Managing biodiversity conservation in a changing environment of the Arctic

Published: February 9, 2010, 3:47 pm

Updated: May 7, 2012, 5:05 pm

Topics:

Conservation Biology (main) Biodiversity (main) Environmental Law & Policy (main) Climate Change (main)

This is Section 10.5 of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
Lead Author: Michael B. Usher; Contributing Authors:Terry V. Callaghan, Grant Gilchrist, Bill Heal, Glenn P. Juday, Harald Loeng, Magdalena A. K. Muir, Pål Prestrud

To conclude this chapter on conserving the Arctic’s biodiversity, it is appropriate to explore a number of topics that have been implicit in the various descriptions and discussions of sections 10.1 to 10.4 (Managing biodiversity conservation in a changing environment of the Arctic). Four topics are addressed in this final section: documenting the current biodiversity; predicting changes in that biodiversity resource over the next 50 or 100 years; determining how that biodiversity resource is actually changing; and managing the Arctic’s biodiversity resource in a sustainable manner.

Each topic generates a number of questions, and their answers involve many concepts, most of which have already been introduced in this chapter. Sixteen recommendations are made in relation to the various discussions and conclusions in this section.

Documenting the current biodiversity(10.5.1)

The Arctic nations have very good inventories of their mammals and birds^[1]. Although it is possible that a few more species might have been recorded in the Arctic since the mid-1980s, it is unlikely that the numbers of 183 species of bird and 48 species of terrestrial mammal will have changed significantly.

It is notable that Sage was unable to provide similar lists for any other taxa of wildlife in the Arctic. From the literature on the Arctic it would probably now be possible to prepare reasonably good inventories of the marine mammals, freshwater and marine fish, and vascular plants. Although this is as much as most nations in the world can compile for national inventories, such lists omit the most species-rich taxa. Large numbers of species of bryophyte (mosses and liverworts), lichen (or lichenized fungi), fungi,and algae occur, as well as many species of invertebrate animals. Terrestrially, it is likely that the insects and arachnids (mites and spiders) will be the most species-rich, whereas in the sea it is likely to be the crustaceans and mollusks that are most species-rich. However, there are many other taxonomic groups, especially the nematodes and many marine taxa of worms, sponges, and hydroids, as well as single-celled organisms in which the “species” concept is more difficult to apply.

Inventories are important. They form the building blocks for biodiversity conservation because, unless the biodiversity is known, it is not possible to begin to conserve it or to recognize when it is changing. Documentation of the numbers and types of species living in the Arctic has focused mainly on terrestrial systems and is detailed in Chapter 7 (Managing biodiversity conservation in a changing environment of the Arctic). The Arctic has around 1735 species of vascular plants, 600 bryophytes, 2000 lichens, 2500 fungi, 75 mammals, 240 birds, 3300 insects dominated by the Diptera (two-winged flies), 300 spiders, 5 earthworms, 70 enchytraeid worms, and 500 nematodes. This species diversity represents a small but variable percentage of the world’s species, with some groups relatively strongly represented. Thus, there are about 0.4% of the world’s insects but 6.0% of the Collembola; as well as 0.6% of the world’s ferns but 11.0% of the lichens. There is currently no comparable documentation of numbers of species in the freshwater and marine environments of the Arctic, although there is significant environmental overlap for some taxa, for example, the birds.

An excellent example of an arctic inventory is the work done on Svalbard. An overview is given in Table 10.9, giving Svalbard a species richness of about 5700 (terrestrial, freshwater, and marine environments combined). However, this total does not include many of the single-celled organisms, such as the protozoa, and so a full inventory would be substantially longer.

Many species, particularly vascular plants, are endemic to the Arctic. However, there are few endemic genera. This has been attributed to the youthfulness of the arctic flora and fauna, with insufficient time undisturbed to allow the evolution of endemic genera. The proportions in many taxa that are endemic to the Arctic, especially for the lower plants and invertebrates, is unknown, a feature that deserves more attention.The level of information varies widely between taxonomic groups, especially for the soil invertebrates and lower plants that have been examined at few sites. In contrast, information on vascular plants, birds, and mammals is detailed, both in terms of species identification, and in terms of population size and distribution.

