* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Arctic Environment Ministers meeting
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Early 2014 North American cold wave wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Hotspot Ecosystem Research and Man's Impact On European Seas wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on Australia wikipedia , lookup
Years of Living Dangerously wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Physical impacts of climate change wikipedia , lookup
5-6 February, 2013 ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT MINISTERS MEETING Photo: Bjorn Alfthan UNEP/GRID-Arendal Arctic Environment Ministers meeting Arctic Change – Global Effects Discussion note Content 1 Arctic development 2 2 Effects of Arctic climate change 4 3 Short-lived Climate Forcers 5 4 Arctic resilience 8 5 Contaminants in the Arctic 9 6 Biodiversity and ecosystem services 10 7 Ecosystem based management 12 The Arctic Environment Ministers will meet to discuss Arctic environmental issues in Jukkasjärvi, Sweden, 5-6 February, 2013. The theme for the meeting is Arctic change - global effects. This discussion note is developed by Sweden, as chair for the Arctic Environment Ministers meeting in Jukkasjärvi, for participants at the meeting. It is not intended to reflect all the different views by participants at the meeting, but is merely a note aimed to stimulate discussions. For any questions regarding this document, please contact Fredrik Hannerz, Ministry of the Environment, Sweden, who has been responsible for its content. Contact: [email protected] or +46 8405 8025 Production: Ministry of the Environment Print: Grafisk Service Photo: UNEP/GRID-Arendal & AMAP Article no: M2013_02 Vessels and iceberg - lulissat harbour. Photo: Anders Skov Hansen/ARC-PIC.COM Arctic development The Arctic is undergoing unprecedented change for reasons mainly linked to increased global resource use. Global emissions of greenhouse gases have made climate change in the Arctic more rapid than anywhere else on Earth with widespread effects for societies and ecosystems. Traditional Arctic products have, with a few exceptions, historically played a relatively marginal role in the global economy, however, as global resource demand and depletion increases resources in the Arctic will become more globally significant and commercially viable. It is estimated that the Arctic contains almost 15 percent of the world’s undiscovered conventional oil resources and about 30 percent of its undiscovered conventional natural gas resources. A significant proportion of these reserves lie offshore, in the Arctic’s shallow and biologically productive shelf seas. With climate change the resource-rich environments are becoming more accessible. Therefore, the economic and development potential in the Arctic has been dramatically reassessed and the Arctic region will likely be under increasing pressure from the economic development. Arctic mineral extraction, oil and gas development and advancing new trade routes are becoming viable as ice-free summers are predicted in the near future. The global development clearly has a major impact on the Arctic, but the Arctic also affects the rest of the world, not only through Arctic tradable resources. 2 DISCUSSION NOTE Science indicates that the Arctic holds important feedback mechanisms and critical tipping points for the earth system, meaning that rapid changes in the Arctic may trigger global effects of unprecedented scale in modern times. A collapse of the Arctic summer sea-ice, accelerating melt of the Greenland ice sheet, releases of methane from melting permafrost and slowdown of the thermohaline circulation are examples of such potential tipping points. Therefore, climate change, global pollution, global markets and socio-economic pressures are all key drivers of change in the Arctic with significant consequences for Arctic societies, Arctic nations and the global community. These increased pressures may in some cases raise potential for conflicts between economic development and environmental conservation and protection requiring informed policy decisions to reach resolution. From an environmental perspective this development presents many risks, but the potential for a positive economic development for Arctic societies, nations and business also offers opportunities. A key challenge is to ensure that measures are put in place to ensure that adverse environmental impacts and risks are effectively mitigated and that capacities to address pressures and on-going change are strengthened. The Arctic Council has an important role in facilitating talks and agreements about sustainable development in the Arctic. Since established in 1996 it has undertaken numerous assessments, critical for the understanding of the Arctic environment and for establishing a scientific foundation for stewardship actions. Increasingly, the Arctic Council has evolved from a discussion forum to a forum where also agreements of legally binding nature are negotiated, notably the recent Search and Rescue agreement and the current negotiations between Arctic countries on an agreement on cooperation to address marine oil pollution. While many of the topics on the Arctic Council agenda