Regional perspectives on adaptation

This section examines regional perspectives on adaptation, including the lack of a regionally-constructed knowledge base for adaptation, the difficulty of framing issues in regional terms, and the need to develop new types of partnerships and networks to develop regionally-based knowledge. As noted by Ford et al. (2015), “Although these local responses represent important developments, adapting to future change will require broader-level action to address both generic and specific capacities to adapt in the context of ongoing social, economic, political, demographic and environmental change. There is evidence of this happening in some locations, although a coherent vision and framework for approaching adaptation is largely absent.”

The present assessment is a step in this direction.

There have been some previous efforts to produce a regional approach to adaptation issues in the Barents Region. The need for science to communicate with stakeholders was recognized at an early stage in regional climate change research (Lange and BASIS consortium, 2003; Lange et al., 2008). As part of the BALANCE project, Keskitalo (2008) held extensive interviews with stakeholders and knowledge keepers (reindeer herders, forestry professionals, fishers) to identify their concerns about climate change and globalization. The EU has encouraged the involvement of stakeholders in research.

Change in the Barents area has also been assessed within several EU projects, including an assessment of the EU‘s current and future footprint on the Arctic environment (Cavalieri et al., 2010) and an assessment of EU development in the Arctic (Stępień et al., 2014). Several knowledge and communication needs were identified in this process (Tedsen et al., 2014).

In 2015, the EU initiated EU-PolarNet. Among other things this project aims to establish an ongoing dialog between policy-makers, business and industry leaders, local communities and scientists to increase mutual understanding and identify new ways of working that will deliver economic and societal

benefits. The outcome of this dialog will be brought together in a plan for an Integrated European Research Programme that will be co-designed by all relevant stakeholders. That the EU has a strong focus on stakeholder engagement in the Arctic is also evident from their new integrated policy for the Arctic (European Commission, 2016). Further development of EU Arctic policy will focus on three key areas: supporting research and channeling knowledge to address environmental and climate change in the Arctic; acting responsibly to ensure economic development in the Arctic is based on sustainable use of resources and environmental expertise; and strengthening engagement and dialog with Arctic states, indigenous peoples and other partners (Stępień and Raspotnik, 2016).

3.3.1

Adaptation in the Barents study area

The Barents Region formally began in 1993 with the establishment of the Barents Euro-Arctic Council (BEAC) and the Barents Regional Council. The BEAC is the forum for intergovernmental cooperation on issues such as security and sustainable development in northern Europe. Knowledge production is an essential element of this development (Tunander, 2008). However, there appears to have been a marked dichotomy in developing Barents-specific information for decision-makers. Regionally-based knowledge has mainly served projects on specific topics such as human health, transport and environmental hotspots, establishing short-term collaboration among knowledge producers and focusing more on some sub-regions than others. This is very different to the Arctic Council process. Since the early 1990s, the Arctic knowledge base has been developed through assessments aimed at identifying common concerns for cooperation, and through networks and partnerships formed to support regional knowledge production within the framework of the Arctic Council and other outside bodies, such as the University of the Arctic network (Tennberg, 1998; Keskitalo, 2004; Nilsson, 2007).

Although the BEAC region is part of the Arctic area of cooperation, many of the Arctic Council assessments do not follow a regional logic, but instead pursue particular themes concerning Arctic development. Without a specific regionally-focused approach to producing targeted knowledge, effective action is difficult. The BEAC region does not, for instance, appear as a unit of analysis or description in recent assessments of Arctic change (Statistics Norway, 2006, 2009; Aslaksen et al., 2010; Nordic Council of Ministers, 2011, 2015), while the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA, 2005) and the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (Arctic Council, 2009) did adopt a regional approach. Table 3.1 compares differences in knowledge production within the Arctic Council and BEAC.

Climate change emerged on the BEAC agenda in the early 2000s, expanding the agenda to cover region-wide issues instead of Russian only concerns. According to Sreejith (2009), there have been two main approaches in terms of Barents cooperation on climate change: to raise ‘impact awareness’ through identification of threats and risks; and ‘a solution approach’

referring mostly to mitigation action. More specific issues for regional cooperation on climate change have now been identified, such as water resources, human health, transport, and nomadic reindeer herding. The need to increase understanding of climate change issues and for further regional adaptation

measures was reflected in An Action Plan on Climate Change in the Barents Region adopted by BEAC in 2013. The Action Plan contains a number of different projects under the headings Mitigation, Adaptation, Research, observation, monitoring and modelling and Outreach and its aim is to learn from county-level climate strategy processes in different parts of the region, and to support regional climate-strategy making in the Russian part of the Barents study area. The expectation is that the action plan “may contribute positively to national goals” (Norwegian Ministry of the Environment, 2013). In the Barents Program (2014-2018) (Barentsinfo, 2013), multiple connections of change are identified – both climatic and socio-economic – in regional development and cooperation.

