This tool allows you to search through the Key Findings and Advice from the released State of the Arctic Marine and Freshwater Biodiversity reports. The key findings and advice can be searched after key words; report; year of release; and your selection can then be downloaded as an excel file or emailed to a colleague


Key findings & AdviceTypePublicationYearKeywords URL
Food resources are being lost for many Arctic species in Arctic marine environments. Many species have to travel further and expend more energy to feed, leading to concerns about individual health and potential effects at the population levelKey FindingSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Marinehttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Some Arctic species are shifting their ranges northwards to seek more favourable conditions as the Arctic warms. These movements pose unknown consequences for Arctic species and their interactions, such as predation and competition.Key FindingSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Marinehttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Northward movement is easier for more mobile openwater species. Open water species such as polar cod, are more mobile compared to those linked to shelf regions, such as benthic species including some fishes for which suitable habitat may be unavailable if they move northward.Key FindingSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Marinehttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Increasing numbers and diversity of southern species are moving into Arctic waters. In some cases, they may outcompete and prey on Arctic species, or offer a less nutritious food source for Arctic species. Key FindingSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Marinehttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Current trends indicate that species reliant on sea ice for reproduction, resting or foraging will experience range reductions as sea ice retreat occurs earlier and the open water season is prolonged.Key FindingSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Marinehttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Arctic marine species and ecosystems are undergoing pressure from cumulative changes in their physical, chemical and biological environment. Some changes may be gradual, but there may also be large and sudden shifts that can affect how the ecosystem functions. Key FindingSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Marinehttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Increases in the frequency of contagious diseases are being observed. Key FindingSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Marinehttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Arctic freshwater ecosystems are highly threatened by climate change and human development which can alter the distribution and abundance of species and affect biodiversity and the ecosystem services on which many Arctic peoples depend.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Long-term trends of increasing water temperature and decreasing ice cover in freshwater systems have been observed in many areas of the Arctic. Warmer and wetter climate will generally lead to higher concentrations of dissolved organic matter, minerals, and nutrients. Furthermore, impacts related to human population growth (e.g., from increased infrastructure, development, and resource exploration/exploitation) have the potential to contribute to further degradation and nutrient enrichment of freshwater systems in the Arctic.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
These changes (Freshwater ecosystems) could significantly affect lake and river ecosystem processes, causing decreased light penetration in lakes, nutrient enrichment, and sedimentation, and leading to changes in biodiversity, occurrence, and biomass of Arctic species.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
With continued warming, the boundaries of Arctic climatic zones (e.g., sub-, low, and high Arctic, as defined by the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment) are expected to shift and cause an overall reduction in the spatial extent that can be considered part of the Arctic ecoregion, based on temperature and vegetation conditions.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Warmer water temperatures in Arctic rivers and lakes may lead to an increase in overall biodiversity as southern species expand their ranges northward, but the highly cold-adapted and cold-tolerant species that currently inhabit the Arctic will be at risk due to competition from non-native species and face possible extirpation when their thermal tolerances are exceeded.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Cold-water endemic species unique to the Arctic, such as Arctic char, may suffer regional losses with the potential for extinctions in extreme cases.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Patterns of biodiversity vary across the Arctic, but ecoregions that have historically warmer temperatures and connections to the mainland generally have higher biodiversity than those with cold temperatures (high latitude or altitude) or on remote islands.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Fennoscandian lakes (in particular, inland non-mountainous regions) are biodiversity hotspots for macrophytes, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish in lakes. Lakes in Coastal Alaska are most diverse with regards to diatom and phytoplankton species and among the most diverse ecoregions for fish in the Arctic. Ecoregions in Canada, Greenland, Iceland, and Russia were less diverse for many of the lake biotic FECs.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Fennoscandia, coastal Alaska, and western and southern Canada have the most diverse ecoregions across riverine diatoms, benthic macroinvertebrate, and fish FECs.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