are under the responsibility of environment ministers, they do not have a formal meeting space within the Arctic Council. Environment ministers have instead met to discuss Arctic environment issues on the initiative of Arctic Council chairmanships. At their first meeting in Ilulissat, Greenland, during Danish chairmanship of the Arctic Council in 2010, the main focus was the protection of the Arctic marine environment1. The meeting of environment ministers in Jukkasjärvi is the second such meeting and is arranged by Sweden. Possible actions It is essential to manage the environmental risks associated with Arctic development. Specific actions are proposed in the different sections of this note. Some more general actions to address these risks were identified in a study on Arctic issues commissioned by Lloyd’s insurance company2 in 2012, including e.g. the following conclusions: • It is essential to close knowledge gaps, reduce uncertainties and manage risks and that Arctic economic development can only proceed at a rate that takes into account these factors. Further research is required to ensure that future development takes place in a sustainable fashion and does not cause irreparable damage to the environment. • Major investment is required in infrastructure and surveillance to enable safe economic activity. Public/private co-operation is needed to provide this infrastructure. • The mosaic of regulations and governments in the Arctic creates a multi-jurisdictional challenge. • Working through the Arctic Council to promote high and common regulations for Arctic economic activity is key. A Chair’s statement from the meeting can be found at: http:// www.mim.dk/NR/rdonlyres/475C3E16-A549-40EA-A8BFF723363EE7EE/0/ILULISSATchairstatement_final.pdf 2 Lloyds: Arctic opening: Opportunity and Risk in the High North 1 Blue glacier ice, Northwest Greenland . Photo: Lars Witting/ARC-PIC.COM ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT MINISTERS MEETING 3 Questions for discussion How can we make sure that the opportunities for Arctic economic development does not risk irreparable damage to the Arctic and global environment? Which are the key issues for the Arctic countries to jointly take forward? How can Arctic states and the Arctic Council exert influence beyond the region in the global environmental arena? For example, how should it interact with multilateral environmental agreements and influence policy decisions that affect the Arctic? What is the role for environment ministers in Arctic cooperation on sustainable development? Effects of Arctic climate change Arctic climate change science The Arctic Council’s report: Snow Water Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA), is the most comprehensive compilation of scientific knowledge on the impacts of climate change on the frozen parts of the Arctic. Hundreds of scientists have worked to produce the assessment. It concludes that there is an unprecedented rate of change in the Arctic. Some of the major SWIPA findings are: • The observed recent changes in sea ice and in the mass of the Greenland ice sheet and Arctic ice caps and glaciers are dramatic. Projections reported by the IPCC in 2007 underestimated the rates of change now observed. • The warming of the Arctic, due to climate change, has been twice as high as the world average since 1980. Arctic summer temperatures have been higher in the past few decades than at any time in the past 2000 years. • Virtually all parts of the Arctic frozen components are affected by warming. Temperatures in the permafrost have risen by up to 2 °C, and nearly all glaciers and ice caps in most regions of the Arctic have been declining faster since 2000 than in the previous decade. • Changes cause fundamental changes to the characteristics of Arctic ecosystems and in some cases loss of entire habitats. 4 DISCUSSION NOTE • Transport options and access to resources are radically changed. Arctic infrastructure faces increased risks of damage due to changes. The Arctic region continued to break records in 2012. A few of the major findings include3 the minimum Arctic sea ice extent in September 2012 that set a new record low and the nearly ice sheet-wide melt event on the Greenland ice sheet in July, covering about 97 percent of the ice sheet on a single day. Possible future developments are also described in the SWIPA assessment. The average autumn-winter temperatures in the Arctic are projected to increase by between 3 °C and 7 °C by the late twenty-first century (2080). Arctic rain and snow fall are projected to increase during all seasons, but mostly in winter. Mountain glaciers and ice caps are projected to lose between 10 percent and 30 percent of their total mass by 2100. The Arctic Ocean is predicted to be nearly ice free in summer within this century, likely within the next 30 to 40 years. There is now evidence of a number of potential feedback mechanisms at play in the Arctic. One example is the snow and sea ice interaction with the climate system. As highly reflective snow and ice surfaces are diminishing, darker surfaces absorb more of the sun’s energy and increase warming. Clear evidence for this effect has been observed in the Arctic. Studies now show that eight of the feedback