Recommendations
| Project | Type | # | Outcome | Report | Year | FEC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Advice | Develop targets to stimulate actions and against which progress can be measured. | Arctic Biodiversity Congress 2014, Co-Chairs Report | 2014 | |||
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Advice | 1 | Documenting Indigenous Resource Use: Improving documentation of Indigenous resource use may 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 | Arctic Wetlands and Indigenous Peoples Study: An assessment of Indigenous engagement in wetland protected areas | 2021 | |
| Arctic TEEB | Advice | 2 | 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. | The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for the Arctic: A Scoping Study Executive Summary | 2015 | |
| CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring | Advice | Traditional Knowledge (TK)
| State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2016 | ||
| CBMP Marine Biodiversity Monitoring | Advice | Plankton• Follow standardized protocols for monitoring plankton, including sample collection and preservation, microscopic and genetic analyses with taxonomic harmonization.• Ensure that full data sharing occurs between scientists, and is deposited in publicly-accessible nationaldata centers. Continue to consolidate older data.• Train highly qualified personnel to perform plankton sampling and species-level analyses, including theuse of molecular techniques.• Establish long-term funded annual monitoring programmes of plankton from selected Arctic field stations or Arctic campaigns/cruises in Canada, the U.S. and Russia, which together with the ongoing monitoring in Greenland, Iceland and Norway will secure a pan-Arctic coverage. • Develop species indexes and if possible, identify indicator taxa for monitoring. | State of the Arctic Marine Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2017 | ||
| Arctic Migratory Birds Initiative (AMBI) | Advice | 7 | Monitoring species of high conservation concern – Leach’s storm-petrels should be monitored where possible for potential effects of plastic pollution. | Plastic Pollution in Seabirds: Developing a program to monitor plastic pollution in seabirds in the pan-Arctic region | 2021 | |
| CBMP Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring | Advice | Arthropods : Arthropods are highly diverse and under-studied. They serve as important connections between trophic levels and several are important indicators of changing environments. The START reports on six FECs: pollinators, decomposers, herbivores, prey for vertebrates, blood-feeding insects, and predators and parasitoids. Only a few localized trends are provided due to high variability and lack of monitoring.
| State of the Arctic Terrestrial Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2021 | ||
| CBird: Seabird Expert Group | Advice | Collaboration Guidelines • Each country should prepare a national implementation plan for the strategy giving special attention to international collaboration. • Ensure the regional and local governments participate in developing a National Implementation Plan • Enlist the participation of local residents and technical specialists at an early stage in deciding how to implement the Strategy. | International Ivory Gull Conservation Strategy and Action Plan | 2008 | ||
| Advice | Expand both the marine and terrestrial protected areas network and monitor its effectiveness at safeguarding biodiversity. | Arctic Biodiversity Congress 2014, Co-Chairs Report | 2014 | |||
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Advice | 3 | 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. | Arctic Wetlands and Indigenous Peoples Study: An assessment of Indigenous engagement in wetland protected areas | 2021 | |
| CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring | Advice | Monitoring Design and Assessment
| State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2016 | ||
| CBMP Marine Biodiversity Monitoring | Advice | Marine fishes
| State of the Arctic Marine Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2017 | ||
| Inspiring Arctic Voices Through Youth | Goal | Youth voices and perspectives are empowered to advance the goals of CAFF in the conservation of Arctic biodiversity, international collaboration, and raising public awareness of Arctic issues. | CAFF Arctic Youth Engagement Strategy: 2021-2026 | 2021 | ||
| Inspiring Arctic Voices Through Youth | Goal | Opportunities for youth engagement and increasing levels of leadership continue to expand. | CAFF Arctic Youth Engagement Strategy: 2021-2026 | 2021 | ||
| Inspiring Arctic Voices Through Youth | Goal | Youth are engaged in the work of CAFF and in Arctic biodiversity conservation to their full potential. | CAFF Arctic Youth Engagement Strategy: 2021-2026 | 2021 | ||
| Inspiring Arctic Voices Through Youth | Goal | Arctic youth are given access to diverse learning and leadership opportunities in which their perspectives are valued and respected, and their skills and effectiveness are expanded. | CAFF Arctic Youth Engagement Strategy: 2021-2026 | 2021 | ||
| Inspiring Arctic Voices Through Youth | Goal | Arctic youth are engaged in conservation, raising public awareness, and promoting Arctic biodiversity in their own home countries and in collaboration with other Arctic nations. | CAFF Arctic Youth Engagement Strategy: 2021-2026 | 2021 | ||
| Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA) | Key finding | 3 | Climate change is emerging as the most far reaching and significant stressor on Arctic biodiversity. However, contaminants, habitat fragmentation, industrial development, and unsustainable harvest levels continue to have impacts. Complex interactions between climate change and other factors have the potential to magnify impacts on biodiversity. | Arctic Biodiversity Trends 2010 – Selected indicators of change | 2010 | |
| Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA) | Key finding | 4 | Disturbance and habitat degradation can diminish Arctic biodiversity and the opportunities for Arctic residents and visitors to enjoy the benefits of ecosystem services. | Arctic Biodiversity Assessment: Report for Policy Makers | 2013 | |
| Key finding | Biodiversity policy in the Arctic has to reflect the needs of people living in the Arctic, many of whom are indigenous. | Arctic Biodiversity Congress 2014, Co-Chairs Report | 2014 |
Arctic Council Working Group