Resilience of Human-Caribou Systems: Lessons from regional comparisons and international cooperation Gary Kofinas with Don Russell; Susan Kurtz; Anne Gunn; Robert White, John Mameamskum; Roy Ashenfelter; Brad Griffith, and
Caribou/Wild Reindeer of the North 1 Newfoundland 31 Western Queen Elizabeth Islands 2 Boreal 32 Banks Island 3 Atlantic 33 Northwest Victoria Island 4 Southern Mountain 34 Dolphin-Union 5 Northern Mountain 35 Chukotka 6 Yukon 36 Sudrunskaya 7 Alaska 37 Yana-Indigirka 8 George River 38 Novosibiriski Ostrova 9 Leaf River 39 Lena-Olenek 10 Qamanirjuaq 40 Taimyr 11 Beverly 41 Severnaya Zemlia 12 Ahiak 42 Gydan 13 Bathurst 43 Belyi 14 Bluenose East 44 Novaya Zemlia 15 Bluenose West 45 Svalbard 16 Cape Bathurst 46 Parapolskii 17 Porcupine 47 Kamchatka 18 Central Arctic 48 Amur 19 Teshekpuk 49 Okhotsk 20 Western Arctic 50 Yakutsk 21 South Baffin Island 51 Evenkiya 22 Coats Island 52 Nadym-Pur (Yamal Okrug) 23 Southampton Island 53 Arkhangelsk Oblast 24 Lorillard 54 Terskii Bereg (Kola) 25 Wager Bay 55 Laplandskii Zapovednik (Kola) 26 North Baffin Island 56 Range of Forest Reindeer 27 Northeast Baffin Island 57 Finland 28 Eastern Queen Elizabeth Islands 58 Norway 29 Bathurst Island 59 Iceland 30 Prince of Wales-Somerset-Boothia 60 Greenland
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 Russell et al. 0.2 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Questions How resilient is your system to shocks, to rapid change, to surprise? What can we learn from other systems to help build the resilience of your system to change? How can groups from different regions best work together to prepare for an uncertain future?
Third Meeting November 28-30, 2006 Network
The mission of CARMA To monitor and assess the impacts of global change on the Human-Rangifer System across the Arctic through cooperation, both geographically and across disciplines.
* 1998 - The Arctic Council directed CAFF to identify elements of a program to monitor circumpolar biodiversity and to assess the effects of climate change on Arctic ecosystems. * 1999 - The Human Role in Reindeer/Caribou Systems Workshop
Three sources of information Remote sensing Field studies Local knowledge
CARMA is a network 2004= 24 attending 2009 = 65 attending
Methods for estimating caribou populations Beverly Calving Ground Survey June 2008 BQCMB
Monitoring of caribou body condition
Inventorying and assessing pathogens and food safety S. Kurtz et al.
Brook et al
A Bali et al. Voices of Caribou People
PCH 1997 Remote Sensing NDVI (Green up) Analysis (Griffith and Douglas) WAH CHUK LENA TYM Griffith et al.
Frame-size cycling model Phase space diagrams t=21: R=9 t=21: wt=57.3 kg (Nicolson et al.
Cumulative Effects Assessment: Demonstration Project BATHURST Resource Selection Function (RSF) Model uses landscape and caribou locations determines probability of occupying different habitats can include development zones Energy Protein Model RSF as input moves caribou across landscape Determines individual performance (e.g. probability of getting pregnant) Population Model Herd demographics Predation Harvesting Abundance??? Land-use planning processes
CARMA Synthesis Volume: Draft Outline CARMA: collectively facing the future of wild Rangifer CARMA s approach to synthesis Habitat linkages to the individual and population Scaling up from the individual Dynamics at the population level Co-Managing abundance in caribou populations Monitoring caribou Effects of global change Caribou in a changing world
Direction of herd population levels: Synchronicity or Heterogeneity? Gunn and Russell
600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 Western Arctic Herd 416,000 450,000 463,000 430,000 343,000 242,000 229,000 172,000 138,000 107,000 75,000 490,000 377,000 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 year number of caribou
Beverly Herd
Beverly Herd Year of survey: Number caribou cows: 1994: 5,737 2002: 2,629 2007: 189 2008: 93 From Wakelyn et al 25
BQCMB established more than 25 years ago (in 1982) From Wakelyn et al 26
27
Some history re: Beverly decline From Wakelyn et al Year Partner Position/Action Mid-1990s Federal govt (CWS) Ended work on Beverly caribou 1998 Federal govt (CWS) No plans to replace retiring biologist on Board 1999-2009 Gov. NU No role in Beverly monitoring 2001 Sask. elders Restated opposition to collaring 2001 Gov. Nunavut No survey funding unless conservation issue identified 2002 Gov. NWT No photosurvey without collared caribou; systematic recon. survey 2003 Sask. elders Restated opposition to collaring 2004 Gov. NU No photosurvey without collared caribou 2006 Board members Support for collaring and surveys 2006 Gov. NWT Beverly collaring on winter range 2007 Gov. NWT Systematic recon. survey; photosurvey not feasible; post-calving collaring 2008 Gov. NWT Systematic recon. survey; collaring late winter 2009 Gov. NWT Systematic recon. survey 28
Problems estimating population Development of harvest management plan Use of computer model as decision-support tool Long efforts made to reach consensus Government imposed regulations 200,000 Porcupine Herd 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
PCH Estimates PCMB uses the Caribou Calculator as a : Decision-Support Tool
Problems with data because of not monitoring No co-management body Strong land claims groups bring aboriginal consensus Challenges to need to restrict harvesting. 120,000 Bluenose West 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Surprise in decline No formal co-management agreement; Planning Group Legal threats by outfitters Government imposed regulations Hot debate Bathurst Herd 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Taimyr Herd Limited data Poaching for commercial hunting Soviet style government control
December Charrette at CARMA Meeting 1 2 3 Take homes: 1. Complacency when lots of caribou 2. Too late to gather information when low 3. Few things to do to recover a herd 4. Innovation is possible
Towards Adaptive Co-Management? 1. Are you preparing for the next crisis? 2. Is your monitoring program sufficient? 3. Are you questioning your fundamental assumptions? 4. Are your traditional beliefs getting in the way of innovation? 5. Are you clear on how to integrate local knowledge and science? 6. Are you waiting for legal co-management arrangements? 7. How will legal & political conflicts affect responses? 8. When do we prolong consultation vs. act quickly? 9. Are you experimenting with new approaches?
Linking Levels of Resilience The individual: A cow s ability to get pregnant after a hard winter The Population: The herd s ability to recovery after a decline 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 The Community: A village s ability to sustain itself through hard times The Region: The capacity of people to act collectively
CARMA Network (Circum-Arctic Rangifer Monitoring & Assessment Network) www.carmanetwork.com