Introduction

Since 1990, the distance travelled by ships in the Canadian Arctic has nearly tripled (Dawson et al. 2017; 2018). With the ensuing impacts of climate change — potentially making it easier for ships to navigate Arctic waters (Smith and Stephenson, 2013; Stephenson et al., 2013) — and the growing interest in Arctic marine travel for the purposes of tourism and economic ventures (Johnston et al., 2017), shipping in the Canadian Arctic is only expected to continue to increase. This increase in shipping poses some significant risks to the Arctic marine environment (Lajeunesse, 2012; Ng et al., 2018; ICC, 2008), including the continued practices of harvesting by Inuit communities who live there. Harvesting is the act of “…hunting, fishing, and gathering of natural resources to meet the food, fuel, clothing and livelihood needs of individuals, households, and communities.” (Coastal Learning Communities Network, 2008, p. 1). The ability of Inuit communities to engage in successful harvesting activities has already been affected by the direct impacts of climate change and colonialism (Henri et al., 2020; ICC, 2014; ITK, 2016; 2017), and now, the potential for a substantial increase in Arctic shipping presents additional risks that will compound existing impacts on harvesting practices and the livelihoods of Inuit throughout Inuit Nunangat (Inuit homeland; see Fig. 1). This research provides comprehensive firsthand accounts of the risks of Arctic shipping on the harvesting activities of 14 communities located throughout Inuit Nunangat.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Source: Dawson et al. 2020a

Settled land claim regions and Arctic Corridors and Northern Voices research project participating communities.

Full size image

For millennia, Inuit have engaged in harvesting activities to sustain themselves and provide the necessities for life in the Arctic (i.e. food, medicine, clothes, tools, equipment, and shelter) through the ongoing exchange, sharing, and sale of ‘country food’ and other natural products within and between communities (National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health (NCCAH) 2013; Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA) 2013). Today, a large portion of the average Inuit diet consists of foods shipped from the south, but country food i.e. Inuit traditional food, “remains at the core of Inuit culture and well-being” (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) 2017 p.3). The act of harvesting and sharing products harvested from the water and land is fundamental to the physical, mental, and spiritual health of many Inuit (NCCAH 2013; Wesche and Chan 2010). Inuit harvesters regularly feed community members with harvested foods (QIA 2019; Quintal-Marineau and Wenzel 2019) and the system of sharing has enabled Inuit communities to benefit from the widest possible distribution of resources (Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) 2008; Ready 2018; Wesche and Chan 2010). Country foods provide a dense and rich source of nutrition that is not directly replaceable through store-bought food (Kuhnlein and Receveur 2007; Egeland 2011; NCCAH 2013). A 2017 survey of harvesting activities among Inuit in Inuit Nunangat found that nearly two-thirds (65%) participated in hunting, fishing, or trapping and that nearly one-half (47%) gathered wild plants or berries (Statistics Canada 2017). Inuit harvest an estimated 79 species which includes hunting marine mammals (seals, walrus, narwhal, and other whales) and terrestrial wildlife (caribou, polar bears, birds, geese), trapping (foxes, wolves, rabbits), freshwater fishing, and gathering activities (berries, plants, seaweed, invertebrates, eggs) (Egeland 2009).

Inuit have a long history of adapting and thriving in harsh and ever-changing Arctic conditions (QIA 2013), having dealt with many challenges, including colonialism and climate change, that have impacted their ability to harvest (ITK 2017). In the 1950s, Inuit were forcibly displaced from their seasonal land camps into permanent settlements often located in areas unfamiliar to them and far from traditional food resources, requiring them to adapt and learn new harvesting techniques (Bone 2016; ITK 2017). In addition, at the time, the Canadian Wildlife Service implemented policies that restricted and/or prohibited harvesting of certain animals, which resulted in punishment for illegal hunting, and contributed to food insecurity and an overall loss of culture and well-being (Henri 2012; Henri et al. 2020; Ljubicic et al. 2018; QIA 2013). The imposition of the residential and day schools system for 160 years (1830s to 1997), wherein Inuit youth were forcibly taken away from their families and estranged from their culture (Council of Canadian Academies (CCA) 2014; Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2015) kept students from engaging in hunting and other traditional activities; thus, they did not gain those skills nor could they pass them to future generations (ITK 2017). These experiences have put a strain on Inuit country food harvesting and sharing culture practices. Despite this, these practices remain an important part of Inuit livelihood (Beaumier and Ford 2010).

