WWF CONSERVATION PLAN FOR CIRCUM-ARCTIC MIGRATORY TUNDRA CARIBOU AND WILD REINDEER (Rangifer tarandus)

Transcription

1 WWF CONSERVATION PLAN FOR CIRCUM-ARCTIC MIGRATORY TUNDRA CARIBOU AND WILD REINDEER (Rangifer tarandus) DRAFT for REVIEW June 30, 2011

2 Who is WWF? WWF is one of the most respected independent conservation organizations in the world, working in over 100 countries, with 5000 staff and five million supporters all working for one thing: A Living Planet. WWF s global mission is to stop the degradation of the planet s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by: Conserving the world s biological diversity; Ensuring that the use of renewable resources is sustainable; and Promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption of energy and natural resources. WWF s Global Arctic Program WWF s 2050 Vision is: An Arctic shielded from the worst effects of rapid change, through effective international stewardship promoting healthy living systems to the benefit of local peoples and all humanity. WWF s 2020 Overall Goal is: Changed policies and practices in the Arctic, from exploitation to stewardship. We will enable resilience-based ecosystem management, establish best practices for shipping, fishing, and hydrocarbon development, and promote sound governance. Securing Population Integrity of Key Arctic Species Species conservation forms an integral part of WWF s approach to Arctic conservation. The viability of key Arctic species defines Arctic ecosystems and stands at the centre of many ecosystem services. As such, species are also a sensitive indicator of functioning ecosystems, and they often provide the face of conservation and its underlying concepts. WWF defines species population integrity as being a fully functioning population (prey abundance/availability, genetic diversity, health etc). We believe the integrity of local Arctic wildlife populations is safeguarded through the implementation of research, policy, and field program interventions that will enhance species resilience to a rapidly changing Arctic. Conserving Arctic species and biodiversity will also support the livelihoods and cultures of northern peoples, increasing community resilience to change. WWF s five priority Arctic species are: cetaceans (narwhal, beluga and bowhead whales); caribou/reindeer; salmonids; walrus; and polar bears. Derivation of this Plan This WWF Species Conservation Plan is structured somewhat differently than other similar plans, for example for polar bears, elephants and cetaceans. This first section, for which the lead author is Monte Hummel, President Emeritus of WWF-Canada, is a distillation of action steps that WWF s Global Arctic Program will undertake over the next ten years ( ), to help conserve wild populations of circum-arctic migratory caribou and reindeer. The second section is a technical Background Report, authored by independent consultant Dr Anne Gunn under contract to WWF, which is a more encompassing perspective and conservation plan that includes a range of actions that should be undertaken by all parties with an interest in this species, i.e. governments (including indigenous peoples), industry, and scientists, as well as non-government organizations (NGOs) such as WWF. Both documents enjoy considerable input from all these parties, and are published together so that the reader can see not only what - 1 -

3 WWF in particular is intending to do, but the broader analysis upon which that determination was made. CONTEXT Focus of this plan The focus of this plan is wild circum-arctic migratory tundra caribou and reindeer (Rangifer tarandus), primarily in North America, Greenland and Russia, but not the domesticated herds of reindeer (also Rangifer tarandus). Undoubtedly, conservation biologists and reindeer herders have much to learn from each other. Sometimes the ranges of wild reindeer and caribou overlap with domesticated reindeer, and sometimes the fate of one influences the other, therefore a closer collaboration between herders and scientists is to be encouraged. But WWF s mission is to preserve biological diversity under natural conditions, in the wild (hence the World Wildlife Fund), so our conservation actions will be devoted to that goal. In addition, although some boreal (sometimes called woodland ) and mountain caribou occur within WWF s definition of the Arctic, these Rangifer ecotypes are anchored by largely nonarctic habitats, and therefore are also not the focus of this plan. It should be noted, however, that many migratory tundra (sometimes called barren-ground ) caribou and wild reindeer do winter in boreal regions, so the conservation of these sub-arctic biomes is essential to the species long term survival. Diverse Status Caribou/reindeer present a somewhat different conservation challenge than for other WWF species plans, in that we still have the chance to maintain many Rangifer herds in a state of relative abundance. For once we are dealing with a species, unlike the tiger and many birds, plants, reptiles, amphibians and some cetaceans, that does not have its back universally against the wall, hovering on the brink of extinction. That said, caribou/reindeer in fact represent the full spectrum of species status: Some herds are abundant, and either stable or increasing; Many herds are in decline, but it is not always clear that these declines are not part of a natural population fluctuation, especially for this species; And a few herds are genuinely at risk, in other words, if the factors affecting their decline are not reversed, then these populations could become extinct. This gradient of status presents a parallel spectrum of conservation opportunities or strategies. However, it could be argued that, whatever the population status, each herd represents a conservation priority, for different reasons....for abundant populations, our goal should be to help maintain that state of affairs, so that these populations never become threatened or endangered a pre-emptive approach that anticipates and avoids more drastic and costly conservation measures later on. For those populations in decline, we must make sure that today s additive pressures ( those that caribou/reindeer have not experience historically, such as climate change, industrial development, and the modern potential for overharvest) do not tip these populations into the at risk category a precautionary approach. And for those that are already at risk, our goal must be to bring them back from the brink, to restore their numbers to a critical mass that can then fluctuate under natural conditions without disappearing entirely a recovery approach. It therefore is important not to generalize about the status of circum-arctic wild caribou and reindeer, but to determine which of the above conditions pertain, and therefore which conservation strategies are appropriate

