Local Food Production - Addressing Food Security in Canada’s North

Local Food Production: Addressing Food Security in Canada’s NorthState of Research

Nicholas Girard: 5935777

Presented to Professor Brian Ray As per required by GEG 5109

Places and Social Transformation

December 18th 2015University of Ottawa

Department of Geography

1 | P a g e

Table of Contents

1.0 Background..................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Purpose of this document.......................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Research Proposal – Master’s thesis.....................................................................................................4

2.0 What is the current state-of research on community food production in addressing food security?.................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Commercialization of traditional foods...............................................................................................5

2.2 Challenges......................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2.1 Regulatory requirements...................................................................................................................6

2.2.3 Social acceptability............................................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Northern community greenhouses........................................................................................................7

2.4 Challenges......................................................................................................................................................... 9

2.4.1 Resources.................................................................................................................................................. 9

2.4.2 Communities............................................................................................................................................9

2.4.3 Marketing.................................................................................................................................................. 9

2.4.4 Economics.............................................................................................................................................. 10

3.0 Community food production – Theoretical approaches & concepts.........................10

3.1 Local food movement (concept)...........................................................................................................10

3.2 Community capacity building (concept)..........................................................................................11

3.3 Community-based participatory research / action research approach.............................11

3.3.1 Case Study – community greenhouse in Kuujjuaq (Nunavik)........................................12

3.4 Methodological issues of CBPR & solutions....................................................................................13

3.4.1 Outsider issue selection...................................................................................................................13

4.4.2 Scientific quality of research.........................................................................................................13

4.4.3 Insider-Outsider tension................................................................................................................. 13

4.4.4 Proving intervention success........................................................................................................14

4.4.5 Time demands......................................................................................................................................14

5.0 Closing remarks........................................................................................................................... 15

6.0 Bibliography................................................................................................................................. 16

2 | P a g e

1.0 Background

Food insecurity presents a serious and growing problematic in Canada’s northern and

aboriginal communities. The Council of Canadian Academies (CCA, 2014) assessed the state

of knowledge on aboriginal food security in Canada’s North and concluded that food

insecurity will have long-term implications for the health and well-being of aboriginal

northerners. Likewise, the Inuit Health Survey conducted during the International Polar

Year (2007-2008) assessed the prevalence of food insecurity in Arctic Inuit households,

identifies 62.6 percent of households as moderately food insecure, and 27.2 percent as food

insecure (Huet et al., 2012). Research conducted by the Arctic Council’s Arctic Monitoring

and Assessment Program (2009), outlined key factors impacting food security, including:

Poverty and unemployment; Climate change; Land access to practice subsistence activities; Extent to which food sharing networks are in place; Costs; and Availability and quality of store-purchased foods and country foods.

Access to nutritious food is fundamental to a healthy lifestyle. Food security can impact a

number of health-related issues such as obesity and diabetes, as well as mental and

spiritual health if barriers prevent the practice of traditional activities (Kuhnlein et al.,

2004; Guyot et al., 2006; Furgal & Seguin, 2006; Lambden et al., 2007; CCA, 2014).

According to the CCA (2014), food security research can be classified under the following

themes:

Healthy food affordability & availability

Health & education Community wellbeing &

knowledge sharing Harvester support & wildlife

management

Poverty reduction & community economic development

Local food production & infrastructure innovation

Youth engagement

3 | P a g e

Because food systems are inherently complex and food security is experienced differently

among, individuals, households, community, and regions, it is understood that strategies to

research and mitigate food insecurity must be equally diverse and holistic (Wesche, 2015).

1.1 Purpose of this document In understanding that strategies to mitigate food security are equally complex as they

are diverse, the aim of this document is to synthesis and focus on one segment of food

security research: local food production. The following research questions will guide this

state of research process:

What is the current state-of research on community food production in addressing

food security?

What are challenges associated with commercializing country foods and northern

greenhouses?

