How often do you think about the Arctic? If you’re like most people today, you probably take this frigid, remote ecosystem into consideration quite a bit more often than the average person did just ten years ago, and that’s probably due to the fact that the scientific community at large is looking at the Arctic more seriously than ever before. Besides intensifying focus on the Arctic, researchers are beginning to understand that when it comes to studying this fragile ecosystem, there are few – if any – absolutes. Therein lies the difference between researching and understanding stable environments where change progresses with some predictability, and researching and understanding the Arctic, where stability and predictability are no longer part of the equation.
Challenges to Arctic Environmental Conservation
There are many challenges facing the Arctic, including energy development, environmental pressure, and rapid climate change. Managing this ecosystem effectively will require that scientists deal with variable levels of uncertainty.
The importance of gathering knowledge and acting with caution while moving ahead are underlined by the example of overfishing, in which fish populations have either collapsed or are nearing total destruction due to a simple lack of good knowledge about species biology and the far-reaching environmental implications caused by the decimation of a single species. In this example, fishing was conducted based on economic goals rather than by solid scientific knowledge.
Fishing, this time based on sound scientific practice, can also be used to illustrate what can happen when proper management techniques are utilized. Alaska fisheries, for example, are built based on sound scientific stock assessments that make room for a margin of error. It is not just the scientific community that understands the importance of working with nature this way – Alaska’s fishermen understand that in order to reap long-term benefits, some short-term cost must be realized. In 1997, Bristol Bay’s salmon returns were incredibly low, causing an early halt to salmon season in the area, which in turn allowed more salmon to spawn. Fishermen did realize some economic hardship from this action, but they understood the importance of allowing stocks to rebound to sustainable levels.
Supporting healthy fish population growth is logical – and this same logic must be applied to the management of Arctic activities. When discussing oil and gas operations taking place on the outer Alaskan continental shelf, many people simply see a dichotomy – an either/or effect. Either we protect the environment, or we protect our pocketbooks. These extremes though, are not the be all and end all. There are many points in between that create a complete spectrum of opportunities, so long as uncertainty is built in as part of the total equation.
Keeping large areas of the Arctic off-limits provides a vital buffer against the specter of uncertainty. If oil activities in some areas proceed without catastrophic consequences, more areas can be added later. If, on the other hand, environmental impacts are greater than anticipated, only a small amount of this ecosystem will be affected. Every one of us relies on petroleum products in some way, and no one wants to see the Arctic destroyed. By acknowledging the importance of uncertainty, we can properly develop resources while providing our environment with the protection it needs.