The warmer climate in Fennoscandia and southern ecoregions of Canada as well as the strong geographical connectivity to the mainland explains the overall high biodiversity of these areas. Similarly, high connectivity of the Alaskan coastal region and lack of ice cover in the last glaciation may have contributed to high biodiversity of many FECs.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Biodiversity in mountainous and alpine ecoregions of North America and Fennoscandia is generally lower than that of surrounding ecoregions for both lakes and rivers. This likely reflects harsh environmental conditions generally found in mountainous regions or possibly the effect of dispersal barriers to species such as migrating fish.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Biodiversity is lower on remote islands where movement and introduction of species can be limited; this is particularly evident in Greenland, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Svalbard, and Wrangel Island.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Temperature is the overriding and predominant driver for most FECs, but climate, geographical connectivity, geology, and smaller-scale environmental parameters such as water chemistry are all key drivers of Arctic freshwater biodiversity.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Biodiversity of benthic macroinvertebrates in rivers and lakes decreased at higher latitudes, particularly above 68°N. This northward decline in diversity was strongly related to decreasing maximum summer temperatures, indicating that tolerance for cold temperatures limits the number of benthic macroinvertebrate species that can inhabit the high Arctic.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Latitudinal trends were weaker for other FECs, but high-latitude lakes and rivers showed differences in diversity and composition of fish, plankton, diatoms, and macrophytes compared to lower-latitude systems. The differences reflected temperature and precipitation gradients as well as barriers to movement, glaciation history, and bedrock geology, which affects water chemistry.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Cyanobacteria species, of which some are toxin-producing, were most abundant in lakes during the warmest years on record. As temperatures continue to increase, cyanobacteria blooms can be expected to become more common.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Available long-term monitoring records and research data indicate that freshwater biodiversity has changed over the last 200 years, with shifts in species composition being less dramatic in areas where temperatures have been more stable.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Long-term fish monitoring records from Iceland indicate declining abundance of Arctic char and increasing dominance of Atlantic salmon and brown trout since the 1980s. At the same time there has been an increase in spring and fall water temperatures that might affect spawning and hatching time of Arctic char.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Diatoms in lake sediment cores show shifts in community composition over the last 200 years, with changes in the dominant species that reflect changes in the temperature zones in the water column of lakes.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Changes in diatom composition over the last 200 years were weakest in eastern Canadian coastal ecoregions (e.g., northern Labrador and Quebec) where temperatures have historically been more stable with less evidence of warming.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Existing (freshwater) data are not sufficient to describe biodiversity patterns in all ecoregions, and increased sampling is required to improve understanding of biodiversity change.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Differences in composition among stations were most often due to finding new species, which suggests that additional sampling (more stations) is required to accurately estimate the number of species present in Arctic freshwater systems.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Better coordination and harmonized sampling, sample processing, and data storage across the Arctic will improve our ability to detect and monitor changes in freshwater biodiversity.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
There is a substantial lack of (freshwater) data for large parts of the North American and Russian Arctic and few longterm data sets for Arctic lakes and rivers.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Differences in sampling methods, sample processing, and data storage limit spatial comparisons, for example, where different lake habitats (shallow or deep water) are sampled or vastly different sampling equipment or approaches are used.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwaterhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
All countries have data sets that allow for identification of baseline levels for most FECs, but only a few countries (such as Finland and Sweden) have an extensive spatial coverage and very few countries have long time series. Data collection was not exhaustive, and there are likely additional data that exist for each country that may contribute to the assessment of freshwater biodiversity; however, significant gaps will remain even with a more extensive search of existing data sources.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwater; Monitoringhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Instruments such as the European Water Framework Directive promote routine monitoring of lake and river FECs. But where a country, ecoregion, or FEC is not covered by such instruments, monitoring is irregular, has poor spatial coverage, or is absent.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwater; Monitoringhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
The vast expanse of the Arctic region in some countries (e.g., Canada, Russia) and the high monetary cost and logistical constraints associated with sampling in some regions (e.g., northern Canada and Russia, Greenland, Svalbard, Faroe Islands) limits the possibility of routine monitoring. This leads to sparse sample coverage in space and time, particularly where funds are not secure.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwater; Monitoringhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
In countries where routine government monitoring is limited or does not occur, data must come from other sources (e.g., academic research), where unsecure funding often leads to single-event sampling, meaning that change over time cannot be examined.Key FindingSAFBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2019Freshwater; Monitoringhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Utilizing Traditional and Local Knowledge and involvement of TK holders allows for increased understanding of relationships and changes underway in Arctic ecosystems, current and historical trends, and serves to build valuable partnerships on the ground in Arctic communities:

-- Use Traditional and Local Knowledge within the design and implementation of monitoring plans. The Traditional and Local Knowledge of people living along and off the Arctic Ocean is an invaluable resource for understanding changes in Arctic marine ecosystems and its inclusion should be supported by national governments.
-- Increase engagement and partnerships with local residents and easy to access technology in monitoring programs. Indigenous communities are important ‘first responders’ to catastrophic events. More importantly, their knowledge systems provide a wealth of knowledge that should be involved in the analysis of collected data for increased understanding of current trends and filling historical gaps.
-- There is a need for Traditional and Local Knowledge on a range of FECs and to engage networks of Traditional and Local Knowledge holders and Indigenous organisations.
-- Use both Traditional and Local Knowledge and scientific information on the analysis of harvest levels and status when evaluating overall population health and managing hunts.
AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Marine, Traditional and Local Knowledgehttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Better coordination allows for increased value for investment in monitoring programs, better opportunity to compare results, and more ability to draw meaningful conclusions from data:

-- Strategically locate Arctic research stations and monitoring vessels, and use all collected specimens, to allow the collection and analysis of as many CBMP FECs as possible.
-- Ensure research stations operate all year to better study FECs year round.
-- Combine national monitoring with collaborative approaches that allow for sufficient integration and standardization to conduct syntheses across the circumpolar region.
-- Standardize how data are collected, managed and made available. This is a key component in ensuring circumpolar Arctic comparability and should be an important consideration in the implementation of monitoring plans.
-- Encourage states to increase the implementation of existing internationally coordinated monitoring plans.
-- Connect monitoring initiatives and report across scales so that results are meaningful for local, sub-national, national, regional and global decision-makers.
-- Continue to increase coordination between CBMP and other regional and global monitoring initiatives e.g., the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEOBON), International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service (IPBES).
AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Marine, Coordinationhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Increased attention to methodology allows for more precise and comparable results, standardized data collection, and ability to link regional monitoring to circumpolar efforts: 
-- Ensure that Arctic monitoring programs are ecosystem-based and include as many CBMP FECs as possible to include functionally important taxonomic groups and improve our understanding of how the ecosystem functions, and how its components are related. Such monitoring programs can serve to underpin management of human activities in the Arctic marine environment.
-- Standardize methodology, including taxonomic identification in order to allow production of comparable data and results.
-- Ensure training of personnel performing sampling and analyses. 
AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Marine, Methodshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Community-based monitoring networks and community relationship building:

-- Increase the span of networks in the CBMP to include Community-based monitoring networks.
-- Communicate information on changes and the results of monitoring between scientists and the public in both directions. This is crucial to the development of effective management strategies and human activities.
AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Marine, Community-Based Monitoringhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Filling gaps in knowledge helps us better understand key elements and functions of the ecosystem that can help explain change and understand the system:

-- Encourage the monitoring of relevant physical parameters alongside some FECs that are particularly sensitive to their effects, including sea ice biota and plankton. 
-- Expand monitoring programs to include important taxonomic groups and key ecosystem functions. These gaps are likely due to logistical challenges or lack of expertise in specific fields. 
-- Expand monitoring programs to include those utilizing both TK and science, involvement of Indigenous organizations and build capacity to provide a co-production of knowledge platform.
AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Marine, Knowledge gapshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Establish an annual monitoring programme from landfast sea ice at selected Arctic field stations in Canada (Resolute, Cambridge Bay), Greenland (Kobbefjord, Disko Bay, Zackenberg), Norway (Kongsfjorden, Billefjorden, Van Mijenfjorden), and the U.S. (Barrow).AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Sea ice biotahttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Establish a standardized monitoring protocol, including sample collection, preservation, microscopic and genetic analyses, taxonomic harmonization, and data sharingAdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Sea ice biotahttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Establish opportunistic monitoring from drifting sea ice during cruises of opportunity.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Sea ice biotahttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Collect macrofauna samples in drifting sea ice via ship-based activities, scuba diving, use of electrical suction pumps, under-ice trawl nets, and remotely operated vehicles.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Sea ice biotahttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Follow standardized protocols for monitoring plankton, including sample collection and preservation, microscopic and genetic analyses with taxonomic harmonization.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Planktonhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Ensure that full data sharing occurs between scientists, and is deposited in publicly-accessible national data centers. Continue to consolidate older data.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Planktonhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Train highly qualified personnel to perform plankton sampling and species-level analyses, including the use of molecular techniques.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Planktonhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Establish long-term funded annual monitoring programmes of plankton from selected Arctic field stations or Arctic campaigns/cruises in Canada, the U.S. and Russia, which together with the ongoing monitoring in Greenland, Iceland and Norway will secure a pan-Arctic coverage.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Planktonhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Develop species indexes and if possible, identify indicator taxa for monitoring.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Planktonhttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Develop a time- and cost-effective, long-term and standardized monitoring of megabenthic communities in all Arctic regions using regular national groundfish assessment surveys. Expanding monitoring on micro-, meio- and
macrobenthic groups is encouraged.
AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Benthoshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Gather information from research programs in regions without regular groundfish-shellfish trawl surveys. These are usually short-term and do not guarantee spatial consistency in sampling, but provide valuable information on benthic biodiversity and community patterns.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Benthoshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Generate information on benthos from littleknown regions, such as the Arctic Basin and Arctic Archipelago, on cryptic or difficult taxonomic groups, and on biological “hotspots”.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Benthoshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Systematic studies of macrobenthos (grab investigations) and megabenthos (trawl bycatch of regular fishery surveys including both annual studies, as in the Atlantic Arctic, and periodic studies as in the Northern Bering and Chukchi Seas) are the most suitable and practical approach to long-term monitoring.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Benthoshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Standardize methodology, including taxonomic identification, across regions to assist in regional comparisons. AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Benthoshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Recognize and support the use of Traditional and Local Knowledge as an invaluable resource for understanding of changes in Arctic benthic communities.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Benthoshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Conduct pan-Arctic taxonomic analyses to clarify zoogeographic patterns that are important for detecting and understanding change.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Marine fisheshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Establish and conduct a monitoring plan that is independent of fisheries-related programs to assess changes in fish abundance and distributions. Use information from non-commercial fish species caught in groundfish surveys to provide a first step in this direction.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Marine fisheshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Use information from TK holders for monitoring marine fishes. AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Marine fisheshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Connect monitoring initiatives across scales.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Marine fisheshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Conduct laboratory studies to examine the possible effects of abiotic and biotic changes (e.g. temperature, salinity, acidity and diseases) on fish speciesAdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Marine fisheshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Ensure that data on fisheries (commercial as well as artisanal) are accurate and registered in catch databases (such as the Food Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations). Information from logbooks is also relevant as it can be used to estimate the bycatch and the effects of fisheries.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Marine fisheshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Develop methods for assessing diet to increase our understanding of changes in the ecosystem and how they affect seabird populations.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Seabirdshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