4 A Long-term Perspective No matter when a caribou conservation plan is written, it will resemble a snap-shot in time. Since caribou populations fluctuate (in approximately forty-year cycles ), some will inevitably be increasing or decreasing, depending on when the snap-shot is taken. Indigenous elders have often remarked that some of their ancestors may have only known caribou as scarce, while others always experienced them as abundant. Still others may have seen these animals come and go. This means we must not be complacent about herds that are increasing, or unduly alarmist about those in decline. Conservation history is littered by such hasty judgments, and also by those claiming I told you so, especially when biologists assessed the situation to be either better or worse than it turned out to be. However, such mistakes are understandable, when you consider the dramatic changes in numbers this species has demonstrated, for example the George River herd in Labrador/Quebec in Canada has been a low as 5,000 animals and as high as 800,000! No wonder it is frequently said that The caribou will always surprise you. Therefore, conserving caribou/reindeer requires a long term perspective, where our conservation goal should be to maintain the natural conditions under which these populations can fluctuate, rather than striving for sustained artificially high numbers, or trying to reverse every decline through perpetual recovery efforts. A long-term perspective targets keeping these animals with us far into the future, and such a goal calls for a precautionary approach, because of all the additive pressures caribou/reindeer are experiencing. When caribou can always surprise you, one way or the other, it is better to be safe than sorry. Ultimately, as our Background Report so convincingly argues, keeping caribou with us means maintaining resilient landscapes. This may simply be an updated version of the old maxim, No habitat, no wildlife, because what we are really trying to do is to maintain what maintains caribou. But the word resilient is particularly suited to caribou and reindeer now, because: a) This is a classically resilient species, experiencing unrelenting day-to-day survival pressures as individuals, and over the longer term as populations; and b) The landscapes/habitats that harbour caribou are also experiencing survival pressures day-to- day, through increased industrial development for minerals, oil and gas, along with roads and pipelines, and over the longer term through climate change. Caribou People A final contextual consideration for WWF s conservation efforts regarding this species is the socio-cultural importance of wild caribou and reindeer, especially for indigenous peoples. This extends to economic significance, for example in North America it has been estimated that these animals are valued at over $100 million/year in food value alone (Hummel and Ray, 2008). All of this means that our model for conservation must be one of working closely with the people who live on caribou ranges, and whose future is so closely tied to the future of the land. They are the ones who have to live most directly with the consequences of both caribou abundance and scarcity. There are people living today whose relatives literally died of starvation when the caribou didn t come. Therefore their role has to be much more than being consulted, or informed about the conservation initiatives of others. The people most directly affected need to champion and lead caribou conservation efforts, and WWF should strongly position itself to support their concerns and initiatives

5 This role is a challenge for the culture of WWF itself, because we are used to being called upon to provide the leadership, and to being regarded as the conservation experts. Our operating style has been to seek support and partners for what we think needs to be done. However, we have also learned that for conservation measures to be long-lasting, they must be owned as being in the best long term interests of the people most directly affected. Fortunately, few, if any, northern species are as motivating in this regard as caribou and reindeer. They are intensely valued by northern peoples, absolutely central to northern cultures, and often serve as the deciding factor for what will be allowed to happen to the land. If the caribou will be harmed, then we say no to this project. Because if they die, we die. Finally, working with indigenous peoples in the Arctic has become much more than a cultural courtesy, or a preferred but optional conservation strategy. It is a necessity. In many places, indigenous peoples are the government. And if they aren t yet, they soon will be, with constitutionally-guaranteed recognition of their rights, supportive judicial precedents, legallybinding land claim agreements, resource management boards, home-rule arrangements, and democratically-elected members in fully-functioning legislatures. Caribou and wild reindeer therefore present a full range of conservation challenges and opportunities for an organization like WWF, both in terms of what we do, and how we do it. FIVE ACTION STEPS FOR THE FUTURE OF WILD CARIBOU AND REINDEER 1) By 2015, ensure there is a high-quality management plan for each circum-arctic herd. Currently, there are publically-available management plans for just five of the 20 major circumarctic caribou herds, although plans are being drafted for several additional herds. These plans vary in quality, as some are strategic documents only, with no measureable action steps or deadlines. Having a management plan in place for each herd is a bare-minimum starting point for the conservation of this species. These plans need to be developed collaboratively, they provide a baseline against which to measure conservation progress, and they need to be updated about every five years. A credible management plan, of course, requires population monitoring, often involving regular aerial surveys, satellite collars, health sampling, and harvest reporting. This kind of work is expensive and therefore is most appropriately the task of governments, in co-operation with appropriate partners. Given the scale of the financial resources needed, it is unlikely that WWF could or should assume responsibility for carrying much of this load in general. However, we have been able to financially assist with crucial and discrete parts of such work in the past, especially when a non-government contribution can leverage much greater commitments from others. And WWF should use its moral and political persuasion to urge jurisdictions to provide the resources needed for the job. Without reliable baseline data, and regular monitoring to measure change, we do not have the most elementary tools for caribou conservation. The protocols for monitoring caribou/reindeer populations are now quite well known, and the Circum-Arctic Rangifer Monitoring and Assessment (CARMA) network has the expertise to advise on such work. However, it is paramount that monitoring data be shared across jurisdictions, so that analysis can be compared and serve as a source of learning for all jurisdictions. Accessing these data is currently problematic, including for the production of this plan

