Arctic Council Working Group Recommendations
| Project | Type | # | Outcome | Report | Year | FEC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Recommendation | 8 | Ensure that national conservation or development plans that impact wetlands meaningfully engage Arctic communities, Indigenous Peoples, and stakeholders to consider the broader landscape impacts of changes to wetlands, including developments that may affect wetlands within river basins. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations | 2021 | |
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Recommendation | 1 | Encourage Arctic cooperation to amplify efforts to reduce fossil fuel emissions both inside and outside the Arctic. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations | 2021 | |
| 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) | Key finding | 7 | The extensive scientific, Indigenous, institutional, and local knowledge on Arctic wetlands could inform broad and rapid actions to protect, conserve and restore wetlands if supported by policy. Noting the stewardship and wealth of knowledge of Arctic communities, and existing science, the key obstacles to scaling-up research or case studies are not due to lack of knowledge. Multiple case studies and research projects have demonstrated that protection, conservation, or restoration of degraded Arctic wetlands offers substantial benefits for water-centric ecosystem services, biodiversity, and climate change mitigation. In addition to Indigenous, institutional, and local knowledge of wetlands, there is a considerable and broad scientific knowledge base on wetlands protection, conservation, restoration, and management which dates back many decades. All of this knowledge is crucial for adaptive and holistic management of wetlands. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations | 2021 | |
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Recommendation | 10 | Develop and share between Arctic states outreach and communication strategies and tools to explain the values of wetlands, the threats to wetlands and provide examples of wetland restoration success stories. Material for the full Arctic region could be complemented with materials specific to knowledge from different geographic regions, communities, and Indigenous Peoples. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations | 2021 | |
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Recommendation | 3 | Initiate collaboration between Arctic states, Indigenous Peoples organisations and relevant stakeholders to harmonize how climate and biodiversity benefits reached through wetland management and restoration efforts are reported to international conventions on climate mitigation and biodiversity. | 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) | Key finding | 9 | Policy inconsistencies and practical difficulties with implementation are obstacles in wetland management or restoration efforts. Goal conflicts or gaps in policies undermine successful implementation of good wetland management or restoration practices. Key challenges include: (i) inconsistencies or conflicts between different national-level policies or between national and sub-national policies, (ii) the organization of responsibility between multiple agencies with differing mandates, and (iii) challenges in ensuring effective coordination and communication between agencies and the public. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations | 2021 | |
| 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 | 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 | ||
| 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 | ||
| 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 | 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 | Advice | Monitoring Methods
| State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2016 |