1 Introduction

This milestone could potentially make headways in terms of effectively implementing the provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in the international maritime context. Other maritime Indigenous peoples around the world are expectant as to how this will play out, particularly as this recognition could have an impact on shared concerns, such as food security, cultural protection, and economic sustainable growth of coastal communities. Most important, the inclusion of ICC could be the first step in giving Indigenous peoples a voice in matters that affect them, but where they are not usually consulted.

For Inuit, the event is timely, as climatic changes are opening Arctic waters to an increasing number of ships, and as Inuit in Canada have been called to participate in the development of the Northern Low-Impact Shipping Corridors Initiative, a federal government initiative co-lead by the Canadian Coast Guard, Transport Canada and the Canadian Hydrographic Service, which seeks “to minimize potential effects of shipping on wildlife, respect culturally and ecologically sensitive areas, enhance marine navigation safety, and guide investments in the North.”³

Inuit communities and organizations are looking at the increase in Arctic shipping with mixed feelings, both as an opportunity of economic and social development and as the potential source of environmental, social and cultural threats. Detailed views of Inuit communities can be found in the excellent reports of the Arctic Corridors, a large research initiative led by Jackie Dawson at the University of Ottawa, that involves numerous researchers from communities, academia, and non-governmental organizations (NGO s).⁴ The engagement of Inuit in marine and maritime governance seems to be at a critical point, signaling some efforts from the Government of Canada to advance on issues of reconciliation, Indigenous engagement and Indigenous rights,⁵ and as environmental assessments become more comprehensive, including social and cultural factors.⁶

The connection of Inuit to the marine environment is well documented,⁷ but the implications of considering those marine areas as homelands are not sufficiently (if at all) considered in shipping debates and policies. Inuit connections to the sea are manifested at different levels, from local to regional and circumpolar. Studies of Inuit uses of the sea ice show how intimately the marine environment is known, and how it is used seasonally throughout the year. Inuit traditional trails (both sled and boat routes) illustrate interconnections among communities and intricate links between land and sea, to the point that landfast ice extends the land for several months of the year and allows for sled access to critical open water resources, mainly at the floe edge. Across the totality of the Inuit homeland, from Russia to Greenland, Inuit place names along the coasts reveal the depth of connection between humans and animals in the marine environment, as can be seen in Figure 2.1.

View Full Size

Selected place names between the communities of Arctic Bay and Pond Inlet, Nunavut, with a view from the north towards the south

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

The Figure 2.1 map shows well-established trails documented by Aporta in Arctic Bay, and place names documented by the Aporta and by Inuit Heritage Trust. The place names are reflective of Inuit communities’ close relationship with the environment: Salirraq is an old camping site, and refers to the straight shape of the shore; Sigguat is a camping place known for polar bear and walrus hunting; Aqiarurnak is a camping place known as a good spot for seal hunting, while Aqiarurnaup Tiriqqua (‘the corner of Aqiarurngnak’) is good for caribou hunting; Qakuqtaqtujut is a good camping place with white rocks; the camping site Aqiggilik is known as a good place for ptarmigans; Sinaasiurviup Kangiqqlua is a place where the ice is safe for travel, and good for narwhal hunting; at Sinaasiurvik Kitiqqliq the floe edge forms across the inlet in the spring, where seal and narwhal can be hunted.

For Inuit communities, who have established important relations with shipping since the beginning of European contact, the threats posed by an increase of shipping traffic are several, including oil spills, underwater sound, seasonal disturbances of marine life and sea ice, social impact of cruise tourism, and lack of infrastructure in case of a disaster. The potential benefits are fewer but relevant, and they all depend on a well-managed and participatory system of governance, regulations that prevent ships from damaging environmentally and culturally sensitive areas, implementation of clean shipping technologies, and the prospects of economic benefits for communities. The engagement of Inuit in arenas that rule maritime affairs has never been more important. Inuit organizations seem to be having a pragmatic approach: the increase in Arctic shipping seems inevitable, and the focus for Inuit is to preserve the sense of homeland while having a critical say on how shipping develops and on how it is governed and regulated.⁸

