Recommendations

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.

Reporting Guidelines

• Provide appropriate opportunities for communication between those involved in carrying out the Strategy.
• Report annually to CAFF summarizing actions taken or planned under the Strategy.

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.

Establishment of mutually beneficial partnerships with communities impacted by mining operations.

In order to operate effectively, the mining industry needs buy-in from impacted communities (i.e., Social License to Operate). This is especially important across much of the Arctic where Indigenous Peoples and/or local communities often depend on ecosystem services for food security, cultural and spiritual connections and other purposes. Because of differences in cultures and/or values, limited shared understanding and lack of trust, it can be difficult to meaningfully engage with Indigenous and/or local communities, develop positive relationships and work towards common goals. Although there are good examples of where the mining industry operating in the Arctic is working collaboratively with government agencies, communities and others to minimize their impacts on biodiversity, public perception of the mining industry in impacted communities is not always favourable.

Mining industry could:

• Engage in community partnerships where community members have real input and decision-making authority (e.g., co-management of resources) (Box 4).
• Provide tangible economic incentives for community residents (e.g., employment at mine or related support jobs and community enhancement efforts)
• Use of agreements (e.g., “good neighbour”/Impact and Benefit Agreements) (Tolvanen 2018) to attain social license to operate prior to mining activities taking place (Boxes 2 and 4). Agreements could designate, for example, how to monitor impacts and address compensation for unavoidable effects (Tolvanen 2018).
• Ensure protection of traditional uses of the surrounding area, including linkages to food security and the biodiversity it supports as an important consideration during all phases of the project.

CAFF could:

• Work with the mining industry and others to continue to develop and share good practices for community engagement and partnerships specific to mining operations.
• Continue to explore opportunities for further dialogue among Permanent Participants, government agencies and the mining industry to help identify and ultimately achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.

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.

Agreement on data (e.g. cultural and ecological indicators of change) collection, management, and sharing of information. Baseline data and other information about the status and health of plants, animals and ecosystems in and around mine sites are important for the mining industry, communities, government agencies and CAFF. An important challenge is to ensure that data generated by the mining industry are accessible in a form that can inform broader understandings of Arctic biodiversity status and trends.

Government agencies could:

• Agree to participate in collaborative processes to identify and use common indicators that capture thecultural, social, and economic impacts of mining.
• Provide data to a common repository where data could be available to be shared.

Mining industry could:

• Agree to participate in collaborative processes to identify and use common indicators that capture the cultural, social, and economic impacts of mining.
• Provide data to a common repository where it could be available to be shared.

CAFF could:

• Provide a common repository to make relevant data about the status and health of plants, animals and ecosystems in the Arctic available for other uses (Box 8).
• Work in cooperation with others to help develop common methodologies for data collection, analysis, management and reporting by the mining industry.
• Collect and share good practices for data collection and sharing.
• Work to ensure data provided to the CAFF is compatible with agency-mandated data collection or other standards where appropriate.
• Help to develop indicators that capture the relevant cultural, social and economic impacts of mining.
• Encourage and provide assistance for national and industry adoption of CAFF monitoring plans and indicators as minimum standards for the Arctic.
• Help to develop relevant/common questions that could be asked of mining activities across the Arctic.
• Initiate a pilot project(s) that could incorporate elements of data collection and sharing.
• Create an expert group to address data quality and sharing, to consider how groups can work together and how TK might be equitably utilized with a focus on the engagement of TK holders.
• Optimize use of information by ensuring that CAFF data initiatives take into account ongoing mining industry data needs, activities and approaches so that they are clearly defined.

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).

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.