Climate Vulnerability sets priorities

Download Report

Transcript Climate Vulnerability sets priorities

Sustainability Planning in
Arctic Resource Communities
Michelle Boyle and Hadi Dowlatabadi,
University of British Columbia
with
Members of the Nunavut Economic Developers
Association
Photo: Zainab Mogul, Cambridge Bay, NU
Acknowledgements
• Climate Decision Making Center, Carnegie Mellon
University (NSF SES-034578) and former HDGEC
• SSHRC, Northern Development Program and
Doctoral Fellowship Program
• INAC, Northern Scientific Training Program
• SSHRC/DFO, Oceans Management Research
Network
• Nunavut Economic Developers Association
• Susan Rowley, James Tansey
The Research Project
• Historic patterns of development in the
arctic and its relationship to
communities.
• Current community priorities, control
and capacity.
• Strategic planning tools for adaptation.
Agenda
• Theoretical frameworks for community
adaptation
• Comparison with an actual planning process
(analysis and results)
• Implications for building adaptive capacity in
communities
Models of community adaptation:
Climate vulnerability sets priorities
Sensitivity to
climate
change
Communit
y priorities
Response
Models of community adaptation:
All vulnerabilities set priorities
Sensitivity to
climate
change
Sensitivity to
multiple stresses
Communit
y priorities
Response
Models of community adaptation:
Local control is limited
Sensitivity to
climate
change
Sensitivity to
multiple stresses
Communit
y priorities
Community
control
Response
Models of community adaptation:
A fuller picture
Sensitivity
to climate
change
Sensitivity to
multiple stresses
Successful Responses
Communit
y priorities
Community
control
Adaptive Capacity
External resources
Hypotheses
• H0: Communities identify risks from climate change
as a special priority.
• H1a: Communities enjoy control commensurate with
their priorities.
• H1b: Communities enjoy control over matters
involving climate change adaptation.
• H2: CEDO priorities and resources match needs for
broader community development planning.
Nunavut Economic Development Strategy
(NEDS) 2003
THE LAND
-
Respecting the land
Maintaining our mixed economy
Building on the knowledge of our Elders
OUR PEOPLE
-
Economic development for youth
Education and training
Basic needs: housing, hospitals and schools
OUR COMMUNITY ECONOMIES
-
Community capacity building and organizational development
Small and Inuit business development
Building the knowledge base
OUR TERRITORIAL ECONOMY
-
Putting the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement to work
Sector development and support systems
Infrastructure: from buildings to broadband
Accessing the global marketplace
Method
• NEDS 2003
– 143 Action Items
(excluding 24
implementation items)
• NEDA priority
identification
• Our informed judgments
about broader
community priorities,
sensitivity and levels of
control
Caveats:
• Action items as units of
observation.
• NEDS as reflection of
priorities
– broad guiding principles
– 4 forms of capital: E,H,S,P
High Community Priorities
THE LAND
-
Respecting the land
Maintaining our mixed economy
Building on the knowledge of our Elders
OUR PEOPLE
-
Economic development for youth
Education and training
Basic needs: housing, hospitals and schools
OUR COMMUNITY ECONOMIES
-
Community capacity building and organizational development
Small and Inuit business development
Building the knowledge base
OUR TERRITORIAL ECONOMY
-
Putting the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement to work
Sector development and support systems
Infrastructure: from buildings to broadband
Accessing the global marketplace
Characterizing
Community Priorities
70
60
Actions
50
40
30
20
10
None
Low
Medium
0
Community Priorities
High
Climate Sensitivity &
Community Priority
48
Not a priority
Low priority
Medium priority
None
Low
Medium
High priority
Action Items
40
32
24
16
8
0
Climate Sensivity
High
Community Priorities
Sensitivity to
climate 9%
change
91%
Sensitivity to
multiple stresses
High
Communit
y priorities
Community
control
Characterizing Community
Control
Number of Action Items
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
None
Low
Medium
0
Community Control
High
Community Control &
Community Priority
Number of Action Items
48
No Control
Low Control
Medium Control
High Control
40
32
24
16
8
0
None
Low
Medium
Community Priorities
High
Community Control &
Climate Sensitivity
Number of Action Items
48
No Control
Low Control
Medium Control
High Control
40
32
24
16
8
0
None
Low
Medium
Climate Sensitivity
High
Characterizing Community
Priorities
Number of Action Items
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
None
Low
Medium
0
Community Priorities
High
Characterizing Community &
CEDO Priorities
Number of Action Items
100
None
Low
Medium
High
80
60
40
20
0
Community
CEDO
Priorities
“Make the implementation of the community development plan the
primary task of the community economic developer.”
Conclusions
• H0: Communities identify risks from climate
change as a special priority.
•
H1a: Communities enjoy control commensurate
with their priorities.
• H1b: Communities enjoy control over matters
involving climate change adaptation.
•
H2: CEDO priorities and resources match needs
for broader community development planning

Implications for building adaptive
capacity in arctic communities
• Climate adaptation should become mainstream in
community planning.
• Responsibilities should be better coordinated across
scales relevant to resource allocation and regulation
in Nunavut.
• Responsibilities should be better coordinated across
jurisdictions within communities.
Questions?
Climate Sensitivity and Community Control
INCIDENCE
(RATIO)
Climate
Sensitivity
Not Sensitive
Low
Medium
High
Community Control
No
control
0.35
0.48
0.32
0.33
Low Medium
0.26
0.26
0.10
0.24
0.32
0.32
0.50
0.00
High
0.14
0.19
0.05
0.17
• communities have incomplete control over both climate
sensitive and non-climate sensitive items
Community Priorities and Community Control
INCIDENCE
(RATIO)
Community
Priority
Not a priority
Low
Medium
High
Community Control
No
control
0.94
0.68
0.25
0.20
Low Medium
0.06
0.00
0.11
0.11
0.25
0.32
0.34
0.31
High
0.00
0.11
0.18
0.14
• control is not sought for low priority items?
• communities have incomplete control over higher priority
items