What theoretical concepts are used in community-based food production initiatives?

What are some challenges with Community-Based Participatory Research? How can

they be overcome?

This document will also provide the research foundation needed for my research proposal,

thesis preparation and statement, and will supplement the fieldwork component of my

research.

1.2 Research Proposal – Master’s thesisThere is a clear need to address some of the more indirect factors affecting food

security in northern Canada, to evaluate initiatives already in place and to share best

practices at both a community and regional scale (Wesche, 2015). My research inserts itself

in a broader initiative by the University of Ottawa in collaboration with the Inuvialuit

Regional Corporation to research, design, and implement a number of food security

initiatives in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (NWT). More specifically, key objectives

include (Wesche, 2015):

Work with partners to identify and prioritize viable community-based projects to

support food security;

Support practices pertaining to country food procurement;

4 | P a g e

Develop and implement user-friendly assessment tools for evaluating food;

security status and program effectiveness; and

Disseminate best practices across and beyond the Inuvialuit Settlement Region.

2.0 What is the current state-of research on community food

production in addressing food security?

The following section will explore the current state-of-research on local food

production and infrastructure in Canada’s North. Specifically, this review will focus on

access to traditional foods and developing northern greenhouses.

2.1 Commercialization of traditional foodsThere is an increased understanding that country food plays a critical role from a

physical and mental health perspective. Lambden et al., (2007) argue that traditional foods

are healthy and nutritious, inexpensive, socially and culturally beneficial, and contribute to

sustainable, self-reliant communities. However, there is concern that country foods are

playing less of a role in the contemporary diet of northerners (Huet et al., 2012). The

literature points towards a loss of traditional knowledge, high costs of harvesting

equipment, changing food preferences, rapid population growth, and changing climate

conditions as factors affecting the availability and quality of country foods (CCA, 2014). It is

argued that commercialization of country foods could increase the accessibility of country

foods (CCA, 2014). Research by Petrasek MacDonald et al. (2014) examined the feasibility

of developing and promoting country foods markets in Nunavut based on a comparative

study of Greenland’s open air traditional food markets.

Kalaaliminerniarfiit, or open-air food markets, have been operating in Greenland for 150

years (Minogue, 2005). They are found in most communities, and prices are set by the

association of hunters and fishers. Once the food is processed, country food is shipped to

Nuuk for distribution throughout Greenland. Their system of producing, distributing, and

exchanging country foods at local markets is intended to promote sustainable community

development (CCA, 2014). By encouraging this exchange system, Greenland’s government

reduces the need for imports, promotes indigenous hunting and traditional practices, and

encourages the consumption of nutritious and culturally-valued foods (Marquardt &

5 | P a g e

Caulfield, 1996). Several aspects of the Greenlandic model may have merit in the Canadian

context. Commercial access to country food was identified as a key area of focus at the

2013 Nunavut Food Security Symposium (NFSS). In particular, participants were interested

in the following outcomes (NFSS, 2013):

improving community-based infrastructure to provide hunters with places to store,

prepare, exchange, and market their product;

Exploring compensation options for hunters providing food for the community; and

Clarifying inspection requirements to make country food available in local stores at

competitive prices.

In Canada, Iqaluit’s country food market (Project Nunavut, 2013) and Yellowknife’s

farmer’s market (Francoeur, 2013) represent two initiatives that are promoting locally-

produced food directly to consumers in the community (CCA, 2014).

2.2 Challenges 2.2.1 Regulatory requirements

The commercialization of country foods in Canada’s North is limited by a number of

factors, some international and others domestic. At the international level, various

regulations in place have limited the sale of country foods. For example, the Migratory

Birds Act prohibits any sale of migratory birds (Gombay, 2004). The ban of seal products

by the European Union in the 1980s also crippled the northern economy, effectively

shutting down the commercial seal harvest (Wenzel, 1991). Commercial whaling is also

restricted by the International Whaling Commission, which only permits subsistence

hunting of whale by aboriginal peoples (International Whaling Commission, 2004).

