Climate change impacts on Canadian Inuit in Nunavut

Published: February 9, 2010, 12:51 pm

Updated: May 7, 2012, 12:41 pm

Topics:

Environmental & Resource Management (main) Environmental Law & Policy (main) Climate Change (main)

This is Section 12.3.2 of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Lead Author: Mark Nuttall; Contributing Authors: Fikret Berkes, Bruce Forbes, Gary Kofinas,Tatiana Vlassova, George Wenzel

The impact of climate on Inuit has been a dominant, if not the predominant, theme in Eskimo anthropology since Franz Boas undertook research on Baffin Island. At a time when the study of hunter-gatherers has become a virtual sub-discipline within anthropology, the "attribute" that still sets Inuit apart from the Kalahari San and other hunting peoples is the same one that European visitors to Nunavut, from Martin Frobisher (an early explorer) to today’s tourist, remark upon. That is, how can any people adapt to the arctic environment, and to most people the arctic environment is epitomized by climate, especially the cold and the long, dark winters.

This case study focuses on the adaptability (or adaptiveness) of the traditional Inuit economy in Nunavut in a (presumed) time of climate-induced ecological instability. The relationship between Inuit ecology and Inuit economy is almost too obvious. Inuit are hunters and the most referenced passage in Boas’s seminal The Central Eskimo is about the relationship between sea ice, ringed seal distribution, and Inuit hunting and settlement. So a part of this case study is necessarily about Inuit hunting and wildlife harvesting. In other words, it will speak to the production component of the traditional economy, particularly Inuit hunting and the production of niqituinnaq (real food) including what at Clyde River (the community from which much of the material in this case study is derived) is called ningiqtuq – the sharing or, put formally, the Inuit system of resource allocation and redistribution.

Gaining an understanding of how environmental change due to a warming (or cooling) climate may affect the material aspects of Inuit resource production (i.e., the economics) is important. And so are the possible effects of climate-induced ecological instability on the traditional economy because it is the socio-cultural rules that order who gets what when that make the economy Inuit.

With regard to generating hypotheses, or at least envisioning scenarios, modern workers have the benefit of the archaeology and paleoclimatology undertaken over the past 40 years in the North American Arctic. Much of this was to answer questions about how climate has influenced the economics of Inuit life. There is less information about the Inuit economy as it is impossible to know exactly how a seal or caribou was shared within communities, let alone who received what piece, 500 or 1000 years ago. However, as Inuit economics and economy are linked, there is at least the possibility, using data about past changes and about how the system currently functions, to model the socio-economic impact among Nunavummiut (the Inuit of Nunavut) because of a largescale change in climate.

Inuit subsistence and climate: the long-term record (12.3.2.1)

The relations between climate and Inuit material subsistence and cultural adaptation can be examined through what is known from climatology, physical oceanography, and biology about two long-term climate trends. These are the Little Climatic Optimum–Medieval Warm Epoch (also known as the Neo-Atlantic Period, ca. AD 1000–1250), and the Second Climatic Optimum/Neo-Boreal Period/Little Ice Age, which lasted from ca. AD 1550 to 1900.

Data from northern Europe, Iceland, and the eastern Arctic indicate that during the Neo-Atlantic Period temperatures across the high latitudes of the North Atlantic region were as much as 2 to 2.5 °C above the annual average that prevailed in the eastern Arctic through most of the 20th century. Conversely, the Little Ice Age involved a significant cooling of this region, with the most pronounced thermal effect in summer. Data from northwestern and mid-Europe suggest that summers averaged 0.5 to 0.8 °C less then those in the preceding moderating Pacific Period. Further north, in Scandinavia, the first half of the 17th century saw 13 summers at least 1 °C colder then the estimated average for the 16th century.

These episodes also produced large-scale positive feedback in the North American arctic ecosystem. The impact of each episode on northern physical and biological systems in turn correlates with climate-related adaptive adjustments by Inuit.

