Course:CONS370/2019/Inuit definitions of food sovereignty in Nunavut, Canada: the linkages between historical displacement from traditional foodscapes and Inuit food insecurity.

From UBC Wiki

Abstract

Landscape of the traditional Inuit Territory (now also known as Nunavut, Canada)

In this case study, factors contributing to food insecurity in Nunavut, Canada, including colonial influences and modern policies, are analyzed. Historical events such as forced relocations and sled dog killings will be examined in relation to increased reliance on external foods by Inuit communities[1] [2]. Additionally, dependence on external fuel and vehicles for travel, increased living costs, and income disparity in Nunavut will be examined, while factors behind the inflation of food prices sold at local co-ops are highlighted. Following the examination of underlying causes behind food insecurity in Nunavut, the practice of hunting country foods such as seal as not only a traditional and cultural practice, but a stable and nutritious food/income source for Inuit communities will be examined.[2] Within this context, current hardships faced by Inuit due to an inability to sell products for fair prices on the international stage in relation to the 2009 EU ban on all seal products[2], which has escalated the problems of food insecurity and income disparity that Inuit face will be further discussed.

Description

The Territory of Nunavut, Canada (shaded red).

Geography, Topography and Climate

Spanning over a range of over 1.9 million square kilometers, the Canadian Territory of Nunavut makes up about 20 percent of Canada's land mass[3]. While the territory of Nunavut was agreed upon through a treaty signed by the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut[4], it is important to note that the region does not include all the lands traditionally used by Nunavut Inuit, which would extend into northern Manitoba and past Nunavut’s western boundary[3].The physical landscape of Nunavut varies substantially, from relatively flat regions west of Hudson Bay, to mountains and fiords near Baffin and Ellesmere Island[3]. Winters in Nunavut are long and severe, with ice breaking up in July and allowing limited shipping via waterways before fall freeze occurs once again[5]. Due to this limitation, as well as a lack of roads connecting Nunavut to the rest of Canada on a broader scale, Nunavut is considered a very isolated territory, with the majority of transportation occurring via aeroplane. Despite physical limitations, bulk goods are often shipped in from the south either by plane or by ship following ice melt in the summer[3]. The combination of harsh conditions, high transportation costs, and small local food outlets with monopolies on pricing lead to very high living costs. Because of this, residents in Nunavut are likely to pay twice as much for groceries as those living in the south[3].

Demographics

The community of Kugaaruk, Nunavut.

With the exception of Baker Lake, communities in Nunavut are located alongside the coast of the territory, reflecting the importance of marine mammals within traditional economies and due to subsistence and economic ties[2][3]. As a whole, 84% of the population of Nunavut is Inuit, with a median age of 24.7 years old[6]. The median income for Inuit in Nunavut aged 15 and over in 2015 was approximately $23,000 in comparison to $92,000 for non-Indigenous persons within the region, representing an income gap of almost $70,000[7]. Due to geographical isolation, a reliance on external economies for food from forced displacement from traditional food systems and regions, and the high cost of living in Nunavut, many Inuit struggle to buy healthy foods, supplies for hunting or fishing, and other necessities[7]. Many Inuit families face increased pressures due to larger family sizes, as Inuit families often include extended family members such as grandparents, aunts and uncles[7].

For a household to be food secure, all members of the household must have physical, social, and economic access to safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences and provides for an active, healthy life[8]. Given factors such as high food costs, poverty, and the cost of supplies for hunting and harvesting, 70% of Inuit households in Nunavut are considered food insecure, in comparison to 8% of households throughout the rest of Canada[9]. It is important to note that while there is a reliance on southern food sources in Nunavut, country foods from the local coastline serve as healthy and nutritious food sources, as well as economic resources, for Inuit[2]. The harvesting, sharing, and consumption of country foods in Nunavut helps to reinforce family and community ties while contributing to the continuity of traditional hunting and gathering practices and oral traditions[10]. Within Nunavut, 70% of Inuit adults are involved in harvesting and gathering of wild plants, animals, and berries, pointing towards the resilience and importance of Inuit traditions surrounding the harvest and gathering of country foods as a whole[7].

