Responding to climate change in the Arctic

From The Encyclopedia of Earth
Jump to: navigation, search


Camel-icon.png

This is Section 12.2.5 of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Lead Author: Mark Nuttall; Contributing Authors: Fikret Berkes, Bruce Forbes, Gary Kofinas,Tatiana Vlassova, George Wenzel

Flexibility and adaptation

The Arctic has experienced significant climate change in the past, just as the global climate has changed historically in response to natural variations. What may seem to be relatively minor variations in temperature have produced large positive feedbacks in the environment that have often had dramatic impacts on physical and biological systems (e.g.,[1]). The successful long-term occupation of the Arctic by indigenous peoples has been possible, in part, owing to their adaptive capacity (in social, economic, and cultural practices) to adjust to climate variation and change. Hundreds and even thousands of years ago, arctic populations adapted to gradual or even rapid environmental change by settling amid favorable climate conditions and along the paths of animal migration routes.

The study of the origins, migration patterns, and socioeconomic development of arctic cultures is significant to any assessment of climate change in that it offers insight into long-term environmental adaptations, the impact of environmental change on humans, and in turn how humans have utilized resources and impacted upon the environment (e.g., [2]). Historical, archaeological, and anthropological evidence suggests that indigenous peoples had elaborate ecological knowledge that was crucial to their successful adaptation to changing environmental conditions, as well as to seizing the opportunities presented by climate change. The archaeological and ethno-historical record reveals that, in dealing with climate change, resource availability, social and economic change, and the introduction of new technology, indigenous populations have developed significant flexibility in resource procurement techniques and in social structure.

Climate change or the overexploitation of animal and fish populations meant that arctic hunting bands would have been forced to move to other areas in search of game, or to have adapted and diversified their range of subsistence techniques. Odner[3], for example, has argued that Saami populations in northern Norway coped with the periodic scarcity of wild reindeer in the middle ages by diversifying their subsistence activities, intensifying the exploitation of other species, moving on to other hunting grounds, developing techniques of animal husbandry, or by storing meat.

In the Canadian Arctic, Sabo[4] showed how Inuit in the eastern Canadian Arctic coped with the effects of climatic change on the population dynamics, distribution, and availability of terrestrial and marine resources by rescheduling their hunting activities and adapting their hunting techniques, and by maintaining flexibility in settlement patterns and social organization. Developing an ecosystem model and reviewing evidence for climate change over a 1,000-year period for southern Baffin Island, Sabo[5] demonstrated that the rescheduling of resource procurement systems and the continuation of a flexible arrangement in Inuit settlement patterns and demographic organization ensured both the availability and production of food and acted as regulatory social mechanisms which were able to respond to environmental change. Sabo[6] argued that, while there is paleo-environmental evidence to suggest climate change did affect Inuit subsistence activities on Baffin Island during this period, climate change is only one of several factors contributing to adaptive responses. Rather than resulting in environmental determinism, the ecology and climate of southern Baffin Island enabled successive human populations to develop long-term strategies of environmental diversification. By using a variety of resources and habitats the prehistoric population and historic Inuit retained a resilient human/ecosystem relationship during a long period of continuity and change.

The expansion of the Thule tradition across the North American Arctic, from western Alaska eastward to the central Canadian Arctic and beyond to Hudson Bay, Labrador, and Greenland offers another example of how indigenous peoples have adapted and migrated as the climate has changed. During the Neo-Atlantic Optimum (ca. AD 1000), the Canadian Arctic passed through a period of 400 to 500 years (the Scandic Period) during which mean summer [[temperature]s] were 1 to 2°C below the current average to a warmer period with summer temperatures around 2°C higher than at present. This warming period resulted in the Canadian eastern Arctic experiencing less summer sea ice, longer periods of open water, and ice-free summers. For Inuit groups, access was opened up to maritime habitats with a variety of marine mammals, mainly narwhal, beluga, harp seal and, significantly, the bowhead whale[7]. While this climatic shift changed the ecology of the Canadian eastern Arctic, the cultural effects of the Neo-Atlantic Optimum on coastal Inuit groups were also far-reaching. The major shift was perhaps the replacement of the paleo-eskimo Dorset culture by Thule migrants from the Beaufort/Chukchi Seas region, whose subsistence culture was underpinned by their dependence on the bowhead whale[8]. The eastward movement of these migrants was facilitated by the changing ecological conditions and the movement of the bowhead whale into previously ice-closed areas of the eastern Arctic[9].