I, Claudio Aporta, contacted Monica Ell-Kanayuk, then President of ICC Canada, after I was invited to contribute a chapter to this volume, with the understanding that it would be co-written with an Inuit author. After discussing the contribution with her, I suggested that her views would be better expressed in the form of an interview, in order to leave Monica’s narrative unfiltered, and separate from my own perspectives as an Arctic researcher. This approach to documenting and portraying narratives in context has been extensively used in Indigenous knowledge research and Indigenous-led projects,⁹ and it is in line with methodological frameworks aiming at decolonizing research.¹⁰

The importance of the sea to Inuit is rooted in deep senses of local connection that include individual and collective memories, as well as current and ongoing marine related activities. The political positions of Inuit organizations about shipping, whether at the international, national, regional or local levels, are rooted in concrete community stories and memories.¹¹ The interview with Monica explores both personal and political connections with the marine environment, as well as the implications of shipping, and the impact of the new ICC status in IMO.

Monica has had an impactful political career representing communities and fighting for the rights and wellbeing of Inuit in several capacities. She was an MLA [Member of the Legislative Assembly] in Nunavut (2011–2013), and she served as Director of Programming for the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation. She is a former Director of Economic and Business Development at Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, the institution that ensures that the federal and territorial governments fulfill their obligations as established in the Nunavut Agreement. She has also served as President of the Nunavut Economic Forum, President of the Baffin Chamber of Commerce, Vice-President of the Atuqtuarvik Corporation and Vice-President of Pauktuutit, the national organization representing Inuit women.

Monica speaks from a place of genuine love for the Arctic, and from a place of knowledge that goes beyond personal experience with the land. What follows is not an official ICC position, but her views on the significance of the marine environment for Inuit, and of the challenges and opportunities that increasing shipping poses for Inuit.

The conversation was done virtually, with Monica in Iqaluit and myself in Halifax, in December 2021. As a starting point of the conversation, we discussed the maps of Inuit trails I have developed with Inuit communities over many years of research (Figure 2.2),¹² and which I shared on the screen as we talked. The trails interconnect communities across the Inuit homeland, making the different scales of Inuit identity (local, regional, pan-Arctic) clear. In Monica’s narrative, her memories of travel and childhood lead to the significance of marine areas and to a multidimensional articulation of Inuit positions on shipping.

View Full Size

Traditional Inuit trails around Killiniq, at the crossroads of Nunavut, Nunavik and Nunatsiavut

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

2 The Conversation

3 Concluding Discussion

What follows is not an interpretation of the conversation with Monica Ell-Kanayuk, but some reflections on the challenges and opportunities ahead regarding Arctic shipping activities and governance, inspired by her narrative.

From the conversation, as well as from several documents and public statements by ICC, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, and other Inuit organizations, it is evident that there is a strong voice from Inuit to make clear that the marine areas of the Canadian Arctic, including the shipping corridors, must be considered as part of the Inuit homeland. As Monica puts it: “There are many foreign actors in this space, shipping companies, investors, resource companies … and this is Inuit Nunangat … this is our homeland, we see our sovereignty over these waters.”

As such, Inuit are seeking to be engaged in decision-making and policies that affect or regulate shipping activities at different scales, from the local to the international.

The environmental concerns triggered by ongoing and projected increases in shipping traffic are well known, and they are not limited to the Arctic. But Arctic ecosystems are particularly sensitive to environmental damage, and Arctic communities (both for their geographic isolation and the lack of capacity to respond) are particularly vulnerable to shipping-related incidents.

Monica also makes clear a position that has been also brought up by other Inuit organizations and leaders: that Inuit are not against economic development, including shipping. The problem is in the balance between creating and promoting economic opportunities that are badly needed for communities, and the protection of the marine environment and resources that are essential for Inuit livelihoods and cultural identity. Industrial activity is welcomed, when it does not create undue pressures on the environment and the people (as in the extension of the shipping season through ice breaking in sensitive areas). The message is clear: fishing without overfishing; resource extraction without significant impacts on the ecosystem; tourism, as long as communities find a way to benefit from it. The complexity of making accurate risk assessments for projected activities makes local support regarding expansion or intensifying of industrial activities challenging.

In this sense, closer links of Inuit with shipping technology developers, research, and shipping industries in general can be key to envisioning a future of better economic prospects without increasing the risk of damage to the environment and communities.