The most discussed episode is the Second Climatic Optimum, which warmed the North American polar stage from the Chukchi Sea to West Greenland. This warming, beginning around AD 1000, saw the central and eastern Canadian Arctic experience a spatial and temporal reduction in the amount of seasonal sea ice present.

This change in the physical environment created extensive new range for bowhead whales and for longer periods. And the expansion of bowhead whales from north Alaskan waters eastward (while North Atlantic bowhead whales were able to penetrate farther west) enabled Thule Culture people, the direct ancestors of modern Inuit, with their whale hunting experience, to follow. With a technology adapted to exploit a resource that the indigenous population of this part of the Arctic could not, the migrants rapidly displaced the late Paleo-Eskimo population that had developed in situ over the previous two millennia from the whole of Nunavut, Ungava–Labrador, and Greenland. Thus, while Thule Culture lasted only the few centuries that this extreme warm period allowed large whales passage into most of the Canadian Arctic, many of the technologies that the Qallunaat (non-Inuit) world associates with Inuit – dog traction, the umiaq and qayaq, and large marine mammal hunting – are Thule legacies.

The Little Ice Age, the deep cold that set in following a transitional cooling from the Medieval Warm Epoch, is the reason why the Inuit culture that Europeans met as they quested for a northern route to Cathay looked as it did (and still looked until about 1970). The long summers with almost ice-free open water were gone and, except on the western and easternmost fringes of the Inuit area, so were bowhead whales. The whole tenor of Inuit life had changed.

The winter security that came with the harvesting of a 20- or 30-tonne whale was gone and so was the large supply of fuel and building material that came with capturing a bowhead whale. Instead, Inuit developed what McGhee somewhat over-generally called a "Netsilik adaptation" based on the exploitation of a variety of seasonally available smaller prey species, chiefly caribou in summer, ringed seals through the winter, and anadromous Arctic char during their passage to and from the ocean.

In addition, the Inuit pattern of winter settlement across much of Nunavut changed from the land to the sea ice and the Thule Culture Classic Stage semisubterranean whalebone and boulder house was abandoned in many areas for the snow igliuk or iglu. Overall, Inuit became less sedentary because large supplies of food could no longer be rapidly developed and the new primary resource suite comprised species that were highly mobile and/or elusive.

Box 12.1. Inuktitut terms
Akpallugitt	form of sharing between individuals (“inviting in”)	Nirriyaktuqtuq	commensal meal
Ilagiit	extended family	Nunavummiut	people of Nunavut
Isumataq	head of an ilaqiit (lit.“one who thinks”)	Paiyuktuq	a gift of food (related forms: quaktuaktuq, niqisutaiyuq)
Katujiyuk	apportioning of meat within a cooperating task group	Quaktuaktuq	a form of commensal sharing; food gifts to close affines
Minaqtuq	commensal sharing/distribution of stored food	Sila	weather, climate; also: mind, consciousness
Nalaqtuk	behavioral terms meaning respect or obedience	Tigutuinnaq	transfers (usually food) from an isumataq to a subordinate
Ningiq	a share of a hunted animal	Tugagauyuk	transfers (usually food) from a subordinate hunter to superior kin
Ningiqtuq	to share a portion of a hunted animal	Uummajusiutiit	unrelated cooperating hunters
Niqiliriiq	those who share;“neighbors”	Ungayuk	behavioral term meaning affection or solidarity
Niqisutaiyuq	a form of commensal sharing	Umiaqa	traditional woman’s boat
Niqitatianaq	transfers of food between two unrelated hunters	Qayaq	kayak
Niqituinnaq	meat from a hunted animal (“real food”)

Ningiqtuq: the traditional/contemporary economy (12.3.2.2)

An economy is the orderly movement of goods and services from producers to consumers.