Economy

Nunavut's economy is composed of five main categories: Mineral Exploration and Mining, Traditional Harvesting, Fisheries, Tourism, and Inuit Art[11]. The development of mineral resource extraction in Nunavut poses an increasing potential to create significant economic benefits for the region, generating $300-$400 million dollars in 2011[11], while the establishment of commercial shrimp and char fisheries serves as a major source of employment in the Baffin region, generating approximately $70 million in 2011[11]. In addition to fisheries and resource extraction, revenue is also generated through visits of an estimated 14,000 people to the region annually, with a primary focus on outdoor activities in four national parks and 15 territorial parks[12]. Traditional harvesting- particularly sealing-also plays a vital role in the Nunavut economy, and has a historical basis in Inuit harvesting traditions, generating $40 million annually[11]. In addition to providing meat for food, which can help to ease food insecurity pressures, traditional harvesting methods serve as a lifestyle that keeps Inuit closely tied to the lands they reside on[2]. Over 40,000 seal are harvested each year in Nunavut, providing a replacement food value of about $5 million and easing pressures related to income disparity and food insecurity within the region[2][11]. Additionally, seal skin products derived from traditional harvesting are worth an additional $1 million through the Inuit art sector while generating global recognition and cultural pride through the work[11].

History

Early Encounters

Inuit have resided in the region now known as Nunavut for over 5,000 years, and their post-colonial history is deeply tied to colonization, endurance, and resilience of culture[13]. Early encounters between Inuit and Europeans first began in the early 1500’s[3]. Following these initial interactions, an influx of Dutch ships throughout Nunavut occurred in the 1700's alongside a sudden increase in demand for whale-derived products such as oil in Europe[14]. Subsequent interactions between Inuit and Dutch whalers continued well into the 1850’s, when year-round stations were established in areas such as Cumberland Sound, creating a permanent external presence in the Arctic. The year round presence of whalers in the 1800’s had a significant impact on Inuit health due to the introduction of diseases brought into the Arctic by whalers[14]. Throughout the final half of the 1800’s, over harvesting of whales by Europeans surpassed sustainability limits, leading to a sharp decline in whale populations[14]. While this decline in available whales impacted the commercial whalers, it had a far more significant impact on the Inuit, who relied on the whales as an important source of food. Compounded with impacts from introduced diseases, this decrease in access to a traditional food led to a decline in Inuit health throughout Nunavut[13].

Missionary Presence and Residential Schools

Following the return of whalers to Europe due to a decrease in available whales and lower demand for whale-derived products, the first missionaries entered Nunavut in 1771, followed by subsequent entries throughout the late 1800’s[14]. While missionaries entered Nunavut with the goal of expanding Christian teachings, their presence was used by the Canadian government as a method of providing health services and schooling. As a result, all schooling within Nunavut well into the first half of the 20th century was carried out in missionary schools, with residential schools left in the hands of missionaries by the federal government in the 1950s, when Inuit children were forced to attend these schools in large numbers[15]. Through subsequent years, Inuit children were removed from their home communities and sent to schools a tremendous distance away from the regions they grew up in, leading to the loss of language and other aspects of Inuit culture[15]. In turn, this led to a dramatic decrease in knowledge surrounding the gathering and preparation of country foods within the region and increasing reliance on external foods in the future[2]. Compounded by income inequity and food insecurity, the legacies of this time period still impose a significant impact on the well-being of many Inuit communities[15].

Tuberculosis Crisis

Tuberculosis (TB) was one of many diseases introduced to Inuit populations by by early European explorers and whalers, resulting in widespread epidemics and spikes in mortality[16]. As mortality rates increased in the 1930's, Canadian government officials adopted a set of policies in order to address the epidemic. These efforts included community screenings, immunizations, and the transportation of individuals with active TB to southern sanatoriums[17]. It is estimated that one in seven Inuit lived in a southern sanitarium by the 1950's, with separations between families often lasting years[16]. Individuals who eventually returned to their home communities often faced a variety of hardships including reduced physical capacities due to reduced lung capacity, the loss of language, and the loss of Inuit cultural experiences[17]. Combined with the ongoing impacts of residential schools, the displacement from both physical territories and cultural experiences had a devastating impact on the overall wellbeing of Inuit communities and served to further degrade connections to knowledge of traditional foodscapes, increasing a reliance on external food sources in the present[17].

