Recommendations

Project	Type	#	Outcome	Report	Year
Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA)	Key finding	4	Increase financial and other support for indigenous peoples and organizations to actively engage in research and science initiatives and to effectively address their concerns.	Arctic Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom: Changes in the North American Arctic	2017
Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA)	Key finding	5	Encourage equal partnership and participation at the outset and throughout research projects that affect Arctic Indigenous peoples.	Arctic Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom: Changes in the North American Arctic	2017
Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA)	Key finding	6	Work to remove institutional barriers and improve processes for the inclusion of TK&W and involvement of Arctic indigenous peoples.	Arctic Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom: Changes in the North American Arctic	2017
Arctic Species Trend Index (ASTI)	Key finding	1	Broad-scale, multi-species trends for Arctic migratory birds are currently unavailable, although they are necessary for designing and targeting effective conservation strategies to address reported declines in these species.	Arctic Species Trend Index: Migratory Birds Index	2015
Arctic Species Trend Index (ASTI)	Key finding	2	We use a robust method to describe trends in 129 selected Arctic migratory bird species, using abundance change estimates from inside and outside the Arctic. The selected species have increased in abundance by 40% on average between 1970 and 2011.	Arctic Species Trend Index: Migratory Birds Index	2015
Arctic Species Trend Index (ASTI)	Key finding	3	This overall trend masks differences between taxa and in flyway regions, with declines in East Asia and Central Asia (-40% and -70%), and recoveries in Africa-Eurasia and the Americas (50% and 15%).	Arctic Species Trend Index: Migratory Birds Index	2015
Arctic Species Trend Index (ASTI)	Key finding	4	Shorebirds are in decline overall (-10%), with negative trends in the Americas and East Asia (-10% and -70%). Populations of this group are faring better in Africa-Eurasia, where abundance is 40% higher compared to 1970.	Arctic Species Trend Index: Migratory Birds Index	2015
Arctic Species Trend Index (ASTI)	Key finding	5	Waterfowl have increased across all flyway regions mainly due to geese, but there are differences in the underlying trends for geese/swans and for ducks. Geese and swans combined more than quadrupled in abundance between 1970 and 2011, showing positive change across regions (Figure 20), although coverage is too patchy for reliable conclusions. The increase in geese/swans is largely driven by geese, which make up the majority of this data set. Swans have been in decline since 1994. Duck abundance is 10% lower overall (Figure 19), but there are regional differences, with a halving in the Americas and a 70% increase in Africa-Eurasia.	Arctic Species Trend Index: Migratory Birds Index	2015
Arctic Species Trend Index (ASTI)	Key finding	6	In the Wadden Sea, Arctic bird abundance is 75% higher in 2010 than in 1980, but the trend has been following a negative trajectory since 2002.	Arctic Species Trend Index: Migratory Birds Index	2015
Arctic Species Trend Index (ASTI)	Key finding	7	A number of species in our data set showed declines across flyway regions, e.g., Red knot Calidris canutus. Others have increased more recently, e.g., Greater white-fronted goose Anser albifrons.	Arctic Species Trend Index: Migratory Birds Index	2015
Arctic Species Trend Index (ASTI)	Key finding	8	Due to data limitations, this report is a first step towards developing detailed knowledge of macroecological patterns in Arctic breeding migratory birds. Trends may differ from expert knowledge until data gaps are filled. In addition, we did not examine if abundance change is attributable to factors other than the loss of individuals, e.g., shifts in seasonal ranges.	Arctic Species Trend Index: Migratory Birds Index	2015
Arctic Species Trend Index (ASTI)	Key finding	9	Due to time and resource limitations some data on abundance change was not included, accounting for some of the data gaps. Additional gaps are due to lack of access to data and the ongoing need for more data collection. It is hoped that this report will trigger increased interest and wider participation from all countries and organisations along the migration routes as international cooperation is vital to ensure the conservation of Arctic migratory birds.	Arctic Species Trend Index: Migratory Birds Index	2015
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