WWF UK                            ARC0018

Written evidence submitted by WWF-UK

Summary

WWF- UK welcomes the Environmental Audit Polar sub-Committee’s inquiry into the UK’s relationship with the Arctic environment and we focus our evidence on two aspects of this wide-ranging inquiry, specifically the observable realities of ice decline for biodiversity, and how the UK might consider supporting and promoting conservation and sustainable use of the marine environment for the benefit of all current and future generations of Arctic inhabitants and globally.

The Arctic is one of the most rapidly warming regions on our planet, with profound implications for biodiversity and people. In response to these increasing pressures, WWFs Arctic programme developed ArcNet: An Arctic Ocean network of Priority Areas for Conservation. It is a mapped vision, developed in collaboration with leading Arctic scientists and Indigenous communities, for a connected and representative protected areas network for the Arctic Ocean. This is the first time a network of protected areas has been identified at the scale of an entire ocean and it is hoped that this project will demonstrate that a coherent approach to marine conservation between multiple nations is possible. Furthermore, it has the potential to be used as a blueprint to transform the way we manage our oceans globally, helping to achieve international commitments to protect 30% of global oceans by 2030 and aligning with the draft agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction.

1. Introduction

1.1 WWF is a global conservation organisation, employing over 5000 staff in more than 100 countries and with more than 5 million supporters across the world.

1.2 In the Arctic, we work primarily through our offices in six of the seven Arctic countries (excluding Iceland), with experts in circumpolar issues like governance, climate change, wildlife and sustainable development.

1.3 WWF- UK welcomes the Environmental Audit Polar sub-Committee’s inquiry into the UK’s relationship with the Arctic environment and we focus our evidence on two aspects of this wide-ranging inquiry, specifically the observable realities of ice decline for biodiversity, and how the UK might consider supporting and promoting conservation and sustainable use of the marine environment for the benefit of all current and future generations of Arctic inhabitants, and beyond.

2.  Arctic change - the observable realities of ice decline for Arctic biodiversity

2.1 The Arctic is amongst the most rapidly warming regions of the planet. The IPCC Special Report on Oceans and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC) Chapter 3 - Polar Regions summarises comprehensively the impact of the climate crisis on Arctic biodiversity and communities and paints a picture of dramatic and rapid change.

2.2 Sea ice is disappearing across the Arctic (Barber et al., 2017; Comiso et al., 2017; Stroeve and Notz, 2018). What remains is younger (Stroeve and Notz, 2018) and thinner (Laxon et al., 2013; Kwok, 2018; Chevallier et al., 2017; Renner et al., 2014; Haas et al., 2017), melts earlier in spring and re-freezes later in Autumn (Stroeve and Notz, 2018). Projections are for continued loss of sea ice.

2.3 There are indications of declining benthic biomass in the northern Bering (Grebmeier and Cooper, 2016) and southern Chukchi Seas (Grebmeier et al., 2015).

2.4 In the northern Barents Sea, Atlantic sector, higher temperatures have expanded suitable feeding areas for boreal/subarctic marine fish species (Andrews et al., 2019) and contributed to increased Atlantic cod production (Kjesbu et al., 2014).

2.5 Changes to permafrost landscapes have reduced freshwater habitat available for fish and other aquatic biota, including aquatic invertebrates upon which the fish depend for food (Chin et al., 2016).

2.6 Mammals are mobile animals that can respond to environmental changes (Post et al., 2013; Hamilton et al., 2019). But, while wildlife from outside the Arctic can move northwards, caribou/reindeer, polar bears, walrus, narwhal, beluga, and bowhead whales have very little scope to move elsewhere; they must cope with changes to their Arctic home because they have nowhere else to go (Kovacs et al., 2012; Hamilton et al., 2015). If they cannot adapt, they will be at risk of population declines and extinction.

2.7 Observed and predicted changes in snowfall, ocean acidification, and the extent, age and seasonal duration of sea ice are having and will continue to have impacts on polar bears, walrus, narwhal, beluga and bowhead whales. These changes affect all aspects of their lives, from the food they eat and the energy they use daily, to their ability to survive and raise young successfully. 

