Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment Human Dimensions of Arctic Shipping: Background Report Lead Author Henry P. Huntington Contributing Authors Section 2.1:Victoria Gofman, Aleut International Association Section 2.2: Janice Walton, Aleut International Association Section 2.3: Henry Huntington and Norm Snow Sections 2.4 and 2.5: Tero Mustonen Section 3: Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) Canada Section 4: Esther Cunningham, Lawson Brigham, Ross MacDonald, Gunn-Britt Retter, and Maya Gold Section 5: Thom Stubbs and Carly Dokis Click to buy NOW! P D F - X C H A N G E w w w . d o c u - t r a c k . c o m Click to buy NOW! P D F - X C H A N G E w w w . d o c u - t r a c k . c o m
Transcript
Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment
Human Dimensions of Arctic Shipping: Background Report
Lead AuthorHenry P. Huntington
Contributing AuthorsSection 2.1:Victoria Gofman, Aleut International AssociationSection 2.2: Janice Walton, Aleut International AssociationSection 2.3: Henry Huntington and Norm SnowSections 2.4 and 2.5: Tero MustonenSection 3: Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) CanadaSection 4: Esther Cunningham, Lawson Brigham, Ross MacDonald, GunnBritt Retter,and Maya GoldSection 5: Thom Stubbs and Carly Dokis
2. Human Use of the Arctic Marine Environment ......................................................................................... 5
2.1 A container of hazardous materials washes ashore in the Commander Islands, Russia .................................................. 62.2 Extent of use of the marine environment by Aleut communities ...................................................................................... 82.3 Beaufort Sea beluga whales: local and distant effects of shipping .................................................................................... 92.4. Where the Gulf Stream freezes – reflections from the Kola Coast ................................................................................. 112.5 From land to sea, sea to land: influences of nuclear lighthouses in northern Russia ..................................................... 14
3. “The Sea Ice Is Our Highway”: an Inuit Perspective on Transportation in the Arctic .......................... 15
3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................... 153.1.1 The Arctic ..................................................................................................................................................................... 163.1.2 The Land....................................................................................................................................................................... 163.1.3 Scope of the Section ................................................................................................................................................... 16
3.2. Our Nomadic Tradition ....................................................................................................................................................... 173.2.1 The Four Stages of Inuit History ................................................................................................................................. 173.2.2 Travellers and Nomads ................................................................................................................................................ 19
3.3. Moving to Follow the Game ............................................................................................................................................... 203.3.1 Continued Importance of Traditional Diet ................................................................................................................. 203.3.2 Harvesting What the Land Provides ........................................................................................................................... 223.3.3 General Inuit Land Use and Occupancy Patterns ...................................................................................................... 233.3.4 Regional Variations in Land Use and Occupancy ...................................................................................................... 253.3.5 Necessity of Movement Over Land and Sea .............................................................................................................. 273.3.6 Recent Adaptations ..................................................................................................................................................... 27
3.4. Inuit Sustainability .............................................................................................................................................................. 293.4.1 Sustainability, the Local Economy, and Shipping ...................................................................................................... 30
4. Town Hall Meetings.................................................................................................................................. 33
5. Impacts of Marine Shipping on Arctic Communities ............................................................................. 35
5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................... 355.2. Key Types of Shipping Activities and their Implications ................................................................................................... 36
5.2.1 Resource Development and the Economy ................................................................................................................ 365.2.2 Community Resupply .................................................................................................................................................. 445.2.3 Internationalization of Shipping ................................................................................................................................. 46
5.3 Social and Economic Consequences of Arctic Marine Shipping in Canada ...................................................................... 475.3.1 Bent Horn ..................................................................................................................................................................... 475.3.2 Nanisivik Mine ............................................................................................................................................................. 505.3.3 Port of Churchill........................................................................................................................................................... 525.3.4 Beaufort Sea ................................................................................................................................................................ 555.3.5 Bathurst Port and Road Project .................................................................................................................................. 595.3.6 Polaris Mine ................................................................................................................................................................. 625.3.7 Mackenzie Valley Highway.......................................................................................................................................... 64
5.4 Case Study Common Findings ............................................................................................................................................. 675.4.1 Resource Development and the Economy ................................................................................................................ 675.4.2 Community Resupply .................................................................................................................................................. 69
5.4.3 Internationalization of Shipping ................................................................................................................................. 70
6. Discussion and Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 71
6.1 Uncertainty, Management, and Communication .............................................................................................................. 716.2 Types of Impacts and Interactions ...................................................................................................................................... 72
1. Introduction“Human dimensions” refers to the interrelationships of people and the environment,particularly with respect to environmental change (e.g., Raynor and Malone 1998;Liverman et al. 1999, Huntington et al. 2007a). Often, human dimensions concerns broadissues such as government policies (e.g., Parry et al. 1998) or institutional responses tochange (e.g., Dietz et al. 2003). In the Arctic, human dimensions research has typicallylooked at local or regional cases (Huntington et al. 2007a). For marine shipping in theArctic, both the broad and the local approaches are important to consider. Shipping willoccur across the entire region, requiring national and international policies to provideeffective management and regulation. Because transshipping will be driven largely byglobal economic factors, as will more local shipping for resource development, the roleof institutions such as shipping companies, regulatory agencies, and local or regionalorganizations who may be affected will all be pertinent.
This chapter addresses primarily the local aspects of human dimensions of Arctic marineshipping. Governance is addressed in Chapter 2 (History of Arctic Marine Transport andGovernance), with additional discussion in Chapter 6 (Environmental Impacts). Someinstitutional dimensions are also considered in Chapter 6 as well as in Chapter 7 (Currentand Anticipated Infrastructure). Chapter 5 (Scenarios and Futures of Arctic MarineActivity) considers the larger political and economic drivers of marine shipping and theregulation thereof, providing the overall context for the assessment. This chaptercomplements the rest of the assessment by looking closely at the implications of Arcticmarine shipping for Arctic communities, with a particular focus on indigenouscommunities and traditional activities in the marine environment.
Local human dimensions are a product of many influences, from cultural andenvironmental context to social and climatic change (e.g., Nuttall and Callaghan 2000).While we cannot here attempt a comprehensive review of all those influences, we shouldat least recognize that Arctic marine shipping will occur in the context of many otherchanges affecting Arctic residents. Climate change, which will make the Arctic moreaccessible to marine shipping, will affect most aspects of the lives of Arctic residents,from traditional livelihoods to infrastructure to the spread of disease (ACIA 2005). Socialand economic change will come from national and global trends in trade andcommunication (e.g., AHDR 2004). Impacts to the environment and society are mostlikely to stem from the interactions of human and environmental change, particularly ashuman choices influence the trajectories of change (e.g., Huntington et al. 2007b). In thiscontext, shipping may play a significant role not only on its own, but perhaps even morelikely through combining with other drivers of change.
Arctic marine shipping involves several distinct activities, each with different interactionswith local residents and thus different implications and likely impacts. Transshipping ofcargo, using the Arctic merely as a corridor between distant ports, has some potential forenvironmental impact (depending largely on cargo carried, but also on volume— seeChapter 6) and thus for affecting local societies that depend on a healthy marine
environment. The infrastructure required to support such shipping may include portfacilities, search and rescue or emergency response capability, and mechanisms ofgovernance or enforcement, which may include military presence to preserve sovereignclaims over certain waters (see Chapter 7). Such facilities may provide employment andother economic opportunity for local communities, but could also lead to socialdisruption if many people move to small communities to take new jobs. Local shipping,to and from Arctic ports, is likely to have more direct influence on communities. Indeed,local shipping today provides for substantial shipments of cargo and fuel to remotecommunities, allowing for a higher standard of living and lower prices than would bepossible by air or land shipment alone. Longer shipping seasons could reduce pricesfurther, or allow greater access by visitors.
Another form of local shipping is that in support of resource development in the Arctic.Supplying mines, oil and gas installations, and other development sites and transportingthe materials that are produced there is the dominant form of marine shipping in theregion today. While it is not clear whether reduced sea ice will have a major influence ondevelopment trends (e.g., AMAP 2008), increased shipping is unlikely to constraindevelopment. If indeed development increases, it will have farreaching economicconsequences for the regions in which it occurs (e.g., AMAP 2008), and will likely haveenvironmental impacts as well.
In addition to mineral and petroleum extraction, fishing in Arctic waters is likely toincrease as a result of greater access to icefree waters. In Greenland, the development ofa shrimp fishery has had major impacts on coastal communities and indeed on thenational economy, as shrimp constitute a major export from Greenland (e.g., Hamilton etal. 2000, 2003). In Alaska, participation in commercial fisheries has substantial social andeconomic impacts on communities (e.g., Sepez et al. 2005), implying that increasedinvolvement in fisheries by more northerly communities could have major impacts bothpositive and negative.
One nonextractive industry likely to benefit from increased shipping access is tourism.For local communities, tourism can be a source of revenue but also a disruption, bothfrom direct (though likely inadvertent) interference with traditional and other activities,and also from greater attention to some local practices that may not conform with thevalues or expectations of nonArctic societies (e.g., Snyder and Stonehouse 2007). Thepresence of large cruise ships and their visits to communities that may have a fraction ofthe population of the ship itself cannot be ignored. An emergency involving such a shipcould easily overwhelm local response capacity. Tourism, like fishing but unlike otherforms of shipping, is likely to be focused on some of the same living resources (seabirdcolonies, marine mammals) that sustain local communities, thus increasing the potentialfor disruption and conflict.
The local human dimensions of Arctic marine shipping appear to be extensive, but therehave been relatively few studies that have considered the implications either of currentshipping activities or projections of what is likely to occur in the next few decades(Lamson and VanderZwaag 1988 and VanderZwaag and Lamson 1990 are two
prominent exceptions, but neither takes climate change into account as a major driver ofshipping change in the region). This chapter relies on the studies that do exist, or thatcover pertinent or analogous topics, as well as new material gathered for the assessmentthrough “town hall meetings” held by Lawson Brigham and Esther Cunningham invarious locations throughout the region and at a mapping exercise held in Ottawa inMarch 2008.
The chapter begins with a review of human use of the Arctic marine environment, with afew short examples of indigenous uses and interactions with shipping (Section 2). Alonger study of Inuit the Canadian Arctic follows, giving an illustration of the depth andbreadth of such use (Section 3). The results of the town hall meetings are presented next(Section 4), followed by a review of social and economic impacts from shipping andrelated activities in the Canadian Arctic (Section 5), and ending with discussion andconclusions (Section 6). This description of human dimensions of Arctic marine shippingis neither comprehensive nor exhaustive, but is intended to demonstrate how and whymarine shipping matters to Arctic communities and to consider what additional work isneeded to be able to prevent, mitigate, or otherwise manage shipping to reduce negativeimpacts and maximize potential positive benefits.
2. Human Use of the Arctic Marine EnvironmentThe marine environment and marine resources have long sustained Arctic peoples (e.g.,Krupnik 1993, McGhee 2005). Fish, seabirds, seals, walrus, and whales supported humanpopulations and the creation of permanent or seasonal settlements at places where foodwas reliably available. A key feature of the Arctic marine environment is the seasonalpresence of sea ice. Specific hunting and fishing practices were developed to make use ofice as a platform and a means of traveling (e.g., George et al. 2004, Gearheard et al.2006). In open leads and icefree seasons and regions, Arctic peoples have used boatsextensively, too, for fishing, hunting, and travel. The combination of overice travel andboat transport allows the use of large areas during much of the year. More recently, asnoted above, cargo transport has brought supplies to Arctic communities along coasts andnavigable rivers.
Arctic settlement patterns demonstrate a strong marine influence. Settlements establishedprior to the modern era are typically located where geography and biology combine toprovide access to sources of food, even where other conditions may seem unpleasant orunfavorable (e.g., Stuck 1920, describing Point Hope, Alaska). The spread of the ThuleInuit culture from the Bering Strait region across northern Alaska and Canada toGreenland demonstrated the importance of marine resources and the advantages ofimproved hunting technology (e.g., McGhee 2005).
In recent decades and today, Arctic coastal peoples travel far on sea ice and water, bothalong coastlines and also out to sea. The Inuit Land Use and Occupancy Study, conductedin Canada in the 1970s, showed that Inuit use vast areas of coastline and seascape,covering much of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (islands and waters both) apart from
the northwestern portions that are far from any settlements (Freeman 1976; see Section3). Indeed, the scope of Inuit land use is one basis for Canadian sovereignty over theregion (Mills 1988). A data atlas for the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas (NOAA1988) in Alaska shows human use for local fishing and hunting along nearly the entirecoastline, extending in some areas over 50 km from shore. In the Bering Strait, local usesextend from the mainland to the international border with Russia, meaning that anytransit in American waters at least will pass through local use areas.
A comprehensive, uptodate catalog of indigenous use of the Arctic marine environmentdoes not exist. Compilations of data from Canada and Alaska are two to three decadesold. Some more recent studies have examined use patterns near individual communities,but even these are few and far between. It is thus impossible to present an overall map ordescription for the entire Arctic. Section 3 provides a review of older, publishedinformation from the Canadian Arctic, supplemented with recent interviews that confirmthe continuity of general patterns of use patterns and practices. But specific details arestill lacking. Here, we provide instead a few short examples of various uses of the Arcticmarine environment and resulting interactions with marine shipping activities in differentforms. These examples are intended to illustrate some of the range of potentialinteractions and effects.
2.1 A container of hazardous materials washes ashore in theCommander Islands, RussiaThis section was prepared by Victoria Gofman of the Aleut International Association,based on information from WWFRussia (2003) and personal communication withofficials at the local administration in Nikolskoye, Bering Island).
Bering Island, one of the Commander Islands, lies east of the coast of Kamchatka andwest of the U.S. territories in the Aleutians. The only Aleut community on Russian soiland the only inhabited village on the Commander Islands is the village of Nikolskoyewith about 750 residents, 300 of them Aleuts. Local residents depend heavily on marineresources for subsistence and the local economy. The islands are also enclosed in aprotected area called the Commander Biosphere Reserve, as designated by UNESCO.The area is world renowned for its unique marine habitat and has the potential to becomea Mecca for tourists and scientists if the islands are more accessible.
In light of the likely increase of shipping through Arctic waters in the coming decadesand economic growth in East and Southeast Asia, there is a realistic possibility of anincrease in maritime shipping accidents in the Bering Sea and Pacific Ocean. Theseaccidents could bring disasters and devastation to communities and cultures that haveexisted in the region for millennia.
The following is an account of an accident that could serve as a warning sign and anopportunity to examine the Achilles heel in shipping regulation and disasterpreparedness, pointing the way toward policy changes to prevent worse disasters.
In July 2003, a 20tonne container filled with a hazardous chemical used in cement(tetratethylene glycol diheptanoate) washed off the western coast of Bering Island (Figure4#2.1.a), near the northwestern fur seal rookery and 15 kilometers from the local fishinggrounds. The container was being shipped from South Africa to Korea and was lost at seain March 2003. According to shipping documentation, the cargo belonged to DuPontCorporation and was transported by a French company.
When the container was discovered on the beach, there was no disaster response plan inplace. Individuals who got close to the container to examine it did not have any trainingin the handling of hazardous materials or necessary equipment and clothes. They gotpoisoned and needed medical assistance.
The first attempt to move the container away from the area where tidal waves couldthrow it on the rocks and break it was unsuccessful. The container cracked and theapproximately 15 tonnes of the chemical leaked, creating a 400 square meter oily spill. Alater survey counted 46 dead birds and one dead seal.
The Anchorage office of the Aleut International Association, after receiving first news ofthe accident, made a round of calls to maritime attorneys in attempt to find legal counselfor the village of Nilolskoye. Finally a firm with appropriate expertise was located inJuneau, Alaska. A telephone conversation, however, was abruptly interrupted by thenews that the firm has been hired to represent DuPont Corporation.
Five years later not much has changed. DuPont provided funds for clean up,environmental assessment, and some emergency response equipment. The nature and sizeof this work was mostly determined by DuPont itself, because a legal framework forcalculating damage in such accidents is vague. The Russian agencies that are responsiblefor the protection of natural resources on the Commanders, The Kamchatka Division ofthe Ministry of Natural Resources, the Commander Reserve, and a handful of others,chronically lack resources for routine inspections, research, satellite communication, andequipment to monitor the environmental situation. The district administration is also in adifficult situation due to the same reasons.
This particular accident was small in comparison with, for example, the Exxon Valdez oilspill, but it exposed big problems. Increases in shipping and shipping accidents may spelldisaster if the governments fail to agree on preventive measures and a legal systemclearly defining responsibilities prior to a shipping boom in high Arctic waters. Remoteindigenous communities are especially vulnerable as they risk losing not just their vitalresources but the natural foundation of their cultures.
The risk is far from hypothetical. In the Alaska side of the Aleut region, there were 22 oilspills related to shipping between 1985 and 2004, ranging in size from 5400 liters (~4.6tonnes) to 1.2 million liters (over 1000 tonnes) (Pacific Environment 2006). Some ofthese accidents, including the MV Selendang Ayu in 2004, the largest spill in the AleutianIslands to date, are from ships transiting the region on the Great Circle course from EastAsia to western North America. This type of transshipping may be a significant part of
Arctic marine shipping in the near future, and will likely bring many of the same risksand consequences to the Arctic Basin as are already being felt in the Aleut region. Thenext section explains why the maritime environment is so important for Aleutcommunities, a characteristic shared with other Arctic coastal peoples.
2.2 Extent of use of the marine environment by Aleut communitiesThis section is based upon a report prepared by Janice Walton at the Aleut InternationalAssociation, which in turn was based on publications by the Alaska Department of Fishand Game (as cited below) and a survey conducted of the Aleut Tribes in Alaska in spring2008.
The marine environment is vital for coastal Arctic communities. This is especially true inthe Aleut region, where communities are on islands or along the Alaska Peninsula,providing excellent access to the sea but relatively few options on land. As with otherdata on the extent of marine use by Arctic indigenous communities, the information fromthe Aleut region is not consistent, comprehensive, and up to date for all communities.Instead, some reports are over a quarter century old, and more recent information doesnot cover all communities or all species. Nonetheless, tribal representatives confirm thatthe general pattern of marine use continues today.
Table 4#2.2.a shows the results of surveys concerning traditional harvests in threepredominantly Aleut communities in Alaska. Figure 4#2.2.a shows the extent of marineenvironment use for travel and harvests by residents of Sand Point, Alaska. Other studieshave found that the overwhelming majority of households in Aleut communities use birdsand eggs. In Nelson Lagoon, 92.3% of households used at least one bird or egg during thestudy period. In Akutan, the figure was 92.9%, compared with 88.9% in Nikolski and73% in False Pass (Fall et al. 1998). Sharing of harvested birds and eggs was consideredto have great cultural importance in all four communities.
Zenia Borenin, President of the Tribal Council for the Native Village of Akutan,described local use of the marine environment:
the northeast near coastal waters of Akutan Island are important for black bass,chitons, halibut, salmon, razor clams, and sea lions. The southeasternmost nearcoastal waters is a vital cod and salmon fishing area. There is a sea lion haul out areaon the eastern coast of Cape Morgan. A cod and halibut fishing area is located in thenear coastal waters northeast of Talus Point. Akutan utilizes the coastal waters around Akun Island as well. Seagull eggs areharvested on the northwest shore of the island (Akun Head), and on the small islandssoutheast of Akun. Salmon and halibut are taken in the area of Lost Harbor. Halibut isharvested in the near coastal waters southwest of the island, and in several areas eastof the island. Salmon are taken in Surf Bay, Trident Bay, and in Akun Bay in the areaof Helianthus Cove. Akun Bay is an important area for halibut, crab, cod, octopus,and sea bass. (pers. comm., 2008)
Unalaska, an Aleut community that is colocated with the major fishing port of DutchHarbor, also has a strong and continuing tradition of harvesting marine resources. Salmonare the most important, but other fish, marine mammals, invertebrates, and birds and eggsare also important contributors to the local diet and sustaining cultural practices (Veltreand Veltre 1982). Similarly, Aleuts in Atka harvest various species, either in the seasonswhen they are available or throughout the year for species that are always present. Veltreand Veltre (1983:192) note the importance of local knowledge in conducting harvestactivities safely and productively:
the men of Atka are especially knowledgeable about Atka and Amlia Islands and thesurrounding ocean. Boating in Aleutian waters is particularly dangerous, but the menwatch the tides and weather carefully before setting out on trips of any distance.Hunting along the north side of Atka is preferred when the prevailing ocean swellshave been coming from a southern direction, while south side hunting is favored withnorthern swells. Weather forecasts on television and radio are consulted, and there isdiscussion of the situation by those making plans.
On the Pribilof Islands, salmon are of lesser importance because the islands are not on themigratory path of those fish (Veltre and Veltre 1981). Instead, halibut and cod are theprimary fishes harvested, with sculpin also taken, particularly for elders. Here, fur sealsand Steller sea lions are highly important resources, so that the marine mammal harvestson the Pribilofs are far higher than in other Aleut communities. Fisheries here aretypically done offshore, requiring a substantial investment in a boat and relatedequipment to start with, and then high operating costs each year.
On the Commander Islands in Russia, fishing and seal hunting are essential componentsof the local economy, with formally designated fishing areas and seasons to govern theallocation and take of salmon (N.P. Nikolayevich, Director, State Natural BiosphereReserve of Komandorskiy, pers. comm., 2008).
2.3 Beaufort Sea beluga whales: local and distant effects ofshippingThe topic of this section was identified at a workshop on Chapter 4, held in Ottawa inMarch 2008, with participation from four Permanent Participants and others associatedwith AMSA. The workshop was funded by the Canadian Department of Indian Affairs andNorthern Development. The section was written by Henry Huntington and Norm Snow,the latter of whom participated in the workshop on behalf of the Inuit CircumpolarCouncil.
The Beaufort Sea population of beluga whales, numbering in the tens of thousands,migrates through the waters of Canada, Alaska, and Russia, in areas where current andpotential shipping activity is high. This population is hunted in all three regions (Adamset al. 1993, Huntington et al. 1999, Mymrin et al. 1999), and as such illustrates well thevarious ways that shipping activities can affect marine mammals and their hunters, bothdirectly and through interaction with other environmental changes.
Despite the name of the population, the belugas are found in winter in the northern watersof the Bering Sea (O’CorryCrowe et al. 1997; Figure 4#2.4.a). This area is covered withseasonal sea ice. In spring, the whales migrate northward through the Bering Strait,traveling through open leads in the sea ice or finding breathing holes amid broken or thinice. Their migration takes them past several Alaska communities, where some animalsmay be hunted prior to the hunt for the bowhead whale. Once past Barrow, Alaska, thebelugas move eastwards to Canadian waters. The whales are hunted in various locationsin or near the Mackenzie Delta and at Paulatuk to the east. After a short time in the Delta,the female belugas move farther east into Amundsen Gulf while males go northward pastBanks Island to M’Clure Strait and Viscount Melville Sound. In fall, the whales headwestward past Alaska and across the Chukchi Sea to the Russian coastline. Here, theyturn to the southeast and down through the Bering Strait again. A few animals are huntedeach year in Russia.
During this migration, Beaufort Sea belugas traverse several areas where shipping maybe a major presence. The Bering Strait is of course a crucial chokepoint for anytransarctic shipping. While sea ice in spring may limit the use of this area at that time ofyear, thinning ice and great demand for shipping may lead to increased use and longerseasons. In fall, the belugas migrate southwards before or during freezeup, perhaps withgreater overlap with shipping activities.
The Mackenzie Delta, particularly the eastern edge near Tuktoyaktuk Harbour (the firstviable deepwater port north and east of the Bering Strait), already sees considerablesummer barge traffic from vessels descending the Mackenzie to resupply communities onthe Arctic coast (see Section 5 for further discussion about Tuktoyaktuk Harbour). In the1970s and 1980s, the harbor was the logistical hub for offshore oil and gas exploration inthe region, a role it is likely to play again in the near future. While the belugas seek therelatively warm waters of the Delta at this time of year for a short period, they will be inproximity to extensive vessel traffic in nearshore waters.
Their subsequent migration to Amundsen Gulf and Barrow Strait (M’Clure Strait andViscount Melville Sound) places them in the western end of the Northwest Passagethrough the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, subject yet again to shipping activity. InAmundsen Gulf, there is already barge traffic and, recently, a few ships traversing theNorthwest Passage. As ice thins and shipping demand grows, more ships are likely to gothrough this area, and some may also take the more northerly route through BarrowStrait.
As noted in regard to Tuktoyaktuk Harbour (see Section 5), offshore oil and gas activitiesare likely to be a major driver of vessel traffic in most if not all the entire migratory rangeof the Beaufort Sea beluga population. Most shipping activity will occur in summer andfall, when sea ice is sparse or absent, but drilling and production will take place yearround. The impacts on beluga migration are not clear, but may include displacement,possibly making them less accessible to hunting communities. An oil spill at the wrongtime and location during the spring migration could affect a substantial portion of the
Beaufort Sea beluga population. Moreover, exposure to oil by belugas may result intainted meat and blubber, affecting its quality as food and thus the harvest by Arcticcommunities in the region.
Transarctic shipping through the Bering Strait or Northwest Passage introduces thepotential for spills of fuel or cargo, as well as collisions between ships and beluga whales.There is also the potential, especially from nearshore shipping, for interference withhunting activities, either by displacing the whales or by making it difficult or dangerousfor small hunting boats to reach the whales.
A backdrop to all of these potential impacts is climate change, which is also one of thedrivers of increased shipping and offshore exploration and development. Climate changemay affect many aspects of beluga ecology, from prey availability to habitat to exposureto disease. The net effects are hard to predict, but belugas are adapted to an Arcticenvironment. Climate change is leading towards a subarctic environment in the BeaufortSea range, and subarctic beluga populations have struggled to remain viable to date.
In summary, increased shipping may affect the Beaufort Sea beluga population in severalparts of their migratory range, perhaps exacerbating impacts from offshore oil and gasdevelopment as well as climate change. Shipping may also interfere with huntingactivities and opportunity, compounding any effects at the level of the beluga population.Further work is needed to examine exactly where and when shipping will overlap withhunting and with key stages of the beluga migration. This information can be used todevelop specific management and mitigation plans, perhaps including limitations onshipping to protect belugas and those who hunt them.