Table 10.9. Species richness in the terrestrial, freshwater, and marine environments of Svalbard. Detailed species lists are contained in the references quoted.
	Number of species
Plants
Cyanobacteriaa	73
Algaea,b	1049
Fungi and lichenised fungic	1217
Mosses and liverwortsd	373
Vascular plantse	173
Animals
Marine crustaceaf	467
Marine mollusksf	252
Other marine invertebratesf	924
Marine vertebrates (fish)f	70
Terrestrial and freshwater arachnidsg	134
Terrestrial and freshwater insectsg	289
Other terrestrial and freshwater invertebratesg	617
Birdsh,i	53
Mammalsh,j	9
Total	5700
a; b; c[5]; d; e; f; g; h; i202 species recorded, of which 53 are known to be breeding, to have bred in the past, or are probably breeding; j23 species recorded (plus another 8 species which are known to have been introduced), of which 9 are known to be breeding or to have bred in the past.

In documenting current arctic biodiversity as a basis for conservation, a key feature is that many of the vertebrate species spend only a small proportion of their time in the Arctic. This adaptive behavior is found in most birds, some marine mammals, and some freshwater and marine fish. As a result, documentation of their status and conservation action for them is dependent on international cooperation. It is also probable that the main threats to these migratory species occur during their migrations or during their winter period outside the Arctic. Current threats include changes in land-and water-use, human exploitation of resources upon which the animals depend, direct cropping of the animals for food or sport, accidental killing (as in the by-catch resulting from other fisheries), or pollution. A particular benefit of detailed and long-term observations, particularly for migratory birds that cover all continents (Figure 10.4), is that they provide a highly sensitive indicator of global environmental change.

After drawing up biodiversity inventories, individual items (species or habitats) can be assessed for their ability to survive into the future. For example, the IUCN has established criteria for assessing the degree of threat to the continued existence of species^[[[11]]]. Many nations have used these IUCN criteria as the basis for compiling their national “Red Lists”. Species are allocated to the various threat groups on the basis of criteria (Table 10.10). These criteria are grouped into four sets, which are briefly outlined here (see ref. 10 for the various nuances).

First, there is a criterion of the known or suspected reduction in a species’ population size. If this is known to have declined by at least 80% over the last ten years or three generations, then the species might be categorized as “critically endangered”. Similarly,if the reduction in population size is more than 50% or more than 20% over the last ten years or three generations, then the species could be categorized as “endangered”or “vulnerable” respectively. Good data are necessary for such changes in population size to be known or estimated.

Second, there is a criterion relating to the known or estimated decline in the range of the species. Again somewhat arbitrary thresholds are set where the extent of occurrence is estimated to be less than 100 km², 5000 km², and 20000 km², or the area of occupancy is estimated to be less than 10 km², 500 km², and 2000 km², for the “critically endangered”, “endangered”, and “vulnerable” categories respectively. For these, the populations must be severely fragmented or located in a single place and either declining or demonstrating extreme fluctuations, in order to be categorized as “critically endangered”. There are similar weaker criteria for the “endangered” and “vulnerable” categories (for example, populations must be at no more than 5 or 10 places respectively).

Third, the total population size can be used. The thresholds are less than 250 mature individuals and declining, or less than 50 mature individuals, for the “critically endangered” category.These thresholds are raised to 2500 and 250 for the “endangered” category and 10000 and 1000 for the “vulnerable”category. At these small total population sizes it is feared that inbreeding could occur, thus reducing the genetic variability within the species. Consequently, conservation action is needed, encouraging all of the mature individuals to contribute to future generations so that the present genetic diversity is not lost.

Finally, assessments can be on the basis of quantitative analyses estimating the risk of extinction in the wild over a period of either a number of years or over a number of generations, whichever is the longer. For the “critically endangered” category, the risk of extinction in the wild would have to be greater than 50% over 10 years or three generations. For the “endangered” category, the risk would have to be at least 20% within 20 years or five generations,whereas for the “vulnerable” category it would have to be atleast 10% within 100 years. Such an assessment depends on good data as well as on a suitable model that can be used to assess the risks.