The Thule tradition bore the hallmark of what is the essence of successful indigenous resource use systems throughout the Arctic – flexibility in technology and social organization and an ability to cope with climate change, responding both to its associated risks and seizing its opportunities. The archaeological record, ethnohistorical accounts, and the memories of elders provide detailed accounts of how human life in the Arctic has always been dominated and influenced by periodic, irregular, and often dramatic ecosystem changes, triggered by periods of warming and cooling, extreme weather events, and fluctuations in animal populations[10].

Barriers to adaptation

Change is a fact of life for arctic peoples, and they have a rich heritage of cultural adaptations to deal with it. Many of the short-term (or coping) responses appear to be based on this tradition of flexibility and innovation. The transition from sedentary to nomadic subsistence livelihoods and vice versa was the key to the survival and sustainability of arctic indigenous cultures. Cultural and ecological diversity required flexibility and resilient coping strategies during periods of extreme change and subsistence diversity was the outcome of a successful cultural and social response to climate variation and the resource instability of the Arctic[11].

Yet, a word of caution must be added: while there are success stories in terms of adaptation to climate change, it would be wrong to assume that adaptation is simple and not fraught with difficulties. There are losers as well as winners when climate change challenges indigenous peoples to respond in ways that can mitigate the negative impacts. In the Canadian eastern Arctic, the Dorset people lost out while the Thule migration was facilitated by climatic change, and as research on the social consequences of climate change in Greenland shows, people living in towns with similar social and economic settings and political and institutional structures showed a marked difference in their abilities and readiness to adapt to changing conditions[12].

Environmental changes, particularly in climate and ocean currents, that have affected fisheries in West Greenland are well documented, as are the associated social and economic changes, especially at the beginning of the 20th century[13]. As the waters of southern and west Greenland warmed, seals moved further north, making seal hunting harder for the Inuit population. Cod and other fish (halibut and shrimp) moved into the now warmer waters and made the development of a cod fishery possible. The development of fishing in West Greenland shows how climate change can provide opportunities for some people, some local communities, and some local regions. As Thuesen[14] argued, the political and economic changes taking place in West Greenland at the beginning of the 20th century meant that Greenlanders were now involved in and participating in the new political structures of local municipal councils and two provincial councils established in 1908. In 1910, experimental fisheries were taking place in West Greenland and Greenlandic fishers were learning new skills in fisheries training programs. The west coast town of Sisimiut was able to take advantage of these new developments, advantageously situated as it is at the northernmost limit of the ice-free waters on the west coast.

For those Greenlanders who embraced change and the opportunities now arising, some were able to benefit more than others because they played crucial roles as local entrepreneurs and took advantage of the opportunities to diversify local economies. Thuesen[15] argued that the development of Sisimiut as an important fishing centre was due in part to a strong sense of local identity and strong dynamism in the community – in short, people had a willingness to embrace change, to diversify the economic base, and to work to develop new industries. This stands in contrast to the development of the southwest Greenlandic town of Paamiut around the same time. Paamiut’s development was based largely on plentiful resources of cod. With few other resources available in commercially viable quantities, there was little incentive to diversify the local economy[16]. The concentration on a single resource demonstrated the vulnerability of Paamiut in the face of environmental change. The cod population began to fall, due to a combination of climatic change and overfishing, and the economy and population of Paamiut declined as a result[17]. This highlights the importance of recognizing that, in any adaptive strategy, local conditions and social differences are considerable factors in the success of a region affected by change, be it from climate, social, economic, or political factors. The development of cod fishing in Greenland also shows, however, how climate change and social change go hand in hand. Cod fishing developed at a time when climate change was having an adverse effect on seal hunting, yet the population of Greenland was also growing, making it necessary to find alternative ways for the majority of the population to make a living.