2.8 Sea ice is critical habitat for polar bears, walruses, and Arctic seals and whales.

2.9 Spring is a particularly important time for polar bears. Polar bear mothers emerge from their snow dens with their young cubs after fasting for four months. The mother uses the sea ice to hunt for seals and in doing so, she replenishes her energy stores so she can continue to nurse her cubs (Stirling & Derocher, 2012). Seals also give birth on the sea ice, upon which they build snow lairs to keep their pups warm and safe from predators, including polar bears (Smith & Stirling 1975; Lydersen & Gjertz 1986).

2.10 Snowfall, including on sea ice, is vitally important for seals and polar bears to build snow lairs and dens to give birth to and raise their young (Stirling & Derocher, 2012).

2.11 In late summer and autumn, Pacific walruses ride the northward-moving sea ice over the continental shelf. They dive for shellfish, using the sea ice as a resting platform in between dives. Walrus mothers with calves prefer to use sea ice rather than coastal haul-outs, which are more crowded and can be further from feeding grounds.

2.12 Sea ice provides narwhal, beluga whales and bowhead whales protection from predatory killer whales, which are moving further into Arctic waters as the ice disappears. Older sea ice acts as a sound buffer to alleviate impacts of underwater noise from shipping, seismic survey and construction, thereby enabling Arctic whales to use echolocation and songs to find one another, find their prey and find their way through the ocean.

2.13 Changes in the distribution and availability of suitable sea ice for ice-breeding seals (Bajzak et al., 2011; Øigård et al., 2013) have resulted in increases in strandings and pup mortality in years with little ice (Johnston et al., 2012; Soulen et al., 2013; Stenson and Hammill, 2014). Ringed seals are having to expend more energy diving for food (Svalbard) (Hamilton et al., 2015).

2.14 Increased mortality of Pacific walrus calves has been observed as mothers and calves are forced to use large, crowded coastal haul-outs due to ice retraction from over the continental shelf to the deep Arctic Ocean (Kovacs et al., 2016).

2.15 Changes in the timing, distribution and thickness of sea ice and snow have been linked to changes in distribution, denning, foraging behaviour and survival of polar bears (Andersen et al., 2012; Hamilton et al., 2017; Escajeda et al., 2018), with resulting declines in some subpopulations (Lunn et al., 2016; McCall et al., 2016). Polar bears are spending more time swimming in the ocean, both in deep and coastal areas (Durner et al., 2017; Pilfold et al., 2017; Lone et al., 2018). On Svalbard, just two generations earlier, ‘their grandparents were walking on the sea ice’. Earlier summer sea ice melt and later freeze-up is forcing polar bears onto land for longer (Durner et al., 2017; Pilfold et al., 2017; Lone et al., 2018). This brings them in contact with people who live and work in the Arctic, threatening the safety of both people and bears.

2.16 Barren ground caribou/reindeer live on the Arctic tundra. Already facing a global population decline of 60% from the 1990s to 2017 (Gunn, 2016; Fauchald et al., 2017), by 2050 their tundra habitat is predicted to shrink by half – a result of more extensive wildfires and the expansion of woody shrubs and trees northwards (Pearson et al., 2013). These shrubs and trees carry a higher fuel load than current tundra vegetation (Pastick et al., 2017).

2.17 Expansion into the Arctic of sub-Arctic marine and terrestrial species and biological communities is observed (CAFF, 2013). This will increase pressure on Arctic and high-Arctic species – the “Arctic squeeze”. 

2.18 Examples of northward marine expansions include northern expansions in summer ranges of temperate whale species (Brower et al., 2017; Storrie et al., 2018) and expansions of fish and benthic species (Grebmeier, 2012; Renaud et al., 2015; Kortsch et al., 2012).

2.19 Shifts in species distributions and abundance has challenged international and national ocean and fisheries governance, including in the Arctic, North Atlantic and Pacific, in terms of regulating fishing to secure ecosystem integrity and sharing of resources between fishing entities (IPCC, 2019)

2.20 On Arctic land, northward range expansions have been recorded in species from all major taxon groups based both on scientific studies and local observations (CAFF, 2013; AMAP, 2017a; AMAP, 2017b; AMAP, 2015).

