Recommendations

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.

Ecosystem-based Monitoring and Reporting: Monitoring and reporting should encompass all key taxonomic groups and their likely relationships, linking responses to main biotic and abiotic drivers of change.

• Better coordinate between disciplines and knowledge systems both within and among Arctic states and Indigenous organizations, including experts in abiotic drivers of change (the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program) and other monitoring initiatives.
• Promote long-term integrated studies across biomes and taxonomic groups for examining trophic dynamics and other key interactions.
• Improve integration of factors that underpin changes in phenology, demography, and abundance.

Monitor occurrence ofdiseases in seabird populations.

1.9.1. Monitor bird flu and other diseases and minimize their impacts.

Collaboration and cooperation:

4. Prepare "National Implementation Plans",

5. Enlist the participation of regional and local governments,

6. Obtain assistance from local residents and eider specialists

Establishment of a system that is acceptable, predictable and measurable for industry, stakeholders and authorities to manage ecological compensation6, taking into account the vulnerability of Arctic nature and the long timeframes and slow pace of renewal associated with cold climates. The process of ecological compensation for unavoidable impacts is based on many assumptions and is inherently uncertain. A primary challenge is predicting with certainty what biodiversity benefits will be gained through the compensatory action (e.g., protection or restoration of another piece of land) and then measuring actual benefits versus predictions. Compensation should be designed and implemented so that the benefits to nature in the compensation area are equal to or higher than the value lost in the affected area. Ideally, that benefit would occur prior to the development action, but practically, that is often not the case.

Government agencies could:

• Facilitate access to land (e.g., assist with agreements to access and ensure long-term protection of compensation sites).
• Develop legal and administrative provisions that allow companies to create compensation areas, ensuring their long-term conservation./li>
• Provide guidelines for monitoring of the effects of the compensation measures carried out and provide data infrastructure to publicly disclose the results to establish a growing knowledge base and create confidence in compensation and trust between the various stakeholders.
• Collaborate with CAFF on developing products described in the “CAFF could” subsection.

Mining industry could:

• Adhere to rigorous scientific standards when designing and implementing compensation measures and present expected results openly and realistically.
• Publicly disclose the design and implementation as well as the monitoring results of compensation actions carried out. This will establish a growing knowledge base and create confidence in compensation and trust between the various stakeholders.
• Collaborate with CAFF on developing products described in the “CAFF could” subsection.

CAFF could:

• Work with mining and other industries and sectors, government agencies and interested stakeholders to evaluate existing and emerging ecological compensation practices and programs and their usefulness in Arctic situations.
• Evaluate systems of measurement and monitoring (e.g., what values should be measured, how should they be measured and when, and how should achieved compensation values such as compensation credits be compared to impacts levels).
• Evaluate existing legislation and guidelines (e.g., what can be done to encourage good ecological compensation practices).
• Consider guidelines and good practices to assist in conserving and increasing biodiversity and ecosystem services through compensation measures.

Secure intertidal and associated habitat for AMBI priority species at key staging and wintering sites in the Central and East Asian Flyways.

2.1 (Russia): Ensure improvement of protection of the Russian Far East coastal shorebird stopover sites, by providing information to support local and national decision making on key habitat identification and conservation, including consideration of the new Nature Park in Chukotka and prioritising recovery of closed protected area at Moroshechnaya river mouth in Kamchatka.

2.2 (United States): Gather better information on the abundance, distribution and habitat use of Dunlin and Bar-tailed Godwits at spring and fall staging sites in Alaska.

2.3 (China): Enhance protection of Jiangsu Coast ecosystem, especially the Rudong and Dongtai areas for Spoon-billed Sandpiper and other Arctic-breeding shorebirds considering World Heritage Site Nomination requirements.

2.4 (China): Enhance protection of the Luannan Coast especially Nanpu, Tangshan for Red Knot and other Arctic-breeding shorebirds.

2.5 (China): Enhance protection at Yalu Jiang, Liaoning for Bar-tailed Godwit, Dunlin, Great Knot and other Arctic shorebirds.

2.6 (China): Increase knowledge of key staging and wintering Arctic-breeding shorebirds sites in southern China (Guangdong, Guangxi and Fujian provinces) and improve conservation status of these sites.

2.7 (Republic of Korea): Support efforts to reverse declining trends of AMBI priority species (SBS, Great Knot, Dunlin and other) and improve habitat conservation along the flyway through sharing knowledge and international cooperative projects.

2.8 (Republic of Korea): Promote the importance of conserving Korea.