Table 10.10.The categories proposed by the IUCN for assessing the vulnerability, and hence the conservation priority, of species.
Species evaluated	Data adequate	IUCN category and code	Notes
Yes	Yes	Extinct (EX)	There is no reasonable doubt that the last individual of the species has died
Yes	Yes	Extinct in the wild (EW)	As above, but the species survives in cultivation, in captivity, or in at least one naturalized population outside its native distribution range
Yes	Yes	Critically endangered (CR)	The species is facing an extremely large risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future
Yes	Yes	Endangered (EN)	The species is facing a large risk of extinction (but not as large as the category above) in the wild in the near future
Yes	Yes	Vulnerable (VU)	The species is facing a large risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future
Yes	Yes	Lower risk (LRcd, LRnt, LRlc)	The species does not fit into the above categories, but this category can be divided into three. Conservation dependent taxa are those that have a conservation program, cessation of which is likely to result in the species being moved into one of the above categories within five years. Near threatened taxa are those that areclose to being vulnerable. Least concern taxa are those that do not fit into either of the above categories
Yes	No	Data deficient (DD)	There are insufficient data for a decision to be made about allocating the species to any of the above categories
No	No	Not evaluated (NE	The species has not been assessed for sufficiency of data and hence does not fit into any of the above categories

The IUCN criteria are predicated upon species conservation. However, genetic diversity is also a part of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Many species have widespread distributions within the Arctic and occur in different habitats, landforms, and communities.This is a feature of the low species diversity, providing the opportunity for species to exploit resources and environments with little or no competition. Under the conditions of low species diversity, it is thought that the width of the ecological niche of the remaining species is wide. Measures of species richness underestimate the genetic diversity and there is a need to increase documentation of genetic variation within species, especially for those of conservation concern. Ecotypic differentiation is likely to be an important attribute in species response to climate change and is recognized as a key characteristic of arctic biodiversity. Five examples that illustrate genetic variability, its causes,and possible consequences emphasize the importance of both understanding and maintaining genetic variation within species by conserving diverse populations as a basis for conservation – an application of the precautionary principle.

This poses a number of questions for nations with arctic territory and for nations interested in the Arctic’s biodiversity. Can inventories be prepared for more taxa than just the mammals and birds, which already exist? Are there data of sufficient quality and quantity to allocate the species to the IUCN categories? Are the data good enough and arethere suitable models that can be used to estimate the risks of extinction? Are there sufficient taxonomists to be able to recognize, identify, and list the Arctic’s species? Although the work of the IUCN is aimed at species, it is also important to have an inventory of habitats. Initially, however, on a circumpolar basis there needs to be agreement on the classification of habitats in the marine environment, the freshwater environment, and the terrestrial environment. This will require ecological expertise and international agreement, but is a requisite first step in drawing up an inventory of the Arctic’s habitats, and then assessing which habitats are priorities for conservation action.

These considerations lead to the first four recommendations. These are made without attempting to allocate responsibility for undertaking the work involved.

1. There needs to be a supply of trained ecologists who can devise appropriate circumpolar classifications of habitats and then survey these so as to measure their extent and quality and to establish their dynamics.
2. There needs to be a supply of trained taxonomists who can draw up inventories of the Arctic’s species. There are already good data on which species of vertebrate animals and vascular plants are to be found in the Arctic, so particular attention needs to be given to the training of taxonomists who can work with non-vascular plants, invertebrate animals, fungi, and microorganisms (protozoa, bacteria, etc.).
3. Inventories need to be generated for the Arctic’s biodiversity (both species and habitats), indicating for each entry in the inventory where it occurs and either the size of the overall species population or the extent of the habitat. Such inventories need to be on a circumpolar basis rather than on a national basis as nations with arctic territory also have territory south of the Arctic.
4. The genetic diversity of many of the Arctic’s species is presently poorly known or unknown. Much research is needed to explore this aspect of the Arctic’s biodiversity and conservation management will need to ensure that genetic diversity is not lost.

Identifying changes in the Arctic’s biodiversity(10.5.2)

In Section 10.4 (Managing biodiversity conservation in a changing environment of the Arctic), seven series of changes wereexplored, focusing on the distribution range of species and habitats, on the total size of species populations and the extent of habitats, and on genetic variability within populations. Each of these interacts with the success and failure of non-native species to establish themselves in the Arctic, with the migration routes and timing of migration of migratory species, and with the selection and management of protected areas. Change is expected, and each species is likely to respond in an individualistic way so that novel assemblages of species are very likely to occur in the future. Sources of information on changes to biodiversity are many and varied and analyses of past changes can provide insights into the future.

