Editing IPCC:AR6/SROCC/Chapter-3 (section)

==== 3.5.2.2 Arctic Subsistence Systems ====

<div id="section-3-5-2-2arctic-subsistence-systems-block-1"></div>

Subsistence users have responded to climate change by adapting their wildfood production systems and engaging in the climate policy processes at multiple levels of governance. The limitations of many formal institutions, however, suggest that in order to achieve greater resilience of subsistence systems with climate change, transformations in governance are needed to provide greater power sharing, including more resources for engaging in climate change studies and regional-to-national policy making (see 3.2.4.1.1, 3.4.3.2.2, 3.4.3.3.1, 3.4.3.3.2, 3.4.3.3.3, 3.5.3).

Adaptation by subsistence users to climate change falls into several categories. In some cases harvesters are shifting the timing of harvesting and the selection of harvest areas due to changes in seasonality and access to traditional use areas (AMAP, 2017a <sup>[[#fn:r2000|2000]]</sup> ; AMAP, 2017b <sup>[[#fn:r2001|2001]]</sup> ; AMAP, 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r2002|2002]]</sup> ). Changes in the navigability of rivers (i.e., shallower) and more open (i.e., dangerous) seas have resulted in harvesters changing harvesting gear, such as shifting from propeller to jet-propelled boats or all-terrain vehicles, and to larger ocean-going vessels for traditional whaling (Brinkman et al., 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r2003|2003]]</sup> ). In many cases, using different gear results in an increase in fuel costs (e.g., jet boats are about 30% less efficient). Unsafe ice conditions have resulted in greater risks of travel on rivers and the ocean in the frozen months. In Savoonga, Alaska, whalers reported limitations in harvesting larger bowhead because of thin ice conditions that do not allow for safe haul outs, and as a result, community residents now anticipate a greater dependence on western Alaska’s reindeer as a source of meat in the future (Rosales and Chapman, 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r2004|2004]]</sup> ). Harvesters have also responded with switching of harvested species and in some cases doing without (AMAP, 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r2005|2005]]</sup> ). In many cases, adaption has allowed for continued provisioning of wildfoods in spite of climate change impacts (BurnSilver et al., 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r2006|2006]]</sup> ; AMAP, 2017a <sup>[[#fn:r2007|2007]]</sup> ; Fauchald et al., 2017b <sup>[[#fn:r2008|2008]]</sup> ) ( ''medium confidence'' ).

The impacts of climate change have also required adaptation to the non-harvesting aspects of wildfood production, such as an abandonment of traditional food storage and drying practices (e.g., ice cellars) and an increased use of household and community freezers (AMAP, 2017a <sup>[[#fn:r2009|2009]]</sup> ). In several cases there has been an increased emphasis on community self-reliance, such as use of household and community gardens for food production (Loring et al., 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r2010|2010]]</sup> ). In the future, agriculture may be more possible with improved conditions at the southern limit of the Arctic, and could supplement hunting and fishing (AMAP, 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r2011|2011]]</sup> ).

Climate change may in the future bring both new harvestable fish, birds, mammals and berry producing plants to the north, and reduced populations and or access to currently harvested species (AMAP, 2017a <sup>[[#fn:r2012|2012]]</sup> ; AMAP, 2017b <sup>[[#fn:r2013|2013]]</sup> ; AMAP, 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r2014|2014]]</sup> ). Adaptive co-management and stronger links of local-to-regional level management with national to international level agreements necessitate consideration for sustainable harvest of new resources, as well as securing sustainable harvest or even full protection of dwindling or otherwise vulnerable populations. In these cases, adaptive co-management could be an efficient tool to achieve consensus on population goals, including international cooperation and agreements regarding migratory species shared between more countries (Kocho-Schellenberg and Berkes, 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r2015|2015]]</sup> ) (Section 3.5.4.3).

While there has been involvement of subsistence users in monitoring and research on climate change (Section 3.5.4.1.1), resource management regimes that regulate harvesting are largely dictated by science-based paradigms that give limited legitimacy to the knowledge and suggested preferences of subsistence users (Section 3.5.4.2, Cross-Chapter Box 4 in Chapter 1).

The social costs and social learning associated with responding to climate change are often related. Involvement in adaptive co-management comes with high transaction costs (e.g., greater demands on overburdened indigenous leaders, added stress of communities living with limited resources) (Forbes et al., 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r2016|2016]]</sup> ). In some cases, co-management has given communities a greater voice in decision making, but when ineffective, these arrangements can perpetuate dominant paradigms of resource management (AMAP, 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r2017|2017]]</sup> ). The perceived risks of climate change can at the same time reinforce cultural identify and motivate greater political involvement, which in turn, gives indigenous leaders experience as agents of change in policy making. Penn et al. (2016) <sup>[[#fn:r2018|2018]]</sup> pointed to these conflicting forces, arguing the need for a greater focus on community capacity and cumulative effects.

Greater involvement of indigenous subsistence users in Canada occurs at the national and regional levels through the structures and provisions of indigenous settlement agreements (e.g., 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, 1984 Inuvialuit Final Agreement), fish and wildlife co-management agreements (e.g., Porcupine Caribou Management Agreement of 1986), and through various boundary organisations (e.g., CircumArctic Rangifer Monitoring and Assessment Network). Home rule in Greenland, established in 1979, gives the Naalakkersuisut (government of Greenland) authority on most domestic matters of governance.

Indigenous leaders are responding to the risks of climate change by engaging in political processes at multiple levels and through different venues. However, indigenous involvement in IPCC assessments remains limited (Ford et al., 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r2019|2019]]</sup> ). At the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the discursive space for incorporating perspectives of Indigenous peoples on climate change adaptation has expanded since 2010, which is reflected in texts and engagement with most activity areas (Ford et al., 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r2020|2020]]</sup> ) and by the establishment of the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform Facilitative Working Group in December 2018. Aleut International Association, Arctic Athabaskan Council, Gwich’in Council International, Inuit Circumpolar Council, Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, and the Saami Council, which sit as ‘Permanent Participants’ of the Arctic Council, are involved in many of its working groups and partake also at the political level (Section 3.5.3.2.1).

<div id="section-3-5-2-3arctic-reindeer-herding"></div>

<span id="arctic-reindeer-herding"></span>