Jobie Atagootak and the other Inuit researchers provide valuable local knowledge and practical input into every aspect of the program – from camp life right through to the success of the research.

As an example, how do you find anchors in the Arctic? Rocks, of course! Rocks are perfect natural anchors that sink our underwater microphones to the dark depths of Tremblay Sound. These microphones are our ears under the water all year round and give us clues about what’s happening here long after we’ve left this fantastic place.

The midnight sun never sleeps in summer at Tremblay and neither does the camp.  We don’t know what tomorrow will bring but for now, we watch and wait.

Gauthier Cervello from University of Quebec at Rimouski on night watch for polar bears and narwhals.

Learn more about this research.

The Swedish Postcode Lottery has awarded almost $700,000 USD (570,000 EUR) for three WWF wildlife conservation projects in the Arctic. This funding will help WWF address critical challenges for Arctic species in a warming world where new development opportunities – and new threats – are on the horizon.

Here’s what the award will help us do:

Protect calving grounds for caribou in Canada’s “cradle”

On the Canadian tundra, large herds of caribou (also known as reindeer) migrate back and forth between winter and summer grounds. In spring, caribou halt at the calving grounds and the females give birth to one or two calves. Within minutes the tiny calves are standing, ready to journey to their grazing grounds in the north.

Caribou herds in the Canadian Arctic have dropped by half in the last 30 years. Currently, only around 20% of calving grounds for caribou in Nunavut are under protective management. This means that 80% of calving grounds are exposed to disturbance and development, mostly in the form of new infrastructure and mining projects. WWF will work with partners, including indigenous communities, to identify calving grounds for caribou in Nunavut, an area the size of western Europe. Our aim is to have 100% of calving grounds in Nunavut safeguarded from disturbance.

Stop poaching of Russian reindeer

The largest reindeer herd in the world roams the Taimyr Peninsula in Russia’s far north.

This herd has recently experienced a worrying decline in numbers, from 800,000 in the year 2000 to around 300,000 in 2016. The recent shocking discovery of large-scale poaching of an estimated 80,000 – 100,000 reindeer per year from the Taimyr herd warrants immediate attention. Reindeer are poached for their tongues and antlers, which are then illegally traded.

WWF and partners will track reindeer to identify and advocate for the protection of important migration routes where reindeer are most vulnerable to poaching. WWF will also work with Russian enforcement authorities to stop the poaching.

Use drones to count polar bears

Wrangel Island is an important hub for polar bears in the eastern Russian Arctic. It’s known as a polar bear nursery or maternity ward, with the highest density of polar bear maternity dens in the world. Normally, polar bear surveys are carried out from skidoos, ships or helicopters.

WWF will work with scientists to pilot a new a survey technique that uses drones, enabling researchers access to the mountainous interior of Wrangel Island via a “drone’s-eye view”. If the pilot project proves to be as accurate as traditional methods, researchers will have a much less expensive method of counting bears that can be used in the future to identify maternity dens and survey other polar bear populations. The results will also help guide visitors to Wrangel Island away from important denning areas to avoid conflict between people and polar bears.

The Swedish Postcode Lottery funds will provide important support for these projects over the next three years in Canada and Russia, and as part of WWF’s Arctic Programme.

This week senior officials from the eight Arctic nations, along with leaders from six Indigenous organizations, will gather in Levi, Finland.  On the agenda are issues around environmental protection, connectivity, meteorological cooperation and education in the Arctic. But there is one other critical issue that also needs to be discussed – whether the Arctic Council can provide the leadership needed to help ensure strong cooperation and collaboration in the region moving forward.

The importance of the Arctic region to the rest of the global community is becoming more clear as sea ice melts dues to climate change and global economic players increasingly see the Arctic as a fertile stage for new exploitation. The Arctic remains a region characterized by harsh conditions with scant infrastructure and a variety of governance models, all of which contribute to a lack of consistent environmental management.

