Arctic Council Working Group Recommendations
| Project | Type | # | Outcome | Report | Year | FEC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Recommendation | 6 | Develop a uniform inventory of degraded Arctic wetlands with potential for restoration. Many candidate sites for restoration are known, but the exact extent and location of other damaged or degraded wetland systems remains poorly known. Encourage Arctic states to identify data gaps where wetland extent and condition are unknown and can be prioritized for inventory. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations | 2021 | |
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Key finding | 12 | There is a need for new pan-Arctic wetland maps based on a uniform approach, thus ensuring comparable accuracy and data quality across the full Arctic domain. Such mapping efforts should ideally train and validate algorithms using existing national wetland inventories, relevant institutional data, inclusive of Indigenous Knowledge and/or input from Arctic communities. Maps are needed that show the spatial extent of discrete wetland complexes at high resolution and should separate mineral wetlands from organic wetlands (peatlands). On the shorter term, new maps of wetland extent will be bound to one specific classification system; it is not possible to address the diversity of existing systems. Over the longer term, boundaries between maps and monitoring dissolve. Spatial wetland data can be stored in spatial databases that allow flexible adaptation to different classification systems. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations | 2021 | |
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Recommendation | 15 | Support the ongoing work with the Arctic SDI to develop a pan-Arctic wetland map making use of modern remote sensing and data processing methods but supported by existing national and local data and inventories. Work with individual nations on a plan for incorporating this product into their national systems. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations | 2021 | |
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Key finding | 5 | In some regions, Arctic wetlands are already degraded by human land use and an ever growing human footprint poses threats to wetland functioning. This damage occurs in both Arctic and Boreal zones and arises from a number of threats such as expansion of forestry, agriculture, hydropower, extraction of peat, fossil fuels or minerals, threats to coastal wetlands from increased Arctic shipping and construction of new infrastructure. Wetlands are also vulnerable to human disturbances to permafrost or adjacent upland habitats and changes to the water balance or hydrological connectivity that can transform wetland function. Drained wetlands release carbon to the atmosphere instead of storing it, and the negative effect lasts for decades to centuries. Other losses of function include loss of biodiversity, changes to habitats and reduced capacity to buffer floods or droughts. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations | 2021 | |
| 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) | 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 | ||
| 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 | ||
| 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 | Advice | Monitoring Design and Assessment
| 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 |