Arctic Biodiversity Congress 2018 Preliminary Program

Plenary program subject to change. Rooms have yet to be assigned. 

Six main themes guide the flow and organization of the Congress. These overarching themes will run concurrently throughout the Congress and will form the backbone for the Congress. These themes were identified in the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment recommendations for policy

     

EBM10: Building long-term ecosystem monitoring programs to feed Arctic and international biodiversity assessments

Date: Wednesday October 10, 2018

Location: Erottaja, ELY

Time: 8:30-10:00

Arctic Council working groups put substantial effort into identifying and harmonizing data sets for Arctic and international assessments. The Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (CBMP) has developed monitoring plans for marine, coastal, freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems and are in the process of identifying gaps in required biodiversity data. This session will explore how long-term ecosystem-based monitoring programs are designed, the considerations they must take, and how such programs can contribute to a circum-Arctic monitoring program. Presentations include examples of a long-standing and ongoing ecosystem-based monitoring program in Greenland, and the development of a new long-term monitoring program in Canada. Focus will be on how national programmes are developed to bring biodiversity related data to the CBMP and what CBMP does to streamline data collection and disemmination in Arctic and international assessments.

Chairs: Torben R. Christensen and Elmer Topp-Jørgensen, Aarhus University

Format: Series of presentations followed by discussion

Presentations:

  1. Greenland Ecosystem Monitoring Program: Torben R. Christensen, Aarhus Universitypdf
  2. Zackenberg BioBasisProgram and linkages to CBMP: Niels Martin Schmidt, Aarhus Universitypdf
  3. Establishing CHARS as an Arctic Flagship Research and Monitoring Site – Design and Implementation of the CHARS Terrestrial Monitoring Program: Donald McLennan, Polar Knowledge Canada - Canadian High Arctic Research Stationpdf
  4. CBMP strategic plan and data considerations: Sara Longan, North Slope Science Initiativepdf


Abstracts:

Greenland Ecosystem Monitoring Program

Torben R. Christensen, Aarhus University; Elmer Topp-Jørgensen, Aarhus University

The Greenland Ecosystem Monitoring (GEM) Program is an interdisciplinary long-term monitoring program run by greenlandic and danish research institutions. GEM has over the past two decades established itself firmly as an internationally leading climate change related environmental barometer measuring climate change and its impact on arctic ecosystems. The GEM program is designed to study entire ecosystems to identify change and understand ecosystem processes and linkages from the land ice to the near coastal sea. The Program is made up of five disciplinary sub-programmes (ClimateBasis, GeoBasis, BioBasis, MarineBasis and GlacioBasis) and an overarching remote sensing component. Since its early days, GEM has been associated with Arctic Council working groups, AMAP and CAFF, and are thus at the forefront in developing and adopting plans and protocols and contributing to assessments. The long time series of biotic and abiotic parameters allow scientists to track changes in biodiversity patters and ecosystem functioning and relating these various drivers of change. This presentation will provide an example of the development of an integrated approach to monitoring and how it links to arctic and international networks and organisations.

 

Zackenberg BioBasisProgram and linkages to CBMP

Niels Martin Schmidt, Aarhus University

The GEM BioBasis program is the biodiversity component of the GEM program. The program studies key species and processes across plant and animal populations and their interactions within the terrestrial and limnic ecosystem compartments in Kobbefjord/Nuuk (low arctic) and Zackenberg (high arctic), Greenland. The main focus of BioBasis is on biodiversity in general, and abundance and community composition in particular, of important flora and fauna components in the tundra biome. Central to the program is the monitoring of status and trends of selected focal species, phenology of their life history events and rates of reproduction and predation. Through these monitoring activities, BioBasis documents the intra- and inter-annual variation in central parameters, their resilience towards biotic and abiotic perturbations, as well as their long-term trends. BioBasis has strong linkages to Arctic Council’s Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (CBMP). The long time series and the interdisciplinary approach of GEM provides in depth knowledge of ecosystem structure and function, and the status of key biodiversity elements in a changing Arctic. This presentation will provide an example of a biodiversity monitoring program developed over a couple of decades with close ties to the CAFF’s Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (CBMP), including participation in CBMP expert groups, development and adoption of plans and protocols, and how data feeds into arctic and international assessments.