…a subsistence economy is a highly specialized mode of production and distribution of not only goods and services, but of social forms… Lonner, 1980

An extensive discussion on the economy of Nunavut is beyond the scope of this case study. However, other than in the territorial capital and main [[region]al] government centers, the term "subsistence", as it is used by Lonner, describes the situation for the rest of Nunavut. Put another way, it is a mixed economy (sometimes described wrongly as a dual economy) in which traditional and non-traditional resources – represented by wild foods and money, respectively – interact, although "optimal economy" is probably a more accurate description. The reality for most Nunavummiut is that the best return for one dollar comes from hunting, but without a dollar hunting is not possible. What is optimal (i.e., how much of each resource type is best) differs from household to household, but few households can manage reasonably without some mix of country and imported food. As Fienup-Riordan observed, "…income is perceived as the means to accomplish and facilitate the harvest, and not an end in itself ".

With respect to the traditional economy, this case study concentrates on the social form(s) that organize the material flow of food once it has been captured. To some extent, these rules also apply when money is "captured". However, this is more uneven owing to the scarcity of money and the costs that are almost always associated with its acquisition.

Table 12.4. Clyde Inuit ningiqtuq interaction sets. Ningiqtuq is generally seen as a multi-layered strategy by which participants achieve the widest possible intra-community distribution of resources. However, while Damas used ningiq to refer only to the social movement of niqituinnaq, ningiqtuq is conceptualized here as a set of socio-economic operations that also encompass labor and non-traditional resources.
Interaction set	Flow direction	Reference
Traditional	1a. isumataq << ilagiit subordinates 1b.isumataq >> ilagiit subordinates 2. father-in-law << son-in-law 3. isumataq >> community	Tugagaujuqa Tigutuinnaqa tugagaujuq (?) Nirriyaktuqtuq/minatuq (?)
Modern	4. between unrelated hunters 5. angijukak << unrelated hunters 6. angijukak >> community	Uummajusiutiit Taliqtuq Nirriyaktuqtuq (?)
Other	7. between unrelated young and elders 8. between same generation non-kin; generally among the elderly	nalaktuq related inviting in and "gifting"
aTugagaujuq and tigutuinnaq are complementary and participants are generally seen as being niqiliriiq (sharers of food).

The system in outline (12.3.2.3)

Ningiqtuq is not a single defined process by which seal meat or maktaaq are distributed. It is generally translated as meaning "to share", but it is in fact a web of social mechanisms for distributing and redistributing food and other resources. How allocation is accomplished differs across Nunavut, but the term is used in almost all [[region]s] of the territory to describe the overall process of transferring food between individuals, households, and across entire communities. Table 12.4 outlines the array of distributional mechanisms in Clyde River. Not all the processes included in the table are "traditional", there are several that the older generation of Clyde River people consider the result of modern village circumstances. However, each form shown was referenced by at least three informants to a traditional type or behavioral precept (see Table 12.5).

As Table 12.5 shows, food sharing at Clyde River is a multi-level system that encompasses social relations ranging from the action that occurs between paired isolates (as in akpallugiit) to means that span the entire community (minaqtuq). And while ningiqtuq, as practiced today by Clyde River Inuit, includes aspects related to the changed pattern of settlement that came about through Canadian government centralization policies in the 1950s and 1960s, organization of the system based on traditional principles of, foremost, kinship and, second, intra-generational solidarity, remains.

In functional terms, almost every form of sharing encompassed by the concept of ningiqtuq has as its basis a social, rather than an economic, referent. The greatest sharing activity in terms of social focus occurs within the context of the restricted extended family. Within the ilagiit essentially all members are in a niqiliriiq (literally, "those who share food") relationship. And it is within the ilagiit that the nalaqtuk (Damas’ respect–obedience dyad, but which may be conceptualized as responsibility–obligation) directive that structures intergenerational/interpersonal behavior is most apparent.

