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.

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.

Marine fishes

• Conduct pan-Arctic taxonomic analyses to clarify zoogeographic patterns that are important for detecting and understanding change.
• Establish and conduct a monitoring plan that is independent of fisheries-related programs to assess changes in fish abundance and distributions. Use information from non-commercial fish species caught in groundfish surveys to provide a first step in this direction.
• Use information from TK holders for monitoring marine fishes.
• Connect monitoring initiatives across scales.
• Conduct laboratory studies to examine the possible effects of abiotic and biotic changes (e.g. temperature, salinity, acidity and diseases) on fish species
• Ensure that data on fisheries (commercial as well as artisanal) are accurate and registered in catch databases (such as the Food Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations). Information from logbooks is also relevant as it can be used to estimate the bycatch and the effects of fisheries.

Establishment of a system that is acceptable, predictable and measurable for industry, stakeholders and authorities to manage ecological compensation6, taking into account the vulnerability of Arctic nature and the long timeframes and slow pace of renewal associated with cold climates. The process of ecological compensation for unavoidable impacts is based on many assumptions and is inherently uncertain. A primary challenge is predicting with certainty what biodiversity benefits will be gained through the compensatory action (e.g., protection or restoration of another piece of land) and then measuring actual benefits versus predictions. Compensation should be designed and implemented so that the benefits to nature in the compensation area are equal to or higher than the value lost in the affected area. Ideally, that benefit would occur prior to the development action, but practically, that is often not the case.

Government agencies could:

• Facilitate access to land (e.g., assist with agreements to access and ensure long-term protection of compensation sites).
• Develop legal and administrative provisions that allow companies to create compensation areas, ensuring their long-term conservation./li>
• Provide guidelines for monitoring of the effects of the compensation measures carried out and provide data infrastructure to publicly disclose the results to establish a growing knowledge base and create confidence in compensation and trust between the various stakeholders.
• Collaborate with CAFF on developing products described in the “CAFF could” subsection.

Mining industry could:

• Adhere to rigorous scientific standards when designing and implementing compensation measures and present expected results openly and realistically.
• Publicly disclose the design and implementation as well as the monitoring results of compensation actions carried out. This will establish a growing knowledge base and create confidence in compensation and trust between the various stakeholders.
• Collaborate with CAFF on developing products described in the “CAFF could” subsection.

CAFF could:

• Work with mining and other industries and sectors, government agencies and interested stakeholders to evaluate existing and emerging ecological compensation practices and programs and their usefulness in Arctic situations.
• Evaluate systems of measurement and monitoring (e.g., what values should be measured, how should they be measured and when, and how should achieved compensation values such as compensation credits be compared to impacts levels).
• Evaluate existing legislation and guidelines (e.g., what can be done to encourage good ecological compensation practices).
• Consider guidelines and good practices to assist in conserving and increasing biodiversity and ecosystem services through compensation measures.

Ecosystem-based Monitoring and Reporting: Monitoring and reporting should encompass all key taxonomic groups and their likely relationships, linking responses to main biotic and abiotic drivers of change.

• Better coordinate between disciplines and knowledge systems both within and among Arctic states and Indigenous organizations, including experts in abiotic drivers of change (the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program) and other monitoring initiatives.
• Promote long-term integrated studies across biomes and taxonomic groups for examining trophic dynamics and other key interactions.
• Improve integration of factors that underpin changes in phenology, demography, and abundance.

Mammals: The START reports on half of mammal FECs including large herbivores (caribou/reindeer, muskoxen), small herbivores (lemming), and medium-sized predators (Arctic fox). Data deficiencies prohibited reporting on medium-sized herbivores, and large and small predators.

• Develop synchronized protocols that include more attributes and reduce geographical knowledge gaps.
• Establish or expand international monitoring networks for medium-sized herbivores and large and small carnivores.
• Emphasize spatial structure and diversity in monitoring efforts due to the northward advance of southern competitors and vegetation changes.
• For large herbivore, small herbivore, and medium-sized predator FECs:
• Agree on priorities and harmonize data collection across sites and programs;
• Share and standardize protocols, in cooperation with relevant partners including Indigenous Peoples and organizations, to include abundance, demographics, spatial structure, health, phenology and, for harvested species, harvest rates; and
• Ensure monitoring programs employ existing methods with new harmonized methods to allow data comparisons.
• Monitor health as an attribute and develop standardized health assessment protocols due to the anticipated impact of climate change on distribution and prevalence of disease.
• Monitor abiotic factors and drivers of change, across greater spatial distributions to assess the cumulative impacts of climate and other anthropogenic change on populations across their ranges.
• Conduct research on the vulnerabilities of populations to climate change and human impacts, and on genetic diversity and spatial structure of FECs.
• Increase collaboration using interdisciplinary and multi-knowledge approaches to share site- and population-specific information. This can improve monitoring and lead to better models to assess the vulnerabilities and resilience of specific populations.
• Address challenges in assessing abundance of FECs across the Arctic, including:
• reliability of abundance estimates, such as lack of precision and accuracy;
• changing baselines, such as changes in species distribution, sampling methodology, and areas monitored; and
• differences in frequency and spatial extent of monitoring.

Marine mammals

• Implement existing international monitoring plans such as those for ringed seals and polar bear, with adaptive management principles to address the eleven FEC marine mammal species.
• Expand marine mammal monitoring efforts to include parameters on health, passive acoustics, habitat changes, and telemetry tracking studies.
• Obtain more knowledge about population sizes, densities, and distributions of marine mammal populations in order to understand the relationships between sea ice loss and climate change and to manage Arctic marine mammal populations in an appropriate manner.
• Involve indigenous and local peoples in the design and implementation of monitoring programs so that scientific knowledge and TLK holders are working collaboratively.
• Pursue a multidisciplinary and multi-knowledge approach and a high degree of collaboration across borders and between researchers, local communities and Arctic governments to better understand complex spatial-temporal shifts in drivers, ecological changes and animal health.

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.

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.

Methods : Increased attention to methodology facilitates more precise and comparable results, standardized data collection, and ability to link regional monitoring to circumpolar efforts.

• Standardize how data is collected, managed, and reported, including field and sampling protocols, data collection methods, terminology, database harmonization and management, tools for data archiving and specimen libraries, including identification and curation.
• Create a harmonized, accessible, and long-term taxonomic framework for Arctic monitoring.
• Complete baseline studies and structured inventories to improve circumpolar data across FECs.
• Promote multi-species studies and long-term time series data.

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.