 

Establishing CHARS as an Arctic Flagship Research and Monitoring Site – Design and Implementation of the CHARS Terrestrial Monitoring Program

Donald McLennan, Polar Knowledge Canada - Canadian High Arctic Research Station

Polar Knowledge Canada’s Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS) in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, has a mission to develop the CHARS Experimental and Reference Area (CHARS ERA) as a Flagship Arctic monitoring and research site conducting and supporting world class environmental science by CHARS science staff, and by visiting Canadian and international scientists. The CHARS Monitoring Plan describes a broad, whole-of- ecosystem approach that includes long-term experiment-based monitoring of terrestrial, freshwater and coastal-marine ecosystems, and their interactions, all within a social-ecological context in the CHARS ERA. This presentation describes the terrestrial component of the Plan, which will follow the approaches and Focal Ecosystem Components laid out in the CAFF CBMP Terrestrial Monitoring Plan. Baseline inventories and studies, and piloted monitoring programs have been initiated since 2014 and will be accelerating now that the first CHARS science staff is located full time at the station in Cambridge Bay. Engagement of Kitikmeot communities and residents is another important component of proposed work in the CHARS ERA, and evolving plans for that engagement will be presented. The approach is to also engage regional governments, industry, academia, and NGOs in the development and delivery of the monitoring program. To implement the CHARS monitoring program we are proposing for discussion the creation of ‘communities of practice’ around key subject areas, e.g., cryosphere, birds, small mammals, soil processes, ungulates, C flux, vegetation, to engage interested science teams to cooperatively develop and demonstrate best practices in the CHARS ERA in the various fields. This presentation will summarize the work than has been completed to date by CHARS staff and co-investigators, will outline the monitoring and research framework that is described in the CHARS Monitoring Plan, and will describe work to be conducted in the 2018 field season. This work meets several of the ABC goals, in particular, the implementation of ABA policy recommendations around monitoring, the inclusion of global monitoring programs, facilitation of interdisciplinary discussions and the inclusion of governments, NGOs and industry, and by increasing the visibility of CAFF and the Arctic Council as a leading voice of Arctic biodiversity research and monitoring.

 

CBMP strategic plan and data considerations

Sara Longan, North Slope Science Initiative

The Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (CBMP) is the biodiversity monitoring program of the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), the biodiversity Working Group of the Arctic Council. The CBMP coordinates, collects and synthesizes existing monitoring data from the Arctic States and are thus receiver of data generated by programmes such as GEM and CHARS ERA. CBMP consists of four ecosystem domain groups (terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine) that all develop monitoring plans to detect and understand changes. These Arctic Biodiversity Monitoring Plans are developed by steering committees with input from various expert networks and includes standardizing and coordinating monitoring as well as synthesizing essential data.

 

EBM9: Biodiversity as a fundamental component of environmental impact assessments and land use planning

Date: Thursday October 11, 2018

Location: Kero, Lappia Hall

Time: 10:30-12:00

The session will include presentations that focus on how biodiversity issues are linked with Environmental Impact Assessments in the Arctic. How biodiversity issues can be included most efficiently? What methods exist for this? Akwé: Kon Guidelines and experiences of their implementation in Finland are shared and refined in the discussion. Presentations from a variety of perspectives will be followed by a roundtable discussion.

Chairs: Peter Convey, British Antarctic Survey

Format: Series of presentations followed by discussion

Presentations:

  1. Good practice recommendations for EIA and public participation in the Arctic: Päivi A. Karvinen, Ministry of the Environment, Finland pdf
  2. Biodiversity Convention and Akwé: Kon Guidelines in the Arctic – Incorporating traditional knowledge based cultural, environmental and social impact assessment into existing EIA procedures: Assi Harkoma, Arctic Centre, University of Lapland pdf
  3. Monitoring in Arctic Ecosystem-based Management:  Opportunities in Collaboration and Governance: Shailyn Drukis, Canadian Committee for IUCN 
  4. Pan-arctic wildlife monitoring: stakeholder needs and gaps in driver representation in socio-ecological systems: Helen Wheeler, Anglia Ruskin University, UK 
  5. Area protection in and around Antarctica – lessons from the other pole: Peter Convey, British Antarctic Survey pdf


Abstracts:

Good practice recommendations for EIA and public participation in the Arctic

Seija Rantakallio, Ministry of the Environment, Finland

The Arctic EIA Project - Good Practice Recommendations for Environmental Impact Assessment and Public Participation in the Arctic - has been working under the Sustainable Development Working Group of the Arctic Council since May 2017. What is the State of Play of the Project? How are biodiversity issues linked with the Project? An introduction to the theme.

