Inuit Food Insecurity as a Consequence of Fragmented Marine Resource Management Policies? Emerging Lessons from Nunatsiavut

Abstract

Historically, Inuit communities of the Arctic have relied significantly on the living marine resources of their coastal waters for nutrition, underpinning community cohesion and enhancing individual and collective well-being. Inadequate understanding of the conditions of coastal marine stocks and their dynamics, along with failed past fisheries management practices, now threatens secure access to these resources for food and nutrition. We examine the degree of integration of modern Canadian federal food and marine resource management policies, which heretofore have been unable to lessen food insecurity in the Arctic, suggesting that causes rather than symptoms need to be treated. Using evidence from Nunatsiavut, northern Labrador, we assess the limits to marine resource governance affecting access to traditionally important food sources. We explore the potential for both increased subsistence harvests and enhanced access to commercial fisheries in mitigating Inuit food insecurity, arguing for the relevance of expanded marine resource assessments, more focused fisheries management, and integration with policies designed to mitigate food insecurity. Crucially, the absence of methods for tracking changes in locally harvested marine resources threatens not only individual and household nutrition but also the social, economic, and cultural integrity of Inuit communities. We further describe the needs for monitoring and propose the use of indicators that capture the contributions of locally harvested marine resources to increased food security along with a framework that allows for utilizing local knowledge and observations. Relying on emerging lessons from research in Nunatsiavut, we build a foundation for a better understanding of both the political and institutional legacies that contribute to Labrador Inuit food insecurity and discuss how the deeper integration of food and marine resource management policies could help mitigate it.

Identifying Barriers and Pathways Linking Fish and Seafood to Food Security in Inuit Nunangat: A Scoping Review

“…A summary of study characteristics can be found in Table 2 and a detailed overview can be found in the Appendix A Materials. Of the 31 articles included in this review, 39% (12 articles) used qualitative methods [58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69], 52% (16 articles) used quantitative methods [11,16,21,34,[59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71], and 9% (3 articles) used "other" methods [70][71][72]. Specific methods used in the studies included semi-structured interviews (10 articles) [58][59][60][61][64][65][66][67]69,71], cross-sectional surveys (11 articles) [11,16,21,69,[73]…”

“…Nunavut was the most studied region (eleven articles) [11,59,61,62,65,67,[69][70][71][72]81], followed by Nunavik (nine articles) [58,63,64,71,[74][75][76][77]79]. One article focused on Nunatsiavut [66]. Eleven studies focused on multiple Arctic regions [21,33,60,73,78,80,[82][83][84][85], both nationally and globally [21,33,60,73,78,80,[82][83][84][85].…”

Harnessing economic tools for Indigenous climate resilience: Insights from Arctic marine resources

“…Although limitations of conventional economic indicators in capturing dynamics of ICs are well known, alternative metrics are scarce. Food security for example requires a shift beyond affordability measures to encompass various subsistence harvesting dimensions (from households' structure associated to harvest capacity to opportunity costs of wage employment and community catch sharing) [12,13]. Broadening the scope of economic analysis to encompass comprehensive indicators, allows economists to better understand Indigenous needs and values, recognizing sources of value for Arctic ICs, from local resource control to job security and access to marine resources for subsistence harvest [2].…”

Social harvest control rules for sustainable fisheries

“…Indicators for monitoring performance against social objectives can include employment, work satisfaction, proportion of new entrants, reduced dependence on remittances, social connectivity among communities, equitable distribution of catch value, extent and nature of fisheries‐related cultural and spiritual practices, (mal)nutrition and measures of overcoming vulnerability related to comorbid health conditions under conditions of structural and political adversity (Biedenweg et al, 2016; Durgun et al, 2021; Kourantidou et al, 2021; Kronen et al, 2010; Plagányi et al, 2013; Slagboom et al, 2020; see also Data S2—Fisheries Social Objectives).…”