Chapter 15: The Arctic

The Arctic and Sustainability

The Arctic is a large and diverse area. It is circumpolar, meaning it circles one of Earth’s poles; in this case, the North Pole. Some of the different ways that the Arctic is defined include :

• The Arctic Circle at 66° 33′ 44″ North, which is the southernmost latitude in the Northern Hemisphere where the sun can stay above or below the horizon for 24 hours.
• The 10°C July Isotherm, which is where the average temperature in July does not exceed 10°C.
• The Arctic Human Development Report Boundary includes the overlapping political and administrative entities in the Arctic.

Our focus is primarily on the Canadian Arctic, but this too is not easy to define. Canada’s Arctic and Northern Policy Framework was co-developed by the Government of Canada with Inuit, First Nations, Métis, territorial governments, the governments of Manitoba, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador who are all part of the region. As such, the framework “takes into account both the ‘Arctic’ and ‘Northern’ character of the region and those who live there” (Canada’s Arctic and Northern Policy Framework, 2019, p. 9). This region includes “the entirety of Inuit Nunangat—the Inuvialuit Settlement Region in the Northwest Territories, Labrador’s Nunatsiavut region, the territory of Nunavik in Quebec, and Nunavut—the Inuit homeland in Canada (Canada’s Arctic and Northern Policy Framework, 2019, p. 10). We have used the Arctic as a shorthand throughout the rest of the chapter to represent the Canadian Arctic and North; however, we recognize that this runs the risk of homogenizing the diverse peoples and cultures there.

The Arctic is a crucial region for sustainability thanks to its unique ecosystem, role in climate regulation, significance for Indigenous communities, and economic potential. The Arctic holds vast natural resources, rich biodiversity, and a fragile environment that requires careful leadership. Understanding the Arctic’s role in climate systems and its increasing vulnerability is essential for addressing global sustainability challenges. The Arctic is warming at nearly four times the global average, leading to unprecedented environmental and socio-economic consequences (Mead, 2022).

The Arctic plays a vital role in regulating the Earth’s climate. The region acts as a global cooling system, with ice and snow reflecting sunlight back into space. This effect helps moderate global temperatures, making Arctic sustainability essential for worldwide climate stability. If the Arctic is compromised, it could lead to increased climate change, rising sea levels, and disruptions in weather patterns. The loss of Arctic sea ice not only accelerates climate change but also threatens biodiversity and the traditional ways of life of Indigenous peoples.

Biodiversity in the Arctic is another reason for its importance in sustainability. The region is home to species uniquely adapted to its extreme conditions, such as polar bears, narwhals, and Arctic foxes. However, climate change and human activities threaten these ecosystems. Research shows that Arctic species are experiencing significant habitat loss due to rising temperatures and ice melt. For example, polar bears are spending up to a month longer on shore than their parents or grandparents did. That’s 30 days longer without access to food (Borenstein, 2024).

The Arctic is rich in natural resources, including oil, gas, and minerals. While these resources present economic opportunities, their extraction poses environmental risks. Sustainable development strategies must balance economic growth with environmental conservation. Canada has a responsibility to implement stringent environmental regulations to prevent habitat destruction and pollution in Arctic regions (Nguyen, 2020). The Arctic is home to many Indigenous communities whose traditional knowledge and sustainable practices have helped preserve the region for centuries. Respecting and integrating Indigenous knowledge into policy decisions is vital for Arctic sustainability.

The Arctic’s warming affects global food security. Changes in ocean temperatures and currents disrupt marine ecosystems, impacting fish populations that many nations, including Canada, depend on for food and economic stability. Extreme weather events linked to climate change can damage land suitability and reduce agricultural yields (Schmidhuber & Tubiello, 2007).

The socio-economic consequences of Arctic climate change extend beyond environmental damage. As the Arctic becomes more accessible due to ice loss, geopolitical tensions could rise over control of newly available resources and shipping routes. Canada must prepare for increased international competition in the Arctic while ensuring that development remains sustainable and does not exacerbate climate risks (Mead, 2022).