For more than two decades, Arctic states have joined together through the Arctic Council to study the region and consider measures important for the protection of its fragile environment through sustainable development. For much of that time the studies and recommendations of the Arctic Council have languished in obscurity and neglect. The failure of states to follow-up on their own studies with concrete action was highlighted last year in WWF’s Arctic Council Conservation Scorecard.

As development pressures increased Arctic Council member states began to recognize an urgent need for more robust cooperation and governance in the Arctic. This growing sense of Arctic state responsibility for wise stewardship of the region seemed to accelerate as non-Arctic states such as China became increasingly active in the region.

However, decisions made at a meeting last month by an Arctic Council Task Force on Marine Cooperation in Quebec City, Canada appear to be heading in the opposite direction. Rather than creating mechanisms to ensure better state implementation of decisions made by Arctic Ministers, it appears the bureaucratic forces within the Arctic Council system prefer to maintain the largely ineffective status quo.

If the Arctic Council is to be a relevant regional and global force capable of addressing the difficult governance issues facing the Arctic region, it must adopt a long-term strategy that embraces a stronger system of cooperation and implementation. Addressing how the Arctic Council can play a leadership role to assure wise stewardship of the Arctic and its resources for its people and the entire earth is what should really be on this week’s agenda.

The Barents Region is a model for sustainable economic development in the North. TERO VAURASTE explains.

THE ARCTIC Business Forum Yearbook is the best assessment of economic activity and future investment potential in the Barents Region. It is published each spring by the Lapland Chamber of Commerce and written with a candid business eye and a twist of stout optimism. It helps us understand the regional economic perspectives and the diversity of business in this huge tract of land, wilderness, towns and communities.

In northern Norway, major cities such as Tromsø, Kirkenes and Hammerfest, are fuelling growth. They are joined by smaller towns searching for their own niche and benefiting from innovation and growth in sec- tors including fishing and aquaculture. Earlier this year High North News reported the number of applications from prospective aquaculture students in Norway has nearly tripled in four years likely due to the potential of sea farming industries garnering interest among young people. The whole Arctic region has much to gain from diligent study, research and innovation in the fishing and aquaculture sectors. And it’s not only fish and shellfish anymore – seaweed cultivation will be a means of providing the world with sustainable, healthy food.

Business has a significant role in the public sector and social well-being in sparsely populated Arctic areas. The Russian mining and smelting company Nornickel is the biggest taxpayer in the Kola Peninsula. It has invested in the improvement of employee living and working conditions. Overcoming past environmental challenges, it has worked to reduce emissions of major air pollutants and is committed to reducing emissions and discharges. Western companies should continue working closely with Russian counterparts to drive economic development into an even more sustainable future in the Murmansk and Arkhangelsk regions. The Belkomur railway connection project, for example, is expected to create up to 6,400 jobs and once operational, more than 40,000 employees will be needed.

In northernmost Sweden, LKAB is striving to become one of the most sustainable mining companies in the world. In 2016 it initiated a project for a carbon dioxide-free steel industry with electricity producer Vattenfall and Swedish steel manufacturer SSAB. Wind power production is gaining ground and expected to become the biggest investment potential in northern Sweden. Svevind is building a massive wind power park with over 1,100 turbines in the Markbygden area near the town of Piteå.

In 2016, tourism in Finnish Lapland set new records with over 2.6 million overnight stays – a 13% increase over the previous year and well above the national average of 3%. Chinese tourists doubled their visits from 2015. The Chinese are not only visiting, they are investing as well. In January 2016, the Chinese renewable energy company Sunshine Kaidi New Energy Group announced plans to construct a second- generation biofuel refinery in Ajos, Kemi – an investment of one billion euros. Kaidi’s sustainable technology produces biofuels using wood-based biomass, such as leftover bark from the forest industry as the main feedstock.

