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

203

Chapter 8 · A resilien cepproac h to adaptat ion act

within, although certainly not exclusive to, Arctic indigenous communities (Henry et al., 2013). Nor are such concerns new; consideration of the consequences of alienation fromwork that lacks non-material meaning dates in the social sciences back at least toMarx,and before him,the philosopher Hegel (Gouldner, 1980). For this reason, it is argued here that the concept of sustainable livelihoods goes beyond material well-being to include the meaning derived from the culturally, spiritually, and socially-rooted aspects of livelihoods activities that give themmeaning and so fulfill essential non-material needs.While this meaning creation is not exclusive to livelihoods pursued in close contact with and interdependent with ecosystems, it is a key feature of many of the traditional livelihoods pursued within the indigenous communities of the Arctic. As it encompasses both material and non-material (cultural/ spiritual/social) well-being, focus on sustainable livelihoods highlights issues connected to social values, balancing interests, andmaking choices that may prioritize some types of livelihood over others (Tanner et al., 2015). Especially in the Arctic, the mixed economy nature of many livelihood activities is more a norm than an exception, that is,many Arctic livelihoods entail a mix of market and non-market activities (i.e. securing food and other benefits from nature, or from other members of the community through sharing networks, barter or other non- monetary forms of exchange) that provide for both material and non-material needs. And while non-market aspects of Arctic livelihoods are typically closely integrated with nature and access to nature,many commonmarket-oriented activities are also either directly tied to nature (reindeer herding,fisheries, tourism), or significantly impact or are impacted by them (development of natural resources). Mixed livelihoods are therefore a fundamental aspect of many Arctic communities. The role of sustainable livelihoods in providing for social- ecological (and vice versa) resilience is in many ways quite clear. Greater capacity to respond to disruptive developments or events exists where material and non-material well-being are at least sufficient; poverty is a non-resilient condition (Baez et al., 2010). Diversity plays an important role, as greater resilience can be reinforced where there is room for either the cash economy or subsistence activities to pick up ‘slack’ when the other is operating less well than planned or hoped. Evidence in literature shows the importance of mixing market and non-market activities in increasing the resilience of communities in the circumpolar Arctic. In many instances, individual households of Arctic communities are inherently different to those of the south – Arctic households act as both the production and consumption units of an economy, rather than the traditional economic model where firms produce and households only consume (Usher et al., 2003). The Arctic model allows the integration of wage or cash income from conventional market activities with traditional non-market subsistence activities. More specifically, cash income generated by conventional waged labor,sport hunting tourism,and selling animal products such as skins, furs, ivory, or meat, is often invested by Arctic households into equipment necessary for subsistence hunting. As imported technology has become integrated with traditional hunting,snowmobiles,gasoline,firearms,ammunition,and other expensive supplies have become essential to subsistence hunting

Semyon Bolshunov

Host of kouvaksa (Saami housing) Lida Bolshunova, Loparskaya community, Kola Peninsula

Nations organizations (FAO, 2010) and many others is broadly embraced here: “a livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stress and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base” (Chambers and Conway, 1991) This definition builds on earlier thinking by the World Commission on Environment and Development, which says that “ a household may be enabled to gain sustainable livelihood security in many ways – through ownership of land, livestock, or trees; rights to grazing, fishing, hunting or gathering; through stable employment with adequate remuneration, or through varied repertoires of activities ” (WCED, 1987). These definitions emphasize three points critical to the conceptualization of sustainable livelihoods used here: they speak to the necessity of meeting basic physical needs, they point to the diversity of means (both market and non- market) employed in pursuing that goal, and they speak to the need for long-term viability. The specific weakness in the just-quoted livelihoods definition is that it passes over non-material aspects of well-being that when absent, can have material consequences. For example, one indigenous leader from Barrow, Alaska, noted in an interview that “ we have to hunt whale – it makes us who we are – it makes us cooperate ” (Itta, E., US Arctic Research Commission, pers. comm., 2014). Others note the critical links between livelihoods activities and identity that are especially strong