Recommendations
Project | Type | # | Outcome | Report | Year | FEC |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | ||
Inspiring Arctic Voices Through Youth | Increase opportunities for youth to engage meaningfully with the work of CAFF, including but not limited to:
| CAFF Arctic Youth Engagement Strategy: 2021-2026 | 2021 | |||
Inspiring Arctic Voices Through Youth | Increase numbers of youth engaged and actively participating and strive for diverse representation of youth from all Arctic nations, and beyond. | CAFF Arctic Youth Engagement Strategy: 2021-2026 | 2021 | |||
Inspiring Arctic Voices Through Youth | Facilitate long-term youth engagement opportunities and continuity or linkages between programs where it makes sense. | CAFF Arctic Youth Engagement Strategy: 2021-2026 | 2021 | |||
Inspiring Arctic Voices Through Youth | Foster collaborations such as exchanges, meetings, or training with important Indigenous constituencies through the permanent participants and their associated youth programs. | CAFF Arctic Youth Engagement Strategy: 2021-2026 | 2021 | |||
Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Arctic Mining | Advice | 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:
Mining industry could:
CAFF could:
| Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Arctic Mining Challenges and Proposed Solutions | 2019 | ||
Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Arctic Mining | Advice | 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:
CAFF could:
| Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Arctic Mining Challenges and Proposed Solutions | 2019 | ||
Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Arctic Mining | Advice | 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:
Mining industry could:
CAFF could:
| Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Arctic Mining Challenges and Proposed Solutions | 2019 | ||
Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Arctic Mining | Advice | 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:
Mining industry could:
CAFF could:
| Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Arctic Mining Challenges and Proposed Solutions | 2019 | ||
Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Arctic Mining | Advice | E. 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. | Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Arctic Mining Challenges and Proposed Solutions | 2019 | ||
Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Key finding | Research findings make it clear that restoration of damaged or compromised Arctic wetlands ecosystems offers substantial benefits across multiple areas of interest – water-centric ecosystem services, biodiversity, and increasingly over the past decade, climate mitigation. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands Phase 2 Report | 2021 | ||
Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Key finding | Comprehensive information on Arctic wetlands ecosystems is currently lacking but needed to adequately identify the location and type of wetlands with high levels of accuracy. Recent developments in the use of geospatial data and artificial intelligence provide the basis for substantial improvements in mapping of the extent and condition of Arctic wetlands, opening up valuable opportunities for pan-Arctic collaboration to improve wetlands inventories and keep them up-to-date. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands Phase 2 Report | 2021 | ||
Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Key finding | A considerable and broad experience with wetlands restoration and conservation dates back many decades. Expressed in an extensive body of publications by government agencies, practitioners’ organizations, trade organizations and consultancies, NGOs and scientists, a significant portion of this literature is Arctic-specific or Arctic relevant. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands Phase 2 Report | 2021 | ||
Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Key finding | The key obstacles to scaling up and expanding wetlands restoration and management efforts in the Arctic are not due to a lack of knowledge about wetlands ecosystems processes and functions, or steps that can be taken to improve their status. Policy design and difficulties with implementation appear often to be obstacles, however, and accurate, up-to-date mapping is needed to target policy initiatives. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands Phase 2 Report | 2021 | ||
Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Key finding | The ways in which public opinion influences the development and implementation of wetlands restoration and stewardship in the Arctic are important, but largely unresearched. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands Phase 2 Report | 2021 | ||
Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Key finding | There is relatively little comparative analysis of national-level policies that impact Arctic wetlands. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands Phase 2 Report | 2021 | ||
Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Key finding | While policy pertaining to Arctic wetlands is expansive, preliminary evidence points to three key challenges for effective policy: inconsistency and/or conflict between policies and goals addressed to different aspects of wetlands, the distribution of responsibility for policy implementation into agencies and departments with differing, sometimes contrasting missions, difficulties with good communications between responsible agencies and departments | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands Phase 2 Report | 2021 |