Introduction
This project explores Inuit forms of governance in Nunavut and Nunavik as they relate to adaptation to climate change. Sociologist Guy Rocher has defined “governance” as “a process of decision-making conducting by one or more persons exercising authority recognized or accepted as legitimate concerning matters of common interest affecting a collectivity in whole or in part” (translation). The International Panel on Climate Change has defined “adaptation” as “an adjustment … in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities.” While climate change is a global phenomenon, the Arctic has already been disproportionably affected by climate change since ocean ice cover has decreased dramatically and regional ocean water and atmospheric air temperature have seen among the world’s highest spikes. This phenomenon is associated with the disruption of access to some traditional sources of food, melting permafrost on which villages have built housing, and rising water levels around villages, while in some cases giving rise to new food sources and economic opportunities. Governance of adaptation to climate change thus involves linking very local common interests to a decision-making about a very global phenomenon. An all-but insurmountable challenge for Inuit governance is to find ways to have local decision-making be in dialogue with and influence decisively national, regional, and global governance networks. Our study begin with an exploration of the geographic, demographic, cultural, political and economic contexts within which Inuit governance of adaptation to climate change is unfolding. Some key features can be summarized as follows. Both Nunavut and Nunavik, with some 30,000 and 10,000 inhabitants respectively, are regions with populations that are over 80% Inuit living in collections of small, remote villages and towns. These communities have been and continue to be isolated from the rest of Canadian society. Traditionally, the Inuit have been nomadic and remained closely tied to the land in their hunting and fishing practices and in defining their culture. The very isolation of Inuit communities is a critical feature of their capacity to adapt to climate change. It has built patterns of strong inter-dependency. The Inuit have been gaining increasing political autonomy with the emergence of Nunavut and the ongoing negotiations to create public government for Nunavik. Inuit society is still in the process of transforming into a cash economy and spawning enterprises. At the same time, compensation payments from land claims agreements have given rise to sophisticated investment corporations: Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI) in Nunavut and Makivik Corporation in Nunavik. These may be in a position to participate in business opportunities that may come from the opening of the Northwest Passage or the exploitation of wind power We will explore how these various factors contribute to the elaboration of Inuit governance of adaptation to climate change. Our goal is neither simply to describe what is under way nor to propose a full-fledged action plan. Rather, we aim to discern trends and possibilities that might favour and reinforce Inuit adaptive capacity, bearing in mind that it is for the Inuit themselves to engage in the process of governance.
Research Themes
Our research seeks to tie together three sets of themes that underlie Inuit governance of adaptation to climate change: the role of overlapping governance institutions, the significance of hybrid forms of governance, and the effort to enter into what we call an adaptation dialogue. Each of these themes is summarized below.
On overlapping institutions - Nunavut has been a Canadian territory since 1999 and operates with a regional government having many of the powers of Canadian provinces. It is a public government, which means that all citizens resident of Nunavut, Inuit and non Inuit alike, participate in elections and are eligible for public office. Before 1999 it existed as a land claim settlement area part of the Northwest Territories. Nunavik, for its part, currently has a regional administration with powers akin to those of provincial municipalities. It is seeking to expand those powers and to become a public government under Quebec jurisdiction but with powers akin to those of the Nunavut public government. NTI and Makivik are mandated to represent and serve the needs of Inuit communities in each region, since the claims settlements where for Inuit beneficiaries. Their activities mainly involve negotiating with public institutions (federal, provincial and regional), on behalf of Inuit beneficiaries, providing financial support for different types of socio-economic development programs for local populations as well as protecting Inuit culture (including the practices of traditional hunting and fishing). In addition, both regions also have public governments, the territorial Government of Nunavut (GN) and the Kativik Regional government (KRG), respectively. As public institutions, the GN and the KRG are charged with serving the needs of both Inuit and the very small non-Inuit populations. Other organizations, namely Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) and the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC) operate under a self-imposed mandate to represent the needs and concerns of either the pan-Canadian or trans-national Inuit nation. The presence of these and other culture-based organizations and public institutions creates a complex pattern of formal and informal governance, especially bearing in mind the small population in issue. Public, civic legitimacy interacts with Inuit ethnic legitimacy. Local administrations interact with regional, national and circumpolar institutions. Multiple organizations speak for the Inuit on cultural, social, educational and economic affairs. This gives rise to two questions that launch our inquiry into Inuit governance of adaptation to climate change:How do overlapping sources of and claims to legitimacy interact and align within and among the institutions claiming to represent Inuit interests and needs?What tensions and misalignments, and what new potential for governance capacity, emerges from these overlapping sources of legitimacy?