2.21 On land, there are very few refugia and Arctic species will likely be outcompeted by more temperate species (Meredith et al. 2019).

2.22 Changes in Arctic sea ice have the potential to influence mid-latitude weather (IPCC, 2019).

3. What more can the UK do to increase its contribution to Arctic science and to protect the Arctic environment.

3.1 The accelerating pace of dramatic climate change combined with the loss of nature highlights the urgency for action.

3.2. Climate change is by far the most serious threat to Arctic biodiversity, and the UK needs to live up to its commitments under the Paris Agreement and promises made as host of COP 26 in Glasgow, both through domestic action and international cooperation.

3.3 The adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and the finalisation of the Draft agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (the “future BBNJ Agreement”). Together, these may provide a framework for the governance and conservation of marine life globally.

3.4 The future BBNJ agreement will have a considerable impact on the governance of marine biodiversity in the regions that include an area beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ), including the Arctic Ocean. In the Arctic, the future BBNJ agreement applies to approximately 2.8 million square kilometers that lie beyond the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zones of the five Arctic coastal states (Canada, Denmark with respect to Greenland, Norway, Russia and the United States).

3.5 The future BBNJ Agreement provides key tools for national and global work in protecting biodiversity. The UK may play a constructive role on the international scene to ensure that these are urgently implemented, to resolve both the global climate and nature crises, also in the Arctic.

3.6 The Arctic Council Strategic Plan 2021-2030 includes seven key goals including Goal 3 on delivering a Healthy Arctic Marine Environment. Through our participation in the Arctic Council, WWF strive to support the Arctic states and Permanent Participants in promoting conservation and sustainable use of the marine environment for the benefit of all current and future generations of Arctic inhabitants.

3.7 The UK Government’s Arctic Policy Framework - Looking North: The UK and the Arctic commits the UK to ‘work with our partners to protect the Arctic’s biodiversity, tackle environmental threats and promote sustainable management of the regions marine and terrestrial resources’. The overarching long-term objectives set out in this new policy framework suggest a renewed effort by the UK to support the Arctic council across all seven strategic goals including Goal 3 in order to assist the Council in acting on its regional policy-shaping role, building on existing work and helping to shape emerging policies to advance whole ocean health across jurisdictions.

3.8 WWF has Observer status at the Convention of the Parties for the Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement (CAOFA). This important agreement entered into force in June 2021 with the purpose of preventing unregulated fishing in the high seas area of the Central Arctic Ocean (CAO) by establishing an interim prohibition on commercial fishing. WWF-UK would support the constructive participation of the UK Government in the CAOFA proceedings to share experience in best practice sustainable fisheries management and conservation.

3.9 WWF has produced a report which examines best practices and lessons learned from regional fisheries management organisations and subject matter experts to inform good fisheries governance within the central Arctic Ocean, as well as good governance within the greater Arctic environment. Further reading and the report can be found here.

Network of protected and conserved areas

3.10 Nature protection is one of the most effective tools to safeguard species, populations, habitats including carbon-rich hotspots and thereby also human life.

3.11 Establishing a representative and connected ocean-spanning network of protected and conserved areas is key to bolster the resilience of Arctic marine life to climate change and expanding human activities in the region (IPCC, 2019 - SROCC SPM).  The Arctic states have committed to establishing a pan-Arctic network of protected and conserved areas and have also made related commitments in global fora.

3.12 Building on the Framework for a Pan-Arctic Network of Marine Protected Areas and other Arctic Council products, and in response to increasing pressures and stresses on the Arctic environment, the WWF Arctic programme has developed ArcNet: An Arctic Ocean network of Priority Areas for Conservation. It is a mapped vision, developed in partnership with leading Arctic scientists, for a connected and representative protected areas network for the Arctic Ocean.

3.13 The ArcNet initiative has two central aims.  The first is to identify an ecologically-representative and well-connected Arctic network of priority areas for conservation (PACs) (Figure 1) that operates cooperatively to support the resilience and long-term conservation of biological diversity and ecological processes across the Arctic marine environment.

3.14 The second aim is to ensure that the resources and outputs from the analysis are used to help design, implement and effectively manage a conservation network in the Arctic Ocean.