Change in ecological communities is often referred to as “ecological succession”. A distinction is drawn between “primary succession”, which occurs on new substrates such as when a glacier recedes, and “secondary succession”, which occurs following a disturbance or perturbation. A preservationist attitude might be to maintain what occurs today and so manage a habitat in such a way as to oppose ecological succession. A conservationist attitude would be to work with ecological succession. This dichotomy of thinking is highlighted by Rhind, who said “we have become fixated with the idea of preventing natural succession and, in most cases, would not dream of allowing a grassland or heathland to develop into woodland”. In the Arctic, climate change will drive primary and secondary successional changes and, in the interests of conserving the Arctic’s biodiversity, management should work with these changes rather than opposing them.

Species might adapt to new environmental conditions if they have a sufficient genetic diversity and sufficient time. This is outlined in Chapter 7 where it is stated that a key role of biodiversity is to provide the adaptive basis for accommodating the extreme levels of environmental variability that characterize much of the Arctic. The genetic level of biodiversity allows populations to meet the challenges of an extremely variable arctic environment and this ensures persistence of the populations, at least in the short to medium term. Over the longer term, such genetic diversity is the basis for evolutionary change leading to the emergence of new sub-species and species. With projections of a rapidly changing climate, genetic diversity is important as a kind of insurance that the species will be able to successfully meet the environmental challenges that they will face.

As stated by Walls and Vieno in their review of Finnish biodiversity “...mere biological information is not enough for successful biodiversity conservation. Conservation decisions and the design of biodiversity management are primarily questions of social and economic policy ... Biodiversity conservation requires, in fact, the whole spectrum of sociological, economic and policy analyses to complement the basic biological information”. Traditional knowledge was addressed in section 10.2.7, but the implications of Walls and Vieno’s comment are that the knowledge gained in the past is insufficient since the aspirations of today’s people for the future also need to be considered. This highlights one of the central divisions of thought about biodiversity conservation. Is it “nature-centric”, because it is believed that nature has an inherent right to exist? Or, is biodiversity conservation “human-centric”, because it is believed that the biological world must be molded to suit the needs of people, now and in the future? The problem with the former approachis that it can neglect the fact that humans (Homo sapiens) are an integral part of the ecosystem and the food web.The problem with the latter is that it places H.sapiens as the only species thatr eally matters, and hence it is of limited concern if other species become extinct. A middle way needs to be found.

In the Arctic, people have been part of the food web more or less since the end of the last ice age when ecological succession began with the northward movement of plants and animals, in the sea and on land, as the ice retreated. As well as the obvious changes in distribution, number, extent, etc., there are likely to be many more subtle changes in the functions of ecosystems and in the physiology of individuals, but prediction of what these changes might be is largely elusive. Predictions are based on models.The concept of modeling biodiversity conservation has already been addressed (see Fig.10.12) and has been shown to be within the domain of statistical models rather than precise models that give a definitive result. However, despite such limitations, models are useful in attempting to explore the likely changes to the Arctic’s biodiversity and their effects on the human population.

For example, in Finland models have been used to project the likely changes in the distribution of the major forest trees – pine (Pinus sylvestris), spruce (Picea abies) and birch (Betula spp.) – predicting the movement north of the two coniferous species. At the same time, the models have projected that whereas at present only the southern fifth of Finland is thermally suitable for cultivating spring wheat, by 2050 it is likely that this crop could be grown throughout the southern half of Finland. Herein lies the social problems. Finland currently is a country with an economy largely based on forestry and it has a biodiversity rich in forest species. If the economy were to change to one more agriculturally based, how would this affect the social structure of the human population? Would the loss of the forest biodiversity and the loss of the social aspects of its use (e.g.,collecting berries and mushrooms, hiking, and other leisure activities in the forest) be acceptable?

These considerations of change lead to two further recommendations.

5. Management of the Arctic’s biodiversity must work with ecological succession and not against it. This thinking needs to be incorporated into all aspects of the management of biodiversity in the sea, in freshwater, and on the land.

6. Models need to be further developed to explore changes in biodiversity under the various scenarios of climate change. Again, these models will need to explore biodiversity change in the sea, in freshwater, and on land.

Recording the Arctic’s changing biodiversity (10.5.3)

There are two aspects to recording the Arctic’s changing biodiversity that need to be addressed: monitoring (or surveillance) and indicators. Monitoring involves the periodic recording of data so that trends can be detected. Usually, it also involves assessing progress toward some target, but often it only involves determining if the resource being monitored still exists and how the amount of that resource is changing (and this is often referred to as surveillance). Indicators are regularly monitored measures of the current state of the environment, the pressures on the environment, and the human responses to changes in that state. This three-point set of indicators is often referred to as the “pressure-state-response model”. It is often easier to find indicators of state than indicators of either pressures or responses.

