Recommendations

Birds: Most bird species are difficult to monitor and attribute change due to the large spatial extent of their breeding habitats and multiple threats throughout flyways. Current monitoring is uneven and inadequate. The START reports on herbivores, insectivores, carnivores, and omnivores.

• Sustaining long-term monitoring projects is the best opportunity to track changes in FECs and drivers of those changes.
• Expand monitoring of species and populations with unknown or uncertain trends such as waders in the Central Asian Flyway and East Asian–Australasian Flyway (under the Arctic Migratory Birds Initiative).
• Improve monitoring coverage of the high Arctic and other areas with poor spatial coverage (i.e., Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Greenland, and eastern Russia), including staging and wintering areas within and outside the Arctic.
• Adopt new and emerging monitoring technologies, including various tagging devices (for the study of distribution and migration, and identification of critical stopover and wintering sites), bioacoustics (for abundance and diversity sampling), and satellite data (for colony monitoring).
• Enhance coordination within and among Arctic and non-Arctic states to improve data collection on migratory species and critical site identification across species’ ranges.
• Harmonize long-term studies to improve the reliability of status and trends assessments, ability to report on FEC attributes (e.g., phenology), and possible effects of environmental change, including risks of phenological mismatch.
• Use research stations as platforms to increase data coordination, sampling, and analyses, of FECs and drivers, and ensure standardized bird monitoring is part of station mandates where lacking.
• Strengthen linkages with AMAP to improve contaminant monitoring at different trophic levels and facilitate cooperation on isotope and genetic studies.

Coordination: Improved coordination of monitoring is necessary to implement a comprehensive, integrated, ecosystem-based monitoring program envisioned by the CBMP. Coordination is necessary to help achieve additional advice for monitoring presented in the START.

• Design statistically rigorous sampling methodologies and protocols.
• Encourage states to implement the CBMP Terrestrial Plan to secure long-term funding for existing monitoring.
• CAFF, including the CBMP, should take a coordinating role to follow-up on advice from this report. Specific tasks are found in the CBMP Strategic Plan 2021-2025.

The Arctic Species Trend Index (ASTI): 2011 update.

1.1 Average abundance of Arctic vertebrates increased from 1970 until 1990 then remained fairly stable through 2007, as measured by the ASTI 2011.

1.2 When species abundance is grouped by broad ecozones, a different picture emerges, with low Arctic species abundance increasing in the first two decades much more than high Arctic and sub Arctic species abundance. The low Arctic index has stabilized since the mid-1990s while the high Arctic index appears to be recovering in recent years and the sub Arctic index has been declining since a peak in the mid-1980s.

1.3 The trend for Arctic marine species is similar to that of the overall ASTI, while the trend for terrestrial species shows a quite different pattern: a steady decline after the early 1990s to a level below the 1970 baseline by 2005.

Tracking trends through space and time.

3.1 Spatial analysis of the full ASTI data set (1951 to 2010) started with an evaluation of vertebrate population trend data from around the Arctic. The maps produced from this analysis provide information useful for identifying gaps and setting priorities for biodiversity monitoring programs.

3.2 Mapping trends in vertebrate populations provides information on patterns of biodiversity change over space and time, especially when examined at regional scales.

3.3 Understanding of the causes of Arctic vertebrate population change can be improved by expanding the spatial analysis of ASTI data to include spatial data on variables that represent driversof biodiversity change.

Tracking trends in Arctic marine vertebrates.

2.1 The trend for marine fish is very similar to the trend for all marine species, increasing from 1970 to about 1990 and then levelling off. This indicates that the ASTI is strongly influenced by fish trends. Overall, marine mammals also increased, while marine birds showed less change.

2.2 The three ocean regions, Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic, differed significantly in average population trends with an overall decline in abundance in the Atlantic, a small average increase in the Arctic and a dramatic increase in the Pacific. These differences seem to be largely driven by variation in fish population abundance—there were no significant regional differences for birds or mammals.

2.3 Pelagic fish abundance appears to cycle on a time frame of about 10 years. These cycles showeda strong association with a large-scale climate oscillation.

2.4 The ASTI data set contains population trends for nine sea ice associated species. There were mixed trends among the 36 populations with just over half showing an overall decline.

2.5 The Bering Sea and Aleutian Island (BSAI) region of the Pacific Ocean is well studied, providing an opportunity to examine trends in more detail. Since 1970, BSAI marine fish and mammals showed overall increases, while marine birds declined. However, since the late 1980s, marine mammal abundance has declined while marine fish abundance has largely stabilized.

