Recommendations

Project Type # Outcome Report Year FEC
Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Arctic MiningAdvice

Agreement on data (e.g. cultural and ecological indicators of change) collection, management, and sharing of information. Baseline data and other information about the status and health of plants, animals and ecosystems in and around mine sites are important for the mining industry, communities, government agencies and CAFF. An important challenge is to ensure that data generated by the mining industry are accessible in a form that can inform broader understandings of Arctic biodiversity status and trends.

Government agencies could:

  • Agree to participate in collaborative processes to identify and use common indicators that capture thecultural, social, and economic impacts of mining.
  • Provide data to a common repository where data could be available to be shared.

Mining industry could:

  • Agree to participate in collaborative processes to identify and use common indicators that capture the cultural, social, and economic impacts of mining.
  • Provide data to a common repository where it could be available to be shared.

CAFF could:

  • Provide a common repository to make relevant data about the status and health of plants, animals and ecosystems in the Arctic available for other uses (Box 8).
  • Work in cooperation with others to help develop common methodologies for data collection, analysis, management and reporting by the mining industry.
  • Collect and share good practices for data collection and sharing.
  • Work to ensure data provided to the CAFF is compatible with agency-mandated data collection or other standards where appropriate.
  • Help to develop indicators that capture the relevant cultural, social and economic impacts of mining.
  • Encourage and provide assistance for national and industry adoption of CAFF monitoring plans and indicators as minimum standards for the Arctic.
  • Help to develop relevant/common questions that could be asked of mining activities across the Arctic.
  • Initiate a pilot project(s) that could incorporate elements of data collection and sharing.
  • Create an expert group to address data quality and sharing, to consider how groups can work together and how TK might be equitably utilized with a focus on the engagement of TK holders.
  • Optimize use of information by ensuring that CAFF data initiatives take into account ongoing mining industry data needs, activities and approaches so that they are clearly defined.
Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Arctic Mining Challenges and Proposed Solutions2019
Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Arctic MiningAdvice

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:

  • Facilitate access to land (e.g., assist with agreements to access and ensure long-term protection of compensation sites).
  • Develop legal and administrative provisions that allow companies to create compensation areas, ensuring their long-term conservation./li>
  • Provide guidelines for monitoring of the effects of the compensation measures carried out and provide data infrastructure to publicly disclose the results to establish a growing knowledge base and create confidence in compensation and trust between the various stakeholders.
  • Collaborate with CAFF on developing products described in the “CAFF could” subsection.

Mining industry could:

  • Adhere to rigorous scientific standards when designing and implementing compensation measures and present expected results openly and realistically.
  • Publicly disclose the design and implementation as well as the monitoring results of compensation actions carried out. This will establish a growing knowledge base and create confidence in compensation and trust between the various stakeholders.
  • Collaborate with CAFF on developing products described in the “CAFF could” subsection.

CAFF could:

  • Work with mining and other industries and sectors, government agencies and interested stakeholders to evaluate existing and emerging ecological compensation practices and programs and their usefulness in Arctic situations.
  • Evaluate systems of measurement and monitoring (e.g., what values should be measured, how should they be measured and when, and how should achieved compensation values such as compensation credits be compared to impacts levels).
  • Evaluate existing legislation and guidelines (e.g., what can be done to encourage good ecological compensation practices).
  • Consider guidelines and good practices to assist in conserving and increasing biodiversity and ecosystem services through compensation measures.
Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Arctic Mining Challenges and Proposed Solutions2019
Arctic Migratory Birds Initiative (AMBI)Advice2Monitoring 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 region2021
Arctic Migratory Birds Initiative (AMBI)Advice4Monitoring 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 region2021
Arctic Migratory Birds Initiative (AMBI)Advice6Monitoring 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 region2021
Arctic Migratory Birds Initiative (AMBI)Advice1Methods 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 region2021
Arctic Migratory Birds Initiative (AMBI)Advice3Monitoring 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 region2021
Arctic Migratory Birds Initiative (AMBI)Advice5Monitoring 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 region2021
Arctic Migratory Birds Initiative (AMBI)Advice7Monitoring 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 region2021
Key finding5Environmental changes are generally, but not always, resulting in negative effects to traditional harvests with impacts to food and cultural securityProject Summary: Bering Sea Sub-Network II2015
Key finding7Community observations from local and traditional experts have much untapped potential as ‘early warning systems’Project Summary: Bering Sea Sub-Network II2015
Key finding2Research 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 equipmentProject Summary: Bering Sea Sub-Network II2015
Key finding4Different environmental changes are occurring within different cultural contexts creating diverse impacts; as such adaptive actions need to be based on local realities and prioritiesProject Summary: Bering Sea Sub-Network II2015
Key finding6Regulations 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 communitiesProject Summary: Bering Sea Sub-Network II2015
Key finding1Partnerships 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 II2015
Key finding3Observations 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 practicesProject Summary: Bering Sea Sub-Network II2015
Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW)Key finding11Coordinated transboundary management of wetlands is needed, but different national systems for wetland classification challenge such efforts. There are crucial differences between wetland classification systems. A uniform system for comparing and harmonizing existing Arctic wetland classifications would help to better plan wetland actions that span borders, traditions, and cultures. New developments should consider the value and legacy associated with existing national classification systems and Indigenous Knowledge and Local Knowledge of wetland areas. Development of new classification systems, maps and databases should ensure that legacy data remains useful, allow for conversion between systems and link to Indigenous Knowledge and use of wetlands.Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations2021
Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW)Recommendation14Support development of wetland classification systems and maps specific to different Arctic Indigenous Peoples based on the words and terms traditionally used to describe wetland types, properties, and functions. Such maps would support wetland stewardship and facilitate communication of their value locally and to policy makers.Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations2021
Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW)Key finding4Although the majority of Arctic wetlands remain relatively intact, changes are already occurring across the Arctic and wetland resilience is needed to buffer further damage. Wetlands are vulnerable to substantial indirect damage e.g. through global warming, changes to p recipitation patterns, altered hydrological flows, and environmental pollutants. Such damage also constitutes a broader threat to migratory animal populations. These diverse threats to wetland ecosystems emphasize the need for landscape scale management with a focus on conservation, protection and maintained resilience.Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations2021
Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW)Recommendation7Inventory and review existing national policies relating to wetlands with an eye on using a watershed approach and identifying conflicting or inconsistent goals, overlapping or unclear responsibility among governmental departments and entities, and gaps in communication. Identifying and addressing these issues would enable more effective governance of wetlands and balancing conservation and Indigenous and other user needs to achieve more effective stewardship.Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations2021
This website is using cookies to provide a good browsing experience

These include essential cookies that are necessary for the operation of the site, as well as others that are used only for anonymous statistical purposes, for comfort settings or to display personalized content. You can decide for yourself which categories you want to allow. Please note that based on your settings, not all functions of the website may be available.

This website is using cookies to provide a good browsing experience

These include essential cookies that are necessary for the operation of the site, as well as others that are used only for anonymous statistical purposes, for comfort settings or to display personalized content. You can decide for yourself which categories you want to allow. Please note that based on your settings, not all functions of the website may be available.

Your cookie preferences have been saved.