Facing Greater Climate Risks

Climate change is causing environmental impacts in the Arctic. One of the primary reasons the Arctic is more vulnerable to climate change is the albedo effect; as sea ice melts, darker ocean water is exposed, absorbing more heat and further accelerating ice loss. The result is a feedback loop that amplifies warming, contributing to rising sea levels and habitat destruction (Calma, 2024). Another major issue is the thawing of permafrost. Large portions of the Canadian Arctic are covered in permafrost, which stores significant amounts of carbon. As temperatures rise, permafrost melts, releasing greenhouse gases like methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, further exacerbating climate change. This process has the potential to accelerate climate change to dangerous levels if left unchecked. Melting glaciers and ice caps contribute directly to rising sea levels, which threaten coastal communities in Canada and around the world. The loss of Arctic ice disrupts ocean currents and weather patterns, leading to more extreme storms, heat waves, and droughts in other parts of the globe (Almonte, 2023; Borenstein, 2024). Canadian Arctic communities are particularly vulnerable, facing threats such as coastal erosion, infrastructure damage, and shifting migration patterns of key wildlife species. These challenges necessitate sustainable adaptation strategies, including improved infrastructure, renewable energy initiatives, and policies that prioritize Indigenous knowledge and climate resilience.

Indigenous Communities and Food Sovereignty

Worldwide, the Arctic is home to nearly 4 million people. Roughly 10 percent of the residents are Indigenous. Many Peoples are distinct to the Arctic, including the Inuit (Arctic Council, 2025). Throughout history, Indigenous communities in the Canadian Arctic have relied heavily on hunting, trapping, and fishing as primary sources of food. Traditional food harvest, preparation, preservation, and communal food security methods have been passed through generations. However, they are becoming increasingly vulnerable to environmental, societal, and economic pressures. As a result, Indigenous food security and the preservation of cultural heritage are in jeopardy. One analysis of 92 Indigenous communities between 2008 and 2018 found 48% of families were affected by food insecurity (Ahmed et al., 2024).

Why is Food Insecurity so Common?

There are several reasons why families living in the Arctic experience high levels of food insecurity, including the loss of traditional knowledge and the impact of climate change. Unfortunately, these factors interconnect in complex ways, making them difficult to address. For example, traditional vegetation and meat harvesting techniques, as well as food preservation methods such as drying and smoking (Douglas et al., 2014), have declined significantly in the 20th and 21st centuries (Lambden et al., 2006). Declining traditional skills and knowledge within Indigenous communities are significant contributors; however, other related factors also play a role. For example, a 2000 survey by the Centre for Indigenous Peoples’ Nutrition and Environment (CINE) found that more than 50% of Northern households lacked sufficient hunting or fishing gear to provide their families with nutritious food (Lambden et al., 2006).

Climate change, combined with other factors including resource development, is also having an impact. For example, rising temperatures are changing the migration patterns of many species, including those of the barren ground caribou (Rangifer tarandus) (Douglas et al., 2014). As warmer summers and winters become more common and the timing of seasonal patterns shifts, more severe droughts and late frosts damage vegetation, forcing caribou herds to deviate from their historical routes (Douglas et al., 2014). The impacts of resource development, such as mining exploration and development, have contributed significantly to population declines, including the Bathurst caribou herd (Parlee et al., 2018). Further, the extent and stability of sea ice are declining amid higher temperatures, leading to increased safety concerns and reduced hunting success (Malik et al., 2025). The implications of each change vary across communities, shaped by local geography, ecology, and cultural practices. Indigenous Knowledge, while confronting environmental patterns that differ from those previously known, also carries long-standing ways of understanding and responding to landscape change.

Food security is further complicated by increases in the number of elderly, single-parent households, and full-time labourers. These factors reduce the time and resources available for hunting, gathering, and growing local foods. In addition, reduced numbers of active hunters limit the resilience of community food networks that rely on household-to-household sharing (Collings et al., 2016). As a result, in the early 2000s, 55% of household income was spent on food (Collings et al., 2016). Sadly, high prices and the previously discussed changes in access to traditional food sources mean that most Northern households rely solely on market foods. Increased consumption of highly processed, calorically dense, nutrient-poor market foods is correlated with rising rates of obesity and diabetes (Collings et al., 2016).

A Systems Thinking Perspective

As we have seen, several factors contribute to high rates of food insecurity. Using a systems thinking perspective, we can see how these factors interact. Paying high prices for food, for example, leads to a lower ability to purchase equipment for hunting, fishing, and trapping, while also reducing the time available to learn traditional skills due to the need to work more hours to pay for the food you can access. Added to these challenges are historical legacies, including colonization. In addition to erasing traditional knowledge, colonization increased vulnerability through actions such as forcibly relocating traditionally mobile groups into fixed settlements. Many of them are located in areas at high risk due to climate change (Malik & Ford, 2025). Systems thinking can help us see how these different factors interact to create food insecurity as an emergent property.