Monitoring of wildlife has a long history. There have been attempts to coordinate monitoring, as outlined for the Nordic Nations by From and Söderman. The aim in these nations was “to monitor the biodiversity and its change over time with appropriate and applicable mechanisms, and to monitor the cause-effect relationship between pressureand response on biodiversity by using specific biological indicators”. There were five implications of these objectives: (1) the program would exclude chemical and physical aspects of environmental monitoring; (2) the focus would be on ecosystems and species and the data would be analyzed in the simplest manner to provide appropriate, qualitative, and quantitative information;(3) another focus would be anthropogenic changes, although the analyses would need to distinguish these from natural changes; (4) monitoring would include, among others, threatened habitats and species ,and hence their disappearance or extinction would become known; and (5) the monitoring would not directly focus on administrative performance indicators, although it might provide important information for understanding these. The main problem with this Nordic monitoring program is that it relates only to the terrestrial environment, although this does include wetland and coastal habitats. More attention needs to be paid to the marine environment.

Progress is being made in relation to monitoring bio-diversity in the Arctic with the Circum-polar Biodiversity Monitoring Program. Its goal is “to improve understanding of biodiversity through harmonization and/or expansion of existing programs and networks.The proposed approach focuses on three large ecosystems (terrestrial, freshwater, marine) and selected criteria include ecological importance, socio-economic importance, and feasibility”. CAFF then continued with accounts of a number of monitoring programs, covering Arctic char, caribou and reindeer, polar bear, ringed seal, shorebirds (also known as waders), seabirds, geese, and work in relation to the International Tundra Experiment. The strengths of this proposal are that the connections between the marine, freshwater, and terrestrial environments are recognized and that the monitoring would be on a circumpolar basis; the weakness is thatso few actual species are being monitored, although the aspirations are more ambitious. At present there is no explicit botanical monitoring, and the invertebrate animals have been overlooked. For example, a program focused on the many species of fritillary butterfly of the genus Clossiana (although taxonomically this has now been divided into a number of genera), which occur in northern Asia, northern Europe, and North America, would indicate much about the effects of climate change on insects and their food plants, and on the interrelationships between plants and specialized herbivores. For the future, the Circumpolar Arctic Biodiversity Monitoring Network project is challenging, having the twin goals to “develop the infrastructure, strengthen ecological representation, and create data management systems for circumpolar Arctic species biodiversity monitoring networks”, and to “establish functional links between these arctic networks and European and global biodiversity observation systems and programs”. The long-term objectives of CAFF’s biodiversity monitoring are listed in Box 10.4.

Monitoring is widely advocated.For example, BirdLife indicated that it wished to “monitor and report on progress in conserving the world’s birds, sites and habitats”, but also that it wished to monitor the effectiveness of its work in achieving the objectives set out in its strategy. Usher posed five questions about monitoring. These related to the purpose (what are the objectives?), the methods to be used (how can the objectives be achieved?), the form of analysis (how are the data, which will be collected periodically, to be analyzed statistically and stored for future use?), the interpretation (what might the data mean and can they be interpreted in an unbiased manner?), and fulfillment (when will the objectives have been achieved?). It is vital that all five questions are asked and answered before a monitoring scheme begins. All too frequently ad hoc monitoring programs provide data that cannot be analyzed statistically and so the confidence that can be placed in resulting trends is minimal.

The basic need is for the establishment of a circumpolar network of sites where large-scale (hectares or square kilometers) replicated plots can be distributed where vegetation cover and composition can be documented. Following scientific principles,the network could be spatially located to test the hypotheses of vegetation change that have been generated during the ACIA process. Establishment of some sites within the CPAN could further test the performance of this approach to conservation. Further, fine-scale observations, for example of species performance, could be nested within the landscape-scale plots. Such a hierarchy of spatial scales would be similar to that defined in the Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS) led by the FAO.171 arctic sites and a number of arctic site networks are currently registered on the Terrestrial Ecosystem Monitoring Sites of the GTOS, and they could provide the basis for an appropriate monitoring network. The GTOS has developed a Biodiversity Module with seven core variables to guide development in the program (threatened species, species richness, pollinator species, indicator species, habitat fragmentation, habitat conversion, and colonization by invasive species). The relationship with the sister programs, the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) and the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS), needs to be clarified. This would correspond with the recommendations in Chapters 7, 8,and 9.Each chapter identifies the need for improved systematic, long-term observation and monitoring programs.

