INVASIVE SPECIES: HUMAN INDUCED (Chapter 16)

 Authors: Dennis R. Lassuy and Patrick N. Lewis

SUMMARY

Lupin in Iceland. Photo: Sigurður H. Magnússon

As human society has become more mobile, the transfer of species beyond their native ranges has similarly increased. Human-induced biological invasions now occur around the world and are a leading cause in the loss of biodiversity. While only few invasions are currently known from the Arctic compared with lower latitudes, changes in climate and patterns of human use are likely to increase the susceptibility of Arctic ecosystems to invasion. Much of that increased risk of invasion may come from increased shipping, energy development, mineral exploration and associated shore-based developments such as ports, roads and pipelines.

Because future change will be best understood when measured against a credible baseline, much more work is needed to define the current status of native and invasive species populations in the Arctic. The development of cost-effective early detection monitoring networks will be a challenge, but can be informed by Traditional Ecological Knowledge and may benefit from engaging a network of citizen scientists. There also needs to be increased and targeted prevention efforts to limit the influx of non-native species (e.g. ballast water treatment and the effective cleaning and treatment of ship hulls and drilling rigs brought in from other marine ecosystems).

Mink have spread and become more and more common. I believe they come here both from south [of Finland] and from Norway. Minks are real pests; they eat fish from creeks and ptarmigans and whatever they can catch. Late Saami reindeer herder Ilmari Vuolab, Finland; Helander et al. 2004.

INTRODUCTION

As humans and their goods and services have become increasingly mobile, the intended and unintended transfers of species have also increased. In many cases, the intended benefits of species movement (food, fiber, recreation) have been realized. In other cases, both unintentional and intentional introductions have had harmful results (OTA 1993). The term ‘invasive species’ is used here to refer to species that are not native to a given ecosystem (i.e. when a species is present due to an intentional or unintentional escape, release, dissemination or placement into that ecosystem as a result of human activity) and which may cause economic or environmental harm (including harm to subsistence species and activities) or harm to human health. This definition includes species that disperse secondarily from a site of introduction. It should be noted that even non-native species considered to pose no invasive threat at the time of introduction may exhibit explosive population growth long after their initial establishment in a new environment (Sakai et al. 2001), leading to invasive impacts despite initially being considered benign.

Biological invasion is widely recognized as second only to habitat alteration as a factor in the endangerment and extinction of native species and may be the less reversible of the two (Lassuy 1995, Wilcove et al. 1998). Indeed, many now consider invasive species and climate change to be among the most important ecological challenges facing global ecosystems today (Vitousek et al. 1997, Clavero & Garcia-Berthou 2005, Mainka & Howard 2010, IUCN 2012). The combined effects of invasive species and climate change on biodiversity and ecosystem function can be far reaching; for example, altering community composition, community structure, trophic pathways, trophic interactions, native species distribution, habitat structure and even the evolutionary trajectory and fitness of native species (Mooney & Cleland 2001, Hellman et al. 2008, Rahel & Olden 2008). The impacts of invasive species are also not limited to ecological harm. A subset of just 16 of Canada’s over 1400 identified invasive species has had an estimated annual economic impact of $13-34 billion CAD (Colautti et al. 2006). In the United States, economic impacts of invasive species have been estimated to be in excess of $138 billion USD per year (Pimentel et al. 2000).

Impacts of invasive species on cultural systems are harder to define, but two things are clear: (1) as native biodiversity is lost, so too are the potential human uses of that biodiversity, and (2) a warming climate will increase the likelihood of immigration into the Arctic of warm adapted species (e.g. Weslawski et al. 2011), including those mediated by human activities. The combination of these two factors, plus the use by many Arctic residents of native flora and fauna for subsistence, suggest that biological invasions are a critical and complex issue requiring further study and action. For example, invasive species may force traditional knowledge to adapt and new harvesting patterns to be developed.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As climate change alters Arctic ecosystems and enables greater human activity, biological invasion in the Arctic is likely to increase. Arctic terrestrial ecosystems may be predisposed to invasion because many invasive plants are adapted to open disturbed areas (Hierro et al. 2006) and Arctic habitats are characterized by extensive freezethaw cycles and other disturbances. If fire frequency and intensity increase with climate change (Hu et al. 2010), this may further enhance invasion susceptibility. Areas of human disturbance and those located along pathways of human activity (e.g. shipping and road corridors) are the most likely sites of invasion for Arctic habitats. For example, Conn et al. (2008) noted the susceptibility of gravel-rich river corridors to white sweetclover dispersal from bridge crossings.