In addition to local initiatives, a broader management plan is required to address impactsin one region that may affect other regions. For example, a disaster in the Bering Straitcould affect hunters in the Mackenzie Delta, two thousand kilometers away, underminingany conservation efforts they have made in their area.
2.4. Where the Gulf Stream freezes – reflections from the KolaCoastThis essay and the following one, both by Tero Mustonen, reflect on ten years of researchin Russian Arctic communities, conducted as part of the Snowchange Cooperative. Theydraw on personal experiences as well as extensive collaboration with many colleagues inRussia.
The Russian Arctic coast begins on the Kola Peninsula, at the northwestern extreme ofthe Russian Federation. The Gulf Stream’s influence ends here, close to the “City ofHeroes,” Murmansk, the largest city north of the Arctic Circle. As one walks on the coldshores of Kola Bay, all of the complexities of the Russian Arctic coast are present in theview that opens to us. The sheer expanse of this coastline is hard to grasp. The areacontains many indigenous communities as well as more recent human settlements.Shipping is but one of the many aspects of history here, one of the many factors shaping
today and tomorrow. No single essay can reflect all of the diverse opportunities andchallenges present along the thousands of kilometers that mark the boundary between theArctic Ocean and the Eurasian continent.
Murmansk was a bustling seaport during the Soviet era, when at the height of the coldwar it was the fishing capital of Northern Russia as well as the closest territory to NATOthat Soviet Russia possessed. The region contains the greatest concentration of nuclearweapons in the world and is the home port of Atomflot, Russia’s nuclear poweredicebreaker fleet, as well as the Russian Navy’s Northern Fleet. Murmansk is the startingpoint of the Severnyi Morskoi Put – the Northern Sea Route. Today, one million peoplelive on the Kola Peninsula, where an economic boom is based on the premises of a futurebuilt on new opportunities for exploiting natural resources, both offshore and onshore.The Murmansk Region is as well home to about 2,000 Saami, who despite colonizationand displacement at the height of the Stalin Era, continue their subsistence and ageoldculture in the inland parts of the Peninsula.
When looking at the Kola Bay and the coast beyond along the Northern Sea Route all theway to Chukotka and beyond to the Orient, questions come to mind – whose seascapes,whose coasts, whose ocean is here? How much people from outside understand it andcan dwell in it? When the arctic tern flies here in the breeze and waves break, do peoplestill feel it? The power, the ocean, the life, the dispatches of the cold seas?
In the Murmansk Region, history has been witnessed, lived, forgotten, suppressed,remembered, and altered. Kola Bay, with its nuclear fleets, is poised to be the jumpingoff point for Arctic opportunities of shipping and mineral development. Yet, it was alsoalong here where the Viking Chief Ottar sailed, around the year 1000, and witnessed thepeoples and traditions of Bjarmia, the legendary and mythical land of the Karelianspeaking sea power. Here is the home coast of the Saami Indigenous peoples, especiallythe summer harvesting areas of the Skolt Nation who prior to Russian arrival had anintimate relationship with the ocean for thousands of years. Each of Kola Bay’s rocks,cliffs, and hills has a Saami name, a song, and a story to tell about how the world is, was,and will be. It is here where later the Finns, Russians, Scandinavians, Nenets, and othersarrived to live and work, to harvest from the Arctic Ocean. The early Russians, thePomors, or People of the Sea, are considered almost indigenous to the territories ofMurmansk and Archangelsk. Many of the Russian Pomor villages along the ArchangelskCoast along the White Sea are sealhunting and fishing subsistence communitiesaccessible only by air or sea, where Russian folksongs, wooden architecture, and oldfashioned dialects persist.
So the Kola coast is a smaller version of the multifaceted, complex, and layered coastallandscape and seascape that is the Russian Arctic coast today. In the coastal and northernperipheral communities of the Russian North today, it is possible to see the long humanhistory along the cold waters of the longest coastline in the world. This precious, fragilecoastline is also the leastdisturbed continuous string of coastal ecosystems in the Arctic,despite sitespecific environmental impacts, most of them dating to Soviet times. Forsome reason, however, history seems to have been lost to the minds of contemporary
decision makers and multinational companies. It seems that even recent history has beenforgotten. At the harbor of Murmansk sits the Lepse, the ship that contains much of theliquid nuclear waste that the nuclear submarine fleet and the Atomflot icebreakers haveproduced. The Lepse is overfilled and unstable. Yet international negotiations,interventions by nongovernmental organizations, and many other efforts have not solvedthis ecological time bomb. Most of the civilian population does not even know theexistence of the Lepse at their doorstep.
Similarly, many of the outsiders and enthusiasts who rush to the Russian seaways haveforgotten already about August 2000 and the Kursk, the nuclear powered submarine thatsank during military exercises off the Kola coast taking the lives of the 118 sailors withit. Today as most of the interest in Kola is focused on the development of the offshoreShtokmanovskaya Fields containing several million cubic meters of natural gas andpossibly oil, people rarely stop to remember. This act of remembering is crucial todayalong Russian Arctic Coast. It is a time of transformation in the many histories of thearea. In Kola, we can ask, whose stories do we validate? Whose stories we shouldremember and listen to?
With a little bit of respect, we can open ourselves to understand the complex and proudhistory presented to us by Russian sailors and members of the Northern Fleet as theyrecall the missions of the past, such as the great nuclearpowered journey to the NorthPole by the nuclear icebreaker Arktika in 1977. We might listen to the stories of Britishand Canadian sailors as they remember the convoys to Murmansk during the last war thisregion saw and how German Uboats were always a threat. We might explore the“hidden” Murmansk with the small cemetery for the allied sailors who died in defenseand survival of this City of Heroes, the designation Murmansk received after World WarII. We might listen to a European Union Bureaucrat or nongovernmental organizationactivist in the lobby of the Polarnyi Zori Hotel, who will tell of the vast, uncontrolledecological threat that this region poses.
We might listen to the Norwegian businessman who explains how much we will allbenefit when the Shtokmanovskaya Fields are finally open and available. We might hearfrom a Russian engineer about the new floating nuclear power stations that will beconstructed in Severodvinsk ship yard of the Archangelsk Region to make sure thatRussian can maintain “its territorial claims” in the Arctic waters. We might listen to thesorrow of the mother of a sailor who died aboard Kursk. We might listen to the SkoltSaami grandmother who still remembers the time before time, as all of this was made …
As a part of the time of transformation, the Kola Saami are witnessing a painful rebirth oftheir culture and nation. Never since the Stalin Era has there been so much attention tothe Saami issues. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union they can now collaborate withthe Saami in neighboring countries, they can participate in the Arctic Council andinfluence, for example, the development of marine and ocean policies. AlexanderKobalev was the first Russian Saami President of the Saami Council, which belongs tothe Permanent Forum of Indigenous Peoples at the United Nations. Even though theseasonal salmon harvest along the fjords of Kola is over and seals are no longer harvested
by the Kola Saami, many Elders still remember the sites, places, and songs of the Kolacoast. They remember the yearly cycle of the ocean, birds, fish, and other beings.
The Kola Saami have views on the development of offshore natural resources. They areafraid that the increased shipping and construction of new pipelines will ruin theremaining wilderness areas of Kola. Atlantic salmon spawning rivers, such as the Ponoi,are crucial subsistence areas for the Saami and are their productivity is directly related tothe ecological status of the Russian portion of Arctic Ocean. The Kola Saami havechosen to voice their observations about coastal changes and weather changes byparticipating in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA 2005) and similar research(e.g., Zavalko et al. 2004). They are addressing international mining companies such whoare driving the economic boom of the Murmansk Region and are trying to enter into thewilderness parts of the Peninsula to mine gold, platinum, and other minerals. In this timeof transformations, the Kola Saami have chosen to participate in the process impacting onthem to make sure that the people of the Sun Deer will be here now and forever.
2.5 From land to sea, sea to land: influences of nuclear lighthousesin northern RussiaThe presence of nuclearpowered marine equipment and ships presents the most urgentsitespecific environmental danger along the Russian Arctic coast today. There are thenuclear icebreakers of Atomflot, the nuclear submarines of the Northern Fleet of RussianNavy, and the nuclearpowered power stations in Bilibino in Chukotka and Polarnyi Zorion the Kola Peninsula. While these and their impacts are reasonably well known, theimpacts from nuclearpowered lighthouses along the length of Northern Sea Route havereceived less attention. Nonetheless, they exemplify the potential secondary effects onland of shipping activities offshore.
The indigenous obschina or ancestral community of Nutendli, inhabited by Chukchi andYukagir reindeer herders, is located at the northeastern corner of the Sakha Republic, inthe Kolyma River Delta. Chukchi reindeer herder and traditional singer VyacheslavKemlil is the leader of Nutendli. The territory of this Indigenous community bordersChukotka. It is located at roughly 69 degrees north latitude. The northern border of thereindeer territory is the Arctic Ocean. The coastal zone is the summer reindeer herdingarea of Nutendli and the community has its subsistence fish camp in Šalavurova.
Since 2004, Nutendli has worked with the Snowchange Cooperative based in Finland todocument communitybased oral histories regarding land use, climate change, traditionalknowledge, language, and reindeer herding. One of the topics of concern has been thepresence of nuclear powered lighthouses along the reindeerherding route of Nutendlibrigades. Two or three lighthouses are in close proximity to the summer pastures used bythe community.
Vyacheslav Kemlil reports that fences surround the lighthouses and that there arewarning signs in Russian indicating that people should not approach these sites.Especially during the polar night from November to January, the beams of the
lighthouses are visible for long distances to the herders (Figure. 4#2.6.a). The signsindicate as well that there is a health hazard if these sites are approached. Mr. Kemlil haswarned his fellow herders not to approach the lighthouse zone. The herders suspect thatthe site contains high levels of radiation.
Mr. Kemlil reports that his community thinks that lichen absorbs radiation easily.Therefore it would be dangerous to allow the reindeer to eat food close to the coastallighthouses. The community has now imposed a kilometrewide avoidance zone aroundthe lighthouses to minimize risks and to prevent the reindeer from getting ill. Mr. Kemlilsays that the nuclear material itself is located underground. He says that dead carcasses ofarctic fox, ducks, geese, and ptarmigan have been seen at the very close proximity of thelighthouse along the Nutendli route. There is a suspicion that the radioactive materials ofthe lighthouses are leaking and affecting the local ecosystem.
Krashnushka is the base camp of the Nutendli community. It serves as the supply base forthe nomadic reindeer brigade and hosts the community nomadic school constructed in2002. A local resident once suggested that the power system from a nuclear lighthouse bebrought to Krashnushka to power its electrical system, in order to achieve energyindependence. The Nutendli community declined to pursue this idea.
The Nutendli example is but one of many cases in which indigenous coastal residents areaffected by nuclearpowered lighthouses along the Russian coast. These lighthouses stillprovide guidance for ships transiting the Northern Sea Route as well as those enteringlocal harbours along the way. Yet they have not been adequately maintained andtherefore are unreliable as navigational devices, in addition to posing and environmentalthreat. The absence of reliable information concerns local residents, who do not know iftheir actions to avoid the sites are unnecessary or insufficient. The future of Arcticshipping may not depend on these lighthouses, but they remain as a tangible reminder ofthe history of Arctic shipping and the hazards that local residents may face if they havelittle information and no voice in what occurs in the areas where they live.
3. “The Sea Ice Is Our Highway”: an Inuit Perspective onTransportation in the ArcticThis section was contributed by the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) Canada, on behalfof the 155,000 Inuit living in Greenland, Canada, Alaska, and Russia, to give voice to theInuit. Chester Reimer and Patricia Wiebe of CRC Inc. prepared the report based onexisting publications supplemented with interviews with Inuit in March 2008. TheCanadian Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development provided funding andsupport.
3.1 IntroductionThis section is important because it gives voice to Inuit, who have lived in the Arctic forthousands of years, sustaining and being sustained by the unique animals, fish, and fowlfound here. Governments and industry have for decades used this same Arctic for their
own benefit. Sometimes they consult with us. In contrast to such consultations, this reportcomes on the initiative of ICC Canada and is intended to frame the dialogue from an Inuitperspective, to discuss the issues related to land and sea ice use as we see them. From thisdiscussion, the reader will come to learn how ice is central to how we have moved in thepast and continue to move in the present.
3.1.1 The Arctic
The first distinction of an Inuit view of the Arctic is our definition of the term Arcticitself. Within Canada, Inuit view the Arctic as the places where Inuit have traditionallylived. These areas are the four land claims regions: Nunatsiavut along the coast ofLabrador, Nunavik in Northern Quebec, the entire territory of Nunavut, and the InuvialuitSettlement Region along the northern coast and around the northern islands of theNorthwest Territories. Other indigenous peoples also live in the Canadian North, butbecause they are impacted less by shipping than are Inuit, their views are not covered inthis report. The Arctic also includes all of Greenland, much of Alaska, from the NorthSlope Borough down the Bering coast, and much of Russia, certainly including the regionof Chukotka across the Bering Strait from Alaska. These regions where Inuit live are allpart of the Arctic according to our view.
The Arctic also includes the northern portions of Finland, Sweden and Norway where theSaami live, as well as the northern parts of Russia where nearly forty different indigenouspeoples live. Our Arctic is increasingly the focus of attention from many outsideinterests, the latest of which is the shipping industry.
3.1.2 The Land
When defining our “land”, Inuit do not distinguish between the ground upon which ourcommunities are built and the sea ice upon which we travel, hunt, and build igloos astemporary camps. Land is anywhere our feet, dog teams, or snowmobiles can take us.
3.1.3 Scope of the Section
This section is a scoping level investigation focusing on Inuit use of sea ice. It looks atexisting sources of information regarding land use and occupancy to extract thehighlights regarding sea ice, augmenting this with responses from interviews with Inuithunters, and using additional studies from Alaska and Greenland to provide a panInuitperspective. The section will not provide comprehensive data on current Inuit use of seaice, as such information is not yet available. The section includes general predictionsabout the future in light of climate change and reduced sea ice based on the experienceand traditional knowledge of the Inuit hunters interviewed, but these predictions are notdirected to specific target dates such as those used by other parts of AMSA.
The central idea of this section is that life in the Arctic is dependent on movement, andthat sea ice is integral to this movement. The Inuit have been a nomadic people living inthe Arctic since ancient times. As such, our entire culture and identity is based on freemovement on the land. Indeed, we rely on free movement in order to eat, first of all, and
also to obtain supplies for traditional clothing and art as well as to maintain pride in ourrich cultural heritage. We also temporarily move out from our settlements to harvestresources that we sometimes barter or trade. As this section will show, much of thismovement takes place on the sea ice that surrounds and connects our communities.Because the goal of this section is to give voice to Inuit perspectives and concernsregarding the impact of changes in the Arctic, the text will include many direct quotationsfrom interviews with Inuit. Many of the Inuit interviewed for this section emphasized theimportance of the sea in their everyday lives, and were very concerned that their voicesbe heard by the people whose decisions will affect their culture and livelihoods. The useof direct quotes is our means of presenting these concerns to a wider public.
3.2. Our Nomadic Tradition
3.2.1 The Four Stages of Inuit History
According to the studies compiled in the Inuit Land Use and Occupancy Report of 1976,Arctic historians and archeologists have found that Inuit populations have inhabited theArctic for about 4000 years (Freeman 1976), in nearly the same regions as they do today.This history began with the PreDorset, PaleoEskimo people who lived in the Arcticstarting around 2000 BC, then continued with the Dorset people who lived in Greenlandstarting in 1000 BC and in the Canadian Arctic from 500 BC, then on to the Thule peoplewhose variation of Eskimo culture originated in what is now Alaska and spread across theCanadian Arctic to Greenland, all the way to the presentday Inuit. Historians andarcheologists tell us that the cultural similarities seen in the prehistoric artifacts and thephysical similarities discovered through the unearthing of ancient graves indicate a clearprogression from the preDorset, PaleoEskimo people through to today's Inuit.
Archeological findings from the PaleoEskimo era show that virtually the whole Arcticregion from Chukotka to Greenland was inhabited by people with a common culture.They have found common tools adapted to the Arctic tundra in the region from thesoutheast coast of Siberia “across northern Alaska, the central Canadian Arctic and theeastern Arctic islands to Greenland” and “as far as northeastern and southwesternGreenland, Ungava peninsula in northern Quebec, and down through the Barren Landsand the west coast of Hudson Bay to Churchill, Manitoba” (Taylor 1976). Though thegroups who lived in this vast region had slight regional variations, they are similarenough that archeologists call them all the Arctic Small Tool tradition. The nature andlocation of the remains of their camps indicate that they lived in “small, widely scattered,nomadic bands, moving seasonally to exploit various game resources. They used togglingharpoons, spears, lances, and bows and arrows in hunting caribou and seals.” It appearsthey also fished extensively and hunted bears, wolves, muskoxen and walruses (Taylor1976).
The Dorset culture moved quite clearly out of this preDorset, Arctic Small Tooltradition. The Dorset culture, which existed from 800 BC to 1300 AD, stretched fromBernard Harbour and Melville Island in the west to eastern Greenland and the northwestpart of Labrador in the east. Like the PaleoEskimo people, the Dorset people “lived in
small seasonallynomadic bands with little camps of skin tents in summer, sheltering inwinter in small clusters of partlyunderground pit houses” (Taylor 1976). The Dorsetpeople apparently also used snowhouses and may in fact have invented them. The toolsand weapons found in Dorset archeological sites indicate they hunted a variety of seamammals, birds, and caribou, and also fished extensively. Following the tradition of thepreDorset culture, they used soapstone blubberburning lamps for heat, light, cooking,and drying clothing, a tradition which was later carried on by the Thule and Inuit people.
The Dorset people were gradually displaced by the Thule people between 900 and 1300AD as the Thule people slowly drifted over from Alaska across the Canadian Arctic allthe way to Greenland. These two cultures were similar in many ways and learned fromeach other during the time they coexisted. However, the Thule culture was moreeffectively adapted to the Arctic because the people possessed dogteams that allowedthem to travel over greater distances more easily and they had developed a full range ofgear for hunting the great baleen whales, which afforded them a major food supply notavailable to the Dorset people (Taylor 1976). The prominence of the whale hunt is theprimary distinguishing feature of the Thule era.
The most recent stage in Inuit history began in the 18th century with the people known asthe Central Eskimo. This culture followed directly from the Thule culture, using virtuallythe same hunting equipment, modes of transportation, clothing, and even toys as theThule people did. The primary differences between the Thule period and the CentralEskimo period came about because of the collapse of the baleen whale hunt. Without thismajor source of food, the Central Eskimo people abandoned the villages of sturdy winterhouses from the Thule era for a more nomadic life dependent on the scattered herds ofseals and walruses. During this time “there was a gradual shift to the snowhouse on thesea ice as the customary winter residence” (Taylor 1976).
Today's Inuit continue to benefit from this rich ancestry, knowing that for thousands ofyears our forefathers have gone before us and passed on the traditions that still help ustoday. Said one Inuk (singular form of “Inuit”) from Igloolik, Nunavut:
We live here because our ancestors did before us. If they had not lived here, I don'tknow what we'd do, we wouldn't have anything. They tried hard to hunt animals inorder to live – that's why we are living. Those old places are easy to spot. I've been tomany places by dogteam in the direction of Pond Inlet and others, where you wouldhave thought no people have ever been before. I've seen rocks piled one on top of theother. They were fixed like that by Inuit. They are everywhere. (quoted in Brody1976)
Ipiak, another Inuk from Chesterfield Inlet, Nunavut put it this way:
Even when you go to a place you thought was empty, there is always something thattells you that people were there. (quoted in Brody 1976)
As indicated in this brief overview of Inuit history, Inuit have always relied on huntingfor subsistence, a way of life that requires a great deal of movement in order to follow themigratory patterns of the wildlife and sea mammals in the region. Because the game andsea mammals in the Arctic ecosystem are highly transient – take the mysterious annualmigration of the caribou, for example – we Inuit have adopted a nomadic lifestyle formuch of our history. Evalak from Hall Beach said it well:
The game never moved around in only one area. In some years the people occupysome parts of the land, and at other times they occupy another part of the land.(quoted in Brody 1976)
Although most Inuit in Chukotka, Alaska, Canada, and Greenland now live insettlements, the traditional knowledge still passed down from our elders to our childrencontinues to reflect this nomadic tradition:
My father taught me how to make my gear by letting me make toys for myself thatwould eventually become real things as I grew older. The next step in my training asa hunter was when my father started to take me on actual trips by dog team. ... Myfather lectured me on how some day my livelihood would depend on hunting, as wellas on other people. And he also told me that this was the one and only way to earn myliving, and he told me to watch carefully and do as he did. I went to distant places bydogteam and boat. As I became older, I started making trips on my own, in the areawhere my father had taught me. (Koveyook Natsiapik, Broughton Island, Nunavut,quoted in Brody 1976)
Much of the traditional knowledge passed down from generation to generation is meantto hone the skills necessary for hunting and fishing. In order to hunt and fish safely andeffectively in the Arctic, we train our young people to recognize different types of ice andto know the dangers associated with different seasons – for example, where the ice islikely to be thin at different times of year, or the signs that the edge of the ice might breakoff and leave a person stranded on an ice fracture that is rapidly drifting away. Onetraditional method for testing thin ice involves stabbing the ice two or three feet aheadwith a stick with a piece of iron attached to the bottom of it. If the stick goes through theice, this is a warning to backtrack and find another route, but if the ice feels solid, it issafe to gradually move forward. Inuit hunters spend much of their time out on the ice,mostly in small groups or even alone; therefore, reliable knowledge of the ice can be amatter of life and death.
Part of travelling on the ice, sometimes over long distances, is the ability to navigatebased on landmarks that the untrained eye might not perceive and the untrained memorymight not be capable of archiving over long time periods. The Inuit language fordescribing and naming places has made such travel possible for thousands of years. Thisquote from a Pelly Bay hunter is illustrative:
All the lakes where you can find fish or caribou have names. That is the only way wecan travel. The one way we can recognize lakes is by their names. ... The names ofplaces, of camps and of lakes are all important to us, for that is the way we travel –with names. ... Most of the names you come across when travelling are very old. Ourancestors named them because that is where they traveled. (Dominique Tunglik, PellyBay, Nunavut, quoted in Brody 1976)
Out on the sea where there are fewer landmarks, and the features of the ice may changefrom year to year, traditional knowledge teaches hunters how to navigate using the sun,wind, and stars. A skilled navigator can use the ridges in the snow like a compass basedon which direction the prevailing winds come from at that time of year. Additionally, hecan use the location of the sun, or in the long Arctic nights, the stars, to deduce whatdirection he is travelling in. Another more widelyknown navigation aid is the inukshuk,rocks piled up to resemble a person, which acts as a marker for passersby. In these waysand others, traditional knowledge enables us to travel over great distances without losingour way.
When a trip requires an overnight stay, or when a sudden storm or other setback leaves atraveller stranded on the ice, the traditional means of finding shelter is to build an igloo.Igloos are no longer used as seasonal shelter as they were in the recent past – severalhunters interviewed for this report described growing up in igloos – but a seasoned hunterstill knows how to build them and will do so if the situation requires it. Because iglooscan be built quite quickly as shelter, they are an invaluable technology for the travellingInuit, even today.
Also necessary for a long trip in the harsh Arctic climate is warm clothing. Inuittraditional knowledge passed down through the generations includes instruction on howto dry and stretch the skins of the animals harvested for food in order to make warmboots, pants, parkas, and mittens out of them. For example, caribou skins are often usedfor parkas, while sealskin is used for boots because it is waterproof when preparedcorrectly.
All of this traditional knowledge, much of it at the very core of the Inuit way of life, hasbeen developed and passed down in order to impart the knowledge of a nomadic peopleto its future generations. We Inuit recognize that movement will always be a necessarypart of life in the Arctic and therefore do our best to prepare our young people for thatreality.
3.3. Moving to Follow the Game
3.3.1 Continued Importance of Traditional Diet
One thing that has remained most constant in Inuit life since the mid 1970s when MiltonFreeman's team of researchers combed the area then called the Northwest Territories, andCarol BriceBennett's team studied the Labrador region, is the centrality of “countryfood” to the Inuit diet. As in the former days when meat, fish, and blubber were the
dietary staples, augmented seasonally by berries and wildfowl eggs, Inuit today still relyheavily on foods obtained through hunting and gathering.
Interviews done by the land use and occupancy researchers in the mid 1970s evokednumerous responses stressing the importance of hunting and the traditional Inuit diet. Aselection of statements is reproduced here:
I can't stand it (storebought food). We were brought up living off the country, and wedon't like to eat the food that you buy from the stores steady, you know. It's alright fortwo, three days; a week maybe. (Charlie Gruben, Tuktoyaktuk, Inuvialuit SettlementRegion, quoted in Brody 1976)
We like our land, we like our natural foods. They give us the freedom to do what wewant, the kind of life we like to live. Our culture we'll never forget. To keep ourculture, we got to keep our land and have it free from being developed, so we'd kindof like to protect the land where we trap and hunt all our lives. (Sam Raddi, Inuvik,Inuvialuit Settlement Region, quoted in Brody 1976)
There are all kinds of animals... Inuit have been living here for a long time, and somepeople live only on game, and some have done so for many years. That is why wewant to protect the land. (Lucassie Inuktaluk, Sanikiluaq, Nunavut, quoted in Brody1976)
Interviewer: Is it possible that people will gradually do less and less hunting?Young family man from Arctic Bay, Nunavut: No, I do not think so. Right now manypeople in Arctic Bay work in the white way, either here or in other places. But theystill hunt. Look at me. I have a job here, but I go out hunting. I was out yesterday.People here will always want real food, and for that reason alone we are all hunters.We'll always be hunters. ... For the young as well as for adults, to be an Inuk isinseparable from being in touch with the land and from the possession of the technicalskills and moral qualities that make such contact both possible and valuable. All Inuitagree that the land is the mainstay of their life. Even in the most wageorientedfamilies, local foods are valued and sought above all others. And it is, of course, theyoung who must be relied upon to maintain the supply of local foods so that thepeople may continue to be Inuit. (quoted in Brody 1976)
I think and sometimes speak the thought that my children should eat well from theland. This is what I want to pass on to my descendants: good food from the land,caribou and fish. The land makes you live well and be healthy. (Rosia Paulla, GjoaHaven, Nunavut, quoted in Brody 1976)
Interviews conducted by ICC Canada in March 2008 indicate that despite the increaseddifficulty in finding and harvesting big game and sea mammals due to thinning and lesspredictable sea ice, Inuit communities are persistent in maintaining their traditional diets.When asked whether changes in ice conditions were affecting their traditional diets,respondents spoke of having to travel further or in a different month than usual; they
spoke of dietary substitutions such as hunting more muskoxen when the cariboumigration shifted away from their area, or they explained how melting permafrost hasmade the natural ice cellars used to age and store meat less effective. Not one of themsaid anything to suggest they were giving up on hunting despite the considerablechallenges some were facing in getting out on the ice and land.