More recently, climate change and the seasonal decrease in sea ice extent, rapid change in weather patterns and subsequent changes in wildlife behaviour and habitat are further impacting the ability of Inuit to safely and successfully engage in subsistence and cultural harvesting activities (Fawcett et al. 2018; Ford et al. 2019; ITK 2016; Meier et al. 2014; Panikaar et al. 2018). This has led to significant levels of food insecurity considering the extremely high costs of store-bought food. In 2017/18 “57% of households in Nunavut reported some level of food insecurity and almost half of these households were severely food insecure” (Tarasuk 2020 p. 3). A changing Arctic climate also facilitates a series of cascading effects — such as increased marine shipping activity — that poses additional risks for Inuit food security and cultural well-being (Cunsolo-Willox et al. 2012; Quintal-Marineau and Wensel 2019; QIA 2019; Wesche and Chan 2010). An increase in marine shipping activity in Inuit Nunangat and through Canada’s Northwest Passage along which numerous coastal communities are located could lead to significant broad-ranging impacts on the marine environment, including impacts to marine wildlife activities, diminished harvesting opportunities, increased potential for harmful fuel spills, or the introduction of invasive species (Christensen et al. 2018; Halliday et al 2017; ICC 2008; Meier et al. 2014; Ng et al. 2018; Nunavut Impact Review Board 2020; Olsen, Carter, and Dawson 2019). While the Canadian Arctic has experienced limited shipping activity compared to the rest of maritime Canada, since 1990, the overall distance travelled by ships in Arctic Canada has nearly tripled, and it is only expected to increase as sea ice continues to recede (Dawson et al. 2018; CCA 2016; Pizzolato et al. 2014, 2016).

In this paper, we build on the body of evidence surrounding marine shipping risk by presenting an analysis of the risks, as identified by Inuit and other local marine users, of increased shipping activity for subsistence and harvesting activities among 14 Inuit communities across Inuit Nunangat who were involved in the Arctic Corridors and Northern Voices (ACNV) project (www.arcticcorridors.ca). The purpose of this paper is to highlight community perspectives on the risks of increased marine shipping in order to contribute to and advance ongoing discussions about the well-being of Inuit and the impacts of marine shipping on harvesting in Inuit communities and also to provide evidence to inform and support the development of Arctic shipping and marine policy that incorporates the perspectives and needs of Inuit communities.

Methods

Study area

Members of 14 communities in three of the four settled land claim regions of Inuit Nunangat participated in the Arctic Corridors and Northern Voices (ACNV) project including, six from the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR); Aklavik, Inuvik, Paulatuk, Sachs Harbour, Tuktoyaktuk, and Ulukhaktok; seven from Nunavut: Arviat, Cambridge Bay, Coral Harbour, Gjoa Haven, Iqaluit, Pond Inlet, and Resolute; and one from Nunavik (Northern Quebec): Salluit (see Fig. 1). Communities involved in this study were purposely selected based on known concerns about marine vessel traffic (see Stewart et al. 2015; Dawson et al. 2017; 2018) and in consideration of existing research networks and collaborative relationships. Residents in all these communities depend upon the marine ecosystem year-round for livelihoods and sustenance. Since 1990, shipping traffic throughout the Canadian Arctic has nearly tripled (Dawson et al. 2017; 2018). The types of marine vessels operating in the region vary and include, container ships, tankers, general cargo, bulk carriers, government icebreakers, tug and barge, fishing vessels, oil and gas exploration vessels, pleasure craft, and cruise ships (Pizzolato et al. 2014; Dawson et al. 2018). While currently marine vessel traffic in the region is low compared to the total traffic experienced throughout other Canadian waters, traffic is expected to continue to increase because of impacts of climate change and increased international marine interest in the area (Council of Canadian Academies 2016; Eguíluz et al. 2016; Pizzolato et al. 2014). All but one of the 14 participating communities have witnessed an increase in the number of kilometres travelled by ships in their areas since 1990 (Dawson et al. 2018).

Study approach and methodology

This study was part of the broader ACNV project which combined community-based research techniques with participatory mapping approaches. This involved conducting community workshops and individual interviews in each of the 14 participant communities (These workshops occurred between 2016 and 2019). This research builds on previous work from the past 50 years that has documented Inuit use of land and marine areas throughout Inuit Nunangat using participatory mapping techniques (Berger 1977; Freeman 1976; Government of Nunavut n.d.; Joint Secretariat—Inuvialuit Settlement Region 2016; Riewe 1992). The community workshops were divided into two parts. The first involved participatory mapping wherein community members identified significant features on a map of their community and its surroundings. Significant features included wildlife habitat areas; harvesting and camping sites; and local travel routes. Community members also identified species harvested by season. Second, participants identified observed and potential impacts of marine vessel traffic and provided marine vessel-management options.

