Seite - 441 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

18 LossandDamage in theRapidlyChangingArctic 441 Inthefollowingexamplesfromtheliterature, insufficientallocationoffundingis drivingLossandDamage.Lopez-CarrandMarten-Kenyon(2015)studiedmanage- ment of climate-induced resettlements in theUnited States’ territory of theArctic andfoundthatalthoughgovernmentshavespentconsiderableamountsofmoneyon erosioncontrolnationally, fundinghasnot reached theArcticcommunities.Also in thecaseofKivalina,financingcoastal erosionprotectionhas failed, andat thesame time tensof thousandsof people inAlaska’s nativevillages are under threat due to damages towatersupplyandwaste-storagesystemsthataffect foodandwatersecu- rity (ibid.).Whether the discussion is about climate refugees or climatemigrants, there isaneedforaneffectiveinstitutional frameworktoreducebureaucracytoallo- cate resources, access funding and provide technical assistance at the community level (Dengler et al. 2014). In countries like theUnitedStates, governments have resources for disaster pre- paredness, insurance payouts and infrastructure repairs, but there is nogovernance frameworktoevaluateclimatechangerisksandimpactsandtheneedsforrelocation actions (Bronen2015).Dengleretal. (2014)state that lackingaccess tofinancecre- atesoneof themainconstraints forcommunities to takeactionandleads to inability to take leadondisaster risk responses.For example, buildingofnewinfrastructure, whichisconsideredverycostlyespeciallyinremotelocationssuchasintheArctic,is difficult. Sometimes resources arebeingallocated to technical solutions rather than solutionswherepotentialandobstaclesfororganisedrelocation,andothermeasures areconsideredmoreholisticallyandsustainably,asrevealedbytheliteraturereview. Otherchallengesare thedifficulties tomonetise lossofhealthorsocialcohesion, and excluding indigenous knowledge in planning of disaster risk and adaptation schemes.Furthermore, inequityandinjusticeinclimateriskgovernancecharacterise Loss and Damage from climate change. This is already known from developing countries experience (seechaptersbyWallimann-HelmerandSerdeczny2018). 18.5 ConcludingRemarks In this chapter,we reviewed theArctic risk, vulnerability and impacts literature in order tofindevidence that losses anddamages are distributed across verydifferent geographicalareasandaffectvulnerablecommunities in theArcticaswell.Therole of theArctichas changeddue toclimate change: enormous resourceshavebecome available and land and sea transport has become easier due to less ice and snow, and better technology to access the areas and natural resources (oil and gas, and minerals, for instance). The Arctic has become a common good, serving various needsof theglobal community.ButArctic indigenous communities are among the least responsible for climate change and they are facingharmcausedby economic developments, thosethataremainlydrivenbyclimatechangedirectly,andindirectly byeasieraccess tonatural resourcesat thesame time, leading toenvironmental and social impacts (Maldonadoet al. 2013).