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

50

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

(Vinogradova and Masloboev, 2015; See also Koivurova et al., 2015). The Norwegian state and the petroleum industry have attempted to include as many stakeholders and views as possible in discussions concerning petroleum-driven development and its local impacts (Knol,2010; Dale,2011),in line with the ideal of participatory governance. However, at the same time, they state that certain overarching goals and definitions are‘non-negotiable’ with the consequence that particular values and knowledge cannot be supported. This happens through processes where pre-defined assumptions about development and sustainability are reproduced, for instance in the form of a ‘fairytale’ about petroleum development in Norway (Kristoffersen and Dale, 2014). Another strategy for restricting discussion is to repeat that certain goals and processes are‘beyond debate’(Dale,2016), obtainable precisely because of the development of the petroleum industry; the securing of “ … a qualitatively improved society (… based on …) equality and welfare, frugality and austerity ” (Thesen and Leknes,2010:54 our translation).A lack of attention to climate change in these energy-related debates is striking, given international commitments to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and so prevent dangerous human- induced interference with the climate system (UNFCCC, 2015). In fact, Norwegian High North policies do not acknowledge a connection between human-induced climatic changes having opened up theArctic for petroleumdevelopment,and increased greenhouse gas emissions as a result of this development (Jensen, 2012; Kristoffersen, 2014). Stakeholder research largely focuses attention on extractive industries, and traditional and industrial land-use practices with a bias towards male-dominated livelihoods. However, in principle, the concept of ‘economic stakeholder’ includes a wide range of different actors, with different aims, scopes and interests – some vested in a particular community or region, others less so.They hold practical as well as technical knowledge relevant for adaptation, and represent various types of resource (e.g.skills,manpower,finances),power and capacity to deal with adaptation. Stakeholders in the Barents area include: political leaders; authorities from different levels of administration; representatives of governmental and non-governmental bodies, and indigenous peoples; small and large businesses inside and outside the region (including practitioners of natural resource based industries such as reindeer herding, fisheries and farming); educators and researchers; and many others, including individual citizens, the youth, the elderly and women, and urban inhabitants in general.There is thus a need to better define who stakeholders in adaptation are, as well as to examine the ways in which their perspectives can be better incorporated into adaptation studies.While the importance of including local, indigenous and regional perspectives has been increasingly recognized, public participation has been sometimes poor.This was the case for the project Integrated Climate Change Strategies for Sustainable Development of Russia’s Arctic Regions: Case Study for Murmansk Oblast (Berdin et al., 2009). The report was prepared by experts from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) without having had any consultation with regional stakeholders, and with only one of the experts a regional representative working out of the Kola Science Center. A potential area for consideration in the new regional partnerships between research, stakeholders and decision- makers is human health and gender studies. According to the

economy where market-based certification systems were adapted to allow a more flexible and diverse forestry sector that accommodates different stakeholder interests and public values. Emphasis was placed on technological development in both information tools and fast-growing tree species that could benefit fromwarmer conditions (Mossberg Sonnek et al., 2014). Other stakeholders emphasized the need for increased local influence over forestry practices and better opportunities for dialogue and collaboration, as well as more diversified forestry and forests. Forest management would ideally occur at the landscape level and there would be a ban on introducing non-native species. Sami representatives envisioned a future where Sami indigenous rights are protected, recognized and safeguarded and where Sami influence over forestry was increased considerably and was based on the principle of free prior and informed consent (Räty et al., 2014). The Swedish forestry case illustrates a dichotomy between increased production (mitigation and adaptation) and a balancing of multiple uses. In a preparatory study for the development of a new national forest program, key forestry stakeholders identified the need for a more coherent policy coordination (see also Wyser and Jonsson, 2014; and Nilsson et al.,2012 for a general discussion) and the development of more holistic perspectives; achieved by including more stakeholders and interests, and so increasing participation from different levels. How to enhance dialogue, collaboration and conflict management is thus a key priority (Skogsstyrelsen,2013; see also Sandström andWidmark, 2007). 3.2.4 Power and participation The lack of engagement noted at the local level (see Section 3.2.1) is not only a question of perceived adaptive capacity and resilience, but also a question of participation and influence in adaptation debates. Decision-making processes involve a range of issues (e.g. representation of stakeholders and rights holders, scientific knowledge, traditional knowledge, and organizational structures): who will be among those whose concerns are heard in the decision-making? In the case of new mining activities in northern Norway, local inhabitants participate in a hearing process, the results of which are then added to the knowledge base that underlies the decision-making process. This aims to ensure that the decision-making is democratic and representative; for legitimization purposes it is important that the process is inclusive. However, it has been argued that, in practice,many local and regional stakeholders are prevented from taking part by the time-frames, the disclosure and publication of deadlines, and the need for a specific level of technical skills and scientific knowledge. As noted by Dale (2016),“… the focus on scientifically based knowledge and logics necessarily excludes groups, viewpoints and types of knowledge deemed ‘unscientific’ or ‘based on emotions or idealism’ ”. Individuals that are unable to understand the language of techno-scientific reasoning will also be excluded (Dale, 2016:12). Similar concerns have been raised in Russia regarding the participation of indigenous peoples on the Kola Peninsula in decision-making associated with energy-related industrial development. Although formal procedures for environmental impact assessment exist, which include ways to incorporate the views of the indigenous population (such as public hearings), how these are implemented seems to vary on a case-by-case basis