| Project |
Type |
# |
Outcome |
Report |
Year |
FEC |
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Recommendation | 17 | Encourage collaboration among Arctic States and
with organizations representing Arctic Indigenous
Peoples, to develop and refine approaches for
reporting on the benefits of wetlands restoration
to improvements in ecosystem services, in
particular: livelihoods, food security, biodiversity,
and climate change mitigation. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations | 2021 | |
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Recommendation | 18 | Inventory, harmonize and pool knowledge
about financial models and frameworks being
used to support restoration and conservation
and investigate potential pan-Arctic or transboundary
initiatives, with a particular focus on
engagement by local and Indigenous Peoples. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations | 2021 | |
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Recommendation | 19 | Support national and international evaluation
and coordination of wetland inventory, research
and monitoring programs as well as encouraging
and strengthening interdisciplinary and
transdisciplinary wetland research, Indigenous
Knowledge, and citizen science within Arctic
research networks. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations | 2021 | |
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Recommendation | 20 | Integrate wetland monitoring with CAFF CBMP
monitoring where possible, with the CBMP
Terrestrial, Coastal and Freshwater monitoring
plans. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations | 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 | | 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 | | 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 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 | | 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 | |
| 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 | | 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 | | 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 | |
| CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring | Key finding | | 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. | 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 | Key finding | | 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. | State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2016 | |
| CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring | Key finding | | 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. | State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2016 | |
| CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring | Key finding | | 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. | State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2016 | |
| CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring | Key finding | | 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. | State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2016 | |
| CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring | Key finding | | 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. | State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2016 | |
| CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring | Key finding | | 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. | State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2016 | |
Arctic Council Working Group