Domestically, other regulations have affected the sale of country foods. For instance, the

James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (1975) stipulates in Section 24, with the

exception of commercial fisheries, non-Inuit are prohibited from buying or selling country

foods (Gombay, 2004). Gombay (2004) also argues that In Nunavik (Quebec), the sale of

country foods is prohibited outside the territory, or within the territory to non-

beneficiaries (i.e. non-Inuit) unless they meet provincial federal (or if they export outside

of Canada) international regulations governing the standards for slaughter and processing.

6 | P a g e

Respecting all these requirements in the North is challenging, where the infrastructure is

lacking, and the training that people require in food safety is limited.

2.2.3 Social acceptability

Among the Inuit peoples of Canada, country food continues to be circulated based on the

principles of sharing that is a pillar of the vernacular economy. It was only in the recent

move into settled communities that the Inuit become deeply connected into the market

economy (Gombay, 2004). According to Gombay (2004) Inuit are taught to share food

among others, rather than sell it to them. The sale of country foods is judged to be immoral

and many are against this practice. She argues that the end result leads to only a small

proportion of the total production of country foods in Nunavik is commercialized. Chabot

(2011) calculated that in 1995, 85 percent of the total consumption of country foods in

Nunavik stayed within vernacular economy.

Hunter Support Programs (HTP) are seen as a form of commoditization of country foods

that is generally accepted by the Inuit people. In practice, municipalities through the HSP,

compensate hunters who are not otherwise employed to supply the community with

country foods. During certain periods, when access to meat is limited, the HSP meat may be

reserved for community members who might otherwise have difficulty accessing country

foods such as the elderly or single mothers. Therefore while the meat is paid for and does

have monetary value, it is not bought by people. The HSP thus presents a hybrid solution—

part sharing, part commodity—since it is not sold to a broader market, nor a true reflection

of the core principles of sharing and reciprocity of the Inuit (Gombay, 2004).

2.3 Northern community greenhouses High costs of importing food into northern communities due to remoteness,

accessibility, and sparseness of the population are a major barrier to food security (Chan et

al., 2006; Willows, 2005). Healthy food alternatives such as fruits and vegetables in remote

northern communities are often five times more expensive that of urban centers, and when

available, are often poorer quality (Exner-Pirot, 2012). While increasing local food

production might facilitate better access to fresh produce, most northern communities

experience conditions unfit for growing conditions. Given this and a number of other

7 | P a g e

logistical issues, year-round local food production has traditionally been viewed as

unfeasible (Exner-Pirot, 2013).

In response to the lack of accessible fresh produce, several communities in Canada’s North

have developed greenhouse projects over the last decade (Avard, 2013) as a means to

promote local food self-reliance, gain access to healthier foods, and empower community-

building (Mahr et al., 2010). The most prominent among these are the Iqaluit Community

Greenhouse and the Inuvik Community Greenhouse. Other examples of greenhouse

projects include the following (Avard, 2013):

Small commercial operation in the community of Narsaq (Greenland);

Community greenhouse in Little Salmon, Carmacks First Nation (Yukon);

Greenhouse research activities in Whapmagoostui-Kuujjuarapik (Nunavik), on

Devon Island (Nunavut), and in Qaqortoq (Greenland); and

A series of small commercial greenhouse operations of varying sizes in Finland,

Island, and Alaska (USA).

Benefits of a community greenhouse include (Exner-Pirot, 2013):

Living science lab; innovative way to promote youth engagement

(school curriculum)

Improve food security/self-reliance over food sources

Improved health by consuming fresh produce

Opportunity for volunteerism; contributing the individual and community wellbeing

Develop work and life skills through caring of growing and harvesting a crop

There is currently no single, economically viable greenhouse producing food on a

commercial scale in Canada’s North (Exner-Pirot, 2012). Recent research by Agriteam

Canada Consulting Ltd (2013) examined the sustainability of commercial northern

greenhouse production in Canada, including design components, technologies, marketing,

and cost-benefit considerations as a way to spur economic development opportunities in

the north and strengthen food security in remote northern communities (CPC, 2014).