Unfortunately, the sociocultural dimensions of traditional foods are often disregarded when it comes to considering food insecurity among Indigenous People in northern Canada (Trott & Mulrennan, 2024). Indigenous food security is often addressed through Western perspectives. This “approach is incongruent with the holistic nature and interconnectedness of Indigenous food systems, nor does it resonate with Indigenous concepts of community and individual wellbeing” (Trott & Mulrennan, 2024, p. 15 of 21). Loukes et al. (2021) suggest that the very term food security relies “on apolitical framings of food shortages” (p. 159) as simply relating to caloric deficiencies. They argue that “food sovereignty serves as a more appropriate framework to challenge the structural inequities that lead to limited access to food” (Loukes et al., 2021, p. 160). Centring Indigenous knowledge and frameworks can support reclaiming food sovereignty as a comprehensive and holistic concept. Systems thinking can support it, because the focus on relationship and interconnection “is in fact a very old, ancient, and wise way of thinking that has been protected and nurtured by Indigenous peoples despite cultural genocide and assimilationist policies” (Goodchild, 2022, p. 59).

The focus on Indigenous food sovereignty and the contributions to building resilient local food systems was supported by efforts of the Fort Albany First Nation during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic’s increased food insecurity led to the development of new initiatives and the continued support of existing ones. Centring Indigenous knowledge also contributed to overcoming food security challenges during the crisis. This example demonstrates the “need to support Indigenous food sovereignty and build resilient local food systems tailored to the unique needs of First Nations communities” (Ahmed et al., 2024, p. 1 of 13).

Another example examines how food security and Inuit well-being are linked through fish and seafood. Brockington (2025) examined how small-scale fisheries are seen by Elders and community leaders as culturally important. However, they face infrastructure barriers. Fundamental in the discussion is a shift from food security towards food sovereignty, such that policy and research are grounded in Inuit rights and leadership (Brockington, 2025). The cultural significance and benefits of Inuit food harvesting include nutritional, medicinal, mental health, cultural connection, and language (Carter et al., 2025), and are essential to Inuit culture, well-being, and food sovereignty.

Economic Impacts of a Changing Arctic Climate

The Arctic is going through big changes, affecting far more than just the ice and wildlife. As temperatures rise, permafrost is thawing, causing problems for infrastructure, shipping routes, and entire communities. Roads, buildings, and pipelines are collapsing because of unstable ground. At the same time, rising sea levels and stronger storms are flooding coastlines, forcing people to leave their homes. And as ice melts, new shipping routes are opening, bringing new risks, such as oil spills and international conflicts. These changes aren’t just affecting the Arctic; they’re having a ripple effect worldwide (Lee, 2023).

With the ice melting, new shipping routes are opening up, which seems like a big win for trade. Shorter shipping routes mean faster deliveries, but that advantage comes with many risks. Countries are fighting over control of these routes and the oil and minerals beneath the ice. Even though these shipping routes might seem like an economic opportunity, they’re also harming the environment and making the Arctic heat up even faster (Irfan, 2024).

One area that requires increased attention is the impact of climate change on Indigenous livelihoods and adaptation. Malik et al. (2025) found that monitoring environmental trends exclusively through data collection is insufficient. The impacts of environmental changes on community well-being, including food security, cultural practices, and economic activities, are essential to understanding Inuit resilience and experiences (Malik et al., 2025).

The Sustainable Development Goals and the Arctic

The sustainability of the Arctic is directly linked to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to climate action and sustainable communities, and as we already discussed food security which relates to SDG 2: Zero Hunger. As Canada navigates its role in Arctic governance, aligning policies with the SDGs can help ensure the region’s long-term stability and resilience. Arctic communities, primarily Indigenous populations, are on the frontlines of climate change. Rising temperatures, thawing permafrost, and coastal erosion threaten their infrastructure, food security, and cultural traditions. Addressing SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities requires investment in resilient housing, sustainable energy solutions, and community-driven adaptation strategies. Strengthening Indigenous governance and ensuring access to essential services, such as healthcare and education, is expected to enhance the sustainability of Arctic settlements. By integrating the SDGs into Arctic policy and research, Canada can take a leadership role in promoting sustainable development while preserving the Arctic’s unique ecological and cultural heritage. The Arctic’s future is a global concern, and the measures taken today will determine the resilience of this vital region for generations to come.

The Arctic’s vulnerability to climate change underscores the urgency of SDG 13: Climate Action, which calls for immediate and sustained efforts to combat climate change and its impacts. Canada must implement and advocate for policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, protect Arctic ecosystems, and support Indigenous-led climate initiatives. Investing in renewable energy sources for Arctic communities can significantly reduce reliance on fossil fuels, mitigating environmental damage while promoting energy security.