Arctic hunters and herders have always lived with and adapted to shifts and changes in the size, distribution, range, and availability of animal populations. They have dealt with flux and change by developing significant flexibility in resource procurement techniques and in social organization. Yet the ecological and social relations between indigenous peoples and animal species are not just affected by climate-induced disruption, changing habitats and migration routes, or new technology. The livelihoods of the indigenous peoples of the Arctic are subject both to the influences of the market economy and to the implementation of government policy that either contributes to a redefinition of hunting, herding, and fishing, or threatens to subvert subsistence lifestyles and indigenous ideologies of human–animal relationships.

Today, arctic peoples cannot adapt, relocate, or change resource use activities as easily as they may have been able to do in the past, because most now live in permanent communities and have to negotiate greatly circumscribed social and economic situations. The majority of indigenous peoples live in planned settlements with elaborate infrastructures, and their hunting and herding activities are determined to a large extent by resource management regimes, by land use and land ownership regulations, and by local and global markets. As the case study on Inuit in Nunavut shows (Section 12.3.2 (Responding to climate change in the Arctic)), 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 Can$50 million of government investment. In today’s social, political, and economic climate, migration to remain in contact with animals and, more broadly, to maintain traditional Inuit hunting livelihoods would seem to be virtually impossible.

Changes to settlement patterns and to the ecological relations between humans and animals often arise from government attempts to introduce new economic activities or to "sedentarize" indigenous peoples. In northern Russia and Siberia, for example, the Soviet authorities "industrialized" reindeer herding as a way of facilitating the development of the Soviet North. The new settlements and industries in Siberia came to depend on reindeer herders to supply them with meat. Today, in post-Soviet Russia, privatization and the transition to a market economy bring new challenges to reindeer herding peoples in Siberia and the Russian Far East, highlighting the dependence of arctic reindeer systems on the complex interlinkages between local, regional, and global economies.

In a similar vein, caribou management on the Canadian Barrens became an integral part of a broad program of social engineering – federal, provincial, and territorial authorities imposed management strategies based on their own (rather than Inuit and Dene) ideas about conservation and hunting[18]. There are similar stories from other parts of the Arctic. For example, the introduction of reindeer to the Seward Peninsula in western Alaska during 1892 to 1902 was done to provide meat for Iñupiat communities, yet was also intended as a way of transforming Iñupiat from being subsistence marine mammal hunters to reindeer herders and thus to play an active role in the wider cash economy of the United States[19].

Strict regulatory regimes and management practices imposed by states and federal and provincial agencies increasingly affect hunting and herding[20]. Some, while aiming, in principle, to protect and conserve wildlife also restrict access to resources. In Alaska, for example, state and federal policies make subsistence issues extremely complex. State and federal law define subsistence as the customary and traditional non-commercial use of wild resources and regulations limit the prospects of finding [[market]s] for caribou meat. Earning money through more commercial channels is not an option for Alaskan subsistence hunters. In northern Fennoscandia, Saami reindeer herders have traditionally ranged far and wide, crossing national borders as they follow their reindeer herds between winter and summer pastures. In modern times, political developments have restricted migration routes over the last 100 years or so. Economic development in the 19th and 20th centuries, such as mining, forestry, railways, roads, hydro-electric power, and tourism have all had an impact on traditional Saami livelihoods.

In Greenland, threats to the cultural and economic viability of hunting livelihoods in small communities come from transformations in resource management regimes and Home Rule government regulations, which conflict with local customary practices and knowledge systems[21]. Caribou, whales, seals, and fish, which have traditionally been subject to common use rights vested in members of a local community, are becoming national and privately-owned divisible commodities subject to rational management regimes defined by the state and the interest groups of hunters and fishers, rather than to locally understood and worked out rights, obligations, and practices. As is still evident in some parts of Greenland today, it has traditionally been the case that no-one owns animals –everyone has the right to hunt and fish as a member of a local community. A caribou, fish, or marine mammal does not become a commodity until it has been caught and transformed into private property. Even then, complex local rules, beliefs, and cultural practices counter the exclusive sense of individual ownership[22]. However, trends in caribou hunting since the 1980s are illustrative of general wildlife management policies in Greenland, where membership of a territorial, or place-based, community no longer gives hunters exclusive rights to harvest caribou. In West Greenland, caribou hunting was largely a family event until the 1970s. Kinship, locality, and territory were the mechanisms for regulating harvesting activities. Today, hunting rights are vested in people as members of social and economic associations irrespective of a local focus. Discussing the situation in central West Greenland, Dahl[23] showed how the traditional hunting territories of various communities are not the same as the administrative boundaries that surround villages, towns, districts, and municipalities. The relevant territorial unit for hunting caribou (and other animals such as beluga and narwhal) is Greenland, rather than a place-based community.