6 Part of every management plan must be the inclusion of traditional knowledge, based on the experience of Arctic communities that depend on caribou. This not only ensures that a management plan is more likely to be supported and implemented by the very communities who must do so, but it also improves the empirical quality of a management plan when both scientific and traditional perspectives are reflected in it. Hiring and seeking advice from local people make the job more efficient and grounded in reality. And for health studies, trained hunters can help provide the large volume of samples necessary. Rather than being the source of friction, science and traditional knowledge constitute a natural and necessary partnership. Management plans identify actions that need to be taken, which are often unique to a particular herd. These include proper management of caribou harvest, for example by adjusting the number, sex or age of animals taken, depending on the status of the herd; best practices by industry, for example the location and timing of their operations, minimum over-flight altitudes, and mitigation of disturbance; research and monitoring requirements that are specific to that herd, depending on where they are in the data-collecting cycle; and protection of critical habitats such as calving grounds, migration routes, crossing sites, and wintering areas. Good management plans go beyond just recommending measures that mitigate adverse impacts, to advocating ways to avoid such impacts in the first place. Special mention should be made here of the importance of protecting calving and post-calving areas in particular. This is a habitat protection priority that has been repeatedly emphasized by indigenous peoples and conservation biologist alike, but so far has not been adequately addressed. Proper management of these areas, and protection of caribou when they are in them, is crucial to both maintaining and restoring caribou/wild reindeer populations. Although calving and post-calving areas are not the only habitats that are key to the caribou life cycle, cows are particularly sensitive to disturbance at this stage, and it is difficult to imagine how caribou/reindeer populations are going to thrive over the long term if we do not more effectively address this important conservation issue. Having management plans for each herd allows for regular assessments of how particular herds are doing, and also the opportunity to roll up the results into a more aggregated view of what s happening across caribou ranges. With such an overview, some population changes may emerge to be synchronous, as seemed to be the case with recent declines. As our Background Report repeatedly notes, management plans need to be collaboratively developed and implemented by everyone who has an interest in the species, including governments, communities, industry, scientists (both within and outside government), and NGOs. Caribou conservation really only works through openness and mutual respect, with everyone at the table contributing constructively to the shared goal of keeping these animals with us over the long term. 2) Ensure that herds at risk are not lost. Some circum-arctic caribou/reindeer herds have been convincingly determined not just to be in cyclic decline, but threatened with extinction, for example Peary caribou in the Canadian High Arctic and to a lesser extent the Dolphin Union herd just to the south. WWF should give priority to supporting the preparation of management plans for such herds, which will often amount to recovery plans mandated by species at risk or endangered species legislation of some kind. And such plans should be in place within two years of a population being so classified. The goal - 5 -

7 here, as earlier stated, should be to get the herd back to a minimum level from which it can then fluctuate under natural conditions without being lost. While governments are usually formally responsible for the identification and recovery of species at risk, management plans for these populations will not succeed unless they are also developed in co-operation with local people, and ultimately championed and led by them. This often requires considerable sacrifice by Arctic communities, in terms of foregoing the use of caribou until their numbers come back. Southern-based conservation advocates, who may have much less at stake practically speaking, must recognize the hardship that their well-intended ideas and positions can mean for northern peoples in the short term. Sometimes exercising the precautionary principle from a conservation standpoint, can mean not adequately feeding ones family from a real life standpoint. 3) Engage in land use decisions that impact caribou/reindeer. This action step relates directly to our Background Report s first and highest priority recommendation, namely to maintain resilient landscapes. This is accomplished primarily by protecting the integrity of caribou ranges through collaborative land use planning, and of course through the implementation of those plans. Land use plans are broader and more encompassing than just a management plan for a particular species found in the landscape under consideration. Furthermore, often species management plans are produced by one department of government that can be over-ruled by economic development decisions made in a different department. Therefore, caribou management plans can be eclipsed by larger land use decisions regarding what else is going to be permitted on caribou ranges. This obviously includes the location and development of mines, roads, oil and gas, forestry, and hydro-electric operations. But land use decisions can also include the establishment of tourism areas, fire suppression regimes, and conservation reserves. In effect, land use plans set the macro-landscape table that determines what is possible at a given, specific location. Engaging in caribou/reindeer conservation therefore means engaging in land use planning, including commenting on such plans as they are developed, and making sure they are hospitable to the needs of caribou in the long run. This is arguably the most important area of engagement for WWF, but also the most demanding and difficult to focus, because it involves not only engaging at the planning stage, but being vigilant regarding implementation, by participating in time-consuming project environmental assessments etc. Clearly, WWF cannot be everywhere, all the time. Accordingly, WWF should identify a short list of land use plans that stand to set a precedent for caribou conservation in particular, and focus on those. This may also mean highlighting one or two major industrial developments which would set similar caribou precedents, either positive or negative, depending on whether or how they proceed. Finally, our Background Report has suggested some focused pilot projects, which WWF might support, establishing research precedents regarding what it means to maintain a resilient landscape, with lessons that could be useful elsewhere. The point is that caribou conservation at the herd level can depend on larger decisions regarding the use of the landscape in general. WWF must not only recognize this, but find a focused way to engage in broader land use planning such that we are not in danger of fiddling while Rome burns