 

Biodiversity Convention and Akwé: Kon Guidelines in the Arctic – Incorporating traditional knowledge based cultural, environmental and social impact assessment into existing EIA procedures

Assi Harkoma, Arctic Centre, University of Lapland; Leena Heinämäki, Arctic Centre, University of Lapland

Akwé: Kon Guidelines are 1) a participatory tool, 2) traditional knowledge-based impact assessment tool and 3) knowledge co-production mechanism designed for Indigenous Peoples. The Guidelines provide a collaborative framework ensuring the full involvement of indigenous and local communities in the assessment of cultural, environmental and social impact of proposed developments on sacred sites and on lands and waters they have traditionally occupied. Moreover, guidance provides how to take into account traditional knowledge, innovations and practices as part of the impact assessment processes and promote the use of appropriate technologies. The objective is to produce knowledge on the impacts of the proposed developments and thereby help to prevent negative impacts to biodiversity as well as Indigenous Peoples' culture and livelihoods. Finland is the first country in the world to apply Akwé: Kon Guidelines in environmental decision-making processes. What are the Finnish experiences? How to extend the use of guidelines to other countries? What EIAs can and learn and adapt from Akwé: Kon?

 

Monitoring in Arctic Ecosystem-based Management:  Opportunities in Collaboration and Governance

Scott Slocombe, Wilfrid Laurier University; Shailyn Drukis

Ecosystem-based approaches are an important strategy for land, sea and resource management. They have been widely applied, but can be challenging to implement for a range of conceptual and practical reasons, including missing information and public support. Good information on biodiversity and ecosystems is essential to protected areas, wildlife conservation, tourism management, and environmental impact assessment, among other activities central to ecosystem-based management and arctic system sustainability. Drawing on a review of the experience of biodiversity and ecosystem monitoring in ecosystem-based approaches in the Arctic, we explore the history, challenges, and opportunities in developing and maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem monitoring and data programs for ecosystem-based management. This review will draw on a specific case-study or two. Challenges such as capacity and cost, seasonality, reactive data gathering, sensitive data, the complexity of ecosystem-based approaches, and governance and coordination wil be discussed. Possible approaches include short and long-term monitoring programs, participatory approaches such as wildlife cameras and citizen science, collaboration with research institutes and international networks, building on existing experience, and cooperative governance and education. Data and monitoring not only can facilitate conserving nature and resources, but also can facilitate connecting to people and collaborating with partners at a range of scales, both key elements of ecosystem-based approaches. This paper contributes to the conference goals of mainstreaming biodiversity and facilitating implementation by policymakers, in part by identifying ways for scientific, policy, NGO, academia and industry audiences to collaborate. It specifically supports Arctic Biodiversity Assessment recommendations 3 and 4 around mainstreaming biodiversiry and advancing ecosystem-based management in the Arctic.

 

Pan-arctic wildlife monitoring: stakeholder needs and gaps in driver representation in socio-ecological systems

Helen Wheeler, Anglia Ruskin University, UK

Under rapid climatic, ecological and socio-economic changes, arctic wildlife faces complex interacting stressors and effective wildlife monitoring is needed. As the community of individuals involved in monitoring expands, we need higher-level frameworks to maximise monitoring effectiveness for a broader set of biodiversity- and human-related needs. Using stakeholder interviews and spatial analyses (focussed on seabirds), we provide a cross-stakeholder analysis of the desired outcomes from arctic monitoring and assess the distribution of monitoring sites across different drivers of change. In doing so, we highlight the current monitoring needs for, and gaps in, arctic monitoring. To assess stakeholder monitoring needs, we interviewed 29 individuals who were either scientists, policy/decision-makers, representatives of Indigenous organisations or NGOs. We identified 18 desired monitoring outcomes, driven by either information from monitoring, the process of monitoring or a combination of the two. We identified key desired outcomes of arctic monitoring in socio-ecological systems such as “Make decisions”, “Conserve”, “Detect Change”, “Disseminate” and “Secure food”, and a number of emerging themes, such as “Govern”. Network analysis revealed a low strength of perceived links between information-driven and derived outcomes and process-driven and derived outcomes. The observed disconnect between information- and process-derived outcomes highlights the need to better integrate monitoring processes (aimed at engaging stakeholders and increasing participation) with the information derived outcomes from monitoring (such as decision-making and conservation). To assess gaps in wildlife monitoring across drivers of change, we performed a spatial analysis of locations of seabird breeding colony monitoring sites. We assessed the distribution of monitoring sites over different drivers of change relative to coastal conditions across the Arctic and the distribution of known breeding colonies. We use this to demonstrate biases in monitoring geographically and towards certain areas of driver-space. We discuss the relative representation of a number of anthropogenic, climatic and ecological drivers of change in arctic monitoring. Our work contributes to the ABA recommendation of ‘Improving knowledge and public awareness’ and also cuts across other themes such as ‘Climate change’, ‘Ecosystem-based management’ and ‘Addressing individual stressors on biodiversity’. Through our analysis of stakeholder needs, we provide recommendations to create more meaningful stakeholder participation and a set of goals to drive how, what and where we monitor. Through our spatial analysis, we assess key gaps in scientific knowledge in relation to monitoring coverage and representation, which affect our ability to identify responses to climate change and other stressors to inform stewardship and ecosystem-based management.

