KNO7: Arctic biodiversity governance and Arctic Council biodiversity cooperation

Date: Friday October 12, 2018

Location: Tieva, Lappia Hall

Time: 8:30-10:00

The challenges facing Arctic biodiversity are interconnected, requiring comprehensive solutions and international cooperation. We have a unique and urgent opportunity in the Arctic to conserve large, undisturbed ecosystems and the species and cultures they support. Doing so will help protect the integrity of Arctic biodiversity and the sustainability of Arctic communities. The future of the Arctic and its biodiversity requires an active and decisive approach to conservation and sustainability. This session explores the concepts and frameworks of Arctic biodiversity governance, specifically highlighting presentations that discuss the role of the Arctic Council to support, enable and recognize partners and governance frameworks that act to conserve Arctic biodiversity.

Chair: Christian Prip, The Fridtjof Nansen Institute

Format: Series of presentations followed by discussion

Presentations:

• Report from the High Level Expert Working Group Session: Thomas S. Axeworthy, Secretary General of the InterAction Council of Former Heads of State and Government 
  
• The Arctic Council and biodiversity - need for a governance framework beyond monitoring and assessments? Christian Prip, The Fridtjof Nansen Institute 
• Food sovereignty and self governance: Nicole Kanayurak, Inuit Circumpolar Council 
• Importance of non-Arctic states in conserving Arctic biodiversity: a case study of Britain and Ireland: Matt Parsons, Joint Nature Conservation Committee (UK) 
• Institutional Adaptation for an equitable role of Indigenous Knowledge in decision-making: Nicole Kanayurak, Inuit Circumpolar Council 
• Korea's contribution to Arctic Migratory Birds Initiative (AMBI) and future plans: Sung-Ryong Kang, National Institute of Ecology 

Abstracts:

Report from the High Level Expert Working Group Session

Thomas S. Axeworthy, InterAction Council of Former Heads of State and Government, InterAction Council of Former Heads of State and Government

The InterAction Council of Former Heads of State and Government's Expert Working Group on Issues of Cooperation and Development in the Arctic will provide a complimentary venue for putting the global spotlight on this critical region by providing recommendations for how to strengthen the region in terms of economic development; biodiversity; and strengthen the institutions of international governance in the region; while recognizing the unique contributions of Indigenous peoples in the region. The Arctic Expert Meeting is part of a series of preparatory meetings that focus on a specific theme related to one of the Council's priority areas, that draw on a panel of experts from around the world. The resulting Chairman's Report is tabled at the Annual Plenary Meeting of the membership of the Council, which is over 35 former heads of state and government.

The Arctic Council and biodiversity - need for a governance framework beyond monitoring and assessments?

Christian Prip, The Fridtjof Nansen Institute

Arctic biodiversity is of global concern, with both the Arctic and the broader international community having a mutual interest in cooperation to ensure its conservation and sustainable use. Biodiversity is one of the focal areas of cooperation under the The Arctic Council has adopted an ecosystem approach as a management framework for biodiversity, and the Arctic constitutes several ecosystems transcending borders. Threats to these ecosystems must be dealt with by all the states sharing them through cross-border responses. Scientific monitoring and assessments of Arctic biodiversity – the essential feature of Arctic biodiversity cooperation – have repeatedly shown that action on the ground is needed to reduce Arctic biodiversity loss. However, cooperation mechanisms to translate scientific findings into joint and unified action by the Arctic states are not in place. An obvious example is protected areas: How can the Arctic Council give effect to the comprehensive scientific framework set by PAME for a Pan-Arctic Network of Marine Protected Areas without a mechanism for formal designation of areas as protected and associated legally binding restrictions on human activities? To what extent does the Arctic Council provide the institutional, policy and regulatory means necessary to meet this challenge? Does it need further instruments and decision-making power to implement the ABA recommendations? These questions will be discussed in this presentation taking into account governance development in other thematic areas of the Arctic Council.