3.15 ArcNet is a specific proposal of areas to implement conservation measures, a blueprint for designing networks of protected and conserved areas, and an invitation to Arctic states, rightsholders, marine stakeholders, Indigenous knowledge holders, scientists communities to contribute to, and cooperate in, establishing and managing the Arctic-wide network.

3.16 This is the first time a network of protected areas has been identified at the scale of an entire ocean and it is hoped that this project will demonstrate that a coherent approach to marine conservation between multiple nations is possible.

3.17 Furthermore, it has the potential to be used as a blueprint to transform the way we manage our oceans globally, helping to achieve international commitments to protect 30% of global oceans by 2030. Further information about ArcNet including the ArcNet handbook can be found here.

3.18 Polar oceans play an important role in drawing down, storing and sequestering vast amounts of carbon. UK scientists are actively identifying, quantifying and mapping ‘blue carbon hotspots’ in the Southern Ocean where shallow-water benthic assemblages have been found to store significant amounts of carbon, particularly across the Antarctic continental shelf and fjords.

3.19 Arctic benthic blue carbon is less well studied, however we do know that carbon rich habitats and species identified in the Southern Ocean are also present in the Arctic, including fjords, shelves and kelp. Further research is needed in the Arctic Ocean to map potential blue carbon hotspots, and UK science may contribute to identifying, mapping and ultimately conserving blue carbon hotspots in order to build upon and enhance the ArcNet proposal.

Ecological connectivity between protected and conserved areas

3.20 Ecological connectivity to, from, and across the Arctic Ocean is integral to ocean health and key to the conservation success of networks of protected and conserved areas (IPCC 2022 AR6 WGII SPM). Ensuring connectivity for marine life includes maintaining unimpeded movement and dispersal of different life stages for species to ensure natural recruitment into populations, for example, spawning fishes, as well as actively managing migration corridors between seasonal habitats, for example, for Arctic whales.

3.21 The explicit inclusion of connectivity is necessary for an effective pan-Arctic network of protected and conserved areas, in order to promote the connectedness of the Arctic across national waters, into the high seas, and with the global ocean.

Sustainable shipping in Arctic waters

3.22 Shipping in the Arctic presents several significant risks for ocean health, and is expected to increase in the future. Minimising risks from shipping through voyage planning in the Arctic should be considered as part of a broader work on marine spatial planning, under the leadership of the Arctic Council’s Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) working group and also with the eyes on effective implementation and strengthening of the International Maritime Organization’s Polar Code.

3.23 Shipping-related marine spatial planning measures and tools contribute to the implementation of the ecosystem approach that protects the integrity of ecosystems while ensuring that human activities are sustainable.

2.24 Holistic marine spatial planning will need to account for migratory routes taken by cetacean species, to avoid ship-strike incidences. WWF has mapped these routes in the Artic region with more information available here.

Milestones in oceans management 2025-2029

3.25 To further implement the Arctic Council Strategic Plan 2021-2030, and contributing to regionally coherent implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework and the future BBNJ Agreement, WWF encourages the UK to support the Arctic Council in building a strong programme of work on area-based conservation for the coming three chairships.

3.26 During this period, and by 2029, we are calling for an Arctic Council that has contributed to the establishment and effective management of a network of marine protected and conserved areas covering at least 30% of the Arctic Ocean; augmented with measures maintaining ecological connectivity across the Arctic Ocean and seas to the South; and embedded in integrated ecosystem-based marine spatial planning frameworks of the surrounding seascape, to enhance and deliver the ecosystem-based management of Arctic Large Marine Ecosystems.

3.27 WWF has developed specific proposals for key Arctic Council deliverables by 2029 to help deliver this ambitious goal, which are included in Appendix 1. We offer it to the sub-committee and the wider UK Arctic Science community to determine where UK science and policy expertise might best contribute towards supporting these ambitions.

April 2023

LIST OF REFERENCES

1. AMAP, 2015: AMAP Assessment 2015. Temporal Trends in Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Arctic. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway, vi+71pp [Available at: https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/amap-assessment-2015-temporal-trends-in-persistent-organic-pollutants-in-the-arctic/1521; Access Date: 14 April 2023].