Based on the aspects of the conservation of biodiversity identified in this chapter, further attention should be given to the five subsidiary aspects of monitoring outlined in Box 10.5. It would be too resource intensive to attempt to monitor all aspects of the Arctic’s biodiversity. So in order to reduce the amount of work required indicators are often advocated. For indicators to be valuable they should ideally fulfill the following four criteria. First,they should reflect the state of the wider ecosystems of which they are a part. Second,indicators should have the potential to be responsive to the implementation of biodiversity conservation policies. Third,indicators should be capable of being measured reliably on a regular (not necessarily annual) basis, and should be comparable with similar measures at greater spatial scales. Fourth, they should have, or have the potential for, strong public resonance. Such a set of criteria for indicators fits well with the set of seven long-term objectives of CAFF’s Circumpolar Arctic Biodiversity Monitoring Network proposal.

Fig.10.16.Arepresentation of the effects of climate change on biodiversity at different spatial scales. The text focuses on species diversity and to some extent on habitat diversity,but genetic diversity is not included.

(d) PLOT LEVEL Changes in snow conditions,ice layers, the cavity beneath the snow,summer temperatures,and nutrient cycling act on individual plants,animals,and soil microorganisms leading to changes in populations.It is at the level of the individual animal and plant where responses to the climate takeplace leading to global-scale vegetation shifts.

These discussions lead to three further recommendations.

7. Circumpolar monitoring networks need to be fully implemented throughout the Arctic. The proposals are challenging, but data on the state of the Arctic’s biodiversity, on the drivers of change in that biodiversity, and on the effectiveness of responses to those changes, needs to be collected, analyzed, and used in the development of future arctic biodiversity policy.

8. Attention needs to be given to establishing the kinds of subsidiary aspects of monitoring, examples of which are outlined in Box 10.5. These are vital if a holistic view is to be taken of the Arctic’s biodiversity, its conservation in the face of a changing climate,and the management of the biodiversity resource for future generations of people to use and enjoy.

9. A suite of indicators needs to be devised and agreed, monitoring for them undertaken, and the results made publicly available in a format (or formats) so as to inform public opinion, educators, decision-makers, and policy-makers.

Managing the Arctic’s biodiversity (10.5.4)

“The Arctic is a distinct and significant component of the diversity of life on Earth” was a statement made at a meeting in 2001 to celebrate ten years of arctic environmental cooperation. This probably encapsulates why the conservation of the Arctic’s biodiversity is not only essential to the peoples of the Arctic but also why the Arctic is important globally. It sets the imperative to do something to conserve the biodiversity of one of the more pristine geographical parts of the world, but nevertheless a geographical area that is threatened with a series of human-induced changes due to developments and over-exploitation within the Arctic, and to long-range pollution and climate change, which are both global problems.

One of the first requirements is to collate information about the best way to manage the Arctic’s biodiversity in a changing climate. This will be based on knowledge held by local people together with knowledge that has been gained by scientists, either through observation or experiment. There have been a number of attempts to bring together guidelines for best practice, usually either in a nation or for a particular area. An example would be the proposals developed in Finland for practical forest management. These guidelines integrate concern for the environment with the needs of production forestry, and the use of forests for recreation, protection of the quality of soil and water, and the management of game species. They provide an example of what can be done when all the interest groups work together for a common goal. Such an approach would also be useful on a circumpolar basis for the conservation and sustainable use of the Arctic’s biodiversity. This leads to a further recommendation.

10. Best practice guidelines need to be prepared for managing all aspects of the Arctic’s biodiversity. These need to be prepared on a circumpolar basis and with the involvement of all interested parties.

