Recommendations

A lack of trust and coordination:

(1) within and among permitting agencies;

(2) among agencies and the mining industry; and

(3) across agencies, mining industry, and the public, especially in relation to Indigenous communities. Lack of coordination, meaningful communication (e.g., listening), transparency and follow-through among parties often results in enduring mistrust and missed opportunities for collaboration that could benefit biodiversity. Coordination and agreement on good sustainability practices could result in an improved public image and greatertrust of the mining industry.

Advice to address Key Finding A:

Government agencies could:

• Engage with industry and communities early and, as possible, outside of the permitting process, with the caveat that conflicts of interest can be an issue during the permitting process.
• Ensure in the pre-project phase, alignment within and between government entities involved.
• Ensure effective communication of relevant information, helping to minimize misinformation that is sometimes conveyed about proposed mining projects.
• Support creation and maintenance of an entity to help facilitate sustainable mining practices.

Mining industry could:

• Engage with communities and permitting agencies early and often, recognizing that industry may not have all of the answers early in the process.
• Continue to engage regularly with agencies and communities after permits are granted.
• Recognize the importance of participation and knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and communities, especially Elders.
• Create agreements with communities to ensure participation and interests are considered that can lead to mutually beneficial outcomes.
• Engage local people in research design, data gathering and analysis (Challenge E).
• Provide support for and participate in national and international sustainable mining initiatives, groups or networks (e.g., the International Council on Mining and Metals, Convention on Biological Diversity’s Mainstreaming Biodiversity in the Energy and Mining, Infrastructure, and Manufacturing and Processing, and Health Sectors).

CAFF could:

• Continue to facilitate workshops and other opportunities for dialogue, partnerships, and other actions to help build common understanding and trust among parties.
• Continue to increase awareness about and help facilitate opportunities for cross-sector engagement. For example, continue to invite industry to biodiversity meetings and conferences; and collaborate on sessions, presentations and events at mining industry meetings and conferences.
• Work with Permanent Participants and industry to facilitate design of good practices for engaging communities and government agencies throughout all aspects of mining operations.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Benthos

• Develop a time- and cost-effective, long-term and standardized monitoring of megabenthic communities in all Arctic regions using regular national groundfish assessment surveys. Expanding monitoring on micro-, meio- and macrobenthic groups is encouraged.
• Gather information from research programs in regions without regular groundfish-shellfish trawl surveys. These are usually short-term and do not guarantee spatial consistency in sampling, but provide valuable information on benthic biodiversity and community patterns.
• Generate information on benthos from little-known regions, such as the Arctic Basin and Arctic Archipelago, on cryptic or difficult taxonomic groups, and on biological “hotspots”.
• Systematic studies of macrobenthos (grab investigations) and megabenthos (trawl bycatch of regular fishery surveys including both annual studies, as in the Atlantic Arctic, and periodic studies as in the Northern Bering and Chukchi Seas) are the most suitable and practical approach to long-term monitoring.
• Standardize methodology, including taxonomic identification, across regions to assist in regional comparisons.
• Recognize and support the use of TLK as an invaluable resource for understanding of changes in Arctic benthic communities.

Vegetation : Monitoring of vegetation is inconsistent, with large gaps in geographical cover. Of the four FECs for monitoring vegetation, the START was able to report on all plants, species of concern, and invasive alien species. Food species were not included as data were too disparate.

• Investigate causality in vegetation change in the context of ecosystem components, including habitat specific drivers, particularly climate, and emphasize ecosystem-based approaches.
• Continue and expand in situ time series.
• Utilize plot-based vegetation surveys to provide insight into vegetation changes and improve the ability to predict environmental change impacts on tundra ecosystems.
• Better consider the expected impacts of biotic and abiotic drivers on vegetation change when developing monitoring programs and conceptual models.
• Use regional and global remote-sensing products with higher spatial and temporal resolution.
• Increase monitoring efforts for all FECs, and target efforts to address data gaps, such as for food species.

Setting priorities

Guidelines

• Identify which actions are already being addressed, which actions deserve highest priority for new work, and which of these high priority actions require international collaboration.
• Give high priority to actions likely to reveal the causes of Ivory Gull declines or to reverse such declines.
• Among new work to be initiated under the Strategy, give high priority to helping establish international, national, or regional Ivory Gull monitoring programs.

Difficulty establishing clear processes for engaging Indigenous Peoples and utilizing TK. A need exists to work together with Indigenous communities in a meaningful way that respects and utilizes TK along with science to inform decisions regarding biodiversity (e.g., key research questions informing biotic and abiotic monitoring decisions). There are existing examples of design, operations, and reclamation plans of some mines located in the Arctic region that have been influenced by TK and through consultations with local communities, but there is not a consistent or systematic way for gathering and utilizing TK and science so outcomes are useful, credible and benefit communities and the mining industry to the greatest extent possible.

Government agencies could:

• Ensure that TK is considered as part of data collection needs and other relevant permitting requirements for Arctic mines.
• Facilitate and engage early in co-production processes where TK is valued and used.

Mining industry could:

• Engage early in co-production processes where TK is valued and used.
• Share examples of where industry has engaged with TK holders in a meaningful way and collaborate in developing good practices that can work effectively for all involved.

CAFF could:

• Engage early in co-production processes where TK is valued and used.
• Help facilitate meaningful utilization and understanding of TK at multiple levels (e.g. local, national and international) through guidance from the Permanent Participants.
• Continue work with Permanent Participants to develop good practices on how to implement coproduction of knowledge approaches to planning and decision-making (e.g., publish and share with the mining industry the approach to the co-production of knowledge outlined in the Arctic Coastal Biodiversity Monitoring Plan).

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).

Seabirds

• Develop methods for assessing diet to increase our understanding of changes in the ecosystem and how they affect seabird populations.
• When selecting sites for new monitoring, consider proximity to hotspots for marine activities, access to the sea, and inclusion of plankton monitoring.
• Expand colony-based monitoring and strive to include a more complete array of parameters, in particular, diet and measures of survival.
• Consider a higher frequency of monitoring as current levels make it difficult to identify mechanisms or causes of change in populations.
• Conduct targeted surveys and individual tracking studies of seabird interactions at sea to improve our understanding of seabird interactions at sea, where seabirds spend most of their time.
• Continue to conduct at sea surveys on an opportunistic basis.

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.