 

Area protection in and around Antarctica – lessons from the other pole

Peter Convey, British Antarctic Survey; Kevin Hughes, British Antarctic Survey

The Antarctic Treaty area, located south of latitude 60oS, is governed by consensus through the Antarctic Treaty System, while biologically-related lower latitude sub-Antarctic islands fall under national sovereignty. Area protection, with the exception of large marine protected areas, is agreed through the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs) can protect a range of values. Of 72 ASPAs that have been created in the past 52 years, 76% included in their justification the protection of Antarctic terrestrial communities. However, the current ASPA network is far from representative of the region’s biodiversity and has been assessed as inadequate and under threat. In particular, the recent definition of at least 16 distinct Antarctic Biogeographic Conservation Regions within Antarctica means that large parts of terrestrial Antarctica receive no or almost no formal protection at all. In general, ASPAs have been designated historically at locations close to research stations, with only five of the 29 Treaty Consultative Parties (nations) acting as proponents for over 80% of existing ASPAs. However, despite the rate of ASPA designation declining in the past decade, the situation is evolving. ASPAs are starting to be proposed by consortia of nations, increasingly at locations remote from research stations, and in response to climate change threats. Nations previously not involved in ASPA designation are becoming more involved in their management. Finally, recent work has shown that the logistical capacity exists to protect areas across all of the bioregions currently identified within the continent. While governance mechanisms are clearly different between the Arctic and Antarctica, the requirements of and challenges to robust and effective protection are often similar, and we suggest that better conservation outcomes will result through greater sharing of area protection expertise between the poles.

EBM7: The CBMP as an international player and a regional Biodiversity Observation Network of GEO BON: exploring synergies

Date: Tuesday October 9, 2018

Location: Teiva, Lappia Hall

Time: 15:00-16:30

The CBMP Strategic Plan 2018 – 2021 includes an activity to map anticipated outputs to support national, regional and global needs. e.g. (1) the Aichi Targets and indicators; (2) Monitoring Plan attributes to the Biodiversity Observation Network of the Group on Earth Observations – Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON) Essential Biodiversity Variables (3) Biodiversity Action Plans and other processes. The CBMP has been formally recognized as a regional GEO BON. GEO BON’s mission is to improve the acquisition, coordination and delivery of biodiversity observation data to decision-makers. It operates as a global network with other 200 partner organizations representing expertise in remote sensing, in-situ observations, citizen science, modelling, indicators and policy outputs at national, regional and global scales for the biodiversity related conventions as well as the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. This session will present the CBMP Strategic Plan and discuss the international linkages for the CBMP with focus on GEO BON. There is a great opportunity to develop some meaningful and co-beneficial interactions, particularly in the areas of model-based indicators, indicator visualizations, remote sensing techniques, biodiversity observation tool sharing and biodiversity observation network design.