8 | P a g e

2.4 Challenges The following challenges were associated with commercial application of

greenhouses in northern communities (Agriteam Canada Consulting Ltd., 2013; Exner-

Pirot, 2013):

2.4.1 Resources

Human resources are a key barrier to northern greenhouse development. It is important

that communities and/or entrepreneurs establish a greenhouse with a level of complexity

based on the level of available skill and experience in communities. Low-technology

greenhouse systems can be operated by an operated by an experienced gardener, however;

large-scale operations with commercial technologies would require a combination of

appropriate education and industry knowledge.

2.4.2 Communities The interaction between the community and desired outcomes for a greenhouse venture

will be a determining factor for the success of a commercial operation. Based on

community consultation conducted in several studies (Agriteam Canada Consulting Ltd.,

2013; Avard, 2013) three main themes were identified in the communities’ desired

outcomes for greenhouse development:

1. Improve health, wellbeing and diet;

2. Increased affordability, availability, and quality of foods and food security; and

3. Increase community independence and self-sufficiency.

Profitability was not the primary objective in any of the communities studied. Break-even

models that also meet other community objectives, including employment, were the norm

identified by Agriteam Canada Consultation Ltd (2013). They concluded that communities

that seek limited profitability may need to consider non-commercial options for

greenhouse since it is less likely that a commercial greenhouse will success if profitability is

not the dominant objective.

2.4.3 Marketing

Pockets of small, isolated communities in the north, will put limits on market demands and

scalability for individual greenhouses. This will limit the viability of modern large-scale

9 | P a g e

greenhouses from achieving significant economies of scale in many cases. Even for the

largest population centers in the north, populations are relatively dispersed compared to

similar areas in Europe at northern latitudes with greenhouse industries (Agriteam Canada

Consultation Ltd., 2013).

2.4.4 Economics

It is important to consider a range of factors when evaluating the economic viability of a

commercial northern greenhouse. Agriteam Canada Consultation Ltd (2013) identified the

following inputs that need to be considered:

A range of different technologies (gutter-connected greenhouses, Chinese solar

greenhouse, high-tunnel, as well as stand-alone) ranging from low-cost, low-tech to

higher cost and higher-tech greenhouses.

The return on scaled based greenhouse size for both small and large market

opportunities.

Return on investment from year-round versus seasonal production

Energy costs and heating are critical elements in the economic viability of a northern

greenhouse venture. The challenge for an individual greenhouse will be to negotiate

between capital costs and reduced operating costs of heating systems that provide greater

energy efficiency and energy use.

3.0 Community food production – Theoretical approaches & concepts

Northern regions are addressing food security in various ways, with theoretical

approaches ranging from holistic strategies to a series of specific community-based

programs and policies. This segment will focus on theoretical approaches and concepts

associated with local food production.

3.1 Local food movement (concept) The local food movement is a social phenomenon that is gaining more traction

worldwide each year (Avard, 2013). At the root of this movement are the concepts referred

to as either Community-based Food Systems or Local Food Systems (LFS). Together, these

10 | P a g e

concepts are understood to be collaborative initiatives to build locally-based food systems

and economies (Peters, 1997). As well, when local agriculture and food production become

incorporated into a community vision, food becomes a motor for problem solving and

capacity building rather than just a commodity that is bought and sold (Heller, 2005).

Avard (2013) argues that for those living in the north, the concept of local food has always

been part of the Inuit way of life. Traditionally, Inuit have always practiced what is

essentially a local food system: food harvested from the land (Avard, 2013). It is only

within the last few decades that food imported from the south plays a larger role in the

northern diet (Ford et al., 2012). Given that LFS share many similarities to indigenous food

systems, they mesh well with traditional Inuit ways of creating food. Within this cultural

framework, a new mode of producing local foods (northern horticulture) is seen as a

sustainable way to address food insecurity concerns, in tandem with indigenous traditional

practices (Avard, 2013).

