Seite - 436 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

436 M.LandauerandS. Juhola scale informationnetworks to increaseArctic resilience isneeded to respond to the rapid changes (Carmacket al. 2012) and identifywhat remains beyondadaptation, i.e.LossandDamage, andwhy. In summary, this reviewed literature shows thatmanykindsof risksand impacts on societies can already be seen in the Arctic, and some of them fall under the “narrow” category of Loss andDamage, in the literature typically defined as the “residual,adverseimpactsofclimatechangebeyondwhatisaddressedbymitigation andadaptation”(seeHuggeletal.2015:454).Climaticchangesaffect societies that are alreadymuchmore vulnerable than the general population in these developed countries. Arctic societies need to find options to tackle drivers of environmental, economic, social andcultural transformation,but at the same time theyalsohave to findways todealwith the residual lossesanddamages that are ‘beyondadaptation’ toclimatechange. In thenext sectionwedelvedeeper into thesewaysbyproviding examples. 18.4 LossandDamage in theContextof theArctic Throughoutthehistory,Arcticecosystemsanddependentlocalandindigenouscom- munitieswithvaryingneeds, perceptionsandvalues, havebeenadapting toclimate variability.However,due to rapidclimatechangeandglobalchange, limits toadap- tationhave started toemerge.TheArctic literature showlimits to adaptationdue to institutional,political,organisationalandjurisdictional factorshinderingimplemen- tationofadaptation toclimate impacts, leading toLossandDamage.The threshold ofadaptationalsodependsoncurrentsocio-economic,culturalandpoliticalsettings. Aschematicdepiction is showninFig.18.2.TheArcticexamplesof relocationand migration showverywell that due to negative societal and cultural impacts related to these actions, theycanbeconsideredasbeing ‘beyondadaptation,’ i.e.Loss and Damage. Inadequate institutional and financial frameworks to deal with Loss andDam- ageare considered to imply important challenges (Lopez-Carr andMarten-Kenyon 2015).ThisbecomesclearthroughouttheArcticexamples,albeitmainlyfromNorth America(Alaska) thathighlight theneedfornewgovernancemechanismsandinsti- tutionalframeworkstotackleclimatechange.Oneproblemis, thatsometimesnotall typesof impacts are included in jurisdictional frameworks.For example, in caseof (climatechangerelated)disastermitigation,BronenandChapinIII(2013)thinkthat one factor consideringgaps in post-disaster andhazardmitigation statutory frame- work iserosion.Even though it isoneof themost significantclimatechangerelated hazards in the region, it is not included in the official lists ofmajor disasters, such as in the StaffordAct in theUS. Shearer (2012) studied climate adaptation assis- tanceinKivalina,Alaskaandfoundthat indigenouscommunitiesfaceintra-national inequalities while not receiving adaptation assistance, which is only available to formal state actors. Another problem is insufficient allocation and availability of financial resources.BronenandChapinIII (2013)alsofoundthat resourcesareallo-