Whereas tugagaujuk–tigutuinnaq activities function almost wholly within the social context of the extended family, as Tables 12.4 and 12.5 indicate, mechanisms for the more generalized distribution of food resources are also present. The main one being nirriyaktuqtuq, or communal meal. Such commensalism may be restricted to the ilagiit, particularly when resources are scarce, or may include a large segment of the community. In either circumstance, communal meals are always held in, or immediately adjacent to, the dwelling of the hosting extended family head.

Generalized reciprocity (12.3.2.4)

A major reason for presenting an exhaustive review of the Inuit economy in Nunavut is to dispel the commonly held view that the Inuit traditional economy can be summed up by the term generalized reciprocity. It cannot, and this is as inappropriate as saying that catching a seal sums up the traditional economy. The ningiqtuq economy is socially complex. Although some of its forms are general in scope – commensalism being an example – most of its operations are founded in balanced reciprocal relations, with reciprocity enforced by social precepts that provide for inclusion as well as sanction.

Table 12.5. Aspects of Clyde Inuit ningiqtuq.
Social context	Behavioral directive	Form	Description
1a. Individual 1b. 1c.	Ungayuk (solidarity–affection) Ungayuk Ungayuk	akpallugiit quaktuaktuq/niqisutaiyuq/paiyuktuq niqitatianaq	inviting in guests (typically same generation non-kin) food gifts to close affines and nonkin (generally restricted to elders) Uummajusiutiit ("partnered" hunters)
2a. Intra-Ilagiit 2b.	Nalaqtuk (respect–obedience) Nalaqtuk	niqiliriiq nirriyaktuqtuq	tugagauyuk-tigutuinnaq complementary restricted commensalism
3a. Inter-Ilagiit/community 3b. 3c.	Ungayuk Ungayuk Nalaqtuk	nirriyaktuqtuq minaqtuq Katujiyuk	open commensalism distribution of stored food within task group

Climate change and the economy (12.3.2.4)

Warming versus cooling

Based on what is known of the impacts of the two most recent major climatic events to have affected the Inuit (Section 12.3.2.1 (Climate change impacts on Canadian Inuit in Nunavut)), warming would appear to be a good thing for the Inuit economy; the Second Climatic Optimum spurred an amazing cultural expansion, with Inuit traveling nearly 8,000 km in barely 200 years, in the process displacing a cultural tradition nearly 2,000 years old.

However, the Netsilik hunting adaptation ([[Section 12.3.2.1 (Climate change impacts on Canadian Inuit in Nunavut)]2]) was a response to a cold environment and the ningiqtuq economy differs markedly from the economy practiced around bowhead whaling in North Alaska since at least the 19th century. (This is not to say that a ningiqtuq-type of sharing is absent among Iñupiat, but rather that it is overlain by a more corporately-oriented mechanism.) This suggests that the present warming, should it continue to increase, may not be good for either the traditional economy or the subsistence economy.

The best evidence for testing this theory comes from the West Greenland work of Vibe on the effect of climate change on northern biota and Inuit resource use. Using a 150-year database (1800–1950) drawn from Danish colonial meteorological, ice, and trading records, Vibe correlated the episodes of warming and cooling over this period with the rise and fall in the capture of ringed seals and polar bears. By comparing the official trading records with sea-ice conditions during this period it was apparent that when the local climate ameliorated, which reduced the duration of the seasonal sea ice, the capture of both species declined. Vibe also pointed out that ringed seals are the main prey item for polar bears and that a stable sea-ice environment is critical to ringed seal ecology, especially for successful spring pupping.

Vibe’s study, which drew on the rich scientific and commercial records available from Greenland, is unique in those terms. However, the conclusion that ringed seal pup production suffers when increased temperatures seasonally destabilize the sea ice and that this affects the polar bear harvest supports statements by Inuit based on their long empirical experience with both species.

Ringed seals

Ringed seals and polar bears are as important now as at any time in the past to the economic well-being of small Nunavut communities. The ringed seal, or natsiq, is one of the principal items in the traditional Inuit diet. Besides being the most abundant marine mammal in circumpolar waters, ringed seals are present throughout the year along the entire Nunavut coastline. Their presence through winter offsets the absence of most other important food species at this time. Finally, natsiq provide high quality nutrition when few alternatives, except for the most costly imported foods, are available.

