Local perspectives on adaptation

Although much 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

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 on mandatory 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 in municipal 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.,

2011; Turunen et al., 2016), especially indigenous knowledge keepers and communities (Tyler et al., 2007; Eira et al., 2008;

Oskal et al., 2009; Ford et al., 2012; Nakashima et al., 2012; Löf, 2014). For reindeer herders, it is not the direct effects of climate change that are the main problem, since herders have always adapted to a changing environment and are masters of living with uncertainty; a capacity made possible through inherent flexibility and diversity of pastures, landscapes, economy, and herding practices; social and organizational networks;

and mobility (Tyler et al., 2007; Vuojala-Magga et al., 2011;

Löf et al., 2012; Horstkotte, 2013; Brännlund, 2015). Rather, the problem lies in the restricted opportunities for adaptation, socio-economic challenges, and the cumulative impacts of multiple drivers. These include loss of land and forage to other land uses, increasing predation, rising costs, poorly recognized indigenous land rights, and limited influence over other land uses and in governance systems (Forbes et al., 2006; Tyler et al., 2007; Rees et al., 2008; Oskal et al., 2009; Furberg et al., 2011; Klokov, 2012; Pape and Löffler, 2012; Arctic Council, 2013; Löf, 2013, 2014; Reinert and Benjaminsen, 2015). Being able to adapt is thus not just a desirable and historically defining trait of reindeer herding; it is also an illustration of how power is currently dispersed among different actors (Löf, 2013, 2014) and that in many instances, national priorities reflected in new legislation and administrative practices seem to take precedence over indigenous rights. This was certainly the case in several mining development cases over the past decade (Herrmann et al., 2014; Stefansdottir, 2014; Tuusjärvi et al., 2014; Nygaard, 2016).

3.2.3

Stakeholder perspectives

Another popular approach developed in recent years is research on stakeholder perspectives in different economic sectors (Stępień et al., 2016). In terms of the forestry sector in Sweden, the industry itself is diverse and is characterized by multiple stakeholders and users. The strategies used for addressing the direct and indirect impacts of climate change differ widely. For example, some strategies focus on how forests can sequester carbon and replace fossil fuels as a source of energy, whereas others focus on concerns about increasing competition for land and matters regarding multiple land use, justice and rights (Beland Lindahl and Westholm, 2011). An awareness of the need to integrate adaptation is slowly awakening within the industry, and although many report a lack of knowledge and information on how to adjust forest management practices, preliminary results indicate a high degree of willingness to adapt among forest owners (Andersson et al., 2015; Ulmanen et al., 2015).

The role of markets, and regulatory and governance systems has been emphasized both by forestry and reindeer husbandry actors (Keskitalo, 2008).

An example of one such processes is the Future Forests research program (2009–2016), under which several visionary workshops were held with different stakeholder groups (nature conservation, recreation and local development, forestry and energy, and Sami industries) about future developments in Swedish forestry.

Although an analysis has not yet been published, reports from the workshops are available. Forestry and energy stakeholders envisioned forestry as a continued foundation for the Swedish Inside the Lavvu, Finnmark county, Norway

Philip Burgess

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 from warmer 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 and Widmark, 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

(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 the Arctic for petroleum development, 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

Nordic Council of Ministers (2015), men, women and different age groups (the youth and the elderly), are not affected equally by the changes taking place in the Arctic. In the Barents Region, human-health experts and stakeholders have collaborated since the early 1990s to exchange information and experiences, develop research projects and build competence in the public sector working with health, youth and gender issues. This has taken place under, for example, the Barents Working Group on Health and the EU Northern Dimension Partnership in Public Health and Social Well-being (NDPHS). Gender studies have also had a long tradition in the Barents Region, starting from the Nordic-Russian Femina Borealis network in the early 1990s and then projects on crisis centers in the Barents Region (Saarinen).

Gender research cooperation has been included within the TUARK-network (Tromsö-Umeå-Archangelsk-Rovaniemi-Kingston Network on Gender Equality in the Arctic). Research on the wellbeing of elderly people was addressed in the project Arctic Change and Elderly Exclusion: A gender-based perspective (Naskali et al., 2016). This cooperation continues within the project Advancing Elderly People’s Agency and Inclusion in the Changing Arctic and Nordic Welfare System.