Recommendations

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.

Develop and implement mechanisms that best safeguard Arctic biodiversity under changing environmental conditions, such as loss of sea ice, glaciers and permafrost.

a. Safeguard areas in the northern parts of the Arctic where high Arctic species have a relatively greater chance to survive for climatic or geographical reasons, such as certain islands and mountainous areas, which can act as a refuge for unique biodiversity.

b. Maintain functional connectivity within and between protected areas in order to protect ecosystem resilience and facilitate adaptation to climate change.

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.

Marine mammals

• Implement existing international monitoring plans such as those for ringed seals and polar bear, with adaptive management principles to address the eleven FEC marine mammal species.
• Expand marine mammal monitoring efforts to include parameters on health, passive acoustics, habitat changes, and telemetry tracking studies.
• Obtain more knowledge about population sizes, densities, and distributions of marine mammal populations in order to understand the relationships between sea ice loss and climate change and to manage Arctic marine mammal populations in an appropriate manner.
• Involve indigenous and local peoples in the design and implementation of monitoring programs so that scientific knowledge and TLK holders are working collaboratively.
• Pursue a multidisciplinary and multi-knowledge approach and a high degree of collaboration across borders and between researchers, local communities and Arctic governments to better understand complex spatial-temporal shifts in drivers, ecological changes and animal health.

Mammals: The START reports on half of mammal FECs including large herbivores (caribou/reindeer, muskoxen), small herbivores (lemming), and medium-sized predators (Arctic fox). Data deficiencies prohibited reporting on medium-sized herbivores, and large and small predators.

• Develop synchronized protocols that include more attributes and reduce geographical knowledge gaps.
• Establish or expand international monitoring networks for medium-sized herbivores and large and small carnivores.
• Emphasize spatial structure and diversity in monitoring efforts due to the northward advance of southern competitors and vegetation changes.
• For large herbivore, small herbivore, and medium-sized predator FECs:
• Agree on priorities and harmonize data collection across sites and programs;
• Share and standardize protocols, in cooperation with relevant partners including Indigenous Peoples and organizations, to include abundance, demographics, spatial structure, health, phenology and, for harvested species, harvest rates; and
• Ensure monitoring programs employ existing methods with new harmonized methods to allow data comparisons.
• Monitor health as an attribute and develop standardized health assessment protocols due to the anticipated impact of climate change on distribution and prevalence of disease.
• Monitor abiotic factors and drivers of change, across greater spatial distributions to assess the cumulative impacts of climate and other anthropogenic change on populations across their ranges.
• Conduct research on the vulnerabilities of populations to climate change and human impacts, and on genetic diversity and spatial structure of FECs.
• Increase collaboration using interdisciplinary and multi-knowledge approaches to share site- and population-specific information. This can improve monitoring and lead to better models to assess the vulnerabilities and resilience of specific populations.
• Address challenges in assessing abundance of FECs across the Arctic, including:
• reliability of abundance estimates, such as lack of precision and accuracy;
• changing baselines, such as changes in species distribution, sampling methodology, and areas monitored; and
• differences in frequency and spatial extent of monitoring.