3.2 Community capacity building (concept) Community Capacity Building (CCB) is a process whereby local stakeholders add

value to the community. It is about strengthening the adaptive capacity of communities to

meet and respond to their own challenges and opportunities (DITRD, 2012). In a document

produced for the Arctic Council Sustainable Development Working Group, Gregorich sates

that: “Capacity building is making sure that individual, communities, businesses, industries,

institutions, governments, and other organisations, have the information, knowledge, and

skills they need to solve today’s problems and adapt to change in a way that protects

resources for future generations” (2004, p. 44). Absence of capacity is reflected in the

people, economy, environment, culture, attitudes and appearance of the community (Flo &

Smith, 1999). Community food production initiatives such as open-air traditional food

markets and greenhouses are initiatives aimed at addressing food security by building local

capacity and self-reliance.

3.3 Community-based participatory research / action research approach Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has emerged over the last several

decades as an alternative research paradigm that combines education and social action

(Wallerstein & Duran 2006). CBPR approaches differ from others in the way that they

11 | P a g e

attempt to incorporate active community engagement in all aspects of the research

(Figure 1), draw on their knowledge and expertise, share decision-making responsibilities,

and build community capacity (Minkler & Wallerstein, 2003). CBPR is based on inclusivity

and collaboration, tends to stem from the social and cultural norms of a community, and

reflects the community’s needs and wants (LaVeaux & Christopher, 2009).

Figure 1 – Community-based participatory research framework. Community members are actively engaged in all aspects of the research process (adapted from Israel et al., 1988).

3.3.1 Case Study – community greenhouse in Kuujjuaq (Nunavik) Avard (2012) participated and documented the development of a greenhouse pilot

project in Kuujjuaq, Nunavik. Her research was based on the CBPR approach and aimed to

develop a community-based northern agricultural model that addressed food security and

social challenges in arctic communities. The underlying hypothesis of her research was that

a greenhouse based local food system in Nunavik could be sustainable, contribute to

community capacity building, grounded in Inuit traditional practices, and developed in a

way that is responsive to present and future needs of Inuit communities. Her study results

show that certain aspects of the food security issues experienced in northern communities

12 | P a g e

Identify food security concern

Study design

Community member

recruitement

Develop measuring

instruments

Intervention design

Data collection, analysis &

interpretation

Desseminate results to

community

could be comprehensively addressed by the development of a new type of local food

system in the north—a system centered around locally owned and managed greenhouses.

Avard (2012) concludes that greenhouses and other forms of local food production are

initiatives where community capacity can be strengthened and by working within the CBPR

framework, local greenhouse projects can become places where stakeholders work

together towards addressing food security in Canada’s North.

3.4 Methodological issues of CBPR & solutions Engaging in community-based food security research with diverse peoples can

enrich both the quality and the outcomes of the study. At the same time, it is important to

understand the ethical and related challenges associated with CBPR (Minkler, 2005),

several of which are now highlighted:

3.4.1 Outsider issue selection One of the main tenets of CBPR is a commitment to ensuring that the research topic comes

from the community, therefore; outside researches must pay critical attention to

community understandings of what the issue or topic of concern is. In some cases, the

community may be divided over an issue. In such situations, outside researchers can play a

facilitator role in helping community partners sort through the pros and cons of

undertaking a project to begin with (Minkler, 2005). Hosting community meetings and

other forums are effective solutions in helping achieve consensus on an issue that is truly

directed by the needs and desires of the community (Kelly, 1987).

4.4.2 Scientific quality of research

Community-based research is often challenges by questions regarding its validity,

reliability, reproducibility, and objectivity; principles of the scientific method. This makes it

challenging to convince academic colleagues, potential partners, and funders of the value

and quality of collaborative research (Israel et al., 1998).

