Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Cross-Chapter-Paper-6 (section)

=== CCP6.4.3 Enabling Climate Resilience in the Arctic: Self-determination and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights ===

<div id="h2-11-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Climate change disproportionately impacts Indigenous Peoples (Box CCP6.2), which directly affects their livelihoods, health and Sustainable Development Goal targets. For residents in the Arctic, a sustainable development pathway has been found to be highly effective if a self-determined development model is employed ( ''very high confidence'' ). Known determinants of Indigenous self-determined development in regions in the Arctic, include: (1) Indigenous self-determined decision making (and inherent sovereignty); (2) effective and culturally legitimate institutions of government; (3) strategic vision and strategic thinking; and (4) public-spirited, nation-building leadership ( [[#Cornell--1992|Cornell and Kalt, 1992]] ; [[#Cornell--1998|Cornell and Kalt, 1998]] ; [[#Cornell--2007|Cornell and Kalt, 2007]] ; [[#Ritsema--2015|Ritsema et al., 2015]] ). For Indigenous Peoples, advances in recognition of self-governance, land and resource sovereignty, and resource co-management, particularly in the North American Arctic but also elsewhere, provide a strong basis for responding to climate impacts ( [[#Ford--2015|Ford et al., 2015]] ; [[#Robards--2018|Robards et al., 2018]] ). These developments expand the solution space ( [[#Haasnoot--2020|Haasnoot et al., 2020]] ) for responding to climate impacts, although historical and ongoing forms of colonialism in research and government institutions continues to undermine Indigenous self-determination and reinforce climate change vulnerability ( [[#Marino--2015|Marino and Lazrus, 2015]] ; [[#Whyte--2019|Whyte et al., 2019]] ; [[#Ford--2020|Ford et al., 2020]] ; [[#Snook--2020|Snook et al., 2020]] ). Readiness for adaptation across Arctic nations continues to be challenged by a number of factors, including the existence of pressing socioeconomic challenges, institutional and governmental barriers, lack of meaningful inclusion of IK in government planning and response, and lack of financial resources ( [[#Ford--2015|Ford et al., 2015]] ; [[#Loring--2016|Loring et al., 2016]] ; [[#AMAP--2017|AMAP, 2017]] ; [[#Ford--2017|Ford et al., 2017]] ; [[#Birchall--2019|Birchall and Bonnett, 2019]] ) ( [[#AMAP--2018a|AMAP, 2018a]] ). In Alaska, for example, the need to relocate high-risk villages has been recognised by researchers, decision makers and communities themselves for some time, and while progress is being made in some locations ( [[#Ristroph--2017|Ristroph, 2017]] ), institutional barriers have generally resulted in negligible progress ( [[#Bronen--2013|Bronen and Chapin, 2013]] ; [[#Marino--2015|Marino and Lazrus, 2015]] ; [[#Albert--2018|Albert et al., 2018]] ; [[#Rosales--2021|Rosales et al., 2021]] ).

<div id="CCP6.5" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="ccp6.5-summary-and-conclusion"></span>