Pressures from “Goldilocks” regions put Arctic at risk
Perhaps the most striking fact to emerge from this year’s report is that while biodiversity has declined globally by 30% the decline in the tropics is twice as great. Are there any arctic-relevant lessons here? Let’s consider the differences, as well as the similarities. The main differences between the tropics and the Arctic (aside from the obvious climatic and latitudinal ones) are that the tropics have high levels of biodiversity, and many tropical countries also have relatively high populations. This can be an unfortunate combination, as growing human populations clear precious rainforests for subsistence agriculture. The Arctic has virtually the reverse situation. Human population levels are low, and the diversity of species present in the Arctic is also low, compared with the tropics.
A narwhal (Monodon monoceros) surfacing for breath in the Arctic, Canada. © Paul Nicklen/National Geographic Stock / WWF-Canada
However, what’s distinctive about the Arctic is that most species thrive because they have successfully adapted to harsh Arctic environments, rather than through competition with other species, as in the tropics. Species like caribou, narwhal and snow geese are superbly adapted to tough Arctic conditions, and can be found in vast herds, pods and flocks. Thus, compared with the tropics, pressures like land conversion and subsistence harvesting are relatively insignificant drivers of biodiversity decline in the Arctic. There are situations requiring caution, such as when subsistence harvesting is added as a stressor to herds at the bottom of their naturally occurring population cycles, but for the most part local Inuit populations are not putting significant downward pressure on Arctic biodiversity.
However, there are noteworthy similarities as well. High-income countries such as Canada have a per-capita footprint that is five times the footprint of people in low-income countries, yet the impacts of that growing footprint are felt disproportionately in many low-income countries, including in the tropics. Here, the situations in the tropics and the Arctic are closely comparable. In both regions, much of the pressure on biodiversity is “imported” from elsewhere. In the tropics, it is factors like the demand for food exports, biofuels and minerals. In the Arctic, major stressors include the demand for minerals, oil and gas to feed voracious southern appetites for energy and other elements of modern industrial society. And in both the tropics and the Arctic, climate change is driving huge changes in environmental conditions, and putting enormous stress on native species.
In effect, what the Arctic and tropical regions have in common is that the changes and challenges they face are largely driven by people living in temperate regions. We may like living in these temperate climes – a Goldilocks region that is not too hot and not too cold. But we need to appreciate and understand how our activities have impacts that are felt far beyond our region. We urgently need to take steps to reduce our footprint, while at the same time helping the most strongly affected regions – the tropics as well as the Arctic – to adapt successfully to the changes and pressures they face.