Forced Relocations, Sled Dog Culls, and RCMP Presence

A carefully crafted sled and dogs that the Inuit previously relied on for transportation and gave them mobility

In addition to assimilatory politics behind residential schools[15], the presence of RCMP posts in Nunavut in 1903 and onwards demonstrates attempts to assert Canadian sovereignty throughout Nunavut, with a focus on exercising "oversight" over the Inuit due to concerns of an "Eskimo problem" threatening this imposed sovereignty[13]. In 1953, plans to relocate Inuit from regions with decreasing food resources further north into the High Arctic were announced by the Canadian Government as it sought the assertion of Arctic sovereignty in the region[1][18]. With promise of abundant game, RCMP-run government trading stores were set up across the region to assist in this relocation.

In the fall, hundreds of Inuit were removed from their territories and sent to distant settlements up to 2000 kilometers northwards than their previous regions of residence[1][18]. Despite the presence of wooden homes, a school and electricity, many members of these communities expressed a desire to visit family and friends, or to return permanently[13]. However, relocated Inuit communities were quickly made sedentary through a series of dog slaughters led by the RCMP and government agents over a period of two decades[1]. With no consultations, explanations or compensation for the killings, Inuit communities were left behind to process the trauma of this loss on their own[2]. While the killings were later challenged, a 2006 report which failed to gather Inuit testimony absolved the RCMP of all responsibility, and the federal government has not acknowledged or apologized for their role[18]. Overall, as a result of forced shifts in settlement area and a lack of access to traditional foods that were once easily accessed at lower latitudes, relocated Inuit became increasingly dependent on established posts and co-ops[1]. This dependency is reflected in current reliance on snowmobiles (and therefore fuel) for transportation when it comes to hunting for country foods, further increasing reliance on external powers such as suppliers for food and transportation[2].

Seal meat is cut after a successful hunting trip and the skin is saved to be either used as clothing or sold

Seal Products Bans

The increased reliance of Inuit communities on external resources such as co-ops for food and fuel stems from historic events such as TB, forced relocations, and sled dog culls, all of which have led to a displacement of Inuit from access to knowledge surrounding traditional foodscapes[2]. Given the historical context of Nunavut, as well as high rates of food insecurity and income disparity[7][8], the practice of hunting country foods such as seal is not only a method of traditional and cultural revitalization, but a stable source of food and income for Inuit communities[11][2]. This being said, events such as the 1983 ban on white coat seal skin, a 2009 ban on all seal products, and the subsequent crash of the seal skin market due to these pressures and pressure from environmental NGOS have further compounded issues of wage inequity within Nunavut, cutting many families off from a vital source of income[2]. In turn, this has forced many Inuit to choose between using the money they make on expensive, unhealthy foods in local markets or for the purchase of fuel to travel and hunt for seal, which could generate more income in the long run[2][11].

Tenure arrangements

When examining land tenure in Nunavut, it is important to note that the region is composed of Provincial Crown Land, implying that the government has underlying legal tenure to forest lands in the region.[4] However, due to climatic conditions and the physical landscape of the region, there is minimal vegetation present on the land as a whole.[5] Therefore, no timber extraction occurs on the land and forest land agreements are not applicable to the region. While parts of the Crown Land within Nunavut have been set aside by the federal government as Parks and Protected Areas for wildlife, outpost camps used for hunting and harvesting practices have also been established and maintained in these regions.[4] Both members of Inuit communities, and private parties that pay for a license or lease, are allowed to stay at these outpost camps.[4] Despite the absence of a forestry industry within the region, the land tenure in Nunavut is still complex and multifaceted because many stakeholders are involved, particularly when it comes to land use for traditional food access.

In relation to tenure, Section 35 in the Constitution Act of 1982 established grounds for a land agreement between Inuit and the Canadian government.[4] Represented by the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut, Inuit signed onto this agreement, which was ratified in 1992.[4] The existing document defines land rights held by Inuit, and recognizes the contributions of Inuit to Canada’s history, identity, and sovereignty in the Arctic.[4] Within this agreement, the federal government has outlined objectives of the agreement, highlighting providing Inuit with rights to ownership and land use including decision-making rights, wildlife-harvesting rights, and financial compensation to encourage their self-reliance and cultural and social well-being.[4] However, not all of these goals have been met in reality- while the land agreement was signed by the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut over 25 years ago, it has not truly achieved any of the previously outlined measures,[4] while external factors such as international policies have caused setbacks in reaching the goals of the land agreements.

