1. Adaptation and institutional reflexivity
Monica Tennberg
Arctic centre
University of Lapland

2. The aim Today In the future
To present shortly concepts of adaptation and institutional reflexivity
To present a Nordic example
In the future
To expand the study to cover all the Arctic countries
To include the latest national reports of the Arctic states to the analysis

3. Smith et al (2001)
Adaptation to changes, which can be autonomous or policy-driven, “are adjustments in practices, processes, or structures to take account of changing environmental and economic conditions”.
Adaptive capacity refers to “a property of a system to adjust its characteristics or behaviour in order to expand its coping range under existing climate variability or future climate conditions”.

4. The role of inadequate institutional support is frequently cited in literature as a hindrance to adaptation.
Adaptive capacity will “be greater if social institutions and arrangements governing the allocation of power and access to resources within a community, or a nation, or a region assure that access to resources is equitably distributed”.

5. Adaptation is a political process: “Adaptation is a process by which strategies to moderate, cope with, and take advantage of the consequences of climate events are enhanced, developed and implemented”.
Arctic communities have different opportunities for adaptation since their economic, political, social and legal contexts for adaptation are different.

6. Institutional dimension
Young’s approach (2002) to institutions
Institutions: rules for the use of nature as social practices
Institutional fit between ecological and social systems
Institutional interplay: vertical and horizontal networks of institutions

7. Reflexivity: the human capacity to act and to transform institutional arrangements
The theory of structuration (Giddens 1984): structures and agencies are mutually constitutive
The perspective is agent-based: the focus is on agents’ motivations & rationalizations

8. The dilemma? ACIA National plans and strategies IPCC work
for adaptation
IPCC work

9. Nordic example: the first two national reports before the publication of ACIA report
Norway
Finland
Sweden
Institutional fit
Importance of fishery and its capacity to adapt to changes
Focus on forests and their capacity to adapt to impacts of climate change
Low vulnerability in short-term, higher in the long-term
Institutional interplay
Extreme weather conditions and their impacts
External factors have an impact to Finnish situation
Extreme events and their impacts
Spatial scale
Minor impacts controllable
Finland and the rest of the world
Special areas of concern; the Baltic and the mountainous areas
Temporal scale
Reference to the need of research to adapt to changes
Reference to past adaptations and its success
Reference to future impacts and adaptation needs until 2030

10. Analysis of the third national reports in 2006
Has the Arctic Climate Change Impact Assessment (ACIA) influenced national assessments in any way?
Has the IPCC work been influenced in any way by ACIA results?
How are the national reports actually written?
The role of Arctic climate politics in the formulation of national strategies and policies?