Chairs: Mike Gill, Group on Earth Observations - Biodiversity Observation Network; Tom Christensen, Arctic Research Centre, Aarhus University

Format: Series of presentations followed by moderated panel discussion

Presentations:

  1. The Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program – The CBMP Strategic Plan 2018 – 2021: Tom Christensen, Arctic Research Centre, Aarhus University pdf
  2. The Group on Earth Observations – Biodiversity Observation Network: From Data to Decision: Mike Gill, Group on Earth Observations - Biodiversity Observation Network pdf
  3. Other international body (CBD/ IPBES) and Aichi and post 2020 Targets: Alexander Shestakov, Secretariat of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity 
  4. Presentation highlighting Data that are created by the CBMP remote sensing work: TBDpdf
  5. Presentation on SABR indicator/ FEC development and datacreation. Potential links to GEO - BON and other international partners: Jen Lento, University of New Brunswick pdf

Moderated panel discussion led by Mike Gill, Group on Earth Observations - Biodiversity Observation Network and Tom Christensen, Arctic Research Centre, Aarhus University 


Abstracts:

EBM8: Guidelines for ecosystem approach to management across the Arctic: who, what, where and how?

Date: Friday October 12, 2018

Location: Saivo, Lappia Hall

Time: 10:30-12:00

The Arctic Council’s Joint PAME/AMAP/CAFF/SDWG Ecosystem Approach Expert Group (EA-EG) has been tasked with the development of guidelines for an Ecosystem Approach to management in the Arctic. The EA-EG is developing a framework for EA guidelines and now seeks engagement with the Arctic Council and its partners to fully develop them. A first draft of EA guidelines resulting from the EA-EG’s 6th EA Workshop (https://pame.is/index.php/projects/ecosystem-approach/ea-documents-and-workshop-reports/6th-ea-workshop) will be presented as a starting point. Presentations on Case Studies of EA will be made by EA experts from the International Council for Exploration of the Seas (ICES), Arctic countries, observers and Indigenous communities, followed by facilitated discussion. The case studies and discussion will address the “who” of EA guidelines (who is the target audience?); the “what” (what are guidelines? at what level of detail and specificity?); the “where” (addressing scale integration from pan-Arctic to local); and “how” (how does one implement guidelines?). The output of the session will be a written summary outlining key points of discussion and recommendations for future Arctic Council priorities and cross-working group collaboration to advance Ecosystem Approach to Management and conservation of marine biodiversity.

Chair: Hein Rune Skjoldal, Institute of Marine Research

Format: Series of presentations followed by moderated panel discussion

Presentations:

  1. Introduction to Guidelines for Ecosystem Approach to Management (EA) in the Arctic: Hein Rune Skjoldal, Institute of Marine Research pdf
  2. The Circumpolar Inuit Wildlife Management Summit 2017: Nicole Kanayurak, Inuit Circumpolar Council pdf

Moderated panel discussion led by Hein Rune Skjoldal, Institute of Marine Research 

Panelists:

  • Nicole Kanayurak, Inuit Circumpolar Council  
  • Maya Gold, Fisheries and Oceans Canada 
  • John Bengtson, NOAA
  • Cecilie von Quillfeldt, Norwegian Polar Institute 

Abstracts:

Introduction to Guidelines for Ecosystem Approach to Management (EA) in the Arctic

Hein Rune Skjoldal, Institute of Marine Research
Elizabeth Logerwell, NOAA Fisheries

The following 6-element framework for Guidelines for EA will be described: 1.Identify the geographic extent of the ecosystem 2.Describe the biological and physical components and processes of the ecosystem, incl. humans and their activities 3.Set ecological objectives that define sustainability of the ecosystem 4.Assess the Current state of the ecosystem (Integrated Ecosystem Assessment) 5.Value the cultural, social and economic goods produced by the ecosystem Manage human activities to sustain the ecosystem

 

The Circumpolar Inuit Wildlife Management Summit 2017

Vernae Angnagoobok, Inuit Circumpolar Council
Pitseolalaq Moss-Davies, Inuit Circumpolar Council
Carolina Behe, Inuit Circumpolar Council

Inuit communities continue to rely on the Arctic’s natural resources for food security – where food security encompasses complex and interlinked cultural and environmental systems and food practices provides cultural and physical sustenance daily. Inuit across the circumpolar Arctic participate in, and in some cases, have been party to the development of, wildlife co-management regimes dictating their access to wildlife resources while relying on their Traditional management practices. Despite the array of regional, national, and international regulatory and political activity driving Arctic wildlife management, Inuit continue to face barriers to protecting their basic rights to food security and implementing practices that support biodiversity both domestically and internationally. In response to long-standing concerns, ICC hosted a circumpolar Inuit wildlife management summit to bring Inuit together to discuss wildlife management beyond borders. This presentation will provide an overview of the Summit and actions put forward that will further support Inuit contributing to and adding new information and knowledge needed to advance a holistic understanding of the Arctic and inform ecosystem based decision-making. An Inuit perspective will be shared on how holistic management builds stronger protection of the ecosystem, inclusive of Indigenous Peoples and cultures, as Inuit envision the future of Arctic wildlife management, where the management of migratory species are not bound by regional, national, and international borders.