Administrative arrangements

Main Organizations Involved

General Land Use and Management Groups

The Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC), Nunavut Water Board (NWB), and Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) are responsible for the majority of actions taking place on the land within Nunavut.[4] Any land use changes including development or water usage must be reviewed by one of these three groups.[4] These organizations conduct meetings in the official languages of Canada or Inuktitut (the official language of the Inuk living in Nunavut).[4] The NPC is a commission of appointed officials which works with an annual budget from the government to develop future plans for the Nunavut settlement area.[4] Objectives of the NPC include taking natural resources, economic opportunities, and cultural factors into account when planning future developments.[4] However, the Inuit are not always present and their voices may not be heard as the NPC is run by the government of Canada.The NIRB was established to review and approve the plans made by the NPC with the goals of protecting the well-being of community members and maintaining the ecosystem.[4] While the NIRB consists of nine members who must be nominated in order to serve on the board, there is no requirement for any involvement of Indigenous Peoples in their decision-making process.[4] Finally, the NWB was implemented specifically for handling water rights and resource use in Nunavut.[4] Similar in structure to the NPC, it consists of nine members who are appointed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (now known as the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs).[4]

Wildlife Harvest and Management Groups

The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB), the Hunters and Trappers Organization (HTO), and the Regional Wildlife Organization (RWO), all play a role in maintaining wildlife populations.[4] The NWMB is a committee made up of government officials which serves to both research and monitor wildlife populations in Nunavut,[4] and is also responsible for funding all HTOs and RWOs to help sustain resources for future use by all community members.[4] Additionally, the HTO and RWO are closely related in their purpose and functionality. Each community in Nunavut has an HTO, and each region has an RWO that serves to regulate harvesting of wildlife.[4] The three RWOs in Nunavut are Kitikmeot Wildlife Federation, Keewatin Wildlife Federation, and Baffin Region Hunters.[4] The board of directors of each RWO is made up of members of the already existing HTOs.[4] These organizations work to set limits on harvesting for sustaining future yields and allowing for both research and hunting to take place, [4] while aiming to fairly allocate resources to those in need within communities across Nunavut.

Rules and Regulations

The organizations listed above all work to manage resource use and development on the land in order to maintain the integrity of the land.[4] However, exemptions are present, and many projects proposed from external groups do not require a prior screening from the NPC, NWB, and NIRB.[4] Projects that do not require a permit from the Government of Canada and further developments within pre-existing municipalities like small hotels or tourist facilities do not need approval from the NPC, NWB, or NIRB.[4] In addition, the process of prospecting, staking, or locating mineral claims that require less than a Class B permit is allowed without review.[4] This being said, administrative processes aim to give the Inuit communities in Nunavut fair treatment as much as possible. One rule put in place by the land agreement is that where a right of action accrues to an Inuk, the HTO which the Inuk belongs to can sue for that Inuk.[4] The rules and regulations in place are meant to help the Inuit communities to have a voice and access to their land. However, there are still limitations to the power that the Inuit have within their traditional and ancestral land.

Affected Stakeholders

This Inuit grandmother and her grandchild that rely on the land are considered affected stakeholders

An affected stakeholder can be defined as any person, group of persons or entity that is or is likely to be subject to the effects of the activities in a locally important or customarily-claimed area.[13] Within Nunavut, there are many affected stakeholders who live or depend on the land, and have a meaningful past in the area.

Table 1: Affected Stakeholders of Land Use in the Inuit Territories in Nunavut, Canada
Stakeholder Primary Objectives Relative Power
Inuit Hunters and Fishers - Skins from hunting seals is one of the only forms of economic gain and involvement at a global scale in order to maintain social well-being from generated income.

- Fish and seal meat are two main food sources that contain enough nutrients for proper growth and development based on a country diet.

Low
Inuit Artists - Producing artwork is a main form of economic gain and helps maintain social well-being and cultural traditions through generated income and traditional economic systems. Low
Inuit Community Members - Traditional, ancestral, and cultural ties to the land are present.

