Recommendations
| Project | Type | # | Outcome | Report | Year | FEC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBird: Seabird Expert Group | 2.3 | Limit human disturbance to a level that does not decrease breeding success. 2.3.1. Identify significant risks of disturbance activities and sensitive locations. 2.3.2. Develop guidelines (codes-of-conduct) for potentially harmful organized activities near colonies e.g. tourism, research (all fields), harvest, air- and ship traffic as well as individual activities such as kayaking, fishing etc. 2.3.3. Introduce area restrictions for high risk activities and promote regulations in adequate formats. 2.3.4. Improve and standardize methods for Environmental Impact Assessments. 2.3.5. Increase the knowledge on impacts of marine installations on seabirds (noise, light, pollution etc.). 2.3.6. Execute spatial planning and environmental assessments taking seabird management priorities into account. 2.3.7. Create no-conflict artificial nesting sites in locations where kittiwakes have moved into human settlements. | International Black-legged Kittiwake - Conservation Strategy and Action Plan | 2021 | ||
| CBird: Seabird Expert Group | Coordination and consultation Objective Ensure proper coordination with existing programs that affect Ivory Gulls, and encourage awareness of this Ivory Gull Strategy and broad participation in its implementation. Actions • Support other international and national Ivory Gull conservation initiatives. • Review existing programs and plans that affect Ivory Gulls to assure proper coordination as plans develop to implement the Strategy. • Enlist the support of people and groups that are interested in Ivory Gulls; especially local northern residents. • Solicit evaluation of actions carried out under the Strategy by specialists in Ivory Gull biology and other relevant disciplines. • Prepare periodic reports summarizing the status of Ivory Gull populations and accomplishments in Ivory Gull conservation. • Ensure that Ivory Gull conservation projects include an educational component. | International Ivory Gull Conservation Strategy and Action Plan | 2008 | |||
| 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 | ||
| Actions for Arctic Biodiversity 2025-2035 | Action | 4 | Establish a monitoring and evaluation framework for implementation of the actions for Arctic biodiversity. 4.1 Develop indicators to monitor implementation of the Actions for Arctic Biodiversity, assess and evaluate effectiveness of implementation, and report in relevant fora. | Actions for Arctic Biodiversity 2025-2035 | 2025 | |
| Arctic Migratory Birds Initiative (AMBI) | Action | 2 | Mitigate effects of over-abundant white geese populations on shorebird habitat 2.1 Implement management actions resulting from study of white geese impacts in Canada (undertaken as part of AMBI Phase 1) | AMBI Work Plan 2019-2025: Americas Flyway | 2021 | |
| Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA) | Key finding | 1 | Arctic biodiversity is being degraded, but decisive action taken now can help sustain vast, relatively undisturbed ecosystems of tundra, mountains, fresh water and seas and the valuable services they provide. | Arctic Biodiversity Assessment: Report for Policy Makers | 2013 | |
| Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA) | Recommendation | 8 | Reduce stressors on migratory species range-wide, including habitat degradation and overharvesting on wintering and staging areas and along flyways and other migration routes. a. Pursue or strengthen formal migratory bird cooperation agreements and other specific actions on a flyway level between Arctic and non-Arctic states with first priority given to the East Asian flyway. b. Collaborate with relevant international commissions, conventions, networks and other organizations sharing an interest in the conservation of Arctic migratory species to identify and implement appropriate conservation actions. 8.1. Establish an Arctic Migratory Bird Initiative (AMBI) to cooperate on the conservation of migratory Arctic birds and prepare collaborative flyway based work plans. 8.2. Broker commitments by non-Arctic countries to safeguarding important Arctic migratory bird habitats outside the Arctic, as part of the AMBI. c. Develop and implement joint management and recovery plans for threatened species with relevant non-Arctic states and entities. 8.3. Identify species that could benefit from, but are not covered by, range-wide adaptive management strategies and follow-up as appropriate. 8.4. Inventory on-going seabird projects and develop a common reporting template for all seabird conservation strategies. 8.5. Continue implementation of existing species conservation strategies and develop others as appropriate (Black-legged Kittiwakes, caribou). 8.6. Investigate the impact of shipping and off-shore development on seabirds. d. Identify and advance the conservation of key wintering and staging habitats for migratory birds, particularly wetlands. | Arctic Biodiversity Assessment: Report for Policy Makers | 2013 | |
| Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA) | Action | 4 | Require the incorporation of biodiversity objectives and provisions into all Arctic Council work and encourage the same for on-going and future international standards, agreements, plans, operations and/or other tools specific to development in the Arctic. This should include, but not be restricted to, oil and gas development, shipping, fishing, tourism and mining. 4.1. Strengthen and develop new strategic partnerships, particularly with industry, to seek innovative solutions and expand responsibility for taking care of biodiversity. 4.2. Analyse the relationship between CAFF activities and international biodiversity objectives from relevant multilateral environmental agreements as a starting point for improved cooperation. 4.3. Develop a set of biodiversity principles for the Arctic Council, Observers, and stakeholders on incorporating biodiversity objectives and safeguards into their work, apply these principles to the activities of Arctic Council Working Groups and other Subsidiary Bodies, and evaluate the extent to which these activities respond to the ABA recommendations. 4.4. Develop, as needed, binding and/or voluntary agreements/standards that work towards the harmonization of industry-specific and cross-industry standards related to the conservation and/or sustainable use of biodiversity. This should considerhow to encourage the incorporation of biodiversity as a fundamental component of environmental and risk assessment work. 4.5. Provide information, expertise, and recommendations on conservation of Arctic ecosystems to policymakers. 4.6. Develop best practices for vessel-based Arctic marine tourism (Arctic Marine TourismProject- Best Practice Guidelines) (AMSA Recommendation IIIB). 4.7. Make monitoring and research results on species, including those relevant to maintaining and increasing resilience of biodiversity to climate change, accessible to all stakeholders, through the ABDS. 4.8. Strengthen collaboration with industry in Arctic biodiversity monitoring | Actions for Arctic Biodiversity, 2013-2021: Implementing the recommendations of the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment | 2015 | |
| Key finding | Conservation of Arctic biodiversity is a global issue, as so much that happens outside the Arctic affects what happens inside the Arctic and vice versa. Migratory species provide a good basis to develop the partnerships necessary to ensure the long term viability of shared species, and at the same time to increase awareness of the shared global heritage that Arctic biodiversity represents. | Arctic Biodiversity Congress 2014, Co-Chairs Report | 2014 | |||
| 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 Biodiversity Assessment (ABA) | Key finding | 6 | Work to remove institutional barriers and improve processes for the inclusion of TK&W and involvement of Arctic indigenous peoples. | Arctic Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom: Changes in the North American Arctic | 2017 | |
| 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 | ||
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Recommendation | 2 | Actively support efforts to maintain or strengthen natural ecosystem capacity for climate change mitigation, primarily through conservation and restoration measures in Arctic and Boreal wetlands. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations | 2021 | |
| Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW) | Recommendation | 18 | Inventory, harmonize and pool knowledge about financial models and frameworks being used to support restoration and conservation and investigate potential pan-Arctic or transboundary initiatives, with a particular focus on engagement by local and Indigenous Peoples. | Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations | 2021 | |
| Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (CBMP) | 3 | The CBMP is sustainable and its organizational structure facilitates achievement of its goals. Objective 3.1: Program coordination and organization is sustainable.
Objective 3.2: CBMP is sustainable through relevancy.
| Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program Strategic Plan: 2021-2025 | 2021 | ||
| Arctic TEEB | Key finding | 4.1 | Valuing Arctic ecosystem services: Key Finding 4.1. The ecosystem services link is crucial when striving for sustainable management of complex social-ecological systems, and valuation in this context can provide powerful information for evaluating alternative management strategies. Cohesive, integrated and commonly accepted frameworks for assessment of the values of Arctic ecosystems are needed. | The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for the Arctic: A Scoping Study Executive Summary | 2015 | |
| CBMP Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring | Key finding | In North America, population estimates are good; trends are generally of the best quality and most populations are increasing or stable. | A Global Audit of the Status and Trends of Arctic And Northern Hemisphere Goose Populations | 2018 | ||
| 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 Marine Biodiversity Monitoring | Key finding | Arctic marine species and ecosystems are undergoing pressure from cumulative changes in their physical, chemical and biological environment. | State of the Arctic Marine Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2017 | ||
| CBMP Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring | Key finding | Species from southern ecosystems are moving into the Arctic and are expected to push Arctic species northwards, create an “Arctic squeeze,” and change species’ interactions. | State of the Arctic Terrestrial Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2021 |
Arctic Council Working Group