The Geographical Journal, Vol. 174, No. 1, March 2008, pp. 45–62 Blackwell PublishingClimate Ltd change in the Arctic: current and future vulnerability in two Inuit communities in Canada JAMES D FORD*, BARRY SMIT†, JOHANNA WANDEL†, MISHAK ALLURUT‡, KIK SHAPPA‡, HARRY ITTUSARJUAT§ AND KEVIN QRUNNUT§ *Department of Geography, McGill University, 805 Sherbrooke St. W., Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2K6 E-mail: [email protected] †Department of Geography, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1 E-mails: [email protected]; [email protected] ‡Hamlet of Arctic Bay, Nunavut X0A 0HO §Hamlet of Igloolik, Nunavut XA 0LO This paper was accepted for publication in July 2007 Climate change is already occurring in the Arctic and the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment recently concluded that future climate change could be devastating for Inuit. This paper characterises vulnerability to climate change in two Inuit communities in the Canadian territory of Nunavut, focusing on the resource harvesting sector. In both communities, Inuit have demonstrated significant adaptability in the face of current changes in climatic conditions. This adaptability is facilitated by traditional Inuit knowledge, strong social networks, flexibility in resource use, and institutional support. Changing Inuit livelihoods, however, have undermined certain aspects of adaptive capacity and have resulted in emerging vulnerabilities. Global and regional climate projections indicate that climatic conditions which currently pose risks are expected to be negatively affected by future climate change. These projections are not without precedent and analysis of current vulnerability and identification of adaptation constraints by Inuit in the two communities indicate the continued importance of traditional coping mechanisms. The ability to draw on these coping mechanisms in light of future climate change, however, will be unequal and the research indicates that young Inuit and those without access to economic resources, in particular, are vulnerable. KEY WORDS: Nunavut, Canada, Arctic, climate change, vulnerability, Inuit, participatory research, resource management residents have expressed growing concern (Shirley Introduction 2005; Furgal and Sequin 2006). Many of these risks here is strong evidence that climate change are associated with the harvesting of renewable is already occurring in the Canadian Arctic resources, which continues to have importance to T(McBean et al. 2005; Bonsal and Prowse 2006; Inuit (AHDR 2004; Duhaime et al. 2004; Ford et al. Moore 2006). Documented changes include signifi- 2006a). The procurement, sharing and consumption cant warming, increased precipitation, alterations in of traditional food contributes significantly to cultural sea-ice dynamics, and a change in climatic variability identity, tradition and social cohesion, and estimates and the occurrence of extremes (Gough et al. 2004; of the value of Nunavut’s land-based economy are ACIA 2005; Stirling and Parkinson 2006). These between 40 and 60 million Canadian dollars per changes are posing risks and hazards to Inuit com- year (Conference Board of Canada 2001; Thompson munities in the Canadian territory of Nunavut, and 2004; Chan et al. 2006). Geographical Journal Vol. 174 No. 1, pp. 45–62, 2008 0016-7398/07/0002-0001/$00.20/0 © 2007 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2007 The Royal Geographical Society 46 Climate change in the Arctic Global climate models (GCMs) project continued The vulnerability approach increases in temperature and precipitation over the Canadian Arctic; alterations to the frequency, To characterise vulnerability to climate change, magnitude, and geographic distribution of climate this paper utilises the vulnerability approach of related events; reduced areal extent and thickness Ford and Smit (2004) and Ford et al. (2006a), which of the sea ice and permafrost; and shifts in the conceptualises vulnerability to climate change as a distribution, abundance, and migratory behaviour function of exposure and adaptive capacity. Exposure of Arctic wildlife species (Derocher et al. 2004; reflects the susceptibility of people and communities Correll 2006; Serreze and Francis 2006; Serreze to climatic conditions, and adaptive capacity reflects et al. 2007; Teng et al. 2006). These changes are a community’s potential or ability to address, plan likely to have widespread implications for resource for, or adapt to exposure. Exposure and adaptive harvesting, occurring in the context of challenges capacity are not mutually exclusive. Exposure to posed by ongoing social, cultural and economic repeated climate-related conditions, for instance, can change (Nuttall et al. 2005). develop experience of how to manage the climatic While there is