- Wildlife harvest is a main food source for many communities.

Low
Sports and Naturalists Lodge Operators - Live on the land and may have family or other reasons for attachment to the land.

- Make economic gains from their operations on the land.

Medium-Low
Regional Wildlife Organization (RWO) and Hunters and Trappers Organization (HTO) - Maintaining wildlife populations for harvest by both the Inuit community and harvest by hunters who pay for licenses.

- They make money from the funds given to them by the NWMB and also make money by suing on the behalf of the Inuit if and when an Inuk’s rights are not granted- Members of these organizations also live on the land where they work.

Medium-Low
Nunavut Water Board (NWB) Members - Make some money from the government for the work they do in regulating water use and maintaining a clean and healthy water supply for the community.

- Some of the members may live on the land and drink the water they also work to protect.

Medium
Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) Members - Make some money from the government and/or private parties through the approval or disallowance of a development plan.

- Some of the members may live on the land that they are reviewing for impacts.

Medium

Discussion

Affected stakeholders are likely to be directly impacted by activities in a claimed region[13]. In the case of Nunavut, Inuit community members as a whole are affected, in addition to potentially Inuit members of the RWO, HTO, NWB and NIRB. Overall, Inuit hunters and fishers would be significantly impacted by any changes in land tenure that would impact their rights to harvest from the land, as they rely on seal and other local flora and fauna for subsistence use[13]. Similarly, Inuit artists would also be directly impacted by changes in tenure rights, as limitations imposed on hunting rights or the sale of seal skin and other animal products could limit the production of their artwork, therefore cutting them off from a primary source of income that acts as a subsistence tie, given the high costs of living within the region[2].

Inuit community members would also be affected stakeholders due to traditional, ancestral, and cultural ties to the region, as well as a reliance on harvests and hunts as a main food source within many communities[7]. The ongoing influence of historical pressures such as residential schools, TB, and other factors have forced Inuit into a position of lower power[7]. While general land use and management groups may provide opportunities for Inuit to voice concerns surrounding land tenure and hunting rights or food insecurity, these structures often fail to include Inuit voices due to their management by the federal government, or a lack of policies surrounding election requirements[4].

In addition to general community members, and assuming long lasting cultural ties to the region are present, sports and naturalists lodge operators could also be considered affected stakeholders, alongside Regional Wildlife Organizations (RWO) and Hunters and Trappers Organizations (HTO). These groups hold medium-low power due to a reliance on and ties to an annual budget from the government to develop future plans for the Nunavut settlement area. While the groups may have the capacity to raise Inuit voices due to their attempts to hold open meetings in three languages, they often fail to do so,[4]and their reliance on federal funding may be a factor within this limitation. Additionally the Nunavut Water Board (NWB) and Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) could also be viewed as affected stakeholders due to potential ties to the land from members. These groups hold medium power due to the presence of external government officials within their core, as well as elected officials within their board of directors.

Interested Stakeholders

Organizations like GreenPeace care about the wildlife, but do not have connections or dependency on the land. They are considered interested stakeholders

Interested stakeholders differ from the affected stakeholders because they do not have a long-term dependency on the area.[13] An interested outside stakeholder is a person, group of persons, or entity that is linked in a transaction or an activity relating to a specific area.[13] In the Inuit Territories in Nunavut, many stakeholders may be interested in the land, but do not rely on it or live on it long term for their general livelihood and well-being.

Table 2: Interested Stakeholders of Land Use in the Inuit Territories in Nunavut, Canada
Stakeholder Primary Objectives Relative Power
Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC) Members - Make some money from the government for their roles in planning future resource use and land development

- Some of the members may also work with private parties to plan development projects

Medium-High
Government of Canada - Responsibility to the people that they serve to protect the land and act in the best interest of the people

- Persuasions from organizations and companies with money may influence the decisions the government officials make

High
Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB) - Managing wildlife populations by conducting research and implementing recovery strategies for species at risk Medium-High
GreenPeace and other International Environmentalist Groups - Protecting seals from being hunted commercially and maintain their populations

- Using seals as a symbol for major conservation campaigns and generates profit from the use of this symbol