mechanisms expected to have strong effects lead to further warming, while only one leads to cooling. In the future, SWIPA projects that global sea level will rise by 0.9–1.6 m by 2100 and that the loss of ice from Arctic glaciers, ice caps, and the Greenland ice sheet will make a substantial contribution to this. Loss of ice and snow in the Arctic enhances climate warming by increasing absorption of the sun’s energy at the surface of the planet. It could also dramatically increase emissions of carbon dioxide and methane and change large-scale ocean currents. The combined outcome of these effects on global climate is not yet known. Arctic ocean acidification The increasing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolves into surface waters, form carbonic acid and cause ocean acidification. Other changes in the Arctic (melting sea ice and the decay of terrestrial organic matter) contribute to amplify ocean acidification. As a result, the magnitude of ocean acidification is more pronounced in the Arctic than in other oceans. Expanding low oxygen areas, lower salinity, rising seawater temperatures are together shifting environmental domains in the ocean at a speed that may be unpresedented. • Ocean acidification is a large-scale process that may have far-reaching effects on marine life and further work is needed to understand the full effects. • The effects of these changes on marine species of the Arctic are poorly understood, but based on studies from other oceans, it is highly likely that significant changes can occur in Arctic marine ecosystems. • It is likely that some organisms will benefit from ocean acidification, yet others will be disadvantaged, possibly to the point of local extinction. • Early life stages and life-stage transitions are, in general, more susceptible to ocean acidification. A major study of the Arctic Ocean acidification is being developed within the Arctic Council and will be presented for foreign ministers at the Kiruna meeting. Possible actions SWIPA resulted in a number of major recommendations to Arctic states focused on mitigation, adaptation and further observation and scientific work. • On mitigation it was e.g. recommended that Arctic states increase the leadership role in climate change mitigation and contribute to step up efforts in the international negotiations. • Regarding adaptation the need for adaptation strategies and standards for environmental management was underscored. • Improved observing and prediction systems and further assessments of cryospheric change were also recommended. A follow up on SWIPA recommendations should be pursued. Arctic states could consider addressing these recommendations both individually as well as jointly through forum including the Arctic Council. As a complement to other actions to address the effects of climate change Arctic states should increase efforts to decrease the occurrence of short lived climate forcers (next section). Actions to reduce ocean acidification include mainly reducing carbon dioxide emissions at global scale as well as regionally. However, further work is needed to understand the full effects of acidification. 3 From the NOAA Arctic report card. Questions for discussion Rapid Arctic climate change may have global effects. Is there a special responsibility by Arctic countries to show leadership in climate change mitigation and adaptation in the Arctic and globally? How should such leadership be manifested at national level, within the Arctic Council and in other international forums, including within the UNFCCC? A projected Arctic temperature increase of between 3 °C and 7 °C by the late twenty-first century (2080) would completely change the Arctic region. The basic UNFCCC target is to avoid dangerous interference with the climate system and we have agreed to a global 2-degree target. Is there a need to strengthen targets and actions to protect the Arctic environment and societies? How can Arctic Environment Ministers promote further scientific work on Arctic Ocean acidification? Short-lived Climate Forcers Short-Lived Climate Forcers (SLCFs) are a set of air pollutants that have both significant climate impacts and negative health and environmental effects. According to UNEP, millions of premature deaths and the loss of tens of millions of tonnes of crops would be avoided each year by implementing selected measures. These actions can further reduce global warming by between 0.4 and 0.5°C and Arctic warming by 0.7°C in the coming decades. Carbon dioxide is the dominant factor contributing to observed and projected rates of global warming, and carbon dioxide emission reductions should be the backbone of any climate change mitigation strategy. However, SLCFs contribute significantly to warming and particularly so in the Arctic. Reductions of black carbon emissions in the Arctic could play an important role for the Arctic climate, for slowing the melt of ice and snow, and would have positive health effects in the Arctic due to reduced particulate matter concentrations in the air. Preliminary black carbon inventories by Arctic states and an emission data compilation by the Arctic Council’s Task Force on Short-Lived Climate Forcers have identified the approximate amount and the major sources