Arctic Council Working Group Recommendations
| Project | Type | # | Outcome | Report | Year | FEC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Recommendation | 12 | Strengthen wetland resilience through supporting meaningful engagement of Indigenous Peoples and/or Local Communities in wetlands inventories, and management plans. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations | 2021 | |
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Key finding | 2 | The substantial ecosystem services provided by Arctic wetlands should be recognized at the international level. Presently, there is limited coordination on how ecosystem services from Arctic wetland management are reported to international frameworks or conventions on climate change mitigation and biodiversity. Common guidelines on how ecosystem services gained from wetland conservation and restoration actions are reported internationally could increase their global recognition. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations | 2021 | |
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Recommendation | 5 | Use short-lists of known northern wetland sites in need of protection, conservation or restoration to support national-level action plans. Such actions should be targeted to the most promising sites, including those that may be located outside the Arctic. Wetland protection, conservation and restoration would be more effective if done in direct collaboration with Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities and/or stakeholders and applied at the landscape level. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations | 2021 | |
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Key finding | 11 | Coordinated 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 Recommendations | 2021 | |
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Recommendation | 14 | Support 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 Recommendations | 2021 | |
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Key finding | 4 | Although 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 Recommendations | 2021 | |
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Recommendation | 7 | Inventory 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 Recommendations | 2021 | |
| 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 | While policy pertaining to Arctic wetlands is expansive, preliminary evidence points to three key challenges for effective policy: inconsistency and/or conflict between policies and goals addressed to different aspects of wetlands, the distribution of responsibility for policy implementation into agencies and departments with differing, sometimes contrasting missions, difficulties with good communications between responsible agencies and departments | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands Phase 2 Report | 2021 | ||
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Key finding | Comprehensive information on Arctic wetlands ecosystems is currently lacking but needed to adequately identify the location and type of wetlands with high levels of accuracy. Recent developments in the use of geospatial data and artificial intelligence provide the basis for substantial improvements in mapping of the extent and condition of Arctic wetlands, opening up valuable opportunities for pan-Arctic collaboration to improve wetlands inventories and keep them up-to-date. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands Phase 2 Report | 2021 | ||
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Key finding | The key obstacles to scaling up and expanding wetlands restoration and management efforts in the Arctic are not due to a lack of knowledge about wetlands ecosystems processes and functions, or steps that can be taken to improve their status. Policy design and difficulties with implementation appear often to be obstacles, however, and accurate, up-to-date mapping is needed to target policy initiatives. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands Phase 2 Report | 2021 | ||
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Key finding | There is relatively little comparative analysis of national-level policies that impact Arctic wetlands. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands Phase 2 Report | 2021 | ||
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Key finding | Participation by indigenous and local communities in decision making, restoration and stewardship of Arctic wetlands is widely considered to be a crucial ingredient for success. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands Phase 2 Report | 2021 | ||
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Key finding | Research findings make it clear that restoration of damaged or compromised Arctic wetlands ecosystems offers substantial benefits across multiple areas of interest – water-centric ecosystem services, biodiversity, and increasingly over the past decade, climate mitigation. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands Phase 2 Report | 2021 | ||
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Key finding | A considerable and broad experience with wetlands restoration and conservation dates back many decades. Expressed in an extensive body of publications by government agencies, practitioners’ organizations, trade organizations and consultancies, NGOs and scientists, a significant portion of this literature is Arctic-specific or Arctic relevant. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands Phase 2 Report | 2021 | ||
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Key finding | The ways in which public opinion influences the development and implementation of wetlands restoration and stewardship in the Arctic are important, but largely unresearched. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands Phase 2 Report | 2021 | ||
| CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring | Advice | Monitoring Methods
| State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2016 | ||
| CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring | Key finding | 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. | State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2016 | ||
| CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring | Advice | Citizen Science
| State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2016 |