The ability for a warming climate to directly enhance invasion through altered recruitment timing and growth dynamics has been demonstrated for marine tunicates (Stachowicz et al. 2002). The spread of invasive marine tunicates to the Arctic could interfere with access to benthic food sources for already at risk marine mammals like benthic-feeding whales and pinnipeds. There are similar concerns regarding the effects from the introduced red king crab on benthic communities in northern Norway and the Kola Peninsula (Oug et al. 2011). Further introductions may contribute to accelerated and synergistic impacts (Simberloff & von Holle 1999). Range map scenarios developed for 16 extremely or highly invasive plants either occurring in or at risk of invading Alaska (Bella 2009) also paint a sobering outlook for the future. Fig. 16.2 depicts the potential expansion of one well-known invasive aquatic plant, the waterweed Hydrilla verticillata, northward into the aquatic ecosystems of Arctic Alaska and far eastern Russia.

Because future change will be best understood when measured against a credible baseline, much more baseline survey work similar to that of Ruiz et al. (2006) is needed. Due to the distribution of resources in the Arctic, the development of cost-effective early detection monitoring networks will be a challenge. However, Arctic residents possessing traditional knowledge may greatly assist information gathering and monitoring design by offering observations and evaluations of changes. Engaging a network of citizen scientists, for example through school systems and other public involvement mechanisms, may also offer low-cost and sustainable enhancements to conventional monitoring approaches. The increasingly widespread use and adaptability of tools like smart phones and software applications may also help. The key to an effective citizen as well as professional science network will be strong integration and information flow to and from central repositories, for example the European Network on Invasive Alien Species (NOBANIS 2012) and the Alaska Exotic Plant Information Clearinghouse (AKEPIC 2012). The existence of a credible baseline, combined with cost-effective early detection monitoring and information sharing networks (particularly at invasion-susceptible locations like roads, airports and harbors), will also enhance rapid response capabilities for more environmentally and economically efficient eradication early in the invasion process.

In addition to valid baselines and improved monitoring, there will need to be increased and targeted prevention efforts to limit the influx of non-native species (e.g. effective cleaning and treatment of ship hulls and drilling rigs brought in from other marine ecosystems, and ballast water treatment consistent with the recommendation of the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment; Arctic Council 2009, 2011). Such measures should be complemented with targeted management plans for activities known to present a high risk of introduction. For example, petroleum drilling rigs have been identified as a significant risk for modern marine introductions, and the increase of petroleum extraction in the Arctic should be accompanied by stringent cleaning and monitoring requirements (NIMPIS 2009). For all invasive species, terrestrial and aquatic, there should be more consistent use of basic prevention tools such as Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points (HACCP) planning (ASTM 2009) and more attention to pathway risk assessment. Snyder & Anions (2008) provide an excellent example of the use of a pathway-based approach for invasive plants and insects in Northwest Territories, Canada. Chown et al. (2011) provide another excellent example of a pathway-based risk assessment in Antarctica, with some interesting comparisons of tourist versus scientist visitors as vectors of plant propagules.

Two additional future Arctic risks that may accompany climate change are: (1) invasive species, much like climate change, can decrease stability and increase uncertainty in ecosystem function and the evolutionary trajectories of species, and (2) as more temperate ecosystems feel the effects of these climate-induced uncertainties, there may be a push to resort to using Arctic ecosystems as refugia at the receiving end of well-intended but risky efforts to ‘assist’ species in the colonization of new habitats (Ricciardi & Simberloff 2009). Since species’ ability to successfully invade will vary with their physiological capacities and dispersal ability (both natural and susceptibility to human transport), much work is also needed on basic biology and life history traits of potential Arctic invaders in order to effectively assess Arctic vulnerabilities and risks. Finally, we recognize there are many other invasive species such as insects and pathogens that are of potential concern for Arctic ecosystems and people, but these are beyond our expertise and are, at least in part, covered in other sections of this report.

GENETICS (Chapter 17)

Lead Author:  Joseph A. Cook 

Contributing Authors: Christian Brochmann, Sandra L. Talbot, Vadim B. Fedorov, Eric B. Taylor, Risto Väinölä, Eric P. Hoberg, Marina Kholodova, Kristinn P. Magnusson and Tero Mustonen

SUMMARY

Snow Geese; blue and white. Photo: Gustaf SameliusThe impact of climate warming on Arctic organisms is complex, and its interpretation will require a concerted effort. To mitigate the impact of climate-induced perturbations, an essential first step is to develop an understanding of how high latitude species and ecosystems were influenced by past episodes of dynamic environmental change. One of our best views of past change in Arctic populations is through molecular genetics (e.g. DNA studies). DNA-based views provide a basis for forecasting how biomes and individual species will respond in the future and thus are a key component of an advanced early-warning system for natural environments of the Arctic.