of black carbon emissions in the Arctic countries. The largest emission sources are on-road and off-road diesel ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT MINISTERS MEETING 5 Particles on the ice sheet surface. Photo: Henrik Egede Lassen/Alpha Film vehicles, open biomass burning (agricultural burning and forest fires) and residential heating. Total emissions from Arctic Council nations are expected to decline, primarily because of diesel engine particulate matter standards. However, marine shipping in the Arctic constitutes a potentially future significant source, especially in the Arctic due to its projected increase over time due to the retreating Arctic summer sea ice and its proximity to snow and ice. Gas flaring is also a potential significant source but the understanding of its contribution is currently uncertain. Sources within the Arctic states likely have a greater climate impact per unit of emission of black carbon due to their proximity to the Arctic, though total black carbon effects from non-Arctic Council nations may be significant. In May 2012 the Executive Body to the UN-ECE Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP), to which all Arctic states are Parties, adopted a revised Gothenburg Protocol with new emission reduction commitments for PM2.5 of which black carbon is a fraction. To reduce the negative effects on human health and the environment, and to contribute to a regional slowing down of global warming, Parties are encouraged to target sources known to emit high amounts of black carbon while meeting the reduction target for PM. 6 DISCUSSION NOTE Most Arctic states are also partners to the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants. The Coalition works to catalyse new actions as well as to highlight and bolster existing efforts on near-term climate change and related public health, food and energy security, and environmental issues. The Coalition is a partnership between developed and developing countries. The Arctic Council recognized in its Nuuk Declaration the rapidly changing climate in the Arctic and emphasized the importance of strengthening the Arctic Council’s efforts to address this change. The Arctic states were encouraged to implement, as appropriate in their national circumstances, relevant recommendations of the Task Force on SLCFs on measures to reduce emissions of black carbon. The Nuuk meeting furthermore decided to establish a Short-Lived Climate Forcer Contaminants project steering group to undertake circumpolar demonstration projects to reduce black carbon and other SLCF emissions. Several projects to implement concrete actions to reduce emissions of SLCFs, with an emphasis on black carbon, have been developed to date. Possible actions Arctic states are in a position to take immediate action and demonstrate leadership to the rest of the world by implementing farsighted measures to reduce, and to avoid future increases in, emissions of black carbon. Such action would also be in line with Arctic countries’ commitments under CLRTAP and its revised Gothenburg Protocol. This would provide substantial health benefits for the populations of Arctic nations, but also contribute to protecting the Arctic from the environmental damage that arises from rapid climate change. Emission inventories are of critical importance to identify emission trends and cost-effective mitigation opportunities for black carbon. Preliminary emission inventories for the Arctic countries have been undertaken but there is a need to base the analysis of further emission reduction possibilities on more complete and accurate emission inventories based on a common and transparent methodology. The Arctic states could agree to produce and submit to CLRTAP national emission inventories for black carbon, and this information could be synthesized for Arctic Council purposes. The inventories could be developed in line with the inventory guidelines that are to be agreed upon under CLRTAP in order not to duplicate efforts and to facilitate a more rapid development under that convention. A timeline for inventory development and submission could be established, for example submission to CLRTAP no later than February 15, 2015. Arctic states could support the development of an Arctic Council instrument on black carbon, or on SLCFs more generally, to increase the transparency of emission trends, enhance emission reductions and form a basis for strengthened cooperation among Arctic nations for efforts both internal and external to the Arctic Council. This could also encourage other countries, regions and forums to initiate similar actions. At this time it may be premature to define what legal status such an instrument would have. This would be the outcome of the negotiations leading up to a formal document that can be accepted by all Arctic nations. A high-level group could be established at the Kiruna Ministerial meeting and mandated to develop and present a proposal for an Arctic Council instrument to enhance efforts to reduce Black Carbon emissions, potentially including the following: • a new mechanism for cooperation requiring all Arctic states to submit national-level emissions and national action plans on black carbon to the Arctic Council, • a common vision