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

48

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

resilience).These perceptions of individual and local resilience are closely linked to high natural variability in the resource base and to climatic and societal conditions. Although this perceived resilience can advance a community’s ability to adjust available resources within a community (one dimension of community resilience), it may also cause complacency and a system in an undesirable state (Hovelsrud et al., 2015).Another explanation for the complacent attitude is the urgency of other issues. In Norway, new and more urgent responsibilities for municipalities over the past few years has meant that efforts to curb the consequences of climate change – still not perceived as pressing and immediate – are postponed (Dannevig et al.,2013). This is also the case on the Kola Peninsula in Russia: climate change and the measurable effects of rising temperatures in the Arctic appear to be taking second place to the challenges of population decline, declining labor needs, and an aging infrastructure (Johansen and Skryzhevska,2013).Municipalities are responsible for developing their own adaptation measures. Planning departments responsible for adaptation in smaller municipalities generally concentrate their efforts onmandatory commitments; such that if there is no regulatory requirement for adaptation then it receives a lower priority than tasks that must be achieved. It also matters that locally, climate change issues are often identified as ‘environmental issues’ and thus the responsibility of environmental authorities, when in fact many of the issues are more effectively handled by departments responsible for municipal infrastructure, technology and maintenance. Other factors are also important for adaptation governance at the local level: enough resources, capacity to seek external expertise,involvement inmunicipal networks related to climate change issues, and engaged individuals with dedicated positions to deal with such issues (Dannevig et al., 2013). 3.2.2 Indigenous knowledge The role of local and indigenous experts and their knowledge (perceptions, skills and practical knowledge), is widely recognized in the Arctic but still the debate continues in terms of finding the means and tools to support their participation and representation in adaptation research. National decision- makers are often considered ‘out of touch’ with local reality and have little knowledge of local conditions, while indigenous communities and livelihoods are highly exposed to ongoing and anticipated changes, and so their active involvement is essential for understanding and addressing local challenges (Riseth et al., 2011; Löf et al., 2012; Löf, 2013; Rosqvist and Inga, 2015). In fact, indigenous peoples facing unprecedented impacts on their traditional lifestyles primarily through climate change and resource development (oil and gas,mining, forestry, hydropower, tourism, etc.), are already implementing creative ways of adapting (Cruikshank et al., 2001; Oskal, 2008; see also Aleynikov et al., 2014). Raising the importance of indigenous knowledge will in itself emphasize its importance to government decision-makers,while also identifying constraints owing to the asymmetrical power relations as in, for example, reindeer management systems (Turi and Keskitalo, 2014). Collaboration between researchers and practitioners in reindeer research goes back to late 1990s (e.g. Müller-Wille and Hukkinen, 1999; Forbes et al., 2006; Smit and Wandel, 2006; Ensor and Berger, 2009; Vuojala-Magga et al.,

knowledge with the general assumption that these governance systems can easily adopt and use new knowledge. To date, studies have paid little attention to fluid/non-organized forms of power (i.e. negotiations and learning) and so have largely neglected the interplay between knowledge and power in adaptation governance (Vink et al., 2013). This chapter introduces some of the major issues concerning knowledge production to support adaptation and presents examples from different parts of the Barents area (mostly Norway, Sweden and Finland) and for some of the main types of economic activity (fisheries, forestry, tourism, and reindeer herding). This approach reflects the fragmented nature of the adaptation-related knowledge base in the Barents area: it is sectoral, mostly nationally-based, and focuses on certain economically significant activities and local community concerns. Current approaches for studying local and regional perspectives comprise community studies (see also Chapter 8), indigenous knowledge (see also Chapter 7) and stakeholder perspectives (see also Chapter 5). 3.2 Local perspectives on adaptation Althoughmuch adaptation takes place locally within the context of normal everyday activities, these are still taking place under a broader administrative,legal,political and economic framework. This makes research on connections between global and local concerns central to adaptation studies. It is addressed here from three perspectives: community-based studies (Section 3.2.1; see also Chapter 8), indigenous knowledge (Section 3.2.2; see also Chapter 7) and stakeholder perspectives (Section 3.2.3; see also Chapter 5). Participation and influence in adaptation debates is also addressed (Section 3.2.4). 3.2.1 Community-based studies There is a long-tradition of community studies in the Arctic (Rasmussen et al., 2015), such as those based on communities relying on reindeer husbandry, fisheries or forestry.The result is a growing knowledge base in the Arctic on indigenous peoples and their communities, particularly those in North America, and to a lesser extent Russia and the Nordic countries, mostly in rural contexts and in relation to land-based and resource- dependent activities (Ford et al., 2015). However, community studies in the Arctic are challenging for several reasons: identifying the focus of the research is difficult because the community is itself a contested concept; communities show high diversity in terms of economic,political and administrative structures; and communities vary widely in how they cope with internal and external processes (Rasmussen et al., 2015). One of the main findings of community-based studies in the Nordic countries is the ‘laissez-faire’ attitude to climate change issues. Studies on adaptation, especially in relation to climate change, show local actors find it extremely difficult to reach consensus on how to move forward (Ronkainen, 2008; Storbjörk, 2007, 2010; Hovelsrud et al., 2013; Wamsler and Brink, 2014; EVA national Survey, 2015). This is partly because many people perceive themselves as resilient and able to adapt to challenges they are faced with, mainly because they always have (see Chapter 8 for discussion on

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online