WWF Arctic Council Conservation Scorecard

Conservation Areas

© naturepl.com / Martha Holmes / WWF

Pressure on the Arctic’s ecosystems is rapidly growing. Industrial fishing, the disruption of habitats, marine shipping, oil and gas development, and mining all have negative impacts on Arctic biodiversity. Furthermore, climate change represents the most serious threat to Arctic biodiversity and exacerbates all other threats.

Findings

Although areas for conservation have been identified, national implementation progress is rather slow for protecting these areas and for safeguarding biodiversity.

Recommendations

National

Arctic Council

Detailed ratings

C Canada

  • Identification of Conservation Areas
  • 3/5
  • Protecting Areas of Ecological Importance
  • 3/5
  • Mechanisms to Safeguard Connectivity
  • 0/1
  • Overall Rating
  • 6/11

All ratings for Canada See detailed scoring criteria

B Kingdom of Denmark

  • Identification of Conservation Areas
  • 4/5
  • Protecting Areas of Ecological Importance
  • 3/5
  • Mechanisms to Safeguard Connectivity
  • 0/1
  • Overall Rating
  • 7/11

All ratings for Kingdom of Denmark See detailed scoring criteria

B Finland

  • Identification of Conservation Areas
  • 1/1
  • Protecting Areas of Ecological Importance
  • 2/2
  • Mechanisms to Safeguard Connectivity
  • 0/1
  • Overall Rating
  • 3/4

All ratings for Finland See detailed scoring criteria

D Iceland

  • Identification of Conservation Areas
  • 1/4
  • Protecting Areas of Ecological Importance
  • 1/3
  • Mechanisms to Safeguard Connectivity
  • 0/1
  • Overall Rating
  • 2/8

All ratings for Iceland See detailed scoring criteria

B Norway

  • Identification of Conservation Areas
  • 5/5
  • Protecting Areas of Ecological Importance
  • 2/5
  • Mechanisms to Safeguard Connectivity
  • 0/1
  • Overall Rating
  • 7/11

All ratings for Norway See detailed scoring criteria

C Russia

  • Identification of Conservation Areas
  • 4/5
  • Protecting Areas of Ecological Importance
  • 2/5
  • Mechanisms to Safeguard Connectivity
  • 0/1
  • Overall Rating
  • 6/11

All ratings for Russia See detailed scoring criteria

D Sweden

  • Identification of Conservation Areas
  • 0/1
  • Protecting Areas of Ecological Importance
  • 1/2
  • Mechanisms to Safeguard Connectivity
  • 0/1
  • Overall Rating
  • 1/4

All ratings for Sweden See detailed scoring criteria

B United States

  • Identification of Conservation Areas
  • 4/5
  • Protecting Areas of Ecological Importance
  • 3/5
  • Mechanisms to Safeguard Connectivity
  • 0/1
  • Overall Rating
  • 7/11

All ratings for United States See detailed scoring criteria

A Arctic Council

  • Management of Biologically, Ecologically, and Culturally Important Areas
  • 1/1
  • Overall Rating
  • 1/1

All ratings for Arctic Council See detailed scoring criteria

How these indicators are scored

National

Indicator 1: Identification of Conservation Areas

Criterion 1: State identified marine areas of heightened ecological significance

Criterion 2: State identified marine areas of heightened cultural significance

Criterion 3: State identified marine areas that are sensitive to oil spills

Criterion 4: State completed a gap analysis for networks of terrestrial protected areas

Criterion 5: State has identified areas that can act as a refuge for unique biodiversity in the high Arctic

Indicator 2: Protecting Areas of Ecological Importance

Criterion 1: State implemented protection measures for identified ecologically and biologically important marine areas:

  • covering some identified areas
  • covering all identified areas

Criterion 2: State filled geographic gap for networks of terrestrial protected areas

Criterion 3: State implemented conservation measures for areas that can act as a refuge for high Arctic species

Criterion 4: State promotes the active involvement of indigenous peoples in the management and sustainable use of protected areas

Indicator 3: Mechanisms to Safeguard Connectivity

Criterion 1: State has implemented mechanisms to maintain functional connectivity within and between protected areas in order to protect ecosystem resilience and facilitate adaptation to climate change

Arctic Council

Indicator 1: Cooperation on Biologically, Ecologically, and Culturally Important Areas

Criterion 1: Arctic Council established cooperative mechanism to advance conservation and management of biologically, ecologically, and culturally significant areas