On hybridity- In previous research on the Nunavik land claims organization, Makivik Corporation, we characterized the form of governance adopted by the organization as deeply hybrid. The main dimensions of hybridity are institutional and cultural. Makivik is at one and the same time a corporation – pursuing a return on investment and operating with a board of directors and executive management – and a public, democratically elected representative of local communities – using board and annual meetings as a forum to air virtually all community issues. Makivik is at one and the same time an expression of traditional Inuit culture – for example, embracing a council of elders as part of the organization’s decision making structure – as well as a bridge to “southern” culture and perspectives – entering into market transactions and literally having a foot in the south with its head office in Montreal. One cannot understand the operations of Makivik without attempting to discern how it lives out its hybridity. Our hypothesis is that other Inuit governance institutions display parallel hybridity and this is a key to their functioning. The questions we pose are therefore:In what manner and degree do Inuit governance institutions display a hybrid form? How does this hybridity affect the adaptive capacity of Inuit communities?
On adaptation dialogue- It is sometimes asserted by Inuit leaders that their communities are and have been adaptable for centuries and thus that outsiders should not make culture- laden presumptions with respect to the (in)capacity of the Inuit to adapt. On the other hand, adaptation by Inuit communities over the past two hundred can perhaps be characterized as a series of Inuit responses to imposed changes brought about by outsiders. The Inuit themselves have not participated in managing the sources of change. In this respect climate change has been no exception. However, through the ICC in particular, the Inuit are now seeking to go beyond responding to imposed change so as to participate in the design of regional, national and global strategies to manage the sources of climate change within our ken. This is the effort to create an “adaptation dialogue”. For the Inuit to seek and adaptation dialogue gives rise to a number of questions: How can the adaptive capacity of the Inuit people and their forms of governance become part of the management of climate change?How can traditional environmental knowledge inform adaptation strategies?What is the dynamic between planned (global) and autonomous (local) adaptation as part of a comprehensive Inuit adaptation strategy?What can be learned from past Inuit adaptations when facing adaptation to climate?
- To what degree can and should adaptation strategies be linked to broader sustainable development goals?
How can adaptation strategies fulfill criteria of distributive, corrective and procedural justice? In what measure does Inuit adaptation engage global adaptation?
Correlation of themes- Our three themes coalesce insofar as overlapping governance institutions and hybrid forms are the governance constellation that together seeks what we call an adaptation dialogue. By looking at Inuit governance of adaptation to climate change in this we, we hope to avoid any reification of Inuit culture that may result from presuming a unified Inuit vision of adaptation. Our various research questions can thus be distilled into a single, over-arching question:How can overlapping Inuit institutions, characterized by hybrid forms of governance, engage in an adaptation dialogue within regional, national and global governance networks?
Connection to sub-field
Our sub-field is that of economic and social relationships that arise within aboriginal governance. Our study of the issue of adaptation to climate change is salient to understanding these relationships since it touches upon so many different aspects of Arctic-South economic and social relationships as well the relationships within Inuit communities.
Connection to overall project
Although it focuses on a relatively narrowly defined issue and a delimited set of aboriginal communities, the themes of our study nevertheless have, we hope, broad cross-cutting implications for the investigation of aboriginal governance as a whole. Indigenous communities generally function within a thicket of governance institutions, often having plural and contested sources of legitimacy. Hybridity is an inevitable theme for communities that function quite explicitly at the intersection of traditional culture and versions of modernity. Attempts to engage in dialogue with external governance institutions characterize much of what aboriginal governance is about. We therefore hope that our project will help to nourish reflection for the project as a whole. We also hope to learn from the results of the other projects and to hone our methodology and vocabulary through them.
Forms of information exchange
Conversations between research assistants (One luncheon at the end of the summer to discuss research strategies, share resources and the experience in general) This will give us the opportunity to gain a broader view of the experience of a cooperative research initiative.Website including regular updates on researchlist of bibliographical and other resources for researchers to browse
Top of page
