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.

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.

Actively support international efforts addressing climate change, both reducing stressors and implementing adaptation measures, as an urgent matter. Of specific importance are efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to reduce emissions of black carbon, methane and tropospheric ozone precursors.

1.1. Addressing short-lived climate forcers.

a. Negotiate an Arctic Council Framework for Enhanced Action on Black Carbon and Methane.

b. Implement existing Arctic Council recommendations on short-lived climate forcers.

c. Hold a workshop on the reduction of black carbon emissions from residential woodcombustion in the Arctic that identifies voluntary actions to reduce emissions.

d. Diesel black carbon reduction in the Russian Arctic.

e. Prepare scientific assessments on black carbon and tropospheric ozone and on methane.

f. Follow-up projects on reducing black carbon, including: the transport and dieselgenerator sectors; the Arctic Case Studies Platform; and convening a conference on best practices on contaminant reduction in Indigenous communities.

1.2. Mainstream biodiversity into the climate change agenda, including adaptation and mitigation, through outreach.

Address environmental pollution issues

4.1 State of knowledge assessment for plastics in wildlife

4.2 Work with Arctic Council countries and Permanent Participants, PAME, and AMAP to begin to address knowledge gaps

Address other threats to Arctic migratory birds along Central and East Asian Flyways and improve international cooperation

5.1 (All countries): Analyse and assess development aid funding structures in high-income-countries and explore opportunities to help identify how AMBI can empower communities to support conservation of important priority species’ habitats, and develop solutions to address illegal hunting where pressures exist.

5.2. (All countries): Initiate work on evaluation of the effect of contaminants and/or pathogens on Arctic-breeding migratory birds as factors possibly decreasing their survival and reproduction potential and estimate bio-transition along the flyway to the Arctic.

5.3. (All countries): Promote cooperation between EAAFP’s Spoon-billed Sandpiper Task Force and AMBI in addressing Spoon-billed Sandpiper conservation activities identified in this workplan.

5.4. (All countries): Create an intervention tool box to ensure resilience of Arctic-breeding migratory birds along Central and East Asian Flyways with the involvement of Arctic Council Observer countries as recommended by the draft AMBI crosswalk analysis under the PSI funded project.

Advance and advocate ecosystem-based management efforts in the Arctic as a framework for cooperation, planning and development. This includes an approach to development that proceeds cautiously, with sound short and long-term environmental risk assessment and management, using the best available scientific and traditional ecological knowledge, following the best environmental practices, considering cumulative effects and adhering to international standards.

3.1. Provide information (including traditional knowledge) to Arctic Council initiatives that include, or are developing, an ecosystem approach including the principles for incorporation of biodiversity (Action 4.3).

3.2. Ongoing activities based on the revised Terms of Reference of the Joint Ecosystem Approach Expert Group (marine), including preparation of reports on Status of Setting Ecological Objectives, Work on Integrated Ecosystem Assessments of Arctic LMEs, Status of Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach to Management in the Arctic, a scoping document on the use of information on identified areas of heightened ecological and cultural significance for assessment and management purposes within LMEs.

3.3. Follow-up to the Ecosystem-Based Management Expert Group work on advancing ecosystem based management in the work of the Arctic Council.

3.4. Prepare an implementation plan for the Arctic Marine Strategic Plan 2015-2025.

3.5. Continue to promote collaboration among Arctic states as they implement the Polar Code (AMSA IIB).

Advance the protection of large areas of ecologically important marine, terrestrial and freshwater habitats, taking into account ecological resilience in a changing climate.

a. Build upon existing and on-going domestic and international processes to complete the identification of ecologically and biologically important marine areas and implement appropriate measures for their conservation.

b. Build upon existing networks of terrestrial protected areas, filling geographic gaps, including under represented areas, rare or unique habitats, particularly productive areas such as large river deltas, biodiversity hotspots, and areas with large aggregations of animals such as bird breeding colonies, seal whelping areas and caribou calving grounds.

5.1. Provide input and assist with international processes underway to complete the identification of ecologically and biologically important Arctic areas and promote measures for their conservation as appropriate.

5.2. Develop and follow-up on a framework for a Pan-Arctic Network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) that sets out a common vision for regional cooperation in MPA network development and management.

5.3. Analyse existing Arctic protected areas data to identify gaps and priorities, including identification of the most climate-change resilient Arctic areas, connectivity gaps, and missing buffer zones, making use of new information and new analytical tools.

c. Promote the active involvement of indigenous peoples in the management and sustainable use ofprotected areas.

5.4. Develop guidelines for including Arctic indigenous and community values into protected areas planning and management, including exploring how best to promote and facilitate multiple values.

5.5. Analyse the results of ICC’s review of global protected areas schemes that promoteindigenous management practices, strong co-management schemes and supportindigenous food security for consideration by CAFF.

Advance the protection of large areas of ecologically important marine, terrestrial and freshwater habitats, taking into account ecological resilience in a changing climate.

a. Build upon existing and on-going domestic and international processes to complete the identification of ecologically and biologically important marine areas and implement appropriate measures for their conservation.

b. Build upon existing networks of terrestrial protected areas, filling geographic gaps, including underrepresented areas, rare or unique habitats, particularly productive areas such as large river deltas, biodiversity hotspots, and areas with large aggregations of animals such as bird breeding colonies, seal whelping areas and caribou calving grounds.

c. Promote the active involvement of Indigenous peoples in the management and sustainable use ofprotected areas.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

CBMP remains relevant by providing high quality information about biodiversity trends to support decision making at global, national, regional, and local levels.

