Climate change and inadequate waste management capacity disproportionately impact northern Indigenous communities, exacerbating existing food security concerns in the Northwest Territories. Climate change not only reduces the accessibility and availability of traditionally harvested or hunted foods, but also allows for expanded agricultural production farther North. However, a lack of fertile soil in the North limits agricultural expansion. In response to these challenges, the Ka'a'gee Tu First Nation (KTFN) from Kakisa, NWT, identifies fish waste composting to simultaneously increase agricultural productivity and waste management capacity.This thesis explores the community-driven fish composting pilot project led by the KTFN, using participatory action research as a guiding methodology. It couples a Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) to generate practical recommendations to strengthen community assets, with a political ecology framework to explore underlying meaning and discursive constructions. This project uses participant observation, informal, semi-structured interviews and focus groups to answer: 1) why has KTFN expressed interest in fish composting; 2) how might fish composting work in Kakisa; and 3) how might the SLA and political ecology appropriately theorize this community initiative?Results indicate that the KTFN perceive various practical benefits for composting fish waste including increased soil productivity, increased waste management capacity, employment opportunities, knowledge sharing opportunities, and adoption of a proactive approach to climate change adaptation. The KTFN's worldviews and epistemologies articulate the perceived practical benefits through lenses of deeper significance including health, taking care of the land, self-sufficiency, and traditional knowledge. vi 1.5 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...21 Chapter 2: Integrating the SLA and Political Ecology for a Combined Conceptual Framework……………………………………………………………………………...22 2.1 Sustainable livelihoods approach……………………………………………………23 2.2 Political ecology……………………………………………………………………..28 2.3 Political ecology critiques of the SLA: Gaps to address for a dual framework……..31 2.4 Framework summary and reconciling tensions……………………………………..36 Chapter 3: Methodology, Methods, and Ethics………………………………………37 3.1 Community profile…………………………………………………………………..37 3.2 Researcher positionality……………………………………………………………..40 3.3 Research timeline summary…………………………………………………………42 3.4 Participatory action research (PAR)…………………………………………………44 3.4.1 PAR and fish composting in Kakisa……………………………………….47