Approaches in adaptation governance differ across the Barents area. Municipalities in Sweden and Norway have a responsibility for adaptation while the approach in Finland and Russia is more regional (see Chapter 9). In the Nordic countries, the work on county-level climate strategies began in the late 2000s while this type of strategy work is still at an early stage in the Russian parts of the Barents area. According to an analysis by Sorvali (2015) based on information available from different countries, mitigation dominates over adaptation in their strategies and action plans. In the Nordic countries, regional strategies are mostly in place, but recent information on progress with implementation is lacking. Adaptation strategies also differ in their approaches at the regional and local level. The Nordic experience is that when a sub-regional climate strategy exists, climate change issues are incorporated into other policy documents and some implementation processes then follows.

But it is often the case that vulnerability assessment or adaptive measures are either not included or are at very early stages of development, and the assessments are developed at a national level and mainly concern economic sectors.

There are many lessons to be learned from these county-level processes in terms of knowledge provision for adaptation.

According to Sorvali (2015) and Himanen et al. (2012), regional and local level strategy work is often supported by national policies and coordination. In many cases, outside funding (for example from EU programs) supports regional climate strategy work in its early stages, but proves an obstacle in the implementation phase if there is a lack of funding for implementation. Another issue is that the strategy work is led by experts and consultants without ownership and commitment from the municipal or regional body responsible for the issue once the funding ends. The local and regional politicians concerned should be considered

an important stakeholder group, as should the institutions responsible for securing the involvement of indigenous groups.

A particularly challenging group to bring into regional climate strategy processes are businesses. This is due to their difficulty in seeing how meeting climate challenges could concern their own everyday work and because their attention is often fully engaged with more immediate matters. Despite all this, those that have taken part in regional climate strategy processes, have said that they found them a good learning experience, even though time-consuming. International cooperation (especially for Russian regions) has also proved important.

The BEAC working group that developed the climate action plan (Tennberg, 2015, 2016), found the most useful way to disseminate climate information was using maps. Regional and local decisions-makers also need economic analyses of costs and benefits of adaptation measures as well as statistical information with which to assess progress between the sub-regions on their implementation of climate strategies; better access is also needed to Russian information on various issues. Information needs to become more available and more accessible (see also Chapter 10).

One example of how this could happen is a website developed by research institutes in Finland (www.climateguide.fi). This pools information in a uniform format at a single site, on mitigation as well as adaptation, and provides municipalities with concrete examples of appropriate measures in an interactive way. Such a tool would also be useful on a regional basis.

3.3.2

Framing issues regionally

The challenge of developing a region-specific knowledge base is twofold: Adaptation is a complex issue and the Barents area is a complex region. The scale of the complexity became clear at the stakeholder event organized by the AACA Barents project team on 12 March 2015 in Rovaniemi, Finland. The event was part of a series of four stakeholder meetings in Finland to discuss AACA topics – drivers of change, their impacts, and adaptation – involving local, regional and national stakeholders.

Two events took place in Rovaniemi (March and November 2015) and two in Helsinki (February and December 2016).

The events were organized to support the drafting of a national report on adaptation for the AACA process (Tennberg et al., 2017) (stakeholder activities within the AACA process are also discussed in Chapter 5).

One of the Finnish stakeholder meetings was held in association with the Arctic Business Forum with the aim of reaching Table 3.1 Knowledge production in the Arctic Council and the Barents Euro-Arctic Council (BEAC).

Arctic Council BEAC

Role of knowledge Identifying common issues for regional

cooperation through knowledge-building Specific issues of concern, especially related to Russia:

development of transport network, tourism and dealing with environmental hotspots

Networks and partnerships Continuous processes of scientific assessment, establishing networks and partnerships between different knowledge producers

No long-term networks and partnerships for knowledge production – short-term, project-based cooperation on certain issues

Rationale in knowledge

production Defining the object, relations and agencies

in collaboration Identifying practical action and funding needs Regional focus In most cases the entire circumpolar region,

with some local and regional examples Focus on Russian part of the Barents study area

business stakeholders. The Arctic Business Forum is an annual event organized by the Lapland chamber of commerce to discuss economic development and opportunities in the region among business actors. Owing to the small number of participants representing this stakeholder group – only seven of 20 participants in total, and mostly representing small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) – the discussions became more general. The 13 non-business participants were students from the University of Lapland, Arctic Centre staff members and AACA researchers. It is notable, however, that many of the researchers had some practical, small-scale business experience.

Table 3.2 presents the main discussion points, together with a condensed summary of the opinions expressed during the event. Before the discussion with stakeholders took place, participants were provided with an overview of the AACA project and the changes expected, as well as likely impacts and adaptation concerns. Participants were also given plenty of opportunity to discuss their own concerns.