The workshops were carried out in a consistent manner across all 14 communities (see Carter et al. 2019 and Dawson et al. 2020b for additional details on the methodological approach). Ethical approval was provided by the University of Ottawa Research Ethics Board (S-08–20-5949), the Nunavut Research Institute (02 067 18R-M), and the Aurora Research Institute (15,907). The workshops and interviews were conducted in English, Inuktitut, or Inuinnaqtun according to participants’ preferences and were simultaneously interpreted by skilled professionals. Workshops and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed word-for-word. Expert community members chosen to participate in the workshops and interviews (hereafter referred to as knowledge holders) were identified by local organisations that were familiar with the community members. These knowledge holders included men and women; current and active users of marine areas; Inuit Elders and other holders of expert knowledge of the marine environment, and individuals who had knowledge of the impacts and risks of marine vessel traffic. Knowledge holders were offered honoraria as per ethical research protocols in the region (ITK 2007; ITK 2018).

All spatial data were documented using markers on topographic maps covered with plastic overlays. Images of these data were then georeferenced using the ArcGIS Desktop 10.6.1 software. Features drawn on the maps by community members were then digitised in ArcGIS using the straight segment and trace options in the editor toolbar. As part of the broader ACNV project, community reports were generated and validated. The reports included summaries of research findings and maps of participant-identified areas of cultural and ecological significance. To ensure accuracy and in line with research ethical protocols on results dissemination, these reports were validated and formally approved by each community via focused consultations with all knowledge holders (see https://www.arcticcorridors.ca/reports/). Interview and workshop transcripts were categorised and analysed using Braun and Clarke’s (2012) six stage thematic analysis approach. In the first stage, the first two authors familiarised themselves with the data through transcribing, reading, and re-reading the transcripts. Secondly, the first author generated initial codes by picking up on themes in the interviews. The third and fourth stages involved searching for those themes and reviewing these themes. This involved discussions between the first two authors and constant comparison with the published community reports that had been validated with knowledge holders. Finally, the analysis was completed by naming the themes and writing the results presented in this paper.

The maps showing the number of different activities were produced from all the layers in the final ACNV ArcGIS dataset (see Figs. 2 and 3 and Supplementary Materials). They include all harvesting activities, fishing, and travel routes to regions including campsites, and culturally significant areas. The “Non-Open Water” activities are those that took place during the frozen, freeze-up, and break-up seasons as well as year-round, whereas “Open Water” activities are those that took place during the open water season and year-round. The activity count was calculated from the number of different activity layers that overlap, using ArcGIS tools.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Community activities (open water season — June to October) as identified by 14 Arctic communities

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Community activities (non-open water season — November to May) as identified by 14 Arctic communities

Full size image

Results

The consistent and clear message emerging from all communities in Inuit Nunangat (n = 14) that participated in the study, and congruent with past research, is that harvesting and country food are integral to the well-being of Inuit communities and the existence of Inuit and Inuit culture. While knowledge holders recognised the benefits of shipping to their communities, explaining their reliance upon annual re-supply by ships (‘sealift’) to bring in essential supplies (i.e. dry goods, fuel, equipment, vehicles, materials) and the limited local employment shipping creates, it was unanimously highlighted that shipping could significantly affect and impede their ability to harvest successfully and sustainably. In this section, we first present descriptive and spatial data of community harvesting activities including identified local travel routes and then outline specific community-identified risks of shipping on successful and sustainable harvesting activities.

Inuit harvesting practices and locations

In all communities, knowledge holders reported harvesting a diverse range of marine and terrestrial species (see https://www.arcticcorridors.ca). These included marine mammals, fish, invertebrates, terrestrial mammals, and birds, as well as eggs and numerous plant products such as berries and seaweed. Knowledge holders referred to these harvested products as “country food” and reported that they and fellow community members consumed, shared, and less frequently sold all or parts of these products (e.g. meat, blubber, pelts, skins, tusks) which contributed to human health, well-being, and livelihoods.