High
Mining Company Operators - Using the land as a resource for extracting valuable minerals Medium-High
Commercial Fisheries - Using the resources in the area for making a profit by raising, harvesting, and selling fish Medium- High

Discussion

Interested stakeholders likely lack a direct cultural or ancestral tie to a region[13]. In the case of Nunavut, the Government of Canada and the associated bodies have the highest level of power in Nunavut because of the history of colonization and the jurisdiction that they still possess in the area.[19] The organizations that are funded by the government also have a great deal of power and influence over the outcome of the area. Both government bodies and private businesses tend to have the most power in Nunavut, despite being the least affected stakeholders. Finally, the NPC, NWMB, mining operators, and commercial fisheries have more power because they have greater economic ties to the land[7].

Discussion

Successes

When examining Nunavut as a whole, a key success is the establishment of the Nunavut Land Claims agreement and its impact on allowing Inuit access to regional resources due to the bundle of rights it makes available to Inuit[4]. In addition to the land agreement, groups such as the RWO and HTO groups attempt to allow open access for Inuit to engage in conversations surrounding resource access and land rights, and can serve as advocacy groups for communities, helping to advance upwards social movement within Inuit communities[4]. Additionally, the focus of these organizations on sustainable harvest, research, and hunting as well as fair resource allocation highlights a holistic approach to land and resource management that is community centred and grassroots in its approach rather than resembling colonial, top down approaches.

Failures

Within the context of Nunavut, many groups such as Regional Wildlife Organizations (RWO), Hunters and Trappers Organizations (HTO), the Nunavut Water Board (NWB) and the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) have the capacity to increase Inuit involvement in conversations surrounding tenure and harvesting rights[4]. While their attempts to hold open meetings in three languages and include Inuit within their boards are steps in the right direction, the appointment of members from the federal government within these groups, as well as a reliance on HTO membership for electoral purposes, all pose barriers when it comes to striving for increased Inuit involvement and action within conversations surrounding land and hunting rights.

Challenges and Recommendations

Examination of Inuit communities in Nunavut showcases a long history of recommendations and initiatives that have failed to be appropriate in Arctic contexts given their basis in non-local research, often imposing ideas of what well-being means to Inuit communities through the lens of a different worldview from that of Inuit in Nunavut[20]. As such, when it comes to the formation of recommendations surrounding the challenge of food insecurity in Nunavut and the impacts that land tenure and stakeholder powers hold in relation to it, it is important to be aware of the negative impacts of previous recommendations that have been set in place without analysis of Inuit traditional knowledge or patterns of land usage.

The continuation of imposed policies surrounding Inuit land use, such as 2002 Species at Risk Act quotas, which greatly reduced hunter access to cultural and nutritionally significant species[20], have the potential to impose further harm onto Inuit communities and continue colonial legacies of imposition and control within the region. In contrast, policies that promote and apply Inuit traditional knowledge can help preserve culture while promoting both food security and adaptive measures in the face of socioeconomic transitions, climate change, and the pressures of external government policies and organizations[20][21]. Successful examples of such initiatives can lead to increasing food security[21], and include the creation of a narwhal hunting system developed by Inuit alongside the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans [22], where hunting quotas were adjusted based on Inuit traditions, as well as conservation concerns.

This being said, it is particularly important for Inuit to be at the forefront of recommendations pertaining to their land, and existing initiatives of this nature have been found to be particularly successful[2][22][4]. Agreements such as the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement have allowed Inuit communities increased management control of their lands, resources, and economies[23]. Inuit-led solutions within territorial government structures focused on increasing food security are quite common across the region, and additional support of these programs should be considered. Initiatives such as the Nunavut Harvesters Support System, which is organized by Nunavut Tuungavik, strive to fund the purchase of hunting equipment and transportation methods for Inuit hunters, while education-focused programs such as the development of the 'Eating Well with Canada’s Food Guide’ for First Nations, Inuit and Métis ensure that approaches to food security and the usage of traditional and store bought foods in rural communities are culturally relevant and appropriate[21] As a whole, support of Inuit-led initiatives and an awareness of the unique historical background of Nunavut and its connection to current food inequality and wealth disparity is particularly important when it comes to tackling the issue of food insecurity in Nunavut.


