Assessing Resilience in the Barents Region Marcus Carson, Stockholm Environment Institute Svein Matthiesen, Saami Council Martin Sommerkorn, WWF
What does assessing Resilience add to the analysis? Key elements of resilience approach: Systems approach that bridges social and ecological systems Analysis of cross-scale interactions Emphasizes and takes account of non-linear dynamics in complex change processes
Definitional issues that need to be addressed: Resilience used both as a descriptive term and an analytical concept
Among competing definitions We combine two: For ecological systems: the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks (Walker et al 2004) Important to note there is a normative element to this definition that can result in this kind of resilience being treated as a goal.
Resilience definitions II For social systems: the capacity to adapt and sense of choice that empower a community to consciously engage in transformative change either in response to disturbances, or in pursuit of a more desirable set of arrangements (Davidson 2010) This definition is largely synonymous with adaptive and/or transformative capacity.
Resilience as the capacity to adapt and/or transform Rapid Arctic change is likely to produce surprises. Strategies for adaptation and, if necessary, transformation, must be responsive, flexible and suitable for a broad range of conditions.
Sources of Resilience Options for responding to change can be influenced
AACA-C scientific method 1. Use of scenarios to explore possible alternative future configurations of societal priorities 3. Identify potential outcomes of intersection between scenario configurations and expected climate impacts. 2. Downscaling of climate modeling to assess impacts at regional and local level
Phase II ARR scientific method 1. Use comparative case study methods to map how social systems (communities) are interacting with/responding to social and biophysical drivers of change. 2. Identify potential or actual regime shifts large shifts in biophysical systems and ecosystem services that affect human well-being 3. Use combined case study and regime shifts data to assess shifts, strategies for adaptation, and for strengthening capacity to adapt to change
Biophysical/geographical Social/political Macro Global (i.e. climate) Pan-arctic Provisioning Regulating Global Pan-Arctic Regional Meso Micro scale Habitat Organism Habitat Cultural ecosystem services National Subnat l-reg Local Household individual Social ecological systems
Resilience Indicators General goals : 1. Ability to track socially and policy relevant developments 2. Policy relevant we would want these indicators to be sensitive to policy responses. 3. Evaluate strategies for adaptation/transformation and for strengthening capacity to effectively respond to change
3 domains suggested by the Arctic Human Development Report / Arctic Social Indicators work: 1. fate control: 2. cultural integrity: 3. contact with nature:
Three key domains represented in the UN Human Development Index 1. material well being: 2. education: 3. health/demography: Arctic relevant indicators should be developed for these three domains
Arctic Social Indicators
Sources of resilience / adaptive capaticy in the Arctic context (ARR 2013) 7 types of capital 1. Natural capital 2. Social capital 3. Human capital 4. Infrastructure 5. Financial capital 6. Knowledge assets 7. Cultural capital