Knowledge holders identified that harvesting practices are not limited to the immediate vicinity of communities. Rather, harvesters travel significant distances, both when travelling over sea ice by snowmobile, and by boat in open water (Figs. 2 and 3, and also see supplementary material for additional figures for each community). Harvesting and travel occur year-round; here divided into two main seasons: open water from approximately July to October (Fig. 2), and when sea ice is forming, frozen, and/or breaking up from approximately November to June (Fig. 3). The number of harvesting activities conducted in various marine areas (hereafter ‘harvesting grounds’) ranged from 0 to more than 10, indicating that accessing a single harvesting ground presented opportunities to harvest multiple species and sources of country food.

Both Figs. 2 and 3 demonstrate the expanse of marine environment that is accessed by harvesters year-round. Knowledge holders explained that ship transits cross community harvesting grounds and intersect with local travel routes to access these sites. While some harvesting activities occur on land — and may therefore be less obviously affected by shipping traffic — harvesters routinely travel over open water and sea ice to reach harvesting grounds, harvesting opportunistically along the way.

Cascading effects of marine vessel traffic on harvesting activities (see Table 1 for summary)

Table 1 Summary of cascading risks (direct and indirect) of marine vessels on harvesting activities identified by Inuit and Northern residents in 14 communities in Inuit Nunangat
Full size table

Marine ecosystem contamination and degradation

Knowledge holders in all communities articulated concerns about the increased risk of oil spills if shipping traffic increases. Many knowledge holders explained that their communities have limited or no resources to respond to a spill and therefore a spill would have dire consequences to the marine environment and subsequently to harvesting activities. A knowledge holder in Ulukhaktok described what it would be like if a spill were to occur in their harvesting area:

Pandemonium… I can’t even imagine what the people would be going through… this is home, this is where we get our food, this is where we camp, this is where we live. This is a major part of our culture, a major part of our identity. And if something were to happen here… if [a vessel] were to spill out here, how awful that would be for the people … I would be just totally crushed.

A knowledge holder in Cambridge Bay said,

We want to ensure that nothing like that [an oil spill] happens in our waters because that is very important to our livelihood; to the mammals, to the fish that we eat…you get any kind of oil in the water, so chemicals that go into the water, that’s [going to] go straight into the food chain that we eat. The fish, the seals, the bears... So, thinking ahead we have to try and prevent something like that happening in our waters.

Knowledge holders in all communities described their community’s oil spill response capabilities (such as training and equipment) as ‘inadequate’ and they explained that in the case of a spill they would urgently need the ability to respond after the incident occurred. Relying on outside (southern-based) responders would take too long, and the wait time would cause too much damage as the spill would spread and contaminate the marine environment and wildlife. A knowledge holder in Resolute explained that “our capacity to deal with the oil spill is basically nonexistent”. Knowledge holders in Resolute were especially concerned about a potential spill in Peel Sound, which is a resource-rich area for harvesting and for marine mammals, with currents that would spread a spill extremely quickly. Pond Inlet knowledge holders also spoke about the lack of spill-response-related skills, training, and equipment available in communities. For instance, one knowledge holder stated, “Since we are at the mouth of the Northwest Passage, I am concerned about the environment. DFO [Fisheries and Oceans Canada] is not prepared if there was an oil spill or if a ship is leaking fuel. And none of the local people has any idea how to go and help pump the ship, especially a big tanker. Nobody within the north has equipment to help them if there was an incident…”.

Oil spills were not the only pollutant of concern discussed by knowledge holders. They also expressed concerns regarding ships dumping grey water, ballast water, and garbage into the ocean. Knowledge holders in 10 of the 14 communities described the potential impacts of greywater and ballast water dumping, explaining that grey and ballast water could enter the food chain, also impacting plants, and making people ill. A knowledge holder from Salluit described seeing ships passing near their community that were dumping ballast water: “…we’re not sure where this water comes from. Do they collect it on the Labrador Sea, or is it coming from the St. Lawrence River? What type of microorganisms are in them and how does it impact our ecosystem?” A knowledge holder from Iqaluit further explained,

Part of what we don’t want is [vessels] to offload the ballast water here because we eat the animals, we eat the clams, we eat the shrimp, we eat the things that eat the shrimp, we eat the things that eat the clams, so when that stuff enters the food chain, we get it. So, when [vessels] spill, the clams, the shrimp, the things that we can’t see that eat this stuff will get it in them, and it will work its way into the food chain and into our food supply.

