Recommendations
| Project | Type | # | Outcome | Report | Year | FEC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Arctic Mining | Advice | Establishment of a system that is acceptable, predictable and measurable for industry, stakeholders and authorities to manage ecological compensation6, taking into account the vulnerability of Arctic nature and the long timeframes and slow pace of renewal associated with cold climates. The process of ecological compensation for unavoidable impacts is based on many assumptions and is inherently uncertain. A primary challenge is predicting with certainty what biodiversity benefits will be gained through the compensatory action (e.g., protection or restoration of another piece of land) and then measuring actual benefits versus predictions. Compensation should be designed and implemented so that the benefits to nature in the compensation area are equal to or higher than the value lost in the affected area. Ideally, that benefit would occur prior to the development action, but practically, that is often not the case. Government agencies could:
Mining industry could:
CAFF could:
| Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Arctic Mining Challenges and Proposed Solutions | 2019 | ||
| Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Arctic Mining | Advice | A lack of trust and coordination: (1) within and among permitting agencies; (2) among agencies and the mining industry; and (3) across agencies, mining industry, and the public, especially in relation to Indigenous communities. Lack of coordination, meaningful communication (e.g., listening), transparency and follow-through among parties often results in enduring mistrust and missed opportunities for collaboration that could benefit biodiversity. Coordination and agreement on good sustainability practices could result in an improved public image and greatertrust of the mining industry. Advice to address Key Finding A: Government agencies could:
Mining industry could:
CAFF could:
| Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Arctic Mining Challenges and Proposed Solutions | 2019 | ||
| Arctic Migratory Birds Initiative (AMBI) | Advice | 4 | Monitoring nest incorporation and entanglement: Black-legged kittiwake and northern gannet (Morus bassanus) nests should be monitored for nest incorporation of and entanglement in plastic pollution. | Plastic Pollution in Seabirds: Developing a program to monitor plastic pollution in seabirds in the pan-Arctic region | 2021 | |
| Arctic Migratory Birds Initiative (AMBI) | Advice | 6 | Monitoring point sources of plastic pollution: Glaucous gull (Larus hyperboreus), great skua (Stercorarius skua) and other gull species that feed at landfills and other urban or rural sites, pellets/regurgitations should be monitored for plastic pollution near point sources to track local trends in plastic pollution. | Plastic Pollution in Seabirds: Developing a program to monitor plastic pollution in seabirds in the pan-Arctic region | 2021 | |
| Arctic Migratory Birds Initiative (AMBI) | Advice | 1 | Methods to monitor plastic pollution in seabirds – Standardized methods (OSPAR 2015; Provencher et al. 2017, 2019) should be used where possible to make data comparable across spatially and temporally. | Plastic Pollution in Seabirds: Developing a program to monitor plastic pollution in seabirds in the pan-Arctic region | 2021 | |
| Arctic Migratory Birds Initiative (AMBI) | Advice | 3 | Monitoring temporal trends in plastic ingestion: The northern fulmar, thick-billed murre and black-legged kittiwake should be monitored for temporal trends in plastic pollution ingestion. | Plastic Pollution in Seabirds: Developing a program to monitor plastic pollution in seabirds in the pan-Arctic region | 2021 | |
| Arctic Migratory Birds Initiative (AMBI) | Advice | 5 | Monitoring microplastics and plastic-associated contaminants: Northern fulmars, thick-billed murres, black-legged kittiwakes and common eiders should be monitored for microplastics and plastic-associated contaminants. | Plastic Pollution in Seabirds: Developing a program to monitor plastic pollution in seabirds in the pan-Arctic region | 2021 | |
| Arctic Migratory Birds Initiative (AMBI) | Advice | 7 | Monitoring species of high conservation concern – Leach’s storm-petrels should be monitored where possible for potential effects of plastic pollution. | Plastic Pollution in Seabirds: Developing a program to monitor plastic pollution in seabirds in the pan-Arctic region | 2021 | |
| Arctic Migratory Birds Initiative (AMBI) | Advice | 2 | Monitoring temporal trends in plastic ingestion: The northern fulmar, thick-billed murre and black-legged kittiwake should be monitored for temporal trends in plastic pollution ingestion. | Plastic Pollution in Seabirds: Developing a program to monitor plastic pollution in seabirds in the pan-Arctic region | 2021 | |
| Key finding | 7 | Community observations from local and traditional experts have much untapped potential as ‘early warning systems’ | Project Summary: Bering Sea Sub-Network II | 2015 | ||
| Key finding | 2 | Research efforts relevant to indigenous communities should establish partnerships with them and contribute to building their capacity, for example by hiring local residents, and providing training and equipment | Project Summary: Bering Sea Sub-Network II | 2015 | ||
| Key finding | 4 | Different environmental changes are occurring within different cultural contexts creating diverse impacts; as such adaptive actions need to be based on local realities and priorities | Project Summary: Bering Sea Sub-Network II | 2015 | ||
| Key finding | 6 | Regulations that impact communities ought to be flexible to allow for adaptation to change and ought to include meaningful local voice through instruments such as co-management to support the food security and sovereignty of indigenous communities | Project Summary: Bering Sea Sub-Network II | 2015 | ||
| Key finding | 1 | Partnerships that engage indigenous communities, scientists and other organizations in the co-production of knowledge are essential in understanding environmental change and effects on indigenous communities. This knowledge can contribute to more relevant decision-making. | Project Summary: Bering Sea Sub-Network II | 2015 | ||
| Key finding | 3 | Observations from those spending much time on the land and sea are necessary in not only understanding local environmental change but also in understanding the effects of environmental changes on human well-being and traditional practices | Project Summary: Bering Sea Sub-Network II | 2015 | ||
| Key finding | 5 | Environmental changes are generally, but not always, resulting in negative effects to traditional harvests with impacts to food and cultural security | Project Summary: Bering Sea Sub-Network II | 2015 | ||
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Key finding | 13 | There are numerous models for providing financial support to conservation or restoration of wetlands. Each of the Arctic states has developed ways to provide financial support for wetlands conservation and restoration efforts. While some of the particular strengths and benefits of each set of policies, program or model are country context-specific, many lessons are generalizable and therefore useful for expanding collaboration across the Arctic states. A systematic review of these national-level restoration financing initiatives would provide valuable insights into development of effective tools. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations | 2021 | |
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Recommendation | 16 | Support long-term development of open access spatial databases for wetland data that allow interactive use, application of different classification systems and on-the-fly wetland map production. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations | 2021 | |
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Key finding | 6 | Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge and stewardship is important for successful management of Arctic wetlands. Participation and leadership by Indigenous Peoples is needed for decision-making and management of Arctic wetlands. Indigenous Peoples’ hold extensive and unique knowledge regarding the wetlands in their homelands. Inmany places, long-term indigenous stewardship has partly shaped present-day wetland biodiversity and functioning, maintaining traditional land-use practices that acts to preserve wetland resilience. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations | 2021 | |
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Recommendation | 9 | Wetland policy should recognize the legacy and future importance of Indigenous Peoples’ stewardship and the need for collaborative, integrated management of Arctic wetlands. As outlined in the Arctic Wetlands and Indigenous Peoples Study, develop pilot studies on comanagement practices to support meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples in future Arctic wetlands projects, and encourage indigenous participation in developing wetlands inventories covering traditional use areas. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations | 2021 |
Arctic Council Working Group