|
RANGIFER AS AN INDICATOR
OF CHANGE IN THE CIRCUMPOLAR ARCTIC:
Developing a monitoring program
Based on discussions at Minary, New Hampshire, Feb. 1-3
Don Russell, Canadian Wildlife Service, Yukon, CANADA
How concept of monitoring
Rangifer started
- In Iqaluit, Canada (1998), the Arctic
Council ministers directed Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna
(CAFF) to "identify elements of a program to monitor circumpolar
biodiversity" and to "assess the effects of climate change on
Arctic ecosystems".
CAFF's response
- In Iceland (2000) CAFF biodiversity
working group gathered to develop a framework for a circumpolar
biodiversity monitoring program, specifying approach and key parameters,
against which national and international monitoring programs can
be evaluated and linked.
Indicators agreed upon
at CAFF meeting
- Arctic Char, Seabirds, Ringed seals,
Waders, ITEX plants, and Rangifer
Network terms of reference
CAFF drafted terms of reference for these
proposed species networks. These are:
- A Rangifer Monitoring Network will be
a voluntary activity for individuals and countries involved
- CAFF has no financial obligation in
pilot phase of the network
- Don Russell, Canadian Wildlife Service,
Yukon, Canada was identified "Rangifer netmaster"
- The netmaster is responsible to identify
people, preferably one per Arctic country
- Netmaster is to coordinate work and
report to CAFF on progress
- Objectives of pilot project are:
- a. Assess the interest and need for
a monitoring network, especially in relation to climate change
- b. Propose set of achievable activities
that use biological, remote sensing and community-based monitoring
methods
- c. Consider practical issues of funding,
data gathering and harmonisation
- d. Report its preliminary findings
to CAFF
Proposed
monitoring goal
By monitoring Rangifer systems, determine the relative impact of
the three forces for change (climate, industrial development and
institutional) on the terrestrial northern ecosystem and northern
cultures. - first proposed Rovaniemi, Finland Feb. 1999 (Polar
Record 2(9) p. 34.
Questions addressed by
an assessment and monitoring program
- Remote sensing
- a. Has the weather changed in the
last few decades?
- b. How has this change affected
reindeer/caribou habitat?
- c. How can we use satellites to
monitor change in the range of a herd?
- Herd assessment and monitoring
- a. What do we know about each herd?
- b. What role has/does global change
play in the health of the herd?
- c. How will change affect the health
of the herd?
- d. What are the implications of
those changes to people's relationship with the resource?
- Community monitoring
- a. What are the hunters and herders
telling us about changes?
- b. How have changes affected reindeer/caribou's
health, movements, and behavior?
- c. How have changes affected people's
access to animals and quality of grazing lands
- d. How can climate change information
be used by communities to help monitor the health of the herd?
- Communications
- a. How can this information be shared?
- b. How will management decisions
affect users and reindeer/caribou if forces of change increase?
Principles to get monitoring
going
- Develop protocol for "common" indicators
- Keep it simple
- Go slowly and build on successes
- Build strong communication program
- Learn from others - share experiences
Questions we need to
discuss
- Advantages and disadvantages of forming
network?
- Existing monitoring initiatives?
- What Human-Rangifer Systems and what
Rangifer ecotypes?
- Forces of change to consider?
- Regional and community partners?
- How to communicate and report?
- Herder or hunter role and responsibility?
- Funding possibilities?
Key Discussion points
from Minary meeting
Value of monitoring - a number
of participants discussed of value and concerns with a circumpolar
monitoring of Rangifer.
Here are a few of the positive aspects:
- Raise overall awareness by exchange
of information on a few key indicators
- A good program to involve hunter/herder
communities in monitoring and management
- Able to put together the baseline information
to conduct cross-herd comparisons
- Facilitate better environmental assessment
by taking advantage of information from herds that are subjected
to a spectrum global change impacts
- Coordination of effort can provide some
economies of scale - don't try to monitor everything within one
region or country
- Generally increase our knowledge about
the resilience of Rangifer as a species
There were some cautions expressed.
