Page - 443 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

18 LossandDamage in theRapidlyChangingArctic 443 construction-relateddifficulties.Furthermore, someindigenouscommunitiesdonot evenhavecasheconomies.AlthougheconomiclosseshavebeencalculatedforArctic villages and cities, and adaptive climate costmodels have been created (e.g. Chi- nowskietal.2010) regardingdamages tophysicalassets suchas infrastructure (e.g. Larsenetal.2008;Chinowskyetal.2010),moreinformationoncostsofrelocations, health impacts and especially non-economic losses is needed (Roberts andAndrei 2015). In addition tofinancial and technical issues the remainingquestion is social justice: how tomaintain viability of the communities and howviability is actually perceivedbydifferent communities (Sejersen2012). According toDuyck(2015a,b), theUNFCCChasnotyetconsideredArcticvul- nerabilityissuesintheinternationaldebateonLossandDamage,andthiswasstillthe casein2018.Thus, theresponsibilityofArcticstates themselvesshouldbeclarified: theyshouldmakesurethevoicesofArcticvulnerablecommunitieswillbeheardand communicated in international climate policy negotiations.Also,Arctic States and theArctic Council should clarify and improve their national communications and the statements fromministers atUNFCCCdeliberations. So far,Arctic states have not sufficiently consideredArcticLoss andDamage issues, and theArcticCouncil hasnotbeen representedsufficiently in theArctic states’documentsandstatements presented to internationalbodies (ibid.). Based on the empirical evidence ofArctic literature,we consider that the inter- national Loss andDamage debate should include theArctic as an example when considering what “vulnerable” and “dangerous climate change” means and what shouldbe takenintoaccountwhentryingtoreducevulnerability.Forexample,non- economic losses andways tomeasure these are also relevant to theArctic, such as lossof senseofplaceandbelonging (Roberts andAndrei2015), and lossofculture and traditions, but they are not adequately considered in the current international Loss andDamage debate. If the international human rights principles lense were to be used to define the vulnerable, then violations of these rights regardingArc- tic indigenous communitieswouldbe evident, basedon the results of our literature review.More in-depth local level studies are needed to examine in detail what is perceived as “dangerous climate change”.According to Sejersen (2012), theways Arctic societies perceive transformations in society and seek for opportunities to adapt to change are very heterogeneous; this is owing, among others, to different historiesof colonialismordifferent typesof livelihoodspracticed in theArctic, but alsodue todifferentvaluesandperceptions, aswell as culturalbackgrounds. UndertheconditionsofrapidchangeintheArctic,currentinstitutionsandgovern- mentmechanismsarenotfoundsufficient todealwith thesemultiplechallengesand dynamicsofchange: climatechange,deteriorationofenvironment, pressureofnew industriesandbusinessesenteringtheArcticregion,andintra-andinter-generational changes forexamplewhenoutmigrationcausesunbalancedageandgenderpopula- tions in remainingcommunities.Furthermore, theclimate refugeeproblemcanfirst beseenlocally(localresponsibilitytotacklewith),but itwillhaveinternationalcon- sequences(global responsibility)andneeds internationalattentionandrethinkingof relocationpolicies.