To Inuit, natsiq are an all-season, all-year food. At Clyde River, where it is one of eighteen species of mammal, fish, and bird that are regularly harvested, ringed seals comprised 54% of the edible biomass captured by Clyde hunters between 1979 and 1983. In 1979, of the 169 tonnes of country food that came into the community, 109 tonnes (64.9%) were ringed seal. Thus, a substantial reduction in the seal harvest would have profound implications for the ecological economics of Inuit life. This is even more apparent in terms of the seasonal dietary contribution of ringed seal. Ringed seals represent 58% of the winter food supply, but 66, 81, and 64% in spring, summer, and autumn, respectively. Caribou, the next most important food species by edible weight, comprises 39% of the winter food capture, and 30, 13, and 18.5% for the other seasons, respectively.

A substantial reduction in ringed seals would also affect the overall economy of Inuit subsistence. This is mainly because there is no other species on the land or in the waters of Nunavut that is as abundant or as available as natsiq. In simple terms, no other species could sustain the subsistence requirements of Inuit. But, more importantly, the cultural meaning of ningiqtuq would suffer. This is because niqituinnaq (real food) is quite literally the stuff of sharing. To hunt, catch, and share this kind of food is to an Inuk the essence of living Inuktitut. Ringed seal is as much a cultural commodity in Inuit subsistence culture as it is an item of diet.

Polar bears

Polar bears also play an important role in the contemporary subsistence system. Like ringed seals, they are also niqituinnaq. And, if climate change affects the ecology and distribution of ringed seals, it will thus affect polar bears. However, in food terms, polar bears, especially when compared to ringed seals, are of minor importance. Nevertheless, they represent one of the few sources of money that Inuit can access through traditional activities. While polar bear hides have long had a market outside the traditional uses to which Inuit put them, a polar bear hunt sold today to an American, Swiss, Mexican, or Japanese sport hunter may bring as much as US$15,000 per bear to a community. Rifles, snowmobiles, and gasoline are now as effective a part of Inuit subsistence as dog teams, seal oil lamps, and fishing leisters were sixty years ago. (Why this is requires looking at Canadian internal colonial policy from 1945 to 1985.)

The quandary that confronts every Inuk hunter is how to gain access to money at a minimum cost in time. While hunting produces large amounts of high quality food – the Government of Nunavut estimates that it would cost approximately Can$35,000,000 to replace this harvest production – virtually none of this traditional wealth can be converted into the money needed to purchase, operate, and maintain the equipment hunters use. Yet abandoning hunting for imported food would not only be less healthy but would also be immensely costly. But this is not in fact a viable alternative as approximately 30 to 35% of adult Nunavummiut are unemployed (Employment, unemployment, and well-being) and another 15 to 20% are underemployed or only able to work seasonally.

Polar bear sport hunting helps meet the cash resource needs of many hunters while imposing a minimal cost in time. In 2001, ten sport polar bear hunts at Clyde River brought approximately Can$212,000 into the community, with half going directly to the Inuit – more income than entered Clyde River from four years of hiking, kayaking, and other forms of ecotourism. And these hunt revenues directly capitalized the purchase of five snowmobiles, a 7 m inboard-engine equipped boat, a large outboard engine, and two all-terrain 4-wheel drive vehicles (some Can$ 75,000–90,000 of equipment) by sport hunt workers for use in sealing and other subsistence activities. (Note: hunt workers purchased one all-terrain vehicle and one snowmobile for relatives not involved in sport hunting; money does enter the ningiqtuq sharing system.)