Species typically adapt to new conditions or shift into new areas, but a number of Arctic species are now experiencing a reduction in their distributions, abundance and ability to exchange individuals among populations. Molecular genetic approaches are used in a wide range of studies to provide comprehensive assessments of how species interact with their environments. Important insights have been gained related to the conservation status of high latitude species of concern, but because Arctic environments are remote and difficult to access, only limited information is available about most essential factors for organisms (e.g. contemporary genetic diversity, evolutionary history, modes of reproduction). A coordinated investment in biological infrastructure is needed now (similar to that already in place for monitoring the physical environment) if we are to apply and realize the powerful insights provided by molecular genetics.

Knowledge exists, we live it. But I do not think about that ever. It is just there. We still follow the old ways. Naturally. This is our way. Isak Påve, a Saami reindeer herder from northern Sweden; Hiltunen & Huovari (2004).

INTRODUCTION

Maintaining genetic variation in wild populations of Arctic organisms is fundamental to the long-term persistence of high latitude biodiversity. Variability is important because it provides options for species to respond to changing environmental conditions and novel challenges such as emerging pathogens or invasive species. As individual species decline in abundance and their geographic distributions shrink, genetic variability is also often eroded. It is important to realize that we have not yet developed a basic understanding of how genetic variability is partitioned across space or time in the Arctic. Furthermore, we lack information on how genetic variation, and the related concept of evolutionary potential, is generated and maintained for most Arctic organisms, whether free-living or parasitic. Fortunately, new technologies and analytical approaches now afford the possibility of much more comprehensive and refined views of genetic variation, but realizing the potential of these new approaches will foremost require a renewed effort to inventory and rigorously document Arctic diversity at all levels (Fig. 17.1). A revitalized effort to explore diversity will provide the foundation necessary for a variety of theoretical and applied endeavors, ranging from uncovering the history of diversification and extinction of organisms, to tracking and mitigating emerging pathogens and invasive species, to developing robust projections for the long-term security of subsistence or traditional foods in the Arctic.

Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) should also be an integral part of Arctic biodiversity assessment (Usher 2000). In particular, this knowledge can help determine how to more effectively study Arctic fauna and flora. For example, rural coastal villages in Alaska have been instrumental in providing unprecedented sampling of marine mammal populations through subsistence harvests. In Canada, populations of the northern Dolly Varden Salvelinus m. malma are found in the western Arctic region (i.e. tributaries of the Mackenzie River largely along its western bank), and these are of tremendous significance to indigenous peoples of the region. The subspecies was recently assessed as a taxon of Special Concern by Canada’s Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC 2011). A key feature of the biology of this fish is habitat located within overwintering sites characterized by groundwater upwelling that maintains ice-free habitat, and where fish congregate in large numbers. Despite the vast extent of occurrence of the subspecies’ distribution across the western Arctic (e.g. ~ 227,000 km²), these essential overwintering sites number fewer than 20 and have a combined area of less than 1 km². The locations and the limited numbers of these key habitats were obtained in large part from TEK which was, therefore, critical to the status assessment and subsequent derivation of a conservation management plan.

This chapter does not tackle the thorny issues related to bio-prospecting and commercialization of Arctic genomic resources or introduction of genetically modified organisms. Instead, we provide an overview of not-for-profit approaches to studying genetic diversity in the Arctic emphasizing that an understanding of the influence of deeper (evolutionary) time in structuring diversity is essential to predicting future responses and persistence of the incomparable fauna and flora of the northern high latitudes of our planet.

CONCLUSIONS 

In this review we have touched on several topics for which non-commercial genetic approaches are providing key insights into changing conditions in wildlife and plant communities in the Arctic. We have not addressed concerns about genetic prospecting and commercialization of genetic resources in the Arctic. Instead, our overview of not-for-profit genetic approaches in the Arctic emphasizes that an understanding of the influence of deeper (evolutionary) time in structuring diversity is essential to predicting the future response and persistence of the incomparable fauna and flora of the northern high latitudes of our planet. In many ways, new technology and analyses available to investigate Arctic biota have led to unprecedented insight. Future assessments will be limited primarily by our ability to provide representative samples from remote Arctic environments. This situation emphasizes the growing need to work collaboratively with rural Arctic communities as we aim to assess changing conditions.

