Ford j 20150708_1500_upmc_jussieu_-_room_309
-
Upload
ingrid-le-ru -
Category
Science
-
view
137 -
download
0
Transcript of Ford j 20150708_1500_upmc_jussieu_-_room_309
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