8 4) Constructively engage business for caribou/reindeer conservation. This is an action step that is often unique to WWF. We have a history of constructively engaging business in significant conservation issues, and when we do, it often produces results at a speed and scale not possible when working with other players, such as governments. For example, working with WWF, De Beers Canada has voluntarily agreed not to conduct any operations in caribou calving grounds in the Northwest Territories or Nunavut even though they are permitted to do so by regulation. This not only demonstrates leadership by setting a healthy precedent for industry peers, but it helps WWF in its advocacy of better protection of these critical habitats by regulatory authorities. WWF should identify major industrial players in the Arctic who are prepared to demonstrate leadership and to set precedents by taking bold steps to conserve caribou and reindeer. We should target delivering measureable results through at least three such partnerships by 2015, one in each of North America, Greenland and Russia, then evaluate what the potential is for further work of this kind beyond that date. 5) Raise the profile of Arctic caribou and reindeer as conservation priorities. This recommendation from our Background Report is also potentially uniquely-suited to WWF, through our global communications capability. Raising awareness of caribou and reindeer offers an ongoing cultural bridge-building exercise, whereby WWF could help southern, urban and European publics to better understand how important this species is to northern peoples, socially, economically and ecologically. This should include acceptance of the fact that these animals are sustainably hunted and used for food, among other things, and that such use is a major motivator for conservation. There should also be a better understanding of what needs to be done to conserve caribou, and by whom, along with broad-based public support for actually doing those things. In this way, a political constituency is built for conservation announcements and needed investments by both the private and public sectors. By 2015, WWF should target at least one national Arctic jurisdiction that will announce a visionary long- term commitment to conserve caribou/reindeer, as a symbol of their commitment to the Arctic itself. This commitment could then be used by WWF to leverage comparable commitments from other Arctic nations. Conclusion The five action steps outlined above do not constitute everything WWF could do regarding the conservation of circum-arctic wild caribou and reindeer. However, they are still ambitious and represent crucial steps, thought-through in a broader context, which would help us turn the corner and ensure a future for these important animals. These steps also represent a package of actions that hang together and contribute to a greater whole or emergent conservation result. Therefore, cherry-picking, or selecting just some of them is not likely to work, as they are mutually-reinforcing and necessary. Unless some such concerted action is taken, starting now, there is a real danger that wild caribou/reindeer, by virtue of their perceived relative abundance, could be largely ignored and left to fend for themselves. Unfortunately, the result of that would almost certainly be serious degradation of herds and populations, leading Arctic nations in a decade or so to resolve to do something when it is too late. CLICK HERE TO PROVIDE COMMENTS

9 BACKGROUND REPORT CIRCUM-ARCTIC CONSERVATION PLAN FOR MIGRATORY TUNDRA CARIBOU AND WILD REINDEER (Rangifer tarandus) DRAFT for REVIEW June 30, 2011 by Anne Gunn Contractor to WWF - 8 -

