Dr James D. Ford1, Graham McDowell1, Dr Tristan Pearce2 1Dept. of Geography, McGill University, Montreal, Canada 2Sustainability Research Centre, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia www.jamesford.ca www.ihacc.ca

The adaptation

challenge in the

Arctic

• ‘Transformational’ CC in Arctic (Lenton, 2012; Duatrte et al 2012; Comiso & Hall,

2014)

• 1.9C over last 30 years (3x global average)

• Sea ice decline

• Wildlife health, distribution and migration

• Arctic: most rapid & extreme warming this century (IPCC, 2014)

• What does mean for human systems? • Global discourse: Arctic ‘highly vulnerable’

• Field based studies: significant resilience, adaptation opportunities

Context: Rapid climate change

• Systematic literature review of peer reviewed empirical research on adaptation, resilience and vulnerability (ARV) • N=135 (2004-2014)

• Analysis framework: Adger & Barnett’s (2009) ‘four reasons for concern about adaptation’ • Each paper coded and qualitatively reviewed

Resolving the paradox

See Ford et al (in press), Nature Climate Change, for more info

Ford et al (2014), Env. Res. Letters

The Arctic • >40 million

km2 • ~4m people • Mostly small,

remote settlements

• Mixed economies: wage based & subsistence

Concern: Speed & magnitude of CC limits the ability to adapt • Long history of Arctic adaptation across regions: TK,

diversity, flexibility, mobility, & social networks • Underpinning adaptation to change today

• BUT emerging vulnerabilities (land dangers, food insecurity, natural resource sectors, infrastructure)

• Non-climatic factors undermining adaptive capacity • Erosion of flexibility (oil and gas development, regulations)

• Weakening of TK systems

• Rapid climate change stimulating adaptive learning • TK highly dynamic and evolving in-light of rapid change

• BUT not in all cases: e.g. where costs of adapting too high, where narrow resource base

Concern #1: Window for action

Concern: Multiple barriers mean AC will not necessarily translate into adaptation • Many barriers identified in Arctic context • Institutional constraints for adaptation

• Jurisdictional issues: no clear mandate for adaptation, no lead entities for adaptation

• Lack of political leadership

Concern #2: Adaptive capacity ≠ adaptation

Kivalina, Alaska (Photo: ShoreZone)

Concern: Multiple barriers mean AC will not necessarily translate into adaptation • Many barriers identified in Arctic context • Institutional constraints for adaptation

• Jurisdictional issues: no clear mandate for adaptation, no lead entities for adaptation

• Lack of political leadership

• Institutional inertia

Concern #2: Adaptive capacity ≠ adaptation

Concern: current policy and actions are maladaptive • Evidence of maladaptation in different regions & sectors • Autonomous adaptations could increase vulnerability in the

long-term (e.g. Inuit harvesting) • Future change rarely considered (against cultural values in some

contexts)

• Limited institutional adaptation, potential for path dependency

Concern #3: Maladaptation

Concern: community values and culture are often overlooked in adaptation • North America and Nordic countries: cultural dimensions

important focus of research and vocal in policy • Russia: CC not even on the policy table, many

communities have limited political influence

Concern #4: Values

• Arctic: transformative climate change • Opportunity to increase understanding of adaptation

• Significant emerging vulnerabilities • Non-climatic factors driving vulnerability

• CC = trigger on root causes

• Shift focus from climate per se to underlying drivers

Conclusion