NUMBER: MR016

REPORTS REQUIRED: Annual Report April 13,2007 Completion Report March 30,2008 TYPE OF REVIEW: Delegated {£) Full Board a RESPONSIBLE FACULTY: B.Smtt

DEPARTMENT: SEDRD

SPONSOR: ArctlcNetNCE SSHRC D1AND Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Program

TITLE OF PROJECT: Inutt Adaptive Strategies and Environmental Conditions

The members of the University of Guelph Research Ethics Board have examined the protocol which describes the participation of the human subjects in the above-named research project and considers the procedures, as described by the applicant, to conform toth e University's ethical standards and the Tri-Council Policy Statement

The REB requires that you adhere to the protocol as last reviewed and approved by the REB. The REB must approve any modifications before they can be implemented. If you wish to modify your research project, please complete (he Change Request Form, if there is a change in your source of funding, or a previously unfunded project receives funding, you must report this as a change toth e protocol.

Adverse or unexpected events must be reported to the REB as soon as possible with an indication of how these events affect, in the view of the Responsible Faculty, the safety of the participants, and the continuation of the protocol

if research participants are in the care of a health facility, at a school, or other institution or community organization, it is the responsibility of the Principal Investigator to ensure that the ethical guidelines and approvals of those facilities or institutions are obtained and filedwit h the REB prior to the initiation of any research protocols.

The Tri-council Policy Statement requires that ongoing research be monitored by. at a minimum, a final report and, if the approval period tolonge r than one year, annual reports. Continued approval is contingent on timely submission of reports.

Membership of the Research Ethics Board: F. Caldwell, Student Health Services; A. Duncan, HHNS, Michelle Dwyer, Legal Representative; M. Falrbum, Ethics and External, B. Ferguson, Economics, C. Harvey- Smith, N.D. and External; J. Mlnogue, SHS; I. Newby-Clark. Psychology, J. Randall Simpson, FRAN; p, Salmon, SETS; T. Tumor; jSodojpgy & Antf

JAN 1 8 M Approved:, Date:

Chair, Research Ethics Board

195 UNIVERSITY ^QUELPH

RESEARCH ETHICS BOARD University Centra 437, Gueiph, Ontario N1G 2W1 519-824-4120 X56606

January 17,2007

Or. B. Smit Department of Geography University of Gueiph Gueiph, ON N1G2W1

Dear Dr. Smit

This is to confirm that Meghan McKenna, Ruth DeSantis, and Mark Andrachuk are all students who are working on your project "tnuit Adaptive Strategies and Environmental Conditions* which has received ethical approval from the Research Ethics Board of the University of Gueiph - REB#MR016.

Sincerely,

•'S. AuW Research Ethics Coordinator University of Gueiph

196 RESEARCH ETHICS BOARD UNIVERSITY Certification of Ethical Acceptability of Research Involving Human Participants

APPROVAL PERIOD: April 13,2004 to March 30,2008

REB NUMBER: MR016

REPORTS REQUIRED: Annual Report April 13,2007 Completion Report March 30,2008

TYPE OP REVIEW: Delegated {*] Full Beard D

RESPONSIBLE FACULTY: B.Smlt

DEPARTMENT: SEDRD

SPONSOR: AreUcNatNCE SSHRC DIAND Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Program

TITLE OF PROJECT: Imilt Adaptive Strategies and Environmental Conditions

The members of the University of Guelph Research Ethics Board have examined the protocol which describes the participation of the human subjects in the above-named research project and considers the procedures, as described by the applicant, to conform to the University's ethical standards and the Tri-Council Policy Statement.

The REB requires that you adhere to the protocol as last reviewed and approved by the REB. The REB must approve any modifications before they can be implemented. If you wish to modify your research project, please complete the Change Request Form. If there Is a change in your source of funding, or a previously unfunded project receives funding, you must report this as a change to the protocol.

Adverse or unexpected events must be reported to the REB as soon as poss&le with an indication of how these events affect in the view of the Responsible Faculty, the safety of the participants, and the continuation of the protocol.

if research participants are in the care of a health facility, at a school, or other institution or community organization, it is the responsibility of the Principal Investigator to ensure that the ethical guidelines and approvals of those facilities or institutions are obtained and filed with the REB prior to the Initiation of any research protocols.

The Trt-coundl Policy Statement requires mat ongoing research be monitored by, at a minimum, a final report and, if the approval period is longer than one year, annual reports. Continued approval is contingent on timely submission of reports.

Membership of the Research Ethics Board: F. Caldwell, Student Health Services; A. Duncan, HHNS, Michelle Dwyer, Legal Representative; M. Fairbum, Ethics and External, B. Ferguson. Economics, C. Harvey- Smith, WD. and External; J. Mlnogue, EHS; I. Newby-Clark. Psychology-. •>- Randall Simpson, FRAN; P. Salmon, SETS; T. Turner; jSodofcfry & Anthn

Approved:. Date: JAN 1 8 2087

Chair, Research Ethics Board

197 Office of f|__ Researcn 1^4 Reynolds Building, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, NIG 2W1 COPY Certification of Ethical Acceptability to Involve Human Participants in Research

DATE: April 13,2004

APPLICANT: B. Smtt

DEPARTMENT: Geography

SPONSOR: ArcticNet NCE

REB NUMBER: MR016

TITLE OF PROJECT: Inuit Adaptive Strategies and Environmental Conditions

The members or the University of Guelph Research Ethics Board have examined the experimental protocol which describes the participation of the human subjects In the above- named research project and it considers the experimental procedures, as described by the applicant, to conform to the University's ethical standards.

Approved:. Date: £a f. *2«X-

C.McKenna Associate Vice-President (Research)

Expedited Review fp

198 APPENDIXC

Participant Consent Form for Interviews

Project Title: Building Adaptive Capacity in Tuktoyaktuk

Project Description: This research aims to learn from your experience in order to:

1. Identify how environmental changes affect you 2. Identify the strategies you have employed for managing environmental changes 3. Identify things that influence your ability to manage and adjust to environmental changes 4. Understand how you make use of traditional and/or scientific knowledge when adjusting to changing environmental conditions

Researcher Contact Information: MarkAndrachuk Department of Geography, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, NIG 2W1 Phone: (519) 824 4120 ext. 54174 Email: [email protected]

Check one: Q I want to be anonymous - my identity and the information that I provide are confidential

Q I give permission to use my name and I want the information that I provide to be attributed tome

Check any that you wish to apply: • I give permission for audio recording D I give permission for taking photographs and using these images for presentations related to the research described above (not for profit)

Statement of Your Rights: J have been fully informed of the objectives of the project being conducted. I understand these objectives and consent to being interviewed for the project. I understand that steps will be undertaken to ensure that this interview will remain confidential unless I consent to being identified. I also understand that if J wish to withdraw from the study, I may do so without repercussions.

Name (please print):

Signature: Date:

Signature of witness: Date:

199 APPENDIXD

Schematic diagram of the Longard Tube System that was installed as an experimental attempt to prevent shoreline erosion (image taken from Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk 1984).

V

KUGMAU.IT BAY

<•*»' SECTION A-A

£££0*010

SECTION B-B

» •% Jt.' *• --j Tuee. mm w mum SECTION C-C HATUHM.VCACH

200