EBM6: Large herbivores as agents of ecosystem based management in the circumpolar Arctic

Date: Tuesday October 9, 2018

Location: Saivo, Lappia Hall

Time: 13:00-14:30

There is an urgent need to mainstream biodiversity and ecosystem services ensuring that the recommendations and implementation of the ABA are implemented by not just government, but many organizations and peoples, and across sectors. Large herbivores, such as reindeer/caribou, bison, muskox, and horses are important drivers of diversity, structure and function in ecosystems across the circumpolar Arctic. Since the late Pleistocene, large wild herbivores have acted as agents of change between low- and high-productivity tundra and steppe-tundra ecosystems, respectively. During the late Holocene, indigenous peoples and their semi-domesticated and domesticated herds of livestock have often worked together to manipulate transitions between alternative ecosystem states to suit their collective needs. In the modern Arctic, ecosystem based management must properly account for the role of large herbivores. As Arctic ungulate populations wax and wane, it is critical to understand a range of herbivore-mediated patterns and processes. Participatory research with modern Indigenous peoples is one tool that has already demonstrated how large ungulate herds can be managed to increase or decrease e.g. woody plant diversity and ground cover. However, wild herds have also been linked to land cover changes. This session will explore the role of herbivores as agents of ecosystem based management in a series of presentations.

Chair: Bruce C. Forbes, Arctic Centre, University of Lapland

Format: Series of presentations followed by discussion

Presentations:

  1. The role human-animal agency in ecosystem based management across the tundra zone of Northern Fennsocandia: Tim Horstkotte, Umeå University pdf
  2. Circumpolar arctic tundra biomass and productivity dynamics in response to projected climate change and herbivory: Howard Epstein, University of Virginia pdf
  3. Instability of wild reindeer migration and possibility of adaptive management by local people in Arctic Siberia: Shirow Tatsuzawa, Hokkaido University/North-Eastern Federal Universitypdf
  4. Stomping in silence: the overlooked role of ungulate trampling in shaping tundra ecosystems: Maria Väisänen, Ecology and Genetics Research Unit, University of Oulupdf
  5. Rangifer management controls a climate-sensitive tundra state transition: Virve Ravolainen, Norwegian Polar Institutepdf

 


Abstracts:

The role human-animal agency in ecosystem based management across the tundra zone of Northern Fennsocandia

Tim Horstkotte, Umeå University, Sweden
Jon Moen, Umeå University, Sweden
Jukka Käyhkö, Turku University, Finland
Minna Turunen, University of Lapland, Finland
Sirpa Rasmus, University of Lapland, Finland
Mia Landauer, University of Lapland, Finland
Tove Aagnes Utsi, Arctic University of Norway, Norway
Bruce Forbes, University of Lapland, Finland

Many primary livelihoods in Arctic and sub-Arctic regions experience accelerating effects of environmental change. The often close connection between indigenous peoples and their respective territories allows them to make detailed observations of how these changes transform the landscapes where they practice their daily activities. Here, we report Sami reindeer herders’ observations based on their long-term inhabitance and use of contrasting pastoral landscapes in northern Fennoscandia. In particular, we focus on the capacity for various herd management regimes to prevent a potential transformation of open tundra vegetation to shrubland or woodland. Sami herders did not confirm a substantial, rapid, or large-scale transformation of treeless tundra areas into shrub- and/or woodlands. However, where they observe encroachment of open tundra landscapes, a range of factors was deemed responsible. These included abiotic conditions, anthropogenic influences, and the direct and indirect effects of reindeer. The advance of the mountain birch tree line was in some cases associated with reduced or discontinued grazing and fire- wood cutting, depending on the seasonal significance of these particular areas. Where the tree line has risen in elevation and/or latitude, herding practices have by necessity adapted to these changes. Exploiting the capacity of reindeer impacts on vegetation as a conservation tool offers time-tested adaptive strategies of ecosystem management to counteract a potential encroachment of the tundra by woody plants. How- ever, novel solutions in environmental governance involve difficult trade-offs for ecologically sustainable, economically viable, and socially desirable management strategies.

