Inuit Circumpolar Council

BackgroundArctic residents can be exposed to a wide range of contaminants through consumption of traditional (country) foods (i.e. food from wild animals and plants that are hunted, caught or collected locally in the Arctic). Yet these foods provide excellent nutrition, promote social cohesion, meet some spiritual needs for connectedness to the land and water, reinforce cultural ties, are economically important and promote overall good health for many. The risk and benefit balance associated with the consumption of traditional Arctic foods is complicated to communicate and has been referred to as the “Arctic Dilemma”. This article gives an update on health risk communication in the Arctic region. It briefly summarizes some research on risk communication methodologies as well as approaches to an evaluation of the outcomes of risk communication initiatives. It provides information on specific initiatives in several Arctic countries, and particularly those that were directed at Indigenous populations. This article also summarizes some international versus local risk communication activities and the complexity of developing and delivering messages designed for different audiences. Finally, the potential application of social media for risk communication and a summary of “best practices” based on published literature and a survey of Inuit in a few Arctic countries are described.ConclusionSeveral of the risk communication initiatives portrayed in this article indicate that there is only limited awareness of the outcome of risk communication messages. In some cases, risk communication efforts appear to have been successful, at least when effectiveness is measured in an indirect way, for example, by lower contaminant levels. However, due to missing effectiveness evaluation studies, uncertainty remains as to whether a specific risk communication method was successful and could be clearly linked to behavioural changes that resulted in decreased contaminant exposure.

Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) offers ecological information and insight relevant to ecological management and research that cannot be obtained from other sources. Its use is hindered by difficulties of access, in that TEK is typically not available to a wide audience. Documentation can overcome this obstacle, allowing TEK to be considered with other forms of easily disseminated information. This paper describes the author's experience using the semi-directive interview to document TEK about beluga whales in Alaska. This method allows the participants as well as the researcher to guide the interview, so that associations made by the participant, and not just those anticipated by the researcher, are discussed. Using maps as the starting point for discussions with individuals or groups, the interviews covered expected topics, such as migration and feeding behavior, as well as unanticipated topics, such as the possible influence of beavers on beluga distribution. The primary research session was followed a year later by a review session to verify the accuracy of the draft report, add missing information, or remove information the publication of which might harm community interests. The author found the semi-directive interview to be an effective and powerful method for accurate and comprehensive documentation of TEK. It worked especially well in group interviews, which allowed participants to stimulate and validate each other.

The intent of this paper is to contribute to a larger discussion of the history of geographical thought and its consequences by gently drawing attention to the Arctic as a place where alternative visions of nature, home and horizon persist; by contrasting many of our unchallenged geographical assumptions with what might be the logical consequence had we started in a different place, under different conditions and with a different perspective. It is never easy to comprehend the perspective of another and it is unwise to presume that one has indeed done so. For this reason, while this paper explores the dichotomy between the geographic perspectives of the Arctic, particularly those of the Inuit who know it best, and those of the Western Europeans who have literally laid claim to the Arctic geography, it does not purport to be anthropological or ethnographical. Rather it is an attempt to sketch the intellectual landscapes implicit in the contrast between Inuit and European approaches to the Arctic.