Hunters and herders are thus constrained by institutional frameworks and management structures, as well as by the legal recognition to resource use rights. They are commonly experiencing a transition from herding and hunting, from what may be called a "way of life", to an occupation and industry. The similarities with commercial fisheries management in the circumpolar North are notable, especially the effects of the implementation of individual transferable quotas (ITQs). The ITQ system is a management response to overfishing and to declining catches of major fish species, particularly demersal species. Although designed to ensure the viability of fish stocks, sustainable catch levels, and economic efficiency, ITQ management results in the transformation of traditional common use rights in fish stocks into privately owned, divisible commodities. As Helgason and Palsson[24] argued, ITQs represent the idea that both the human and natural worlds can be organized, controlled, and managed in a rational way. Nature is not only "presented as an inherently technical and logical domain, the project of the resource economist and manager is sometimes likened to that of the engineer or the technician". Helgason and Palsson[25] described the public discontent in Iceland with the commoditization of fishing rights as a consequence of the ITQ system and which has resulted in fishing rights being concentrated in the hands of a few large operators – a discontent articulated in feudal metaphors such as "tenancy" and "lordships of the sea". The ITQ system, although ostensibly seen by economists and resource managers as a way of achieving the sustainable use of fish stocks, has in reality a social impact in terms of changing power relations within local communities and regional fisheries, by contributing to the concentration of wealth into the hands of a few large fishing vessel owners. The ITQ system has effectively meant the enclosure of the commons and the privatization of resources, which allows parallels to be drawn between fisheries and rural land use debates throughout the Arctic.

Opportunities for adaptation and response

Commercial, political, economic, legal, and conservation interests have reduced the ability of indigenous peoples to adapt and be flexible in coping with climatic variability. The contemporary reality for many hunters and herders is that they are placed in very inflexible situations. Faced with climate change they are not necessarily in a position to respond appropriately. However, indigenous peoples have demonstrated resilience and adaptability in the face of change. In the climate-changed Arctic that this assessment considers, how indigenous peoples can take advantage of the opportunities that may arise, as well as how they can modify or change their mode of production in response to climatic variability, for example by switching hunting and fishing activities, is a critical research need.

For some arctic peoples, the political and management systems are already in place that could assess the impacts of climate change, allow local and regional governments to act on policy recommendations to deal with the consequences, and improve the chances for indigenous peoples to deal successfully with climate change. Although complex, solutions to environmental problems are potentially realistic.

Significant political changes since the 1970s have included land claims in Alaska and Canada and the formation of regional governments in Greenland and Nunavut. Settlements include the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), Greenland Home Rule (1979), the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (1975–1977), the Inuvialuit Final Agreement (1984), and the Nunavut Agreement of 1992 (the Territory of Nunavut was inaugurated in 1999). These political changes often include changes in the ways that living and non-living resources are managed. A greater degree of local involvement in resource use management decisions has been introduced, including in some cases the actual transfer of decision-making authority to the local or regional level[26].

In addition, significant steps have been taken with innovative co-management regimes that allow for the sharing of responsibility for resource management between indigenous and other uses and the state[27]. Examples include the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, the Kola Saami Reindeer Breeding Project, the Inuvialuit Game Council, and the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. Self-government is about being able to practice autonomy. The devolution of authority and the introduction of co-management allow indigenous peoples opportunities to improve the degree to which management and the regulation of resource use considers and incorporates indigenous views and traditional resource use systems[28].