2. AMAP, 2017a. Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic (AACA) – Bering/Chukchi/Beaufort Region Overview report. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway, 24 pp

3. AMAP, 2017b. Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic: Perspectives from the Barents Area. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), xiv + 267pp.

4. Andersen, M., Derocher, A. E., Wiig Ø. and Aars, J., 2012. Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) maternity den distribution in Svalbard, Norway. Polar Biology, 35 (4), 499-508, doi:10.1007/s00300-011-1094-y.

5. Andrews, A. J., Christiansen, J. S., Bhat, S., Lynghammar, A., Westgaard, J. I., Pampoulie, C. and Præbel, K., 2019. Boreal marine fauna from the Barents Sea disperse to Arctic Northeast Greenland. Sci Rep, 9 (1), 5799, doi:10.1038/s41598-019-42097-x.

6. Bajzak, C. E., Hammill, M. O., Stenson, G. B. and Prinsenberg, S., 2011. Drifting away: implications of changes in ice conditions for a pack-ice-breeding phocid, the harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 89 (11), 1050-1062, doi:10.1139/z11-081

7. Barber, D., Meier, W. N., Gerland, S., Mundy, C. J., Holland, M., Kern, S., Li, Z., Michel, C., Perovich, D., K. and Tamure, T., 2017. Arctic Sea Ice. In: Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA). Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, 103-136.

8. Brower, A. A., Ferguson, M. C., Schonberg, S. V., Jewett, S. C. and Clarke, J. T., 2017: Gray whale distribution relative to benthic invertebrate biomass and abundance: Northeastern Chukchi Sea 2009–2012. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 144, 156-174, doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2016.12.007.

9. CAFF, 2013. Arctic Biodiversity Assessment. Status and trends in Arctic biodiversity. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), Akureyri. [Available at: Arctic Biodiversity Assessment - Status and trends in Arctic biodiversity (pame.is); Access Date: 06 April 2023].

10. Chevallier, M., Smith, G. C., Dupont, F., Lemieux, J-F., Forget, G., Fujii, Y., Hernandez, F., Msadek, R., Peterson, K. A., Storto, A., Toyoda, T., Valdivieso, M., Vernieres, G., Zuo, H., Balmaseda, M., Chang, Y-S., Ferry, N., Garric, G., Haines, K., Keeley, S., Kovach, R. M., Kuragano, T., Masina, S., Tang, Y. and Wang, X., 2017. Intercomparison of the Arctic sea ice cover in global ocean–sea ice reanalyses from the ORA-IP project. Climate Dynamics, 49 (3), 1107-1136, doi:10.1007/s00382-016-2985-y.

11. Chin, K. S., Lento, J., Culp, J. M., Lacelle, D. and Kokelj, S. V., 2016. Permafrost thaw and intense thermokarst activity decreases abundance of stream benthic macroinvertebrates. Glob Chang Biol, 22 (8), 2715-28, doi:10.1111/gcb.13225.

12. Comiso, J. C., Meier W. N. and Gersten, R., 2017. Variability and trends in the Arctic Sea ice cover: Results from different techniques. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 122 (8), 6883-6900, doi:10.1002/2017jc012768.

13. Durner, G. M., Douglas, D. C., Albeke, S. E., Whiteman, J. P., Amstrup, S. C., Richardson, E., Wilosn, R. R. and Ben‐David, M., 2017. Increased Arctic sea ice drift alters adult female polar bear movements and energetics. Global Change Biology, 23 (9), 3460-3473, doi:10.1111/gcb.13746.

14. Escajeda, E., Laidre, K. L., Born, E. W., Wiig, Ø., Atkinson, S., Dyck, M., Ferguson, S. H. and Lunn, N. J., 2018. Identifying shifts in maternity den phenology and habitat characteristics of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in Baffin Bay and Kane Basin. Polar Biology, 41 (1), 87-100, doi:10.1007/s00300-017-2172-6.

15. Fauchald, P., Hausner, V. H., Schmidt, J. I. and Clark, D. A., 2017. Transitions of social-ecological subsistence systems in the Arctic. International Journal of the Commons, 11 (1), 275-329, doi:10.18352/ijc.698.