for black carbon emission reductions, • joint procedures for consultation on national mitigation action, Dogs on sea ice, Greenland. Photo: Lawrence Hislop/UNEP-GRID/Arendal ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT MINISTERS MEETING 7 • development and promotion of a compilation of best mitigation practices and technologies available, both within Arctic Council nations, but also for the polar region where increased activities are expected, • targets if desired (binding or non-binding). Any process developed under the Arctic Council should complement, facilitate and accelerate work on black carbon taking place in other forum – not duplicate it. Questions for discussion Are the above outlined actions the most promising for taking action over the medium term to reduce emissions of black carbon in the Arctic? How can an Arctic states’ instrument for black carbon reductions best be developed over the coming years? Arctic resilience Resilience in the Arctic can be conceived as the ability to respond to the challenges created by rapid environmental and social changes. These changes include the impacts of climate change but also changes related to rapid economic development and social transformations. Assessing resilience includes analysis both of the changes that are taking place, including their potential impacts, and the social and ecological capacities for adaptation and transformation, including how these may be changing due to new pressures. Assessing resilience is about preparing for change, where a key concern is to understand how governance institutions and policy decisions can strengthen society’s capacity to protect valuable ecosystem services in the Arctic. The Arctic is already changing rapidly. While some changes are slow and gradual, there is also increasing evidence of threshold changes, which are generally relatively rapid and may be difficult to reverse because they involve feedbacks that reinforce the changes. The rapid decline of Arctic sea ice is an example where large new expanses of open water have created a situation that has primed the Arctic for further warming. The Arctic pack ice has been identified as a tipping element in the world climate systems, making this change significant not only in the Arctic but on a global scale. Another Arctic 8 DISCUSSION NOTE tipping element of global significance is permafrost, where thawing permafrost leads to release of greenhouse gases that accelerate the warming. Moreover, collapsing permafrost can change the landscape in ways that affect heat transfer and the flow of water. Declining sea ice and thawing permafrost also have large impacts regionally in the Arctic, not least along coasts that are prone to erosion. Some parts of the Arctic feature extremely high erosion rates that threaten community and industrial infrastructure. Permafrost loss is also linked to some very rapid changes in the terrestrial landscape, including draining of lakes over the course of only a few years and shifts in vegetation that have immediate negative impacts on reindeer grazing. Other observed ecosystem changes that have threshold characteristics are linked to warmer air temperatures and longer growing seasons. One example is shrub encroachment across the lower Arctic, where a canopy that reached above the snow speeds up the warming. Another is a shift from coniferous to deciduous forest in Alaska, which was directly triggered by increasing wildfires. Within one to two decades such a shift can turn the forest from a carbon sink to a carbon source. Whether society can respond to the challenges related to rapid changes in Arctic landscapes and seascapes without losing important ecosystem services depend on our collective ability for action, which in turn is influenced by rapid social changes in the Arctic. The more and sooner we mitigate emissions, the less we will have to adapt, and the higher the probability for successful adaptation will be. Without effective mitigation, there is a very high risk that our capacity for adaptation will be exhausted. Questions for discussion What are the next steps to introduce considerations of resilience in national management policies and practices? How can Arctic countries increase Arctic capacity to adequately address rapid change and resilience, and what is the Arctic Council role in doing so? Contaminants in the Arctic Addressing contamination of the Arctic environment, biota and communities calls for actions in and outside the Arctic territory. Many pollutants end up in the Arctic irrespective of where they are released into the environment, leading in many cases to accumulation of toxic substances in the food chain. In addition to the present sources of contamination, depositions of previous decades are released into the ocean as the ice and permafrost melt. Work on identifying sources of pollution in the Arctic territories continues to be a significant area of engagement for Arctic nations. Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) accumulate and persist for long periods of time and adversely affect health including by acting upon the immune, reproductive, nervous and endocrine systems. Although international actions have effectively reduced the levels of old POPs (mainly pesticides and industrial chemicals) in the Arctic, levels of many new substances used in consumer products are rising. These include brominated flame retardants in electronics, upholstery and construction products, and perfluorinated compounds in detergents, textiles and upholstery. Among the heavy metals, mercury, lead and cadmium are of major concern because of their presence in animals consumed by people. These metals have multiple toxicological effects, including effects on development and the functioning of the nervous system. Mercury continues to present risks to Arctic wildlife and human populations. The assessment made by the Arctic Council (AMAP 2011) confirms the need for concerted international action if mercury levels in the Arctic (and in the rest of the world) are to be reduced. It is of particular concern that mercury levels are continuing to rise in some Arctic species in large areas of the Arctic, despite reductions in emissions from human activities over the past 30 years in some parts of the world. POPs and heavy metals bioaccumulate in the food web, with the highest concentration of toxins found in top predators, including humans. Particular risks of contaminants to the Arctic ecosystems and indigenous communities have been acknowledged in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, in which the Arctic Countries have played an active part. Radionuclides persist in soil and plants, leading to potentially high exposure levels in humans and can be damaging to health. As radionuclides are at higher levels on land than in the marine food web they are a relatively lesser concern for people eating marine species. Possible actions While the Arctic Council states have been actively contributing to the international activities, attention should still be paid to the Arctic territories. Action will be needed to address e.g. the thousands of tonnes hazardous waste, including obsolete pesticides and PCBs as well as mercury-containing waste stored in the catchment area of the Arctic ocean. Inventories and improved storage conditions have already been developed for obsolete pesticides stocks in the Arctic territories of the Russian Federation. In the project more than 7 000 tonnes of old pesticides unfit for use were located, taken account and repackaged as necessary. Challenges, however, remain: in the absence of environmentally sound destruction capacity, inappropriate disposal of waste in landfills or dumping take place. The Arctic countries should ensure that only the highest environmental standards are used in hazardous waste management in the vulnerable Arctic territory and regions directly impacting it. These could include banning sub-standard incineration, inappropriate disposal practices for hazardous waste and providing sufficient technical and financial resources to ultimately destroy the existing stockpiles. Resource extraction and energy production are also potentially polluting activities that should be based on highest possible environmental standards. A comprehensive, legally-binding global instrument that will significantly reduce global mercury use and releases will be of large importance for the Arctic. Questions for discussion How could the Arctic states (e.g. through the Arctic Council) play a more active role in relation to Arctic and global governance of contaminants? How can Arctic states better collaborate to improve environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes in the Northern regions directly impacting the Arctic? ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT MINISTERS MEETING 9 Polar Poppy and tourists, Georgeland, Franz Josef Land/Russian Arctic National Park. Photo: Peter Prokosch/UNEP-GRID/Arendal Biodiversity and ecosystem services Arctic biodiversity is an irreplaceable cultural, scientific, ecological, economic and spiritual asset and holds values of global importance. The Arctic Biodiversity Assessment was initiated in with the purpose of synthesizing and assessing the status and trends of biological diversity in the Arctic. It provides a first ever and much needed description of the state of the Arctic’s biodiversity. It provides up-to-date knowledge, identifies gaps in the data record, describes key mechanisms driving change and presents science-based suggestions for actions on how to address major environmental and anthropogenic pressures. The first product released from the ABA process – the Arctic Biodiversity Trends 2010: selected indicators of change report - includes the following key findings: 1. Unique Arctic habitats for flora and fauna, including sea ice, tundra, thermokarst ponds and lakes, and permafrost peatlands have been disappearing over recent decades. 2. Although the majority of Arctic species examined are currently stable or increasing, some species of importance to Arctic people or species of global significance are declining. 3. Climate change is emerging as the most far reaching and significant stressor on Arctic biodiversity. Howe- 10 DISCUSSION NOTE 4. 5. 6. 