- Researchers will have to be concerned
about the quality of the data.
- How do we deal with a mix of domestic
and wild reindeer when monitoring
- If we take advantage of existing systems,
how do we ensure datasets are comparable
- Linkage between habitat and animals
important even though many management agencies are not using the
habitat data.
- Must consider the array of management
systems and the data that they depend on.
- Must consider the variability in the
"richness" of the data for different herds. For example there
is not good enough data on many Russian herds to compare with
North American herds
- Have to go to each country expert to
determine which herds are good candidates for monitoring
- We don't have the money to monitor everything
so have to be careful to pick a few strategic indicators that
span the population, the individual animals, the habitat and the
user communities
Example of Projects already underway
RENMAN - The reindeer management
research project involves eight countries in an effort to integrate
management related observations of researchers and herders. Objectives
of the project are quite extensive, but will include the collection
of concurrent information from both viewpoints using remote sensing
as one key activity.
Sustainability of Reindeer Husbandry
- This project is designed to address the decline in the present
reindeer husbandry industry. To document the current state of the
industry the project will evaluate a common set of indicators. These
indicators can be coordinated with a circumpolar monitoring program.
North American Caribou Simulation
- Researchers are conducting a continent-wide assessment of North
American migratory caribou herds. The project involves the creation
of a relational database, a retrospective of range conditions using
remote sensing and a community-monitoring component.
www.rangifer.net - Initially established
as a part of the International Arctic Science Council (IASC) Human-Rangifer
Systems Project, this web site serves as a portal for such initiatives
as Profile of Herds, the Human Role of Reindeer/caribou systems
research planning process, and a compendium of current research
projects. The site could act as the window for any circumpolar Rangifer
monitoring program.
Indicators generated
at Minary
Key Questions suggested to evaluate indicators:
1) Are there baseline data available?
2) Is measure a good indicator of change?
3) Is measure feasible to monitor in the future?
Habitat :
| INDICATOR |
BASELINE
AVAILABLE |
GOOD INDICATOR |
FEASIBLE IN FUTURE |
| fire frequency |
|
|
|
| habitat change |
|
|
|
| Grazing pressure |
|
|
|
| # and type of industries |
|
|
|
| # and type of land use permits |
|
|
|
| green-up / NDVI |
|
|
|
| state of lichens |
|
|
|
| protected areas |
|
|
|
| Insect emergence |
|
|
|
| Something about habitat fragmentation/infrastructure?
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Weather
| INDICATOR |
BASELINE
AVAILABLE |
GOOD INDICATOR |
FEASIBLE IN FUTURE |
|
Snow depth/condition
|
|
|
|
|
ice conditions
|
|
|
|
|
temperature
(max/min)
|
|
|
|
|
icing frequency
|
|
|
|
|
snowmelt
pattern
|
|
|
|
|
extreme
events
|
|
|
|
|
Global-scale
processes (NAO)
|
|
|
|
|
Freeze-up/breakup
|
|
|
|
|
wind
|
|
|
|
|
Freeze-up/break-up
dates
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Individual Animals
| INDICATOR |
BASELINE
AVAILABLE |
GOOD INDICATOR |
FEASIBLE IN FUTURE |
|
fat at
harvest
|
|
|
|
| Contaminants (Cs, Cd)
|
|
|
|
| disease/parasites
