Recommendations

Broadening Research Priorities: Pursuing critical knowledge gaps may bridge both Indigenous and conservation priorities.

a) Conduct Research on Indigenous Knowledge of Wetland Ecosystems,

b) Examine the Intersection of Wetland Biodiversity and Arctic Food Security,

c) Prioritize Species of Conservation and Subsistence Interest.

Supporting Indigenous Community-Based Monitoring: Supporting community-based monitoring as an approach to active participation in biodiversity research and management of protected area is beneficial for conservation efforts.

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.

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.

Traditional Knowledge (TK)

• Engage with Indigenous communities to work towards identifying and integrating their TK into efforts to assess Arctic freshwater biodiversity, including change over time.
• Incorporate TK as an integral part of circumpolar monitoring and observational networks.

Citizen Science

• Engage local communities in monitoring activities through citizen science and incorporate local knowledge as an integral part of future circumpolar monitoring and observational networks.
• Interact with local communities to enhance outreach to the public (youth in particular) and develop common observational tools.
• Provide material for training and educational purposes for local residents at all age levels.

Monitoring Design and Assessment

• Establish a circumpolar monitoring network based on a hub-and-spoke model in remote areas.
• Increase focus on the response of biotic communities to environmental changes by designing monitoring to address impact hypotheses developed in the CBMP-Freshwater Plan.
• Ensure that the CBMP Freshwater group continues to serve as the focal point for the development and implementation of Arctic, freshwater biodiversity monitoring.
• Provide resources to maintain and build the CBMP freshwater database for future assessments in order to maximize the benefits of this database.
• Efforts should be made to document and preserve data from short-term research projects, research expeditions, industrial, university and government programs and to make these data accessible to the public.
• Status assessments of Arctic lakes and rivers must explore the close association of biodiversity with spatial patterns of physical and chemical quality of aquatic habitats that can drive biological systems.
• CBMP-Freshwater database allows the identification of predominant sampling approaches across the Arctic and should be used to inform the development of harmonized monitoring approaches.
• Where valuable long-term data series exist, these should be given high priority in monitoring programs, to continue to provide data for the detection of long-term trends and changes in biodiversity.

Coordination: Better coordination allows for increased value for investment in monitoring programs, better opportunity to compare results, and more ability to draw meaningful conclusions from data:

• Strategically locate Arctic research stations and monitoring vessels, and use all collected specimens, to allow the collection and analysis of as many CBMP FECs as possible.
• Ensure research stations operate all year to better study FECs year round.
• Combine national monitoring with collaborative approaches that allow for sufficient integration and standardization to conduct syntheses across the circumpolar region.
• Standardize how data are collected, managed and made available. This is a key component in ensuring circumpolar Arctic comparability and should be an important consideration in the implementation of monitoring plans.
• Encourage states to increase the implementation of existing internationally coordinated monitoring plans.
• Connect monitoring initiatives and report across scales so that results are meaningful for local, sub-national, national, regional and global decision-makers.
• Continue to increase coordination between CBMP and other regional and global monitoring initiatives e.g., the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEOBON), International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service (IPBES).

Traditional and Local Knowledge (TLK): Utilizing Traditional and Local Knowledge and involvement of TK holders allows for increased understanding of relationships and changes underway in Arctic ecosystems, current and historical trends, and serves to build valuable partnerships on the ground in Arctic communities.

• Use Traditional and Local Knowledge within the design and implementation of monitoring plans. The Traditional and Local Knowledge of people living along and off the Arctic Ocean is an invaluable resource for understanding changes in Arctic marine ecosystems and its inclusion should be supported by national governments.
• Increase engagement and partnerships with local residents and easy to access technology in monitoring programs. Indigenous communities are important ‘first responders’ to catastrophic events. More importantly, their knowledge systems provide a wealth of knowledge that should be involved in the analysis of collected data for increased understanding of current trends and filling historical gaps.
• There is a need for TLK on a range of FECs and to engage networks of TLK holders and Indigenous organisations.
• Use both TLK and scientific information on the analysis of harvest levels and status when evaluating overall population health and managing hunts.

Knowledge gaps: Filling gaps in knowledge helps us better understand key elements and functions of the ecosystem that can help explain change and understand the system:

• Encourage the monitoring of relevant physical parameters alongside some FECs that are particularly sensitive to their effects, including sea ice biota and plankton.
• Expand monitoring programs to include important taxonomic groups and key ecosystem functions. These gaps are likely due to logistical challenges or lack of expertise in specific fields.
• Expand monitoring programs to include those utilizing both TK and science, involvement of Indigenous organizations and build capacity to provide a co-production of knowledge platform.

Community-based monitoring networks and community relationship building:

• Increase the span of networks in the CBMP to include Community-based monitoring networks.
• Communicate information on changes and the results of monitoring between scientists and the public in both directions. This is crucial to the development of effective management strategies and human activities.