general agreement that future conditions, and enables ‘response with learning’, changes in climate are likely to pose serious thus increasing the adaptive capacity of the system. challenges to Inuit, little is known about the nature Certain adaptive strategies can also change the nature of change that can be accommodated by existing of the community (location, structure, organisation), ways of life, what aspects of Indigenous livelihoods such that the community is more or less exposed, or are at risk, what aspects of climate change are exposed in a different way. In this conceptualisation, important to communities, how societal changes will vulnerability at a local level is viewed as being affect how people experience climate change and conditioned by social, economic, cultural, political their ability to respond, and what can be done to and climatic conditions and processes, operating at increase community adaptability (Duerden 2004; multiple scales over time and space, which affect Nuttall et al. 2005). Policymakers and Inuit are community exposure and adaptive capacity. This is demanding answers to these questions, and assessing broadly consistent with other approaches to vulner- climate change vulnerabilities has been identified ability, including Turner et al. (2003), Eriksen et al. as a major area where further research is required (2005), Belliveau et al. (2006), and Smit and Wandel (GN 2003; ICARP 2005; Shirley 2005; Watt-Cloutier (2006). et al. 2005; Chapin et al. 2006; Gearhead et al. The analytical framework for vulnerability analysis 2006). is highlighted in Figure 1. Analysis starts by examin- This paper characterises vulnerability to climate ing past and present experience and response to change in two Inuit communities in the Canadian climate variability, change and extremes, to charac- territory of Nunavut, focusing on the resource harvest- terise ‘current vulnerability’ (current exposure and ing sector. It begins by reviewing and synthesising previous research by the authors, identifying current climate-related conditions that are important to community livelihoods, documenting how they are managed, and characterising those factors that con- strain or enable management strategies. A synthesis of the dynamics of current levels of vulnerability outlined in previous research is a necessary first step in understanding the potential implications of climate change, providing a baseline from which to analyse future vulnerability. The paper then uses climate change projections to estimate how current climatic risks will be affected by climate change, and examines their potential implications for local livelihoods. Analogues of past response to climate variability and extremes, synthesised from previous research and interpreted in the context of climate projections and local impacts, are then used to evaluate adaptability to future change, completing the vulnerability analysis. The paper begins by describing the approach to assessing vulnerability employed here and how it was applied in the case Figure 1 Analytical framework for vulnerability analysis (after study communities. Ford and Smit 2004) Geographical Journal Vol. 174 No. 1, pp. 45–62, 2008 © 2007 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2007 The Royal Geographical Society Climate change in the Arctic 47 current adaptive capacity). This involves (1) identifi- communities throughout Nunavut (small, largely cation of climatic conditions that represent risks to Inuit, and dependent upon the harvesting of renew- community members; (2) characterisation of how able resources) to provide a lens with which to communities manage and experience these risks; examine the processes shaping current and future and (3) identification of those processes and con- vulnerability across the territory. On the basis of ditions that influence exposure to climatic risks and these criteria, Arctic Bay and Igloolik were selected determine the efficacy, availability, and success of past (Figure 2). and present adaptations. ‘Future vulnerability’ (future Igloolik is a coastal Inuit community of 1538 exposure and future adaptive capacity) is assessed people located on Igloolik Island in northern Foxe by estimating directional changes in community- Basin, approximately 320 km north of the Arctic identified climate-related exposures and assessing Circle. Arctic Bay is also a coastal Inuit community future adaptive capacity on the basis of past behaviour of 690 people, located on north Baffin Island and community identification of future adaptation approximately 700 km north of the Arctic Circle. options, constraints, and opportunities. Both settlements have expanded rapidly since the Place-based case studies are employed in this 1960s, and their economies have shifted from being approach to characterise