 

Circumpolar arctic tundra biomass and productivity dynamics in response to projected climate change and herbivory

Howard Epstein, University of Virginia; Donald Walker, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, USA

Satellite remote sensing data have indicated a general ‘greening’ trend in the arctic tundra biome. However, the observed changes based on remote sensing are the result of multiple environmental drivers, and the effects of individual controls such as warming, herbivory, and other disturbances on changes in vegetation biomass, community structure, and ecosystem function remain unclear. We apply ArcVeg, an arctic tundra vegetation dynamics model, to estimate potential changes in vegetation biomass and net primary production (NPP) at the plant community and functional type levels. ArcVeg is driven by soil nitrogen output from the Terrestrial Ecosystem Model, existing densities of Rangifer populations, and projected summer temperature changes by the NCAR CCSM 4.0 general circulation model across the Arctic. We quantified the changes in aboveground biomass and NPP resulting from (i) observed herbivory only; (ii) projected climate change only; and (iii) coupled effects of projected climate change and herbivory. We evaluated model outputs of the absolute and relative differences in biomass and NPP by country, bioclimate subzone, and floristic province. Estimated potential biomass increases resulting from temperature increase only are approximately 5% greater than the biomass modeled due to coupled warming and herbivory. Such potential increases are greater in areas currently occupied by large or dense Rangi- fer herds such as the Nenets-occupied regions in Russia (27% greater vegetation increase without herbivores). In addition, herbivory modulates shifts in plant community structure caused by warming. Plant functional types such as shrubs and mosses were affected to a greater degree than other functional types by either warming or herbivory or coupled effects of the two.

  

Instability of wild reindeer migration and possibility of adaptive management by local people in Arctic Siberia

S. Tatsuzawa1, 3,
I. Okhlopkov 2,
E. Nikolaev3,
R. Kirillin2,
E. Kirillin2,
M. Nicholai2
N. Solomonov 2, 3

1 Graduate School of Letters/Arctic Research Center, Hokkaido University, Japan 2 Institute for Biological Problems of Cryolithozone, SB RAS, Russia 3 North-Eastern Federal University, Russia

In East Siberia, the distribution and composition of birds and mammals have been changed rapidly in the last 30 years under the global warming condition. In particular, the change and de-stabilization of migration route of the wild tundra reindeer Rangifer tarandus is a serious problem for local residents, especially indigenous/small numbered peoples to maintain their traditional hunting livelihood. Therefore, to know current distribution and migration trends of wild tundra reindeer in the western part of the republic of Sakha (Yakutia), we have tracked about 30 animals from 2009 by using of satellite radio transmitters (Argos-Argos, GPS-Argos). Results are as follows; 1) Their migration routes have been shifted to the south, and utilization of tundra area was decreasing compared with 30 years ago, 2) Taymyr and Lena-Olenek populations have been mixed by their migration route changes, 3) Their wintering range are tends to concentrate on upper stream area of Olenek river, although they are dispersed in summer, and 4) Their migration ranges are restricted to “reindeer lichen habitat”, and disturbed by large scale developments in their wintering area. Based on our tracking data and ground observation data by local people, we proposed to the local government to set up an “adaptive” protected area for wild reindeer, and it has been realized and is now in evaluation. Although this protected area seems to be effective for both reindeer population and the indigenous people hunting, social/ecological conflicts with local residents/ecosystem are concerned. This provides a case study on how the changes in behavior and distribution of wild tundra reindeer by global warming affect local ecosystems and indigenous/local communities.

 

Stomping in silence: the overlooked role of ungulate trampling in shaping tundra ecosystems

Maria Väisänen, Ecology and Genetics Research Unit, University of Oulu
Henni Ylänne, Centre for Environmental and Climate Research, Lund University