|
|
|
|
|
calf weight
|
|
|
|
|
supplemental
feed
|
|
|
|
|
harvested
production/animal
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
- disease/parasites (e.g. necrobacillus,
brucella, warble, mosquito)
Population
| INDICATOR |
BASELINE
AVAILABLE |
GOOD INDICATOR |
FEASIBLE IN FUTURE |
|
Calves/100
cows in fall
|
|
|
|
|
Birth rate
|
|
|
|
|
Population
trend
|
|
|
|
|
Age/sex
classes
|
|
|
|
|
Peak of
calving
|
|
|
|
|
Loss of
domestic to wild
|
|
|
|
|
Harvest
rate (age/sex)
|
|
|
|
|
# predators
|
|
|
|
|
Migration
changes
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Human:
1. Demography
| INDICATOR |
BASELINE
AVAILABLE |
GOOD INDICATOR |
FEASIBLE IN FUTURE |
|
Out-migration
rate
|
|
|
|
|
Mobility
|
|
|
|
|
Age structure
|
|
|
|
|
# in rural/urban
|
|
|
|
|
# and distribution
of non-local harvesters
|
|
|
|
|
# visitors
|
|
|
|
|
# researchers
in villages
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
2. Health/Education
| INDICATOR |
BASELINE
AVAILABLE |
GOOD INDICATOR |
FEASIBLE IN FUTURE |
|
Human health
e.g. infant mortality/cancer rates
|
|
|
|
|
Availability
of local education
|
|
|
|
|
Quality
of life (life expectancy, bachelor rate
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
3. Institutional
| INDICATOR |
BASELINE
AVAILABLE |
GOOD INDICATOR |
FEASIBLE IN FUTURE |
|
Proportion
of aboriginal leadership
|
|
|
|
|
Ownership
of land/legal rights
|
|
|
|
|
Degree
of management participation
|
|
|
|
|
Sudden
changes in hunting regulations
|
|
|
|
|
Degree
of self-organization
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
4. Economic
| INDICATOR |
BASELINE
AVAILABLE |
GOOD INDICATOR |
FEASIBLE IN FUTURE |
|
Type of
economic systems (hunting, mixes cash hunting, subsistence
herding, large-scale commercial herding, etc)
|
|
|
|
|
Mechanization
degree
|
|
|
|
|
Secondary
use of Rangifer
|
|
|
|
|
Employment
rate
|
|
|
|
|
Amount
of material goods
|
|
|
|
|
Product
markets
|
|
|
|
|
Level of
processing
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
5. Social
| INDICATOR |
BASELINE
AVAILABLE |
GOOD INDICATOR |
FEASIBLE IN FUTURE |
|
Proportion
Rangifer in diet
|
|
|
|
| Culture/language retention
|
|
|
|
|
# women
in traditional life
|
|
|
|
|
Harvest
dependence
|
|
|
|
|
Time on
the land
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Suggested Country REPS and contacts
- Canada -, John Nagy, Anne Gunn,Mitch
Campbell, Serge Couturier
- U. S. - Brad Griffith, Gary Kofinas,
Dave Klein
- Norway - Nick Tyler, Johnny-Leo L. Jernsletten
- Sweden - Hugh Beach, Oje Danell
- Russia - Konstantin Klokov, Margarita
Magadova, Leonid Baskin, Leonid Kolpashikov, Boris Komorov
- Finland - Sakari Kankaanpaa, Timo Helle
- Iceland - Sakari Kankaanpaa, Skarøedin
Øorisson,
- Greenland/Denmark - Christine Cuyler,
Rasmus Rasmussen
Monitoring - where do
we go from here?
- Summarize discussion - DR
- Distill indicators - DR + volunteers
- Draft introductory document - scope,
principles, roles and responsibilities - DR
- Report prepared for CAFF Management
meeting, 2-4 April, Stockholm - DR
- Notify identified contacts (not at this
meeting) - REPS
- Identify additional contacts as necessary
- REPS
- Notify country CAFF representatives
- REPS
- Notify and assess opportunities to link
with existing programs - RENMAN, Sustainable Reindeer husbandry
- ALL
- Draft and distribute work plan - DR
- Link to Human Role
in Reindeer/Caribou Systems on research proposal.
- Decide on need of special gathering
to launch monitoring…
|