Climate warming is substantially changing the distribution and population dynamics of marine, aquatic and terrestrial organisms in the Arctic. Population responses include adapting to new conditions, tracking climate shifts into new ranges that may lead to new zones of contact between species, or even the possibility of extinction. To forecast the impact of climate-induced perturbations, an essential first step is to develop an understanding of how high latitude species and ecosystems were structured by past episodes of dynamic environmental change. Today, molecular genetic approaches are used in a wide range of studies and provide comprehensive assessments of how species interact with their environments. Important insights have been gained related to the conservation status of high latitude species of concern so that these wildlife populations can be sustained. A number of factors influence the contemporary patterns of genetic diversity in Arctic organisms including the geological history of the region, the evolutionary and biogeographic past of individual species, modes of reproduction, contemporary community composition and shifting environmental conditions including those influenced by humans (Brochmann et al. 2003, 2004, Hewitt 2004, Lister 2004, Brochmann & Brysting 2008, O’Corry-Crow 2008, Derry et al. 2009). Because Arctic environments are remote and difficult to access, limited information is available about most of these essential factors for most species. Overcoming this lack of knowledge will require a coordinated investment to build infrastructure to enable us to apply the powerful insights provided by molecular genetic analyses as we integrate data across species and complex species assemblages as one of the pillars of future research and monitoring efforts.

PROVISIONING AND CULTURAL SERVICES (Chapter 18)

Lead Author:  Henry Huntington 

Contributing Authors: Olga Anisimova, Tom Christensen, Terry Fenge, Alf Håkon Hoel, Thomas Jung, Konstantin Klokov, Flemming Merkel, Kaisu Mustonen, Tero Mustonen, Frank Sejersen, John Snyder, Bernard Stonehouse and Sarah Fleischer Trainor

SUMMARY

After a successful hunt. Photo: Carsten Egevang/ARC-PIC.com

Ecosystems provide a range of services and values to humans. In this chapter, two types of services from Arctic ecosystems, provisioning and cultural services, are considered. Provisioning services deliver food and other materials that humans use directly. Cultural services support ways of life, enjoyment and other less tangible aspects of human life. There is overlap, of course, in that many provisioning services also entail cultural well-being. Other services, including supporting services that make possible other ecosystem functions, and regulating services, that keep ecosystems in balance, are not considered here. They are important, but relatively little information is available for the Arctic on these topics.

Provisioning services sustain Arctic residents through food, employment, identity and in other ways. Reindeer herding provides livelihoods across northern Eurasia and in a few locations in North America. It also provides meat and other products for local and distant markets. Commercial fisheries in Arctic and sub-Arctic waters gener ate the most money of any provisioning services in the Arctic, and are responsible for over 10% of the world’s fish catch and 5.3% of its crustacean catch by weight. Commercial and subsistence hunting, gathering and small-scale fishing are traditional activities that have sustained Arctic peoples for millennia. They continue today and retain high cultural importance, although they are responsible for a smaller portion of the diet than in times past. Recreational and sport hunting is becoming more popular, and constitutes another way by which Arctic peoples and visitors can make use of Arctic wildlife.

Cultural services, beyond those associated with provisioning services, reach people in the Arctic and around the world. Tourism is increasingly popular in the Arctic, especially on cruise ships. Tourism brings opportunities for income, as well as the potential for largely localized social and environmental disturbance. It can also create advocates for Arctic conservation among those who have experienced the region and its biodiversity first-hand. There are also many non-market values associated with the simple existence of the Arctic and its ecosystems, which many people appreciate from afar without any direct experience in the region. In a world with fewer undisturbed places, intact ecosystems such as those in the Arctic are likely to become increasingly scarce and thus increasing valuable.

I was born in the tundra, without any doctors. I have lived all my life in the tundra, naturally it is my home. When we live in tundra we live in close interaction with Nature. For example a small bush is only a small bush to some people, but to me it tells many things. I can read from it what kind of a bird has been here… If I need to find something, for example if we have lost some reindeer, I can ask the fire by feeding it. And the fire starts to answer, it turns to a certain direction. And if I travel to this direction I will find the reindeer. Nature feeds me. It helps me. I can speak with the grass, bushes and water – I can speak with all things. I am connected to all things. I can be connected with the fire… It feeds me. This is a life for me. It is inborn. Our Elders did not pray, they just talked with nature. I can do the same. I just talk with the fire in the tundra. Tomorrow I will be lucky, Nature has heard me. I just talked with it. Dmitrii Nikolayevich Begunov in Mustonen (2009).

