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

26

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

are related to corruption, a lack of institutional capacity to manage the pursuit of a more market-oriented planning system and issues related to the design of both vertical and horizontal aspects of the planning system (Golubchikov, 2004). In recent years, the Russian government has passed several strategic planning programs designed to invest billions of dollars in northern infrastructure and economy (Pelyasov, 2011). The effectiveness of these measures is unclear, but some parts of the Russian Barents area have seen as influx of capital (e.g. Nenets AutonomousArea,Murmansk).However, this growth has been severely affected by the economic downturn in Russia since 2014 and low oil prices. Substantial non-national legislation and regulation also influence the area.Sweden andFinland aremembers of the EU,andNorway is amember of the European EconomicArea (EEA).Despite not being an EUmember,Norwegian environmental policy and law are influenced by EU legislation via the EEAAgreement (Bugge, 2014).The regulatory framework of the EU and its influence on northern Fennoscandia are diverse and complex. EU legislation can be directly or indirectly applicable, and the division of competences between the EU’s institutions and Member States depends on the policy field in question. EU competences may be exclusive, shared or complementary (Koivurova et al., 2012). EU policies particularly relevant to natural resource use include those concerning the environment, transport and energy. For instance, Natura 2000 (based on the EU Birds and Habitats Directives) protects species and habitats of high importance for European biodiversity,and roughly one-third of Finnish Lapland is covered by Natura 2000 areas, highlighting the significance of the framework for sectors such as reindeer herding, forestry, or planning for transport corridors.Various pieces of EU-legislation on mining waste, chemicals or air emissions are also relevant for mining and other industrial activities. EU action on climate includes incentives for renewable energy,which has contributed to the development of wind power throughout northern Fennoscandia. EU legislation on environmental and strategic impact assessment (Directive 85/337/EEC) has established a framework for national EIA regulations (Stepien et al., 2016), and various EU funding programs as well as regional planning are important for regional development funding and especially cross-border cooperation (Stepien et al., 2016). This indicates that adaptation to climate change in resource sectors must be seen in the context of planning frameworks and legislation that affects and guides adaptation. 2.3.3 Physical infrastructure and tourism Infrastructure constitutes an important component in the use of natural resources and in adaptation.The Fennoscandian north is well integrated within the nation states of which it is part, as well as within larger organizations and company networks. The area is relatively technologically advanced, with internet access in northern Fennoscandia well developed. In Russian areas, on the other hand, there are wide variations with very limited internet and infrastructure access in some areas. As noted previously, health care and education are generally well developed in Nordic areas, with a network of large university hospitals and good education services from primary to higher education (universities). All areas include significant tertiary education (see Box 2.5).

well as bankruptcies.In Russia,large-scale,long-termSoviet-era resource development projects have been partially abandoned in favor of more short-term piecemeal endeavors led by the state or resource extraction companies. However, in recent years, the Russian Government has approved plans for developing its northern areas through until 2020 (Pelyasov and Zamyatina, 2013), generally highlighting the effort to supplement resource- based industries services, transportation, manufacturing, and knowledge-based industries. In the Fennoscandian countries, local resource use planning constitutes the fundamental system whereby infrastructure, economic development and resource access rights are coordinated,and thus constitutes themainmechanismwhereby local populations can impact resource use.Norway, Sweden and Finland include relatively strong local level control via elected municipal governments, as legally binding plans are primarily adopted at the local level. Local level authorities also have the chief responsibility for producing the legally binding local/detail plans in all three countries. While the Finnish and Norwegian systems exhibit a more hierarchical structure than in Sweden, the similarities are greater than the differences. Exceptions to local planning rights include hydropower, nuclear power, minerals, and forests, which are administered at the national level by specific legal frameworks (Stjernström et al., 2013). These have regularly been subject to development by large state structures such as state-owned companies and with benefits to local employment (Roine and Spiro, 2013; Turi and Keskitalo, 2014). Today, however, as international private corporations become major mining interests, discussions over models for taxation, re-distribution and control of resources have increased, drawing comparisons with, for example, petroleum development in Norway where society receives a relatively large share of revenues. Among others, discussions have centered on modifications to environmental law and the social impacts of the mining activities (e.g.Suopajärvi et al.,2016).Municipal decision- making is also influenced by the territorial reform processes ongoing in all Nordic countries, and that could cause changes to the units responsible for planning. Finland and Sweden are both experimenting with regional self-government,and Sweden has discussed regional enlargement. In Norway, which already has a directly elected regional level of governance, discussions have focused on moving responsibilities from state to regional levels (Johansson et al., 2011). However, it is too early to define the effects of these processes. In the Russian Federation, although the regions are granted substantial autonomy, the centralized system of administration andbudget distribution limits the real power of local government (Kinossian, 2013).Municipal governments are present in all of the regions and do exercise some control over urban settlements and rural areas, although municipalities are typically fiscally and politically dependent on regional capitals. The planning system in Russia is still in transition following 74 years of centrally-controlled state planning, during which non-state land use needs were limited. While centrally-controlled state planning has been replaced by a modern legal framework based on democratic principles, the codes of conduct that typified the former system still characterize both application and practice, although there are examples of successfully implemented new practices (Zamyatina and Pilyasov, 2016).The main challenges