Projected climate change

If the projected climate change scenarios are correct (see Chapter 4 (Climate change impacts on Canadian Inuit in Nunavut)), some Nunavut communities, possibly even Clyde River, may find that the traditional and contemporary aspects of their subsistence systems are affected as described by Vibe. In which case, if access to ringed seals and polar bears decreased, could Clyde River hunters shift to other subsistence sources, like narwhal, caribou, and harp seal that are at present of only minor importance?

The answer is probably yes, but not easily for a variety of reasons. Firstly, because it is highly likely that at least some potential "fallback" species will also be affected by a continued warming. For instance caribou, now the principal terrestrial resource for Inuit, are highly sensitive to the kinds of wet/cool conditions that may occur in autumn when rain, rather than snow, may lead to the icing over of vegetation and so limit their ability to obtain winter food. This occurred in autumn 1972 on several islands in the Canadian High Arctic with the result that caribou disappeared for nearly six years from Bathurst and Cornwallis Islands.

The present reduced state of the Peary Caribou Herd, sufficiently serious for a number of central arctic communities to limit and even ban their subsistence harvests of this species, may have been triggered by autumn rains that iced the winter food supply and crusted the snow cover. In most areas, muskox, which are better adapted to these conditions, have replaced the caribou, but are themselves vulnerable to exploitation.

Narwhal and harp seal may provide some replacement for any reduction in ringed seals. Neither is an arctic winter species, but if summers come earlier and stay ice-free for longer, the harvest of both may be increased significantly. Narwhal, because its maktaaq (skin) is a favored food and the ivory tusk of males has commercial value, would draw increased subsistence attention. And the northwest Atlantic harp seal herd, which summers between Baffin Island and West Greenland, has grown geometrically since southern Canadian commercial exploitation was limited in the mid-1980s.

However, there are serious issues concerning both species. Narwhal probably do not possess the population size to sustain any significant increase in their harvest. Moreover, there are serious Canadian and international regulatory issues that would need to be addressed even if an expanded harvest were solely for food. Similarly, any increase in the use of harp seals, which at present draw minor attention from Nunavummiut, would re-ignite the political activity that caused the collapse of [[market]s] for seal products.

One thing is certain. The mobility that Inuit once possessed to move in response to shifts in the pattern and state of their resource base is no longer possible. Inuit in Nunavut now live in communities that are a direct result of Canadian government policy and which represent hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure and other investment. Clyde River, for instance, which is home to about 800 people and more or less representative of the kind of infrastructure and services found across Nunavut, is the result of some $50 million of government investment. In today’s political-economic climate, migration to remain in contact with natsiq, polar bear, or more broadly, to maintain traditional Inuit subsistence culture is virtually impossible.

Conclusions

Inuit, whether Nunavummiut, Alaskan, or Kalaallit, have shown adaptiveness in the face of the incredibly rapid change in their cultural environment as they have passed through successive stages of colonization in just six or seven decades. Having been able to adapt to that kind of environmental change, global warming will be far less formidable.

Chapter 12. Hunting, herding, fishing, and gathering: indigenous peoples and renewable resource use in the Arctic
12.1 Introduction (Climate change impacts on Canadian Inuit in Nunavut)
12.2 Present uses of living marine and terrestrial resources
12.2.1 Indigenous peoples, animals, and climate in the Arctic
12.2.2 Mixed economies
12.2.3 Renewable resource use, resource development, and global processes
12.2.4 Renewable resource use and climate change
12.2.5 Responding to climate change
12.3 Understanding climate change impacts through case studies
12.3.1 Canadian Western Arctic: the Inuvialuit of Sachs Harbour
12.3.2 Canadian Inuit in Nunavut
12.3.3 The Yamal Nenets of northwest Siberia
12.3.4 Indigenous peoples of the Russian North
12.3.5 Indigenous caribou systems of North America

References

Citation

Committee, I. (2012). Climate change impacts on Canadian Inuit in Nunavut. Retrieved from http://editors.eol.org/eoearth/wiki/Climate_change_impacts_on_Canadian_Inuit_in_Nunavut