Recommendations

Project	Type	#	Outcome	Report	Year
	Key finding	4	Different environmental changes are occurring within different cultural contexts creating diverse impacts; as such adaptive actions need to be based on local realities and priorities	Project Summary: Bering Sea Sub-Network II	2015
	Key finding	5	Environmental changes are generally, but not always, resulting in negative effects to traditional harvests with impacts to food and cultural security	Project Summary: Bering Sea Sub-Network II	2015
	Key finding	6	Regulations that impact communities ought to be flexible to allow for adaptation to change and ought to include meaningful local voice through instruments such as co-management to support the food security and sovereignty of indigenous communities	Project Summary: Bering Sea Sub-Network II	2015
	Key finding	7	Community observations from local and traditional experts have much untapped potential as ‘early warning systems’	Project Summary: Bering Sea Sub-Network II	2015
CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring	Key finding		Temperature is the overriding and predominant driver for most FECs, but climate, geographical connectivity, geology, and smaller-scale environmental parameters such as water chemistry are all key drivers of Arctic freshwater biodiversity.	State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring	2016
CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring	Key finding		The vast expanse of the Arctic region in some countries (e.g., Canada, Russia) and the high monetary cost and logistical constraints associated with sampling in some regions (e.g., northern Canada and Russia, Greenland, Svalbard, Faroe Islands) limits the possibility of routine monitoring. This leads to sparse sample coverage in space and time, particularly where funds are not secure.	State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring	2016
CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring	Key finding		All countries have data sets that allow for identification of baseline levels for most FECs, but only a few countries (such as Finland and Sweden) have an extensive spatial coverage and very few countries have long time series. Data collection was not exhaustive, and there are likely additional data that exist for each country that may contribute to the assessment of freshwater biodiversity; however, significant gaps will remain even with a more extensive search of existing data sources.	State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring	2016
CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring	Key finding		Arctic freshwater ecosystems are highly threatened by climate change and human development which can alter the distribution and abundance of species and affect biodiversity and the ecosystem services on which many Arctic peoples depend.	State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring	2016
CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring	Key finding		Available long-term monitoring records and research data indicate that freshwater biodiversity has changed over the last 200 years, with shifts in species composition being less dramatic in areas where temperatures have been more stable.	State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring	2016
CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring	Key finding		In countries where routine government monitoring is limited or does not occur, data must come from other sources (e.g., academic research), where unsecure funding often leads to single-event sampling, meaning that change over time cannot be examined.	State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring	2016
CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring	Key finding		Instruments such as the European Water Framework Directive promote routine monitoring of lake and river FECs. But where a country, ecoregion, or FEC is not covered by such instruments, monitoring is irregular, has poor spatial coverage, or is absent.	State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring	2016
CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring	Key finding		Patterns of biodiversity vary across the Arctic, but ecoregions that have historically warmer temperatures and connections to the mainland generally have higher biodiversity than those with cold temperatures (high latitude or altitude) or on remote islands.	State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring	2016
CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring	Advice		Monitoring Methods Harmonize sampling approaches among countries and select appropriate sampling methods andequipment to balance between maintaining consistency and comparability with historical data andalignment with common methods used across the Arctic. Use a regionalized approach based on ecoregions to guide the spatial distribution of sample stations and, ultimately, provide better assessments. Ensure spatial coverage of sampled ecoregions is sufficient to address the overarching monitoring questions of the CBMP across the Arctic and provide sufficient replication. Maintain time series at key locations, and fill gaps where monitoring data are sparse. Develop supplementary monitoring methods that provide better standardized estimates of biodiversity to maximize the likelihood of detecting new and/or invasive species. Make use of recent advances in emerging technologies, including environmental DNA (eDNA) methods and remote sensing approaches. Standardize data storage practices and provide access through a common data source like GBIF.	State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring	2016
CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring	Advice		Traditional Knowledge (TK) Engage with Indigenous communities to work towards identifying and integrating their TK into efforts to assess Arctic freshwater biodiversity, including change over time. Incorporate TK as an integral part of circumpolar monitoring and observational networks.	State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring	2016
CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring	Advice		Citizen Science Engage local communities in monitoring activities through citizen science and incorporate local knowledge as an integral part of future circumpolar monitoring and observational networks. Interact with local communities to enhance outreach to the public (youth in particular) and develop common observational tools. Provide material for training and educational purposes for local residents at all age levels.	State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring	2016
CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring	Advice		Monitoring Design and Assessment Establish a circumpolar monitoring network based on a hub-and-spoke model in remote areas. Increase focus on the response of biotic communities to environmental changes by designing monitoring to address impact hypotheses developed in the CBMP-Freshwater Plan. Ensure that the CBMP Freshwater group continues to serve as the focal point for the development and implementation of Arctic, freshwater biodiversity monitoring. Provide resources to maintain and build the CBMP freshwater database for future assessments in order to maximize the benefits of this database. Efforts should be made to document and preserve data from short-term research projects, research expeditions, industrial, university and government programs and to make these data accessible to the public. Status assessments of Arctic lakes and rivers must explore the close association of biodiversity with spatial patterns of physical and chemical quality of aquatic habitats that can drive biological systems. CBMP-Freshwater database allows the identification of predominant sampling approaches across the Arctic and should be used to inform the development of harmonized monitoring approaches. Where valuable long-term data series exist, these should be given high priority in monitoring programs, to continue to provide data for the detection of long-term trends and changes in biodiversity.	State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring	2016
Arctic Invasive Alien Species (ARIAS)		1	Raise awareness of the unique opportunity that the Arctic Council and its partners have to inspire the urgent and effective action necessary to protect the Arctic from invasive alien species. Priority Action 1.1 Promote and, as needed, develop targeted communications and outreach initiatives to raise awareness of the urgent need and unique opportunity to protect the Arctic region from the adverse impacts of invasive alien species; Priority Action 1.2 Encourage Arctic States and non-Arctic States (including Arctic Council Observer States), working collaboratively with Permanent Participants, to implement effective programs for preventing the introduction and controlling the spread of invasive alien species through domestic actions and/or international agreements and relevant guidelines, such as the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water and Sediments, and the IMO Guidelines for the control and management of ships’ biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species (Biofouling Guidelines); Priority Action 1.3 Promote and coordinate the Arctic Council’s work on invasive alien species with relevant scientific, technical, and policy-making bodies and instruments; and Priority Action 1.4 Encourage the integration of the outputs of the Arctic Council’s work on invasive alien species into international efforts and legal and institutional frameworks, especially planning and coordination mechanisms, including at the national and sub-national levels, where appropriate. Implementation Action 1.1 Employ innovative approaches for awareness raising, including the use of multi-media platforms and collaboration with relevant industries (such as tourism, energy, fisheries, mining, and shipping) and local communities. Use the outputs of priority Actions 2.1 and 2.2 to identify key messages, prioritize target audiences, and determine effective communications approaches. Implementation Action 1.2: In particular, consider the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water and Sediments, and the IMO Guidelines for the control and management of ships’ biofouling to minimize the transfer ofinvasive aquatic species (Biofouling Guidelines); Implementation Action 1.3: Integrate invasive alien species issues, as appropriate, into all Arctic Council working groups and other subsidiary bodies. Use priority Actions 2.1 and 2.2 to establish linkages and priorities. Implementation Action 1.4: Examples of international efforts and legal and institutional frameworks where the outputs of the Arctic Council’s work on invasive alien species could be integrated include: Convention on Biological Diversity; International Maritime Organization; World Organization for Animal Health; Ramsar Convention; Convention on Migratory Species; Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses; and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.	Arctic Invasive Alien Species Strategy and Action Plan	2017
