Seite - 442 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

442 M.LandauerandS. Juhola Why shouldwe include theArctic region in theLoss andDamagedebate?One answeristhatifsocio-economicindicatorswerecomparedbetweenInuitregionsand Small IslandDevelopingStates, alsomanyof the Inuit regionswouldbeconsidered as“developing” regionsandshouldgainassistance fromtheUNFCCCfor instance in formof an international fund (Ford2009). InKivalina,Alaska, the communities are considered as first victims of climate change, facing alsomigration pressures anddisplacement,whichcan lead topolitical instability,andcultural loss, similar to examplesfromdevelopingregionssuchas theMaldives(WolskoandMarino2016). Because of direct impacts and relocations, other, indirect impacts have increased, such as post-traumatic disorders affecting health andwellbeing. Even though the people can survive disasters by relocation, there are still differences between indi- viduals regarding howwell, if at all, they can adapt, due to differences in health, culturalintegrityandsenseofplace(ibid.)Althoughsometimesseenasanadaptation strategy,outmigrationhascausedproblemsbecauseyounggenerationsare“pushed” away from their land, and traditional livelihoods are eroding (Himes-Cornel and Hoelting 2015). In other cases, such as shown inNewtok,Alaska, relocation plan- ninghasbeengoingonforso long thatonegenerationhasexperienced it,but still it hasnot lead to implementationof relocationactions (BronenandChapin III 2013). ThecaseofKivalinashowsclearly that, although thecommunity is locatedwithina developedcountry, it is vulnerable, but it is notgetting theassistance itwouldneed fromthestateand internationally.Thereareexamplesshowing that,once relocated, there isno turningback.This iswhenthe landhasbeen literally lostdue tosea level rise, for example. As found in many local studies from the Arctic, the current institutional and financial frameworksare insufficient to tackle theconsequencesofclimaterisksand impacts, leading toLossandDamage.Furthermore, inclusionof local communities inplanninganddecision-making is lacking (Marino2012;Lopez-Carr andMarten- Kenyon 2015). It is also problematic that indigenous communities are not always considered as part of nation states and thus, do not enjoy the same rights as the generalpopulation,which raisesquestionsaroundethical aspects (seeHuggel et al. 2015).We found several legitimacy and justice issues that support our argument thatArcticLossandDamageshouldbediscussed in the internationalclimatepolicy arena. This includes (re-) interpretation of human rights principles, identification of roles and responsibilities, liability, and compensationmechanisms, aswell as a need for international institutional support to reduce limits toadaptation.There is a lack of a proper international institutional framework and lack of local capacity to organise relocation (e.g.Dengler et al. 2014;Maldonado et al. 2013).On theother hand,forcedrelocationisoneconsequenceofweakriskgovernancemechanisms,but relocations represent actions that couldbe supportednationally and internationally to respond to climate risks if guided by international actors and implemented by Arctic communities themselves,who have the local knowledge to reduce negative consequences tocultureandsociety. Lackoffinancial resources isoneof themain factorswhy relocationorbuilding newinfrastructurecannotbe implemented.Thecostsof relocationorrebuildingand newtechnologyintheArcticareveryhighconsideringtheremotelocationandother