When asked how his life might change because of poorer ice conditions in the future,Tommy Qaqqasiq from Pangnirtung, Nunavut said:
Then we'll use other equipment. People will still hunt. It's part of our life. Whenthings change, you just have to go with it. (14 March 2008)
This sentiment was echoed by Frank Pokiak from Tuktoyaktuk in the InuvialuitSettlement Region, who said:
I'm still going to depend on harvesting, different species if it has to be. The majorityof my food I still get from the land, I still depend on all the fish that we get anddifferent ways to prepare it. Whale meat and seal meat, geese. You just change withthe changes, I guess. I'll still be here. As long as I'm alive I'll keep doing what I'mdoing. (28 March 2008)
After describing in detail how climate change is forcing his community to deal with newchallenges, John Keogak of Sachs Harbour shared this idea on how he can continue hisharvesting practices:
A buddy of mine is into making little sleds out of aluminum, which you can use as alittle kayak or boat. If you're out on the ice and you have to cross an open lead orsomething you can use that. It's one of the things that can help. I'm going to get one ofthose. It's combined as a little sleigh and, if you have to, you can use it as a boat.That's one way I can adapt. (13 March 2008)
These responses illustrate that no matter how hard things get, we Inuit are not giving upon hunting. Even though climate change may prove to be the most difficult adaptationchallenge we Inuit have ever faced, we will do whatever it takes to keep eating ourtraditional food.
3.3.2 Harvesting What the Land Provides
Because we are determined to maintain our traditional diet – and in fact we need to eatharvested meat due to the high cost of storebought meat, in addition to the culturalreasons for doing so – it follows that there will be continued reliance on hunting, orharvesting as it is commonly known. Since traditional Inuit foods are rarely sold in stores,they must be obtained by hunters who crisscross the land and sea around theircommunities, regularly travelling hours and sometimes days to track down the wildlifeand harvest what is needed for their families and communities.
This does not mean that all Inuit hunt – though most ablebodied men and some womendo. And those who hunt often have other employment. For example, many hunters in theCanadian Inuit settlement regions have at least parttime or seasonal wage employment inaddition to hunting (Poppel et al. 2007). Indeed, interview respondents lamented that highfuel costs to run snowmobiles have in some cases made it necessary to engage in wageemployment in order to finance hunting expeditions. Along these lines, Inuit in northernGreenland have moved toward a division of labor in order to supply their communitieswith traditional country food. A substantial portion of the harvest is done by Inuit whoare licensed professional hunters and sell their products to Inuit households in openairmarkets (Poppel et al. 2007).
Nevertheless, the hunt continues. We Inuit keep on adapting to the new economicenvironment in ways that sustain our connection to the land and the harvest it provides.
3.3.3 General Inuit Land Use and Occupancy Patterns
With few exceptions, Inuit settlements are located on sea coasts or on major waterwayswith easy access to the sea. This clearly reflects the importance of the sea to our Inuitway of life. Whether thickly frozen or open for the summer, the sea is our primary meansof transportation. The usually icecovered sea is our highway, the only physicalconnection between many of our communities and the only way we can access many ofthe animals we depend on for food (Figure 4#3.3.3.a).
The ability to move freely over long distances is foundational to hunting in the Arcticbecause the animals we hunt are constantly on the move.
Game always moves around. It is the way animals live... It has long been known thatgame have a way of searching for food, so they are always moving. Birds search forother birds. Sea animals search for food. So the seals are kept moving by other seaanimals, searching for food. If sea animals did not search for food, maybe we wouldnot have any seals! (Qayadjuak, Hall Beach, Nunavut, quoted in Brody 1976)
[Jar seals] are moving around all the time. They don't stay in one area all of the time.You probably could see about 100 seals outside of Hopedale this week. Maybe there'sno seal in Makkovik. Maybe about a couple of weeks after, someone gets a nicebunch of seals up in Makkovik. They would be some of the same flock of sealsmoving forth and back. (George Lane, Hopedale, Nunatsiavut, quoted in BriceBennett 1977)
Like the hunters who know their way, polar bears depend on ice for their seasonalmovements. Each year, beginning in midwinter and continuing into spring, bearsmove northward, following the shore ice and the floe edge. Because they also dependon killing seals on the sea ice, the location of bears is as variable as the ice conditions(Brody 1976).
At the appropriate times each season, Inuit hunters set out to find these animals as theirmigrations bring them through their area. Some communities are lucky to have afavorable cove for whales, a feeding ground for caribou, or a nesting area for wild birdsnearby. Others must travel further away to find these sources of food. Some communitieslive in places where the floe edge – the point at which the sea ice stops and the openwater begins, and generally the best place to find sea mammals – is an hour away fromshore. Others must travel three or four hours to reach it. As one might expect, theseharvest conditions fluctuate from year to year, largely dependent on the weather. This iswhy we Inuit must be ready to travel long distances if necessary.
From time to time, disaster strikes and a community must completely alter its subsistencepattern in order to survive. For example, the community of Read Island near Kugluktukin western Nunavut had enjoyed excellent access to caribou herds that crossed theDolphin and Union Strait to reach Victoria Island for the summer. Shortly after the riflewas introduced in the region, the caribou stopped crossing the strait. The cariboumigration pattern changed and the community went from regular, easy access to caribouto having none at all in their vicinity. The Read Islanders adjusted by switching to asmaller caribou variety that could still be found reasonably nearby, by making longerjourneys to the mainland to harvest caribou there, and by trading with neighboringcommunities in order to obtain skins used to make clothing, boats, and so on(Farquharson 1976).
Another very difficult time was the year when an unseasonably late rain fell on BanksIsland in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. Rain fell late in October, forming a thick layerof ice that covered all the ground vegetation normally eaten by the muskox herd. Morethan 20,000 muskoxen were wiped out, eliminating the main source of winter food forthe community of Sachs Harbour. John Keogak described the event this way:
In 2004 we had a big dieoff of muskox because of a late rainfall in October. After ithad snowed, it rained for a whole day. That created a big thick layer of ice. We hadmuskox trying to leave the island and falling through the ice, some were dying ofstarvation. All of their food was under ice. That was a bad year. (13 March 2008)
In a tough year it may be possible to mitigate the lack of large game or whales by takingmore geese or ducks, ptarmigans, fish, or other small game available in the region. Ingeneral, however, unexpected difficulties in the hunt for big game mean hunters mustsearch further and further away until they manage to find enough big game or seamammals to sustain the community until the next hunting season. This was the case inKangiqsujuaq, Nunavik recently:
This past year we had a really hard time finding caribou. We travelled all over anddidn't find any. We ended up going over to the island, which we never do, but finallythere we managed to catch a caribou. It was really affecting our community already.(Pitseolak Panguartuq, 15 March 2008)
In this example, the community of Kangiqsujuaq was spared the hardship of beingcompletely without caribou for the winter because the hunters were able to cross theHudson Strait from Nunavik to Nunavut.
3.3.4 Regional Variations in Land Use and Occupancy
Inuit from Chukotka all the way to Greenland share a common culture based on similarhunting, fishing and whaling patterns. There are certain variations by region because thecommunities have easier access to various species.
Detailed land use studies are available for Alaska, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut,and Labrador. For Nunavik and Greenland there are studies that provide similarinformation but are less comprehensive. Unfortunately there is little information aboutland use in Chukotka currently available, though studies under the International PolarYear promise to change that. What follows is a brief summary of the variations in landuse and occupancy in the Inuit settlement regions according to the available sources.
AlaskaResidents of Alaska's North Slope Borough coastal communities travel throughout theBorough area in pursuit of subsistence activities. These include a fall whale hunt, in somecases a spring whale hunt, caribou and bird hunting throughout most of the year, as wellas fishing. The use areas for coastal settlements extend 40 km or further from the coast,as the InupiatInuit use a combination of traditional skin boats and motorized boats toharvest sea mammals. Snowmobiles are also used on the ice in the hunt for sea mammals(North Slope Borough 2006).
Inuvialuit Settlement RegionThe Inuvialuit Settlement Region includes the communities of Aklavik, Inuvik,Tuktoyaktuk, Paulatuk, Sachs Harbour, and Ulukhaktok (Holman Island). According toexperienced hunters from Paulatuk, Sachs Harbour, and Ulukhaktok, the area they coverin search of game is approximately the same now as it was at the time of the Inuit LandUse and Occupancy Project (ILUOP) – with two exceptions. First, difficult ice conditionsprevent the hunters from going as far out onto the sea ice in the Amundsen Gulf, andsecond, trapping has declined somewhat due to changes in the local economy (Figure4#3.3.4.a).
The Inuvialuit Settlement Region communities engage in a full range of subsistencehunting, fishing, and whaling activities. On land they hunt caribou, muskoxen, geese,and in some places moose. On the sea the western communities focus on whaling, whilethe eastern communities harvest more seals and polar bears. Fish are particularlyabundant in Tuktoyaktuk, though all of the Inuvialuit communities engage in fishing.
NunavutNunavut is a large territory, which is why it is commonly divided into three regions.Kitikmeot is the easternmost region and includes the settlements of Kugluktuk(Coppermine), Bathurst Inlet, Cambridge Bay, Gjoa Haven, Kugaaruk, Umingmaktok
(Bay Chimo), and Taloyoak (Spence Bay). This area enjoys healthy populations ofcaribou, seals that are hunted yearround on the sea ice or in the open water, and richnesting areas for ducks and geese. Many of the rivers and lakes contain char and trout,and cod can be found in some of the bays. Inuit in this region use the straits and gulfsbetween the mainland and the islands extensively for all kinds of hunting (Figure4#3.3.4.b).
Kivvaliq is the central region of Nunavut and includes the communities of Arviat, WhaleCove, Rankin Inlet, Baker Lake, Chesterfield Inlet, Coral Harbour, and Repulse Bay.Caribou are an important staple here in the fall and winter, while spring and earlysummer are the prime times to hunt for seals, walruses and white whales along the coastof Hudson Bay. As in other regions, fishing, hunting of ptarmigan and geese, andgathering of wildfowl eggs contribute to the traditional diet, as does harvesting ofseafood.
The Baffin Region in the east consists of Baffin Island as well as the islands to the northand the smaller islands in Hudson Bay. This region includes the communities of Iqaluit,Kimmirut, Pangnirtung, Qikiqtarjuaq, Clyde River, Pond Inlet, Nanisivik, Arctic Bay,Igloolik, Hall Beach, and Cape Dorset, all the way up to Resolute and Grise Fiord, anddown to Sanikiluaq. Ever since the time of the Thule ancestors, the region around theHudson Strait and Foxe Basin has been an area with many Inuit communities because ofthe plentiful food resources found here. Many of the fiords, inlets and bays on the coastof Baffin Island are ideal for harvesting seals, polar bears, and narwhals. Caribou are alsohunted extensively for food and to make clothing. In fact, the ideal time to hunt cariboufor clothing on North Baffin Island is the summer, so the local term for the summer huntmeans “the search for material for clothes” (Brody 1976).
NunavikThe Nunavik settlement region in northern Quebec has fourteen villages. The principalvillage and administrative centre is Kuujjuaq, on the southern shore of Ungava Bay; theother villages are Inukjuak, Salluit, Puvirnituq, Ivujivik, Kangiqsujuaq,Kangiqsualujjuaq, Kangirsuk, Tasiujaq, Aupaluk, Akulivik, Quaqtaq, and Umiujaq.
While comprehensive land use studies are not available for this region, an interview withthe president of the Nunavik Hunters and Trappers Organization revealed that white fox,wolves, otters, muskrat, and mink are trapped in the region, while seals, walrus, belugawhales, polar bears, sea ducks, and caribou are among the animals currently beinghunted. He highlighted the fact that Inuit hunters have always been long distancetravellers, and noted that hunters from his community of Puvirnituq travel hundreds ofkilometres north by snowmobile or speed boat to hunt on the Hudson Strait near BaffinIsland (Paulusie Novalinga, 14 March 2008). Another Inuit hunter added that they collectmussels and shrimp from under the sea ice (Pitseolaq Pinguartuq, 15 March 2008).
NunatsiavutThe Labrador Inuit are the most recent to obtain a settlement agreement. The newlycreated Nunatsiavut settlement region includes the communities of Saglek, Hebron,
Nutak, Nain, Hopedale, Postvale, Makkovik, and Rigolet. Like Inuit in other regions,these communities also harvest caribou, mostly in the winter; various species of seal;some walrus and polar bears; migratory birds in the fall; and large quantities of fish,including char and salmon (BriceBennett 1977). Land hunting occurs throughout thesettlement region, while extensive use is made of the sea ice and open water along thecoast.
GreenlandThe 18 municipalities in Greenland are, as in the other regions, located mainly on thecoast in order to easily access the sea, but also due to the nearby Greenland ice cap. Themunicipalities, in turn, are made up of unincorporated towns, villages, and huntingsettlements. Hunters travel by boat or over the ice by dog team to harvest several speciesof seal, hunt beluga whales and narwhal, and fish for capelin and other species of fish(Lene Kielsen Holm, ICCGreenland, pers. comm., 2008; from interviews conducted bythe Sila Inuk project, Disko Bay region, Greenland, 910 July 2007). On land, GreenlandInuit hunt caribou (reindeer), muskoxen, birds, and polar bears. Inuit in northernGreenland often travel as far as various islands near the Canadian border in search of seamammals. Because of the warmer west Greenland current, much of South Greenland hasice free port access, whereas west and North Greenland have winter sea ice conditions.
3.3.5 Necessity of Movement Over Land and Sea
Regional maps and descriptions of land and sea use show the vast territory covered byInuit harvesters of sea mammals, fish, and game. As subsistence hunters, we Inuit followthe animals as far as needed in each season, according to the overall conditions of thatparticular year. While Inuit do use the sea ice for general transportation in addition tohunting, we are practical people who harvest as close to our communities as possible. Thefact that we often travel long distances as part of the hunt means our people fromChukotka to Greenland need free movement over the land and sea in order to continueour subsistencebased way of life.
As climate change and reductions in sea ice affect the migration routes of the land andsea animals we rely upon, it may be necessary for us to travel even further than before inorder to reach them. Inuit hunters are reporting many changes in the locations and timesthat our traditional animals can be found. In some communities this is reducing theterritory that hunters need to cover, while in others they have to travel much further thanbefore in order to harvest enough food for the communities. This is why we are veryconcerned that sea ice routes remain passable for hunters as well as the migratory gamethey follow, and that the entire Arctic environment be kept free from contamination –both in the areas we are now using regularly and in those areas where we may need tohunt in the future.
3.3.6 Recent Adaptations
Throughout our over 4000 year history, we Inuit have proven to be a highly adaptivepeople. We have learned new ways of travelling, adapted the construction of our snow
houses to variations in climate, and adjusted our diet according to the availability of fishand wildlife. However, it is only in the past one hundred years or so that we have hadongoing contact with nonInuit people, who we call Qallunaat. This contact has led tomany changes for us, but we have worked hard to maintain our rich cultural heritage evenas we adapt to the changes thrust at us.
In our Alaskan and Canadian settlements, regular contact with the Qallunaat began in theearly 20th century with the establishment of fur trading centres in many of ourcommunities. Many Inuit changed their hunting patterns during this time in order tocapitalize on this opportunity to sell furs. Trapping became a more important activity,while sealing declined somewhat. Trappers also hunted more wolves and other predatorsin order to protect the foxes along the traplines (e.g., Freeman 1976). In this way, webegan to engage with the economic system of the Qallunaat while maintaining ourconnection to the land and the animals.
Around the same time, Inuit began using rifles for hunting. This was a major change thataffected every type of hunting. Also in the early 20th century, many Inuit whalersswitched from using the traditional skin boats to using schooners. In Alaska and theInuvialuit Settlement Region this meant they no longer went as far inland to follow thecaribou, choosing rather to stay near the coast in order to concentrate on whaling andfishing (Usher 1976).
In the late 1950s and 1960s, many Inuit began using snowmobiles instead of, or inaddition to, dog teams. This had a great effect on hunting. For example, caribou huntingbecame easier:
Wherever they are found, caribou are afraid of men and dogs. Hunters approachedthem by pretending to be another caribou, but a hunter had to make judicious use ofterrain and wind to enter a herd and then to pick his kills. The snowmobile haschanged that. Caribou are not so afraid of the noise of an engine, and they sometimeswill approach a hunter on his snowmobile in apparent curiosity. With good rifles andsnowmobiles, the caribou has become relatively easy quarry. (quoted in Brody 1976)
In recent years, hunters have begun using modern communication devices to stay in touchwith other hunters or their families while out on longer hunting trips. In the interviewsconducted in March 2008, most respondents said they used some kind of communicationdevice. Some used twoway radios or mobile phones to stay in touch with home or otherhunters. One mentioned looking up ice condition reports on the Internet. Several saidthey used a GPS device, with one describing a sophisticated system for reporting thelocation of all big game he took. Opinions on the usefulness of GPS varied, however:
I don't use the new gadgets much. Only when I'm going to an area known to bedangerous. But actually they can be dangerous too sometimes, because then you goby your compass or GPS when you should be going by your human senses. They arebetter in the summer on the water than out on the ice. (James Kukkik, Hall Beach,Nunavut, 14 March 2008)
I can either travel by the stars or use GPS, nowadays. They keep advancing. Nowthey have maps and charts that show how deep the water is. Navigation now is a loteasier than before. (Paulusie Novalinga, Puvirnituq, Nunavik, 14 March 2008)
I don't use GPS on the ice, knowing there might be open water anytime out there. I'venoticed that people using GPS on the ice seem to get more into problems. The icebreaks up anytime here, so the trail you might have used breaks off sometimes. So Itry and use what I've been taught out there and not rely on GPS. (Loule Padluq,Kimmirut, Nunavut, 14 March 2008)
With all of these changes, some people think we have lost part of our culture. While it istrue that we live differently than we did one hundred, or even fifty years ago, at the corewe are still the same. We may use fiberglass boats instead of skin boats and, in someareas, snowmobiles more often than dog teams. We may use rifles for much of ourhunting instead of spears or wooden harpoons. We may even live in stationarysettlements and spend less time in temporary camps. But we Inuit are still hunters and westill rely on the hunt for a large part of our diet, which means we are still out on the landand sea, still travelling great distances to seek out the animals whose behavior we knowso well.
3.4. Inuit SustainabilityIn recent times, many people in business and government and universities have begun tospeak about “sustainability.” They speak about sustainable development, for example,which seems to mean different things to different people. There is also talk of economicsustainability and ecological sustainability. This is not a criticism of the people whopromote these ideas, because it is certainly important to think about the longtermconsequences of our actions. The point is simply this – as a people who have lived inharmony with our ecosystem for thousands of years, we Inuit have a very differentconcept of sustainability. For us, an action that can continue for ten or twenty, or evenfifty years before its damaging effects are seen does not qualify as sustainable. A way ofdoing things, a way of living and behaving, must be done in such a way that it couldcontinue for hundreds and thousands of years without harming the natural way of thingsin order for it to meet the Inuit standard of sustainability.
The primary resource for Inuit is the animals. Our people have always known how to carefor this resource. We live in harmony with the land. When we hunt, we only take what weneed and make sure to leave enough of the herd so that it can replenish itself.
Caribou in the 1990s declined to a very low level, so on our own we put on arestriction of one caribou per household per year, just to preserve the caribou. Westarted changing over to muskox and now muskox is a very staple diet for ourcommunity. (John Keogak, Sachs Harbour, Inuvialuit Settlement Region, 13 March2008)
Before game laws were laid down by the government, people used to hunt in placesuntil the animals were no longer plentiful. Instead of hunting all the animals untilthere were none, they would move elsewhere, to where the animals were moreabundant, so that the animals they left would multiply. I used to hunt muskoxen onthe Prince of Wales Island until there were not many animals left. The muskoxenthere were no longer plentiful. Instead of staying to hunt all of the muskoxen, wemoved to another area around Pelly Bay, where we then hunted muskoxen again.(Constant Sallarina, Spence Bay, Nunavut, quoted in Brody 1976)
I think of the time we used to go out camping in spring. I still know where the sealsare. Even though I'm sitting right here, I'm thinking of how we used to go out afterseals in spring. We used to go where the seals would mostly be found. We used totake many seals. We never wasted any. We used the skin for making boots or formaking a bag in which we could put seal blubber for the next winter. We used to eatthe meat and give a part of it for our dogs. We would never waste any. When we gotmany seals, we would save some for the next winter, for dog food and for ourselves.We would use seal skins for making a tent and storing food when we travelled. Sealskins were looked after well by our wives because the skins were so useful. We usedthem in summer, winter, fall and spring. In summer, we used seal skins for boots andkayaks because they are waterproof. We even used them to make harnesses for ourdogs. (Dominique Tungilik, Pelly Bay, Nunavut, quoted in Brody 1976)
When thinking about sustainability, it is important to understand that we Inuit live in theArctic. This is our home. This is where our people have lived for thousands of years andwe intend to live here for thousands more. When we talk about the future, we are nottalking about a fiveyear plan or even a tenyear plan. We are talking about our childrenand our children's children. We are talking about living in the same communities wherewe can see the evidence of our ancestors. We are talking about preserving our way of lifeand the natural environment it depends upon for hundreds and thousands of years. This iswhat Inuit call sustainability.
3.4.1 Sustainability, the Local Economy, and Shipping
Inuit are practical people. We know that it is not possible to turn back the clock onchanges, so we do our best to adapt. For example, many of our people work in wageemployment at the same time as they live off the land. This means we need jobs, and weneed them in our communities so that our young people do not need to move down southand our men and women are able to live with their families.
At the same time, we Inuit are very concerned about the effect that various activitiesassociated with “economic development” are having on our land. As this report hasdescribed, we travel all over our land and so do the animals we eat. When any kind ofdisruption in the natural order of things occurs – for example, an oil spill, dumping ofwaste, or noise from machinery or ships – the animals are affected. This automaticallyaffects our health and wellbeing as well, because we are left with a choice between twobad options: Stop hunting the animals which supply us with our meat, which would be aterrible tragedy for our culture and leave our communities without an affordable source
of protein. Or, continue to hunt and eat our traditional foods, with negative consequencesfor our health.
The following quotes illustrate some of the problems associated with economic activitiesthat do not meet the Inuit standard of sustainability:
I am going to tell you a story about a trip I made once to the Alert area, near Eureka,in 1961. That area, more to our side of the community, had neither caribou nor polarbear tracks. Even behind Eureka, as well as overland, there were not even Arctichares, not a single sign of foxes. It had no evidence of animal life at all. ObviouslyQallunaat had been living there. I am telling you of this event because I have someremembrance of it. But some time ago, that area, even on the sea ice between GriseFiord and Eureka, used to have caribou and polar bear tracks. Naturally, because theanimals had not been forced to go somewhere else. I have thought a lot about this.(Akeeagok, Grise Fiord, Nunavut, quoted in Brody 1976)
In our area even the meat itself has changed. For the past ten years or so, I getstomach problems, horrible cramps, when I eat seals and seafood. There is lots ofsewage, garbage, and mining waste draining into the sea near Rankin Inlet, so eatingthe animals is giving us problems now. I know this is specific to our area, becausewhen I went to Igloolik, I could still enjoy the traditional delicacies. I can't enjoythem here anymore because of the terrible sideeffects. (Lizzie Ittinuar, Rankin Inlet,Nunavut, 15 March 2008)
I think what done it [caused the seals to disappear] in this bay up here, [an oilcompany] used to have a lot of oil up there, you know. Up in Makkovik Bay, here.They used to have it up on the beach every summer, for the last nine or ten years – Isuppose more than that. Some of the drums be leaky, and there be like oil over thewater in the spring. You wouldn't see a seal up in the bay now. You wouldn't get oneup there to save your soul. (Bert Winters, Makkovik, Nunatsiavut, quoted in BriceBennett 1977)
Ships coming through our seas are also a cause for concern. On the one hand, they can beused to supply our communities with building materials and goods for our stores, whichmight bring a welcome reduction in the high cost of living in the Arctic. However, shipshave also caused a lot of damage, as these hunters explain:
In recent years, all kinds of cruise ships are coming in to our area. Last year alone,there were maybe five or six cruise ships that came into town. More are coming everyyear. There's a national park here in Pangnirtung, further inside the fiord, that's whatthey are coming to see. The tourists come into town and buy all kinds of art, likecarvings, craft work, soapstone, whatever they can afford to buy. They help theartists. But hunters have been complaining about those ships because they go all overCumberland Sound, even to the campsites. People are saying they are scaring awaythe animals, the mammals and whales. We are really noticing this because in the pastcouple of summers we hardly saw any narwhals around. Usually we catch our quota,
but not in these past years. (Tommy Qaqqasiq, Pangnirtung, Nunavut, 14 March2008)
A few years ago there were 28 whale hunters who went out to go hunting. I love totake pictures, so I was filming our trip the whole way with my video camera. Weended up getting three whales, but because of the ice conditions that the ships left,there was almost like a disaster. We lost skidoos and equipment [when they fellthrough the ice]. Because I was taping the whole thing, I was a witness and we gotcompensated for the skidoos and hunting equipment we lost. The people who came inthe helicopters asked for my tape, which they used to give us skidoos. They weresmart enough to realize that they had wrecked the area with their ships and it wastheir fault, so they ended up compensating us for what we had lost. TommyTatateapik, Arctic Bay, Nunavut 14 March 2008)
In one way [ships are] good for us. We need material, we need housing, we needgoods, of course. But in another way, when it comes to hunting and fishing, there areless animals that come around our shores if there's a big boat offloading, with its biglights and so on. That scares off some of the marine mammals that do come here.Therefore it affects the hunting when there's a big boat anchored in the middle of thebay. (Paulusie Novalinga, Puvirnituq, Nunavik, 14 March 2008)
Another example of the difficulties related to shipping comes from the community ofTuktoyaktuk on the Beaufort Sea coast. Tuktoyaktuk has long been a key hub for supplyships servicing many of the Inuit communities in Canada. Because the harbor is alsoteeming with various species of fish, Tuktoyaktuk is an instructive example of collidinginterests between economic activities and Inuit use of the sea. Inuit hunter, trapper, andfisherman Chucky Gruben describes the issues:
We have a hunters and trappers committee here, we take care of the wildlife. We dealwith the people, we deal with the shipping companies. We have done some thingswhere after freezeup, the ships are not allowed to come into the harbor. But this pastyear, because of late shipping to other communities, we had to keep our harbor openlonger than usual because the supplies hadn't gone out to the other communities. The community of Tuktoyaktuk is right in a harbor where a lot of fishing takesplace. There's two entrances to the Tuk harbor. What we call the west entrance iswhere the smaller boats come in, and over by the east entrance is where the largerships come in. The east entrance is a place where a lot of people here that do theirfishing set their nets right in the channel. Because the ships had made a ship trackthrough the east entrance, they kept it open up right until November sometime, andthe people couldn't set their nets there because of the ships going back and forth. Thatis one of the impacts of shipping on our harvest. Usually with that kind of thing, we do have a say on whether the ships can use thearea, but times are changing and every year we get applications to come into theharbor later and later. They wanted to do that the year before last, too, but we had tosay no. Last fall we didn't really have a choice because there was still fuel and a lot of
supplies that needed to go out to the other communities, so we had no choice. (31March 2008)
The point we wish to emphasize through these accounts from various Inuit communitiesis that the environment is vital to our entire way of life as Inuit. If something were tohappen to our fragile Arctic ecosystem, our way of life would be lost and we as a peoplewould be lost. Therefore, any activity in the Arctic, whether it is resource extraction,tourism, or militaryrelated, must be undertaken according to the Inuit definition ofsustainability – it must support the continuation of the Inuit way of life for thousands ofyears to come.