When selecting sites for new monitoring, consider proximity to hotspots for marine activities, access to the sea, and inclusion of plankton monitoring.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Seabirdshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Expand colony-based monitoring and strive to include a more complete array of parameters, in particular, diet and measures of survival.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Seabirdshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Consider a higher frequency of monitoring as current levels make it difficult to identify mechanisms or causes of change in populations.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Seabirdshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Conduct targeted surveys and individual tracking studies of seabird interactions at sea to improve our understanding of seabird interactions at sea, where seabirds spend most of their time.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Seabirdshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Continue to conduct at sea surveys on an opportunistic basis.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Seabirdshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Implement existing international monitoring plans such as those for ringed seals and polar bear, with adaptive management principles to address the eleven FEC marine mammal species.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Marine mammalshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Expand marine mammal monitoring efforts to include parameters on health, passive acoustics, habitat changes, and telemetry tracking studies.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Marine mammalshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Obtain more knowledge about population sizes, densities, and distributions of marine mammal populations in order to understand the relationships between sea ice loss and climate change and to manage Arctic marine mammal populations in an appropriate manner.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Marine mammalshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Involve indigenous and local peoples in the design and implementation of monitoring programs so that scientific knowledge and Traditional and Local Knowledge holders are working collaboratively. AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Marine mammalshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Pursue a multidisciplinary and multi-knowledge approach and a high degree of collaboration across borders and between researchers, local communities and Arctic governments to better understand complex spatial-temporal shifts in drivers, ecological changes and animal health.AdviceSAMBR Key Findings and Advice for Policy Makers2017Marine mammalshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine
Harmonize sampling approaches among countries and select appropriate sampling methods and equipment to balance between maintaining consistency and comparability with historical data and alignment with common methods used across the Arctic.AdviceSAFBR Summary for Policy makers2019Freshwater, Methodshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Use a regionalized approach based on ecoregions to guide the spatial distribution of sample stations and, ultimately, provide better assessments.AdviceSAFBR Summary for Policy makers2019Freshwater, Methodshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Ensure spatial coverage of sampled ecoregions is sufficient to address the overarching monitoring questions of the CBMP across the Arctic and provide sufficient replication.AdviceSAFBR Summary for Policy makers2019Freshwater, Methodshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Maintain time series at key locations, and fill gaps where monitoring data are sparse.AdviceSAFBR Summary for Policy makers2019Freshwater, Methodshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Develop supplementary monitoring methods that provide better standardized estimates of biodiversity to maximize the likelihood of detecting new and/or invasive species.AdviceSAFBR Summary for Policy makers2019Freshwater, Methodshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Make use of recent advances in emerging technologies, including environmental DNA (eDNA) methods and remote sensing approaches.AdviceSAFBR Summary for Policy makers2019Freshwater, Methodshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Standardize data storage practices and provide access through a common data source like GBIF.AdviceSAFBR Summary for Policy makers2019Freshwater, Methodshttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Engage with Indigenous communities to work towards identifying and integrating their TK into efforts to assess Arctic freshwater biodiversity, including change over time.AdviceSAFBR Summary for Policy makers2019Freshwater, Traditional and Local Knowledgehttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Incorporate TK as an integral part of circumpolar monitoring and observational networks.AdviceSAFBR Summary for Policy makers2019Freshwater, Traditional and Local Knowledgehttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Engage local communities in monitoring activities through citizen science and incorporate local knowledge as an integral part of future circumpolar monitoring and observational networks.AdviceSAFBR Summary for Policy makers2019Freshwater, Citizen sciencehttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Interact with local communities to enhance outreach to the public (youth in particular) and develop common observational tools.AdviceSAFBR Summary for Policy makers2019Freshwater, Citizen sciencehttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Provide material for training and educational purposes for local residents at all age levels.AdviceSAFBR Summary for Policy makers2019Freshwater, Citizen sciencehttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Establish a circumpolar monitoring network based on a hub-and-spoke model in remote areas.AdviceSAFBR Summary for Policy makers2019Freshwater, Monitoring design and assessmenthttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Increase focus on the response of biotic communities to environmental changes by designing monitoring to address impact hypotheses developed in the CBMP-Freshwater Plan.AdviceSAFBR Summary for Policy makers2019Freshwater, Monitoring design and assessmenthttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Ensure that the CBMP Freshwater group continues to serve as the focal point for the development and implementation of Arctic, freshwater biodiversity monitoring.AdviceSAFBR Summary for Policy makers2019Freshwater, Monitoring design and assessmenthttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Provide resources to maintain and build the CBMP freshwater database for future assessments in order to maximize the benefits of this database.AdviceSAFBR Summary for Policy makers2019Freshwater, Monitoring design and assessmenthttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Efforts should be made to document and preserve data from short-term research projects, research expeditions, industrial, university and government programs and to make these data accessible to the public.AdviceSAFBR Summary for Policy makers2019Freshwater, Monitoring design and assessmenthttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Status assessments of Arctic lakes and rivers must explore the close association of biodiversity with spatial patterns of physical and chemical quality of aquatic habitats that can drive biological systems.AdviceSAFBR Summary for Policy makers2019Freshwater, Monitoring design and assessmenthttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
The CBMP-Freshwater database allows the identification of predominant sampling approaches across the Arctic and should be used to inform the development of harmonized monitoring approaches.AdviceSAFBR Summary for Policy makers2019Freshwater, Monitoring design and assessmenthttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/
Where valuable long-term data series exist, these should be given high priority in monitoring programs, to continue to provide data for the detection of long-term trends and changes in biodiversity.AdviceSAFBR Summary for Policy makers2019Freshwater, Monitoring design and assessmenthttps://arcticbiodiversity.is/freshwater/


aac  raipon  icc   GCI Logo Vertical RGB 121x90  aia  saami_councile

 

 

dk   ca   fi   is   no   ru   sw   usa