Food sovereignty and self governance

Carolina Behe, Inuit Circumpolar Council

Inuit food security is founded upon a holistic understanding of the Arctic – one in which Inuit are a part of the ecosystem and their physical, cultural, mental and spiritual health are profoundly related to the environment. In 2016, we completed the Alaska Inuit-led Food Security Project. A key project finding stressed the undeniable connection between food sovereignty and food security. “Food sovereignty” is the right of Inuit to define their own hunting, gathering, fishing, land and water policies; the right to define what is sustainably, socially, economically and culturally appropriate for the distribution of food and to maintain ecological health. Without food sovereignty, we cannot realize food security. One of the recommendations derived from the final Food Security report is to analyze management and co-management structures within Inuit Nunaat and to understand how those governing frameworks support or need to be modified to achieve Inuit food sovereignty. Due to the rapid and immense changes underway in the Arctic, there is a need to enhance Inuit governance structures to ensure direct involvement of Inuit and their rights and interests throughout their homelands. In response to these needs and recommendations, the Food Sovereignty and Self Governance project aims to develop a comprehensive understanding of existing and emerging frameworks supporting Inuit self-governance over marine food resources. The Project Team will conduct a legal analysis and work with Inuit who are directly engaged in the management and co-management of salmon and walrus in Alaska and char and beluga in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region to assess how Inuit self-governance supports food security and understand the social, political, and institutional parameters affecting Inuit self-governance, while examining how it may be possible to move toward food sovereignty. Through this presentation we hope to share and discuss the connection between food sovereignty and conservation.

Importance of non-Arctic states in conserving Arctic biodiversity: a case study of Britain and Ireland

Matt Parsons, Joint Nature Conservation Committee (UK); David Tierney, Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht; Ireland; David Stroud, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, UK; Tim Dunn, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, UK

Success in conserving Arctic biodiversity depends upon actions by non-Arctic states as well as Arctic states. We identify migratory populations of bird species which breed in the Arctic but visit Britain and Ireland on migration and/or during the winter. There are well-known examples of bird taxa for which Britian and Ireland host the entire biogeographic population during the non-breeding season. However, here we attempt a more comprehensive assessment of the importance of Britain and Ireland for shared Arctic birds, including waterfowl, seabirds, shorebirds and passerines, and the proportion of the biogeographic populations that are contained within our protected sites network. Finally, we make a provisional assessment of the relative impact on selected Arctic bird populations of stressors, in particular climate change, and where – in the Arctic or on wintering/migration grounds – these are primarily occurring. We contrast the typically low densities of breeding birds in the Arctic, over extensive areas of habitat, with the higher concentrations (sometimes in very few sites) that tend to occur on wintering grounds. Policy implications for the, geographical scale, location and sectoral targeting of conservation action across flyways, including through multilateral environmental agreements, are discussed.

Institutional adaptation for an equitable role of Indigenous Knowledge in decision-making

Vernae Angnaboogok, Inuit Circumpolar Council; Carolina Behe, Inuit Circumpolar Council

Institutions operating through a top-down structure are impeding the ethical and meaningful engagement of Indigenous Knowledge (IK), leading to products lacking a holistic understanding of the Arctic, which further results in ill-informed decision making. With the drastic changes occurring today within the Arctic, now more than ever, there is a need for institutions to adapt in order to provide the best available knowledge and information for effective decision making. This approach requires the transformation from top-down structures rooted in Western frameworks and moving into equitable and meaningful engagement of IK. This adaptation requires bringing together IK and science to provide a holistic understanding of the Arctic. Many institutions, including the Arctic Council, speak of the importance of Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge and that Indigenous representation having a seat at the table. However, having a seat at the table does not translate to the ethical and meaningful engagement of IK or our communities. This presentation explores the need for institutional adaptation in order to support holistic research and decision making needed in the face of a rapidly changing Arctic – including moving toward the involvement of multiple knowledge systems within work conducted. Emphasis will be on the importance of building equity around the inclusion and utilization of IK alongside science and in providing direction for how to ethically and meaningfully engage our knowledge systems and communities in order to provides a holistic understanding of the Arctic.

Korea's contribution to Arctic Migratory Birds Initiative (AMBI) and future plans

Sung-Ryong Kang, National Institute of Ecology; Jihyun Yoon, National Institute of Ecology

Republic of Korea (ROK) has been actively involved in the Arctic Migratory Birds Initiative (AMBI) under CAFF. ROK’s National Institute of Ecology (NIE) has been conducting research to examine and accumulate data on the habitat carrying capacity of migratory shorebirds at their stopover areas in ROK, focusing on the East Asian-Australian Flyway, in collaboration with research institutions in Australia and the U.S., and the East Asian-Australasian Flyway Partnership (EAAFP) Secretariat. NIE experts have shared the research findings at AMBI implementation workshops and CAFF board meeting. As for the ABMI under CAFF, ROK’s NIE would continue its ongoing research collaboration in regards to the East Asian-Australasian Flyway with CAFF. In addition, discussions are under way between Korea and the EAAFP secretariat on possible cooperation to build the capacities of developing countries in the monitoring of migratory shorebirds to support AMBI.