Most provisioning and cultural services are healthy at present. Reindeer herding is a possible exception, though it is also highly variable making it difficult to detect or predict trends. Sport hunting and tourism are increasingly popular, which may also produce more conf licts with other uses or users. Non-market values are likely to increase, but this is partly the result of increasing scarcity of undisturbed ecosystems. Further research is needed to evaluate such trends over longer periods and in more detail, and to attempt to quantify in monetary or other terms the values that accrue to human society from maintaining healthy, functioning ecosystems and associated services in the Arctic.

INTRODUCTION

The idea of ‘ecosystem services’ developed from the long-standing recognition that humans depend on the natural world directly and indirectly. The term is an effort to identify and measure “the benefits that people receive from nature” (Cambridge Conservation Initiative and BirdLife International 2011).  While the value of the direct use of living resources was reasonably well established, relatively little attention had been given to the value of less visible services such as flood control by wetlands, pollination by insects and the simple existence of wild places and species (e.g. TEEB 2010). For the most part, these functions were taken for granted, recognized only when they disappeared e.g. when a flood caused damage or a species went extinct.  The possibility that some of these services might diminish or disappear provided a spur for better methods of recognizing their value while they were still working so that they might be conserved, or at least weighed in the balance against the consequences of human activity.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005) placed ecosystem services in four categories: supporting services, provisioning services, cultural services, and regulating services. There is some overlap in that many services can provide benefits in more than one category e.g. hunting caribou Rangifer tarandus, herding reindeer or catching fish can both provide nourishment and cultural values. Intact wetlands that regulate water flow can also preserve species and habitats. Nonetheless, the categories help emphasize the range of services, direct and indirect, that healthy ecosystems provide. The MEA approach is not the only way to consider ecosystems and their services. Box 18.1 describes indigenous ways of considering the benefits that humans receive from their environment.

This chapter surveys four provisioning and two cultural services in the Arctic. Supporting and regulating services are important, but less well documented in the Arctic (see Box 18.2). The chapter is neither exhaustive nor definitive. Instead, a range of services have been selected, providing an exploratory look at how Arctic ecosystems benefit people. Where possible, quantification of services has been attempted. In many instances, circumpolar data are lacking, so that qualitative assessment is necessary for some or all of the region. The prospects for improved data and more detailed evaluation of ecosystem services are taken up in the Discussion (Section 18.4).

Reindeer herding; commercial fisheries; commercial and subsistence hunting, gathering, and small-scale fishing; and recreational and sport hunting and fishing are the provisioning services addressed here. These are the main sources of food produced in the Arctic. In tundra regions, which are the main focal area of this chapter, there is little or no agriculture, and by definition no timber industry. Some activities south of the tree line are addressed in order to provide a more complete picture for migratory species and geographically extensive practices such as reindeer herding, and to include those indigenous peoples who participate in the activities of the Arctic Council.

Cultural services through inclusion of tourism and existence values recognize that provisioning services also entail cultural dimensions. Tourism and existence values are related services, based largely on the interest that people around the world have in experiencing the Arctic or simply knowing that Arctic places and species exist.  Two additional points are worth noting which help to place the ideas of ecosystem services in context. First, many Arctic communities and regions benefit from various forms of economic support, including transfer payments, government subsidies and other services such as mail service provided at rates below market costs, all of which help make it possible to live in remote Arctic regions with some degree of modern goods and conveniences. Without such support local ecosystems are incapable of supporting the current population of Arctic regions at  their current standard of living.

One strong piece of evidence for this conclusion leads to the second point. When the Soviet Union ended, taking various government support programs with it, the population of the Russian Arctic declined sharply, causing an overall decline in the total Arctic population. The loss of economic support in the Russian Arctic led to an increase in use of some local species for foods. Thus, the level of use of Arctic provisioning services cannot be separated from demographic and economic trends. Assessing the full implications of these connections, however, is beyond the scope of this chapter. The chapter concludes with discussion of the services provided by Arctic ecosystems, potential directions for future evaluation of ecosystem services, and recommendations for data collection and analysis to improve future efforts.

CONCLUSIONS

Ecosystem services in the Arctic are important economically, environmentally and culturally. These services benefit Arctic residents directly, providing food and material benefits as well as supporting indigenous cultures, including language. The Arctic ecosystem also serves the rest of the world, as a destination for tourism in various forms, simply by existing, and by providing a large amount of food from commercial fisheries and reindeer husbandry. Recognition of the importance of these services, and an assessment of how they are changing, is vital to design effective Arctic conservation strategies.

