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

204

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

or herding. As summarized by Wolfe and Walker (1987), “ the money generated in the commercial-wage sector of the economy enables families to capitalize in the subsistence sector ”. The Nunavuk Inuit community at Clyde River provides an example of the mixed-economy experience. Due to a lack of waged labor, Clyde River Inuit relied on market sales of the skins of ringed seal ( Pusa hispida ) to bring in cash starting after the Second World War. When the sealskin market crashed in 1983 due to international restrictions, the amount of biomass collected from traditional subsistence hunting in the community also fell sharply, signifying that sealskin-generated income was financially supporting subsistence hunting (Wenzel, 1989, 2011). Eventually, the community began to generate income by selling about 20% of their annual polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) hunting quota to non-indigenous trophy hunters. Polar bear sport hunting, required by Nunavuk law to be executed through traditional means, generates a large amount of cash across the Inuit community, from the outfitters to the guides to the dogsled owners. Wenzel (2011) showed that roughly half the income generated from polar bear hunts is invested into subsistence hunting equipment such as snowmobiles and gasoline. In many Arctic communities, a decentralized resource sharing mechanism often means that hunting gear, income or food will always be shared among families, further increasing resilience (Berman et al., 2004). At Clyde River, market activities are vital in sustaining the subsistence hunting culture and identity of the community, creating a truly mixed economy. Therefore, indicators relating to mixed economies, such as the percentage of calories consumed from traditionally gathered or hunted food and estimated value of such food (Usher, 1976; Berkes et al., 1994), capital expenditure on hunting equipment (Wenzel, 2011), or assessments such as the Survey of Living Conditions in the Arctic (SLiCA; Poppel and Kruse, 2009) may be helpful in assessing the livelihoods resilience of Arctic communities. 8.4 From ‘ingredients’ to indicators “Indicators arise from values (we measure what we care about), and they create values (we care about what we measure)” (Meadows, 1998) Using indicators to assess and monitor resilience serves multiple functions. The effort required to characterize key aspects of resilience and define the nature of indicators supports the development of a more precise understanding of what factors contribute to resilience and in which contexts (Prior and Hagmann, 2014). Especially within the context of this assessment, carefully developed indicators can make information on complex issues more easily accessible to decision-makers (Niemeijer and de Groot, 2008), thus supporting policy planning, prioritization of potential actions for strengthening adaptive capacities, and reassessment and follow-up. At a very basic level, for

example, indicators can be used for establishing baselines and to assess the direction of change (Davidson et al., 2013). Monitoring these indicators can also be useful in elaborating and adjusting adaptation strategies by providing critical information and feedback on policy effectiveness (Davidson, 2010; Prior and Hagmann, 2014). In all aspects of their use, it is important to remember that indicators are subject to limitations. From a policy-making perspective, indicators are often expected to be specific, timely, sensitive, reliable, and cost-effective (Boulanger, 2007). This contributes to an appearance of objectivity and neutrality, and it is sometimes assumed that indicators can be constructed in ways that mechanically and automatically inform policy-making (Hezri and Dovers, 2006). However, this idea of a mechanistic and objective translation into policy-making of the information provided by indicators is a myth (Innes and Booher, 2000). Neither the way indicators are conceived nor their operationalization are completely neutral; choices about indicators and the types of solution that are called for reflect belief systems and values and perceptions through which policy issues are viewed (Innes and Booher, 2000; Boulanger, 2007). While the value of developing and using indicators to make assessments in the Arctic has been argued elsewhere – see for example, the excellent work on ASI (Nymand Larsen et al., 2010, 2015), and the Arctic Human Development Reports (AHDR, 2004; Nymand Larsen and Fondahl, 2015), it is also important to emphasize the difference between the phenomenon of interest here – resilience – and the measures used to assess it. Indicators are by nature only a limited representation of the phenomena they help us to understand; as expressed by Magritte in his masterpiece Treachery of images [This is not a pipe] . 19 Hence while we are (and should be) interested in what they indicate about reality, indicators provide, by definition, a glimpse of only a limited view of reality. Nevertheless, properly developed indicators can be extremely useful and influential. Through processes of negotiation and learning (Reed et al., 2006), debates about indicators shape actors’ thinking about related policy and represent one way of developing consensus. Therefore, in developing indicators, the process itself is crucial for building shared understanding of issues at stake and possible responses (Innes and Booher, 2000). In addition, such participatory processes of development and assessment can contribute not only to the quality of indicators developed, but also to their legitimacy (Cabell and Oelofse, 2012) and the effectiveness of actions subsequently undertaken.

8.5 Operationalizing a resilience indicators framework

Following the general logic for social-ecological resilience outlined in Section 8.2, indicators must capture interactions between social and ecological systems and cannot be alienated from nature. It is also important to acknowledge and make

19 In this word-image painting, the French surrealist painter René Magritte painted a pipe and added the words underneath “ This is not a pipe ”. He wanted to convey the message that what appears on the painting is not reality, but only an image, his own representation.