A number of additional options, some of which address fundamental issues and challenges to the application of the TEEB approach in the Arctic context. 1. Guidance, methods, tools and information to support policy

1.1. Raise awareness of the roles and value of ecosystem services among Arctic communities with the aim of empowering communities, grass roots organizations and local administrations for better discussions/negotiations with sub-national/federal governments and corporations on policy related to Arctic development.

1.2. Through collaborative processes, raise awareness of the ways that Arctic Indigenous Peoples value nature. For example, facilitate discussions between Indigenous Peoples and economists, aimed at informing ways to accommodate indigenous values in economic policies and practices.

1.3. Make the role of natural capital and ecosystem services explicit in relation to adaptation and adaptive capacity. This is best done through bringing results from this scoping study into, and working in collaboration with, Arctic Council initiatives, for example, bya) considering adaptation options for policy makers that include the non-monetary and economic aspects of biodiversity, through the Adaptation Actions for a ChangingArctic (AACA); and b) creating resilience indicators that would encompass ecosystem processes (building on the human development indicators) through the Arctic Resilience Report.

1.4. Make visible (in economies) the wider value of Arctic biodiversity conservation and sustainable biodiversity use schemes, and identify financing opportunities for such schemes that are based on recognizing ecosystem services.

1.5. Apply economic analysis with the goal of a) accommodating the multiple value systems underpinning mixed and livelihood economies in the Arctic, such as reindeer herding and community economies based, or partly based, on subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering; b) capturing Arctic social and ecological resilience in economic information and valuation; and c) facilitating investment in the insurance value of Arctic natural capital.

2. Knowledge base.

2.1. Complete and maintain the Arctic Ecosystem Services Inventory. A draft ecosystem services inventory was prepared as part of the scoping study (see Ecosystem services section above). The inventory is a start on a structured and synthesized literature review of Arctic ecosystem services, the ecosystems they are derived from, their associated benefits, status, trends, threats, uncertainty, knowledge gaps, and what work has been done on valuation. To be a useful source of synthesized information, and a basis for further information tools, the inventory requires further work. The inventory could a) be a ready resource for information and overviews of available information on ecosystem services and what is known about them in relation to beneficiaries, threats, trends and valuation, both to raise awareness and to provide an entry point for policy-related assessment work; b) serve as a metadata center and service through CAFF’s Arctic Biodiversity Data Service; and c) provide input to research and monitoring plans and agendas, and potentially also to industry monitoring and research planning

2.2. Take steps to capture or present new research results in ways that make them useful to ecosystem-services-based policy development. This could be awareness raising through research meetings of the need to make this connection, increased expert networking, such as through a community of practice on ecosystem services, and/or through changes to funding mechanisms for research.

2.3. Clearly identify knowledge gaps (both at the broad underpinning and methodological scale, and for specific geographic scales) and develop mechanisms to bring them into discussion of research agendas.

2.4. Facilitate and coordinate monitoring of the social and economic importance of ecosystems (through the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program). 3. Synthesis, analysis and information products

3.1. Analyze linkages over scale, time and actors that affect when, where and to whom the costs and benefits of industrial development in the Arctic on biodiversity and ecosystems occur, considering also current and future use and spatial subsidies, to demonstrate the value and help frame the distributive impacts of decisions.

3.2. Prepare ecosystem services inventories with regular status reporting. Include interdisciplinary valuation of ecosystem services at the level of LMEs and national scales, but also initiate a regular review and assessment process at the pan-Arctic scale. Review and assessment would be in collaboration with existing Arctic Council processes, including the framework for assessment of biodiversity status and trends established through the CBMP.

3.3. Develop indicators to help describe the status of Arctic biodiversity and ecosystems. Include indicators that convey the proximity to potential thresholds or tipping points and attach confidence metrics to all indicators reflecting the level of knowledge and understanding. Development of such indicators needs to be done through co-production of knowledge based on a collaboration of Traditional Knowledge holders and scientists. (Indicator development is underway through the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program.)

3.4. Develop resilience indicators that make explicit the role of natural capital and ecosystem services in building of adaptive capacity. These would have similar use for policy making but be more encompassing of ecosystem processes than human development indicators.

3.5. Develop and test tools to evaluate Arctic ecosystem services in local and sub-national EBM, marine spatial planning, land-use planning and management, and in co-management schemes where they can directly contribute to co-producing knowledge and adaptive governance.