3.5. ConclusionIn the Arctic, the sea ice is our highway in wintertime and the open sea is our highway insummertime. The sea is integral to our way of life as Inuit. Because we still rely ontraditional Inuit food for a large portion of our diet, and because hunting and being out onthe land are central to our culture, we continue to use the land and sea the same way ourancestors have done for thousands of years. This gives us a great sense of pride and wellbeing.
In the face of climate change and the potential for greater use of the Arctic bynewcomers, we urge anyone making any plans regarding our land and sea to rememberwho has been living in the Arctic for thousands of years, and who will continue to livehere for thousands more.
4. Town Hall MeetingsAs part of the outreach effort of the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, LawsonBrigham, Esther Cunningham, Ross MacDonald, and GunnBritt Retter organized“Town Hall Meetings” in various locations in the Arctic (Table 4#4.a). The intent ofthese meetings was twofold. First, the organizers presented the plans for AMSA and theexpectation of increased marine shipping that was driving the assessment. Second, theorganizers sought input from participants regarding their observations, concerns, andquestions related to marine shipping. This section presents a summary of the main themesthat emerged from the Town Hall Meetings.
Arctic residents think about shipping, not by itself, but in a broader context of economic,environmental, political, and social change. In the Town Hall Meetings, shipping did notappear to be a cause of great hope or fear, but rather as an additional factor that wouldinfluence the future of Arctic communities in various ways. In addition, discussing thefuture of Arctic marine shipping raised concerns about the ability of small indigenouscommunities to influence largescale economic activities.
Environmentally, shipping is seen as a potential source of disruption to marine species.Marine mammals in particular are seen as vulnerable to disturbance. In Resolute,Nunavut, a period of increased shipping in the 1990s pushed walrus away from thecommunity, too far for hunters to reach them. Saami fishermen in northern Norway are
concerned about impacts to fisheries and fish stocks, particularly from pollution or oilspills. Oil spills are in fact one of the largest concerns, especially with the lack ofresponse capability in nearly all areas of the Arctic. Ship traffic also raises the possibilityof introductions of invasive species.
Hunters are concerned about impacts to the animals and to their practices. Too much shiptraffic could be dangerous for hunters in small boats. In many cases, hunters travelingover sea ice have been cut off by icebreakers, which remains a big concern, especiallywhen travelers’ lives could be at risk from unexpected open water. In some areas of theCanadian Arctic Archipelago, caribou migrate over sea ice, and could be affected byicebreaker traffic. On the other hand, hunters in Resolute and Iqaluit noted that somemarine mammals follow ships. In Iqaluit, the arrival of a ship was often a signal to belugahunters to look for whales that may have come into the bay. As one hunter in CambridgeBay, Nunavut, said, hunters are going to adapt, but they cannot survive without healthyanimals to hunt.
Economically, shipping offers many benefits. Participants in many communities spoke ofthe prospect of lower shipping costs if cargo ships can come more frequently or if largerships can be used. Increased shipping and port activity can also provide jobs. In Canada,ports for mines have often been located away from communities at the communities’request, to avoid social impacts from the influx of workers. Communities may reconsider that approach or seek other ways to gain economic benefits from port activities.On a smaller scale, cruise ships provide an opportunity for carvers to sell their artwork,making their visits welcome to at least some Arctic residents.
The relative costs and benefits of shipping depend greatly on volume. Modest amounts oftraffic, or a few visits by cruise ships, may be seen as largely positive. Increasingnumbers of ships and visits, however, pose the threat of greater disruption and little timein between to recover. Culturally and socially, shipping can be a catalyst for disturbanceif many newcomers arrive in the Arctic, as has been seen with other forms ofdevelopment. The Arctic is already experiencing rapid social and cultural change, andadditional pressures will only make adjustment harder.
In this context, many participants expressed concern over having little voice in shipping,development, and other activities that have so much effect on their lives. In Norway,development of onshore mineral resources and offshore oil and gas are seen as majorthreats to the Saami way of life. With the extent of global environment, economic, andsocial change, many Arctic peoples feel they have little ability to influence majordevelopments like Arctic marine shipping. When shipping companies ignore localresidents, the feeling of powerlessness is compounded. By contrast, when shippingcompanies or cruise lines communicate with local residents, the effort is well receivedand makes people feel better informed and thus better able to make any adjustments thenneed to in order to minimize the impacts of ship traffic.
An additional insight from the Town Hall Meetings is that few Arctic residents are awareof the scope of activities that may be coming to their region soon. The meetings were
able to provide some information, but many additional questions were raised about thescale of environmental change, the prospects of mineral development, and other changesthat can be expected in the near future. For Arctic residents, these influences are notseparate things that can be treated one by one. Instead, each new factor merely joins theothers in shaping people’s lives. The degree to which Arctic peoples retain the ability todetermine their own futures remains to be seen. Communication and the ability toexercise at least local influence are seen as key components of sustaining traditional waysand practices.
5. Impacts of Marine Shipping on Arctic CommunitiesAs a contribution to the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, and specifically to thischapter, the Canadian Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Developmentcommissioned an assessment of the social, economic, and environmental effects andconsequences to northern and indigenous communities from current and anticipatedmarine shipping activities in the Canadian Arctic. The study was conducted by ThomStubbs and Carly Dokis of Integrated Environments Ltd. and is the basis for this section.
5.1 IntroductionIncreased Arctic marine access and expanded Arctic shipping activities are likely topresent both opportunities and challenges for governments and Arctic communities. Thissection provides the results of a literature review on primarily social, economic, andrelated environmental impacts to northern and indigenous communities from current andanticipated Arctic marine shipping activities. Our main research questions are:
1) What are the larger factors of social and economic change related to increased Arcticmarine shipping in Canada?
2) What are the social and economic consequences of changes in future Arctic marineshipping activity in Canada?
The research is based upon a detailed review of secondary literature surrounding currentand projected Arctic marine shipping activities. This includes a review of literature on thesocial and economic effects of past and current marine shipping activities, and literaturepertaining to anticipated future trends in Arctic marine shipping in Canada. In order togain an understanding of general social and economic effects of Canadian Arctic marineshipping, case studies are reviewed including an examination of past reported impacts ofpast Arctic marine shipping in Canada, and assessments of projects currently proposed.Proxy transportation literature is also reviewed to allow for a comparison between what isknown about the social and economic effects of Arctic marine shipping and those lessonslearned (or anticipated) from changes in other Arctic transportation systems, such as newroad or air access. Finally, common findings from the case studies will be synthesized topresent a general overview of social and economic effects of current and future ArcticMarine activities in Canada.
5.2. Key Types of Shipping Activities and their ImplicationsA preliminary scoping of literature surrounding current and projected shipping in ArcticCanadian waters has identified three key types of shipping activity that will drive (orhave the potential to drive) larger social and economic consequences for people living inthe Canadian Arctic. These include:
• Resource development and economy• Community resupply• The internationalization of shipping.
5.2.1 Resource Development and the Economy
MiningThere are currently no operational mines in the Northwest Territories or Nunavut thatdirectly involve the removal of ore concentrate via Arctic marine shipping. One mine(Doris North) in Nunavut utilized NTCL sealift operations for mine supply in the summerof 2007. Several mining operations are currently underway in the Slave GeologicalProvince (SGP) including the Diavik, Ekati, and Snap Lake diamond mines in theNorthwest Territories, and the Lupin gold mine in Nunavut. The Jericho mine, the firstdiamond mine in Nunavut, opened in August 2006 and the Doris North gold mineproposed by Miramar Mining Corporation was approved for construction and the firstmobilization of building equipment and supplies (by sealift) and the preparation of siteconstruction is underway at Hope Bay, Nunavut. The Raglan nickelcopper mine locatedin Nunavik, northern Quebec relies on shipping for both supplies and transportation ofore concentrate. Concentrate from Raglan mine is transported to Deception Bay, andfrom there to Quebec City. A twophase expansion project for the Raglan nickelcoppermine is scheduled for 2008.
Two mines, now abandoned, that utilized Arctic marine shipping for the export of oreconcentrate and importation of mine supplies include the Nanisivik mine, and the Polarismine. Both mines are considered to have directly influenced Arctic marine shipping inthe region. The Nanisivik zinclead mine was opened in 1976 on northern Baffin Island.Nanisivik shipped ore concentrate in the summer months from the Nanisivik site torefineries in Montreal until 2002, when it was abandoned and reclaimed. The Polarismine extracted calcium, lead, and zinc from Little Cornwallis Island. Polaris beganoperations in 1982 and also shipped ore to world markets until 2002 when it wasdecommissioned.
The Development of the Slave Geological Province (SGP) has been limited by iceboundocean access in the north, remoteness, and a lack of transportation infrastructure. There iscurrently a proposal before the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) to build a deepsea port at Bathurst Inlet and to construct an allweather road from the port to ContwoytoLake. If approved, the project will service existing mines in the SGP, and result inincreased certainty and decreased costs for mines already in operation. It is alsoanticipated that development of port and road infrastructure at Bathurst Inlet would resultin bringing existing mineral deposits in the transportation corridor into production. For
example, the Izok, George lake, Goose Lake, Gondor and Hackett River deposits wouldbe able to use the project infrastructure. There is also the potential for the Bathurst Portand Road Project (BIPR) to attract additional mineral exploration, with the potentialresult being the discovery of new deposits (Government of Nunavut Department ofEconomic Development and Transportation 2008: 16).
Mineral exploration expenditure in Nunavut in 2006 was approximately $200 milliondollars (Government of Nunavut Department of Economic Development andTransportation 2008). It is difficult to determine whether or not the development of newmarine infrastructure, such as the BIPR, would induce further mineral exploration andproduction, or whether or not new mineral exploration and production will, in turn, driveArctic marine transportation. It is also difficult to isolate the effects of increased Arcticmarine shipping related to mining activity separate from the effects of mine itself. Intotal, five new mines are expected to be operating in Nunavut by 210, additionapproximately $500 million annually to the territorial GDP and creating 1,700 new jobs(Government of Nunavut Department of Economic Development and Transportation,2008). In order to examine the social, economic, and environmental effects of Arcticmarine shipping relative to mining activity we have included case studies addressing thesocial, economic, and environmental effects stemming from the Nanisivik and Polarismines, as well as anticipated social, economic, and environmental affect assessmentsfrom the proposed BIPR, in this report.
Oil and GasArctic marine shipping for the oil and gas industry is required for a number of tasks.Offshore drilling operations require drillships, icebreaking ships, and resupply vessels.Marine transportation is often required for drillship crew changes, towing, and safetystandby (Hetherington 1997). And, icebreaking support and ship escorts through ice areessential tasks for Arctic offshore oil and gas exploration and production. In many waysthe push to explore and extract the rich hydrocarbon resources of the High Arctic, andparticularly the Beaufort Sea, drove the development of new Arctic marine technology inCanada that is now being used in other iceprone environments in Prudhoe Bay Alaska,off the Kamchatca Peninsula, Russia and in Northern Russia.
In 1961 the first well was drilled in the Canadian Arctic by Dome Petroleum at WinterHarbour on Melville Island. Later, in 1962 the first exploration well was drilled in theMackenzie Delta, followed by the first offshore well drilled by Imperial Oil in theBeaufort Sea in 1973. By 1976, Dome Petroleum had begun to use drill ships in theBeaufort Sea, and there was a proposal to build a pipeline(s) from the Mackenzie Delta tomarkets further south. From 1970 to 1985, with the assistant of the Petroleum IncentiveProgram (PIP) by the Canadian federal government, companies had drilled over onehundred and seventy exploratory test wells at onshore locations in the Mackenzie Delta,and another seventy wells in the south Beaufort Sea (Fast et al. 2001). Hydrocarbonexploration had also been taking place in the Canadian Arctic Islands. According to CoryHetherington, during the peak period of hydrocarbon exploration in the Canadian Arcticover 4000 people were employed by industry in Arctic operations(Hetherington 1997:
92). At the height of hydrocarbon exploration in the Beaufort Sea, it was not uncommonto see an average of over one hundred vessels in Kugmallit Bay alone (Fast et al. 2001).
All Canadian Arctic oil and gas operations were faced with immense obstacles. Drillingthrough ice, getting supplies and personnel to exploration sites, and the exportation of oiland gas to southern markets are among a long list of project challenges. The large numberof workers camped at drill site and staging areas required large volumes of food. Thegravel airstrip at Tuktoyaktuk was expanded to accommodate Boeing 737 aircraft so thatfruits and vegetables could be flown in regularly. Adjacent communities to workcampsand other sites of exploration activity, such as Tuktoyaktuk, often received associatedbenefits of reduced food supply costs as well.
Bent Horn was the only project to ship oil from a producing well in the Canadian Arcticto markets further south. The operator, Panarctic, shipped Bent Horn oil from CameronIsland to a refinery in Montreal for over ten years from 1984 until 1996. The Bent Hornproject is included as a case study in this report as the only example of longterm Arcticmarine oil shipping to date in Canada, although oil was shipped as a test project fromAmalaguk in the Beaufort Sea on two occasions.
By the late 1980s world market prices for oil had fallen and the federal government hadphased out its incentive PIP program, making hydrocarbon exploration in the northexpensive for companies. The last offshore well to be drilled in this period, the Kullukwell, was abandoned in the permitting stage due to uncertainty over the ability to addressthe environmental consequences of an oil spill in an icerich environment; shipping inand around ice (especially moving ice) bound drill sites remains a technical challenge.Exploration for oil and gas in the Canadian Arctic slowed immensely, and manycompanies cut back their Arctic operations. However, the intense oil and gas explorationactivities in the Canadian Arctic during the 1970s and early 1980s spurred severalsignificant political and conservation actions aimed to address the effects of increaseddevelopment, transportation infrastructure and shipping in the Canadian Arctic.
There has recently been renewed interest in the exploration and production ofhydrocarbon reserves in the Canadian Arctic, particularly in the western Canadian Arctic.Heightened oil and gas activities in the western Canadian Arctic will increase shipmovement and barge traffic in the Beaufort Sea. A case study on the social, economic,and environmental effects of ship movement in the Beaufort Sea as a result of previoushydrocarbon activities is included in this report, as well as a consideration of potentialfuture impacts of increased oil and gas exploration and production. It should be noted,however, that there is still no licensed means to transport oil or gas to markets in thesouth, and further development is likely contingent on the construction of the MackenzieGas Project currently under review by regulatory authorities in the Northwest Territories.
TourismCruise ship tourism in the Canadian Arctic has been steadily increasing, and the numberof cruise ships in Canadian Arctic waters doubled from eleven ships in 2005 to twentytwo ships in the 2006 summer tourist season(Stewart et al. 2007: 286). The 2006 AMSA
Progress Report shows that just over six and a half percent of 2004 Canadian FlaggedArctic Vessel traffic was comprised of passenger and cruise ships (AMSA 2006: 5).Cruise ship passengers have taken excursions to the communities of Ulukhaktok(Holman), Cambridge Bay, Resolute, and Pond Inlet, as well as shore landings at placessuch as Beechey Island, Herschel Island, and King William Island (Stewart et al., 2007).Herschel Island alone is said to receive one hundred and fifty tourists per year (Fisheriesand Oceans Canada 2003: 46). Communities such as Pangnirtung, Pond Inlet, Resolute,and Grise Fiord hosted cruise ships in 2006, and Pond Inlet hosted as many as twelvecruise ships over a fortyone day period.
Cruise ships are also active in the western Arctic and Hudson’s Bay. Three cruise shipsincluding the Russian ship Kaptain Khlebnikov, the German ship the MS Haneseatic, andthe US ship the Frontier Spirit all operated offshore of the Beaufort Sea, and some cruiseships have made the deep sea port at Churchill Manitoba a port of call (Newton et al.2002). In the eastern Arctic, Makavik Corporation recently created Cruise NorthExpeditions which offers one week tours aboard the ship Ushuaia.
In general, tourism employs very few permanent full time workers, though it doescontribute substantially to seasonal employment and wages through guiding, carving andarts and craft sales (Myers and Forrest 2000). Cruise ship tourists also contribute to thesale of goods at local Coops and other small businesses. Some port communities, such asPond Inlet, and Resolute have built new hotels and have an interest in wildlife watchingand outfitter tours (Myers and Forrest 2000). Bathurst Inlet houses a world renownedecolodge, and several ontheland campgrounds have been developed. While no touristoperator conducts boating tours in Zone 1a areas of the Beaufort Sea as a result of belugamanagement restrictions, several tour operators have taken visitors to family camps nearKendall Island and have conducted whale watching near Kugmallit Bay (Fisheries andOceans Canada 2003: iv). As a result of the short tourist season, however, employment asa result of the tourism economy tends to be seasonal, with the exception of ChurchillManitoba which offers multiseason wildlife watching (beluga whales in the summer andpolar bears in October/November and in the spring).
A large driver of the tourism economy includes wildlife and marine mammal watching.Communities such as Churchill and Tuktoyaktuk are home to estuaries where belugawhales come in the summer months. In Tuktoyaktuk, however, beluga whale watching isnot a major tourism draw as restrictions have been put in place as a result of the BeaufortSea Beluga Management Plan in order to maintain continued subsistence harvesting ofbeluga by Inuvialuit. In Churchill, the home of Canada’s only Arctic deep sea port,concerns have been raised about the potential effects of increased cruise ship traffic onbeluga whale habitat and populations. Concerns have also been raised regarding thepotential conflict between tourism and increased shipping at the Churchill port. A reviewof the social, economic, and environmental effects of Churchill port is included as a casestudy in this report. While much of the tourism economy in Churchill is conducted by railand jet service, some passenger cruise ships have made Churchill a port of call, and theintersection between tourism activities and shipping activities provides an excellent
example of potential opportunities and challenges between diverse resource developmentsectors.
An important aspect of the tourism industry is the increased market for carvings and thesale other arts and crafts. Tourists have made stops in several Arctic communities(transported from the cruise ships in either Zodiac boats or in helicopters) and purchasegoods from local artists. However, there is currently no data regarding the amount ofmoney that tourists spend in communities on carvings or local arts and crafts. InChurchill, there is a general perception among local residents that tourists were notspending enough money in their community. While Newton et al. (2002: 285) report thatseventy two percent of tourists leaving Churchill are satisfied with their visit, they alsopoint out a 1998 study that estimated that tourists were leaving the community withbetween $400 and $500 dollars of unspent travel money. With the demographic of Arcticcruise ship tourists generally people with high levels of disposable income, there ispotential to increase sales in local arts and crafts sectors(Stewart et al. 2007: 286).
The expansion of the tourism economy is largely dependent on the extension of thetourist season (or the development of shoulder seasons), and the development andmaintenance of transportation infrastructure. In Churchill, for example, coordinationbetween air, rail, and boat services may facilitate tourism activity. In other communities,such as Resolute, the transportation services (including jet service and a port) as a resultof the Nanisivik mine provided important services for cruise ships. In an interview for aGovernment of Nunavut Department of Sustainable Development report, a local residentstated: “Cruise ships start in Greenland. People fly to Greenland, cruise to Nanisivik thenfly south on the jet and a new group flies in. Probably a total of 400 people passingthrough here each summer”(Government of Nunavut Department of SustainableDevelopment 2002: 22).
Increased cruise ship activity may also have some negative impacts for Arcticcommunities as well. The influx of tourists may put pressure on existing communityservices, and communities such as Clyde River on Baffin Island have decided that thepositive effects of cruise visitation do not outweigh the negative effects (Stewart et al.2007). Additionally, because the growth of the tourism sector in Canadian Arctic watershas been relatively slow, there has been little coordinated transregional tourismplanning.
Changes in ice conditions, weather, or operational difficulties necessitates that cruiseships sometime change plans, requiring vessels to occasionally bypass communities thatwere prepared for a visit, or, alternatively, arriving in the community at an unscheduledtime (Stewart et al. 2007). Tourists into northern communities are “guests” that comefrom different geographic regions and cultures. The effects of host/guest interaction isanother potential factor influencing the culture and development of the region (Nash1977). Changing ice in the Canadian Arctic has potentially brought a new frontier andway of looking at the Arctic for the adventure traveler. The consequences (and curiosity)of climate change has brought a new application on frontier adventure. Many adventurersskiing to the North Pole, for example, talk about the need ski there before it becomes
impossible. In a replacement to this activity, the first few independent sailing shipsincluding the Norwegian Blue have crossed through the Northwest Passage (NorwegianBlue Co. 2008).
Early adventures and explorers had their effect on the Arctic as well. Those in search ofthe Northwest Passage brought, in many cases, first contact between European and Arcticcultures. Amundsen, trapped and overwintering on the shore of King William Islandattracted local Inuit people to locate adjacent to his ships. That site became thecommunity of Gjoa Haven, named after Amundsen’s ship.
FisheriesCommercial marine fisheries are now operating in all three regions of Nunavut. TheBaffin (Qikiqtaaluk) Region appears to offer the best potential for marine commercialfishery development (Topoluiski et al. n.d.), and largescale offshore turbot and shrimpfisheries have been established. Shrimp species are almost exclusively harvested byoffshore trawlers, while turbot are harvested by both offshore trawlers and a number ofsmaller fixed gear vessels. There is also an inshore commercial fishery for turbot andscallops in Cumberland Sound. The Keewatin (Kivalliq) and Kitikmeot regions havefocused on continued commercial development and marketing of Arctic char, and theyhave also begun to develop fish resources such as flounder, clams, crab, and scallops withsome success (Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated 2005). InNunavik, the Makivik Corporation, along with Qikiqtaaluk Corporation has a stake in anoffshore fisheries license which is contracted out to a private company, Clearwater FineFoods Incorporated. A Pacific herring stock assessment was carried out in the NorthwestTerritories to determine the availability of herring roe in Liverpool Bay near Inuvik. Thepreliminary assessment suggested that the development of a herring roe fishery is notsufficiently economically viable to justify significant investment (Topoluiski et al. n.d.).There is a commercial fishery inland on Great Slave Lake, which relies on the fishFreight Subsidy Program delivered by the Government of the Northwest TerritoriesDepartment of Industry, Tourism and Investment.
The allocation quotas set for the off shore turbot and shrimp fisheries in Nunavutadjacent waters are based upon the health of the fish stock, rather than the amount of timethe Arctic marine waters are icefree in the summer season, implying that a reduction insea ice would not impact the Nunavut offshore fishery in its own right. However, ifglobal climate change results in environmental warming marine waters in the Arctic, thehealth of the turbot and shrimp stocks may deteriorate. There are northward progressionsof temperate fish as a result of the warming of the Atlantic Ocean, and the developmentof new fisheries over the next century in an icefree Arctic Ocean is possible. However,as Barber, Fortier, and Byers point out, “given the low temperatures that will alwaysprevail in polar waters, the growth of newly immigrated fish will be slow and the stockswill be highly vulnerable to over fishing”(Barber et al. 2005: 68).
The offshore fishery in Nunavut generates approximately $5.6 million annually in quotaroyalties and Turbot sales. An estimated additional $900,000 is generated as a result ofoffshore crew employment (Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik
Incorporated 2005: 8). Nunavut captures approximately thirty eight percent of shrimp andturbot allocations in Nunavutadjacent waters with the remaining sixtytwo percentdivided between the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, NewBrunswick, and Quebec (Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated2005: 27). The Government of Nunavut estimates that the royalty value allocated to nonNunavummiut in the Baffin region is approximately $6 million per year (Government ofNunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated 2005: 28).