4.4.3 Insider-Outsider tension One major example of insider-outsider tension involves the diverging reward structures for

partners in CBPR. Even if a major aim of such research is to strengthen community capacity

building, the outside researcher typically stands to gain most from such collaboration,

pocketing grants, getting new publications, peer recognition, etc. (Minkler, 2005). To

13 | P a g e

address insider-outsider tensions and other issues in working with indigenous

communities, researchers in Canada have developed ethical guidelines (see Stuart, 1998)

for conducting collaborative research. Including protocols that address (Minkler, 2005):

Negotiating with community political and spiritual leaders to obtain their input

and consent for the proposed project;

Ensuring equitable benefits for project participants, including appropriate

training and hiring of community members in exchange for their contributions

and resources; and

Develop an agreement over the ownership and publication of findings, and the

dissemination of research to community members.

4.4.4 Proving intervention success The success of a particular intervention in a community-based research effort may be

challenging to single out. For instance, such studies are often conducted in communities

with concurrent initiatives already in place, and it is difficult to pinpoint causality of the

particular intervention being evaluated (Israel et al., 1988). It is important to develop

desired outcomes prior to the intervention and evaluate if those measures were achieved

following the implementation of the intervention.

4.4.5 Time demands The active participation of all community members in the research process demands a

significant level of time investment from all participants (Israel et al., 1988). Building

mutual collaboration, reciprocal trust, and understanding necessitates time to develop.

Israel et al. (1988) argue that researchers must also prepare comprehensive feedback

sessions/reports in a timely manner. They also argue that analysis of data and preparation

of feedback is a lengthy process that often creates frustrations among partners.

14 | P a g e

5.0 Closing remarks

Issues surrounding poverty and environmental disposition underlie the inherent

complexity of food security for indigenous peoples in Canada’s North. Improving food

security will require culturally appropriate, grassroots, and bottom-up actions that address

local needs, along with regional strategies to create effective policies and programs

(CCA, 2014). This document has reviewed and assessed the state of knowledge of

community-driven food production to address one segment of food security.

The literature indicates that the commercialization of country foods may improve access to

healthy and nutritious, inexpensive, socially and culturally beneficial foods (Lambden et al.,

2007), however; regulatory requirements as well as the social acceptability with the

practice of selling foods are challenges associated with this alternative. Greenhouse

projects on the other hand, have also surfaced over the last decade as a way to promote

local food self-reliance, gain access to healthier foods, and empower community-building

(Mahr et al., 2010). Agriteam Canada Consulting LTD (2013) notes the following challenges

in the successful development of a sustainable northern greenhouse:

The skills and experience required to successfully operate a commercial greenhouse

in Canada’s North;

Governance issues in First Nation communities;

Achieving scalability and/or productive levels; and

Energy costs and usage which are magnified in northern greenhouses given heating

requirements in the cold and dark winter in northern latitudes.

We saw that Community-Based Participatory Research is a process whereby local

stakeholders add value to the community. It is about strengthening the adaptive capacity of

communities to meet and respond to their own challenges and opportunities (DITRD,

2012), and it is particularly well-suited when working collaboratively with communities.

We also identified some challenges associated with this research approach, as well as some

solutions to overcome them.

15 | P a g e

6.0 Bibliography Agriteam Canada Consulting LTD. (2013).Understanding Sustainable Northern

Development Technologies for Creative Economic Development Opportunities and Supporting Food Security. Calgary, Alberta. Retrieved from http://en.indigenoushealth-santeindigene.ca/images/Agriteam_Report_1.pdf

Allard, Michel, and Lemay, Mickëal. 2012. Nunavik and Nunatsiavut: From Science to Policy : An Integrated Regional Impact Study (IRIS) of Climate Change and Modernization. Université Laval, ArcticNet Incorporated.