10 Table of contents Executive Summary 10 Introduction 11 1) The Importance of Arctic Caribou 16 a) For Arctic ecosystems 16 b) For people 18 2) The Current Status of Arctic Caribou 19 a) Circumarctic distribution of migratory tundra caribou and wild 19 reindeer b) Overview of population status 20 c) Historic and current pressures on Arctic caribou 23 3) Conservation Vision, Goals and Priority Strategies 26 a) Goals and Strategies 27 The Future for Arctic Caribou 32 References and Acknowledgements 33 Executive Summary The Arctic tundra is almost the last place in the world with the uninterrupted migrations of large terrestrial mammals. As a widespread numerous species of the tundra and taiga, the herds of migratory tundra caribou and wild reindeer are key to the cultural and biological diversity of the circum-arctic tundra. The human footprint with global warming, industrial development and human activities is intensifying in the Arctic, while the signs of trouble for migratory tundra caribou are already evident. Difficulties for conserving migratory tundra caribou lie in the complexity from a widespread distribution across language and jurisdictional boundaries. Information is scattered and tied to the scale of individual herds. Currently, management is focused on individual herds rather than their habitats. This circum-arctic conservation plan is intended to shift the focus to and support resilient landscape for the caribou and wild reindeer resilient landscapes will maintain the key attributes for core seasonal ranges, especially traditional calving grounds and migratory corridors. The plan also will share and build on experience, through enhancing the flow of information and coordination at global, national and regional levels to ensure that herds are resilient and do not slip out of sight. * * * * * * * Everything is changing. It is not the same as before. Sometimes it does not snow as much as it used to. It never gets as cold as it used to. (May Algona 1999 in Thorpe et al. 2001) Climate change in polar regions is expected to be among the largest and most rapid of any region on the Earth (IPCC 2001) - 9 -

11 Introduction Arctic caribou and wild reindeer Rangifer tarandus are a truly circumpolar animal, linking regions and people around the globe (Figure 1). They are almost the last global species of terrestrial mammal whose migrations of thousands of individuals are largely intact,, as many not all of their ranges still have a light human footprint. Their calving grounds are a global spectacle, as within any one herd, tens of thousands of cows congregate and have their calves within a day or two. Their ranges have not felt the changes from agriculture, being too far north for pastoral animals (except domesticated reindeer), fences and crops. Their distant ranges also have historically protected them from industrial developments, but that is now changing as the world s reach for minerals and hydrocarbons extends further north. Figure 1. Major herds of circum-arctic migratory tundra caribou (CARMAnet) Rangifer is one of the most widespread and diverse genus in the deer family, being found in both northern Eurasia and America. It likely evolved in Asia millions of years ago during the Miocene before dispersing across Beringia, possibly during the late Pleistocene, although a lack of fossils leaves uncertainty. Rangifer also could have moved north from South America, which primitive deer had reached in the Miocene (Gilbert et al. 2006, Harington 2008). The earliest Rangifer fossils in North America are 1.6 million years old. The most recent glaciations strongly influenced diversity, and Rangifer diverged into several sub-species and ecotypes with markedly different evolutionary strategies for trading off the risks of predation and parasites relative to foraging. For example, caribou of the boreal forests tend to be large-bodied, long-legged forms, and dispersed as individuals or small groups. This contrasts with the highly gregarious migratory caribou of the tundra and northern boreal forests. The mountain forms likewise cover the adaptive spectrum, from dispersed to migratory gregarious behaviour, while occupying dense mountain forest to alpine tundra. Rangifer on the High Arctic islands are smaller-bodied with white winter pelage, and tend to be scattered across the arctic islands in small bands as they

12 follow their seasonal migration pathways, often crossing the sea-ice between islands (Hummel and Ray 2008). This circum-arctic conservation plan is focused on the migratory tundra caribou herds across Eurasia and North America because there are still circum-polar opportunities for their conservation. The plan does not include those Rangifer ecotypes such as boreal caribou and Peary caribou which are in greater trouble (Festa-Bianchet et al. 2011). The plan also does not include mountain caribou such as the herds in Alaska and the Yukon, as their ecology and conservation while similar is not identical. Wild migratory reindeer and caribou are still mostly abundant across their largely intact ranges, but there are danger signals, including contraction in overall distribution and the loss of a few historic populations. Changes are accelerating around the circum-arctic ranges; the numbers of people are increasing and their political structures are becoming more complex, compounding the effects from exploration and development of mineral and hydrocarbon reserves. All this is against the background of a rapidly warming climate whose signal is already measurable through temperature trends, changing vegetation and shrinking sea ice (Arctic Change 2011, ACIA 2004). Globally, the spread of human activities and transport networks of roads and railways has interrupted migrations of most of the migratory hooved mammals. This diminishment of migratory species (Berger 2004) is not completely hopeless. Efforts are underway to understand what will be needed to maintain the integrity of seasonal ranges such that migrations can persist (Bolger et al. 2008; Singh and Milner-Gulland 2008). However, not all landscape changes and population declines can be reversed, and this plan urges a precautionary approach to prevent landscape changes incompatible with seasonal migrations. Wild reindeer and caribou occur in discrete herds recognized by the annual return of the cows to calve on the calving ground where they were born. The calving grounds and summering areas are on the tundra, while winter areas may be on the tundra, taiga or further south into northern boreal forests. The annual ranges of the herds can be a few hundred square kilometers, and the cows can migrate over 1000 km between their winter and calving ranges. The sweep of coastal-continental tundra encircling the Arctic in Russia, Alaska, Greenland and Canada holds the most wild reindeer and caribou, but they also occur on the some large arctic islands such as Baffin Island. The total area of the globe s tundra is currently about 3 million km 2 and is currently (2010) seasonally occupied by some 2.7 million wild reindeer and caribou. The area of tundra has decreased about 18% over the last 20 years, as warmer temperatures convert the tundra to shrubs and wetlands (Arctic Change 2011). Historically, these ranges have supported over 5 million migratory Rangifer. Though safety in numbers is an effective ecological strategy against predators, it is disconcertingly ineffective against us. The passenger pigeon, Eskimo curlew, plains bison and northern cod are silent testimony to human s hunting efficiency and capacity to change the landscape. The startling thing about those extinctions or near extinctions, is that they happened in full view, with the knowledge of people who did try to save those species from widespread habitat change coinciding with unregulated hunting. For those species, it was too little, too late. But for caribou/reindeer there are lessons to be learned

