Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic: Perspectives from the Barents Area

202

Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic: Perspectives from the Barents Area

Table 8.2 Endogenous and exogenous aspects of self-organization in social and ecological systems.

System

Endogenous

Exogenous

• System of legal rights • Formal procedures defined by political representation at higher levels of governance • Other external/higher scale factors that influence the capacity to pursue a particular course of action (i.e. economic opportunity) • The community level may exercise influence at higher levels, but formal authority generally lies with the higher level • Biophysical systems defined and operative at a scale that is larger than that which can be substantially influenced by the community (i.e. climate system) • Ice and snow extent • Seasonal variation • Range shifts in fish stocks, birds, and marine mammals

• Social capital • Traditional knowledge, local knowledge resources • Routines and procedures for coming to agreement, keeping promises, enforcing agreements • Internal legitimacy and perceived fairness of social structure (touches on formal and informal leadership, traditional models, democratic structures, wealth and knowledge distribution etc.) • Ecosystems that are substantially influenced by the activities of the particular community, or relied on by the community • Local or regional land use • Local population of species used for food (fish or terrestrial wildlife)

Social (defined as community at a given scale)

Biophysical (defined in terms of ecosystem at a given scale)

Under exogenous/social ,externally defined structural factors are seen that set the parameters for self-organization and shape the ways inwhich it may be carried out, for example systems of formal legal rights and constitutional structure.These are most often defined at the level or scale at which national governments are active, and they therefore vary among the eight Arctic countries. Some of these structures or rights are established in international agreements such as the various UN Conventions, provide an overarching framework of rights that signatories agree to observe, and transpose into national law.

have significant decision-making authority (endogenous social to endogenous biophysical). However, there are also many instances in which exogenous social influences, such as higher-scale political or economic decisions, have significant impact on local ecosystems. Rules that define harvest limits for fisheries or terrestrial species, or which define arrangements by which priorities are determined for land use are examples of cross-scale influence on local ecosystem services (for example, rules determining priority ranking between the siting of a mine, a major road or dam, and other priorities that maintain the land in an undeveloped state for other uses). 8.3.5 Livelihoods One way to embed agency in resilience thinking and more explicitly identify socio-political aspects of resilience is to combine it with the livelihoods and social well-being approaches. Not only, as Janssen and Scheffer (2004) argued, is the relationship between well-being, livelihoods, and natural and social capital important for long-term sustainability, but it is also key for resilience and people’s capacity to respond effectively to change (Kofinas and Chapin, 2009). Livelihoods of individuals and households include their capabilities, tangible assets and activities required for a means of living (Chambers and Conway, 1991). This perspective highlights human agency and needs, and also raises issues of human rights and empowerment (Tanner, 2015). Therefore, livelihood resilience is the “ capacity of all people across generations to sustain and improve their livelihood opportunities and well-being despite environmental, economic, social and political disturbances ” (Tanner, 2015). Livelihoods speaks more generally to the activities by which individual, family and community-level agents seek to provide for the necessities of life.Without the fruits of these labors, the social aspects of social-ecological resilience are not possible. The livelihoods definition commonly referenced by United

(see Section 8.3.3), and the strength of local networks and organizations. Conversely, high levels of social conflict could be expected to undermine this capacity. These qualities may also be prominent characteristics of the larger system in which the community is embedded, and available to be accessed via social networks that extend across scales within a given country, or which extend across country boundaries. Among the biophysical (including ecological) influences on the capacity for self-organization, scale also plays a defining role. Some phenomena are influenced by forces that operate at a much larger scale than the community in question, with the result that while they might exert some influence, developments may lie largely outside their control. Examples of the type of global influences that have a defining impact on local Arctic communities include climate change, accumulation of persistent organic pollutants from outside the Arctic region, or range-shifts of species. Larger-scale biophysical factors can also be influenced by activities on a more local scale. Land use provides examples of activities carried out at a local scale that have significant impacts on regional biophysical conditions, regardless of the level at which decisions about land use are made. Examples include distribution of agriculture, forestry, mineral extraction (mining), or maintaining areas suitable for grazing of reindeer. For the marine environment, fisheries provide a good example, with catch volume and age characteristics of fish caught possibly influencing fish populations significantly over time. It becomes quickly apparent that conditions and/or changes in each of the quadrants (see Table 8.2) have strong potential for influencing the capacity for self-organization overall, and that changes can cascade from one quadrant to impact conditions in another. As just one example, effective local management of important ecosystem services could be weakened by the inability of the local community using those resources/services to build consensus on the goals for guiding management of such resources. A typical example includes conflict over local land use for which local actors