Avard, E. (2013). The Kuujjuaq Greenhouse Project: Developing a New Type of Northern Food System. Inditerra: Revue Internationale Sur l’Autochtonie, (5), 38–51. Retrieved from http://www.reseaudialog.qc.ca/Docs/04INDITERRA052013AVARD.pdf

Canadian Council of Academies (CCA). (2014). Aboriginal Food Security in Northern Canada: An Assessment of the State of Knowledge. Expert Panel on the State Knowledge. Expert Panel on the State of Knowledge of Food Security in Northern Canada. Retrieved from http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications%20and%20news%20releases/food%20security/foodsecurity_fullreporten.pdf

Canadian Polar Commission (CPC). (2014, March 31). Food Security in the Canadian North: Recent Advances and Remaining Knowledge Gaps and Research Opportunities. Retrieved from http://www.polarcom.gc.ca/sites/default/files/food_security_summary.pdf

Chabot, M. (2011) De la production domestique au marché: l’économie contemporaire des familles Inuit du Nunavik. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Sociology, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec.

Chan, H., Fediuk, K., Hamilton, S., Rostas, L., Caughey, A., Kuhnlein, H., Egeland, G., & Loring, E. (2006). Food security in Nunavut, Canada: barriers and recommendations. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 65(5). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v65i5.18132

Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development (DITRD). (2012). Community Capacity Building. Retrieved from http://www.btcrd.gov.nl.ca/regionaldev/capacitybuilding.html

Exner-Pirot, H. (2012, May 31). Greenhouses can help food security in Canada’s vulnerable North [Opinion]. Retrieved December 9, 2015, from http://www.farmnwt.com/content/greenhouses-can-help-food-security-canadas-

16 | P a g e

vulnerable-north

Exner-Pirot, H. (2013).Guideline for Establishing a Northern Greenhouse Project. Saskatchewan: International Centre for Northern Governance and Development. Retrieved from http://www.usask.ca/icngd/publications/reports/Reports-Files/Northern%20Greenhouse%20Guidelines_FINAL.pdf

Flo, F., & Smith, A. (1999). The Community Development Handbook: A Tool to Build Community Capacity. Minister of Public Works and Government Services. Retrieved from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/MP33-13-1999E.pdf

Ford, J., Lardeau, M.-P., & Vanderbilt, W. (2012). The characteristics and experience of community food program users in arctic Canada: a case study from Iqaluit, Nunavut. BMC Public Health, 12, 464. http://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-464

Francoeur, R. (2013, March 19). Farmers’ Market Set to Open in Yellowknife, Northern Journal. Retrieved from http://norj.ca/2013/03/farmers-market-set-to-open-in-yellowknife/

Furgal, C., & Seguin, J. (2006). Climate Change, Health, and Vulnerability in Canadian Northern Aboriginal Communities. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(12), 1964–1970. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8433

Gombay, N. (2005). The Commoditization of Country Foods in Nunavik: A Comparative Assessment of its Development, Applications, and Significance. ARCTIC, 58(2), 115–128. Retrieved from http://arctic.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/view/405

Gregorich, J. (2004). Capacity Building Overview of the Arctic Council. Ottawa, Ontario: Arctic Council Sustainable Development Working Group. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/28

Guyot, M., Dickson, C., Paci, C., Furgal, C., & Chan, H. (2006). Local observations of climate change and impacts on traditional food security in two northern Aboriginal communities. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 65(5). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v65i5.18135

Heller, Martin. (2005). Food Connections: Capital Area Community Food Profile. East Lansing: C.S. Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems at Michigan State University. Retrieved from http://www.farmlandinfo.org/sites/default/files/CACfoodprofile_1.pdf

Huet, C., Rosol, R., & Egeland, G. M. (2012). The Prevalence of Food Insecurity Is High and the Diet Quality Poor in Inuit Communities. The Journal of Nutrition, 142(3),

17 | P a g e

541–547. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.3945/jn.111.149278

International Whaling Commission. (n.a.). Aboriginal subsistence whaling. Retrieved from https://iwc.int/aboriginal

Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (1998). Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 173–202. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173

Kelly, J. (1987). Seven criteria when conducting community-based prevention research: A research agenda and commentary. In Preventing Mental Disorders: A Research Perspective (pp. 57–72). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.