Co-management projects involve greater recognition of indigenous rights to resource use and emphasize the importance of decentralized, non-hierarchical institutions, and consensus decision-making. This presents tremendous opportunities for collaboration between indigenous peoples, scientists, and policy-makers concerned with the sustainable use of living resources[29]. And it is within this new political and scientific environment of power sharing and dialogue that indigenous communities, scientists, and policymakers can work together to find solutions (such as building flexibility into otherwise constraining wildlife management regimes) to the pressing problems climate change may bring to the Arctic. Although knowledge integration in co-management systems remains fraught with technical, methodological, and political difficulties[30], some of the case studies presented in this chapter show how evolving forms of co-management institutions create opportunities to increase local resilience and the ability to cope with, respond to, and deal with change. For example, new governance mechanisms through the Inuvialuit Final Agreement of 1984 are helping Inuvialuit to negotiate and manage the impacts of change. For instance, the five co-management bodies established by the Agreement provide an effective means for Inuvialuit communities to communicate with regional, territorial, and federal governments and, indeed, to the Arctic Council.

The detailed case studies that follow show how climate change is having an impact on hunting, herding, gathering, and fishing activities. However, they also show that some of the impacts have been absorbed through the flexibility of the seasonal cycle and local ways of life. For the Inuvialuit of Sachs Harbour, for example, coping strategies relate to adjusting subsistence activity patterns: modifying timing of harvest activity; modifying location of harvest activity; modifying method of harvest activity; adjusting the species harvested; and minimizing risk and uncertainty. Yet, for indigenous peoples, dependence on animals and involvement in complex global processes, combined with the natural vulnerability of the Arctic and the concern with the accelerated nature of climate change, magnify the potential effects of global climate change on their cultures and livelihoods.

