Introduction: Biology of the Canadian Arctic: A Crucible for Change in the 21st Century1

Integrative and Comparative Biology, Apr 2004 by Hik, David S, Boonstra, Rudy

Several studies focused on ecosystem-level responses to disturbance and change, and focused on assessments of trophic dynamics using long-term studies. Gauthier et al. presented a detailed assessment of trophic interactions in a colony of greater snow geese on Bylot Island, emphasizing the role of predation in a multi-prey system. Jefferies et al. provided an overview of the influence of agricultural practices in the southern U.S. on large-scale disturbances to intertidal and freshwater marshes along the Arctic coast by lesser snow geese. Events occurring thousands of miles away clearly have a profound influence on the dynamics of Arctic environments. Russell et al. provided a comprehensive overview of factors influencing the dynamics of all of the tundra caribou herds in North America. They related these factors to synoptic models of precipitation and temperature in the Arctic, with the objective of conducting energetic modeling to project herd-specific impacts of climate change and development (Russell et al., 2000).

Finally, Hutchinson provided an overview of the progress of northern research in Canada and compared the current state of affairs to the recommendations arising from the Final Report of the Task Force on Northern Research (2000), commissioned by the two key federal granting agencies: the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). The conclusion of the taskforce report was that Canadian northern research was indeed in crisis, and that urgent action was needed to meet Canada's domestic and international science and research obligations in order to contribute to issues of global importance. As noted above, this was not the first time such observations have been made. The specific recommendations of the taskforce called for the creation of northern research chairs, increased support for graduate and postdoctoral students, dedicated funding for northern research projects, including equipment, infrastructure and logistics, and funding for building partnerships between researchers and northern communities.

At the time of our Symposium, the backbone of Canadian Arctic logistic operations provided by the Canadian government, the Polar Continental Shelf Project (PCSP), was under threat of closure. Over forty scientists in attendance signed a letter to the Prime Minister, calling for the government to recognize a renewed commitment to northern research and development (see Spurgeon, 2003). In response, in the February 2003 budget new funding was provided for PCSP and for NSERC and SSHRC to enhance northern research. However, as of April 2004, many of the challenges facing the northern research community in Canada remain-federal spending on northern research has increased marginally, but remains at similar levels to the 1970s, and decaying research infrastructure is in desperate need of upgrading; the absence of a national northern research policy or strategy reduces opportunities for collaboration and results in fragmentation of research efforts; northern communities are unable to adequately address issues that are of great importance to their future; and finally, Canada's voice on the world stage is diminished, in a place where the country should play a leading role. This last point was especially apparent in the difficulty of organizing a coordinated Canadian effort for participating in and leading research themes for the International Polar Year in 2007-08 (see Albert, 2004).