16. Grebmeier, J. M. and Cooper, L. W., 2016. The Saint Lawrence Island Polynya: A 25-Year Evaluation of an Analogue for Climate Change in Polar Regions. In: Aquatic Microbial Ecology and Biogeochemistry: A Dual Perspective [Glibert, P. M. and T. M. Kana (eds.)]. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 171-183.

17. Grebmeier, J. M., Bluhm, B. A., Cooper, L. W., Danielson, S. L., Arrigo, K. R., Blanchard, A. L., Clarke, J. T., Day, R. H., Frey, K. E., Gradinger, R. R. and Kędra, M., 2015. Ecosystem characteristics and processes facilitating persistent macrobenthic biomass hotspots and associated benthivory in the Pacific Arctic. Progress in Oceanography, 136 (Supplement C), 92-114, doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2015.05.006.

18. Grebmeier, J. M., 2012. Shifting patterns of life in the Pacific Arctic and sub-Arctic Seas. Annual Reviews in Marine Science, 2012 (4), 63-78, doi:10.1146/annurev-marine-120710-100926.

19. Gunn, A., 2016. Rangifer tarandus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T29742A22167140; https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/29742/22167140; Access Date: 06 April 2023].

20. Haas, C., Beckers, J., King, J., Silis, A., Stroeve, J., Wilkinson, J., Notenboom, B., Schweiger, A. and Hendricks, S., 2017.  Ice and Snow Thickness Variability and Change in the High Arctic Ocean Observed by In Situ Measurements. Geophysical Research Letters, 44 (20), 10,462-10,469, doi:10.1002/2017gl075434.

21. Hamilton, C. D., Kovacs, K. M., Ims, R. A., Aars, J. and Lydersen, C., 2017. An Arctic predator–prey system in flux: climate change impacts on coastal space use by polar bears and ringed seals. Journal of Animal Ecology, 86 (5), 1054-1064, doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12685.

22. Hamilton, C. D., Lydersen, C., Ims, R. A. and Kovacs, K. M., 2015. Predictions replaced by facts: a keystone species’ behavioural responses to declining arctic sea-ice. Biology Letters, 11 (11), doi:10.1098/rsbl.2015.0803.

23. IPCC, 2019: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, N.M. Weyer (eds.)]. In press.

24. Johnston, D. W., Bowers, M. T., Friedlaender, A. S. and Lavigne, D. M., 2012. The Effects of Climate Change on Harp Seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus). Plos One, 7 (1), e29158, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029158

25. Kjesbu, O. S., Bogstad, B., Devine, J. A., Gjøsæter, H., Howell, D., Ingvaldsen, R. B., Nash, R. D. and Skjæraasen, J. E., 2014. Synergies between climate and management for Atlantic cod fisheries at high latitudes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 (9), 3478-3483, doi:10.1073/pnas.1316342111.

26. Kortsch, S., Primicerio, R., Beuchel, F., Renaud, P. E., Rodrigues, J., Lønne, O. J. and Gulliksen, B., 2012. Climate-driven regime shifts in Arctic marine benthos. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109 (35), 14052-14057, doi:10.1073/pnas.1207509109.

27. Kovacs, K. M., Lemons, P., MacCracken, J. G. and Lydersen, C., 2016. Walruses in a time of climate change. Arctic Report Card: Update for 2015. https://arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2015/ArtMID/5037/ArticleID/226/Walruses-in-a-Time-of-Climate-Change  Access Date: 06 April 2023].

28. Kwok, R., 2018. Arctic sea ice thickness, volume, and multiyear ice coverage: losses and coupled variability (1958–2018). Environmental Research Letters, 13 (10), 105005, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aae3ec.

29. Laxon, S. W., Giles, K. A., Ridout, A. L., Wingham, D. J., Willatt, R., Cullen, R., Kwok, R., Schweiger, A., Zhang, J., Haas, C., Hendricks, S., Krishfield, R., Kurtz, N., Farrell, S. and Davidson, M., 2013. CryoSat-2 estimates of Arctic sea ice thickness and volume. Geophysical Research Letters, 40 (4), 732-737, doi:10.1002/grl.50193.