The Government of Nunavut estimates that approximately eighty percent of Nunavut’schar fishery is utilized in the domestic economy, with the commercial fishery comprisingthe remaining twenty percent of Arctic char production (Government of Nunavut andNunavut Tunngavik Incorporated 2005: 24). Commercial char sales in Nunavut areestimated at between $1 million and $1.2 million per year, and the annual commercialharvest employs approximately 75 individuals who earn a total of $220,000 per year(Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated 2005: 24). There areconcerns that climate change may impact Arctic char fisheries in Nunavut, as Arctic charrequire cold waters and may relocate if marine temperatures rise.
In total, it is estimated that the Nunavut fisheries currently contribute between $12million and $14 million to the Nunavut territorial economy (Government of Nunavut andNunavut Tunngavik Incorporated 2005). Of this amount, $7.5 million to $9.5 millionenters the economy as wage income (Government of Nunavut and Nunavut TunngavikIncorporated 2005).
Overall, approximately 371 Nunavummiut are employed in commercial fisheries inNunavut, with 135 jobs generated from inshore Turbot catch and processing, 146 jobsgenerated in inshore char catch and processing, and ninety jobs generated in offshorecrew for the turbot and shrimp fisheries. Nunavut has four federally registered fishprocessing facilities. Kitikmeot Foods Ltd. in Cambridge Bay, Kivalliq Arctic Foods Ltd.in Rankin Inlet, and Iqaluit Enterprises focus on the production of Arctic char, whilePangnirtung Fisheries Ltd. focus mostly on Turbot with some Arctic char processing(Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated 2005: 8). There are also anumber of smallscale communitybased fish processing operations. According to theGovernment of Nunavut, these facilities contribute significantly to the communities inwhich they are based in terms of jobs in the facilities themselves, and for providing avenue for inshore fisherman to sell their catch (Government of Nunavut and NunavutTunngavik Incorporated 2005).
There is also potential to develop a seasonal cold storage operation in Nunavut. Theoffshore shrimp and turbot fisheries catch approximately 40,000 tonnes annually, and themajority of the catch is frozen at sea and landed at cold storage facilities for shipment toworld markets. None of the cold store facilities are located in Nunavut, and thedevelopment of cold storage facilities within the territory may represent a significantopportunity to capture additional economic benefits from the offshore commercialfishery. Additionally, the development of smallscale cold storage facilities may foster
the development of increased commercial Arctic char production in smaller Nunavutcommunities (Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated 2005: 40).
Despite the contribution made by offshore commercial fisheries to employment inNunavut, the offshore fishery has been characterized by a heavy reliance on a southernlabour force (Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated 2005: 9). Alack of adequately trained workers within Nunavut, and challenges surrounding therecruitment and retention of Inuit workers in the Nunavut fisheries have resulted insignificant economic leakage from the territory. Largely due to the level of investmentrequired for commercial offshore fishing, and limited local infrastructure, Nunavut’sinvolvement in the offshore fishery has been largely in the form of royalties paid byoutside commercial interests. Nunavut is currently seeking business partnerships andjoint ventures to capture more of the offshore fishing industry.
There are several challenges to opening up Nunavut’s commercial fishing resources. Thecurrent level of infrastructure to support fisheries development is basic. There is a needfor strategic investment in physical infrastructure including harbor and port facilities,marine service centres, processing plants, and cold storage facilities (Government ofNunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated 2005). . In terms of inshore or nearshorefisheries, most communities in Nunavut do not have the necessary infrastructure tosupport fishing vessels, even of modest size (Government of Nunavut and NunavutTunngavik Incorporated 2005). The capital costs for off shore vessels are significant, andjoint ventures and partnerships are needed in order for Nunavut organizations toparticipate (in ways other than royalty generation) in the offshore commercial fishery.Though Qikiqtaaluk currently have a stake in an offshore fishing license, Nunavut’soffshore fishery is largely farmed out to companies from the south, and this represents aloss of economic opportunity for the territory. Also, in February 2008 the Canadianfederal government proposed an $8 million investment into Nunavut’s turbot and shrimpfishery by proposing to build a commercial fishing harbor in Pangnirtung (CBC News2008).
Finally, Nunavut does not have control over the majority of its adjacent fisheriesresources. The percentage of shrimp and turbot allocations in Nunavut adjacent waters,for example, is thirty eight percent (Government of Nunavut and Nunavut TunngavikIncorporated 2005). The Government of Nunavut claims that the result is a loss ofeconomic opportunities for Nunavummiut and Nunavut. The government of Nunavutargue that in addition to a need for more local control over offshore fishing and fisheriesmanagement, there is a strong need for Nunavut and the federal government to maintainan active relationship with Greenland regarding shared fish stocks in the Davis Straightand Baffin Bay, including the need for a bilateral annual meeting process to shareinformation and engage in management planning (Government of Nunavut and NunavutTunngavik Incorporated 2005: 19).
All Nunavut communities, and several communities in the Northwest Territories, arelocated on or have access to tidewater and depend seasonally on the summer open waterseasons for the annual sealift community resupply of goods from the south. According tothe Canadian Arctic Shipping Assessment, community resupply for dry cargo currentlyinvolves twenty to twenty two seasonal vessel trips in the eastern Arctic, and fourteen tofifteen seasonal tugbarge trips in the western Arctic (Transport Canada 2007).Community resupply for transportation fuels is approximately fifteen trips each seasonfor the eastern Arctic, with the western Arctic being serviced by ten river tugs that pushor tow an average of six linked barges.
In the western Arctic, a significant component of the existing transportation infrastructureinvolves the Tug and Barge operations of the Northern Transportation Company Limited(NTCL). NTCL owns and operates approximately fifteen tugs and the vessels used in theArctic sealift operations include the MV Nunakuut, MV Pihurayaak, MV Kitikmeot, andthe MV Henry Christofferson. The tugs used by NTCL are shallow draft tugs which allowthen to get close to many communities that do not have proper port or dock facilities.NTCL also operates over one hundred icereinforced barges that are capable of carryingbulk container modules and oil cargos (Duerden 2004). The NTCL has also served as asealift distributer to the central Arctic region since 1975 (Newton et al. 2002). As of2002, NTCL traffic through the Churchill Port was at 35,000 tonnes annually, andincluded 9,000 tonnes of dry cargo, and 26,000 tonnes of fuel(Newton et al. 2002: 286).The social, economic, and environmental effects of shipping through the Churchill Portare included as a case study in this report.
In the eastern Arctic, the Eastern Arctic Sealift, Kivalliq Resupply, and Western ArcticResupply also conduct sealift operations (Government of Nunavut 2003). In manyNunavut communities, the beach or the shoreline are the only offloading sites. There is ageneral need for port facilities in Nunavut, however, there are several challengesassociated with the development of port infrastructure including low cargo volumes forindividual communities, ice damage and high costs of maintenance as a result of extremeice conditions, and short shipping seasons. For example, the Government of Nunavutestimates that a simple tug/barge crib docking face with a breakwater is estimated to costat minimum $1 to $1.5 million(Government of Nunavut 2003: 9). In addition, the lack ofport and dock facilities and berthing facilities for tanker traffic increases the potential forenvironmental damage as a result of an oil spill.
The sealift resupply season in the Canadian Arctic is relatively short, from July untilOctober. Though NTCL and other resupply distributors do operate icestrengthenedvessels, the system is not designed to travel through heavy ice conditions. While sealiftis by far the cheapest means of bringing goods into Arctic communities, it also meansthat stores and other businesses must bring in as much of their goods as they can by sealift and warehouse them over the following year. Myers and Forrest point out that thisrequires a tight control of inventory and can result in shortages, having to import goods(if possible) via air, or pay expensive warehousing costs (Myers and Forrest 2000). Asignificant volume of dry cargo is transported to Arctic communities via the annual sea
lift. For example, in 2000 the Northern store in Pond Inlet estimated that fifty percent ofits annual stock came in by sealift(Myers and Forrest 2000).
Goods shipped via sealift must not be perishable, and nonperishable items must beflown in to communities at considerable expenses. During the winter, when shipping isnot possible, air freight is the only supply link available to Arctic people and businesses.The high cost of airfreight (often doubly increased because shipments must pay for boththe outbound and return leg of the flight, unlike the shipment of goods in other parts ofCanada) has been a significant concern in Arctic communities for several years(Government of Nunavut 2003). The Food Mail program, also known as the Northern AirStage Program, pays part of the cost of shipping nutritious perishable food by airlift toArctic communities. The program supplements air transport of nutritious perishable foodsfor approximately $0.80 a kilogram plus $0.74 per parcel (Indian and Northern AffairsCanada 2008). The rate for Food Mail shipments has not changed since 1993.
Myers and Forrest (2000) argue that because raw materials must be shipped to Arcticcommunities and then stored, it is actually much cheaper to import finished goods ratherthan to import them from within the region. The costs of shipping from southern regionsto an Arctic community are very similar to the costs of shipping between Arcticcommunities, limiting potential local trade and economic development. The importationof finished goods helps to reduce the costs of housing and infrastructure. However, thepurchase of goods already produced in the south also results in a leak in the northerneconomy, as local workers are no longer needed for such work.
In addition to the high cost to import dry cargo, the cost to import fuel for powergeneration or gas for vehicle use is also extremely high. Prior to 1997, the NorthwestTerritories Power Corporation (NTPC) announced a change in its rate structure, movingfrom a subsidized rate for both businesses and residences and public offices to havingbusinesses be responsible for their own operational costs(Myers and Forrest 2000). AsMyers and Forrest point out, these costs are transferred to the consumer and make forsome of the highest costs of living in Canada.
There are several proposals underway that, if approved, are anticipated to reduce the costof community resupply in the Canadian Arctic, including the Bathurst Inlet Port andRoad Project and the Mackenzie Valley Highway Extension. Both projects are includedas case studies in this report. In addition, past research has shown that hydrocarbonexploration and mining activities contribute to the volume of freight shipped on barges,and can help to offset the high costs of shipping. For example, in 1988 after an intenseperiod of hydrocarbon exploration in the Beaufort Sea, barges on the Mackenzie Rivercarried half of their 1982 peak volume (Government of the Northwest TerritoriesDepartment of Transportation 1999a: 341). Concerns were raised, as well, that theclosure of Nanisivik and Polaris mines in Nunavut would impact community resupply inArctic Bay and Resolute.
The potential for decreasing ice cover in the Canadian Arctic, coupled with the increasingimportance of resource development, raise questions surrounding the jurisdiction ofArctic marine resources and waterways. As we have already seen, increased emphasis onthe Nunavut offshore commercial fishery has resulted in complicated domestic issuessurrounding shrimp and turbot allocations and the jurisdiction and management ofNunavutadjacent waters. As previously mentioned, the Government of Nunavut has alsocalled for a formal political relationship with Greenland in the management of shared fishstocks in the Davis Straight and Baffin Bay.
Issues of Canadian sovereignty have also become important in light of recent disputesover the ownership of Hans Island, and the political status of the Northwest Passage(Huebert 2005). Changing ice conditions in the Northwest Passage could provide a searoute between Europe and Asia that is 7,000 km shorter than the current route through thePanama Canal (Barber et al. 2005). And, while Canada has asserted sovereignty over theNorthwest Passage, some countries consider the passage to be an International Strait (astraight adjoining two expanses of high seas) which means that it would be open toforeign shipping with almost no restrictions (Barber et al. 2005: 70).
Canada has asserted sovereignty over the Northwest Passage and the straits and channelsin the Canadian archipelago in a variety of ways. In response to an American icestrengthened oil tanker SS Manhattan test voyage though the Northwest Passage in 1969,the Canadian federal government granted permission for the voyage and sent an icebreaker to assist the vessel. It later adopted the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Actoutlining safety and environmental requirements on shipping within 100 miles of theCanadian Arctic coast. In 1985 the Canadian government again granted permission to theUS Coastguard ice breaker Polar Sea to sail through the Northwest Passage and, with theconsent of Washington, placed several observers on board the vessel. Canada has alsoclaimed the straits and channels of the Canadian Archipelago as historic internal watersand, following an International Court of Justice ruling, argued that sovereignty could restin strait baselines linking the outer headlands of the Canadian Archipelago.
An important element for many of Canada’s sovereignty claims over the NorthwestPassage and Arctic marine waters is the continued use and occupancy of the surroundingland, sea, and sea ice by Inuit people. Barber et al. (2005: 69) report that even during theSS Manhattan voyage through the Northwest Passage, the assertion of Canadiansovereignty was defended by Inuit hunters: “as the SS Manhattan ploughed through theice near Resolute Bay, two Inuit hunters drove their dogsleds into its path. The vesselground to a halt until the hunters –having made their point –moved aside”. The NunavutLand Claims Agreement also affirmed Canadian sovereignty over the waters of the Arcticarchipelago as a result of continued Inuit use and occupancy.
In terms of environmental management and regulation, any increase in shipping activityinvolves the risks of accidents, including oil spills. While the 1982 United NationsConvention on the Law of the Sea, allows coastal states to impose laws against marinepollution out to 200 nautical miles when multiyear ice creates navigational hazards, and
Canada has passed the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the authority to regulateforeign vessels in the Northwest Passage is jeopardized without firm confirmation ofCanadian sovereignty claims. The inability to regulate international vessels in theNorthwest Passage poses risks of pollution, insufficient safety standards, and theimportation of alien species as vessels discharge their ship ballast in Canadian Arcticwaters.
Several projects, such as the Churchill port, the proposed Bathurst Inlet deepsea port, theproposed Mackenzie Highway extension linking Inuvik with Wrigley in the centralMackenzie Valley, and the proposed investment in port and harbor infrastructure forfisheries in Nunavut, and investment in the development of a deepsea port and refuelingstation at the Nanisivik minesite have all made the case that maintaining and improvingmarine transportation infrastructure in the Canadian Arctic will serve to reinforce areaswhere Canadian claims to sovereignty have been contested. As Newton, Fast, and Henleypoint out, “these activities are a valuable supplement to the military and othergovernment projects meant to confirm the Canadian presence in this territory, whichcould have implications for future gas and mineral claims”(Newton et al. 2002: 286).
5.3 Social and Economic Consequences of Arctic Marine Shipping inCanadaThe following case studies have been identified as illuminating various aspects of Arcticmarine shipping in Canada. Some of the case studies offer a diachronic perspective ofsocial, economic, and/or related environmental effects on Canadian Arctic communitiesas a result of changes in marine shipping activities over time. Others are evaluated fortheir current or anticipated future social, economic and/or environmental impacts, as theyare currently in operation or are still in development. Environmental Impact Assessments(where available) and other germane secondary literature will be reviewed and relevantsocial and economic effects of shipping activity will be documented for each case study.Finally, in addition to case studies pertaining directly to shipping activities, a case studyon the proposed Mackenzie Valley Highway extension was selected as an example ofsocial and economic impacts of changes in other Arctic transportation systems in Canada.
5.3.1 Bent Horn
In 1974, Panarctic Oils Ltd. (Panarctic) discovered the Bent Horn oil field on CameronIsland. Between 1982 and 1983, Panarctic began the planning, consultation and reviewprocess for a project that would see oil extracted from Bent Horn N72 and shipped withan ice strengthened cargo vessel through the Byam Martin Channel into Melville Soundand Barrow Straight to Little Cornwallis Island. From there, Bent Horn oil could then betransferred to a conventional tanker for onward shipment to refineries in Montreal orelsewhere (Greenall, in press). Panarctic designed the Bent Horn project in two phases;Phase One included sufficient oil production to support two to three tanker shipments peryear in the summer months. The exact number of yearly vessel trips would depend on iceconditions. Phase Two was essentially an expanded oil production and transportationoperation and would require the addition of expanded storage capacity at Bent Horn, andadditional shipping activity. The project was proposed to the federal government in 1984,
and after a formal environmental assessment review, Phase One of the project wasapproved with conditions.
Construction on the seasonal production and storage facilities began in 1985, and laterthat same year the first shipment of oil was loaded onto an arctic tanker, the M.V. Arcticat the Cameron Island Facility and shipped the 200 miles to Little Cornwallis Island.Overall, the land footprint of the Bent Horn project was relatively small for theproduction and storage facilities. Panarctic placed twentysix rubber storage bladdersprotected by a berm on Cameron Island, and oil was stored there to facilitate seasonaltanker shipments. Cameron Island also had an airstrip which could accommodate C130Hercules aircraft; personnel, material, and supplies could be flow to Cameron Island atlittle cost from the Rea Point base.
The communities closest to the Bent Horn project include Resolute, Grise Fiord, ArcticBay, and Pond Inlet. The closest community to the Bent Horn field is Resolute, locatedapproximately 300 kilometers east of Cameron Island. During the planning and reviewprocess for the project, Panarctic shared its draft plans and regulatory applicationmaterials with all four communities, and provided regulatory application materials to thecommunities prior to submitting them to the government. As Indian and Northern AffairsCanada points out in their 2006 case study of the Bent Horn Project, this providedcommunities in the region with the opportunity to be informed about the project, and toinfluence project planning (Greenall, in press). In addition, Panarctic officials met withthe communities in the development of a benefits plan and regulatory applications.
Overall, the four communities were not opposed to responsible nonrenewable resourceexploration in the region, or limited and well regulated summer shipping activities.However, the communities were opposed to the use of the Northwest Passage for yearround shipment of oil or natural gas and turned to the federal government to control thelevel of shipping volumes and ensure that ship traffic would not interfere with Inuitharvesting activities or marine mammal migrations (Greenall, in press). Conditions forgovernment approval of the Bent Horn project included a requirement that should theBent Horn project proceed to Phase Two of the development plan, a comprehensivesocioeconomic review would be required. Essentially, this condition meant that therewould be no more than two to three tanker shipments of oil each year until a socioeconomic review had been completed. The volume of oil produced at Bent Horn did notnecessitate an increase in tanker shipments between the summers of 1985 and 1996, andthus a midproject review was never triggered (Greenall, in press).
Initially, Panarctic Oils attempted to find a domestic market for Bent Horn oil. Followingthe successful use of unprocessed Bent Horn crude oil in the boilers and air heaters at theSkybattle drilling location, Panarctic decided to utilize unprocessed Bent Horn crude tofuel generators and other equipment at their other High Arctic locations. The Bent Horncrude was reported to be equal to diesel fuel for the generation of power for the dieselengines in use at Resolute, and provided fuel for the Nanisivik and Polaris mineoperations. Panarctic negotiated an arrangement to provide Bent Horn oil to the NorthernCanada Power Commission for use in Resolute, however after a short experimental
period the contract was not renewed because there had been environmental complaintsfrom local residents about a foul odor that was emitted when Bent Horn oil was used inthe power plant (Greenall, in press).
Panarctic utilized a yearly summer sealift from southern Canada to the supply base at ReaPoint, and the sealift resupply was substantially cheaper than the per pound freight forairlift (Hetherington 1997). Initially, Panarctic considered having the sealift supply vesselcontinue on to Bent Horn to load oil and carry it south on its outbound voyage. However,heavy ice conditions necessitated the use of an icestrengthened tanker.The communities of Resolute, Grise Fiord, Arctic Bay, and Pond Inlet also depend on theannual sealift for the resupply of goods and fuel for domestic consumption. Given thatthe Cameron Island facilities were at least 300 kilometers away from the closestcommunity (Resolute), there is no evidence that community resupply by sealift wasincreased, or that goods were available at a lower cost. There is some evidence, however,that the use of Bent Horn oil for fuel in power plant operations in Resolute may havedecreased the community’s reliance on fuel resupply, even if for only a short period oftime.
The largest community near the Bent Horn facilities is Pond Inlet (estimated 1984population of 700), followed by Arctic Bay (estimated 1984 population of 400), and thesetwo communities supplied the majority of Panarctic’s Inuit workers. Up to ten Inuit fromArctic Bay were employed during the 1985 construction period, for subsequentinstallations and construction, and during the decommissioning (Indian and NorthernAffairs Canada 2006). However, most Inuit worked at the Rea Point supplybase inwarehousing activities. Panarctic employed a seasonal and rotational work cycle, withemployees able to work a twoweekson, twoweeksoff work rotation that was attractiveto some Inuit workers. Inuit workers were provided charter air transportation betweentheir home communities and their work sites.
In terms of Bent Horn’s effects on Inuit harvesting activities, Indian and Northern AffairsCanada reports that no resource harvesting by Inuit occurred on Cameron Island or thesurrounding waters, and that the only resource harvested on Melville Island was PolarBear, hunted by Inuit from Grise Fiord and Resolute (Greenall, in press). The directeffects of increased shipping activities on Inuit use of Arctic sea ice and traditional waysof living is addressed in a report conducted by ICC Canada for the AMSA.
In the fall of 1996, the Bent Horn well was abandoned due to falling reservoir pressure.During the decommissioning, Panarctic offered to make the heavy equipment located atBent Horn available to the community of Resolute at a low cost, and the community wasable to purchase a frontend loader. Also, a contractor in Resolute was able to obtain nineC130 Hercules loads of equipment and material (Greenall, in press).
According to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, the Bent Horn project had limitedapparent socioeconomic effects on the four communities “apart from generating someshortterm employment opportunities for Inuit from Arctic Bay and Pond Inlet andincreased business activity for a contractor in Resolute” (Greenall, in press: 9). Other
literature holds Bent Horn as an example of a successful project that demonstrated theshipment of oil could be conducted in an environmentally successful way into the easternNorthwest Passage in the summer months using an Arctic Class III tanker. In aninterview included in Chris O’Neil’s work on oil and gas exploration in the Canadianarctic, a CANMAR naval architect states ‘nobody complains about it. There have notbeen any leaks, to the best of my knowledge, and they are doing it on a very lowkeybasis’”(Hetherington 1997: 227). While the distance between the communities and theBent Horn field limited some potential community benefits, such as increased communityresupply at a lower cost, it also meant that other effects, such as disruptions incommunity services were mitigated. The Bent Horn project provided some employmentin the wage economy for a limited number of Inuit workers. Importantly, it also involvedInuit, northern organizations, and the Government of the Northwest Territories inregulatory and planning processes, and kept communities and various levels ofgovernment well informed of project activities.
5.3.2 Nanisivik Mine
Nanisivik zinclead mine was the first mine built in the Canadian Arctic. In 1972 and1973, Mineral Resources International (MRI) undertook production feasibility studies toleadzinc ore from the Nanisivik area. Two possible scenarios were developed: a privatesector scenario, where the project would run essentially as a bunkhouse operation andwould have an approximate seven to eight year life span, or a public/private scenariowhere the federal government would provide support to develop a town site. Under thesecond scenario, the anticipated lifespan would extend to between twelve and thirteenyears. The town site scenario was preferred by the federal government, and was approvedin 1974.
Construction of the town site began in 1974 and a dock and port was built by theGovernment of Canada. Breakwater (the mine operator) paid port dues and warfage onshipped concentrates from the Nanisivik mine (Transport Canada 2007). The town site atNanisivik was built only 21 kilometers from the community of Arctic Bay, and Nanisivikand the community of Arctic Bay are now connected by a road. According to a study onthe socioeconomic impacts of Nanisivik commissioned by the Government of Nunavut,the mine and the town site were “initiated in the midst of expectations that it wouldprovide significant social and economic benefits to north Baffincommunities”(Government of Nunavut Department of Sustainable Development 2002:1). The Nanisivik Mine operated from 1974 to 2002, when the mine was reclaimed andthe Nanisivik town site abandoned.
The major direct economic impact of Nanisivik on the community of Arctic Bay was thewages paid to employees (Government of Nunavut Department of SustainableDevelopment 2002: 34). According a study on the socioeconomic effects of theNanisivik mine commissioned by the Government of Nunavut, a limited but significantnumber of Arctic Bay residents worked full or part time in the mine over the thirty yearminelife, in 2002 directly contributed over $1 million per year over 25 years to ArcticBay’s total personal income (Government of Nunavut Department of Sustainable
Development 2002: iv). In 2002, fourteen people from Arctic Bay were employed fulltime at Nanisivik and earned an annual income of $25,000 or more. An additional thirtypeople from Arctic Bay have been working part time or gain casual income from theNanisivik mine (Government of Nunavut Department of Sustainable Development 2002).The closure of the mine is likely to result in the loss of jobs and associated wages, and isexpected to decrease household income for those people employed at the mine.Employment opportunities in other sectors of the economy are limited, and thecompetition for other jobs is expected to increase (Government of Nunavut Departmentof Sustainable Development 2002).
A loss of income may also impact harvesting activities because people may no longer beable to afford fuel and harvesting equipment, such as snowmobiles. According to thestudy commissioned by the Government of Nunavut, increased income as a result ofemployment at Nanisivik supported the purchase of harvesting equipment which wasoften shared with family members and others in the community. The report suggestedthat there is no evidence that the level of sharing of country foods was reduced byparticipation in a wage economy (Government of Nunavut Department of SustainableDevelopment 2002: ii).
In addition to a decrease in household income, the loss of jobs and associated wagesresulting from the closure of the Nanisivik mine is expected to have an effect on retailstores and other local businesses as income (including disposable income) decreases.While only two local businesses have received contracts to conduct work at the Nanisivikmine and town site, earned income at the mine has contributed to the local economythrough spending at Arctic Bay businesses (Government of Nunavut Department ofSustainable Development 2002). The abandonment of the Nanisivik town site will impactArctic Bay business, retail, and arts and craft sectors, as mine workers from other parts ofCanada will likely leave the area.
In terms of transportation infrastructure, the port facility and the airstrip have provideddecreased freight costs and have resulted in more frequent and reliable transportationservices. The airstrip is able to feasibly accommodate jet service as a result of businessprovided by the mine. More frequent jet service has resulted in more convenient planetransportation to neighboring communities at a lower cost for travelers. In addition, thefrequent jet service has reduced the costs of air freight, and fresh food is transported intothe community more regularly. Tourists also make use of the frequent jet service, and ithas been reported that groups of cruise ship guests fly both in and out of Arctic Bay(Government of Nunavut Department of Sustainable Development 2002: 70). Jet servicehas also made it possible for tourists to travel to Arctic Bay for events such as theMidnight Sun Marathon. Nanisivik’s port facility has provided for more frequent and lessexpensive shipping as a result of an increase in ship traffic due to mine resupply. Theport has also served as a resupply point for cruise ships. Both the jet and the port facilityhave been identified as “contributing to tourism potential in the region by providingimportant services to cruise ships”(Government of Nunavut Department of SustainableDevelopment 2002: 25). The port and jet facilities are anticipated to contribute to agrowing tourism economy.