Concerns about the potential for ballast water to introduce organisms from other ecosystems were raised by knowledge holders in several other communities as well. Knowledge holders in Inuvik explained that grey water pollution would not only enter the food chain via marine wildlife but would also get on shore affecting caribou and other land animals: “It’s not only the ocean they’re affecting, it’s affecting…anything on land and our drinking water”. Knowledge holders in Sachs Harbour raised concerns about cruise ships dumping garbage into the ocean, which could then wash up onto the shore and contaminate water and wildlife. This would affect food availability as well as food quality and safety by either injuring or killing the wildlife and plants that Inuit harvest, or by contaminating wildlife and plants, rendering them inedible or unusable.

Disruption to harvesters’ travel and safety

Knowledge holders from all communities (n = 14) shared concerns about the risks of marine vessels disrupting harvesting activities, making harvesting more difficult, dangerous, and sometimes impossible. Knowledge holders in most communities (n = 11) discussed concerns about marine vessels travelling through ice, thereby affecting local travel necessary to access harvesting areas. Concerns about icebreaking included the breaking of ice by purpose-built ice breakers during potential winter shipping, the breaking of ice that is caused by any ship that might alter or prolong the ice forming process in fall, or icebreaking that might hasten the ice break up process in spring, and ship travel that might modify the ice in any way (for example, leaving icy, jagged wakes that are difficult or dangerous for harvesters to cross).

In Ulukhaktok, knowledge holders spoke about an incident wherein a ship broke the sea ice near Nelson Head (a popular camping and hunting area in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region) leaving an icy wake that was too ‘jumbled’ to cross. One knowledge holder explained that he had to follow the wake for about 5 miles (8 km) before finding a spot that was frozen enough, and therefore safe enough, to cross. Another knowledge holder added: “So not only does [ships breaking the ice] affect our animals, but it affects our hunters as well. Trying to harvest, trying to make a living…”. Iqaluit and Cambridge Bay knowledge holders also discussed the difficulties of crossing rough ice created by ships explaining that it could be dangerous, could delay hunting, and could damage their machines (snowmobiles). Cambridge Bay knowledge holders described an incident that heightened their concerns regarding the dangers that ships breaking ice poses to hunters. A couple of years previously, a knowledge holder and their hunting partner travelled on snowmobiles over the sea ice; crossing Coronation Gulf (the NWP) from Victoria Island to the mainland and back. Shortly after reaching home, a Canadian Coast Guard vessel went through, breaking the ice they had just travelled on. “Had we been on that ice coming home after that [ship] had gone through, we wouldn’t be here as we speak,” said the knowledge holder. They went on to explain that in the future, if unknown to local travellers, a ship broke the sea ice and it partially re-froze, and the sea ice could appear thick enough to travel over safely, when in fact, it is not, and travellers would risk falling through the thin ice and drowning. Knowledge holders in Resolute also discussed an incident where, unknown to hunters out travelling, a ship went through the sea ice between Griffith and Somerset Islands and the hunters nearly fell through the ship track. Salluit knowledge holders described having to be very careful when travelling to their camps around Deception Bay as the number of ships servicing Raglan mine (located 100 kms south of Deception Bay) and travelling through ice means that the ice could be unsafe to travel on. One knowledge holder there described having to cross three different ship channels that had broken the ice, and another explained that “in the last few years we’ve had a few [snowmobiles] get submerged because of the track ice [the ship’s track]”. A Salluit knowledge holder also spoke about a specific incident that affected their family member: “the track looked like it had frozen over, but just the top layer had frozen over. And underneath was still water, so the guy driving the machine [snowmobile] fell in, and then his machine was [destroyed]”.

Knowledge holders in all communities also explained that as soon as the sea ice freezes, harvesters travel on it. A knowledge holder in Cambridge Bay described that he goes out on the sea ice as soon as possible to set fishing nets before the ice gets too thick to be able to place nets. Gjoa Haven knowledge holders also explained that all-season shipping would interfere with people hunting and trapping. The pressure ridges left by ships that have gone through sea ice can make hunting travel difficult. Pond Inlet knowledge holders also said that ice breaking could make harvesting dangerous. One knowledge holder stated: “it would become dangerous, yes. The hunters would be getting affected and they would be losing their hunting ground and they would lose their revenue for selling narwhal tusk and other meat… if there was a ship through [Eclipse Sound]”. Knowledge holders in Aklavik, Coral Harbour, Tuktoyaktuk, and Paulatuk also raised concerns about the risks of potential ice breaking and how it would impact their ability to hunt, explaining that the water might not freeze if ice breaking would occur all winter which would mean that in spring, they would not be able to get to their camps as the trail may not have frozen over. Knowledge holders in Arviat said that they had no experience with ice breaking happening in their areas and did not comment further.

