Resilient communities? Collapse and recovery of a social-ecological system in Arctic Norway

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Fisheries-dependent Sami communities in the Norwegian Arctic face major challenges adapting and responding to socialecological changes. On a local scale, communities and households continually adapt and respond to interacting changes in natural conditions and governance frameworks. Degradation of the marine environment and decline in coastal settlements can move socialecological systems beyond critical thresholds or tipping points, where the system irreversibly enters a different state. We examined the recent social-ecological history of 2 fjords in Finnmark, North Norway, which have coped, over the past 30 years, with the collapse of local fish stocks, harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus) and red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) invasions, and increasingly restrictive resource management regimes. Further, we explored similarities and differences in their social-ecological histories and discuss how the concepts of resilience and tipping points can be applied as analytical tools in empirical studies of community response to socialecological change. We show that although the ecological changes in the 2 communities have consisted of similar developments, they have been temporally different in ways that may have affected coping strategies and influenced the available options at different times. The apparent resilience of Sami fishing communities can be understood as the result of response strategies employed by communities and households, and the economic opportunities that have opened up as a result of a combination of ecological change and institutional and political reforms.

Introduction to the Special Feature on rebuilding fisheries and threatened communities

“…Here, some contributions are particularly insightful, such as Bennett et al's (2014) work on the Andaman coast, which shows the strong linkages between food security, livelihoods, employment, education, and good governance. Broderstad and Eythórsson (2014) do likewise with ecosystem shifts under climate change, and emphasize, in particular, the importance of the links between region-level governance and the ability to generate helpful options under stress. Nayak et al (2014), by contrast, show how failures in governance and a lack of voice in decision-making circles can destroy livelihoods, food security, and community resilience.…”

“…Bennett et al (2014), Broderstad and Eythórsson (2014), Foley and McCay (2014), Johnsen and Hersoug (2014), Nayak et al (2014), Paterson and Kainge (2014), Power et al (2014), and Pinkerton et al (2014) examine issues of complexity, class exploitation, use and property rights, levels and scales of governance, youth, relationships between local and scientific knowledge, often dwindling access to resources, and control over management of local and First Nation communities. They share concerns that many communities and people (who are on the frontlines grappling with major shifts in the social-ecological systems of which they are a part) are at risk of having their vulnerability enhanced by management initiatives and organizational and market changes triggered by, or concurrent with, these changes.…”

“…They suggest a range of interventions that could help, emphasizing the importance of flexibility and diversity of response, and (like Blythe et al 2014) the need for access to sufficient assets, better governance, and leadership. Broderstad and Eythórsson (2014) look at the challenges of change (including climate change) in two Norwegian fjords. They also point to coping as a strategy, including the diversification of the local economy, and emphasize active strategies such as the improvement of capital assets, seeing those as very important.…”

“…Ten addressed the first question (Bennett et al 2014, Blythe et al 2014, Broderstad and Eythórsson 2014, Dawe and Schneider 2014, Foley and McCay 2014, Johnsen and Hersoug 2014, Nayak et al 2014, Paterson and Kainge 2014, Pinkerton et al 2014, Power et al 2014; nine addressed the second question either directly or implicitly (Bennett et al 2014, Blythe et al 2014, Brodestad and Eythórsson 2014, Foley and McCay 2014, Lowitt 2014, Nayak et al 2014, Paterson and Kainge 2014, Pinkerton et al 2014, Power et al 2014; and eight implicitly addressed the last question (Bennett et al 2014, Broderstad and Eythórsson 2014, Foley and McCay 2014, Johnsen and Hersoug 2014, Nayak et al 2014, Paterson and Kainge 2014, Pinkerton et al 2014, Power et al 2014.…”

Securing the future in the anthropocene: A critical analysis of the millennium ecosystem assessment scenarios

“…We're left with only a vague sense that we need to adopt a more ecological sensibility. Here the long list of literary, historical, philosophical and anthropological scholars who write about the nature of human subjectivity and its transformation through the ages would be instructive (Braidotti, 2013;Chakrabarty, 2012;Foucault, 1977;Haraway, 2008;Hayles, 1996;Heidegger, 1962;Merchant, 1980;Spivak, 1987;Wolfe, 2010). The development of the cult of individualism, which founds itself on the ontological separation of the human from ecological concerns would be central to any truly transformative change in "values" and "behaviors."…”