In the study on the socioeconomic effects of Nanisivik commissioned by theGovernment of Nunavut, residents of Arctic Bay identified several negative effects of theNanisivik mine. Alcohol associated with the Nanisivik mine and town site is generallyassociated with negative social impacts. In 1978, alcohol was permitted to be shipped toNanisivik, and it is said that alcohol consumption increased(Government of NunavutDepartment of Sustainable Development 2002). The transition from a subsistence to awage economy was also identified as a negative impact, as was changes in the roles ofelders and parents in raising children. However, the authors are quick to point out that thetransition towards a wage economy, and the role of parents and elders can not beattributed to the mine alone, and that general changes such as a move toward a formaleducation system, have also facilitated these impacts. Also, as mentioned earlier, in somecases wages earned as a result of working at Nanisivik resulted in a greater ability toparticipate in harvesting activities. Other indirect socioeconomic effects on Arctic Bayinclude some (mostly temporary) stress on marriages as a result of family role changesfrom leaving the family for shift work, increased workload at home and increased contactwith nonlocal workers. The authors point out, however, that mine workers rarely visitedthe community of Arctic Bay for social interaction and that the “physical and culturalseparation” between mine workers and residents of Arctic Bay may have mitigatedadditional impacts (Government of Nunavut Department of Sustainable Development2002).
Finally, the authors of the study on the socioeconomic impacts of Nanisivik on ArcticBay point out that while the transportation infrastructure developed as a result ofNanisivik mine and town site may put the community of Arctic Bay in a favorableposition in regards to a developing tourism economy, other infrastructure such asincreased housing, schools, and business spaces has not benefited. The authors point outthat the federal government invested in the infrastructure of the Nanisivik town site (nowabandoned as a result of the decommissioning of the mine), and consider thecommunity’s development status had the government invested in Arctic Bayinfrastructure rather than infrastructure and services at Nanisivik.
Nanisivik mine and town site will have future uses, however, and in August 2007,Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that the Nanisivik port will berefurbished for military and civilian purposes. The new port and refueling station areestimated to cost $100 million and is expected to begin in 2010. In addition to otheractivities, the port will serve as a training site for the Canadian military, and will help tostrengthen Canada’s sovereignty claim over the Northwest Passage (CBC News 2007b).
5.3.3 Port of Churchill
The Port of Churchill is currently the only Arctic deepsea port in Canada (Newton et al.2002). Owned and operated by OmniTRAX International, the port offers four berths forthe loading and unloading of grain, cargo, and tankers, and is able to accommodatePanamax class vessels up to a 60,000 tonne capacity. The port also has the capacity toclean and store grain in a 140,000tonne grain elevator. The shipping season for the Port
of Churchill is from July to mid November, and it has a throughput capacity is over 1million tonnes of grain (Port of Chuchill 2008). Grain accounts for ninety percent of theport’s current traffic, and while ocean going vessels primarily export grain and othercommodities to Europe, South America or Africa, the port also has the capacity to importproducts. The port is connected to the Canadian National Railway system through theHudson Bay Railway which allows for efficient access to western wheat lands and NorthAmerican markets. The resupply of fuel, good, and cargo to communities in alongHudson Bay and the central Arctic by Northern Transportation Company Limited(NTCL) has also become an important function of the port, making Churchill aninvaluable transportation artery for northern Manitoba and the central Arctic region. In1997 the transfer of the port from the Crown Corporation Ports Canada to OmniTRAXInternational required bringing the port up to environmental standards, and the majorityof these tasks including dust control and remediation of contaminated oils surroundingthe marine tank farm have been completed (Newton et al. 2002: 268).
Over the years Churchill Manitoba’s location has fostered a range of Arcticfocusedactivities including international shipping, an international rocket research range, andCanadian and American military instillations aimed to track and monitor Arctic activity.Shipping access provided a core rationale for these services.
Historically, Churchill was one of two main export routes for the active for trade in the17th, 18th and 19th centuries. When the Fort Churchill military base was decommissionedin the 1980s, there were concerns raised by local residents about abandoned and derelictbuildings, dumps, and gravel pits used for construction in military sites. Also, new gravelpits along the Hudson Bay coast used for road and runway construction have yet to bereclaimed and are said to be of concern to local populations (Newton et al. 2002: 284).
Overall, the major employers in Churchill include the Hudson Bay Port Company, theRegional Health Authority, the Town of Churchill, Churchill Airport, and NTCL. TheHudson Bay Port Company is the major employer in the region with 100 workersemployed during the shipping season from July until November. In addition, NTCLemploys 40 employs for their barge and resupply operations(Eddy et al. 2002). Ingeneral, the Port of Churchill annual contributes approximately $6.5 million to the localeconomy(Eddy et al. 2002). In 1998, the Churchill Airport employed 37 people directly,and 82 people indirectly, contributing $14 million dollars in direct and indirectrevenue(Newton et al. 2002: 286).
Tourism activities also contribute significantly to the Churchill economy, both directlyand indirectly, and in 1997 the tourism industry is reported to have directly employed 130local residents, and indirectly generated up to 50 jobs (Newton et al. 2002: 282).According to some studies, the tourism industry accounts for up to forty percent ofChurchill’s total local economy(Newton et al. 2002). Churchill is a popular destinationfor national and international tourists, and has become world renown as a wildlife sightseeing destination, including observing polar bears, beluga whales, northern lights, andvarious bird species. In 1996, 12000 tourists visited Churchill by air and an additional6500 arrived by train (Eddy et al. 2002: 293). Cruise ships have also been making
Churchill a port of call with increasing frequency over the past few years, and cruise shippassengers have been able to utilize the rail and airport services in Churchill to continueon to other destinations. However, some studies have reported that tourism growth maybe limited by infrastructure demands, including a lack of quality accommodation.Furthermore, a developing tourism economy will depend on maintaining and increasingcurrent infrastructure and expanding tourist seasons. More integrated transportationfacilities and services that would allow for efficient travel, say between port and airfacilities would provide for growth in the tourism sector (Newton et al. 2002: 287).
Despite the employment opportunities provided as a result of the shipping and tourismsectors, unemployment levels in Churchill remain fairly high compared to the rest ofManitoba, with twenty one percent unemployment in Churchill compared to an averageof eight percent unemployment provincewide(Newton et al. 2002: 282). This is largelydue to the seasonal nature of employment in both the tourism and shipping sectors, andresults in seasonal employees having to depend on government subsidies for someportions of the year. An extension of the shipping and tourist seasons may provide forlonger periods of employment for local residents.
A study conducted by Newton et al. (2002) shows that local residents have reported aconcern over the environmental effects of increased tourist activities. A significantnumber of people interviewed in Churchill identified tundra vehicle traffic as their mainenvironmental concern in Churchill. There is a general concern that too many touristsover a short period of time will result in environmental degradation and overburden localinfrastructure. There is also concern that an increase in tourism will result in thedisturbance of wildlife, and the pollution of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. There isalso a general concern that increased commercial shipping activity and dredging of theport may result in a disturbance to the Churchill River estuary, which is vital to Belugawhale populations. An important consideration for increased ship traffic includespotential environmental impacts on important wildlife populations vital to the tourismsector, such as Beluga whales and some bird species. It is anticipated that conflicts mayarise between tourism and shipping sectors if the shipping season is extended. However,Eddy et al. (2002) report that local residents also see longer shipping seasons as thepotential to have a positive effect on local employment.
Local residents have also reported negative impacts associated with increased dust fromport activities, however, dust control facilities have been installed and dust mitigation hasbeen in effect since 1997 when OmniTRAX took over port operations. There has onlybeen one oil spill as a result of port activities, but local residents are concerned about thepotential for additional spills. The Churchill River estuary and the Hudson Bay coastlinerepresent important social, cultural, economic and recreational locations for localresidents and activities such as hunting, fishing, and camping are important aspects of lifefor many people in Churchill (Eddy et al. 2002: 293).
The NTCL has utilized the Churchill port as a distribution centre for the central Arcticregion since 1975. Cargo is transported to Churchill via railway and is then transferred tobarges for shipment to northern communities. According to Newton et al. (2002), NTCL
traffic was at 35,000 tonnes annually (9,000 tonnes of dry products and 26,000 tonnes offuel) in 1999. An agreement between the Province of Manitoba and the Government ofNunavut to maintain Churchill as a gateway to Nunavut communities should ensure thatshipping resupply remains an important function of the port.
The Newton et al. study also identified local concerns over alcohol abuse, loweducational levels, quality of health care, child neglect, drug use, insufficient youthprograms, care for the elderly, and the use of video lottery terminals as the main socialconcerns in the Churchill community. However, the authors did not attribute any of theseconcerns directly to port or shipping activities.
In 2007 the port of Churchill received its first ever shipment from Russia, and the firstinbound shipment since 2000. The Murmansk Shipping Company vessel, the KapitanSviridov, unloaded fertilizer imported by Farmers of North America, and was loaded foroutbound shipment of wheat to Italy. The Churchill port is actively promoting twowaytrading opportunities with Europe, Russia, and Africa and promotes lessened nauticalmiles for ships wanting to reduce transportation time and distances. For example,shipments from Murmansk to North America through the St. Lawrence Seaway and theGreat Lakes to western Ontario typically take 17 days, however the time betweenMurmansk and Churchill is only eight days under favorable ice conditions (Hudson BayPort Company 2008). Unloaded cargo can then be shipped via rail to multiple NorthAmerican destinations. The development of the Murmansk to Churchill route is oftenreferred to as the Arctic Bridge.
In 2007, Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper announced that the federal government(along with the Province of Manitoba) would share $40 million in improvements to theHudson Bay rail line between The Pas and Churchill, and $8 million for improvements tothe Port of Churchill (CBC News 2007a). While grain is presently the primary exportshipped out of Churchill, OmniTRAX is attempting further diversification of ship trafficto include alternative crops, minerals, and bulk commodities such as potash.
5.3.4 Beaufort Sea
Early hydrocarbon exploration drilling began in the Beaufort Sea in 1973, with themajority of exploration drilling occurring between 19731989 (Fisheries and OceansCanada 2003: 39). By the early 1990s, over 210 exploratory test wells had been drilled inthe Mackenzie Delta and offshore in the Beaufort Sea (Fast et al. 2001: 187).
The Tuktoyaktuk Harbour and McKinley Bay acted as staging areas for offshore drillingconducted in the Beaufort Sea in the 1970s and 1980s. Dome Petroleum and Imperial Oilset up large shore bases within a few miles of Tuktoyaktuk, and a dock was built toaccommodate loading and unloading supply vessels. Although Tuktoyaktuk had existinginfrastructure prior to early hydrocarbon development (including an airstrip and a naturalharbor), the harbor was limited by a shallow and long entrance channel that was tooshallow to accommodate large drill ships and larger vessels. Additional harbors weredeveloped to store larger ships over the winter months (Hetherington 1997: 88).However, vessels did overwinter at both Tuktoyaktuk and McKinley Bay locations, and
those locations became significant in the resupply of drilling consumables and fuel, anddry dock repairs to base camps and drill ships. According to interviews conducted by Fastet al. (2001) during the most intense periods of early hydrocarbon exploration activity inthe Beaufort sea, it was not uncommon to see an average of 100 vessels including barges,drill ships, and supply vessels in Kugmallit Bay.
The hundreds of workers associated with hydrocarbon exploration in the Beaufort Seaand Mackenzie Delta required a large volume of food which was flown in regularly. Theairstrip at Tuktoyaktuk was expanded to accommodate Boeing 737 aircraft, and freshfruit and vegetables were flown in almost daily (Hetherington 1997: 89). Fuel wasimported using tankers or barges.
Imperial Oil, Dome Petroleum, and Gulf Oil constructed workcamps near the town ofTuktoyaktuk, raising concerns among locals about industry employees interacting withcommunity residents. Initially, all three camps but measures in place to preventemployees from entering Tuktoyaktuk, however, the community eventually approachedthe companies and requested that employees be allowed to access the town so that theycould use Tuktoyaktuk services and shops. Employees were then permitted unlimitedaccess to the town until eventually access was again restricted to certain chaperonedtimes, as a result of several complaints from residents about disruptions caused bysouthern workers. In contrast to Tuktoyaktuk, O’Neil (1997: 154) points out that residentof Inuvik generally did not have the same level of concern about an influx in southernworkers because of an already existing military base, government, and industrial sectors.
According to Jana Zavitz, training of northern employees was one of industries greatestpositive contributions during early Beaufort Sea exploration (Zavitz 1997a: 189). It wasanticipated that northern residents would gain employment on drill ships, supply vessels,and that northern workers would staff the personnel and supply camps. Because this wasthe first time many northern workers had been exposed to oil exploration activities in theBeaufort Sea, they were in need of training. Initially, when workers were sent for trainingin southern programs, the recidivism rate was as high as eighty percent (Zavitz 1997a:189). Training programs were then revised to include classroom training, handsonexperience on practice drill rigs, and onthejob training. Dome Petroleum was alsoinstrumental in establishing Tuk Tek in 1980, a training program housed at Dome’s campnear Tuktoyaktuk, during the winter months when the camp was empty. Eighty sixnortherners successfully completed programs at Tuk Tek during its first two years ofoperation and the recidivism rate fell to as low as five percent (Zavitz 1997a: 187189).In addition to skills relevant to employment, instruction was given in moneymanagement, dealing with financial institutions, and other skills needed to transition froma subsistence to a wage economy.
Generally speaking, oil and gas development provided employment, increased wages,improved community infrastructure and services, and opportunities for local businesses.They also change the way families and communities live as family members migrate orundertake rotational work away from their home, and bring home cash instead of goingout on the land to bring home protein.
Some modest improvements occurred in areas of education, though educationalattainment in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region remained, on average, generally lowerrelative to other jurisdictions in Canada. In a summary of a workshop conducted for theBeaufort Sea Strategic Regional Plan of Action, local residents also pointed to negativeeffects of hydrocarbon exploration including less country food consumption, lowerparticipation in traditional harvesting activities, fewer people speaking Aboriginallanguages, increased drug and alcohol consumption, increased crime and violence, andboom and bust cycles that resulted in unstable community economies (Beaufort SeaStrategic Regional Plan of Action 2006: 7). While all of these impacts cannot be directlyattributed to hydrocarbon exploration in the region, local residents cited hydrocarbonexploration as a key factor in bringing these changes to communities, or in contributingto effects already experienced by community members.
In the 1980s world oil prices fells significantly, and the exploration for oil and gas in theBeaufort Sea stalled. Employment in Tuktoyaktuk, which had become a focus ofexploration activity in the 1970s, was severely affected by the decline of the oil and gasindustry. The cessation of oil and gas activity in the 1990s, coupled with the closure ofthe military base in Inuvik in 1986, meant that many southern workers who had come toInuvik and Tuktoyaktuk for work, returned to the south. The lack of employmentopportunities resulted in some local residents turning to government assistance whileunemployed. At the same time, some studies suggest that substance abuse levels also rosewhen oil and gas exploration activities ceased (Zavitz 1997b: 170). One study suggeststhat the lack of work has lead some northerners to return to hunting and trappingactivities, as well (Zavitz 1997b: 174).
The Tuktoyaktuk harbor also plays an important role in the shipment of drygoods, cargo,and fuel throughout the region. The Northern Transportation Company Limited (NTCL)has a large docking and staging facility in Tuktoyaktuk and they operate a coastalcommunity supply vessel through Kugmallit Bay every other day, on average, betweenJuly 1 and October 1 (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2003: 48). In addition, barge trafficconsisting of ten river tugs that toe an average of six linked barges transit Kugmallit Bayapproximately two to three times per week in the summer months, carrying bulkpetroleum products, dry cargo, and supplies to communities, oil and gas exploration sites,and military instillations. According to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, other than a slightincrease in tourism and an upsurge in oil and gas related activities, there has been littleincrease in the size or nature of barge traffic in recent years (Fisheries and OceansCanada 2003: 48).
In additional to transportation and petroleum industries, tourism provides some wageearning employment opportunities in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. Tourism is thethird leading export in the Northwest Territories (although small by comparison), and thetourism industry has potential to expand (H. Fast et al. 2001). Important tourism activitiesin the Beaufort Sea include observing wildlife, hiking, rafting, sports hunting and fishing,visiting whaling hunting and fishing camps, boating, and attending cultural events. Thereis some interest in exploring opportunities for beluga whale watching as well (Fisheries
and Oceans Canada 2003: iv). According to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2003) notourism operators conduct boat tours in Zone 1a areas, though several local outfittershave taken tourists to hunting and fishing camps. There are three cruise ships thatcurrently travel in the offshore waters of the Beaufort Sea. Cruise ships do not enterestuaries or the Mackenzie Delta areas due to insufficient water depth, but at least one ofthe cruise ships brings tourists to shore with helicopters or zodiac boats (Fisheries andOceans Canada 2003: 48). Tours typically run from May to September each year andbring approximately four to six cruise ships (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2003: 46).
Beluga whales that aggregate in the shallow Beaufort waters in the summer monthsrepresent a large potential draw for tourism activity, however, since harvesting is alsoconducted during the summer the Beaufort Sea Beluga Management Plan prohibitstourism activities such as whale watching in Zone 1a areas from spring breakup untilAugust 15 ( Fast et al. 2005: 101). Beluga whales remain a significant traditional foodharvested by people living in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. According to a reportcommissioned by Fisheries and Oceans Canada: “these activities are much more thansubsistence economic pursuits; they are integral to the Inuvialuit culture offeringtremendous social benefits, reconnection with the land, continuance of cultural traditions,and strengthening of family and community bonds” (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2003:ii). It is estimated that seventy five percent of households in the Inuvialuit SettlementRegion still rely on the land for hunting, fishing, and domestic food production (Usher2000, Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2003). An average of 111 Beluga whales were takenin subsistence harvesting annually in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region in the 1990s.Traditional foods are consumed by Inuvialuit for nutritional, cultural, spiritual, social andeconomic reasons. Economically speaking, the consumption of traditional foods can offset the high cost of food items in remote communities, which can be significantly higherthan in southern cities (Usher 2002). In addition to the nutritional value of traditionalfoods, the cultural, social, and spiritual benefits that traditional foods supply cannot bereplaced by storebought foods (Transport Canada 2003: 27).
There are concerns regarding the potential effects of proposed future hydrocarbonactivities on beluga whale populations. Beluga summering in the Beaufort Sea in thesummer months concentrates in areas where deep water port development and shippingcould affect water regimes, water quality, and food availability. Fast et al. (2005: 101)report that “such activities could affect beluga either directly (underwater noise, oil spills)or indirectly (changes in stability or integrity of ice, timing of breakup , chronichydrocarbon contamination of food species)”. An additional study conducted by Fast etal. (2001: 199) shows that some of the highest hydrocarbon concentrates in the Arcticoccur near the Tuktoyaktuk harbor and appear to be a result of fuel spills and runoffsfrom workyards. For example, increased hydrocarbon activities would likely increaseship movement and barge traffic through the shipping corridor in Kugmallit Bay. Thisshipping corridor plays an essential role in the supply of goods and materials for coastalcommunities and oil and gas exploration sites, but is also an important beluga summeringlocation. Presently, hydrocarbon seismic and drilling programs are being conducted in thewinter months, when whales are not present in the area.
There has been a renewed interest in hydrocarbon exploration in the Beaufort Sea. Tennew exploration parcels were nominated during the summer of 2000, and the InuvialuitRegional Council recently put some of their subsurface lands out for bid, resulting in fourparcels being allocated. Devon Energy has also conducted seismic and explorationdrilling activities. However, with the exception of the onshore Ikhil field, no oil or gasfields have been developed in the Beaufort Sea or Mackenzie Delta and the extent andnature of future activity is likely dependent on the timing and approval of the MackenzieGas Project.
5.3.5 Bathurst Port and Road Project
If approved, the Bathurst Port and Road Project (BPRP) will consist of a deep sea port onBathurst Inlet in the Kitikmeot region of Nunavut, and a 211km all weather road whichwould connect the port to existing Tibbitt to Contwoyto Winter Road at Contwoyto Lake.The infrastructure needed would include a wharf to serve vessels delivering fuel and bulkcargo to the port, a dock to handle barges for community resupply vessels, a 200 personcamp, a diesel fuel tank farm, a truck and trailer maintenance shop, and a 1,200m airstrip.There would also be a twenty person camp at Contwoyto Lake. The BPRP has beendesigned in two stages: a construction phase, and an operations phase. A DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement for the BPRP has been submitted to regulatoryauthorities in 2008, and is currently under review by the Nunavut Impact Review Board.
The project Proponents are a joint venture (Bathurst Inlet Port and Road Joint VentureLtd.) which is owned by Kitikmeot Corporation and Nuna Logistics Ltd. The projectinfrastructure will service the existing diamond mines in the Slave Geological Province,and serve to attract further capital investment in the exploration and development of newmines. Also, the BPRP is anticipated to serve as a community resupply centre in order toreduce the cost of essential bulk and dry cargo to Kitikmeot communities.
Marine shipping to and from the deep sea port proposed for Bathurst Inlet is anticipatedto occur during icefree months between the middle of July and October 15. Marineaccess to the port would use the existing shipping lanes that currently serve thecommunity of Resolute, and have previously been utilized to serve the Polaris Mine, BentHorn, and Rae Point. Vessels of up to 50,000 tonnes will deliver over 300,000 tonnes offuel and supplies for communities and mines (BIPR 2004).
Generally speaking, a major objective of the BPRP is to induce further investment intoproposed and potential future mining activity. The Proponents state that the mineralwealth of the Slave Geological Province has not been fully realized due to a lack ofinfrastructure resulting in high costs for mineral exploration, development, andproduction (BIPR 2004: 10). The BPRP is aligned to be accessible by existing minessuch as Ekati, Diavik, and Snap Lake, and projects in advanced stages of explorationsuch as Gahcho Kué, Hackett River, Hope Bay deposts, and Izok Lake. It is anticipatedthat these projects will utilize BPRP facilities to export products and import supplies.
It is anticipated that utilizing the BPRP, fuel, cargo, and services could be delivered to themines sooner and at a lower cost than existing overland winter road transportation from
Yellowknife. In addition to resupplying the mines, the BPRP is expected to significantlylower the costs of goods imported to Kitikmeot communities via the port at BathurstInlet. For example, the cost for fuel is estimated at $1.00/L from the proposed BathurstPort as compared to $1.48/L barging from Hay River; and the cost of dry cargo isanticipated to be $315/tonne from the proposed Bathurst Port as compared to $859/tonnebarging from Hay River (BIPR 2004: 10). Goods shipped through the Bathurst Port arealso anticipated to be delivered sooner, and the Proponents expect that cargo transport toCambridge Bay, for example, could be delivered four to six weeks earlier than if it werebarged from Hay River via the existing Mackenzie River route (BIPR 2004: 90). It isanticipated that a reduced cost of freight as a result of the Bathurst Port would directlyreduce the cost of living in Kitikmeot communities by transporting 256 million litres offuel and 560 tonnes of general cargo through the port annually (BIPR 2004: 24).
The BPRP is expected to have a direct effect on the creation of wage employment forKitikmeot residents. During construction, the BPRP is expected to create 260 jobs, andthere is a target to provide thirty percent of these jobs to Inuit workers. During theoperations phase, an anticipated 57 jobs will be created. It is expected that fifty percent ofoperations jobs will be targeted for Inuit workers, and the percentage of Inuit workerswould increase up to seventy five percent over ten years. Additionally, spin offbusinesses, particularly at the port site, are anticipated to create additional employmentopportunities in support services and good suppliers.
The Proponents anticipate that construction and operation personnel will work on a twoweeksin, twoweeksout rotational work schedule, and that Kitikmeot Region personnelwill commute from their homes to the operations or construction camps. Rotational workschedules are designed to maximize available harvesting time for Kitikmeot workers, andto mitigate potential impacts stemming from the interaction between southern workersand Kitikmeot communities. The lack of roads between the BPRP and Kitikmeotcommunities is also anticipated to mitigate adverse impacts of community exposure tosouthern personnel.
There is the potential for socioeconomic effects as a result of rotational work schedules.The Proponents have identified a potential increase and family violence and potentialdisruption of the Aboriginal family unit and family cohesion as possible effects (BIPR2004: 10/14). Also, the Proponents have identified the potential for an increase in drugand alcohol consumption among BPRP workers and in Kitikmeot communities due toincreased contact with southern workers who may bring drugs and alcohol into the workcamps (BIPR 2004: 6/4). In addition, increased wages and more disposable income mightmean more available cash with which to buy drugs or alcohol (BIPR 2004: 6/4).However, increased wages may also serve to offset the typically high cost of living inKitikmeot communities.
The Proponents also anticipate that the need for skilled labour at the BPRP willencourage local residents to take training and educational programs sponsored by BPRP.These training programs will include skills in the areas of heavy equipment operation andsupervisory training. The BPRP will also make a high school diploma a prequalification
for work, and it is expected that the prospect of obtaining a high paying job aftergraduation will encourage more Kitikmeot youth to finish high school (BIPR 2004:20/24).
The BPRP is not expected to directly impact the hunting, fishing, trapping, and travelactivities of Nunavummiut living within the Kitikmeot region. During the construction ofthe port smaller game such as waterfowl and ground squirrels may be disturbed for ashort period which may affect harvesting of those species in the direct area of the port.The construction of the road linking the port to the existing winter road at ContwoytoLake may produce noise and dust. Dust and noise mitigation measures are proposed, butthere is potential that the construction of the road may impact caribou migration, makingit more difficult for local hunters to locate the herds. Communities in the NorthwestTerritories and the Kitikmeot region continue to rely heavily on caribou for subsistenceand cultural needs. Mitigation measures include construction periods that do not coincidewith caribou migration or calving. Excessive dust may also disturb medicinal and edibleplant species located near the proposed road route. There are also concerns that the use ofwater during road construction may lead to erosion and sedimentation caused by surfacerunoff, and an increased potential that contaminants would runoff into local surface waterresources. There are already concerns regarding the accumulation of contaminants incountry foods, and there is a potential for these concerns to increase as a result of roadconstruction and operation.