These examples show how development in the Barents Region can be a driver for sustainable economic development throughout the Arctic. But it depends on the boldness and robustness of regional economies, stable regulatory frameworks across borders, and active political dialogue on regional, national and international levels. The Arctic Economic Council will continue supporting and providing forums for this development.

TERO VAURASTE is President and CEO of Arctia Ltd and Chair of the Arctic Economic Council.

The Barents Region is the most developed, populated and fastest growing part of the Arctic. While climate change is a strong global force, other forces might be more important locally. TOM ARMSTRONG says these must be identified and assessed so we can fully understand the overall impact of cumulative change to take successful adaptation actions and promote greater resilience.

THE BARENTS AREA was defined in 1993 as an area of political cooperation between Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia. It was extended northwards to include Svalbard and Franz Josef Land in the High Arctic, eastwards to incorporate Yamalo-Nenets, and includes the Barents Sea to constitute the overall Adaption Actions for A Changing Arctic (AACA) Barents study area (Figures 1 and 2).

The area is inhabited by more than 5 million people, including many indigenous peoples, with an average population density of 2.9 inhabitants per square kilometer. Although this is low compared to other areas of the globe, it is by far the most populated area above the Arctic Circle. The Barents Area includes sizeable cities such as Murmansk and Archangelsk in Russia, Oulu in Finland and Umeå in Sweden. This region is home to many cultures.

In the Nordic part of the Barents Area, the services sector is by far the largest employer. Forestry is important in northern Sweden, Finland and northwest Russia, while fishing, oil and gas exploration and extraction/transport are important in northern Norway and northwestern Russia. Conversely, the area is an important source of hydroelectricity for local use and for export. Mining is economically important in parts of each country, as is the issue of mine contamination of water resources and the related food web which are critical to the sustainment of healthy, naturally functioning terrestrial and marine ecosystems.

CLIMATE AND ECOLOGY

Climatically, the area is heavily influenced by proximity to the sea and its high latitude, although the Gulf Stream makes it warmer than other circumpolar areas. Climate impacts on flora and fauna are already noticeable, especially those vulnerable to changes in ocean water temperatures, acidity and other climate impacts. The changing climate is also influencing hibernation periods, phenological changes and altering complex food webs.

Ecologically, the area is largely boreal forest (54%); alpine and Arctic tundra (20%); mountain glaciers (4%); freshwater lakes and rivers (10%), and open wetlands (12%). The boreal forest is relatively low in animal species but many species of prey can be found there, including reindeer, moose, red deer, roe deer, mountain hare, and rodent species such as beaver, squirrel and voles. Resident predators include the Eurasian lynx, Stoat, European otter, Wolverine, Gray Wolf, Red Fox and Brown Bear. The Barents Sea hosts more than 200 species of fish, with Capelin Polar Cod and juvenile herring being two of the most commercially exploited. The Barents also supports some of the largest concentrations of seabirds in the world.

INDUSTRIAL GROWTH AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE AND ECOLOGY

Changes related to increased industrial activity and areal growth include:

1. continued expansion of industryrelated land-use and land-cover change and associated fragmentation of key terrestrial species’ habitat;
2.  increased contamination of critical lands and associated surface water and ground water resources;
3. continued degradation of marine environments that serve as breeding grounds for key fish and marine mammal species;
4. declines in overall biodiversity within areas currently rich in these species;
5. ocean acidification and warming which alters complex food webs and the concentrations of fish species critical to indigenous people’s needs as well as commercially viable food sources.

CONCLUSIONS

These changes, along with many others, will need to be considered during the early onset of any new Barents areal assessments; including future iterations of the AACA process, currently under discussion. Successful adaptation and increased resilience over the next few decades will only occur if scientists, resource managers and politicians come to agreement on the role that the different change agents, such as climate change, population increase and related land-use change and land-cover change are going to have on the Arctic’s remaining species, ecosystems, biodiversity and unspoiled natural resources.

