Heterogeneity and Resilience of Human-Rangifer Systems: A Circumpolar

Social-Ecological Synthesis

Gary Kofinas, University of Alaska Fairbanks, USAMatt Berman, University of Alaska Anchorage, USABrad Griffith, University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA

Gennady Belchanski, Russian Academy of Science, RussiaDavid Douglas, US Geological Survey, USA

Bruce Forbes, Arctic Centre, LaplandKonstantin Klokov, St Petersburg State University, Russia

Leonid Kolpashikov, Extreme North Agricultural Research Institute, Russia Stephanie Martin, University of Alaska Anchorage, USA

Craig Nicolson, University of Massachusetts, USADon Russell, Environment Canada, Canada

Our project’s goals: – Improve understanding of the relative

resilience and adaptability of regional Human-Rangifer Systems to the forces for global change

– Derive generalized propositions about their functional properties as aspects of the Arctic System.

A Fragile Arctic Ecosystem? Common assumptions

Common assumptions “Highly Adaptable” Indigenous Northerners…(AHDR)

(Nellemann et al. 2001)

1950-2000

1950-2000

Social-ecological heterogeneity

Overarching hypothesis

The heterogeneity of state factors (e.g., geography, climate change, land-surface changes) and their interaction with unique regional processes (i.e. ecological, socio-economic, institutional, and cultural processes) give rise to differing forms of resilience and vulnerability, with implications to the sustainability of human-environment dimensions of the Arctic System.

Resilience in Human-Rangifer Systems is

…the degree to which the ecological and social processes can absorb disturbance, reorganize without loss of basic governing properties, and enable herds and communities to adapt to diverse and dynamic regional conditions, with Rangifer continuing to provide a primary means of support for the local population.

SocialEcological

Chaotic

Balanced

Fragile

Resilient

(Gunderson and Holling 2001)

assumptions of change:Moving beyond sustainability...

From S Carpenter

Yamal

Taimyr Central Barrens

Porcupine

Teshekpuk

Western Arctic

= Range of Rangifer = Calving grounds = Domestic herds

Six Regional Case Studies

Towards a Synthesis

1) A retrospective analysis of change to understand driving factors and internal processes • How did they change and how are they different?

2) A comparative analysis cases to understand heterogeneity and its implications to resilience and vulnerability • Why are they different?

3) Develop rule-based simulation models for exploring common system dynamics • What does that tell us about the system?

Figure 2: Subcomponents in the Study of Human -Rangifer Systems

Global and regional climate patterns

Changing land use, economic markets,

Ecological Process

Tundra Loss; NDVI; animal energetics ;

reproductive success)

Socio-economic Process

Subsistence; commercial use;

markets; life styles

Institutional processlocal-to-regional linkages;

responsiveness; reactions to risk and uncertainty;

emergence of innovation

policy feedback

North American caribou herd sizesEcological Heterogeneity

Max observed growth rate of NA herds

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

George River

Beverly

Bathurst

Bluenose

Porcupine

Central Arctic

Teshekpuk

Western Arctic

% growth per year

A measure of ecological resilience

NDVI-Calf survival relationship for Porcupine Herd (Griffith et al)

What is the relative ecological value of caribou calving grounds?

Lichen calvers

Swamp calvers

Sea ice – NDVI relationship

DATA ALONG 10 TRANSECTS WERE EXTRACTED FOR THIS

DEMONSTRATION ANALYSIS

PCHe

PCHw

CAHm

WAHw

CH

UK

SU

DR

IND

I LE

NA

TYM

e

TYM

w

1997 PCHw PCHe

WAH CAH

CHUK INDI

LENA SUDR

TYMe TYMw

PCHw

PCHe

WAH

CHUK

INDI

LENA

SUDR

TYMe

TYMw

1 JU

NE

– 1

0 S

epte

mb

erda

y of

yea

r: g

reen

=on

set,

red=

max

imum

, blu

e=se

nesc

ence

,

CAH

Late springGreen-up

(timing, rate)

Early summerPeak biomass

(timing, magnitude)

Late summerSenescence(timing, rate)

NDVI DistributionCARIBOUEnergetics

MODEL

•diet and intake rate•maternal condition•early calf growth•post-natal weaning

•diet and intake rate •(insect harassment)•maternal condition•calf growth rate •summer weaning

•diet and intake rate•(insect harassment)•maternal protein•early, normal, extended weaning•calf/cow condition

CARIBOUPopulation

MODEL

• post-natal calf survival

• summer calf survival

•over-winter calf survival•probability of pregnancy

Herd movements/herd range

ARGOS satellite tracking 1986-2006

Animal body condition 16 NA herds field collections 1965-2004

population size 10 NA herds, Klokov DB,

post-calving and calving surveys

1970-2005

snow accumulation and distribution

circumpolar coverage

algorithms to interpret passive microwave

1987-2006

NDVI circumpolar coverage

NASA Pathfinder PAL 8 km spatial

1982-2001 /10-day temporal

NDVI circumpolar coverage

NASA GIMMS 8 km spatial 2001/+15-day /temporal

NDVI circumpolar coverage

Spot Vegetation 1 km spatial

1998+ 10-day /temporal

Sea Ice Concentration circumpolar coverage

NSIDC 25 km spatial, daily 1979+

Sea Ice Melt Status circumpolar coverage

Russia Academy Sci. 25 km spatial, daily

1979+

Snow Water Equivalent circumpolar coverage

NSIDC 25 km spatial 1978-2003 /monthly

Surface Air Temperature circumpolar coverage

IABP/POLES 100 km spatial 1979-2002 /daily

Atmospheric Parameters circumpolar coverage

NCAR/NCEP2.5 degree spatial

 1948+ /daily

ecological data

Modes of production

Hunting

Pastoralism

Ranching

(Ingold 1980:4)

sharing market

protection

predation

accumulationsu

bsis

tenc

e

Post- Perestroika

Example of Collapse and Social-Ecological Regime Shift

Pre- Perestroika

Harvesting of Wild Reindeer in Russia

xc10

00Example of Collapse and Social-Ecological Regime Shift

Conflict areas between wild and domesticRangifer of the Taimyr

(Klokov 2002)

