4. AGEING AND TRANSFORMATION OF THE ARCTIC
4.2 Population dynamics and ageing
Given that the Arctic as a whole is changing, one sees an ongoing change in demographic structures as well (Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). This change will impact the region’s future through its effects on the region’s communities (Rasmussen and Hovelsrud, 2015). At present, the Arctic has a total population of some 4,053,055 people (Heleniak and Bogoyavlensk, 2015, p. 53–101). Hugo Ahlenius (2008) has depicted the distribution of the population on a map showing the number of people living in the Arctic region of each country: some 130,000 in the Canada; 201,000 in Finland; 57,700 in Greenland;
288,000 in Iceland; 380,000 in Norway; 264,000 in Sweden; 1,980,000 in Russia; and 649,000 in Alaska.
The graphic below shows the population distribution in the circumpolar Arctic by country.
The total population of the Arctic declined by 1.4 per cent between 2000 and 2013, whereas the global population increased rapidly during the same period (Heleniak and Bogoyavlensk, 2015, p. 54). Although the population of the Arctic has decreased overall, the trend is not the same in all of its component sub-regions (ASI-I, 2010, p. 36). Where population increases have been seen in Alaska, Iceland and the Canadian Arctic (Emelyanova, 2015; Heleniak and Bogoyavlensk, 2015, p. 54), a decrease has been recorded in the northern parts of Finland, Sweden and Russia in the course of the last 10 years. The research conducted by Emelyanova, (2015) shows that the popula-tion has declined by approximately 5 to 10 per cent in these regions in varied contexts.
However, in the Norwegian and Greenlandic Arctic, population figures have remained the same.
As regards the older population, the Arctic is experiencing ageing along with the globe at large (Emelyanova, 2015, p. 17). Various regions within the Arctic see dynamic patterns in terms of the distribution of their ageing populations. A study carried out by Rasmussen and Sterling (2006) presents the distribution of the percentage of the pop-ulation above the age of 64. According to the research, the Finnish and Swedish Arctic are home to 14 per cent of the countries’ populations at or above the age of 64. The same figure applies to Nunavik in Canada. In Norway this figure ranges from 12 to14 percent. However, for most of the Russian Arctic, as well as Greenland, Alaska and the Canadian Yukon, this figure varies between 5 and 10 percent. In Iceland the figure ranges from 10 to 12 percent. In Swedish and Finnish Lapland, the proportion of the population aged 64 and above is sometimes even higher than in that age group at large in these countries. The latest AHDR-II mentions that the average men’s life expectancy in Russia is below 64 years of age (AHDR-II, 2015, p. 64; OECD (Economic Surveys:
Russian Federation) 2011, p. 30). Between 1987 and 1994 men’s life expectancy de-creased by approximately 8 years. This situation indicates that 5 to 10 per cent of the older people (from Rasmussen and Sterling’s Map) in Russia are women. According to Anastasia Emelyanova (2015), “there are significant variations among Arctic territories in terms of share of older persons. … By 2010, the Arctic Prop 60+ rates rose to a rate of 17% as the average for the region” (Emelyanova, 2015, pp. 44–46). The AHDR-I (2004, p. 37) notes: “[T]he greatest shares of seniors are in Norrbotten [in Sweden]
Source: Hugo Ahlenius, UNEP/GRID-Arendal
and in Lapland, where they are even higher than in the total populations of Sweden [and] Finland. The smallest shares of seniors are in the Arctic regions of Canada and Greenland.” Demographically, all the Arctic countries elsewhere on the globe have much older age patterns with lower fertility rates (Heleniak and Bogoyavlensk, 2015, p. 56; Hassler et al., 2008, p. 106).
Life expectancy is high, and fertility and mortality rates low, for both men and women in the Nordic Arctic. According to life expectancy at birth data (Bjerregaard, 2008, p. 107), on average in Norway men live 77.5, and women 82.3 years; in Sweden, men live 78.4 years on average, whereas women live 82.7 years; and in Finland, the average for men is 75.3 years and for women 82.3. Thus, it is apparent that in Norway and Sweden women live on an average five years longer than men. However, in Finland the gap in life expectancy in favour of women is seven years. Even though older women outnumber older men in the population (Kukarenko, 2011; AHDR-II, 2015; Articles 2 and 3; Young and Bjerregaard, 2008, p. 113), the male population overall in the Arc-tic is relatively larger than the female.