Kuhnlein, H. V., Receveur, O., Soueida, R., & Egeland, G. M. (2004). Arctic Indigenous Peoples Experience the Nutrition Transition with Changing Dietary Patterns and Obesity. The Journal of Nutrition, 134(6), 1447–1453. Retrieved from http://jn.nutrition.org/content/134/6/1447

Lambden, J., Receveur, O., & Kuhnlein, H. (2007). Traditional food attributes must be included in studies of food security in the Canadian Arctic. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 66(4). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v66i4.18272

LaVeaux, D., & Christopher, S. (2009). Contextualizing CBPR: Key Principles of CBPR meet the Indigenous research context. Pimatisiwin, 7(1), 1. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2818123/

Mahr, M., Pilsner, J., Bokstrom, A., Wilson, M., & Meier, G. (2010). North Slocan Community Greenhouse Feasibility Study. Retrieved from http://www.hort.vt.edu/ghvegetables/documents/Economics/Reference%20Other/CAN%20New%20N_Slocan%20Feasibility%20Study%20FINAL_Oct2010.pdf

Marquardt, O., & Caulfield, R. (1996). Development of west Greenlandic markets for country foods since the 18th century. Arctic, 49(2), 107–119. Retrieved from http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/arctic49-

Minkler, M. (2005). Community-based research partnerships: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Urban Health : Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 82 (Suppl 2), ii3–ii12. http://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/jti034

Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (2003). Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From Process to Outcomes (2nd ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley.

18 | P a g e

Minogue, S. (2005, October 28). Professional hunters provide food for Greenlanders. Nunatsiaq News. Retrieved from http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/archives/51028/news/nunavut/51028_09.html

NFSS (Nunavut Food Security Symposium). (2013). Priority Areas for Action in a Nunavut Food Security Strategy. Iqaluit, (NU): Results of proceedings from Nunavut Food Security Symposium, January 22-24, 2013

Peters, J. (1997). Community food systems: working toward a sustainable future. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 97(9), 955–956. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-8223(97)00230-7

Petrasek MacDonald, Joanna; Huet, Catherine; Ford, James; Statham, Sara, & MacRury, Allison. (2014). The Commercialization of Country Food and Food Security: the Case of Greenland and Considerations for Nunavut in Moving Forward. McGill Department of Geography & Nunavut Department of Health. Retrieved from http://www.nunavutfoodsecurity.ca/sites/default/files/files/Resources/CommercializationOfCountryFoodAndFoodSecurity_EN.pdf

Project Nunavut. (2013). Current Projects. Retrieved from www.projectnunavut.com/projects.html.

Stuart, C. A. (1998). Care and Concern: An Ethical Journey in Participatory Action Research. Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy / Revue Canadienne de Counseling et de Psychothérapie, 32(4). Retrieved from http://cjc-rcc.ucalgary.ca/cjc/index.php/rcc/article/view/720

Wallerstein, N. B., & Duran, B. (2006). Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promotion Practice, 7(3), 312–323. http://doi.org/10.1177/1524839906289376

Wenzel, G.W. (1991) Animal rights, human rights: Ecology, economy, and ideology in the Canadian Arctic. London: Belhaven Press.

Wesche, S., Fillion, M., & Kenny, T.-A. (2015). Inuvialuit Settlement Region Food Security Strategic Plan: Report to the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. Ottawa, Ontario: University of Ottawa.

Willows, N. D. (2005). Determinants of healthy eating in Aboriginal peoples in Canada: The current state of knowledge and research gaps. Can J Public Health, 96(3), S32–S36. http://doi.org/10.17269/cjph.96.1503

19 | P a g e