Substantial investment into well-integrated science, grounded with the long-standing information of traditional knowledge is critically needed. Otherwise, successful adaptation actions related to sustainability and welfare of natural ecological systems will not occur and will follow the typical course of most policy and other decisions that rely largely on political bias rather than on sound, objective scientific knowledge and subsequent action

Dr. THOMAS R. ARMSTRONG is a member of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) Executive Secretariat, a Working Group of the Arctic Council.

The annual Arctic Circle Assembly, held in Reykjavik, Iceland, is an international gathering of people to share ideas, create dialogue, and find ways to cooperate on Arctic issues. I attended the Assembly this October and was inspired by the number of people with diverse perspectives who were advocating and demonstrating action on climate change – the greatest threat to Arctic peoples and wildlife.

I see climate change as humans in conflict with our environment. It is increasingly clear that we need to transform our behaviour dramatically to address this conflict. It will require resilience, humility, personal accountability, and self-awareness about our place on the planet.

As many of the Assembly discussions I attended demonstrated, addressing the impacts of climate change in the Arctic needs a transdisciplinary approach that includes science, traditional knowledge, and shared experiences from Indigenous people’s within and outside the Arctic.

There are many examples of small nations and communities in the Arctic and elsewhere that are implementing creative, adaptive, and solutions-oriented actions to address climate change and resource depletion. Several opportunities exist for meaningful collaboration between Arctic and non-Arctic communities, and between science and traditional knowledge practices, to address challenges facing the Arctic.

During the Assembly, Hindou Ibrahim from the International Indigenous People’s Forum on Climate Change shared an illustrative story. Farmers in Chad had been provided phones with weather apps by a non-governmental organization (NGO) meant to help farmers with changing weather patterns. The apps were not very reliable, but the long-practised method of observing insect behaviour is. Village leaders arranged for the NGO representatives to witness their methods and an opportunity arose to demonstrate one cloudless day when the villagers announced it was going to rain shortly. Members of the NGO were in disbelief as their apps did not show a forecast of rain. But the villagers were watching the insects – because, as they noted, those insects don’t have apps in their heads – and sure enough it rained that afternoon!

The point is not to create a dichotomy between traditional and scientific knowledge. It is not a debate that one side or another must win.

Monique Newton is a Senior Manager with the WWF Arctic Programme.

Head of ringed seal above the water. Blomsterhalvøya, Spitsbergen (Svalbard) arctic archipelago, Norway.
© WWF-Canon / Sindre Kinnerød

At this year’s conference, there was a clear message:  climate change is affecting wildlife and we need to act now to preserve it.

The changes scientists described are dramatic. For instance, killer whales are moving further into the Arctic because there is now less sea ice off Alaska and Canada. A chilling animation of successive GPS locations on a map over multiple days showed killer whales patrolling in and out of bays and forcing bowhead whales and narwhals to take shelter under ice.

National Geographic: Orcas attack a juvenile bowhead whale

Ringed seals – the main prey of polar bears – on Svalbard (Norway) have abandoned the once-frozen sea ice to rest on glaciers. Polar bears will need to learn a whole new aquatic hunting strategy to catch them. To add to that challenge, male polar bears in Western Hudson Bay are getting shorter in stature. Some of these shorter males seem to not have any luck with the ladies – fathering no cubs over their whole lifetime.

Polar bear, Kara Sea © Dmitry Ryabov / WWF-Russia

New research using small underwater microphones fitted to narwhals found that they communicate with one another near the water’s surface, using “clicks”. This information is crucial for understanding the impacts of ship engine noise on narwhals, which masks the voices of whales and dolphins in other parts of the world. Ships were also found to change how narwhals behave – when large carriers were present, scientists observed narwhals swimming more quickly, closer to shore and even moving out of the area.

Narwhals usually travel in small pods of several individuals. Photo: Clive Tesar / WWF

The science presented in Halifax builds on our understanding of the new pressures that animals are facing in a warming Arctic. While their future may not yet be crystal clear, what is clear is that we must do everything we can to give them the best chance to cope with their changing world.