Also characteristic of the Arctic is that it is undergoing an intensifying transforma-tion. This entails rapid changes in climatic conditions, an expansion of commercial activities resulting in changes in the livelihoods, the introduction of new life styles and changes in demographic structure, all of which make the region challenging to its traditional communities, including the older population in them (Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Climate change is perhaps the most prominent change in the Arctic; the tem-perature in the region is rising twice as fast as in other parts of the world (Ingólfsdóttir, 2016, p. 19; Hassol, 2004; Gurdian, 2012; AHDR-II, 2014). It is anticipated that the impact of climate change will accelerate, contributing to major physical, ecological, social, and economic changes in the Arctic (ASI-I, 2010; ACIA, 2005). As a result, the
“resource base is changing, just as the climate” (Rasmussen, 2007, p. 20). In addition to causing physical changes, climate change directly or indirectly influences a number of other trends (Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4). The melting of sea ice and thawing of perma-frost offer easy access to many parts of the Arctic and shipping routes are accessible for longer periods of time (Svensson, 2017, p. 28). Easy access to remote areas offers new opportunities, one can see an increase in extractive industrial activities, tourism and various forms of land use in the Nordic Arctic in particular (Articles 1 and 3).
Such developments are leading to changes in lifestyles among individuals and groups in society from traditional to urbanized (ASI-I, 2010, pp. 51–55; Rasmussen, 2007, p.
16), with consequences for the preservation of traditional values and cultures (Seuru-järvi-Kari, 1995, pp. 83–88). These changes are expected to have a major impact on the population of the region.
Irene Dankelman (2010) has suggested that climate change is a major societal chal-lenge that negatively impacts efforts to build a just and sustainable society. In this re-gard, she advocates gender-specific approaches in climate change policies (Dankelman, 2010, pp. 1–2). Climate change is one of the key challenges which affects everyone but is not gender neutral (Ingólfsdóttir, 2016); it affects women and men differently (Arti-cles 1, 2, 3 and 4; Gunnarsson and Svensson, 2017; Naskali et al., 2016; EIGE reviews,
2012), with women’s voices being neglected. In the EIGE report, it is suggested that “to develop and maintain a sustainable and effective response to climate change, a gender approach and gender-sensitive indicators must be an integral part of all policies and actions at all levels” (EIGE reviews, 2012, p. 3).
Climate change affects older people and “indigenous women more strongly” than other segments of the population (Tovar-Restrepo, 2010, pp. 145–150; Carter et al., 2016). Globally, it has consequences for poverty and gender equality (Climate Festival, 2011). In addition, it stands to exacerbate existing inequalities such as the disparity in socio-economic positions between women and men. Furthermore, it impacts individ-uals’ ability to cope with what is a global phenomenon. Many studies show that more women than men die of causes connected to climate change (Neumayer and Plumper, 2007, pp. 551–566). For instance, “[t]he heat-wave in France in 2006 killed around 1
% more older women than men due to cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and directly heat-related deaths” (EIGE, 2017, p. 7; Fouillet, et al., 2008, pp. 309–317).
Climate change does not affect everyone in the same way (Article 1; Rocklöv and Fors-berg 2009; Åström et al., 2013). The poor, for example, are affected more severely than the rich, and women are affected more than men.
In another trend, changes in population dynamics due to in- and out-migration are altering the demographic structure in the Arctic. People in rural areas are moving to bigger cities in search of better job opportunities, education and training or simply a better quality of life (Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Research conducted by Rasmussen (2007) indicates that young female upper secondary graduates tend to move out of their home communities and the region permanently. Recent studies show that out-migration is common among women (ASI-II, 2014, p. 67; ASI-I, 2010, pp. 72–74; Hamilton and Rasmussen, 2010) and young people. The last several decades have seen consistent research on in- and out-migration of men and women. While more males are moving north than women (AHDR-I, 2004, p. 37), the proportion of women migrating from the region is greater than that of men (AHDR-II, 2014, Naskali et al., 2016; Rasmus-sen, 2009). In recent years, any migration into the region has been largely due to new industrial activities. However, the balance seems to be varied and unstable. In Arctic Norway, a balance obtains between in- and out-migration, whereas in the Swedish and Finnish Arctic out-migration has resulted in an imbalance in the population composi-tion. As a result, what is an overall imbalance in “gender, age and ethnic composition of the population” (Heleniak and Bogoyavlensky, 2015, p. 69) makes particular pop-ulation groups in the region vulnerable, one such group being older people (Ahlenius, 2008; Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4). The changing population dynamic in the Arctic renders older populations vulnerable in Swedish Norrbotten and Finnish Lapland (AHDR-I, 2004, p. 36), which have a comparatively high proportion of older residents.