Recommendations

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.

Indigenous Knowledge: The CBMP Terrestrial Plan aims to utilize both Indigenous Knowledge and science. Despite efforts, Indigenous Knowledge has not been systematically included in the START. To obtain a full assessment of the status and trends, better understand relationships and changes, and fill key knowledge gaps, there must be improved engagement with Indigenous Knowledge holders, Indigenous governments, and Indigenous monitoring programs not only in development of assessments but in collaboratively building more comprehensive monitoring programs and initiatives.

• Improve understanding of the research and monitoring priorities of PPs and Indigenous governments, organizations, and Peoples.
• Develop long-term partnerships between scientists and Indigenous Knowledge holders to co-develop mutually relevant research and monitoring priorities and programs with equitable participation in all stages of monitoring, beginning with research design, and continuing through implementation, analysis, interpretation, and communication of results.
• Seek guidance on how institutional resources can align with and support existing Indigenous-led monitoring efforts, the development of new Indigenous-led monitoring programs, and Indigenous models of land stewardship that include monitoring components.
• Consider and articulate the ways in which programs and findings can support Indigenous land stewardship.
• Support Indigenous-led monitoring capacity through investments in northern-based research, learning and digital infrastructure and by supporting education, employment, and leadership opportunities for Indigenous Peoples.
• Ensure monitoring agreements detail mechanisms for the protection and responsible use of data and Indigenous Knowledge, including basic principles of data sovereignty.
• Increase engagement of Indigenous Peoples within CBMP.
• Work with PPs to develop strategies to more effectively recognize and reflect Indigenous Knowledge in the CBMP.

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.

Knowledge Gaps : Currently, there is some monitoring for all FECs, but it varies in coverage, duration, frequency and access to institutional support and resources.

• Expand and coordinate long-term in situ time series across regions and across FECs.
• Implement ecosystem-based approaches that better monitor and link biological attributes to environmental drivers.
• Increase partnerships with Indigenous Knowledge holders and organizations.
• Increase and support contributions from Local Knowledge holders and citizen science.
• Work with Arctic Council Observer states to collect and compile knowledge on Arctic biodiversity.
• Improve data collection on rare species and species of concern.

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.

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.

• Implement long-term sampling programs at strategic sites with rigorous standardized trapping protocols.
• Collect baseline data, including structured inventories, using standardized protocols for FECs and key attributes.
• Work with Indigenous Knowledge holders, Local Knowledge holders, and/or citizen science to identify regionally important species to monitor, and key locations for long-term monitoring activities.
• Focus monitoring efforts on taxa that: (a) are well-studied with existing data; (b) respond to, or are vulnerable to, change; and/or (c) have possible range shifts. • Monitor dominant habitats at a variety of sites at both small and large geographic scales.
• Monitor relevant microhabitat environmental parameters, in addition to climatological variables, and connect to biological trends at relevant scale.
• Focus on critical FEC attributes, including ecosystem processes such as pollination, decomposition, and herbivory.
• Continue specimen sorting, identification and reporting and construct a complete trait database.
• Complete molecular sequence libraries, increase international collaboration to collate, analyze, archive, and make data accessible.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.