7. ver 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. Since 1991, the extent of protected areas in the Arctic has increased, although marine areas remain poorly represented. Changes in Arctic biodiversity are creating both challenges and opportunities for Arctic peoples. Long-term observations based on the best available traditional and scientific knowledge are required to identify changes in biodiversity, assess the implications of observed changes, and develop adaptation strategies. Changes in Arctic biodiversity have global repercussions. Possible actions The full Arctic Biodiversity Assessment is to be completed in 2013 and presented to the Arctic Council meeting in Kiruna. Based on its draft scientific findings, key actions can be identified including: • strengthen efforts to reduce climate change; • implement Ecosystem Based Management; • make agreed biodiversity objectives effective in Arctic; • identify biologically, ecologically and culturally significant areas; • advance the protection and management of a network of areas of importance for marine, terrestrial and freshwater species and habitats; • protect the Arctic environment from pollutants by international efforts, clean-up activities and best available technologies; • manage the Arctic living resource in a sustainable way, through e.g. improved data gathering, integration of traditional ecological knowledge, development of management plans for exploited species and reducing by-catch; • improve public awareness and understanding of the importance of Arctic biodiversity and the challenges it faces; • address the threats to migratory species, not least through improved international cooperation among and beyond the Arctic. A comprehensive and integrated approach will be needed to address the interconnected and complex challenges facing biodiversity and to ensure informed policy decisions in a changing Arctic. The lack of standardized, long term data presents a critical impediment to our ability to understand and predict what is happening with Arctic biodiversity. Discussions at the Conference of the Parties to the CBD in Hyderabad resulted in a strong recognition of the importance of Arctic biodiversity and of Arctic Council work, in particular the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment, and further highlighted the need for international cooperation in conservation and sustainable use within the Arctic. The conference underlined the importance of identification of ecologically and biologically significant areas in the Arctic and areas of high ecological and cultural significance as well as work to promote the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 in relation to the Arctic environment. Fishing boats in the harbour in Lofoten, Norway.Photo: Lawrence Hislop/UNEP-GRID/Arendal ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT MINISTERS MEETING 11 Questions for discussion What are the most important steps to make biodiversity objectives effective in Arctic? How should we advance the protection of areas of important marine, terrestrial and freshwater habitats? What actions/activities are of high priority to follow up on in the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment? Possible actions Some of the recommendations by the EBM group strongly related to the ambit of responsibility of ministries of environment are highlighted here: • make a political committment to EBM in the Arctic, • develop an overarching Arctic EBM goal and provide guidance on how to develop and operationalize objectives supporting this goal (one might explore the potential of articulating a conservation objective for the Arctic supported by Ecological Quality Objectives); • institute periodic Arctic Council reviews of EBM in the Arctic to exchange information on integrated assessment and management experiences, including highlighting examples from Arctic states. Ecosystem based management Ecosystem based management (EBM) refers to an integrated, science-based approach to environmental management that aims to sustain the health, resilience, culture and diversity of ecosystems while supporting sustainable and equitable use by humans of the services they provide. At a general level, EBM facilitates efficient and sciencebased decisions by providing a way of assessing and managing the effects of multiple stressors affecting the same ecosystem. Locally, through the design of inclusive stakeholder processes that reflect a broad range of scientific as well as traditional and local knowledge, EBM can help ensure that policy outcomes advance ecological, social and economic goals, and help Arctic peoples adapt to changing ecological and socio-economic conditions. Already at the last Arctic Environment Ministers meeting in Ilulissat, ministers highlighted the need for an EBM approach. Within the Arctic Council an expert group on EBM is now preparing to deliver results to the Arctic Council meeting in Kiruna. In its draft report the group makes recommendations to the Arctic Council to advance EBM and proposes that the Arctic Council adopt a policy commitment to EBM in the coastal, marine and terrestrial environments. 12 DISCUSSION NOTE Questions for discussion Should an overarching conservation objective for the Arctic be formulated? How can the Arctic states best advance EBM implementation in the Arctic? Who is responsible for this process and the cross-sectoral collaboration it requires? 103 33 Stockholm • Phone 08-405 10 00 www.government.se/environment