The value of protected areas has been discussed (section 10.4.7), as well as the plans for developing a comprehensive network of these areas throughout the Arctic. Such a start is excellent, setting aside areas of land, freshwater, and sea where nature has primacy over any other forms of land-and-water-use. The three questions that need to be asked are how quickly can this network of protected areas be completed, how will they need to change as the climate is changing, and are they doing what they were designed to do? First,the reviews by CAFF indicated that there were some of the Arctic’s habitats, especially in the marine environment, that were not adequately covered by the CPAN. It is important that work on establishing a comprehensive CPAN is undertaken so that protection can be afforded to the breadth of the Arctic’s biodiversity before any is lost. Second, work on understanding how climate change will affect each protected area will allow management to have a greater chance of protecting the biodiversity in that area, or of adopting the “soft boundary”approach outlined in section 10.4.7. Work needs to be undertaken, and made widely available in management guidelines, on the management of these protected areas; an example for the protected areas in Finland is as in Anon. Work also needs to analyze how climate change is likely to affect each of the protected areas. Such work has been carried out for the Canadian national parks, stressing the importance of sea-level rise for the many national parks that are located on the coast. These considerations give rise to two further recommendations.

11. The CPAN needs to be completed and then reviewed so as to ensure that it does actually cover the full range of the Arctic’s present biodiversity.

12. An assessment needs to be made for each protected area of the likely effects of climate change,and in the light of this assessment the management methods and any revisions of the area’s boundary need to be reviewed.

In undertaking these reviews, one of the important questions is whether or not the protected area is conserving what it was designed to conserve. This is not always a simple task, especially with year-to-year variation in population sizes and with longer term changes in habitat quality, but such assessments are becoming more commonplace.

Protected areas are just one method for attempting to conserve the Arctic’s biodiversity. Although biodiversity conservation is the primary focus of management within the protected areas, they will only ever cover a relatively small proportion of the land and water area of the Arctic, and thus will only contain a small proportion of the Arctic’s biodiversity resource. Hence, it is imperative that biodiversity is also considered in the land and water outside protected areas. Forms of integrated management need to be adopted whereby biodiversity is not forgotten among all the other competing claims for space on land or at sea. The kind of approach proposed for the Canadian Arctic, with forms of integrated management of coastal and marine areas, is just one example of practical applications of a biodiversity approach to the wider environment. The need is to incorporate biodiversity thinking into all forms of policy development, not just environmental policies, but also policies on education, health, development, tourism, and transport. This is clearly a part of this wider environmental approach for biodiversity conservation. In this way moreof the Arctic’s biodiversity is likely to be protected in the face of a changing climate than by relying solely on the protected areas. These considerations give rise to two further recommendations.

13.Integrated forms of management, incorporating the requirement for biodiversity conservation, need to be explored for all uses of the land, freshwater, and sea in the Arctic.

14.Biodiversity conservation needs to be incorporated into all policy development, whether regional, national, or circumpolar.

In order to assist in these processes, the “ecosystem approach”, sometimes also referred to as the “ecosystem-based approach”, has been advocated. This sets out a series of 12 principles,some of which are science-oriented, but all of which form an essentially socio-economic context for conservation. In relation to climate change in the Arctic, two of the 12 principles are particularly relevant. Principle 5 focuses on ecosystems services, and is that “conservation of ecosystem structure and function, in order to maintain ecosystem services, should be a priority target for the ecosystem approach”. Principle 10 states that “the ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and integration of, conservation and use of biological diversity”. An example of the possible application of this approach for the marine environment in the Arctic is as reported by CAFF et al. and Muir et al.. Since this approach is still comparatively new, its details have as yet been worked out in very few situations. Hence, a further recommendation.

15.The ecosystem approach (or ecosystem-based approach) should be trialed for a number of situations in the Arctic, so as to assess its ability to harmonize the management of land and water both for the benefit of the local people and for the benefit of wildlife.

In all this work,it should be remembered that the conservation of the Arctic’s biodiversity is necessary for itself, for the peoples of the Arctic, and more generally for this planet. These concepts were implicitly enshrined in the Convention on Biological Diversity, the final text of which was agreed at a conference in Nairobi, Kenya, in May 1992. Within a year, the Convention had received 168 signatures. As a result, the Convention entered into force on 29 December 1993, and there is now considerable international activity to implement the Convention in the majority of nations globally. This gives rise to a final recommendation.

16. All nations with arctic territory should be working toward full implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, coordinating their work on a circumpolar basis, and reporting both individually and jointly to the regular Conferences of the Parties.

