Recommendations

Reduce the threat of pollutants to Arctic biodiversity.

a. Support and enhance international efforts and cooperation to identify, assess and reduce existing and emerging harmful contaminants.

11.1. Provide information necessary for assessment of trends in, among others, contaminant levels in ecosystems, biological effects, and improve predictive capacity (Trends and Effects Monitoring Programme).

11.2. Prepare an update assessment of Persistent Organic Pollutants and resulting biological effects.

11.3. Develop ecosystem models that project ecosystem response to climate change and contaminant-related factors (AACA-C).

b. Support the development of appropriate prevention and clean up measures and technologies that are responsive to oil spills in the Arctic, especially in ice-filled waters, such that they are ready for implementation in advance of major oil and gas developments.

11.4. Implement the Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution, Preparedness andResponse in the Arctic , including executing international exercises and maintaining and updating the Operational Guidelines.

11.5. Prepare a Guide to Oil Spill Response in Snow and Ice Conditions in the Arctic.

c. Encourage local and national action to implement best practices for local wastes, enhance efforts to clean-up legacy contaminated sites and include contaminant reduction and reclamation plans in development projects.

11.6. Demonstrate rapid assessment and clean-up of old sites, and environmentally sounddestruction of obsolete pesticides in northern Russia.

11.7. Organize an information conference on best practices on contaminant reduction in Indigenous communities.

CHALLENGE Research is not year-round and data gaps are many in the remote Arctic.

POTENTIAL ACTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom can fill data gaps since observations are year-round and often draw on long time frames

Suggestions for Wetlands Planning, Research, and Management.

1. Document Indigenous wetland resource use to allow management authorities to make decisions that respect and accommodate Indigenous resource use by ensuring that subsistence activities are not unnecessarily impeded by management actions. Information may be collected on subsistence species, types of subsistence practices, levels of reliance, and legal access.
2. Develop protected area participation plans to specify cooperative objectives, participating entities, and terms of evaluation so that management authorities can continue to engage Indigenous Peoples when experiencing turn-over.
3. Broaden wetland research priorities to further the goals of biodiversity conservation and Arctic food security by (1) conducting research with Indigenous knowledge holders on wetland ecosystems, (2) examining the intersection of wetland biodiversity and Arctic food security, and (3) prioritizing species of both conservation and subsistence interest.
4. Support community-based wetlands monitoring to help researchers and managers partner with Indigenous knowledge holders, identify ecosystem services, monitor for rapid environmental change, support year round sampling, support collection of current and historic observational information, and reinforce results from scientific studies.
5. Connect beyond wetlands so as to explore the interactions between and beyond inland and coastal wetlands and examine opportunities between CAFF projects such as RMAWI, the Salmon Peoples of the Arctic, the Seabird Working Group, and the Arctic Migratory Bird Initiative to further facilitate research on Indigenous relationships with Arctic biodiversity.
6. Foster engagement in wetlands management productively by (1) approaching Indigenous participation as an opportunity, (2) seeking to build partnerships with Indigenous governments, organizations, and communities, (3) engaging Indigenous leadership and communities at the beginning of the process, and (4) welcoming elders to participate while actively recruiting Indigenous youth to contribute to management and conservation decisions.

Monitoring Methods

• Harmonize sampling approaches among countries and select appropriate sampling methods andequipment to balance between maintaining consistency and comparability with historical data andalignment with common methods used across the Arctic.
• Use a regionalized approach based on ecoregions to guide the spatial distribution of sample stations and, ultimately, provide better assessments.
• Ensure spatial coverage of sampled ecoregions is sufficient to address the overarching monitoring questions of the CBMP across the Arctic and provide sufficient replication.
• Maintain time series at key locations, and fill gaps where monitoring data are sparse.
• Develop supplementary monitoring methods that provide better standardized estimates of biodiversity to maximize the likelihood of detecting new and/or invasive species.
• Make use of recent advances in emerging technologies, including environmental DNA (eDNA) methods and remote sensing approaches.
• Standardize data storage practices and provide access through a common data source like GBIF.