Diminishing sea ice means polar bears and walrus are spending more time on land. Will this lead to more conflict between the two species? GEOFF YORK examines the evidence.

Polar bear at a walrus haulout. © Alexey Ebel / WWF-Canon

IT HAS LONG BEEN surmised that as the Arctic warms and sea ice recedes, more polar bears will spend longer time on shore throughout their range. This is supported by recent research using movements data from polar bears in the Southern Beaufort and Chukchi Seas along with anecdotal reports of increased sightings and encounters.

Much thought and some new projects have focused on what this likely means for conflict between people and polar bears, while other research has also highlighted the potential impacts to shore dwelling birds and bears. Less thought has been given to the potential impacts on other marine mammals such as walrus who are also increasingly forced to spend more time on land. Pacific walrus have shown signs of shifting distribution with historically large or new haulouts reported in both Chukotka and Alaska. While use of land is nothing new, traditionally these haulouts were composed of males, the haulouts were much smaller in size, and were not dominated by females and calves as is now the case. This is entirely new and likely tied to the retreat of sea ice beyond the productive continental shelf – a key feature of the vast and relatively shallow Chukchi Sea that defined this largely benthic system for decades if not millennia. When walruses are at sea and using the ice as a resting and rearing platform, they tend to occur in lower numbers and are continuously in motion with the sea ice, distributing their foraging across the Chukchi. As lack of sea ice forces the animals ashore, the new haulouts can number 20,000- 70,000 individuals or more.

On land and in herds of this size, walruses are prone to stampede events that endanger young and old, resulting in increased mortality of females and new calves. The presence of walrus and of carcasses is a strong attractant for polar bears. These species have evolved together in a sea ice dominated system but an adult male walrus can more than match most polar bears with its size, strength, incredibly tough hide, and dangerous tusks. They can and do mortally injure polar bears so it is common to see bears showing deference to adult walrus. As with seals and small whales, in open water the advantage goes clearly to the walrus. Young, injured, or sick walrus are another matter and can easily fall prey to a savvy bear while carcasses from stampede events or other natural mortalities can provide a veritable bounty for polar bears lucky enough to encounter them along the coast.

I have had the fortune to observe polar bears and walrus within meters of one another on more than one occasion while working in the Russian Arctic. In one situation, an incredibly well fed male polar bear was feasting on carcasses adjacent to a haulout estimated at over 80,000 animals. Neither the bear or the living walrus appeared to pay one another much attention, though I imagine the walrus, mostly females and calves, were keeping a watchful eye. In both other cases, the herds were smaller and the haulouts more traditional: adult males dominated the use of land while females and younger walrus stayed close to or in the water, at least when a bear was present. At both sites, an adult male polar bear could simply walk up to within a few meters of the male walrus and lie down and observe, likely assessing the situation for any easy targets, but an attempted predation was not observed. So what can we expect as more polar bears and more walrus spend more time ashore? Likely more skirmishes as either inexperienced bears, or those in poor shape, take more risks in attempts to secure food.

A small number of polar bears will also benefit greatly from increased carcass availability. However, the greatest threat to both species will remain the loss of sea ice habitat. As the Arctic continues to warm at a pace more than double that of the global average, the fundamental ecosystem that walrus and polar bears evolved to exploit is being pulled out from under them. This exposes both species to increased foraging costs, factors that decrease reproductive success, and that increase mortality: fundamental shifts to the ecosystem itself; new disease vectors; and competition from what were historically southern species. The last walrus will not likely be taken by the last polar bear, rather they will both be greatly reduced in range and numbers unless warming and subsequent loss of sea ice can be stabilized or reversed.

GEOFF YORK is Polar Bear International’s Senior Director of Conservation

Counting walruses is difficult, complex and labour intensive usually requiring repeat visits to haulout sites. Even then there are numerous variables swaying the numbers. MIKE HAMMILL says good record keeping is integral to good management of declining herds.