• Agencies: Dept of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development; Health and Social Services; Agricultural and Agrifood Canada

• Co-management Boards and local HTAs• NWT’s Special Committee on North Economy

(SCONE) Current commercial activities• Led to “DevCorp”

– Responsibility for meat marketing within and outside of Canadian Arctic

= Meat processing facility

= Large-scale Community Hunts

Commercial caribou huntsIn Canadian Arctic

(adapted from Dragon 2002)

Land use patterns Regional and circumpolar coverage

GLOBIO, AC Project, AK Dept of Nat Resources, Environment Canada, territorial governments, Klokov DB,

1950-present

Human harvest 6 case studies Agencies, native organizations, reports

Varies by region and sub-region

Domestic reindeer population

4 case studies, regions of Russia

Klokov, various soviet sources, 1926 Russian census

Varies by region and sub-region

Commercial sale of Rangifer, market prices of Rangifer products

4 of the 6 cases Agencies, native organizations, published reports, Klokov DB, HARC project

Varies by region and sub-region

Human population and settlement demographics

Region and community

US Census, Statistics Canada, AK Village Profiles, USSR and Russia censuses

Varies by region and sub-region

Perceptions of well being

Community and region

SLICA 2004

Role of culture in Rangifer relationship

Region and community

Published ethnographies Varies by study

Socio-economic data

Figure 3: Simplified Rangifer Socio-Economic Model

Herding costs

Hunting costs

Human population

Other economic opportunities

Policies

Development

Climate and or industrial development

Domestic herds Wild herds

Subsistence harvest

Commercial harvest

Subsistence harvest

Commercial harvest

Institutions,

Traditions

Institutions,

Traditions

Markets

Markets

Cash income

Regional socio-economic model that explains regimes shifts

Comparative Studies in co-management: Regimes of North America

multi-stakeholder

Cooperative management

Long-standing

formal

co-management

Jurisdictionally

fractured

management

ad hoc,

unfunded

planning group

International

and Canadian

co-management

agreements

Short term

recovery team

Regional institutional processes (“important

habitat ”)

Local observations; concerns;

proposals for regional action

Perceived ecological conditions(risk and uncertainty)

Social -economic

change

International, national, and extra-regional policies

Unresponsiveness retrenchment; status quo, surprise.

Responsiveness, Innovation and adaptive action

Figure 4 Institutional Dimensions of Project Synthesis

Formal institutional arrangements

Regional and local

published laws, regulations, land claims agreements, international treaties

Varies by region

Patterns of interaction Local to regional

Published papers Varies by region

Records of decision Regional and local

Agency records, co-management board records, local organizational documentation, past dissertations

Varies by region

Culture, informal customary rules

Community Ethnographies and others documentations

Varies by region

Institutional data

Table 1. Examples of characteristics of high to low resilience in sub-components of Regional Human-Rangifer Systems

Ecological Socio-economic Institutional

High

Low

-Med-low density

-Energetic flexibility (fat deposition and calf size)

-low feedback between caribou and calving/summer range conditions

-Diversity in modes of production , alternative economic opportunities

-Mechanisms to share risk and rewards

-Intergenerational knowledge transmission

-Nested / well integrated rule-making

-monitoring linked to research and policy processes

-cultural heterogeneity with strong mechanisms for conflict resolution

-Minimal fat deposition and calf size;

-High human demand

-Energetic stresses (ecological bottlenecks)

-Institutions that are inconsistent with economic incentives;

-Barriers to market development

-Barriers to population mobility

-Limited integration of scales

-Limited resources for rule enforcement.

-Highly centralized decision making

Towards the construction of simple models: Wild-domestic levels, price, and climate

Price

Climate

Domestic herd

Wild herd

CARMA Network(Circum-Arctic Rangifer

Monitoring & AssessmentNetwork)

• ~40 participants from seven countries• Gearing up for intensive IPY monitoring• Interests in remote sensing, field-based

studies, community monitoring• Climate; habitat; genetics; energetics; disease

and parasites, predation, population dynamics, human uses and responses to change; decision-support tools

• We’re helping with the overall synthesis

Making our progress, one step at a time…….

Where we’re at…

• We are facing the normal process challenges of interdisciplinary research, but it seems that past experience helps

• We’re grappling with the task of clarifying resilient to whom and resilient for what

• We’re trying to stay focused on Social-ecological linkages and integrated measures of resilience that we can operationalizing

• We’re grappling with the thorny problem of accounting for regimes shifts and thresholds.

• We are initially pleased with our focus on “Relative resilience” – as a useful comparative method for understanding social-ecological vulnerabilities.

End of slideshow