Climate change and community fisheries in the arctic: A case study from Pangnirtung, Canada

Abstract

Coastal fishery systems in the Arctic are undergoing rapid change. This paper examines the ways in which Inuit fishers experience and respond to such change, using a case study from Pangnirtung, Canada. The work is based on over two years of fieldwork, during which semistructured interviews (n=62), focus group discussions (n=6, 31 participants) and key informant interviews (n=25) were conducted. The changes that most Inuit fishers experience are: changes in sea-ice conditions, Inuit people themselves, the landscape and the seascape, fish-related changes, and changes in weather conditions, markets and fish selling prices. Inuit fishers respond to change individually as well as collectively. Fishers' responses were examined using the characteristics of a resilience-based conceptual framework focusing on place, human agency, collective action and collaboration, institutions, indigenous and local knowledge systems, and learning. Based on results, this paper identified three community-level adaptive strategies, which are diversification, technology use and fisheries governance that employs a co-management approach. Further, this work recognised four place-specific attributes that can shape community adaptations, which are Inuit worldviews, Inuit-owned institutions, a culture of sharing and collaborating, and indigenous and local knowledge systems. An examination of the ways in which Inuit fishers experience and respond to change is essential to better understand adaptations to climate change. This study delivers new insights to communities, scientists, and policymakers to work together to foster community adaptation.

Adaptation of Fishing Communities to Climate-Driven Shifts in Target Species

“…Coping strategies are typically linked to more moderate changes and increasing variability, 35 which in the case of shifting stocks could include declines in species abundance and new species occurrences. Coping strategies are often reactive or ex post facto as opposed to anticipatory, 38 and they keep the SES functioning in the original state by resisting the impacts of climate change.…”

“…30 These strategies tend to be more anticipatory, but they can also be reactive. 35 At the individual level, an adapting strategy will involve systemic change (e.g., changing gear and/ or targeting a new species). 24 At the collective level, recent research has found that the configuration of social interactions plays a crucial role in the adaptation process, where adapting (and transforming) actions involve reorganization of social networks.…”

“…[32][33][34] In ll OPEN ACCESS this context, resilience to climate change takes place at the level of the fishery social-ecological system (SES). 35 SESs are complex adaptive systems, indivisible, and composed of social and ecological dimensions that interact continuously at individual, collective, and governance scales. 36 We consider fisheries to be SESs because they can be studied as complex and integrated systems in which humans are part of nature.…”

“…37 SESs can respond to climate change by using coping, adapting, and transforming strategies. 35,38,39 Coping refers to responding to disturbances in a way that mobilizes the actor's ability to draw on available skills, resources, and experiences; 35 adaptation refers to anticipating and/or responding incrementally to change; and transformation involves more fundamental change to the SES, challenging existing structures to produce a novel system. 35,40 Under higher levels of climate hazards, SESs will undergo more drastic changes.…”

“…35,38,39 Coping refers to responding to disturbances in a way that mobilizes the actor's ability to draw on available skills, resources, and experiences; 35 adaptation refers to anticipating and/or responding incrementally to change; and transformation involves more fundamental change to the SES, challenging existing structures to produce a novel system. 35,40 Under higher levels of climate hazards, SESs will undergo more drastic changes. 30 For these more adverse impacts, it is expected that transformational change will be needed given that coping or adapting strategies might not be sufficient, 30 and failing to adapt (i.e., a ''remaining'' approach) will be untenable.…”