Arctic Invasive Alien Species (ARIAS)		2	Improve the capacity of the Arctic Council and its partners to make well-informed decisions on the needs, priorities, and options for preventing, eradicating, and controlling invasive alien species in the Arctic by improving the knowledge base. Priority Action 2.1 Identify and assess: a) the invasive alien species and pathways that pose the greatest risk of biological invasion into, within, and out of Arctic ecosystems; b) the Arctic ecosystems, livelihoods, and cultural resources most vulnerable to biological invasion; and c) the current and projected patterns and trends of introduction and impacts of invasive alien species in the Arctic. Priority Action 2.2 Produce a series of topic-specific assessments of invasive alien species issues in the Arctic considering scientific, TLK, technical, environmental, economic, socio-cultural, legal, and institutional perspectives. Priority Action 2.3 Improve the collection of information on the occurrence and impacts of Arctic invasive alien species, taking advantage of new technologies for early detection, and integrate this information into circumpolar, regional, and community-based observing networks, monitoring programs, (in particular the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Programme), and associated information systems such as (the Arctic Biodiversity Data Service). Priority Action 2.4 Facilitate full, timely, and open sharing of data and other information relevant to Arctic invasive alien speciesprevention and management through the Arctic Biodiversity Data Service and the CAFF Web portal. Implementation Action 2.1: Use tools such as risk analysis, horizon scanning, and site-based prioritization in identifying and assessing pathways that pose the greatest risk of biological invasions. Implementation Action 2.2: Priorities for topic-specific assessments of invasive alien species include assessments of: the current status, projected trends, and impacts of alien species in the Arctic region; pathways of biological invasion; legal and institutional frameworks for addressing invasive alien species in the Arctic (including for border controls and importation); regional prevention and EDRR capacities; and the relationship between invasive alien species and indigenous peoples/local communities in the Arctic. These assessments should utilize both TLK and science, as appropriate, including the outputs of priority Action 2.1. Implementation Action 2.3: The portal for information relevant to Arctic invasive alien species would include example scientific and technical information, best practices and tools, institutional and legal frameworks, and education/outreach materials. Utilize the Arctic Biodiversity Data Service (ABDS) and the CAFF website.	Arctic Invasive Alien Species Strategy and Action Plan	2017
Arctic Invasive Alien Species (ARIAS)		3	Protect Arctic ecosystems and human well-being by instituting prevention and early detection/rapid response programs for invasive alien species as a matter of priority. Priority Action 3.1 Collaborate with industries, such as, tourism, energy, fisheries, mining, and shipping, and other stakeholders, as relevant, to develop and implement a wide range of biosecurity measures for points of entry and along priority pathways to reduce the initial transfer of species. Priority Action 3.2 Encourage the establishment of new, or strengthen existing, surveillance, monitoring, reporting, and rapid response programs necessary to ensure EDRR at points of entry. Consideration of TLK and community-based monitoring programs should be encouraged. Priority Action 3.3 Encourage the development and sharing of tools to enable EDRR for invasive alien species that may pose a substantial threat to the Arctic. Priority Action 3.4 Actively facilitate the eradication of invasive alien species from island ecosystems throughout the Arctic as well as the recovery of native island species and habitats that have been impacted by those invasive alien species. Priority Action 3.5 Develop guidance for the use and transfer of native and alien species to and throughout the Arctic environment, and identify opportunities to foster ecological resistance and resilience to environmental change. Priority Action 3.6 Collect information on best practices and assess whether there is a need for International Maritime Organization to develop Arctic specific guidance for minimizing the threat posed by ballast water and biofouling as vectors for the transfer of aquatic invasive alien species from shipping. Priority Action 3.7 Foster development of the innovative research, tools, and technologies needed to advance invasive alien species prevention and EDRR capacities in the Arctic region, including through support from funding programs. Implementation Action 3.1: When collaborating with industries to develop and implement biosecurity measures, these measures may be voluntary (e.g. social marketing initiatives, local eradication programs, and codes of conduct) and/or legally binding (for example, national-level implementation of international standards). A Hazards Analysis Critical Control Points approach may be of particular value. Take the outputs of priority Actions 2.1 and 2.2 into consideration. Implementation Action 3.2: In order to facilitate early detection and rapid response, place emphasis on airports, sea ports, and their surrounding areas, take community based monitoring programs into consideration. Implementation Action 3.3: In order to facilitate early detection and rapid response, include decision support frameworks, cooperative agreements, flexible funding mechanisms, and technical tools such as watch lists, identification applications, and guides.	Arctic Invasive Alien Species Strategy and Action Plan	2017
Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA)	Action		CHALLENGE There is mistrust between Arctic Indigenous peoples and scientists, and scientists often lack adequate preparation for working cross-culturally. POTENTIAL ACTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES Increase opportunities for cross-cultural learning, understanding, and trust building.	Arctic Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom: Changes in the North American Arctic	2017