At the same time, ecosystem services must be viewed in a wider context. First, the services are not necessarily compatible. For example, the allocation of hunting or fishing rights may pit one user group against another, resulting in a debate about the relative values of different types of use. At the same time, the Arctic and its resources have value for humans in other ways, such as extractive industries like mining and oil and gas. While extraction is not necessarily incompatible with a healthy ecosystem, there are usually impacts of one form or another, and the value of extraction is weighed – implicitly or explicitly – against the value of the ecosystem services that may be lost. Such comparisons may be inherently uneven, in that they compare a direct value (e.g. barrels of oil extracted) with values that are often indirect and difficult to quantify (e.g. the existence value of a polar bear). Furthermore, indirect services are often diffuse, and thus most measures may be partial rather than comprehensive. Nonetheless, an articulation of the values of ecosystem services is necessary to understand what is at stake from environmental degradation, and to understand the benefits of conservation of the Arctic environment.

This assessment of ecosystem services should be seen as preliminary, providing what we hope is a useful baseline for future comparisons, but also recognized as incomplete in that many services, such as the provision of freshwater, have not been addressed, and the full value of some services has probably been underestimated because their full dimensions have not yet been encompassed. Further studies of ecosystem services, their delineation and their valuation are necessary to provide a more complete picture of the many ways that human societies benefit from the Arctic ecosystem. Arctic biodiversity is a world heritage, its significance extending around the globe in ways we are only beginning to see.

DISTURBANCE, FEEDBACK AND CONSERVATION (Chapter 19)

 Lead Author: Henry Huntington 

Contributing Authors: Tom Arnbom, Finn Danielsen, Martin Enghoff, Eugénie Euskirchen, Bruce Forbes, Tiina Kurvits, Nette Levermann, Peter Løvstrøm, Kaisu Mustonen,Tero Mustonen, Martin Schiøtz, Martin Sommerkorn, Michael Svoboda, Elmer Topp-Jørgensen and Geoff York.

SUMMARYPhoto: Wild Arctic Pictures

Humans disturb the environment in various ways, notably from industrial development and other activities in formerly pristine areas. Components of the earth system affect one another in a web of feedbacks, including be tween ecosystems and climate. Conservation is the human attempt to avoid or minimize the impacts of human activity on species and habitats. This chapter examines all three topics.

Disturbance here refers to the disruption of normal ecological functions or distributions at the landscape level. While many types of human activity can affect local environments, industrial development is most likely to affect larger areas, followed by spatially extensive practices such as reindeer herding that can lead to heavy grazing and trampling. Around the Arctic, human activity is increasing, with more roads and other infrastructure, leading to a greater overall impact, especially in areas with oil and gas or other valuable commodities.

Feedbacks occur in many forms at many scales. Here, we look at the primarily positive feedbacks from Arctic warming to global climate, which are likely to lead to still greater warming. For example, the loss of ice and snow leaves a darker surface, so that more sunlight is absorbed, leading to greater warming and so on. Changes in the Arctic’s role in the carbon cycle, through release of carbon dioxide and methane and possible increased uptake of carbon dioxide through increased vegetation growth, will affect global climate. Forcing through positive feedbacks is likely to outweigh the impacts of negative feedbacks within the Arctic.

We were told not to hunt animals for the sense of killing. Because you are not able to use that animal for eternity. I believe we were also taught that there is a certain purpose here in this particular time for us to utilize these marine mammals. That was what I heard the elderly people say from the older generation, like Pelaasi and others, used to say. They were saying: the ‘plan’ has been already made. The ‘master plan’ is that our purpose is to hunt marine mammals, but that we should not take that for granted. This is why conservation is so important in our culture. George Noongwook in Oozeva et al. 2004.

Three measures of conservation are addressed next. Habitat protection is usually measured in terms of protected areas, which are generally strong on land in the Arctic but nearly absent in the marine environment. Species protection includes those species listed in various categories at risk of extinction, and unfortunately these lists appear to be growing in the Arctic as elsewhere in the world. Effective conservation also requires the participation of the people who are likely to either create threats or be affected by management measures. A growing number of programs seek to include Arctic residents in gathering, analyzing and making use of observational data, which often cannot be obtained in other ways.