References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Mchugh, S. (2013). "A flash point in Inuit memories": Endangered Knowledges in the Mountie Sled Dog Massacre. ESC: English Studies in Canada, 39(1), 149-175. doi:10.1353/esc.2013.0022
  2. 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 Arnaquq-Baril, A. (Director). (2016). Angry Inuk [Video file]. Canada. Retrieved March 3, 2019, from https://www.nfb.ca/film/angry_inuk/
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Hicks, Jack; White, Graham (2000). Nunavut: Inuit Regain Control of Their Lands and Their Lives. Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs. pp. 30–118.
  4. 4.00 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30 4.31 4.32 4.33 4.34 4.35 Tungavik Federation of Nunavut. (1993). Agreement between the Inuit of the Nunavut settlement area and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada. Ottawa: Published under the joint authority of the Tungavik and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Retrieved from https://www.gov.nu.ca/sites/default/files/Nunavut_Land_Claims_Agreement.pdf
  5. 5.0 5.1 "1981-2010 Climate Normals & Averages". Government of Canada. 2019.
  6. "Population Estimates, Quarterly". Statistics Canada. 2019.
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 Inuit Statistical Profile (PDF). Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. 2018. ISBN 978-1-989179-00-0.
  8. 8.0 8.1 "Policy Brief: Food Security" (PDF). World Food Summit. 2: 1–4. June 2006.
  9. Egeland, Grace M. (2010). Inuit Health Survey 2007-2008: Nunavut. Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC: Centre for Indigenous Peoples’ Nutrition and Environment.
  10. Aboriginal Peoples Survey (APS). Statistics Canada. 2012.
  11. 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs. "Nunavut Economy". Government of Nunavut.
  12. Stewart, Emma J.; Draper, Dianne (2006). "Sustainable Cruise Tourism in Arctic Canada: An Integrated Coastal Management Approach". Tourism in Marine Environments. 3 (2): 77–88.
  13. 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.8 13.9 "Inuit History and Heritage" (PDF). Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. 2016. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name ":7" defined multiple times with different content
  14. 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 Keenleyside, Anne (1990). "Euro-American Whaling in the Canadian Arctic: Its Effects on Eskimo Health". Arctic Anthropology. 27: 1–19.
  15. 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 Truth and Reconciliation Commission. "Canada's Residential Schools: The Inuit and Northern Experience". The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2.
  16. 16.0 16.1 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (2018). Inuit Tuberculosis Elimination Framework. ISBN 978-1-989179-10-9.
  17. 17.0 17.1 17.2 Grygier, PS (1994). A long way from home: The tuberculosis epidemic among the Inuit. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
  18. 18.0 18.1 18.2 Shelagh, D. Grant (2016). Errors Exposed-Inuit Relocations to the High Arctic, 1953–1960. University of Calgary.
  19. Truth and Reconciliation Commission. "Canada's Residential Schools: The Inuit and Northern Experience". The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2.
  20. 20.0 20.1 20.2 Ford J.; et al. (2007). "Vulnerability to climate change in Igloolik, Nunavut: What we can learn from the past and present" (PDF). Polar Record. 42. Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  21. 21.0 21.1 21.2 Ferguson, Hillary (Fall 2011). "Inuit Food (In)Security in Canada:Assessing the Implications and Effectiveness of Policy" (PDF). Queen's Policy Review. 2: 54–79.
  22. 22.0 22.1 Armitage, D. (2005). "Community-Based Narwhal Management in Nunavut, Canada: Change, Uncertainty, and Adaptation". Society and Natural Resources. 18.
  23. Reddekopp, K. (1999). "An Analysis of the Effects of National Legislation on Food Security in Canada" (PDF). Canadian Foodgrains Bank and the Centre for Studies in Agriculture, Law and the Environment.


Seekiefer (Pinus halepensis) 9months-fromtop.jpg
This conservation resource was created by Zohreh Rezaiemanesh, Sara Reimanis. It has been viewed over {{#googleanalyticsmetrics: metric=pageviews|page=Course:CONS370/2019/Inuit definitions of food sovereignty in Nunavut, Canada: the linkages between historical displacement from traditional foodscapes and Inuit food insecurity.|startDate=2006-01-01|endDate=2020-08-21}} times.It is shared under a CC-BY 4.0 International License.