Not only did breaking of ice by ships increase the dangers and difficulties of harvesting, it also potentially increased the costs involved in harvesting activities, in turn impacting the ability to harvest. Pond Inlet knowledge holders talked about dropping off summer supplies at their hunting cabins during the winter and springtime when the sea ice was frozen because it is faster and less expensive than carrying supplies there in summertime by boat. They explained that if ships disturbed the sea ice it would mean they must drop off the supplies by boat during open water season which would increase the cost significantly (four-fold):

We use too much gas in summertime and it’s hard to pay for the gas in the summertime... In the wintertime when I’m dragging my Qamutik [a sled designed to travel on snow and ice that is pulled behind a snowmobile], it’s enough for five gallons [5 gallons is enough gas to get there over the ice]. In summertime it’s [an] extra twenty gallons.

Knowledge holders described having to abandon local travel routes and instead travel long distances to avoid rough, icy wakes caused by ships. They noted that this required using more fuel, an added expense, and attempting to cross these rough wakes increases vehicle wear-and-tear, thus increasing costs of replacing or fixing equipment such as snowmobiles, which can be prohibitively expensive. It is clear from the discussions with knowledge holders in these 14 communities that even one ship travelling through sea ice at any time of year could significantly impact harvesting activities and human safety.

Knowledge holders in all communities also described other ways in which marine vessels could disturb harvesting activities. Pond Inlet knowledge holders described an incident where a sailboat disturbed their hunt by travelling too close to them. They explained that in the summer, they often must wait for ships to pass so that their boats are not impacted by the wake. One hunter spoke about being disturbed by a ship’s wake while attempting to hunt a seal. The wake made it difficult to shoot because the boat was moving up and down. Salluit and Iqaluit knowledge holders raised similar concerns about ship wake affecting their hunts during open water season; waves from larger vessels can both be dangerous for hunters in small vessels and can also disturb animals causing them to flee. Ship wake can also be an issue when the ocean is frozen, where waves from ship wake can travel over the ice causing flooding and potentially affecting hunters on snowmobiles. Knowledge holders in Pond Inlet also explained that there are no firearms allowed within one mile of a ship, which means that if a ship were to be in the same area as a hunter, then the hunter would have to wait for the ship to pass, potentially missing a hunting opportunity.

Interference and disturbance of wildlife

In addition to environmental and human risks, knowledge holders in all communities raised concerns about the risks of shipping disturbances to wildlife, which in turn has an impact on Inuit ability to hunt and harvest. A knowledge holder in Inuvik reflected on the potential impacts of increased shipping on wildlife as he explained: “Not long ago, you weren’t even allowed to throw rocks in the water, that’s how the Elders knew about what affects the whales. That is just a rock, and now we’re talking about big ships…”. A knowledge holder in Iqaluit also shared this point:

When you talk about whales in the natural setting in a really quiet environment, you talk about something that has super-sensitive hearing. That you cannot even walk on loose rocks on the gravel on the beach because they’re going to hear you. You cannot go on the outcrops and jump rock to rock because they’re going to hear you. You cannot stand out like you’re pointing out in the sky because they’re going to see you. And for [whales]… the noise of the boats is way more than what they’re used to and they’re very sensitive to that sound and they flee those kinds of situations and become less available with all the noise…

Knowledge holders in other communities also spoke about the potential for ship noise to impact wildlife, causing them to flee, abandon traditional habitats, and find new habitats. Arviat knowledge holders explained that already fewer sea mammals are found around the community than in the past, because of ships travelling through the area. They explained that sea mammals move away from ship noise and wake if they sense something is wrong or detect a bad odour. Knowledge holders from Arviat had also noticed an unfavourable change in how seal tastes, which they suggested could be due to the stress animals experience from fleeing marine vessels. They noted that when disturbed by noise and human activity, seals’ activity level and reproduction are negatively affected. Coral Harbour, Iqaluit, Resolute, Salluit, and Tuktoyaktuk knowledge holders spoke about how noise was much louder underwater for marine mammals, which may damage the hearing of mammals, causing migration and diet habits to change that can then go on to affect the entire food chain.