KNO8: The problem of the polar bear: Does the symbol of the Arctic prevent us from fixing the Arctic?

Date: Tuesday October 9, 2018

Location: Saivo, Lappia Hall

Time: 15:00-16:30

Building mass awareness on the importance of nature is critical to achieving a sustainable, prosperous, and liveable future on planet Earth. The rapid rate of change taking place in the Arctic due to climate change is transforming the region’s biodiversity, making it a critical focal point for any global conversation. However, communicating the urgent need for action to prevent biodiversity loss in the Arctic to audiences that will never visit the region has met with limited success. This session examines how Arctic biodiversity has been portrayed by various institutions and organizations in the past, and what might be done to communicate more effectively in the future. A central example within the session is the WWF’s current ‘Engaging a Billion for Biodiversity’ campaign. Over the next three years, WWF’s global engagement priority is to inspire mainstream support for environmental action to protect biodiversity. In partnership with the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) and the World Organization of the Scout Movement (WOSM) the collaboration aims to help achieve the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity’s Aichi Biodiversity Target 1. This session details WWF’s plans to engage a global audience using engagement techniques such as the Earth Hour platform and the Scouting Badge programme. The session will also detail ethnographic research findings of key learnings from previous representations, campaigns and pedagogic frameworks highlighting the importance of Arctic biodiversity in relation to climate change. We will tackle head on the challenges and opportunities the polar bear, as poster child for Arctic conservation, represents for communicating the wider challenges of Arctic biodiversity. Building on the unique opportunity of the conference expertise, the session moves into a round-table format where individuals will critically reflect on their own experience of communicating, campaigning and engaging about Arctic biodiversity. Through facilitated discussion we will consider how to more effectively convey the realities of the Arctic to future audiences.

Chairs: Leanne Clare, World Wildlife Fund - Arctic Programme; Michael Alexander, World Wildlife Fund - International 

Format: Presentations and roundtable discussion

KNO6: Pan-arctic assessment and data management of plant diversity and community

Date: Thursday October 11, 2018

Location: Erottaja, ELY

Time: 8:30-10:00

This session addresses the development of standardized methods to assess and manage records of plant species diversity and plant communities at the pan-arctic scale. These efforts include a recent update of the Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Map (CAVM), and the Arctic Vegetation Archive (AVA). Standardization efforts are discussed with respect to taxonomy, spatial sampling design, meta-data requirements and management of records in a common data base. The session covers contributions highlighting different aspects of the above standardization, as well as the status of CAVM and AVA. The presentations are followed by a discussion on how the resulting data sets can be used for pan-arctic biodiversity assessment and management, specifically CBMP efforts. Further the session will discuss strategies to ensure integration of legacy data sets (e.g. from Russia) and continuity of field assessments and integration to a common data base. A pan-arctic data base of standardized plot-based plant diversity and community data will form the base line for future change assessments and significantly improve predictions of species distribution and ecosystem functioning.

Chair: Gabriela Schaepman-Strub, University of Zurich

Format: Series of presentations followed by discussion

Presentations:

• Circumpolar arctic vegetation mapping, plot-data archive, classification, and transects: A framework for examining arctic terrestrial change: Donald A. Walker, University of Alaska Fairbanks 
• The next steps for bringing Russian Arctic vegetation datasets into the AVA: Ksenia Ermokhina, A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution RAS, Earth Cryosphere Institute SB RAS 
• Classification of the Arctophila fulva wetlands in the Arctic: Natalia Koroleva, Polar-Alpine Botanical Garden Kirovsk 
• Biodiversity, phytomass, and vegetation indices along arctic tundra temperature gradients: Howard E. Epstein, University of Virginia 
• Biodiversity of Canadian Arctic Vascular Plants and Lichens: Field Work, Floristics and Museum Collections: Jeffery Saarela, Canadian Museum of Nature 
• Moderated discussion: Gabriela Schaepman-Strub, University of Zurich 

Abstracts:

Circumpolar arctic vegetation mapping, plot-data archive, classification, and transects: A framework for examining arctic terrestrial change 