Objective 1.1: Through dialogue with Arctic States and Permanent Participants, identify and address priorities where CBMP information could support reporting and decision-making.

• Activity 1: CBMP Co-leads offer to arrange annual meetings with CAFF Board members, during each 2-year Arctic Council chairmanship period to gain direct input on priorities related to CBMP and to ensure progress is communicated and discussed nationally.
• Activity 2: Initiate a process to evaluate how CBMP is most relevant and can meet future needs for States, Permanent Participants, and other stakeholders.

Objective 1.2: Ensure that the CBMP Strategy is aligned with the new Action Plan for 2020-2030.

• Activity 1: Engage in the development of the new Action Plan for Biodiversity.
• Activity 2: Revise the CBMP Strategic Plan as needed to support priorities in the new Action Plan for 2020-2030.

Objective 1.3: Strengthen International Collaborations that enhance the use of CBMP products and data among others via the Arctic Biodiversity Data Service (ABDS), as well as support CAFF’s framework of agreements with international biodiversity-relevant conventions and organisations.

• Activity 1: Continue development of the Arctic Biodiversity Dashboard as a means for tracking and reporting target progress towards global biodiversity targets at national and regional scales.
• Activity 2: Take national, circumpolar, and global needs into account when planning follow-up to the SABR for example, by creating a case study to explore how CBMP can address other reporting requirements e.g., EU directives and the Global Biodiversity Framework, or Integrated Ecosystem Assessments.
• Activity 3: Deliver key findings and advice from the CBMP to CAFF’s partners.
• Activity 4: Ensure that data generated by CBMP are made available via the ABDS and are accessible to relevant international partners. Ensure data interoperability with these partners where possible, e.g., the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and the Ocean Biodiversity Information System (OBIS).
• Activity 5: Maintain strategic links with other Arctic Council groups, relevant organizations, and initiatives; and grow linkages as relevant.

Objective 1.4: Include where relevant Indigenous Knowledge and Local Knowledge in CBMP.

• Activity 1: Improve inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge within CBMP through a co-production of knowledge approach to inform better decision-making.
• Activity 2: Use the Arctic Biodiversity Congress in 2022/23 as an opportunity to consider how Indigenous Knowledge and Local Knowledge are used in CBMP and ways to enhance engagement, e.g., through associated meetings and sessions.
• Activity 3: Include Indigenous Knowledge and Local Knowledge where relevant in revisions of Arctic Biodiversity Monitoring Plans (e.g., when considering follow-up on the State of the Arctic Biodiversity Reports).

Objective 1.5: Promote awareness of the CBMP and its value towards improving decision-making, for example develop outreach material specific to each State and PP that presents nationally relevant key findings and activities of the CBMP.

• Activity 1: Ensure more effective, flexible, up-to-date, and interactive communication of CBMP products and outcomes, including e.g., learning materials, workshops and participatory approaches merging science and art.
• Activity 2: CAFF Secretariat will, together with CBMP Co-leads and CBMP Steering Groups, develop, test, and promote a toolkit for use by Arctic States and PPs for dissemination of products, which can be tailored based on the product, etc. If possible, the pilot-project will be made as a follow-up to the SAFBR and START.
• Activity 3: Where possible, support translation of key documents and findings from CBMP activities into languages other than English.
• Activity 4: Develop national one-page updates on activities related to each of the CBMP monitoring plans that include short, country-specific progress reports on SABR follow up, where relevant.
• Activity 5: Support development of peer-reviewed scientific articles based on CBMP efforts to ensure access in scientific literature of CBMP outcomes, e.g., through production of Journal Special Issues.
• Activity 6: Continue to produce headline indicators.
• Activity 7: Continue to produce annual newsletters to keep the scientific community informed of CBMP news, events, and initiatives.
• Activity 8: Facilitate increased meaningful engagement of Permanent Participants and the knowledge systems they represent.
• Activity 9 Facilitate increased participation of young scientists in CBMP activities, e.g., through internships.
• Activity 10: Continue improving networking and coordination for experts e.g., through annual meetings and supporting National and Expert Networks.

CHALLENGE Fragmented research, lack of people working across disciplines.

POTENTIAL ACTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom can provide information that may indicate connections between phenomena; it can assist the scientists and researchers in developing ecosystem approaches to monitoring, research, and management.

CHALLENGE Funding is inconsistent, often leaving out the involvement of Arctic Indigenous peoples.

POTENTIAL ACTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES Funding aimed at actively engaging Indigenous peoples and organizations in scientific activities and to improve the understanding and use Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom

CHALLENGE Institutional structures can marginalize other forms of knowledge.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION/AUTHOR RECOMMENDATION Work to remove institutional barriers and improve processes for the effective use of Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom and involvement of Arctic indigenous peoples.

CHALLENGE It can be difficult for researchers to understand Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom, how it is validated, how to best apply it, especially elder wisdom, and how to effectively partner.

POTENTIAL ACTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES Encourage equal partnerships and participation throughout biodiversity assessment projects that affect Indigenous peoples.

CHALLENGE Research is not year-round and data gaps are many in the remote Arctic.

POTENTIAL ACTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom can fill data gaps since observations are year-round and often draw on long time frames