Knowledge holders in Pond Inlet spoke about already noticing a decrease in the number of animals such as seal and narwhal during the shipping (open water) season, as a result of an increase in the number of ships and sailboats using Eclipse Sound and other marine areas near the community. Similarly, Resolute knowledge holders spoke about how ships anchoring near their hunting areas were scaring away animals, which was impacting their ability to hunt: “we haven’t caught a narwhal now for how long? 3 or 4 years now, [because] we haven’t really seen any narwhals in our area. And we think that’s because of the increased shipping traffic”. Knowledge holders in Iqaluit explained that whales were impacted by the shipping traffic in Frobisher Bay. One knowledge holder mentioned that pleasure crafts and cruise ships have the most impacts on wildlife as those vessels travel into areas specifically to find and view northern wildlife.

Shipping-related risks were not only of concern for marine wildlife, knowledge holders also explained how shipping can affect terrestrial wildlife. Knowledge holders in Gjoa Haven explained that local Elders noticed that polar bears, grizzly bears, and wolves were changing their migratory routes and caribou their calving grounds due to noise and traffic from a mining exploration camp, thus were concerned that shipping noise and activity would have similar impacts. Cambridge Bay, Coral Harbour, Sachs Harbour, and Ulukhaktok knowledge holders also discussed the impacts of icebreaking on caribou migration. Ulukhaktok and Cambridge Bay knowledge holders described their concerns about ships going through the region during sea ice freeze up and break up and explained how this could impede caribou migration, which these communities depend upon for food. Cambridge Bay knowledge holders explained that every spring and fall caribou migrate across the sea ice between the mainland and Victoria Island, so if ships were to disturb the ice, it would disturb migration. While caribou can swim in open water, they cannot get out of the water and back onto sea ice; thus, they cannot safely cross open water or thin ice caused by a ship. Knowledge holders explained that caribou numbers are already declining making them more difficult to harvest successfully and impacts of shipping may exacerbate that decline. A knowledge holder in Ulukhaktok described that without access to caribou:

…we’re not going to have anything. We spend thousands of dollars to go way over here [gesturing far from town on the map] to hunt. To [cache] gas in the spring and then to go there in the summer, we spend lots of money and then we go there and then there is nothing at all because [caribou are] falling in the water in the ice…We will go there and come back with nothing. That’s the impact and then we have to try to rely on the stores, which is really expensive for me. That’s the livelihood for our Elders: the animals, that’s what they live on.

Paulatuk, Pond Inlet, Coral Harbour, Sachs Harbour, and Aklavik knowledge holders also spoke about the potential impacts of ice breaking on seal and polar bear reproduction. Seals give birth on land, sea ice including ice floes, or in shallow water. Polar bears dig dens in snow drifts on the sea ice or near the shore, spending months gestating, giving birth, and nursing their cubs. Ships transiting through the ice could destroy or flood seal birthing habitat and polar bear dens. This would decrease the likelihood of pup and cub survival and impede their ability to thrive, in turn negatively affecting seal and polar bear populations which exist in balance with one another and the food chain of which they are an important part, creating added challenges for harvesters.

Some knowledge holders shared that they had already noticed changes to wildlife migration patterns and use of traditional habitat locations due to climate change and changing ocean temperatures. Shipping adds yet another factor that challenges the ability of Inuit to apply their knowledge of wildlife migratory patterns and habitat locations that enables them to successfully hunt and harvest since the rate of change can result in the absence of knowledge about the new and changing conditions of wildlife behaviour. A knowledge holder in Iqaluit shared,

In terms of history we know traditional knowledge. We know traditionally where the whales went, and we know their routes and the way they used to come in [migrate] and that is the base from which we live. And we also know the basics that animals will flee [where] there’s human activity and ships coming in that they [the animals] stop going through those routes. And, in that uncertainty with the animals fleeing…that it’s expensive! That the expense of buying bullets, buying gas, stuff for your boat, that you want certainty. You don't want to go out and catch nothing. And now that the boats [ships] come in it creates all this uncertainty for hunters and we know traditionally those were the routes that the whales took.

A knowledge holder in Pond Inlet explained that the rapid pace of changes happening because of increased shipping has rendered local (traditional Inuit) knowledge, that has been passed on for generations, less applicable than in the past. The pace of change will challenge community members’ ability to gain the depth of understanding of environmental indicators and conditions, and wildlife behaviour and habitat that is needed to enable safe travel and successful harvesting. The knowledge holder expressed, “we’re always talking about how we need to keep traditional [knowledge] alive! But how can we keep it alive if our environment is changing so much that it doesn’t apply?”.