13 We now know that numbers alone are no defense against extinction risk. Waiting too long is a huge gamble, and habitat changes combined with unregulated hunting can be too much. If we act proactively, we avoid overwhelming costs. Waiting for a common species to become rare before undertaking conservation is not only expensive, it is a recipe for a cascade of ecosystem changes. Common species shape ecosystems by their sheer strength of numbers. Common species are relatively few and usually geographically widespread (Gaston and Fuller 2008). But we need to be able to read danger signals for what they are. And those signals include contracting distributions and the eventual loss of herds exactly the current pattern for Rangifer. Species that appear numerically abundant,, widespread and ecologically diverse pose very different challenges for conservation planning than rare species. Complacency tends to replace urgency. Information levels may be variable and the sources scattered, as a consequence of the species wide distribution. Another key difference is that common species are especially valuable for their potential resilience, as they can give rise to new ecotypes and sub-species as the environment changes. However, as has been acknowledged in fish conservation (Johnson and Belk 2007), conserving ecological and evolutionary processes for common, widespread species is barely recognized as a conservation priority. Usually rare or endangered species with limited genetic diversity and distribution attract the highest attention, especially in threatened tropical and neotropical regions. However, within the tundra and taiga ranges there is still ecological diversity, which means that wild reindeer and caribou are themselves locally adapted. Maintaining the species potential for future adaptability requires that conserving that diversity should be a priority. Caribou and wild reindeer occur within the boundaries of eight countries and many indigenous cultures whose lives and inheritance are intertwined with these animals. Different languages, including some 40 indigenous languages, and geographic distance have made shared conversations and collaborations difficult for caribou and wild reindeer conservation. Within countries, administrative complexities abound. There is often a complex of jurisdictions involving different levels of government and other agencies responsible for conservation and management. For example, the Russian Federation has Federal Districts and Autonomous okrugs, and administrative structures for natural resources have changed tremendously since the dissolution of the Soviet Union (Caulfield 2004). The settlement of land claims in Canada creates shared responsibility between indigenous people and existing centralized governments (co-management).as a result,, the annual ranges of, for example, the Bathurst, Bluenose West and Bluenose East herds fall within the jurisdiction of several co-management boards and governments (Table 1). Another example is the Porcupine caribou herd, which migrates between Canada and Alaska-- its conservation is shared between seven indigenous claimant groups, three territorial/state-level governments, and approximately 17 local communities. Complexity is added as there are other government departments and agencies, such as those promoting mining and energy, and whose decisions also affect caribou but who are not always involved in caribou management

14 Table 1. An example of jurisdictional complexity: co-management boards and governments with management authority for wildlife in management of migratory caribou herds (Cape Bathurst, Bluenose West and Bluenose East), Canada Co-management boards (established under Land claims) Wildlife Management Advisory Council (NWT): Gwich in Renewable Resources Board: Sahtú Renewable Resources Board: Wek èezhìi Renewable Resources Board: Nunavut Wildlife Management Board: Kitikmeot Regional Wildlife Board: Kugluktuk Angoniatit Association Hunters and Trappers Organization: Aboriginal and territorial governments Tåîchô Government Environment and Natural Resources, Government of Northwest Territories: Department of Environment, Government of Nunavut: Federal governments Tuktut Nogait National Park Management Board: Parks Canada: It is not that people are unaware of the risks to caribou and wild reindeer, because institutions, agencies and networks are aware of the changing Arctic landscape and what those changes could mean to wildlife and Arctic peoples. However, the current declines of many herds, and the speed of those declines, raise questions about how to be more effective or whether the right problems are being addressed. Some jurisdictions have either herd-specific management plans (Alaska, Yukon and Northwest Territories) or overall management strategies (Nunavut and Northwest Territories). These plans are in varying degrees of implementation, as sometimes writing a plan is an end point in itself. There has been no overall assessment of the effectiveness of existing plans, and even a summary catalogue of the availability and contents of plans is lacking. As well as conservation focused at the scale of the individual herds, there is an array of circumpolar bodies which have or could have a role in caribou and wild reindeer conservation. Progress on reporting the monitoring of circum-arctic caribou and wild reindeer has been made under the Arctic Council programs. The Arctic Council through their Conservation of Flora and Fauna (CAFF) program, and CAFF s Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (CBMP) initiative, recognizes caribou and wild reindeer as an indicator species. The CircumArctic Rangifer Monitoring and Assessment (CARMA) Network has, since 2004, met annually with participants from all the circumpolar countries harboring tundra caribou and wild reindeer. With the financial backing of the Canadian International Polar Year Program, CARMA developed standard methods to monitor herds, and maintains a circumpolar database of monitoring results. CARMA has invested heavily in tools such as computer models, technical manuals and databases on climate variables to better integrate knowledge and support decision-making