Chapter 12. Hunting, herding, fishing, and gathering: indigenous peoples and renewable resource use in the Arctic
12.1 Introduction (Responding to climate change in the Arctic)
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). Responding to climate change in the Arctic. Retrieved from http://editors.eol.org/eoearth/wiki/Responding_to_climate_change_in_the_Arctic
  1. ↑ Vibe, C., 1967. Arctic Animals in Relation to Climatic Fluctuations. Meddelelser øm Grønland, Bd 170, Nr 5. C. A. Reitzels, Copenhagen.
  2. ↑ Sabo III G., 1991. Long Term Adaptations among Arctic Hunter Gatherers. Garland Publishing.
  3. ↑ Odner, K., 1992. The Varanger Saami: habitation and economy AD1200–1900. Scandinavian University Press.
  4. ↑ Sabo III G., 1991. Long Term Adaptations among Arctic Hunter Gatherers. Garland Publishing.
  5. ↑ Sabo III G., 1991. Long Term Adaptations among Arctic Hunter Gatherers. Garland Publishing.
  6. ↑ Sabo III G., 1991. Long Term Adaptations among Arctic Hunter Gatherers. Garland Publishing.
  7. ↑ Wenzel, G. W., 1995a. Warming the Arctic: environmentalism and Canadian Inuit. In: D.L. Peterson and D.R. Johnson (eds.). Human Ecology and Climate Change: People and Resources in the Far North. Taylor and Francis.
  8. ↑ Wenzel, G. W., 1995a. Warming the Arctic: environmentalism and Canadian Inuit. In: D.L. Peterson and D.R. Johnson (eds.). Human Ecology and Climate Change: People and Resources in the Far North. Taylor and Francis.
  9. ↑ Wenzel, G. W., 1995a. Warming the Arctic: environmentalism and Canadian Inuit. In: D.L. Peterson and D.R. Johnson (eds.). Human Ecology and Climate Change: People and Resources in the Far North. Taylor and Francis.
  10. ↑ Krupnik, I., 2000. Reindeer pastoralism in modern Siberia: research and survival in the time of crash. Polar Research, 19:49–56.
  11. ↑ Krupnik, I., 1993. Arctic Adaptations: Native Whalers and Reindeer Herders of Northern Eurasia. University Press of New England.
  12. ↑ Rasmussen, R.O. and L.C. Hamilton, 2001. The Development of Fisheries in Greenland Roskilde. North Atlantic Regional Studies Res. Rep. 53, Roskilde University, 124pp.
  13. ↑ Hamilton, L.C., P. Lyster and O. Otterstad, 2000. Social change, ecology and climate in 20th century Greenland. Climatic Change, 47(1/2):193–211.
  14. ↑ Thuesen, S. T., 1999. Local identity and history of a Greenlandic town: The making of the town of Sisimiut (Holsteinsborg) from the 18th to the 20th century. Etudes/Inuit/Studies, 23(1–2):55–67.
  15. ↑ Thuesen, S. T., 1999. Local identity and history of a Greenlandic town: The making of the town of Sisimiut (Holsteinsborg) from the 18th to the 20th century. Etudes/Inuit/Studies, 23(1–2):55–67.
  16. ↑ Rasmussen, R.O. and L.C. Hamilton, 2001. The Development of Fisheries in Greenland Roskilde. North Atlantic Regional Studies Res. Rep. 53, Roskilde University, 124pp.
  17. ↑ Rasmussen, R.O. and L.C. Hamilton, 2001. The Development of Fisheries in Greenland Roskilde. North Atlantic Regional Studies Res. Rep. 53, Roskilde University, 124pp.
  18. ↑ Usher, P.J., 2004. Caribou crisis or administrative crisis? Wildlife and Aboriginal policies on the Barren Grounds of Canada, 1947–60. In: D.G. Anderson, M. Nuttall (eds.). Cultivating Arctic Landscapes: Knowing and Managing Animals in the Circumpolar North. Berghahn.
  19. ↑ Anderson, D.G. and M. Nuttall (eds.), 2004. Cultivating Arctic Landscapes: Knowing and Managing Animals in the Circumpolar North. Oxford Berghahn Books Ltd.
  20. ↑ Anderson, D.G. and M. Nuttall (eds.), 2004. Cultivating Arctic Landscapes: Knowing and Managing Animals in the Circumpolar North. Oxford Berghahn Books Ltd.
  21. ↑ Dahl, J., 2000. Saqqaq: an Inuit hunting community in the modern world. University of Toronto Press, 336pp.–Nuttall, M., 2001. Locality, identity and memory in South Greenland. Etudes/Inuit/Studies, 25:53–72.
  22. ↑ Nuttall, M., 2001. Locality, identity and memory in South Greenland. Etudes/Inuit/Studies, 25:53–72.
  23. ↑ Dahl, J., 2000. Saqqaq: an Inuit hunting community in the modern world. University of Toronto Press, 336pp.
  24. ↑ Helgason, A. and G. Palsson, 1997. Contested commodities: the moral landscape of modernist regimes. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 3:451–471.
  25. ↑ Helgason, A. and G. Palsson, 1997. Contested commodities: the moral landscape of modernist regimes. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 3:451–471.
  26. ↑ CAFF, 2001 Arctic Flora and Fauna. Status and Conservation. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, Helsinki, 272pp.
  27. ↑ Huntington, H.P., 1992. Wildlife Management and Subsistence Hunting in Alaska. University of Washington Press.–Osherenko, G., 1988. Wildlife Management in the North American Arctic: The Case for Co-Management. In: M.M.R. Freeman and L.N. Carbyn (eds.). Traditional Knowledge and Renewable Resource Management, pp. 92–104. Boreal Institute for Northern Studies, University of Alberta.–Roberts, K., 1996. Circumpolar Aboriginal People and Co-management Practice: Current Issues in Co-Management and Environmental Assessment. Joint Secretariat, Inuvialuit Renewable Resources Committee, Calgary, Alberta.
  28. ↑ Huntington, H.P., 1992. Wildlife Management and Subsistence Hunting in Alaska. University of Washington Press.
  29. ↑ Caulfield, R., 2000. The political economy of renewable resource harvesting in the Arctic. In: M. Nuttall and T. V. Callaghan (eds.). The Arctic: Environment, People, Policy. Harwood Academic Press.
  30. ↑ Nadasdy, P. 2003. Reevaluating the co-management success story. Arctic, 56(4):367–380.
Retrieved from "https://editors.eol.org/eoearth/index.php?title=Responding_to_climate_change_in_the_Arctic&oldid=136742"