Recommendations

Project	Type	#	Outcome	Report	Year
Arctic TEEB	Key finding	4.4	Valuing Arctic ecosystem services: Key Finding 4.4. Health values are often overlooked in ecosystem services analyses	The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for the Arctic: A Scoping Study Executive Summary	2015
CBMP Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring	Key finding		Many populations with the poorest population information are those which we suspect are showing the greatest declines.	A Global Audit of the Status and Trends of Arctic And Northern Hemisphere Goose Populations	2018
CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring	Key finding		Available long-term monitoring records and research data indicate that freshwater biodiversity has changed over the last 200 years, with shifts in species composition being less dramatic in areas where temperatures have been more stable.	State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring	2016
Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA)	Key finding	3	Climate change is emerging as the most far reaching and significant stressor on Arctic biodiversity. However, contaminants, habitat fragmentation, industrial development, and unsustainable harvest levels continue to have impacts. Complex interactions between climate change and other factors have the potential to magnify impacts on biodiversity.	Arctic Biodiversity Trends 2010 – Selected indicators of change	2010
Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA)	Key finding	2	Create best practices through demonstration projects, and on-the-ground work, including an evaluation of past projects, what worked, and what didn	Arctic Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom: Changes in the North American Arctic	2017
Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW)	Key finding		A considerable and broad experience with wetlands restoration and conservation dates back many decades. Expressed in an extensive body of publications by government agencies, practitioners’ organizations, trade organizations and consultancies, NGOs and scientists, a significant portion of this literature is Arctic-specific or Arctic relevant.	Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands Phase 2 Report	2021
Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW)	Key finding	11	Coordinated transboundary management of wetlands is needed, but different national systems for wetland classification challenge such efforts. There are crucial differences between wetland classification systems. A uniform system for comparing and harmonizing existing Arctic wetland classifications would help to better plan wetland actions that span borders, traditions, and cultures. New developments should consider the value and legacy associated with existing national classification systems and Indigenous Knowledge and Local Knowledge of wetland areas. Development of new classification systems, maps and databases should ensure that legacy data remains useful, allow for conversion between systems and link to Indigenous Knowledge and use of wetlands.	Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations	2021
Arctic TEEB	Key finding	3.5	Governance: Key Finding 3.5. Capturing the benefits and the scarcity of Arctic ecosystem services in economic policies promotes the improvement of economic models and processes.	The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for the Arctic: A Scoping Study Executive Summary	2015
CBMP Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring	Key finding		“Black” geese (Branta) number c. 13.7 million individuals of 27 populations from 5 species, of which 19 populations show stable or increasing trends over the last 10 years.	A Global Audit of the Status and Trends of Arctic And Northern Hemisphere Goose Populations	2018
	Key finding	5	Environmental changes are generally, but not always, resulting in negative effects to traditional harvests with impacts to food and cultural security	Project Summary: Bering Sea Sub-Network II	2015
CBMP Marine Biodiversity Monitoring	Key finding		Some Arctic species are shifting their ranges northwards to seek more favourable conditions as the Arctic warms. These movements pose unknown consequences for Arctic species and their interactions, such as predation and competition.	State of the Arctic Marine Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring	2017
Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA)	Key finding	6	There are currently few invasive alien species in the Arctic, but more are expected with climate change and increased human activity.	Arctic Biodiversity Assessment: Report for Policy Makers	2013
	Key finding		Biodiversity policy in the Arctic has to reflect the needs of people living in the Arctic, many of whom are indigenous.	Arctic Biodiversity Congress 2014, Co-Chairs Report	2014
Arctic Species Trend Index (ASTI)	Key finding	5	Waterfowl have increased across all flyway regions mainly due to geese, but there are differences in the underlying trends for geese/swans and for ducks. Geese and swans combined more than quadrupled in abundance between 1970 and 2011, showing positive change across regions (Figure 20), although coverage is too patchy for reliable conclusions. The increase in geese/swans is largely driven by geese, which make up the majority of this data set. Swans have been in decline since 1994. Duck abundance is 10% lower overall (Figure 19), but there are regional differences, with a halving in the Americas and a 70% increase in Africa-Eurasia.	Arctic Species Trend Index: Migratory Birds Index	2015
Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW)	Key finding	4	Although the majority of Arctic wetlands remain relatively intact, changes are already occurring across the Arctic and wetland resilience is needed to buffer further damage. Wetlands are vulnerable to substantial indirect damage e.g. through global warming, changes to p recipitation patterns, altered hydrological flows, and environmental pollutants. Such damage also constitutes a broader threat to migratory animal populations. These diverse threats to wetland ecosystems emphasize the need for landscape scale management with a focus on conservation, protection and maintained resilience.	Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands: Key Findings and Recommendations	2021
Resilience and Management of Arctic Wetlands (RAW)	Key finding	1.2.3	Arctic Indigenous Peoples and Wetlands Management: Most management and conservation plans, as well as other official information on wetland protected areas, fail to document Indigenous resource use in a systematic or functional way and as a result, do not provide a complete picture of resource use and management within the areas.	Arctic Wetlands and Indigenous Peoples Study: An assessment of Indigenous engagement in wetland protected areas	2021
Arctic TEEB	Key finding	2.4	Arctic ecosystem services: Arctic ecosystem services provide benefits to a range of stakeholders at various scales, both directly and indirectly – and the stakeholders who benefit from services and those who affect the availability of the same services are not always the same.	The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for the Arctic: A Scoping Study Executive Summary	2015
Arctic TEEB	Key finding	6.1	Way forward: Engagement of Arctic Indigenous organizations and a broad range of stakeholders in participatory development of knowledge and policy alternatives is central to a successful TEEB Arctic study. Follow-up work to this scoping study should be structured so that those who wish to contribute can do so through a range of avenues.	The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for the Arctic: A Scoping Study Executive Summary	2015
CBMP Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring	Key finding		To interpret changes in population size, there is an increasing need to understand whether these are due to shifts in range, changes in reproductive success or changes in annual survival.	A Global Audit of the Status and Trends of Arctic And Northern Hemisphere Goose Populations	2018
CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring	Key finding		Instruments such as the European Water Framework Directive promote routine monitoring of lake and river FECs. But where a country, ecoregion, or FEC is not covered by such instruments, monitoring is irregular, has poor spatial coverage, or is absent.	State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring	2016