WEIGHING UP TO A TON, the walrus is the largest seal native to Canada. Good walrus habitat is characterized by relatively shallow water (ca 80 m or less) with a seabed that supports plenty of shellfish in areas not far from haulout sites. Walruses were once widely distributed in Canada and common south to the Gulf of St Lawrence and Sable Island. By the late 1700s, commercial whaling in the Gulf of St Lawrence was already in decline as whales became harder to catch. Whalers began searching out new areas for harvesting and shifted their attention to other species to fill their holds. By the end of the century, Atlantic walruses (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) had been killed off from the Gulf of St Lawrence and sites on Canada’s east coast such as Sable Island. Today, walrus distribution is limited to Hudson and James bays, and areas to the north into the central and High Arctic.

Location of Atlantic walrus stocks in the eastern Canadian Arctic. The stocks are Baffin Bay, West Jones Sound, Penny Strait-Lancaster Sound, Hudson Bay-Davis Strait, and South and East Hudson Bay. The North and Central Foxe Basin stocks are surveyed together and are referred to as Foxe Basin.

An understanding of abundance and population trend is needed to make informed decisions for harvest management, evaluating industrial impact and understanding how this species responds to climate change. Walruses are a challenging species to enumerate due to a combination of factors including: a highly clumped distribution; movements between haulout sites; variability in detection probabilities depending on whether animals are hauled out on land, on the sea ice, or are in the water; and uncertainty in the fraction of the population hauled out when the survey is flown. In September 2017, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans is planning a survey to obtain information on walrus abundance along the southeast coast of Baffin Island, in Hudson Strait, around Southampton Island and along the northwest coast of Hudson Bay. This survey will also test some new developments to see if we can improve our estimates of abundance.

Walrus surveys are complex. The basic design is to fly over areas where they are resting and to photograph animals at the haulout sites for later counting in the laboratory. To determine which areas should be surveyed we review the literature to determine which islands they use as haulout sites and we build on this through consultations with hunters to determine if new sites have been colonized or if certain sites have been abandoned. The number of walruses hauled out at any single moment can be quite variable and is thought to be affected by local conditions, social behaviour, and environmental factors. At key haulout locations we plan to visit the site multiple times. Multiple counts will provide more information on how the number of animals at a site might vary. However, multiple visits are not always feasible, so we are proposing to install remote cameras at certain test sites. These will be programmed to transmit images of hauled out walruses via satellite which will allow for realtime data collection over multiple days. If successful, multiple counts from the remote cameras will provide greater insights into the numbers of walruses using a haulout site and how these numbers might vary in a way that is not feasible using an aerial survey aircraft. Multiple installations could also offer long term monitoring opportunities which might be more cost effective than using aircraft to cover large areas at considerable expense.

MIKE HAMMILL is a research scientist with the federal Dept. of Fisheries & Oceans in Canada

As climate change continues to adversely affect this important shared resource, ANATOLY KOCHNEV says effective research, monitoring and management of walrus populations will rely on the joint efforts of both countries.

BY THE EARLY 1960S, over-hunting saw the Pacific walrus drop to an estimated 50-90,000. Protective measures saw herds restored to the optimal population of 275-386,000 by the early 1980s. But even with significant harvest reduction, there are signs the Pacific walrus population is again decreasing. This trend was first observed in the mid-1980s when a survey by American researchers of the age and sex composition of the walruses in the Chukchi Sea showed alarmingly low population productivity and survival of young animals. This was confirmed by the Soviet-American aerial survey in 1990 when numbers were determined to be 201-296,000 indicating a 25 per cent decrease over 10 years. By the 2000s, numerous coastal haulouts on the Kamchatka Peninsula and the Koryak coast had stopped, and where the walruses did continue to haul out, numbers had fallen dramatically. Compared with the mid-1980s the number of walrus herds staying for the summer in the northern part of the Anadyr Gulf had almost halved. In 2006 joint US-Russia aerial surveys estimated the number of Pacific walruses had further dwindled to 129,000 – a return to the level of the early 1970s.