15 Some herds are subject to multilateral environmental agreements. Those agreements include the International Agreement on the Conservation of the Porcupine Caribou Herd. On the global scale, wild reindeer and caribou are less well-served because they occur in nations not all of which are signatories to the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). CMS is an international treaty, under the United Nations Environment Program, which promotes the conservation of wildlife and habitats on a global scale. Also at the global scale, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (also known as the World Conservation Union) provides an overview. IUCN assessed wild reindeer and caribou as Least Concern in 2008, based on a wide circumpolar distribution and presumed large populations that were presumed to be stable. UNEP has recently reported on the limitations and strengths of environmental agreements protecting arctic diversity (Johnsen et al. 2010). UNEP singled out the Arctic because of growing concerns about the region s vulnerability. While the report s recommendations did not specifically deal with wild reindeer and caribou, they did acknowledge the need to increase the monitoring of Arctic biodiversity and to further promote cooperation with non-arctic states that share responsibility for Arctic migratory wildlife. Additionally, the recommendations were that the Arctic Council work towards an even more progressive role in ensuring the protection and sustainable use of the living natural resources in the Arctic. There is a wide array of people who have a role in circumpolar wild reindeer and caribou conservation and who would benefit from effectively working together. However, with a diversity of agencies and bodies involved, the potential for institutional inertia increases, delaying adequate management actions--a lesson learned from fisheries collapses (Harwood and Stokes 2003). Sharing information is a key element in reducing inertia, and it is increasing apparent that scientific studies often do not reach the practitioners of conservation or influence government policies (Goulson et al. 2011). This is especially true for wild reindeer and caribou and their seasonal ranges. Elsewhere in conservation biology, efforts to fill that gap are underway, including using the Internet. For example, scientists founded the Bumblebee Conservation Trust ( to link increasing scientific understanding into practical conservation measures (Goulson et al. 2011). While there are lessons to be learned from fisheries collapses, equally, there are lessons from how recoveries are either successful or at risk. WWF already has experience with fisheries recoveries and Hutchings and Rangely (2011) describe what affects and what is needed for recovery of northern cod (Gadus morhua). They make the point about the need for fishery management plans The first justification for a Rangifer conservation action plan is that there is currently no such plan. There are herd-specific plans and overall strategies, but no one document that brings everything together for the circum-arctic wild reindeer and caribou. The need to keep common species common ; the degree and rate of changes facing the Arctic; and the complexity of organizations and people with a vested interest in caribou and wild reindeer conservation provide a solid rationale to develop an overall circum-arctic conservation plan to weave these threads together. A second justification is that existing herd-specific plans and overall strategies tend to be focused on monitoring herd sizes and vital rates, but they are relatively weak on area-based management. This is partly because the authorities for land and wildlife management lie with separate agencies and different mandates. Area-based management, through land-use

16 planning, and networks to link areas with priority for caribou and wild reindeer where they are most vulnerable are essential. The third justification for a circum-arctic conservation plan is based on practical experience and the history of conservation of other species. This is aptly summed up through a quote from an article on the global challenges facing bat conservation - Individuals can and do make a real difference, but sustainable conservation requires organizations, partnerships and networks. (Racey 2011). The plan is complementary to and supportive of existing approaches and initiatives. It acknowledges a vital role for indigenous and local people and their knowledge. The approach is tied to resilient herds and landscapes that can accommodate changes without losing their integrity. The emphasis is on sharing information and collaboration. This plan is meant to intercede between local and global scales (IUCN, CPM what does CPM stand for?). As such, it is intended to apply an adaptive management framework to map what is happening and where; and to assess the risks and benefits of caribou and wild reindeer conservation actions. It includes a strong role for NGOs, to promote and sustain a strong public interest in wild reindeer and caribou by using for example, WWF s existing arctic experience, network and credibility. The plan emphasizes a vital necessity to implement landscape planning at a geographic and administrative scale to keep the integrity of caribou and wild reindeer seasonal ranges and migratory pathways. 1) THE IMPORTANCE OF ARCTIC CARIBOU a) For Arctic ecosystems The role of caribou in their tundra and taiga ecosystem is intricate and complicated. Weather influences almost every aspect of their ecology: predation, parasitism, and foraging. Weather imposes both variability (Behinke 2000) and patterns over the longer-term. Long cold snowy winters are interspersed with pulses of intense summer activity as the plants complete their annual cycle of growth and reproduction. The dense swarms of summer mosquitoes are tangible evidence of the annual surges of productivity. Those annual pulses in productivity are integrated over years and are manifested in this herbivore s cycle of abundance. The frequency of their cycles is scaled to their metabolic body size wild reindeer and caribou cycle over years compared to the 4 years of lemmings (Gunn 2003). Wild reindeer and caribou are generalist herbivores. Their foraging has effects beyond the removal of forage. The tundra and taiga are nutrient-limited. Wild reindeer and caribou summer grazing can increase the rate of soil nitrogen cycling through reducing the amount of plant litter, which changes the soil microclimate for decomposition and nutrient cycling. Importantly, wild reindeer and caribou add soluble nitrogen from their fecal pellets and urine (Olofsson et al., 2004). Numbers of wild reindeer and caribou can be high, so their effects on the ecosystem can also be significant (Gunn and Russell In Press). For example, annually, 170,000 to 350,000 caribou can eat 140 to 320 million kg of forage and produce 3 to 7 million kg of methane, while returning nutrients in the form of 38 to 77 million kg of fecal pellets spread over the herd s annual range (150 to 300 kg/km 2 ). The fecal pellets also provide nutrients to lakes and ponds, as caribou and wild reindeer use them when they are ice-covered. This input of nutrients supports the filter-feeding of insect larvae, which are a key element in nutrient cycling in aquatic systems. And of course,, the larvae are food for fish, and as adults, for birds. In turn the mosquitoes, at least the females, need blood meal for protein before they lay eggs. About 6,000 to 10,000 mosquitoes can feed on a