INTRODUCTION

Humans interact with Arctic ecosystems in many ways.This chapter examines three types of interactions: disturbance, feedbacks and conservation. Disturbance is the effect that human activity has on the natural environment. Taken broadly, nearly everything humans do cre ates some form of disturbance, since the natural world is altered by our presence and our activities. Some of this interaction is the normal result of people living as part of the ecosystem, and thus does not constitute a threat. For the purposes of this assessment, disturbance refers more narrowly to the disruption of normal ecological functions or distributions at the landscape level, posing a threat to biodiversity. While many types of human activity can affect local environments, industrial development is most likely to affect larger areas, followed by spatially extensive practices such as reindeer herding that can lead to heavy grazing and trampling of vegetation.

Feedbacks are in one sense a part of the natural world, constraining the natural cycles of weather, climate and biology. Feedbacks large and small are thus present throughout the world. While negative feedbacks tend to push a system back to its original state, positive feedbacks lead to ever greater or faster change. Melting snow, ice and permafrost in the Arctic are one such positive feedback, and are described herein. This feedback is already important at the global scale, and likely to become even more significant in the near future as sea ice retreats in summer, snow cover becomes less extensive in space and time, and permafrost degrades and thaws, all of which will lead to greater warming and thus further change.

On a more optimistic note, conservation efforts are humankind’s attempt to reduce its negative impacts on the environment. Habitat protection recognizes that biodiversity requires intact ecosystems for natural processes to continue. Species protection focuses directly on populations that are at risk, aiming at its simplest to avoid extinction from human causes. Environmental monitoring is essential to determine what is at risk and whether conservation efforts are succeeding. In the Arctic, sparse populations and remote areas create a special need for the involvement of local residents in community-based initiatives. These three conservation measures are addressed here.

This chapter is neither exhaustive nor definitive on the topics of disturbance, feedbacks and conservation. It aims instead at describing key aspects of human-ecosystem interactions, focusing on matters of special significance in the Arctic, with the expectation that these areas of focus will be relevant markers for future consideration of trends in Arctic ecosystems and their relationship to humans and to the world as a whole.

CONCLUSIONS

The sections of this chapter have addressed a wide range of topics, quantitatively where possible and qualitatively otherwise. Evaluating the status and likely trends of disturbances, feedbacks, and conservation efforts is not easy. For example, an increase in the number of species listed as threatened or endangered may indicate greater commitment to species protection, or it may indicate a greater number of species at risk. More extensive habitat protection will benefit biodiversity, but what occurs outside of protected areas may ultimately be more important, since protected areas are unlikely to cover a majority of the Arctic.

Community involvement offers a number of clear benefits, but should not replace national and other monitoring and conservation efforts, since community practices may not always be consistent with the protection of biodiversity. Disturbance is equally clearly a negative outcome of human-ecosystem interactions, though the causes vary from industrial exploitation of petroleum and minerals, heavy grazing and trampling, and the impacts of climate change. Determining how to address disturbance is thus not always straightforward, especially where large financial interests are at stake. The potential for climate feedbacks to magnify warming trends is worrisome, pointing to the need for global action to address threats with global causes. Action within the Arctic will not always be sufficient to conserve Arctic biodiversity.

To monitor trends in these indicators of human actions that affect biodiversity, a set of quantitative indicators should be developed. Other types of disturbance, feed-backs and conservation measures should also be considered. Noise and chemical pollution, including ocean acidification, may disturb the metabolism or behavior of many animals. The Arctic hydrological cycle, incluing the potential for sea level rise from melting of ice caps, has feedbacks to the global climate system, and the well-being of migratory species depends on the interrelationship of Arctic conditions with conditions elsewhere in the annual journeys of those species. Conservation outside of protected areas, the regulation of fishing and hunting, human population growth and the rate of consumption of non-renewable resources are all relevant to the success of biodiversity conservation generally.

Tracking all potential indicators is not possible, but a robust set of measures against which progress or decline can be monitored would greatly help in providing the public and policy makers with a means of assessing whether Arctic communities, Arctic countries and the world as a whole are contributing to the conservation of Arctic biodiversity or the opposite. Without timely and unambiguous measures of performance, uncertainty will provide an excuse for inaction or for accepting greater levels of risk than are consistent with a commitment to protecting the future of Arctic ecosystems and those who use them.

LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY (Chapter 20)

Lead Authors:  Tom Barry, Lenore Grenoble and Finnur Friðriksson 

Contributing Authors: Carl Chr. Olsen and Tero Mustonen

SUMMARY

Photo: Magnus Elander

The future is bleak for the majority of the languages currently spoken in the Arctic. If no action is taken, most are likely to become extinct in the next few generations. Twenty-one Arctic languages have become extinct since the 1800s and 10 of these extinctions have taken place after 1990, indicating an increasing rate of language extinction.

