WWF Arctic Council Conservation Scorecard

Biodiversity

© naturepl.com / Doug Allan / WWF

Biodiversity conservation in the Arctic is a major challenge, given ecosystems are in climate-driven (and increasingly, development-driven) flux and typically have simple food web structures. The magnitude and speed of change, along with growing threats, challenges the ability of Arctic biodiversity to provide ecosystem services to Arctic peoples.

Findings

National implementation progress has been rather slow to mainstream Arctic biodiversity into Arctic development planning and to reduce human disturbance outside protected areas. Arctic national strategies generally fail to include clear, concrete objectives and provisions for biodiversity.

Recommendations

Arctic countries

Arctic Council

Detailed ratings

D Canada

  • Mainstreaming Biodiversity
  • 0/6
  • Reducing Human Disturbance outside Protected Areas
  • 0/4
  • Sustainable Management of Living Resources and Habitat
  • 3/3
  • Biodiversity Research and Monitoring
  • 2/4
  • Total score
  • 5/17

All ratings for Canada See detailed scoring criteria

D Kingdom of Denmark

  • Mainstreaming Biodiversity
  • 1/6
  • Reducing Human Disturbance outside Protected Areas
  • 0/4
  • Sustainable Management of Living Resources and Habitat
  • 2/3
  • Biodiversity Research and Monitoring
  • 3/4
  • Total score
  • 6/17

All ratings for Kingdom of Denmark See detailed scoring criteria

C Finland

  • Mainstreaming Biodiversity
  • 1/4
  • Reducing Human Disturbance outside Protected Areas
  • 1/4
  • Sustainable Management of Living Resources and Habitat
  • 2/3
  • Biodiversity Research and Monitoring
  • 3/3
  • Total score
  • 7/14

All ratings for Finland See detailed scoring criteria

D Iceland

  • Mainstreaming Biodiversity
  • 0/6
  • Reducing Human Disturbance outside Protected Areas
  • 0/4
  • Sustainable Management of Living Resources and Habitat
  • 2/3
  • Biodiversity Research and Monitoring
  • 1/4
  • Total score
  • 3/17

All ratings for Iceland See detailed scoring criteria

D Norway

  • Mainstreaming Biodiversity
  • 0/6
  • Reducing Human Disturbance outside Protected Areas
  • 0/4
  • Sustainable Management of Living Resources and Habitat
  • 3/3
  • Biodiversity Research and Monitoring
  • 3/4
  • Total score
  • 6/17

All ratings for Norway See detailed scoring criteria

C Russia

  • Mainstreaming Biodiversity
  • 2/6
  • Reducing Human Disturbance outside Protected Areas
  • 1/4
  • Sustainable Management of Living Resources and Habitat
  • 1/3
  • Biodiversity Research and Monitoring
  • 3/4
  • Total score
  • 7/17

All ratings for Russia See detailed scoring criteria

C Sweden

  • Mainstreaming Biodiversity
  • 1/4
  • Reducing Human Disturbance outside Protected Areas
  • 0/4
  • Sustainable Management of Living Resources and Habitat
  • 2/3
  • Biodiversity Research and Monitoring
  • 3/3
  • Total score
  • 6/14

All ratings for Sweden See detailed scoring criteria

C United States

  • Mainstreaming Biodiversity
  • 0/6
  • Reducing Human Disturbance outside Protected Areas
  • 4/4
  • Sustainable Management of Living Resources and Habitat
  • 3/3
  • Biodiversity Research and Monitoring
  • 3/4
  • Total score
  • 10/17

All ratings for United States See detailed scoring criteria

D Arctic Council

  • Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA)
  • 1/1
  • Arctic Biodiversity Assessment Implementation Plan
  • 1/1
  • Mainstreaming Biodiversity
  • 0/1
  • Common Measures for Reducing Threat of Invasive Species
  • 0/1
  • Pan-Arctic Conservation and Management Plans for Shared Species
  • 0/1
  • 2.6 Biodiversity Research and Monitoring
  • 0/1
  • Total Score
  • 2/6

All ratings for Arctic Council See detailed scoring criteria

How these indicators are scored

National implementation

Indicator 1: Mainstreaming Biodiversity

Criterion 1:

  • State incorporates biodiversity objectives and provisions into plan(s) specific to development in the Arctic for either terrestrial areas or marine areas
  • State incorporates biodiversity objectives and provisions into plan(s) specific to development in the Arctic for both terrestrial and marine areas

Criterion 2:

  • State has a plan (or plans) for Arctic development that incorporate resilience and adaptation of biodiversity to climate change for either terrestrial areas or marine areas
  • State has plans for Arctic development that incorporate resilience and adaptation of biodiversity to climate change for both terrestrial and marine areas

Criterion 3: State has completed national evaluation of the ecosystem services provided by Arctic biodiversity

Criterion 4: State has developed regional development plan(s) that account for ecosystem services provided by Arctic biodiversity

Indicator 2: Reducing Human Disturbance outside Protected Areas

Criterion 1: State developed guidelines to reduce human disturbance to areas critical for sensitive life stages of Arctic species that are outside protected areas

Criterion 2:

  • State has identified areas critical for sensitive life stages of Arctic species that are outside of protected areas
  • State has implemented appropriate spatial and temporal measures:
    • in some important areas critical for sensitive life stages of Arctic species that are outside of protected areas
    • for all important areas critical for sensitive life stages of Arctic species that are outside of protected areas

Indicator 3: Sustainable Management of Living Resources and Habitat

Criterion 1:

  • State developed fishing practices to reduce by-catch of marine mammals, seabirds and non-target fish
  • State developed fishing practices to avoid significant adverse impact to the seabed

Criterion 2: These practices are mandatory pursuant to specific legislation and or similar act

Indicator 4: Biodiversity Research and Monitoring

Criterion 1: State identified measures for detecting early warnings of sea-ice associated biodiversity change and triggering conservation actions

Criterion 2: State researches stressors and drivers of relevance to Arctic biodiversity, with a focus on stressors that are expected to have rapid and significant impacts and issues where knowledge is lacking

Criterion 3: State monitors stressors and drivers of relevance to Arctic biodiversity, with a focus on stressors that are expected to have rapid and significant impacts and issues where knowledge is lacking

Criterion 4: State provided data for increased knowledge and improved management of biodiversity in the Arctic through the CBMP

Arctic Council

Indicator 1: Arctic Biodiversity Assessment

Criterion 1: Arctic Council completed the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment

Indicator 2: Arctic Biodiversity Assessment Implementation Plan

Criterion 1: Arctic Council developed a plan for further work under the Arctic Council to support and implement the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment policy recommendations

Indicator 3: Mainstreaming Biodiversity

Criterion 1: Arctic Council incorporated biodiversity objectives and provisions into all Arctic Council work

Indicator 4: Common Measures for Reducing Threat of Invasive Species

Criterion 1: Arctic Council developed common measures for early detection and reporting, identifying and blocking pathways of introduction, and sharing best practices and techniques for monitoring, eradication and control of invasive alien/non-native species

Indicator 5: Pan-Arctic Conservation and Management Plans for Shared Species

Criterion 1: Arctic Council developed conservation and management plans for shared species that are, or will potentially be, harvested or commercially exploited

Indicator 6: Researching and Monitoring Biodiversity Stressors and Drivers

Criterion 1: Arctic Council developed robust quantitative indicators for biodiversity stressors through the CBMP