People in the Kitikmeot Region continue to harvest seals, whales, and other marinemammals. The Proponents have indicated that the effects on sea ice required for sealhunting will not be significant as shipping will occur in the summer months andicebreakers will not be used to extend the shipping season for vessels serving the project.Caribou herds that rely on winter sea ice for migration will likewise not be effected.
BPRP Proponents argue that although there may be a shift from traditional economicpursuits into a wage economy as a result of participation in BPRP activities, the projectwill open new lands for hunting and will make accessing the land easier for Aboriginalhunters and gatherers. During the construction phase it is estimated that approximatelyseventy eight Inuit trappers, hunters, and fishers will withdraw from the traditionaleconomy. However, there is also potential that cash earned as a result of wageemployment at the BPRP could finance the equipment and fuel needed to undertaketraditional harvesting activities.
The Proponents stated that infrastructure created as a result of the BPRP may facilitatethe movement of tourists into Nunavut, and particularly the Kitikmeot Region, therebyincreasing future tourism potential. However, the owners of the Bathurst Inlet Lodge, oneof the worlds top 25 ecotourism destinations located in the immediate vicinity of theproposed port, believe that the viability of their business would be threatened by theBPRP. The Bathurst Inlet Lodge currently provides thirty nine full and part time jobs(CEAA 2005).
As previously stated, the BPRP is currently under review by the Nunavut Impact ReviewBoard. The Proponent’s EIS submission has been delayed since 2004 due to projectrevisions.
5.3.6 Polaris Mine
The Polaris zinclead mine located on Little Cornwallis Island was the most northerlybasemetal mine in the world (Natural Resources Canada 2004). The mine, which wasowned by Vancouverbased Teck Cominco Ltd. and extracted calcium, lead, and zinc,began operations in November 1981 and mine decommissioning was completed inSeptember 2002. Shipments of mine concentrates were made to Europe during the Julythrough October arctic shipping season. The mine was served by a fleet of ice capablevessels operated by Canarctic Shipping, a division of Fednav Ltd. from Montreal. TheMV Arctic, also used in the Bent Horn project and Nanisivik Mine, carried inbound fueland supplies to Polaris and ore concentrates on its outbound journeys. By 1997, the levelof ore production was 152,000 tonnes. At its highest, the mine processed about 1 Milliontones of ore per year.
The Polaris mine was one of the most compact operations in Canada (Nunatsiaq News2001). The processing plant for the mine was built on a barge in Montreal and towed tothe minesite where it was moored in place. Infrastructure included a powerhouse,maintenance services, dryroom, warehouse and operating offices, a concentrate storagebuilding for 11 months of ore production, an airstrip, a conveyer belt, and anaccommodation complex housing up to 220 mine personnel. The total land use wasapproximately 170 hectares (Nunatsiaq News 2001).
Polaris mine began operations with 231 employees in 1981 (Natural Resources Canada2004). In 1981, a SocioEconomic Action Plan was signed between Cominco Ltd. and theterritorial government that set out guidelines to enhance employment and trainingopportunities for northern residents. Apprenticeship programs and other traininginitiatives at the mine did not attract the interest of the local populations. In fact, severalreports suggest that there was a general lack of interest by local Inuit residents toparticipate in employment at the Polaris Mine ( Natural Resources Canada 2004, Indianand Northern Affairs Canada 2006). A report commissioned by Indian and NorthernAffairs Canada in 2006 suggests that the rotational work schedule of sixweeksin, twoweeksout was unattractive to most Inuit as it affected family and related communitydynamics and the ability to hunt. According to the same study, in 1984 only one Inukfrom Grise Fiord and one Inuk from Ranken Inlet were employed at the Polaris Mine(Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2006: 4).
Just prior to decommissioning, the Polaris Mine employed a total of two hundred andforty people, including contractors and subcontractors. In the sealift season, up to twentyto twenty five northerners from Resolute and other Nunavut communities wereemployees of the mine. Throughout the life of the mine, Polaris did change its workrotational schedule from an eightweeksin and fourweeks out, and Inuit employees hadthe option to work a sixweeksin, and threeweeks out work schedule. Most people whoworked at Polaris mine were flown in from Edmonton or Ottawa for rotational shifts.
As a result of the relatively low number of Inuit workers employed at the mine, direct joblosses as a result of the closure of the mine were slight (Nunatsiaq News 2001). However,the impact on spinoff businesses as a result of the closure of Polaris mine was moresignificant. According to a study commissioned by the Government of the NorthwestTerritories, more than thirty percent of jobs in Resolute are related to mine activities(Government of the Northwest Territories 1997). A Resolute company, Narwhal ArcticServices, employed fourteen workers in Resolute and had a contract with the mine tohandle freight and luggage that landed at the Resolute airport enroute to Polaris. Hotelservices, including a hotel owned by Narwhal Arctic Services (Narwhal Inn) also used toaccommodate mine workers coming through Resolute on their shift changes.
For mine closure and remediation, the Inuit owned firm Qikiqtaaluk Corporation wassubcontracted under SNC Lavalin to provide equipment operators, general laborers, andmechanics. Local residents were also trained in environmental site assessment skills andassisted in guiding and assessing the effectiveness of the mine reclamation.
In terms of the regional economy, the leasefees paid by Polaris went to the federalgovernment in Ottawa, as the mine was on Crown land. The mine was required to paycorporate income tax to the Government of Nunavut, and mine workers paid some moneyto the Government of Nunavut through payroll taxes. The Polaris mine itself paid lessthan one percent of their total resupply and service costs in the north (Government of theNorthwest Territories 1997).
Though there is no evidence that the cost of freight was reduced to the community ofResolute as a result of the Polaris Mine, the mine did provide better air transportationservices for the residents of Resolute. First Air provided 727 jet service two to three timesper week from Ottawa (by way of Iqaluit) and 737 jet service twice a week fromEdmonton. After the mine closed, First Air –which transported Polaris workers andfreight between the minesite and the south –canceled their direct flights from Edmontonto Resolute. The decrease in air transportation services is expected to impact tourismindustries and hotels in Resolute, though the scientific research station and associatedresearchers provide still provide business to the Resolute Bay Airport.
Teck Cominco Ltd., also contributed to Resolute infrastructure and services during thelife of the mine. In 1990 Cominco was approached by the community to make a donationto build a local gymnasium, and Cominco Ltd. contributed $100,000 toward building anew community gym. The mine also provided scholarships to Resolute youth whograduated from high school and wanted to pursue postsecondary education (NunatsiaqNews 2001).
Generally speaking, few Nunavummiut received direct benefits from the Polaris Mine.The mine employed few Nunavummiut workers, and Impact and Benefits agreementsexisted, but they were not enforced. For the most part, outsource contracts were notprovided for Inuit businesses, and other than corporate income taxes, the Government ofNunavut did not receive any income from the mine activities (Impact Economics 2005:
41). The closure of Polaris Mine did affect some spinoff businesses such as freight andservice personnel at the Resolute Bay Airport and the volume of visitors to the hotels inthe community.
5.3.7 Mackenzie Valley Highway
A case study involving a literature review of the anticipated social, economic, and relatedenvironmental effects surrounding changes in road transportation infrastructure wasselected for this report. The Mackenzie Valley Highway Extension (MVHE) was selectedas a proxy for increased shipping access in the Canadian Arctic. While the MVHEinvolves ground (road) transportation, it can also offer valuable insights into potentialsocial, economic, and environmental effects of changes in transportation infrastructure inremote communities in the Canadian north.
Public Works Canada originally planned to complete the construction of the MackenzieHighway from Fort Simpson to the Dempster Highway near Inuvik in a four year periodfrom 19721976. However, construction of the Mackenzie Highway was only completedto a point south of the community of Wrigley. Presently, the communities of Tulita,Norman Wells, Deline, Fort Good Hope, Colville Lake in the central Mackenzie regioncan only be reached by winter road from December until April. The only all weather roadto Tsiigehtchic and Inuvik is the Dempster highway, an all weather road connectingInuvik to communities in the Yukon. Discussions about extending the MackenzieHighway have continued since construction was ceased in 1976, and the Government ofthe Northwest Territories has recently conducted several scoping sessions to review thecostbenefit of extending the road. The original construction plan by Public WorksCanada was stalled in large part because of uncertainty about economic prospects in thecentral Mackenzie region (Government of the Northwest Territories Department ofTransportation 1999a).
The current consideration for the construction of an all weather road through theMackenzie Valley (the Mackenzie Valley Highway Extension, or MVHE) involvesbuilding an 814 km allweather road from Wrigley to the Dempster Highway, with apossible side route to Deline. Depending on the design selection, and whether the Delinespur route would be included in the initial proposal, the total cost for the construction ofthe MVHE would be somewhere between 400 and 500 million dollars (Government ofthe Northwest Territories Department of Transportation 1999a). It has been argued that a‘Community Construction’ approach be adopted, meaning that construction would takeplace over a ten year period with an approximate $1 million per year construction projectconducted in each of the five Mackenzie Valley communities on an annual basis. TheCommunity Construction approach would shift the focus away from simple roadconstruction to longterm economic development, provide a modest stimulus to localeconomies, and generate additional business and local labor income (Government of theNorthwest Territories Department of Transportation 1999b).
It is anticipated that the MVHE would generate employment and income benefits to theregion through the hiring of construction workers and project spending on wages,materials, and supplies during construction. This may be especially beneficial for
Mackenzie Valley communities, where unemployment is relatively high. It is estimatedthat the construction of the MVHE would generate between $41 million and $85 millionin business and labor income, and that the ongoing road maintenance and operationwould provide regional businesses and workers with an additional $1.4 million to $2.8million annually(Government of the Northwest Territories Department of Transportation,2005). The current maintenance of the winter road by the Government of the NorthwestTerritories Department of Transportation is approximately $10,000 per km, or between2.2 and 4.4 million annually (Government of the Northwest Territories Department ofTransportation 1999a).
There is also an expectation that the construction of an allweather highway loopconnecting to the Dempster Highway would generate increased tourism in the region. Atthe same time, tourism industries will need to spend money to supply products desired bytourists including restaurants, tour operator supplies, wholesale groceries, and fuel(Government of the Northwest territories Department of Transportation 1999a).
It is anticipated that the completion of an allweather road will also encourage intensifiedresource development in the Mackenzie Valley, as would increased shipping access.Currently, the costs associated with oil and gas exploration and production, andresupplying worksites are considered a major inhibitor in hydrocarbon and mineralexploration. Easier access to resources may cut costs for firms looking to explore anddevelop resource deposits. In addition, the MVHE is expected to reduce transportationcosts for oil and gas companies and reduce standby costs that companies incur whileequipment and supplies idle during ice freezeup and breakup cycles.
Currently most goods for both community resupply and supplies for resource explorationsites are shipped by barge with sealift providing a substantial portion of resupply activityduring the summer months. In the central Mackenzie Valley, barge is bar far the cheapestmode of transportation on a per tonne basis (Lonergan et al. 1993). Barges currentlyprovide cargo transportation up the Mackenzie River from Hay River, and are almostexclusively owned and operated by the Northern Transportation Company Limited(NTCL). The only rail line in the Northwest Territories ends in Hay River, and goods areoften transferred from rail cars to the barges docked on the Mackenzie River. This intermodal transportation necessitates costs for storage and the transfer of cargo from onemode of transport to another. The MVHE is likely to reduce the costs of storage forwholesalers (both in Hay River and the communities in the Mackenzie Valley) andreduce the need for large inventories. However, the possibility exists that oncecompleted, the MVHE could divert cargo demand from NTCL.
It is likely that the price of food and other goods in the communities of Tulita, NormanWells, Fort Good Hope, and Deline would be reduced as storage costs and transportationcosts decrease. Also, there would be an increased quality and variety of goods available,and communities would likely have more reliable resupply.
It is also likely that transportation of individuals would increase, and that people wouldtravel more frequently. People, businesses, and public sector organizations including
people in need of health services in the Mackenzie Valley communities would havegreater access to communities in the south (Government of the Northwest territoriesDepartment of Transportation 1999a).
The results of the costbenefits analysis conducted by the Government of the NorthwestTerritories indicates, however, that the financial capital required for the MVHE roadextension and operation compared with the economic benefits indicated that the MVHEis not viable from an economic perspective (Government of the Northwest territoriesDepartment of Transportation 1999a). The report does, however, go on to say thateconomic considerations should not be the only variable included in the MVHEassessment as public investments in infrastructure are conducted for both economic andsocial reasons.
Generally speaking, many communities (with the exception of Deline) are in favour of anall weather road through the Mackenzie Valley (Government of the Northwest TerritoriesDepartment of Transportation 2005). However, community members have also raisedconcerns surrounding anticipated environmental and social impacts as a result of theMVRE. It is recognized that along with greater access to communities, there is thepotential for increased availability of drugs and alcohol. The Government of theNorthwest Territories reports that “Elders remember previous pipeline and highwayprojects and the social impacts they had on the Mackenzie Valley communities, and donot want the impacts to be repeated”(Government of the Northwest TerritoriesDepartment of Transportation 2005). Concerns have also been raised about increasedprostitution, family violence, gambling, and loss of traditional values. Elders in thecommunity of Deline have voiced their opposition to a side road to Deline because theyare concerned about the impact of an allweather road on traditional activities(Government of the Northwest Territories Department of Transportation 2005).
Other communities have expressed concerns over MVRE impacts to wildlife populations,and particularly the effects of mortality related to collisions on moose, caribou, and bears,and increased hunting and fishing pressure as a result of illegal harvesting. Inuvikresidents are concerned that the road will allow hunters increased access to the Bluenosecaribou herd’s winter range near Travaillant Lake, and there have been proposals to movethe MVRE to avoid this area(Government of the Northwest Territories Department ofTransportation 2005). Residents of Fort Good Hope have expressed concerns regardingthe loss of moose habitat, the obstruction of caribou migrations, pollution, and the effectsof increased hunting stresses (Government of the Northwest Territories Department ofTransportation 2005).
The MVHE project has not been formally submitted to regulatory authorities in theNorthwest Territories. While the Government of the Northwest Territories has beenactively assessing the economic feasibility of the project, and potential environmental,socioeconomic, and cultural impacts that an allweather road through the MackenzieValley would bring, to make the project feasible would likely require an investment ofprivate or federal funding sources.
5.4 Case Study Common FindingsAlthough the above case studies represent diverse types of shipping activities, there areseveral trends that can be identified as likely larger social, economic, and relatedenvironmental consequences of increased shipping in Canadian Arctic marine waters.These trends would follow increased access to Canadian Arctic marine waters as a resultof decreasingsea ice and easier sea transport. The following presents identified commonfindings of the above case studies in relation to the previously identified key types ofshipping activities:
5.4.1 Resource Development and the Economy
i) Increased marine shipping infrastructure is likely to induce resource developmentOne of the most significant challenges for resource economics in the Canadian Arctic isits harsh climate, oceanbound ice, and remote nature. The costs and challenges oftransporting equipment, goods and people to worksites, and of transporting commoditiesproduced in the region to outside markets, are significant. For example, the governmentof Nunavut has cited the lack of sufficient port infrastructure as one of the majorchallenges to developing the Nunavut fishery. Likewise, increased port infrastructure(and the coordination of intermodal forms of transportation such as ship and jet services)may result in increased cruiseship tourism in the Canadian Arctic.
Several proposed marine infrastructure projects are expected to induce resourcedevelopment in the Canadian Arctic:
• A major aim of the proposed BIPR project is to attract further capital investment inthe exploration and development of new mines;
• The federal government has proposed $8 million to build a commercial fishing harborin Pangnirtung to boost Nunavut’s turbot and shrimp fishery;
• The federal government has provided $100 million to refurbish the Nanisivik port formilitary purposes, but also to serve as a refueling station for cruise ships and othercivilian vessels;
• The MVHE would generate tourism in the Central Mackenzie Valley region byforming a loop with the Dempster Highway, and encourage intensified resourcedevelopment by enhancing reliability and reducing costs for resupply of hydrocarbonexploration sites. The MVHE is expected to reduce transportation costs and reducestandby costs that companies incur while equipment and supplies idle during icefreezeup and breakup cycles.
At the same time, the intensification of resource development economies can also lead toincreased marine shipping activities. The Nanisivik mine and Polaris mine increased shiptraffic in their respective regions by the shipment of ore concentrates from the minesitesto the south for processing. Likewise, the Bent Horn project required tanker vessels toship oil to a Montreal refinery. However, in these cases the increase in actual ship trafficto and from the exploration and production sites was relatively minimal.
Hydrocarbon exploration in the Beaufort Sea in the 1970s and 1980s resulted in increasedmarine shipping activity, and the development or improvement of marine shippinginfrastructure such as the port at Tuktoyaktuk. Future hydrocarbon exploration andproduction in the Beaufort Sea will result in increased shipping in that area.
ii) There is potential for opportunities and challenges between resource developmenteconomies as a result of increased Arctic marine shipping
While increased Arctic marine infrastructure is likely to result in opportunities for allsectors of the resource economy, there is also potential for challenges and competitionbetween resource development sectors. As the Churchill Port case study demonstrates,the challenge of balancing tourism and trade economies, for example, or tourism andintensified marine infrastructure such as ports can lead to potential conflicts. For instance,in Churchill, while the dredging of the port site is important for the maintenance of theport facilities, it also has the potential to alter the marine ecosystem which may havenegative effects on beluga whale populations –an important marine mammal species forwildlife tours.
Likewise, the Beaufort Sea case study demonstrates potential stressors between touristswho come to view beluga whales in the Beaufort Sea, increased shipping as a result ofregional hydrocarbon exploration activities, and local Inuit harvesters who rely on belugawhales harvesting as an important cultural, spiritual, and subsistence activity.
In terms of Nunavut fisheries, increased marine infrastructure and shipping activities mayenhance local tourism economies and Nunavummiut participation in the fisheries sector,however, increased ship traffic and environmental pollution may also pose a threat to fishexports that are marketed as coming from pristine environments.
iii) There is a relationship between the presence of additional transportationinfrastructure, marine transportation infrastructure, and the development of localeconomies
There is a direct relationship between the presence of marine transportationinfrastructure, additional transportation infrastructure, and the development of localeconomies. In other words, the presence of multiple forms of transportation options hasthe potential to increase the flow of goods and supplies, and may lead to increasedtourism potential in the Canadian Arctic.
In terms of intermodal transportation, the Government of the Northwest Territoriesargues that there is a direct relationship between the existence of an all weather road neara mine site and increased northern expenditures by the mining companies. In large part,this is because northern businesses can participate in contracts to build winter roads, butdo not have the capital or experience to operate marineonly operations and supply(Government of the Northwest Territories 1997). For example, both the Polaris andNanisivik mines, which both relied almost exclusively on marine transportation services(with the exception of a 21km all weather road linking Nanisivik to Arctic Bay), less thanone percent of the mine purchases for operations were made in the north.
As seen in the Churchill Port case study, the linkages provided by coordinated rail, ship,and jet service also contributes to increased tourism potential and interregionaltransportation of goods and supplies. The Nanisivik port and frequent jet servicesassociated with the Nanisivik mine also provided increased tourism potential by allowingcruiseship passengers to arrive and/or depart utilizing differing modes of transport.Coordinated intermodal transportation may also facilitate the increased transport ofcommunity resupply goods as seen by the linkages between the Churchill port andstorage facilities and the rail connection to southern markets.
In addition to marine transportation infrastructure, such as ports, investment in coldstorage infrastructure and processing facilities may increase Nunavut fisheries potential.The ability to store and process fish and fish products in Nunavut would assist incapturing additional fisheries revenue that is presently leaked outside of the territory.
5.4.2 Community Resupply
i) Increased Arctic marine shipping will improve reliability and costs of communityresupply for people living in coastal Canadian Arctic communities
As demonstrated earlier in resource development and the economy, improved Arcticmarine transportation infrastructure and increased Arctic marine shipping will result inincreased reliability and decreased costs of community resupply.
The Nanisivik mine case study reveals that the Nanisivik’s port facility provided for morefrequent and less expensive shipping for the residents of Arctic Bay as a result of anincrease in ship traffic due to mine resupply. Likewise, hydrocarbon exploration in theBeaufort Sea resulted in increased tug and barge traffic and increased freight resulting inreduced shipping costs. Several proposed infrastructure projects are also expected toenhance reliability and reduce costs of community resupply including the proposed BIPRand MVHE projects.
As a result of infrastructure investment and the connection between intermodaltransportation linkages, the Churchill Port has become a major NTCL distribution centrefor the central Arctic. Infrastructure at Tuktoyaktuk harbor, developed in large part as aresult of hydrocarbon exploration in the Beaufort Sea, has also become a hub ofcommunity resupply for nearby coastal communities in the western and central CanadianArctic.
ii) Community marine resupply is likely to change in direct relationship to thedevelopment of resourcebased economies
While improved Arctic marine transportation infrastructure and increased Arctic marineshipping is likely to result in increased reliability and decreased costs of communitysupply, much of the change in community resupply ship traffic is related to resourcedevelopment economies. For example, while Arctic Bay did see increased reliability andreduced costs for community resupply while the Nanisivik mine was operating, much ofthe increased ship and jet service was directly related to mine activities. Nanisivik minepersonnel and mine resupply needs was directly related to the volume of ship and jet
traffic coming to the Arctic Bay airport and Nanisivik port facilities. When the Nanisivikmine was decommissioned the ship and jet traffic was also reduced, resulting in increasedtransportation and resupply costs for the community of Arctic Bay. Likewise, whenhydrocarbon exploration in the Beaufort Sea slowed in the mid 1980s, the volume offreight and number of vessels also decreased. As reported previously, in 1988 resupplybarges on the Mackenzie River carried half of their 1982 peak volume (Government ofthe Northwest Territories Department of Transportation 1999a: 341).
Fisheries and Oceans Canada have also reported that other than an increase in tourismover the past twenty years, and a recent upsurge in oil and gas related activities, there hasbeen little change to the size or nature of barge companies offering community resupplyservices (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2003).
5.4.3 Internationalization of Shipping
i) Integrated and cooperative management of Canadian Arctic marine shipping routeson local, regional, national, and international levels will be essential in the event ofincreased Arctic marine shipping activities.
Berkes and Fast write that “Comanagement involves the sharing of responsibilitiesamong the expanded set of players in governance; it involves networks and partnershipsof a diversity of actors and their institutions. Comanagement may be defined as thesharing of power and responsibility between the government and local resources users, ora system that enables a sharing of decisionmaking power, responsibility and riskbetween government and stakeholders (Berkes and Fast 2005: 14). As we have seen inthe Bent Horn and Beaufort Sea case studies, the effective participation of localcommunities at all stages of project planning, development, execution, and remediationcan result in longterm benefits for both industry and local communities.
As seen in the section on Nunavut fisheries, the Government of Nunavut argues that thecurrent jurisdiction and management of Nunavutadjacent waters limits localparticipation in offshore fisheries and fisheries management and asserts that increasedlocal control over offshore fisheries would result in an increased economic benefit forNunavut communities. Additionally, the Government of Nunavut argues for strong bilateral relationships with Greenland to engage in fisheries management planning, giventhe shared fish stocks in Davis Straight and Baffin Bay.
In the western Arctic, legislation such as the Beaufort Sea Beluga Management Plan,have successfully integrated local community needs into multilateral domestic marinemanagement plans. Management issues addressed in the Beaufort Sea BelugaManagement Plan include oil, gas, and mining exploration, production and development,seismic and sounding surveys, vessel movements, helicopter and fixedwing flights icebreaking, port development, shipping routes possible future commercial fisheriesdevelopment, and contaminant levels in marine waters and animals, among others.
ii) Clarification of jurisdictional issues is key in establishing integrated and cooperativemanagement of Arctic marine shipping
Given that increased shipping Arctic marine shipping activities will likely precipitateresource and industrial development in Canadian Arctic waters, there is a general impetusfor the consideration and clarification of jurisdiction and management of marinetransportation in high latitude waters. Relatively recent events, such as the settlement ofmany comprehensive land claims across northern Canada, and the implementation ofresource management regimes will contribute to increased Canadian management andjurisdiction over Canadian Arctic waters, as will the development of Arctic marinetransportation infrastructure such as the BIPR and the deepsea port at the Nanisivik minesite. In addition, as Westermeyer and Goyal (1986: 338) point out, although the UnitedStates and Canada have taken differing positions regarding the jurisdiction of Arcticwaters, the two countries share concerns about increase shipping in high latitude waters,and there may be promising alternatives for jurisdiction and management in the future.
6. Discussion and Conclusions
6.1 Uncertainty, Management, and CommunicationArctic marine shipping is one of many factors affecting, or with the potential to affect,the lives of Arctic residents (Section 2.2, Section 3). Predicting exactly how variousdevelopments in shipping will affect Arctic communities is difficult at best. For example,there is insufficient information to describe current local human uses of the Arctic marineenvironment adequately enough to assess the range of likely effects of marine shipping,and researchers cannot anticipate all potential information needs when conducting studiesin advance. Rather, findings of the kind presented in this chapter can be used to identifyareas of potential conflict or interaction between local uses and marine shipping, butfurther studies should be done of specific areas where shipping activities are planned, inwhich the details of shipping and current local uses can be compared and evaluated forpotential impacts and mitigation strategies.
Many things are changing at the same time, and the effects of one element cannot easilybe separated from the effects of other changes or their combined effects (e.g., Huntingtonet al. 2007a, b). Changes in climate that may drive increases in at least some kinds ofmarine shipping are also affecting the activities of Arctic indigenous peoples in numerousways (e.g., Huntington and Fox 2005, Nuttall 2005). Social and economic changes haveled to major changes in indigenous and other Arctic communities over the past centuryand more, and will continue to do so (AHDR 2004). Section 5 of this report describessome of the ways in which the effects of marine shipping and related activities canpropagate through social systems, with costs and benefits that will not be equally sharedby all communities or all individuals.