Concluding remarks (10.5.5)

Biodiversity is not the easiest of concepts to grasp. On the biological side, biodiversity needs to be considered at three scales – variation within species (genetic diversity), variation between species (species diversity), and variation among assemblages of species (habitat diversity). Whereas habitat diversity in the Arctic’s land, freshwater, and sea would probably be measured in hundreds of habitats, species diversity would be measured in thousands or tens of thousands of species, and genetic diversity in millions of genes. These are all influenced by a changing climate. On the geographical side, biodiversity can be considered at many different scales, from the individual plant or animal and its immediate surroundings, to the whole world. Again, a changing climate can affect each of these scales, and indeed the effects at one scale may be different to the effects at another.

This chapter has shown that the Arctic’s biodiversity is important in relation to the biodiversity of the world at the largest extreme and to local people at the smallest extreme. The types of impacts that climate change might have are illustrated in Fig.10.16, which endeavors to highlight the importance of four of the spatial scales. Each of the ecological processes is affected by climate change, whether the migrations at the global scale or decomposition of dead plant and animal material at the plot level. A small shift in a climatic variable can have very different effects at these scales, and a small change at one scale can cause other changes in scales both above and below. Cause and effect are often difficult to determine, and so models to project changes as a result of climate change are still problematic.

Herein lies the difficulty in conserving the Arctic’s biodiversity. Among this multitude of scales, what are the priorities? Should the primary focus be on habitats, species, or genes? Which of the many spatial scales is the most important? It is clear that not every aspect of the Arctic’s biodiversity can be conserved, so priorities have to be attached to actions that can conserve the greatest amount of biodiversity or, in some situations, the greatest amount of useful biodiversity. But to set these priorities, information is required about the present state of biodiversity and about how it is changing. With such information, models of a more or less sophisticated type can be used to project what might happen in the future. It is within this context that the 16 recommendations have been made, and their acceptance should assist the peoples of the Arctic in conserving their biodiversity into the future.

Chapter 10: Principles of Conserving the Arctic’s Biodiversity
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Conservation of arctic ecosystems and species
10.2.1 Marine environments
10.2.2 Freshwater environments
10.2.3 Environments north of the treeline
10.2.4 Arctic boreal forest environments
10.2.5 Human-modified habitats
10.2.6 Conservation of arctic species
10.2.7 Incorporating traditional knowledge
10.2.8 Implications for biodiversity conservation
10.3 Human impacts on the biodiversity of the Arctic
10.4 Effects of climate change on the biodiversity of the Arctic
10.5 Managing biodiversity conservation in a changing environment

References

1. ^Sage,B.,1986.The Arctic and its Wildlife.Croom Helm.
2. {{note|5}e. g., Alstrup,V. and A. Elvebakk, 1996. Fungi III. Lichenicolous fungi. In: A. lvebakk and P. Prestrud (eds.). A Catalogue of Svalbard Plants, Fungi, Algae and Cyanobacteria, pp. 261–270. Norsk Polarinstitutt.--Elvebakk, A. and H. Hertel, 1996. Lichens. In: A. Elvebakk and. Prestrud. A Catalogue of Svalbard Plants, Fungi, Algae and Cyanobacteria, pp. 271–359. Norsk Polarinstitutt, Oslo.--Elvebakk, A., H.B. Gjærum and S. Sivertsen, 1996. Fungi II. Myxomycota, Oomycota, Chytrodiomycota, Zygomycota, Ascomycota, Deuteromycota, Basidiomycota: Uredinales and Ustilaginales. In A. Elvebakk and P. Prestrud (eds.). A Catalogue of Svalbard Plants, Fungi, Algae and Cyanobacteria, pp. 207–259. Norsk Polarinstitutt, Oslo.--Gulden, G. and A.-E.Torkelsen, 1996. Fungi I. Basidiomycota: Agaricales, Gasteromycetales, Aphyllophorales, Exobasidiales, Dacrimycetales and Tremellales. In: A. Elvebakk and P. Prestrud (eds.). A Catalogue of Svalbard Plants, Fungi, Algae and Cyanobacteria, pp. 173–206. Norsk Polarinstitutt, Oslo..
3. ^[30]IUCN, 1994. IUCN Red List Categories.World Conservation Union, Gland.

Citation

Committee, I. (2012). Managing biodiversity conservation in a changing environment of the Arctic. Retrieved from http://editors.eol.org/eoearth/wiki/Managing_biodiversity_conservation_in_a_changing_environment_of_the_Arctic