Recommendations

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.

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.

Government agencies could:

• Ensure that TK is considered as part of data collection needs and other relevant permitting requirements for Arctic mines.
• Facilitate and engage early in co-production processes where TK is valued and used.

Mining industry could:

• Engage early in co-production processes where TK is valued and used.
• Share examples of where industry has engaged with TK holders in a meaningful way and collaborate in developing good practices that can work effectively for all involved.

CAFF could:

• Engage early in co-production processes where TK is valued and used.
• Help facilitate meaningful utilization and understanding of TK at multiple levels (e.g. local, national and international) through guidance from the Permanent Participants.
• Continue work with Permanent Participants to develop good practices on how to implement coproduction of knowledge approaches to planning and decision-making (e.g., publish and share with the mining industry the approach to the co-production of knowledge outlined in the Arctic Coastal Biodiversity Monitoring Plan).