Donald A. Walker, University of Alaska Fairbanks

A circumpolar arctic-tundra-vegetation framework is needed for a wide variety of purposes including studying and monitoring changes to arctic ecosystems. Difficult logistics limit the number of sampling locations and the quantity of data that can be collected, so it is important that standardized methods of data collection are developed and followed wherever possible. A circumpolar arctic vegetation map (CAVM), arctic vegetation-plot archive, and arctic vegetation classification are priority projects of the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) biodiversity working group of the Arctic Council. Here, I present an update on these three activities and two arctic transects that traverse the full bioclimate gradient in North America and Eurasia, utilizing the CAVM and AVC as a framework. The first CAVM was a polygon-based map in GIS format with numerous themes. Several of the CAVM map themes have been widely applied for modeling past vegetation changes and circumpolar biodiversity assessments. A new raster version of the map provides a much higher resolution map and should increase its application for modeling. In Alaska the CAVM is the top level of a seven-level hierarchy of geoecological maps centered on the Arctic Long-Term Ecological Research site at Toolik Lake, AK. Vegetation plot data are the fundamental units of vegetation information used for classification and analysis of environment-vegetation relationships. Approximately 30,000 vegetation plots have been identified for inclusion in a circumpolar AVA and AVC. A prototype arctic vegetation-plot archive was produced for Alaska (the AVA-AK). A Catalog record for each dataset describes the associated research project, purpose and methods of data collection along with links to the Turboveg v2 database and related ancillary data. The database includes the species data standardized according to panarctic taxonomic references and standardized environmental header data. Ancillary data in the Catalog record contain additional information about the datasets, including plot photographs, plot-location maps, the species, soil, and environmental data prior to standardization, as well as relevant publications, data reports, and metadata. The units of the classification are organized according to their associated habitat types, similar to the approach used in the European Vegetation Archive and will use the Braun-Blanquet approach to define and name plant communities. The next step will be to assemble archives similar to the AVA-AK for other regions of the Arctic. Two cross-Arctic transects use the CAVM as a framework sampling: the North America Arctic Transect (NAAT) and the Eurasia Arctic Transect (EAT).

The next steps for bringing Russian Arctic vegetation datasets into the AVA

Ksenia Ermokhina, A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution RAS, Earth Cryosphere Institute SB RAS

Vegetation diversity of Russian Arctic is very high due to huge area (about 27 000 000 km2) and large variety of landscapes (Matveeva et al., 2013). According to the preliminary Prodromus of the territory about 130 associations have been recorded within 35 alliances of 21 orders and 19 classes, about 40 new associations have not been placed into higher units (Matveeva et al., 2017). The status of Russian Arctic vegetation datasets owned by several RAS institutes was reviewed as a part of the Arctic Vegetation Archive project. It is estimated that about 5000 relevés are published, much more are in private datasets or even in fieldbooks and have never been digitized. Another important part of information (mainly dated 30 years or even more) is accumulated in archives of scientists that are stored in RAS institutes. The amount of unpublished relevés is hard to assume but surely it is much greater then the number of the published ones. This year the RFBR grant (№ 18-04-01010) for classification of vegetation and spectral analysis of remote sensing imagery for geobotanical division of West Siberian Arctic was received by a group of geobotanists (K. Ermokhina, N. Koroleva, M. Telyatnikov and E. Troeva). The activities that were planned in the proposal include import of regional relevés into the AVA. For this purpose technical support of the authors will be organized. The support will include transformation of Excel tables with relevés and environmental data into AVA format and unification of taxonomic ids according to the Panarctic Species List. Authors’ datasets with geobotanical information from other arctic regions can be also involved in this process. Estimated amount of relevés that are planned for import into the AVA during following three years in frame of this RFBR project is about 2000.