Expanding Your Knowledge

Indigenous People who have lived on this land since time immemorial possess incredible knowledge of it. Unfortunately, Western research practices have often dismissed Indigenous knowledge. Views about this knowledge are changing, but slowly (Petrove & Vlasova, 2021). Fortunately, we are witnessing a growth in the acceptance of Indigenous-led research and a two-eyed seeing approach, which uses both Indigenous and Western approaches.

Western science and Indigenous science are equally sophisticated despite their different approaches. Both can provide viable information to benefit the Arctic (Brooks & Renick, 2024). There is a lack of understanding of the impact of colonization on Indigenous communities and of their contributions to management practices (Buschman & Sudlovenick, 2022). Current management techniques still tend to follow a Western science framework, which is based on a worldview different from that of many Indigenous Knowledge systems. Western science classifies aspects of the world, such as rocks, as non-living. On the other hand, many Indigenous Knowledge systems view the world as fully animate; thus, what Western science views as resources are often understood as gifts in Indigenous Knowledge systems. It should also be noted that many Indigenous peoples actively integrate scientific research alongside their own knowledge systems, recognizing both the value and the limitations of Western science (Grenz, 2020; Kimmerer, 2015). One part of the solution is to obtain support and funding for Indigenous-led research to enhance reparation efforts (Buschman & Sudlovenick, 2022). This can support new opportunities for sustainability in the Arctic and globally.

Indigenous people’s strong connection to the land can help determine the key factors driving the changes seen today, especially in the Arctic (Langweider et al., 2023). Non-invasive management practices can reduce costs and address ethical concerns while maintaining the traditions and culture of Indigenous communities (Langweider et al., 2023).

Viewing the two sciences simultaneously while still maintaining separation allows for maintenance of respect and value (Brooks & Renick, 2024). As a result, new management practices can emerge to combat changing climate pressures. Etuaptmumk Two-Eyed Seeing, originated by Mi’kmaq Elder Albert Marshall, “refers to learning to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing, and from the other eye with the strengths of Western knowledges and ways of knowing, and to using both these eyes together, for the benefit of all (Bartlett et al., 2012, p. 335, italics in original). The Two-Eyed Seeing approach addresses the miscommunication between Western and Indigenous science management methods. An increase in Indigenous-led research reduces bias and power imbalances, allowing a more equal contribution to conservation efforts (Mercer et al., 2025). Consequently, Western and Indigenous views can be combined through respectful discussion, creating long-term partnerships. Ultimately, movement towards a two-eyed seeing can also overcome current limitations, nurture partnerships, and enhance reparation in the Arctic (Petrov & Vlasova, 2021).

References

Ahmed, F., Moriarity, R. J., Spence, N. D., Kataquapit, G., Sutherland, C., Charania, N. A., Tsuji, L. J. S., & Liberda, E. N. (2024). Adaptation in adversity: Innovative approaches to food security amidst COVID-19 in a remote First Nations community in Canada. BMC Public Health, 24(1), 3498. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-21052-0

Almonte, M. P. (2023, May 2). Vulnerability in the Arctic in the Context of Climate Change and Uncertainty. The Arctic Institute – Center for Circumpolar Security Studies. https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/vulnerability-arctic-context-climate-change-uncertainty/

Arctic Council. (2025). Arctic Peoples. Arctic Council. https://arctic-council.org/explore/topics/arctic-peoples/

Arctic Definitions | IACN. (n.d.). Retrieved February 26, 2026, from https://arcticiceland.is/arctic-region/arctic-definitions

Bartlett, C., Marshall, M., & Marshall, A. (2012). Two-Eyed Seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0086-8

Borenstein, S. (2024, September 24). In the gateway to the Arctic, fat, ice and polar bears are crucial. All three are in trouble. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/polar-bear-arctic-climate-change-whale-fat-938de0e1662eed4d01a747708b82e539

Brockington, M. (2025). Fishing for Sovereignty: Strengthening Food Security and Inuit Wellbeing through Fish and Seafood [Dissertation, University of Guelph]. https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/items/1cca73d0-0d1e-4cb1-b291-f720c5de0ea6

Brooks, J. J., & Renick, H. E. (2024). The benefits of Indigenous-led social science: A mindset for Arctic sustainability. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1599. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04127-6

Buschman, V. Q., & Sudlovenick, E. (2022). Indigenous-led conservation in the Arctic supports global conservation practices. Arctic Science, as-2022-0025. https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2022-0025

Calma, J. (2024, December 11). The tundra keeps burning and it’s transforming the Arctic. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2024/12/11/24318690/fire-arctic-report-card-carbon-climate-change

Canada. (n.d.). The Arctic Institute – Center for Circumpolar Security Studies. Retrieved February 26, 2026, from https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/country-backgrounders/canada/

Canada’s Arctic and northern policy framework. (2019). Government of Canada.

