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

206

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

non-material sustenance. Relevant indicators that have been developed in other settings include the percentage of households with two or more income generating activities (IFRC, 2012), heterogeneity and multi-functionality of the landscape (Bergamini et al., 2013), agriculture and food systems diversity (Bergamini et al., 2013), diversity of livelihoods and diversity of the main employing industries (Ross et al., 2010). Of particular interest here is the diversity represented by mixed economies where one part can be represented by household income, but where non-market activities are not typically assessed because lacking exchange in easy tomeasure monetary terms, there is little readily available data. The pool of available resources related to livelihoods is one key dimension considered for defining resilience indicators (e.g. Magis, 2010; Bergamini et al., 2013). It is also referred to using terminology such as assets (FAO, 2010; IFRC, 2012) or capitals (Sherrieb et al., 2010; Morrone et al., 2011). Examples of operationalized indicators include employment ratio (FAO, 2010), socio-economic status of the population (Ross et al., 2010), land owned (FAO, 2010), and percentage of community members that can access grants and loans (IFRC, 2012). Indicators often privilege quantity, that is, more of something is better (Jordan and Javernick-Will, 2012). However, other characteristics can also be assessed, such as adequacy and access to resources and infrastructure (FAO, 2010; Ross et al., 2010). 8.6.1 Analysis through case studies As already noted, the resilience indicators framework is strongly rooted in previous empirical research. It has also proven to resonate well with the types of concern expressed in consultative processes both within the region (see Chapters 5) and elsewhere (for example, consultations carried out in the Baffin Bay / Davis Strait region). This section adds substance to the framework by using it to analyze five case studies in the Barents area that have been previously published and/ or developed by local experts. Four of the case studies were qualitatively analyzed using the structure presented in Table 8.3 with the fifth summarized in narrative form. Boxes 8.1 to 8.5 present summaries of this exercise; further details are available in the appendix to Chapter 8 in the electronic version of this report. 8.6 Indications of resilience in the Barents area

strength, extension and quality of community networks, especially in community resilience framings (see Ross et al., 2010; Morrone et al., 2011). Here two kinds of indicator are suggested.The first is linked to social cohesion, for example the number of arts and sports organizations per 10,000,the number of civic organization per 10,000, voting participation, and the number of religious adherents per 1000 (Sherrieb et al., 2010). The second relates to population turnover. Examples include the migration-related net change in the number of family members in a household over a five-year period (Perz et al., 2012) and the proportion of the population living in the same general location after a five-year period (Ross et al., 2010). Indicators that reflect external connections are also mentioned, for example the number of individuals within a community that represent the community and manage relationships with external organizations and the percentage of community members that have access to external media sources (IFRC, 2012). Other approaches to social indicators measure other important aspects of the social fabric, for example, the single parent household ratio (Morrone et al., 2011). These kinds of indicators provide an approximation of the nature and level of linkages betweenmembers of a community, and which increase the basis for coming to agreement and working together. Equity also constitutes an important theme for social organization (Magis, 2010; Ross et al., 2010; Bergamini et al., 2013). It can be assessed with indicators such as the diversity of community members engaged in governance (Ross et al., 2010), autonomy with which land and resource management decisions can be made, and the degree of gender equality in decision-making (Bergamini et al., 2013). Other types of indicator assess trust and satisfaction with governing, the extent to which methods for governance are culturally appropriate (Ross et al., 2010), and whether community decision-making and planning processes engage diverse perspectives and reflect cultural differences (Magis, 2010). An interesting indicator that brings together social organization and the physical environment is the number of effective laws governing natural resources (Morrone et al., 2011). Social participation and leadership also appear in resilience indicator frameworks,notably through volunteering (Ross et al., 2010) or social self-organization (Cabell and Oelofse, 2012). Examples of operational indicators include the percentage of community members that actively manage their natural resources, the number of active community organizations, and the percentage of community members that are members of two or more community organizations (IFRC, 2012). Livelihoods – In the category of livelihoods, diversity contributes to resilience by providing alternative modes for securing the basic resources needed for material and

Table 8.3 Analytical template for resilience assessment.

Case study title and summary

Livelihoods

Knowledge/learning

Self-organization

Diversity ‘Embracing change’