Classification of the Arctophila fulva wetlands in the Arctic

Natalia Koroleva, Polar-Alpine Botanical Garden Kirovsk; E. Kopeina, Polar-Alpine Botanical Garden, Kirovsk, Russia L. Mucina, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia D. Thannheiser, University of Hamburg, Germany D. A. Walker, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, USA B. Teteryuk, Institute of Biology, Syktyvkar, Russia P. Gogoleva, Geographical-Biological Department, Yakutsk State University, Russia K. Ermokhina, Earth Cryosphere Institute, Moscow, Russia S. Kholod, Komarov Botanical Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia E. Kulyugina, Institute of Biology, Syktyvkar, Russia N. Lashschinskyi, Central Siberian Botanical Garden, Novosibirsk, Russia

We present a classification (using numerical exploratory techniques) of Arctophila fulva (Poaceae) grass-dominated wetlands. 273 phytosociological relevés, some (those them already captured in the Arctic Vegetation Archive database), from Alaska, Northern Canada, Bothnian Gulf (Baltic Sea). Svalbard, northern shores of Norway, and many regions of Russian Federation (Kola Peninsula, Komi Republic, Yamal and Taymyr Peninsulas and Wrangel Island as well as the valleys of Lena, Yana, Indigirka, Kolyma and Anabar Rivers. MERRAclim, a high-resolution global dataset of remotely sensed bioclimatic variables, as well as number of soil-related variables were applied infer the drivers of the plant community patterns. A syntaxonomic scheme of the Arctophila-dominated communities is proposed. All new data will be stored in AVA.

Biodiversity, phytomass, and vegetation indices along arctic tundra temperature gradients

Howard E. Epstein, University of Virginia

The arctic tundra is a circumpolar biome that spans large gradients in climate, geology, and hydrology (including the cryosphere), and hence has a diverse and spatially heterogeneous flora. Whereas numerous efforts have recorded plant species compositions throughout the tundra biome, very few have analyzed the circumpolar spatial patterns in vegetation diversity and abundance (e.g. phytomass). Using Braun-Blanquet relevé data, in addition to field biomass harvests, and hand-held spectroscopy, we analyze the spatial patterns of plant species diversity (alpha, beta, gamma, Shannon-Weiner Index), plant growth form biomass (shrubs, graminoids, forbs, mosses, lichens), and vegetation community spectral indices (e.g. NDVI) along two latitudinal gradients. These gradients span summer warmth index values (SWI – sum of mean monthly temperatures > °C) from approximately 2 – 45 °C months in North American (Alaskan North Slope and the Canadian Archipelago) and Eurasia (Yamal Peninsula, Belyy Ostrov, and Franz Josef Land Archipelago).

Biodiversity of Canadian Arctic Vascular Plants and Lichens: Field Work, Floristics and Museum Collections

J.M. Saarela, L.J. Gillespie, R.T. McMullin, P.C. Sokoloff, R.D. Bull, Centre for Arctic Knowledge and Exploration, Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa, Canada

Exploration of the flora of the Canadian Arctic has been ongoing for almost two hundred years, yet substantial gaps remain in our floristic understanding of this large, rapidly changing and difficult-to-access region. Detailed information on the diversity and distribution of Arctic plants and lichens at local, regional and global levels is urgently needed to understand the potential impacts of climate change on Arctic flora. Since 2008 we have been conducting floristic surveys in botanically-understudied regions of the Canadian Arctic; lichen exploration began in 2016. In recent years field work has focused on Territorial Parks (Kugluk (Bloody Falls) Territorial Park, proposed Nuvuk Territorial Park, Sylvia Grinnell Territorial Park), Quttinirpaaq National Park, and High Arctic field stations. The comprehensive baseline data of our >9,000 new collections, all housed permanently in the National Herbarium of Canada at the Canadian Museum of Nature, and other herbaria in Canada and internationally, adds important baseline knowledge to our understanding of Arctic plant and lichen biodiversity. Our collections include first records for specific areas (e.g., territories, parks, islands), major and minor range extensions, second or third collections of poorly-known species at the northern or southern edges of their ranges, new discoveries of rare species, and they fill in gaps in the known distributions of Arctic species. Information is shared through publication of floristic inventories in the primary literature and via the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). We are also engaged in revision of the tens of thousands of Canadian Arctic specimens housed in the National Herbarium of Canada and herbaria across Canada; this includes confirming or revising determinations, updating nomenclature, databasing and georeferencing. We are working towards a new Arctic Flora of Canada and Alaska, which aims to bring together all available information on the biodiversity and distribution of vascular plants in this region, including keys, descriptions, nomenclature, distribution maps, images and more. Our work addresses Arctic Biodiversity Assessment recommendation 13: “Increase and focus inventory, long-term monitoring and research efforts to address key gaps in scientific knowledge identified in this assessment to better facilitate the development and implementation of conservation and management strategies.” It also contributes to the policy recommendation re: identifying important areas for biodiversity in the Arctic.