The engagement of Inuit in matters that pertain to shipping in the Arctic is progressing, but the effectiveness of the engagement remains to be seen. Participation can mean different things to different people, and power differences can hinder participatory processes.¹⁸ In order to strengthen communities’ adaptive capacity and resilience in times of change, a process of social learning that is dynamic, fair and multifaceted is essential in governance, and the learning should include all actors involved.¹⁹

As Beveridge points out in this volume, there are clear and concreate ways through which the Government of Canada is engaging Inuit in marine and shipping matters. These processes are taking place in (and have been triggered by) several broad policy and legal milestones, such as the implementation of the Oceans Protection Plan,²⁰ the legal obligations resulting from land claims agreements, the follow-up policy directions resulting from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Final Report,²¹ and, finally, the implications of Canada’s adoption of UNDRIP.

However, as Monica points out, “I can talk about the regulations that come on the domestic areas, such as the Arctic Water Pollution Prevention Act, and the global regulations through the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. And the Polar Code. The regulations are in place to keep the Arctic safe, but there is so little monitoring or enforcement of them.” These challenges can only be significantly addressed if Inuit organizations and communities are involved from pre-implementation stages of governance and management.

The ICC’s recent inclusion in IMO is also encouraging, even when the status involves no direct decision-making power. As Monica says, “having our voices heard” is of crucial importance.

The challenges that remain are significant. To participate in national and international conversations, fora, etc., Indigenous organizations are given opportunities that are also heavy burdens. These include: (1) having to adapt their knowledge to the frameworks, language, ontologies and tools that are prevailing in Western governance and management; (2) having limited resources and people to undertake research and participate meaningfully in discussions and decision-making; (3) having to constantly prove the value of their knowledge and skills to others; and (4) limited capacity to deal with different dimensions of governance/management initiatives (research, legal, technical, etc.).

Links with academia can produce opportunities to tackle those challenges. Dawson and Song (this volume) describe how partnerships between Indigenous communities and organizations, universities, and NGO s can produce significant results. But even when efforts are placed in capacity-building, Indigenous organizations remain quite dependent on external actors and funding, and it remains a fact that communities are generally skeptic of researchers (a result of historical injustices perpetrated in the name of science, as Beveridge describes in this volume). Furthermore, there is often a challenge in synching the rhythm and time frame of a research project with the concrete, time-sensitive and ongoing needs of Indigenous organizations and communities, who often need to rely on external consultants. From Dawson’s project (as well as others), it seems crucial that good partnerships are based on trust, include bottom-up design and governance structures, and are carried out by interdisciplinary teams to tackle the interconnectedness of issues involved in real life situations.

As mentioned above, one area that remains underdeveloped and unexplored is the strengthening of links between Indigenous groups and engineering, technology developers, and industry. One of the reasons for this could perhaps be the misconception that Inuit are naturally opposed to economic development initiatives. In the case of shipping, a key area of intersection between the shipping industry, regulators, technology developers and communities is the mandate to develop cleaner fuels, engines and ships to reduce greenhouse emissions in support of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 13.²²

There are examples in the Canadian Arctic of technological developments that took into account the input of those that would be most affected by their operations, and the results of such collaborations are often remarkable.²³

Finally, one of the most important takeaways from Monica’s narrative is the idea that the ultimate goal for Inuit is to increase agency over their lives and homelands. Sovereignty may have different meanings, levels, and dimensions, but it ultimately is linked to the right to exercise power over events and decisions that affect one’s life and territories. ‘To be heard’ is by no means an end in itself, but a means towards a much deeper and longer goal. Tangible improvements are connected to an increase of power for those who do not have it, and ultimately to an increase of local and organizational capacity. In other words, intensification of shipping (and of other industrial activities) may be welcomed in the Arctic, if the risks are minimized and if they result in effective improvements of living conditions and opportunities. If those goals are not clearly established and if clear paths for their achievement are not laid out, new developments will likely be resisted by Inuit. Participatory governance approaches that involve Inuit from the start (from the planning phase) are critical for defining sustainable and empowering projects.

With the advances of UNDRIP, the Oceans Protection Plan and the process of reconciliation in Canada, the opportunities for positive changes are real, but clear partnerships where Inuit voices are really taken into account are key for the outcome of future developments. As Monica sums up: “It’s all a balance in nature and in our way of life.”