Reindeer and caribou, both belonging to the species Rangifer tarandus, face increasing threats due to direct and indirect human impacts. A new study compares national conservation strategies in Canada and Norway in a quest for more effective strategies.

Habitat loss and fragmentation are among the leading threats to biodiversity worldwide. Conservation strategies, therefore, often incorporate habitat condition when assessing population status, supporting both early detection of declines and concrete mitigation actions. However, the way this is done vary considerably, with important consequences for the effectiveness of conservation strategies.

“Using the most robust and comprehensive approaches is essential if we are to design effective conservation strategies able to meet international goals for habitat restoration and species’ recovery”, says Bram van Moorter, Senior Researcher at the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA).

A new study by an international team compares conservation strategies for caribou in Canada and wild reindeer in Norway, to identify lessons that could strengthen conservation approaches in both regions.

Rangifer tarandus, known as reindeer in Eurasia and caribou in North America, inhabits northern ecosystems across Europe, Siberia, and North America. Because it relies on vast, connected landscapes for migration and seasonal movement, it is especially vulnerable to barriers, human disturbances, and climate change.

In Canada, forestry and industrial activities including oil and gas extraction have fragmented their habitats and increased predation pressure. In Norwegian multiuse landscapes, roads, tourism and energy development have severed migration routes and reduced access to grazing grounds.

The species’ conservation status is rapidly declining in both countries, with boreal caribou listed as Threatened in Canada and wild reindeer as Near Threatened in Norway.

To revert this trend, Canada and Norway have independently developed conservation strategies that reflect their distinct socio-ecological contexts:

Canada’s strategy uses statistics to estimate the consequences of habitat disturbance on population dynamics, including indirect effects of predator–prey dynamics. It converts habitat data into demographic indicators, making it possible to assess population viability even when demographic data are limited.

Norway’s strategy relies upon participatory approaches and an expert-based scoring system combining a wide range of data and knowledge on demography, health and genetic, lichen pastures and habitat conditions – including connectivity.

The Canadian approach is more targeted: strong at translating habitat disturbances into expected effects on population via statistical models, which helps in predicting future risks, uncertainty, and designing actions. At the same time, it has less access to locally detailed information, and its narrower focus limits its ability to detect new threats as they arise. The Norwegian system is broader in scope, incorporates a wider range of factors in a modular way, and relies upon strong local stakeholder engagement. However, expert-based assessments can be harder to replicate, validate, and translate into conservation actions, especially in multi-use landscapes with conflicting interests.

“By drawing on Canada’s model-driven approach, Norway’s broader perspective, and recent advances in connectivity conservation and restoration, we could design strategies that are more effective and better able to guide real-world conservation efforts,” says van Moorter.

The authors stress that adequately integrating habitat and demographic data is essential for anticipating habitat-driven declines. Because climate change is expected to amplify cumulative anthropogenic impacts through complex interactions, conservation strategies need to be robust, comprehensive, and flexible enough to meet emerging challenges.

They also call for research on how cumulative impacts reduce habitat connectivity, and how this, in turn, affects population survival. Such knowledge could underpin early-warning systems, enabling prevention and more targeted mitigation and restoration actions.

“Early understanding of the root causes of decline, considering the complex dynamics caused by human impacts and climate change, is essential to prevent irreversible damages,” van Moorter concludes.