Discussion and conclusion

This research focused on presenting the cascading risks of shipping on harvesting activities throughout Inuit Nunangat. Knowledge holders articulated the need for ships to resupply their communities, to support the economy of the community, and to provide much needed spill prevention support and security. At the same time, the increasing number of ships travelling through the Arctic in Canada as a result of climate change and other economic and international interests clearly presents a challenge in ensuring that successful harvesting can continue. Knowledge holders in all communities highlighted three main consequences that shipping could have on harvesting: (1) marine ecosystem contamination and degradation ultimately resulting in inedible wildlife and plants; (2) disruption to harvesters’ travel and safety that could increase the dangers and costs associated with harvesting; and (3) interference and disturbance of wildlife that could decrease the efficacy of traditional local knowledge and thus the rate of harvest success. The findings of this research reflect the concerns raised by other Indigenous groups located in the Arctic. For example, Indigenous communities in the Bering Strait region of Alaska have raised their concerns about the impacts of marine vessel traffic noise, pollution, or other disturbance on animal behaviour and their ability to hunt and harvest (Raymond-Yakoubian 2018). In addition, the ICC report The Sea Ice Never Stops (2014) included concerns raised by Inuit across Inuit Nunaat (this area covers regions of Greenland, Canada, Alaska, USA and Chukotka, Russia) that increased shipping poses serious risks for the marine environment and for Inuit who rely on this environment for sustenance. ICC Alaska report Food Sovereignty and Self-governance (2014) highlights the need for shipping-related policies to incorporate Inuit knowledge and perspectives, and in their findings they show “participants stressed that having policies, regulations, and agreements that do not reflect Inuit ways of life and values, have drastic impacts on Inuit communities, animals, water, and on the entire ecosystem” (ICC Alaska, 2014, p. 25).

This research identified that the impacts and risks of increased shipping in local marine use areas in Inuit Nunangat are wide ranging and complex. Additional research is required to consider the perspectives of all communities located throughout Inuit Nunangat that are, or could be, impacted by shipping traffic and not just the 14 communities that participated in this study. Future research should also continue to examine the impacts that shipping could have on harvesting activities, culture, food security, health, and well-being and also to consider that there might be risks that are not yet known or documented. The importance of harvesting to Inuit communities is clear: Inuit livelihoods, health, and well-being depend on the ability to harvest successfully; thus, any impacts to harvesting opportunities can have significant negative consequences on Inuit communities (ITK 2016). There is a need for researchers and policy makers alike to consider and respond appropriately to the impacts that increased shipping could have on these harvesting activities in order to support the right of Inuit communities to continue these practices with minimal interference. For example, oil spills in the presence of sea ice increases the difficulty of spill clean-up operations (Wilkinson et al. 2017). Inuit already co-manage Inuit Nunangat through the creation of four land claim agreements made with the federal government (ITK 2016). These agreements assure Inuit legal rights to harvest in their region. Thus, there are not only moral imperatives to consider Inuit perspectives on the impacts of shipping on harvesting, there are also clear legal imperatives as set out in these four land claims agreements (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2005a; Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2005b; Nunavik 2017; Nunavut 1993).

Inuit and other Indigenous peoples in Canada have, for a long time, experienced the negative impacts of colonialism (CCA 2014). However, with the 2016 endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (UNDRIP 2007) (and anticipated implementation into Canadian law), the development of the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee in 2017 (Trudeau, 2017), and the development of organisations and frameworks to implement Inuit land claims agreements, there is a significant expectation that the Canadian federal government will work with Inuit and Inuit organisations to ensure that the development of Arctic shipping frameworks will take into account these potential risks to Inuit harvesting activities. The focus on Inuit Nunangat and the people residing there — by the Government of Canada, in the development of the Arctic and Northern Policy Framework (Government of Canada, 2019), including proposed initiatives such as the Low Impact Shipping Corridors management framework (Transport Canada 2017) — could facilitate the creation of successful shipping management approaches that respect Inuit rights. The proposed creation of these corridors provides some optimism that shipping policies in the Canadian Arctic could limit potential risks to Inuit harvesting and hunting from marine shipping (see Dawson et al. 2020a for more detail about Inuit recommendations regarding the development of the LISC). However, it is imperative that the efforts to create shipping management frameworks for Arctic Canada — not only includes the knowledge and perspectives of Inuit such as those presented in this study, but that those approaches ensure that Inuit rights, such as the ability to continue harvesting activities, are protected.