The circumpolar tundra is widely grazed by ungulates, such as reindeer, muskox, sheep and moose. They influence their surrounding environment through plant consumption, excretion of urine and feces and trampling. The existing theoretical frameworks have centered on the roles of consumption and excretion and, accordingly, these mechanisms have been considered as the main drivers of ungulate-induced ecosystem shifts whereas the role of ungulate trampling remains largely unknown. However, the effect of trampling was recently suggested to become more important as the body-weight of the plant-feeding animal increases. We argue that trampling may be the most dominant ungulate mechanism, since ungulates are large-sized and trampling always coincides with ungulate presence and may exert impacts on the environment either alone or in combination with consumption and excretion. Separating the effect of trampling from the other mechanisms is challenging and thus, experimental evidence of trampling effects is largely missing Conceptual frameworks are required to facilitate research. We used expert knowledge elicitation and reviewed literature to develop conceptual models about ungulate trampling. Firstly, we propose a concept that integrates the effects of ungulate body-weight, population density and behavior. This concept, effective trampling intensity, can be used to describe and standardize trampling effects between sites. Secondly, we propose a pathway of trampling-induced changes in soil physicochemical, structural and biotic properties and their ultimate effects on key ecosystem processes, such as greenhouse gas release. This pathway gives directions on what to measure from soil and how to link the findings with other soil attributes and even ecosystem-level processes. Finally, we discuss the roles of seasonality and varying effective trampling intensity in modulating the trampling impacts on soil and ponder the role of trampling legacy in shaping tundra ecosystems now and in the future.

 

Rangifer management controls a climate-sensitive tundra state transition

Kari Anne Bråthen, UiT- The Arctic University of Norway
Virve Ravolainen, Norwegian Polar Institute

We present results from a regional scale study that demonstrates the impact of a managed ungulate on a climate-sensitive tundra state transition. The focal tundra state, shrubland, is of high importance for biodiversity of plants, insects and birds and reported to be rapidly changing due to climate warming. Rangifer (caribou/reindeer) management has been suggested to mitigate the temperature-driven transition of arctic tundra into a shrubland state, yet how is uncertain. We used a large-scale quasi-experimental study design that included real management units that spanned a wide range of Rangifer population densities and summer temperatures in order to assess the relative importance of these two driving variables. Ground-surveys provided data on density and height of the small shrub life stages, while the distributional limit (shrubline) of established shrublands was derived from aerial photographs. Where Rangifer densities were above a threshold of approximately 5 animals km-2 we found, in accordance with the expectation of a “browse trap”, that the small life stages of shrubs in grasslands were at low height and low abundance. At Rangifer densities below this threshold the small life stages of shrubs were taller and more abundant indicating Rangifer were no longer in control of the grassland state. For the established shrubland state, we found that the shrubline was at a 100 m lower elevation in the management units where Rangifer have been browsing in summer as opposed to the migratory ranges with no browsing in summer. In both seasonal ranges the shrubline increased 100 m per 1°C increment in temperature. Our study supports the proposal that Rangifer management within a sustainable range of animal densities can mitigate the much-focused transition from grassland to shrubland in a warming arctic.


LAVVU1: Nomadic herders lavvu dialogue

Join Arctic youth and Indigenous leaders in the lavvu as they discuss observations of change and solutions for sustainable use of Arctic resources. LEARN MORE

Chairs: Svein Mathiesen, International Centre for Reindeer Husbandry; Katherine Johnsen, GRID Arendal; Gunn-Britt Retter, Saami Council

Location: Outside Lappia Hall
Date: Thursday October 11, 2018
Time: 10:30-12:30

                     

Activity: Bird nesting boxes and insect hotels

Join staff from Metsähallitus, Metsähallitus Forestry Ltd and Science centre Pilke to construct bird boxes and insect hotels. Participants can take their boxes and hotels home with them, or they can donate them local schools, who will take them into the forests and monitor their use. LEARN MORE.

Bird nesting box. photo: Timo Tahvonen

Chairs: Timo Tahvonen with Science centre Pilke inspirers, Metsähallitus

Location: Outside Lappia Hall 
Date: Tuesday October 9-Thursday October 11, 2018
Time: 12:00-15:00, while supplies last


The form and content of the Congress program is under development, with guidance from the Program Advisory Committee, but is expected to include the above elements. In order to allow for some adjustments, including further input from the Program Advisory Committee, Congress organizers reserve the right to make changes to the preliminary program. Such changes will be posted on this Congress website.

   logo 2  
 
Nordic Council of Ministers Converted small  nefco logo2 web Small    Equinor PRIMARY logo RGB RED small  
       
        ELY LA02 Logo EN V1 CMYK small 
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel
Join our LinkedIn Group
Check us out on Google+
Follow Us on Instagam
Follow Us on Flickr