Recommendations

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.

Policy inconsistencies and practical difficulties with implementation are obstacles in wetland management or restoration efforts. Goal conflicts or gaps in policies undermine successful implementation of good wetland management or restoration practices.

Key challenges include:

(i) inconsistencies or conflicts between different national-level policies or between national and sub-national policies,

(ii) the organization of responsibility between multiple agencies with differing mandates, and

(iii) challenges in ensuring effective coordination and communication between agencies and the public.

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.

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.

Reduce the threat of pollutants to Arctic biodiversity.

a. Support and enhance international efforts and cooperation to identify, assess and reduce existing and emerging harmful contaminants.

b. Support the development of appropriate prevention and clean up measures and technologies that are responsive to oil spills in the Arctic, especially in ice-filled waters, such that they are ready for implementation in advance of major oil and gas developments.

c. Encourage local and national action to implement best practices for local wastes, enhance efforts to clean-up legacy contaminated sites and include contaminant reduction and reclamation plans in development projects.