ABSTRACT. Fisheries-dependent Sami communities in the Norwegian Arctic face major challenges adapting and responding to socialecological changes. On a local scale, communities and households continually adapt and respond to interacting changes in natural conditions and governance frameworks. Degradation of the marine environment and decline in coastal settlements can move socialecological systems beyond critical thresholds or tipping points, where the system irreversibly enters a different state. We examined the recent social-ecological history of 2 fjords in Finnmark, North Norway, which have coped, over the past 30 years, with the collapse of local fish stocks, harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus) and red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) invasions, and increasingly restrictive resource management regimes. Further, we explored similarities and differences in their social-ecological histories and discuss how the concepts of resilience and tipping points can be applied as analytical tools in empirical studies of community response to socialecological change. We show that although the ecological changes in the 2 communities have consisted of similar developments, they have been temporally different in ways that may have affected coping strategies and influenced the available options at different times. The apparent resilience of Sami fishing communities can be understood as the result of response strategies employed by communities and households, and the economic opportunities that have opened up as a result of a combination of ecological change and institutional and political reforms.

Ocean-based economic development arising from an increasing interest in the ‘blue economy’ is placing ecosystems and small-scale fisheries under pressure. The dominant policy response for dealing with multiple uses is the allocation of coastal space through coastal zone planning (CZP). Recent studies have shown that the rush to develop the blue economy and regulate coastal activity can result in social injustices and the exclusion of less powerful and unrecognized groups (e.g., small-scale fishers, women, Indigenous peoples and youth). To achieve a primary goal of the 2030 sustainable development agenda to “leave no one behind”, it is important to understand the implications of coastal planning and development for these groups. Here, we present a social survey protocol for examining perceptions of justice related to small-scale fisheries (SSF) in the context of the blue economy in coastal areas. Specifically, we designed the survey instrument and sampling protocol to assess whether decisions about the use of the coastal zone over the last five years have i) followed principles of good governance, ii) recognized fishers’ knowledge, culture and rights and iii) been attentive to impacts of changed coastal zone use on fisheries. The survey will engage coastal planners (N = app. 120) and fishers (N = app. 4300) in all the coastal municipalities (N = 81) in Northern-Norway. The sampling protocol is designed to ensure representation of different sectors of society, including those defined by gender, age, ethnicity and occupation (e.g., small-scale fishers, large-scale fishers, coastal planners).

The promises and challenges of indigenous selfdeterminationThe Sami case THE INDIGENOUS ARCTIC: COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCESThe Arctic is currently experiencing profound transformations. Rapid climate change in an era of increased globalization is perceived by a range of global actors to be opening up new economic opportunities. These changes are the most apparent drivers in the current debate on Arctic governance. 1 The Arctic is no doubt a wide and open space, but it is, however sparsely, already populated. An important concern is therefore to ensure that the debate on Arctic governance gives sufficient attention to those who are already there: the debate must include a salient focus on indigenous peoples and other permanent residents of the Arctic. Indigenous claims for self-

No abstract

We explored Inuit attitudes towards co-managing wildlife in the Kivalliq Region of Nunavut, Canada, working in partnership with the hunters and trappers’ organizations of Igluligaarjuk (Chesterfield Inlet), Tikirarjuaq (Whale Cove), and Qamani’tuaq (Baker Lake). In mixed-methods interviews, study participants in the two coastal communities described dissatisfaction with polar bear (Ursus maritimus) management outcomes, in contrast to a general satisfaction with (or indifference to) the management of other species. Interviewees expressed concern about grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) and, more prominently, caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) populations in Qamani’tuaq, the inland community. Researchers have predicted that conflicts specific to polar bear management could lead to regulations being ignored or even defied and endanger the entire system of wildlife co-management. Our results indicate that dissatisfaction over decisions is specific to polar bear management outcomes and does not necessarily apply to the broader system of wildlife co-management. The results suggest that the Nunavut wildlife co-management system is quite functional: polar bear issues aside, Inuit in Qamani’tuaq, Tikirarjuaq, and Igluligaarjuk are largely content with the current functioning of the wildlife co-management regime.