In the face of uncertainty about what activities will take place, what effects thoseactivities will have, and what other factors will be involved, a collaborative managementapproach and carefully planning are required to identify and respond to negative impactsand to identify and harness positive benefits (e.g., Section 2.1, Section 5, Baffrey and
Huntington in press). One hallmark of the collaborative approach is that it is adaptive inthe sense that it allows for adjustments and alterations based on experience andevaluation as changes take place, rather than creating a fixed system for addressinganticipated issues that may turn out to be ineffective when unanticipated events occur(e.g., Heifeitz and Linsky 2002).
An advantage of substantive local involvement is that local residents are often bestpositioned to weigh the many factors affecting them (e.g., Brunner et al. 2004).Section.2.1 describes the consequences when local capacity for addressing a problem islacking, a situation exacerbated in that case by the lack of any larger precedent or systemfor response or accountability. Section 5 reviews several cases where local involvementin planning or carrying out shippingrelated activities was higher, generally with betterresults for the communities in question. Baffrey and Huntington (in press) describedsimilar outcomes with regard to the social and economic effects of oil and gas activitiesin the Arctic: greater local control and involvement led to reduced negative impacts andincreased positive benefits for local residents.
One component of local involvement is communication. Many of the participants in theTown Hall Meetings (Section 4) asked for better information about cruise ship visits,transshipping plans, and so on. Effective communication and continued interaction hasbeen found to be important in oil and gas activities (Baffrey and Huntington in press) andin tourism in the Arctic (e.g., Huntington et al. 2007c). Communication can help reducethe number of surprises for all involved, and early identification of problems can allowmore time for resolution.
As noted earlier, projection of shipping activities and their impacts is difficult due to theinteractions of numerous factors in the environment and in human society (e.g., AHDR2004, ACIA 2005, Baffrey and Huntington in press). To some extent, researchers need todevelop better methods for studying combined effects of these kinds, just as regulatorsneed to develop better methods for balancing multiple management objectives. Just asimportantly, those involved in marine shipping in any capacity need to recognize thatflexibility and adaptiveness will be required to recognize and address challenges,problems, and opportunities that arise.
6.2 Types of Impacts and InteractionsMarine shipping encompasses a wide range of activities, taking place in differentlocations and seasons and with differing degrees of local involvement and effects. Thequantity of shipping, likewise, may determine whether effects are largely beneficial orotherwise, and also who is most affected. For example, limited tourist traffic may providea modest economic opportunity for local artists and handcraft makers, whereas higherlevels of traffic may have environmental or other impacts that offset any benefits (e.g.,Huntington et al. 2007c). As noted earlier, the details of effects will depend greatly on thedetails of shipping and the characteristics of specific times and places. Nonetheless, thecase studies in this chapter and studies of other types of activities, such as mineral andpetroleum development, suggest some observations about what can be expected fromincreases in Arctic marine shipping.
First, the impacts of shipping depend greatly on the type of shipping, the season(s) inwhich it occurs, and the locations. Transshipping done in icefree conditions and largelyoffshore may have few or no local effects, barring an accident. Nonetheless, as theAleutian Region has experienced (Section 2.1), accidents can and should be expected,prepared for, and responded to promptly and effectively. This is especially true in narrowwaterways such as the Bering Strait, passages through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago,and straits on the Northern Sea Route. In these places, ships must travel close to land andmay well encounter local hunters or travelers out in boats. In addition, proximity tocommunities means proximity to hunting areas and the animals that people depend upon,so the potential for environmental impacts is correspondingly higher in these areas(Section 4). Tourism, too, is likely to take place largely or exclusively in the icefreeseason (with the exception of icebreaker voyages to the North Pole), though cruise shipsare likely to visit communities or areas of high biological activity such as bird colonies ormarine mammal haulouts.
Shipping to and from destinations within the Arctic is also largely done during the icefree season, with important exceptions in the Russian Arctic as well as occasionalicebreaker transits throughout the region. As noted in Section 3, icebreaking caninterfere with overice travel by hunters and others and so is potentially a moresignificant impact than are openwater transits. Icebreaker activity may increase asmineral and petroleum resources are developed in the region, which might makeinteractions with local travelers more common. Here, too, the potential for environmentalimpacts is high, both from accidents and from destruction to key habitats such as areaswhere seals or polar bears make ice dens for bearing young. As with transshipping, thepotential for local impacts is greatest near shore, particularly in narrow passages andstraits.
Effects, too, come in several forms. Economically, more shipping may increase trade orlower costs for Arctic communities, while increased resource development can provideemployment and income for Arctic residents and regions (Sections 4, Section 5). As hasbeen noted with regard to oil and gas activities in the Arctic, economic benefits may beconsiderable and can have a number of secondary effects, such as increased localcapacity to provide social, cultural, and health services as well as construct and maintaininfrastructure (Baffrey and Huntington in press).
Socially, increased economic activity and resource development can (but does notnecessarily) lead to population growth through immigration, which can create socialtension between newcomers and indigenous or other longtime residents (Baffrey andHuntington in press). Often, those moving to the Arctic for employment are young men,creating a gender imbalance in the local population, which can exacerbate tensions andsocial problems. Changes in income, too, are often associated with increases in drug andalcohol abuse as well as domestic violence and other crime. Many of these negativeimpacts can be address largely or in part by establishing rotational work schedules, withworkers traveling to the region for work shifts of one to several weeks and returning to
their home communities during the periods they are off, or by physical separationbetween a community and a development site (Section 5).
Environmental effects are often the greatest concern from increased industrial activity ofany kind, whether resource development or shipping. The environmental effects of Arcticmarine shipping are addressed in other chapters of this assessment, but it is important tonote that loss of hunting opportunities and degradation of the environment can havesubstantial impacts on local communities (Section 2, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5).Concern about these types of impacts can by itself cause stress, especially when huntingand other traditional activities are seen as pillars of cultural continuity but also underthreat from other social and environmental changes.
The cultural effects of shipping and development may therefore be generally anticipatedto be negative (Section 4), but this is not necessarily the case. Environmental impacts andgreater assimilation from exposure to outside influences can cause cultural loss, buttourism can boost local cultural awareness and pride and greater economic wellbeing canallow investments in cultural programs (e.g., Huntington et al. 2007c, Baffrey andHuntington in press).
As noted in the previous section, the difference between negative impacts and positive orneutral ones is often a question of planning and preparation. A large influx of cash into acommunity can create a boomandbust atmosphere, with minimal investment for thelongterm and a host of social problems in the shortterm. The same economic boom canalso be harnessed to produce lasting benefits. Doing so successfully requires extensivelocal involvement in the planning process, so that local concerns and ideas can be fullyincorporated. Not all marine shipping activities will be beneficial for Arctic residents, andsome are likely to have negative impacts. Nonetheless, careful attention to goodcommunication and collaborative approaches to management can help keep increases inshipping activity from causing undue stress and harm to Arctic peoples and may result inbenefits to many areas.
7. ReferencesACIA. 2005. Arctic climate impact assessment. New York: Cambridge University Press.Adams, M., K. Frost, and L. Harwood. 1993. Alaska and Inuvialuit Beluga Whale
Committeean initiative in athome management. Arctic 46(2):134137.AHDR. 2004. Arctic human development report. Akureyri: Stefansson Arctic Institute.AMAP. 2008. Oil and gas activities in the Arctic: effects and potential effects. Oslo:
Baffrey, M., and H.P. Huntington. In press. Social and economic effects of oil and gasactivities in the Arctic. In: AMAP. Oil and gas activities in the Arctic: effects andpotential effects. Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program.
Barber, D., L. Fortier, and M. Byers. 2005. The incredible shrinking sea ice. PolicyOptions (December 2004 January 2005):6671.
Beaufort Sea Strategic Regional Plan of Action. 2006. Future directions for socialcultural and economic impact assessment in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. .Inuvik, NT: Terriplan Consultants.
Berkes, F., and H. Fast. 2005. Introduction. In: Berkes, F., R. Huebert, H. Fast, M.Manseau, and A. Diduck, eds. Breaking ice: renewable resource and oceanmanagement in the Canadian North. Calgary: University of Calgary Press. pp. 114.
BIPR. 2004. Draft environmental impact statement. http://bipr.ca (Accessed March 2008)BriceBennett, C., ed., 1977. Our footprints are everywhere: Inuit land use and
occupancy in Labrador. Labrador Inuit Association.Brody, H. 1976. Land occupancy: Inuit perceptions. In: Freeman, M.M.R., ed. Inuit land
use and occupancy study. Ottawa: Department of Indian Affairs and NorthernDevelopment. Vol. 1.
Brunner, R.D., A.H. Lynch, J. Pardikes, E.N. Cassano, L. Lestak, and J. Vogel. 2004. Anarctic disaster and its policy implications. Arctic 57(4):336–346.
CBC News. 2007a. Churchill port, rail line to see $68M in improvements.http://cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2007/10/05/harperchurchill.html (AccessedMarch 2008)
CBC News. 2007b. Harper announces northern deepsea port, training site.http://cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/10/portnorth.html (Accessed March 2008)
CBC News. 2008. Arctic icebreaker, fishing port, tax break a start: northerners.http://cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2008/02/27/northreax.html (Accessed March 2008)
CEAA. 2005. Case study: Bathurst Inlet Port and Road Project.http://ceaa.gc.ca/015/001/032/sec3_e.htm (Accessed March 2008)
Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P.C. Stern. 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science302: 19071912.
Duerden, F. 2004. Translating climate change impacts at the community level. Arctic57(2):204212.
Eddy, S., H. Fast, and T. Henley. 2002. Integrated management planning in Canada'snorthern marine environment: engaging coastal communities. Arctic 55(3):291301.
Fall, J.A., D.B. Andersen, L. Brown, M. Coffing, G. Jennings, C. Mishler, A. Paige, C.J.Utermohle, and V. Vanek. 1993a. Noncommercial harvests and uses of wildresources in Sand Point, Alaska, 1992. Technical Paper Number 226. Juneau, Alaska:Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Fall, J.A., R. Mason, T. Haynes, V. Vanek, L. Brown, G. Jennings, C. Mishler, and C.Utermohle. 1993b. Noncommercial harvests and uses of wild resources in King Cove,Alaska, 1992. Technical Paper Number 227. Juneau, Alaska: Division of Subsistence,Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Fall, J.A., R.T. Stanek, L. Brown, and C. Utermohle. 1996. The harvest and use of fish,wildlife, and plant resources in False Pass, Unimak Island, Alaska. Technical PaperNumber 183. Juneau. Alaska: Division of Subsistence,Alaska Department of Fish andGame.
Fall, J.A., A. Paige, V. Vanek, and L. Brown. 1998. Subsistence harvests and uses ofbirds and eggs in four communities of the Aleutian Islands area: Akutan, False Pass,Nelson Lagoon, and Nikolski. Technical Paper Number 243. Juneau, Alaska: Divisionof Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Farquharson, D.R. 1976. Inuit Land Use in the WestCentral Arctic. In: Freeman,M.M.R., ed. Inuit land use and occupancy study. Ottawa: Department of IndianAffairs and Northern Development. Vol. 1.
Fast, H., D.B. Chiperzak, K. Cott, and G.M. Elliot. 2005. Integrated managementplanning in Canada’s Western Arctic: an adaptive consultation process. In: Berkes,F., R. Huebert, H. Fast, M. Manseau, and A. Diduck, eds. Breaking ice: renewableresource and ocean management in the Canadian North. Calgary: University ofCalgary Press. pp. 95118.
Fast, H., J. Mathias, and O. Banias. 2001. Directions toward marine conservation inCanada's Western Arctic. Ocean and Coastal Management 44:183205.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2003. Socioeconomic assessment of the proposedBeaufort Sea Marine Protected Area: revised fnal report. Inuvik, NT: Fisheries andOceans Canada.
Freeman, M.M.R, ed. 1976. Inuit land use and occupancy study. Ottawa: Department ofIndian Affairs and Northern Development.
Gearheard, S., W. Matumeak, I. Angutikjuaq, J. Maslanik, H.P. Huntington, J. Leavitt, D.Matumeak Kagak, G. Tigullaraq, and R.G. Barry. 2006. “It’s not that simple”: acollaborative comparison of sea ice environments, their uses, observed changes, andadaptations in Barrow, Alaska, USA, and Clyde River, Nunavut, Canada. Ambio35(4):203211.
George, J.C., H.P. Huntington, K. Brewster, H. Eicken, D.W. Norton, and R. Glenn.2004. Observations on shorefast ice failures in Arctic Alaska and the responses of theInupiat hunting community. Arctic 57(4): 363374.
Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. 2005. Nunavut fisheriesstrategy. Iqaluit, NU: Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated.
Government of Nunavut Department of Economic Development and Transportation.2008. Economic development. Iqaluit, NU: Government of Nunavut Department ofEconomic Development and Transportation.
Government of Nunavut Department of Sustainable Development. 2002. The Nanisiviklegacy in Arctic Bay. Iqaluit, NU: Government of Nunavut Department of SustainableDevelopment.
Government of Nunavut. 2003. The Nunavut transportation system –evolving forNunavummiut and their economy. Presentation at the Annual Conference of theTransportation Association of Canada.
Government of the Northwest Territories. 1997. Economic framework. Yellowknife, NT:Government of the Northwest Territories.
Government of the Northwest Territories Department of Transportation. 1999a. Finalreport benefitcost and regional economic impact analysis: Mackenzie HighwayExtension. Yellowknife, NT: Government of the Northwest Territories Department ofTransportation.
Government of the Northwest Territories Department of Transportation. 1999b.Mackenzie Highway Extension Wrigley to the Dempster Highway: 1999 engineeringupdate. Yellowknife, NT: Government of the Northwest Territories Department ofTransportation.
Government of the Northwest Territories Department of Transportation. 2005. Executivesummary of the environmental scoping study Mackenzie Valley Highway Extension.Yellowknife, NT: Government of the Northwest Territories Department ofTransportation.
Greenall, W. 2006. Bent Horn, Canada. In: Baffrey, M., and H.P. Huntington. Social andeconomic effects of oil and gas activities in the Arctic. In: AMAP. Oil and gasactivities in the Arctic: effects and potential effects. Oslo: Arctic Monitoring andAssessment Program.
Hamilton, L.C., P. Lyster, and O. Otterstad. 2000. Social change, ecology and climate in20th century Greenland. Climatic Change 47(1/2): 193–211.
Hamilton, L.C., B.C. Brown, and R.O. Rasmussen. 2003. West Greenland’s codtoshrimp transition: local dimensions of climatic change. Arctic 56(3): 271–282.
Heifetz, R., and M. Linsky. 2002. Leadership on the line. Boston: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.
Hetherington, C. 1997. Support operations. In: Clark, K., C. Hetherington, C. O'Neil, andJ. Zavitz, eds. Breaking ice with finesse: oil and gas exploration in the CanadianArctic. Calgary: Arctic Institute of North America. pp. 85114.
Hudson Bay Port Company. 2008. The Port of Churchill. http://portofchurchill.ca(Accessed March 2008)
Huebert, R. 2005. The return of the Vikings: the CanadianDanish dispute over HansIsland— new challenges for the control of the Canadian North. In: Berkes, F., R.Huebert, H. Fast, M. Manseau, and A. Diduck, eds. Breaking ice: renewable resourceand ocean management in the Canadian North. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.pp. 319336.
Huntington, H.P., and S. Fox. 2005. The changing Arctic: indigenous perspectives. In:ACIA. Arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.6198.
Huntington, H.P., and the Communities of Buckland, Elim, Koyuk, Point Lay, andShaktoolik. 1999. Traditional knowledge of the ecology of beluga whales
(Delpinapterus leucas) in the eastern Chukchi and northern Bering seas, Alaska.Arctic 52(1):4961.
Huntington, H.P., L.C. Hamilton, C. Nicolson, R. Brunner, A. Lynch, A.E.J. Ogilvie, andA. Voinov. 2007a. Toward understanding the human dimensions of the rapidlychanging arctic system: insights and approaches from five HARC projects. RegionalEnvironmental Change 7(4):173186.
Huntington, H.P., M. Boyle, G.E. Flowers, J.W. Weatherly, L.C. Hamilton, L. Hinzman,C. Gerlach, R. Zulueta, C. Nicolson, and J. Overpeck. 2007b. The influence of humanactivity in the Arctic on climate and climate impacts. Climatic Change 82:7792.
Huntington, H.P., M. Freeman, B. Lucey, G. Spearman, and A. Whiting. 2007c. Tourismin rural Alaska. In: J.M. Snyder and B. Stonehouse, eds. Prospects for polar tourism.Wallingford, UK: CAB Inernational. pp. 7183.
Impact Economics. 2005. 2005 Nunavut economic outlook: update on five years ofprogress. Yellowknife, NT: Impact Economics.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 2008. Food mail. Ottawa: Indian and NorthernAffairs Canada.
Krupnik, I. 1993. Arctic adaptations: Native whalers and reindeer herders of northernEurasia. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
Lamson, C., and D.L. VanderZwaag, eds. 1988. Transit management in the NorthwestPassage: problems and prospects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liverman, D.M., J. Antle, P. Epstein, M. Gutmann, P. Mayewski, E. Moran, E. Ostrom,E. Parson, R.R. Rindfuss, R. Socolow, S. Stonich, and E. Weber. 1999. Humandimensions of global environmental change: research pathways for the next decade.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Lonergan, S. C., R. DiFrancesco, and M. Woo. 1993. Climate change and transportationin Northern Canada: an integrated impact assessment. Climatic Change 24:331351.
McGhee, R. 2005. The last imaginary place: a human history of the Arctic world.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mills, H. 1988. The environment of the Northwest Passage. In: C. Lamson and D.L.VanderZwaag, eds. Transit management in the Northwest Passage: problems andprospects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 864.
Myers, H., and S. Forrest. 2000. Making change: economic development in Pond Inlet,1987 to 1997. Arctic 53(2):134145.
Mymrin, N.I., the Communities of Novoe Chaplino, Sireniki, Uelen, and Yanrakinnot,and H.P. Huntington. 1999. Traditional knowledge of the ecology of beluga whales(Delphinapterus leucas) in the northern Bering Sea, Chukotka, Russia. Arctic52(1):6270.
Nash, D. 1977. Tourism as a form of imperialism. In: Smith, V., ed. Hosts and guests: theanthropology of tourism Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 3347.
Natural Resources Canada. 2004. Active and closed mines in Nunavut. Ottawa: NaturalResources Canada.
Newton, S. T., H. Fast, and T. Henley. 2002. Sustainable development for Canada’sArctic and subarctic communities: a backcasting approach to Churchill, Manitoba.Arctic 55(3):281290.
NOAA. 1988. Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas: coastal and ocean zones strategicassessment: data atlas. Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration.
North Slope Borough. 2006. Comprehensive plan – background report.http://www.northslope.org/information/comp_plan/BackgroundReport06.pdf
Norwegian Blue Co. 2008. Norwegian Blue sails the Northwest Passage.http://norwegianblue.co.uk/index.htm (Accessed: March 2008)
Nunatsiaq News. 2001. Polaris: the end of the mine.http://nunatsiaq.com/archives/nunavut010531/nvt10518_08.html (Accessed March2008)
Nuttall, M. 2005. Hunting, herding, fishing, and gathering: indigenous peoples andrenewable resource use in the Arctic. In: ACIA. Arctic climate impact assessment.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 649690.
Nuttall, M., and T.V. Callaghan, eds. 2000. The Arctic: environment, people, policy.Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
O’CorryCrowe, G.M., R.S. Suydam, A. Rosenberg, K.J. Frost, and A.E. Dizon. 1997.Phylogeography, population structure and dispersal patterns of the beluga whaleDelphinapterus leucas in the western Nearctic revealed by mitochondral DNA.Molecular Ecology 6: 955970.
O'Neil, C. 1997. Community relations. In: Clark, K., C. Hetherington, C. O'Neil, and J.Zavitz, eds. Breaking the ice with finesse: oil and gas exploration n the CanadianArctic. Calgary: Arctic Institute of North America. pp.149163
Pacific Environment. 2006. Recent oil spills in Alaska’s Maritime National WildlifeRefuge. Map. http://www.pacificenvironment.org/article.php?id=1430
Parry, M., N. Arnell, M. Hulme, R. Nicholls, and M. Livermore. 1998. Adapting to theinevitable. Nature 395: 741.
Poppel, B., J. Kruse, G. Duhaime, and L. Abryutina. 2007. SLiCA results. Anchorage:Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage.
Port of Chuchill. 2008. Welcome to the Port of Churchill. http://portofchurchill.ca(Accessed March 2008)
Raynor, S., and E.L. Malone, eds. 1998. Human choice and climate change. Columbus,OH: Battelle Press.
Sepez, J.A., B.D. Tilt, C.L. Package, H.M. Lazrus, and I. Vaccaro. 2005. Communityprofiles for North Pacific fisheries – Alaska. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSAFSC160. Seattle, WA.
Snyder, J.M., and B. Stonehouse, eds. 2007. Prospects for polar tourism. Wallingford,UK: CAB International.
Stewart, E. J., S.E.L. Howell, D. Draper, J. Yackel, and A. Tivy. 2007. Sea ice inCanada’s Arctic: implications for cruise tourism. Arctic 60(4):370380.
Stuck, H. 1920. A winter circuit of our Arctic coast: a narrative of a journey with dogsleds. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Taylor, W.E. Jr. 1976. The fragments of Eskimo prehistory. In: Freeman, M.M.R., ed.Inuit land use and occupancy study. Ottawa: Department of Indian Affairs andNorthern Development. Vol. 2.
Topoluiski, D., S. Kerwan, and A. Kristofferson. N.d. Economic opportunities in thecommercial fisheries in the Northwest Territories. http://carc.org/pubs/v15no4/3.htm(Accessed March 2008)
Transport Canada. 2007. Canadian Arctic shipping assessment: main report. Ottawa:Transport Canada.
Usher, P. 1976. Inuit land use in the Western Canadian Arctic. In: Freeman, M.M.R., ed.Inuit land use and occupancy study. Ottawa: Department of Indian Affairs andNorthern Development. Vol. 1.
Usher, P. 2000. Inuvialuit use of the Beaufort Sea and its resources, 19602000. Arctic55(1):1828.
VanderZwaag, D.L., and C. Lamson, eds. 1990. The challenge of Arctic shipping:science, environmental assessment, and human values. Montreal: McGillQueen’sUniversity Press.
Veltre, D.W., and M.J. Veltre. 1981. A preliminary baseline study of subsistence resourceutilization in the Pribilof Islands. Technical Paper Number 57. Juneau, Alaska:Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Veltre, D.W., and M.J. Veltre. 1982. Resource utilization in Unalaska, Aleutian Islands,Alaska. Technical Paper Number 58. Juneau, Alaska: Division of Subsistence, AlaskaDepartment of Fish and Game.
Veltre, D.W., and M.J. Veltre. 1983. Resource utilization in Atka, Aleutian Islands,Alaska. Technical Paper Number 88. Juneau, Alaska: Division of Subsistence, AlaskaDepartment of Fish and Game.
Westermeyer, W. E., and V. Goyal. 1986. Jurisdiction and management of Arctic marinetransportation. Arctic 39(4):338349.
Zavalko, S. 2004. If there are no reindeers we have nothing to do here either – KolaSaami Nation, voices from community of Lovozero. In: Mustonen, T., and E.Helander, eds. Snowscapes, dreamscapes – a Snowchange community book oncommunity voices of change. Tampere, Finland: Tampereen ammattikorkeakoulu. pp.319333.
Zavitz, J. 1997a. Training and education. In Clark, K., C. Hetherington, C. O'Neil, and J.Zavitz, eds. Breaking ice with finesse: oil and gas exploration in the Canadian ArcticCalgary: Arctic Institute of North America. pp.183192
Zavitz, J. 1997b. The northern economy. In Clark, K., C. Hetherington, C. O'Neil, and J.Zavitz, eds. Breaking ice with finesse: oil and gas exploration in the Canadian ArcticCalgary: Arctic Institute of North America. pp.164164
Table 4#2.2.a Per capita harvests of wild resources from three Aleut Communities, withpercent contribution from various classes of marine resources (from Fall et al. 1993a, b,1996).
Table 4#4.a Locations and dates of AMSA Town Hall meetings
Location DateIqaluit, Nunavut, Canada April 2006
June 2008Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories, Canada August 2006Unjárga/Nesseby, Norway September 2007Billavuotna/Billefjord, Porsanger, Norway September 2007Pond Inlet, Nunavut, Canada June 2008Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, Canada June 2008Resolute, Nunavut, Canada June 2008Inuvik, Northwest Territories, Canada June 2008Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, Canada June 2008
FiguresFigure 4#2.1.a The container of tetraethylene glycol diheptanoate that washed ashore onBering Island. (Courtesy Aleut International Association, from the NikolskoyeAdministration)
Figure 4#2.2.a Extent of use of the marine environment for local harvests by residents ofSand Point, Alaska. The areas used are for harvests as well as travel, but do not includecommercial fishing activities, which extend much farther from the community (from Fallet al. 1993a).
Figure 4#2.4.a Annual range and migratory routes of the Beaufort Sea beluga population.(to be obtained!)
Figure 4#2.6.a Nutendli land use in the Lower Kolyma area, Republic of SakhaYakutia,Russian Federation
RED LINE = Nutendli migration route, arrow indicates direction
Figure 4#3.3.3.a Area used by Inuit in the thenNorthwest Territories (now NorthwestTerritories and Nunavut), as documented in the Inuit Land Use and Occupancy Report(Freeman 1976). Note that all potential routes of the Northwest Passage go throughportions of the Inuit use area.
Figure 4#3.3.4.a Traplines maintained in Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories, from 19551974 (Freeman 1976).
Figure 4#3.3.4.b Area used by Inuit from Coppermine, Northwest Territories (nowKugluktuk, Nunavut), as documented in the Inuit Land Use and Occupancy Report(Freeman 1976).