The central lesson from the stakeholder event was that stakeholders interpret adaptation concerns and needs in very different ways; reflecting their background, education and professional expertise. The event identified a broad range of adaptation-related concerns as well as different ideas of how to tackle them. For participants, the Barents area was only one of the possible spatial references; they also referred to Lapland, Finland, the European Arctic or the Arctic in general. The other three stakeholder events in Finland had more-or-less the same outcome. Thinking in terms of specific time frames, such as 2030 (to represent the short term) and 2080 (to represent the long term) proved difficult; most participants found it easier to think in terms of one or two generations into the future.

Some common issues are difficult to define for a regionally-constructed knowledge base, primarily because issues are complicated and often connected to broader political and economic considerations beyond the region itself. For example, ecological shifts within the Barents Sea have various biological causes, such as changes in fish reproduction, distribution, and

movements (see Chapter 6). These changes may be of economic significance: How much fish will be caught? In which country will the fish be landed? How will commercially important stocks be distributed within the waters of two or more states? As a result, these changes could affect relations between states within the context of the economic, legal and political settings of the fisheries (e.g. for marine transportation, and offshore oil and gas development). Thus, assessment of adaptation practices in the fishery sector is also linked to the planning of resource use, market and trading mechanisms, emergency preparedness, insurance and social safety schemes, infrastructure capacity and flexibility, and food security (Stammler-Gossmann, 2013).

The nature of a change and its direction are also important, but may be interpreted differently by different stakeholders. For example, regional and local stakeholders may interpret the same change as positive or negative depending on the time perspective.

This is the case for tourism in the Barents area (Brouder and Lundmark, 2011; Kelman et al., 2012). In Finland, to continue winter activities in the face of ever shorter winters and later snow cover, require adjustments by the tourism industry, for example storing snow or creating artificial snow. Although such responses might be appropriate in the short term, they are questionable from the perspective of long-term and sustainable adaptation (Kietäväinen and Tuulentie, 2013). In Norway, cruise tourism in Lofoten is seen by many as an integral part of the local economy.

The question here is how to deal with the complex challenges posed by the growing number of tourists and their impacts on the fragile Arctic environment. The question is how to achieve a sustainable use of the natural landscape over time and so provide a sustainable basis for community development.

Some issues are governable from a regional perspective and some are not. For example, as global markets fluctuate, communities, livelihoods and even countries relying on natural resources are vulnerable to changes beyond their control. Until recently, projections of the future were typically based on scenarios built using development trends of the past few years (e.g. Bjørnsen and Johansen, 2012). The situation now is very different and one Table 3.2 Stakeholder views on adaptation as a complex issue (Nikula et al., 2015).

Discussion points

Nature of change Many changes including changing climatic conditions for winter tourism, dependence on seasons and client expectation Large-scale industrialization affects local companies and communities in different ways. More resources are needed for development of infrastructure and services

Concerns about the future of local cultures and community viability

Access and ownership to natural resources remains a highly debated issue in the region

For business actors, participatory management, corporate social responsibility, increased transparency of corporations and digital economy and infrastructure are important

Impacts of change Climate change was seen as a long-term driver of change, including changes in snow and ice cover as well as in growth seasons, permafrost thaw and extreme weather events, such as storms and floods

Climate change also affects global political and economic structures; political and legal developments; demographic changes, increasing global resource demand, population growth, decrease in traditional resource based industries and growth of new industries, accessibility to the region, including virtual and physical access and development of infrastructure

Agency and

responsibility Most participants recognized that they were already undertaking some adaptation themselves, especially in relation to economic development and employment, and knew of some adaptation policies and their effects on their activities or in their sector

Adaptation was seen by many as a shared and negotiated responsibility to which everyone needs to participate but the role of the government, business and extractive industries was stressed

It was pointed out that small companies have to adapt to changing conditions all the time: it is necessary for their survival. Adaptation is based both on a need and a responsibility to adapt

where the recent past may tell very little about what the future will bring. The boom-and-bust scenarios feed into concerns across the region about the extent to which communities should rely on the extractive industries for their long-term sustainability, or whether these should be supplemented by others to form a more versatile and adaptable economy (Dale et al., in press).

The same concerns affect those actors whose financial capital is tied to the production facilities; put simply, if investments fail to raise the expected surplus, global actors may consider relocating to other geographical locations. Challenges relating to what might happen when a resource is exhausted or revenues dry up can be seen in Longyearbyen on Svalbard; a town now totally dependent on the operation of a (state-subsidized) coal mine.

As prices – and political popularity – plummet, the community finds itself in need of a new basis upon which to secure its future; hence, initiatives to spur new developments, such as in tourism and research. Although the Norwegian state has again guaranteed a certain level of activity in the mines, the future of the extractive industry in Svalbard is uncertain; coal is very likely to become a stranded asset owing to international climate commitments. The local community – traditionally a mining community – will need to engage in this transition if they are to ensure a sustainable future; for a mining community to build a truly sustainable post-carbon future will represent an enormous challenge (Regjeringen, 2009, 2016).