Carter, N. A., Van Luijk, N., Dawson, J., Parker, C., Grey, K., Provencher, J., Emiktaut, C., Simonee, N., Song, G., & Wesche, S. (2025). Niqivut (our food)—dimensions of Inuit country food harvesting and significance in Arctic Canada: Bountiful, seasonal, “soul food.” Arctic Science, 11, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2024-0007

Collings, P., Marten, M. G., Pearce, T., & Young, A. G. (2016). Country food sharing networks, household structure, and implications for understanding food insecurity in Arctic Canada. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 55(1), 30–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2015.1072812

Douglas, V., Chan, H. M., Wesche, S., Dickson, C., Kassi, N., Netro, L., & Williams, M. (2014). Reconciling Traditional Knowledge, Food Security, and Climate Change: Experience From Old Crow, YT, Canada. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 8(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2014.0007

Goodchild, M. (2022). Relational Systems Thinking: The Dibaajimowin (Story) of Re-Theorizing “Systems Thinking” and “Complexity Science.” Journal of Awareness-Based Systems Change, 2(1), 53–76. https://doi.org/10.47061/jabsc.v2i1.2027

Grenz, J. B. (2020). Healing the land by reclaiming an Indigenous ecology: A journey exploring the application of the Indigenous worldview to invasion biology and ecology [Dissertation, University of British Columbia]. http://hdl.handle.net/2429/76262

Irfan, U. (2024). The Arctic tundra is now emitting more carbon than it absorbs and driving climate change. Vox; Vox. https://www.vox.com/climate/390530/arctic-tundra-carbon-sink-emitter-climate-change

Kimmerer, R. W. (2015). Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Milkweed Editions.

Lambden, J., Receveur, O., Marshall, J., & Kuhnlein, H. (2006). Traditional and market food access in Arctic Canada is affected by economic factors. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 65(4), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v65i4.18117

Langwieder, A., Coxon, A., Louttit, N., Varty, S., Boulanger, F., Diamond, S., Lameboy, J., Jolly, A., Natawapineskum, G., Okimaw, D., & Humphries, M. M. (2023). Community-led non-invasive polar bear monitoring in the Eeyou Marine Region of James Bay, Canada: Insights on distribution and body condition during the ice-free season. FACETS, 8, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2022-0226

Lee, H. (2023). Infrastructure Challenges in the Alaskan Arctic | The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/infrastructure-challenges-alaskan-arctic

Loukes, K. A., Ferreira, C., Gaudet, J. C., & Robidoux, M. A. (2021). Can selling traditional food increase food sovereignty for First Nations in northwestern Ontario (Canada)? Food and Foodways, 29(2), 157–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/07409710.2021.1901385

Malik, I. H., & Ford, J. D. (2025). Understanding the Impacts of Arctic Climate Change Through the Lens of Political Ecology. WIREs Climate Change, 16(1), e927. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.927

Malik, I. H., Ford, J. D., Winters, I., Hunter, B., Flowers, N., Quincey, D., Flowers, K., Flowers, M., Coombs, D., Foltz-Vincent, C., Barrand, N. E., & Way, R. G. (2025). Monitoring climate change impacts, Indigenous livelihoods and adaptation: Perspectives from Inuit community of Hopedale, Nunatsiavut, Canada. Cambridge Prisms: Coastal Futures, 3, e10. https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2025.7

Mead, L. (2022). A Warming Arctic is a Warning for the World | International Institute for Sustainable Development. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/articles/deep-dive/arctic-warming

Mercer, L., Pokiak, D.-L., Whalen, D., Lim, M., & Mann, P. J. (2025). Empowering Indigenous-led contaminant monitoring through collaborative partnerships and two-way capacity sharing. Arctic Science, 11, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2023-0079

Nguyen, T. (2020). The Arctic: Environmental Issues [4]. Library of Parliament, Parliament of Canada. https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/202092E

Parlee, B. L., Sandlos, J., & Natcher, D. C. (2018). Undermining subsistence: Barren-ground caribou in a “tragedy of open access.” Science Advances, 4(2), e1701611. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1701611

Petrov, A. N., & Vlasova, T. (2021). Towards an Arctic Sustainability Monitoring Framework. Sustainability, 13(9), 4800. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094800

Schmidhuber, J., & Tubiello, F. N. (2007). Global food security under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(50), 19703–19708. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701976104

Trott, N., & Mulrennan, M. E. (2024). “Part of Who We Are…”: A Review of the Literature Addressing the Sociocultural Role of Traditional Foods in Food Security for Indigenous People in Northern Canada. Societies, 14(3), 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14030034