Sea ice biota

• Establish an annual monitoring programme from land fast sea ice at selected Arctic field stations in Canada (Resolute, Cambridge Bay), Greenland (Kobbefjord, Disko Bay, Zackenberg), Norway (Kongsfjorden, Billefjorden, Van Mijenfjorden), and the U.S. (Barrow).
• Establish a standardized monitoring protocol, including sample collection, preservation, microscopic and genetic analyses, taxonomic harmonization, and data sharing.
• Establish opportunistic monitoring from drifting sea ice during cruises of opportunity.
• Collect macrofauna samples in drifting sea ice via ship-based activities, scuba diving, electrical suction pumps, under-ice trawl nets, and remotely operated vehicles.

Local Knowledge and Citizen Science: Local Knowledge exists on a spectrum from long-term, place-based experiential knowledge held by local residents, including harvesters, to knowledge of more recent residents. As such, monitoring efforts to work with Local Knowledge must interact with a wide range of diverse knowledge holders.

• Dedicate more time to collaboration with Local Knowledge holders in monitoring design, analysis and interpretation.
• Encourage and support citizen science platforms that engage Arctic residents, as well as visitors. Platforms should reflect strong scientific goals, have transparent methods for evaluating data quality, build communities of observers, engage a strong volunteer base, and devote consistent efforts to communicating results.
• Identify and collaborate across existing platforms to increase awareness and participation in citizen science and consider new approaches to address knowledge gaps.
• Invest in digital infrastructure as a prerequisite for fully accessible platforms to inform biodiversity monitoring.

Increase opportunities for youth to engage meaningfully with the work of CAFF, including but not limited to:

• Education and training
• Cultural exchanges
• Professional growth development
• Involvement in projects, decision-making, policy, and diplomacy.
• Youth roles in professional convenings such as the Arctic Biodiversity Congress.
• Mentoring opportunities

Limit human disturbance to a level that does not decrease breeding success.

2.3.1. Identify significant risks of disturbance activities and sensitive locations.

2.3.2. Develop guidelines (codes-of-conduct) for potentially harmful organized activities near colonies e.g. tourism, research (all fields), harvest, air- and ship traffic as well as individual activities such as kayaking, fishing etc.

2.3.3. Introduce area restrictions for high risk activities and promote regulations in adequate formats.

2.3.4. Improve and standardize methods for Environmental Impact Assessments.

2.3.5. Increase the knowledge on impacts of marine installations on seabirds (noise, light, pollution etc.).

2.3.6. Execute spatial planning and environmental assessments taking seabird management priorities into account.

2.3.7. Create no-conflict artificial nesting sites in locations where kittiwakes have moved into human settlements.

Lack of alignment among government agencies in regard to environmental permitting, particularly environmental review requirements. Local, state/territory and national permitting requirements can be perceived by industry to be arduous, repetitive and/or misaligned causing unnecessary burdens that do not clearly translate into useful information or benefits for biodiversity conservation or sustainable development. For example, excessive data collection and reporting requirements without strategic coordination and partnering that could benefit government agencies, industry and the public. This can lead to separate government agencies asking for the same information in different ways or seeking extraneous information that does not help inform decision-making, resulting in unnecessary time and resources expended.

Government agencies could:

• Engage with industry as early as possible, outside of the permitting process, with the caveat that conflict of interest can be an issue during permitting so relevant laws and policies must be adhered to (Box 1).
• Align/organize internally and among different government entities who may need to be involved in particular projects and the permitting process. This alignment should happen from the outset of a project or permitting process to identify ways to streamline permit requirements without compromising the quality or integrity of the process or outputs.

Mining industry could:

• Engage with permitting agencies early regarding all aspects of the proposed project, including by offering ideas for how to streamline the permitting process while still delivering the necessary inputs.
• Ensure there is regular and meaningful communication with government agencies.

CAFF could:

• Share and gather information and report on good practices in environmental assessment/permitting and share broadly with Arctic States, industry and others.
• Continue to facilitate dialogue and information sharing among industry and government agencies regarding mainstreaming of biodiversity as a way to build common understanding and establish enduring relationships.

Establish a monitoring and evaluation framework for implementation of the actions for Arctic biodiversity.

4.1 Develop indicators to monitor implementation of the Actions for Arctic Biodiversity, assess and evaluate effectiveness of implementation, and report in relevant fora.

Mitigate effects of over-abundant white geese populations on shorebird habitat

2.1 Implement management actions resulting from study of white geese impacts in Canada (undertaken as part of AMBI Phase 1)