It is now clear that global climate fluctuations are the main cause of these decreasing numbers. Climate change has caused a significant decrease of summer and autumn sea ice cover making it difficult for walruses to rest on the ice floes or use them as platforms for feeding in the extensive shallows of the central Chukchi Sea. Walruses are forced to remain near shore for excessively long periods, creating dense haulouts in the tens of thousands. With such a concentration of walruses in the coastal waters, there is an acute shortage of food and many of the animals are in poor physical condition. There is also growing interference from predators and humans, leading to panic among the tightly-packed crush on shore and is likely the cause of annual mass deaths of walruses on coastal haulouts. This peaked in autumn 2007 when up to 10,000 animals died along the Arctic coast of Chukotka.

The decline of walruses from the southern part of the range is even more pronounced although it seems they have been able to adapt to ice losses, albeit in low numbers. In the absence of ice this adaptation is manifested as walruses concentrate on coastal haulout places located at a minimum distance from areas with the most productive sea floor communities, where bivalves and other organisms eaten by walruses predominate. Thus, the loss of energy in walruses during feeding and movement from land haulouts to feeding areas can be compensated by the high density of food. After a long break, walrus haulouts have again begun first on the Russian coast of the Chukchi Sea, and then on the northern coast of Alaska. These locations have seen regular use from August to November over the last two decades. I discovered one of these important haulout places in 2009 on the Russian coast of the Chukchi Sea near Cape Serdtse-Kamen’.

The monitoring conducted by myself and my colleagues from the Chukotka branch of the Pacific Research Fisheries Center in 2009-2016 showed that 75-115,000 walruses are concentrated at Cape Serdtse-Kamen’ and adjacent parts of the coast in October constituting the main part of the Pacific population. The mortality of walruses at Cape Serdtse- Kamen’ and other coastal haulouts remains high, but not as high as in the critical year of 2007. Observations at Cape Serdtse-Kamen’ indicate that in current years the population has stabilized although this is a temporary respite for walruses. If losses of ice habitat in the Chukchi Sea continue it is difficult to imagine how they will survive it.

The problem is further aggravated by the fact that the shrinking of the sea ice cover becomes a catalyst for increasing the anthropogenic pressure on the Arctic. Historically, high sea ice density created the conditions to make the Chukchi Sea a natural reserve for walruses and other marine mammals. Now the sea ice barrier has disappeared, and people are expanding their economic activities in the Arctic. In Russia, oil and gas exploration of the Bering, Chukchi and East Siberian seas and construction of a floating nuclear power plant in the East Siberian Sea is underway.

The intensity of navigation is increasing, with new civil and military complexes being built next to key Pacific walrus habitats. The reaction of walruses to an inevitably sharp increase in economic activity and possible pollution in most of their range is unpredictable.

Currently, efforts to protect the Pacific walrus in Russia involve limiting the traditional native harvest (any other harvest is prohibited, except for capturing calves for zoos and aquariums) and the creation of designated protected areas in Chukotka. In 1976 a federal reserve was established on the Wrangel and Herald islands which was extended in 1997 to the 12-mile coastal water area around these islands.

In 2012 a 24-nautical mile protective zone was created adjacent to the reserved water area. In 2013, the Beringia National Park was established in the Bering Strait area and the southern part of the Chukchi Sea. However, these measures are not enough for successful conservation and growth of the Pacific walrus population. Walruses like any other marine mammals actively move within the range, and they are difficult to protect by creating any limited protected land and water areas. Systematic, longterm monitoring of the Pacific walrus population is needed throughout all ranges, and effective control of anthropogenic activities, including flexible restrictions that respond quickly to changes in the distribution and behavior of walruses.

DR. ANATOLY KOCHNEV is Senior Scientist of the Mammals’ Ecology Lab of Institute of Biological Problems of the North, Russian Academy of Sciences