Recommendations

Project	Type	#	Outcome	Report	Year
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)	Key finding	10	Substantial and rapid benefits for ecosystem services such as climate stability, biodiversity conservation and hydrological systems could be gained through restoration of drained or degraded Arctic peatlands. Degraded wetlands exist in all Arctic states and are particularly common in Boreal regions where extensive drainage for forestry, mining or peat extraction has occurred, or in Tundra where vulnerable permafrost wetlands have been degraded by unsustainable human land-use. Re-wetting of artificially drained or restoration of damaged wetlands could lead to substantial increases in natural carbon sink capacities. To achieve long-term success, restoration efforts should be planned together with conservation of undamaged systems as part of a landscape scale approach to sustainable management.	Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations	2021
Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW)	Key finding	11	Coordinated transboundary management of wetlands is needed, but different national systems for wetland classification challenge such efforts. There are crucial differences between wetland classification systems. A uniform system for comparing and harmonizing existing Arctic wetland classifications would help to better plan wetland actions that span borders, traditions, and cultures. New developments should consider the value and legacy associated with existing national classification systems and Indigenous Knowledge and Local Knowledge of wetland areas. Development of new classification systems, maps and databases should ensure that legacy data remains useful, allow for conversion between systems and link to Indigenous Knowledge and use of wetlands.	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)	Key finding	13	There are numerous models for providing financial support to conservation or restoration of wetlands. Each of the Arctic states has developed ways to provide financial support for wetlands conservation and restoration efforts. While some of the particular strengths and benefits of each set of policies, program or model are country context-specific, many lessons are generalizable and therefore useful for expanding collaboration across the Arctic states. A systematic review of these national-level restoration financing initiatives would provide valuable insights into development of effective tools.	Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations	2021
Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW)	Key finding	1.2.1	Arctic Indigenous Peoples and Wetland Protected Areas: Formal Indigenous representation in managementprocesses occurs in over one-fourth of the surveyed sites.	Arctic Wetlands and Indigenous Peoples Study: An assessment of Indigenous engagement in wetland protected areas	2021
Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW)	Key finding	1.2.2	Arctic Indigenous Wetlands Use: Indigenous Peoples have significant ties to wetland protected areas in the Arctic and acknowledging and fostering these relationships in partnership with management authorities can strengthen outcomes.	Arctic Wetlands and Indigenous Peoples Study: An assessment of Indigenous engagement in wetland protected areas	2021
Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW)	Key finding	1.2.3	Arctic Indigenous Peoples and Wetlands Management: Most management and conservation plans, as well as other official information on wetland protected areas, fail to document Indigenous resource use in a systematic or functional way and as a result, do not provide a complete picture of resource use and management within the areas.	Arctic Wetlands and Indigenous Peoples Study: An assessment of Indigenous engagement in wetland protected areas	2021
Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW)	Key finding	1.2.4	Arctic Indigenous Participation in Wetlands Conservation: Engaging Indigenous leadership and communities in participatory processes can strengthen conservation strategies and contribute to forwarding conservation objectives and goals.	Arctic Wetlands and Indigenous Peoples Study: An assessment of Indigenous engagement in wetland protected areas	2021
Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW)	Key finding	1.2.5	Suggestions for Wetlands Planning, Research, and Management. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.	Arctic Wetlands and Indigenous Peoples Study: An assessment of Indigenous engagement in wetland protected areas	2021
Arctic TEEB	Key finding	1.1	Arctic ecosystem services: Featuring ecosystem services in policy development and implementation is needed to help define and balance societal needs and priorities in the rapidly changing Arctic policy landscape.	The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for the Arctic: A Scoping Study Executive Summary	2015
Arctic TEEB	Key finding	2.1	Arctic ecosystem services: Systematic conclusions on Arctic ecosystem services and their status and trends cannot yet be made based on the data gathered in the scoping study.	The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for the Arctic: A Scoping Study Executive Summary	2015
Arctic TEEB	Key finding	2.2	Arctic ecosystem services: Ecosystem services work should take a holistic approach and operate at the level of ecosystem service bundles	The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for the Arctic: A Scoping Study Executive Summary	2015
Arctic TEEB	Key finding	2.3	Arctic ecosystem services: Although syntheses, guidelines and analyses of policy options at the pan-Arctic scale can raise the profile of ecosystem services and provide direction, work on ecosystem services is most effective when it builds on analysis at smaller scales.	The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for the Arctic: A Scoping Study Executive Summary	2015
Arctic TEEB	Key finding	2.4	Arctic ecosystem services: Arctic ecosystem services provide benefits to a range of stakeholders at various scales, both directly and indirectly – and the stakeholders who benefit from services and those who affect the availability of the same services are not always the same.	The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for the Arctic: A Scoping Study Executive Summary	2015
Arctic TEEB	Key finding	2.5	Arctic ecosystem services: Reduction of greenhouse gases remains a top priority for conserving ecosystem services.	The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for the Arctic: A Scoping Study Executive Summary	2015
Arctic TEEB	Key finding	2.6	Arctic ecosystem services: Arctic environmental conditions are associated with potential for rapid changes in ecosystem services and high uncertainty – providing a strong incentive to include ecosystem services in policy.	The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for the Arctic: A Scoping Study Executive Summary	2015
Arctic TEEB	Key finding	3.1	Governance: Key Finding 3.1. Incorporation of Arctic ecosystem services into policies and governance practices is akey method for the integration of environmental, economic, and social policies.	The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for the Arctic: A Scoping Study Executive Summary	2015
Arctic TEEB	Key finding	3.2	Governance: Key Finding 3.2. Recognizing Arctic ecosystem services and capturing them in decision-making processes can strengthen the resilience of Arctic social-ecological systems to rapid changes in the region.	The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for the Arctic: A Scoping Study Executive Summary	2015
Arctic TEEB	Key finding	3.3	Governance: Key Finding 3.3. The TEEB approach can make the diverse values that people hold for nature visible by assessing and communicating the role of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the economy and to society.	The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for the Arctic: A Scoping Study Executive Summary	2015