17 single wild reindeer (Syroechkovskii 1995). Wild reindeer and caribou also host round worms, tape-worms and by the end of winter, the larvae of warble and nose-bot flies-- all of these parasites influence their hosts protein and energy reserves, even to the extent of diminishing pregnancy rates. Summer weather influences the timing and amount of plant growth as well as the levels of harassing insects and parasitic intestinal worms. Winter weather, especially snowfall, wind and temperature, influences the availability of food through the type of snow cover and the corresponding energy it takes for caribou to move and to dig for their forage. Rangifer winter diet in the taiga is often dominated by lichens, indeed they are one of the very few mammals who digest lichens (another is the rare Yunnan snub-nosed monkey whose conservation in China is WWF supported). The lichens are high in digestible carbohydrates and, while a useful source of energy, are low in protein. As lichens obtain their nutrients directly from the air, they are sinks for global contaminants. Thus wild reindeer and caribou can accumulate significant amounts of contaminants, such as radio cesium and cadmium associated with a high lichen diet. Wild reindeer and caribou also seek evergreen leaves of grasses and sedges, which are higher in protein, as well as dried leaves and twigs of shrubs. Relationships between plants and wild reindeer and caribou include the plants responses to caribou s highly selective foraging. In spring and summer, caribou are selective for individual plant species, and forage for buds and unfolding leaves to maximize nutritional value (White and Trudell, 1980; Russell et al., 1993). Later in summer, the timing of plant senescence affects the nutrient quality of the forage plants. In the fall, the t the fruiting bodies of fungi (mushrooms) are avidly sought by wild reindeer and caribou. These foods provide a late summer source of protein just after the insect harassment season and prior to the breeding season. With warmer temperatures and changes in summer rainfall, at least in Norway, fungi are fruiting 10 days earlier (Kauserud et al. 2008). The gregarious and migratory behavior of migratory tundra caribou forces their role in ecosystem structure and functioning to be strongly scale dependent (Griffith et al., 2002). As caribou convert plant tissue into body mass and fecal pellets, their local foraging movements and seasonal migrations lead to a redistribution of nutrients within and across ecozones. In the taiga ecozones, the effects of caribou herbivory lag by a season, because caribou are foraging during winter when most plant growth and nutrient cycling is quiescent due to sub-zero temperatures. Over the timescale of decades, caribou winter ranges expand and contract and the herds cycle from high to low abundance. Abundance can vary ten-fold, with cascading effects on plants and nutrient cycling as the plant communities shift from one state to another. Succession of plant communities as a response to density of foraging includes, for example, lichen-dominated communities shifting to moss, and moss communities shifting to grass (Van der Wal, 2006). An array of predators and scavengers depends on wild reindeer and caribou, although the role of predation in regulating caribou dynamics is controversial. Caribou and other herbivores move through what is called a landscape of fear. This perhaps fanciful terminology is a reminder of the choices caribou make as they weigh the risk of predation and parasites versus their need for high forage quality and quantity. In the Canadian Arctic in the mid-1990s, the Bathurst herd of 350,000 caribou was estimated to support some 1,000 wolves (Cluff, D., pers. comm.) and about 450 grizzly bears (R. Gau pers. comm..) Wolves will use caribou at the rate of just under a caribou every 10 days (Hayes and Russell 2000), and grizzly bears are effective predators with caribou as 10-93% of their diet depending on the season (Gau et al., 2002). Wolverine and