Twenty-eight languages classified as critically endangered are in dire need of attention before they, too, are lost forever. Over 70% of the Arctic’s indigenous languages are spoken only in single countries, and so are particularly exposed to the policies of a single government bringing with it the potential perhaps, for more effective conservation of these languages, as no cross border efforts are required. The remaining languages are spread across a number of jurisdictions and are therefore subject to differing approaches when it comes to addressing their revitalization.

Language revitalization in the Arctic is possible, and there are multiple examples to prove it. However, whether it is sufficiently important to invest the time and resources needed to make revitalization a reality, is a question that politicians in the Arctic need to ask themselves sooner rather than later. They will face in the future increasing pressure from the indigenous peoples they represent to take action. Many Arctic indigenous groups have already begun working on language revitalization, viewing it as an important component of their identity. The permanent participants of the Arctic Council look to political leaders to implement policies which will help them promote and sustain their indigenous languages.

This silence we named “Qarrtsiluni” which means waiting for something to burst forth. Inuit woman, Nunivak Island.

INTRODUCTION

Language provides the conceptual and cognitive mechanisms via which humans perceive their environment, hence understanding language as a culturally embedded system of meaning is an important guide to understanding how humans adapt and act within their environment. Language not only communicates, it defines culture, nature, history, humanity and ancestry (UNESCO 2009). The indigenous languages of the Arctic have been formed and shaped in close contact with their environment1. Languages are a valuable source of information, and a wealth of knowledge on human interactions with nature is encoded in languages (UNESCO 2003; see Box 20.1).

The preservation of languages is a crucial step in allowing us to benefit from traditional knowledge and form a better understanding of our environment. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) recognizes that linguistic diversity is a useful indicator of the retention and use of traditional knowledge, including knowledge of biodiversity. It is, therefore, included in the suite of indicators used to assess progress towards meeting the CBD's 2020 biodiversity targets. With this in mind, this chapter considers the vitality of indigenous languages in the Arctic and their current status and trends.

The United Nations’ Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization (UNESCO) has developed a framework comprised of nine factors which can be used to determine the vitality and state of endangerment of a language (UNESCO 2003). Eight of these are critical to understanding language vitality in the Arctic:

• intergenerational transmission;
• absolute numbers of speakers;
• proportion of speakers within the total population;
• trends in existing language domains;
• response to new domains and media;
• materials for language education and literacy;
• governmental and institutional attitudes; and
• community members’ attitudes toward their own language.

All of these factors are involved in situations of language shift and loss; they interact in complicated ways. For example, most linguists consider intergenerational transmission to be the single biggest indicator of language vitality, as children are future speakers. If a language has a large number of speakers and a relatively high proportion of the total ethnic population, then if a small percentage of the younger generation does not learn the language, it is not necessarily a sign of shift. The status of indigenous languages with even relatively large numbers of speakers, can change from ‘safe’ or ‘vulnerable’ to ‘endangered’ very rapidly, if a segment of the children cease learning the language; this is potentially the case with Inuktitut in Canada. In 2006, 64% of 32,200 Canadian Inuit reported Inuktitut as their mother language, representing a decline from 68% just 10 years earlier (Statistics Canada 2012). More to the point, only 50% report using Inuktitut as a home language (down from 58% in 1996), suggesting that children are not acquiring it (Statistics Canada 2012). These figures, along with other indicators, have led the Nunavut Language Commissioner to take specific actions, legislative and promotional, to foster the use of Inuktitut in all domains. As this suggests, efforts at strengthening indigenous languages need to take into account the multi-faceted nature of the contexts in which these languages are situated. Taken as a whole, these indicators are thus useful not only in assessing language vitality, but also in determining measures to revitalize them by pointing out areas in need of development.

This chapter looks at two of these criteria (absolute number of speakers and proportion of speakers within a total population) and applies them to the Arctic to provide an indication of the status and trends of indigenous languages. Scarcity of data did not allow for the remaining criteria to be applied at the circumpolar scale for all the languages considered in this chapter.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

• Encourage the development of improved methods for collecting data on language use and vitality in the Arctic.
• Recognize the diverse richness of the Arctic’s indigenous languages, and acknowledge that their presser vation is a crucial step in allowing us to benefit from traditional knowledge and form a better understanding of our environment.
• Encourage efforts to support language revitalization for the Arctic’s indigenous languages including sharing lessons from successful efforts.
• Undertake an assessment of the Arctic’s indigenous languages to allow for a better understanding of their status and what needs to be done to insure their future vitality.