30. Lone, K., Kovacs, K. M., Lydersen, C., Fedak, M., Andersen, M., Lovell, P. and Aars, J., 2018. Aquatic behaviour of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in an increasingly ice-free Arctic. Scientific Reports, 8 (1), 9677, doi:10.1038/s41598-018-27947-4

31. Lunn, N. J., Servanty, S., Regehr, E. V., Converse, S. J., Richardson, E. and Stirling, I., 2016. Demography of an apex predator at the edge of its range: impacts of changing sea ice on polar bears in Hudson Bay. Ecological Applications, 26 (5), 1302-1320, doi:doi:10.1890/15-1256.

32. McCall, A. G., Pilfold, N. W., Derocher, A. E. and Lunn, N. J., 2016. Seasonal habitat selection by adult female polar bears in western Hudson Bay. Population Ecology, 58 (3), 407-419, doi:10.1007/s10144-016-0549-y.

33. Meredith, M., Sommerkorn, M. Cassotta, S. Derksen, C. Ekaykin, A. Hollowed, A. Kofinas, G. Mackintosh, A. Melbourne-Thomas, J. Muelbert, M.M.C. Ottersen, G. Pritchard, H. and Schuur, E. A. G., 2019. Polar Regions. In: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [Pörtner, H.-O. Roberts, D.C. Masson-Delmotte, V.  Zhai, P. Tignor, M. Poloczanska, E. Mintenbeck, K. Alegría, A. Nicolai, M. Okem, A. Petzold, J. Rama, B. Weyer N.M. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 203–320. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157964.005

34. Øigård, T. A., Lindstrøm, U., Haug, T., Nilssen, K. T. and Smout, S., 2013. Functional relationship between harp seal body condition and available prey in the Barents Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 484, 287-301.

35. Pastick, N. J., Duffy, P., Genet, H., Rupp, T. S., Wylie, B. K., Johnson, K. D., Jorgenson, M. T., Bliss, N., McGuire, A. D., Jafarov, E. E. and Knight, J. F., 2017. Historical and projected trends in landscape drivers affecting carbon dynamics in Alaska. Ecological Applications, 27(5), 1383-1402.

36. Pearson, R. G., Phillips, S. J., Loranty, M. M., Beck, P. S., Damoulas, T., Knight, S. J. and Goetz, S. J., 2013. Shifts in Arctic vegetation and associated feedbacks under climate change. Nature Climate Change 3, 673–677. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1858

37. Pilfold, N. W., McCall, A., Derocher, A. E., Lunn, N. J. and Richardson, E., 2017. Migratory response of polar bears to sea ice loss: to swim or not to swim. Ecography, 40 (1), 189-199, doi:10.1111/ecog.02109.

38. Renaud, P. E., Sejr, M. K., Bluhm, B. A., Sirenko, B. and Ellingsen, I. H., 2015. The future of Arctic benthos: Expansion, invasion, and biodiversity. Progress in Oceanography, 139, 244-257, doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2015.07.007.

39. Renner, A. H., Gerland, S., Haas, C., Spreen, G., Beckers, J. F., Hansen, E., Nicolaus, M. and Goodwin, H., 2014. Evidence of Arctic sea ice thinning from direct observations. Geophysical Research Letters, 41 (14), 5029-5036, doi:10.1002/2014gl060369.

40. Soulen, B. K., Cammen, K. T., Schultz, F. and Johnston, D. W., 2013. Factors Affecting Harp Seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus) Strandings in the Northwest Atlantic. Plos One, 8 (7), e68779, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068779.

41. Stenson, G. B. and Hammill, M. O., 2014. Can ice breeding seals adapt to habitat loss in a time of climate change? ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71 (7), 1977-1986, doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsu074.

42. Storrie, L., Lydersen, C., Andersen, M., Wynn, R. B. and Kovacs, K. M., 2018. Determining the species assemblage and habitat use of cetaceans in the Svalbard Archipelago, based on observations from 2002 to 2014. Polar Research, 37 (1), 1463065, doi:10.1080/17518369.2018.1463065.

43. Stroeve, J. and Notz, D., 2018. Changing state of Arctic sea ice across all seasons. Environmental Research Letters, 13 (10), 103001, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aade56.

Appendix 1: WWF Proposals for key Arctic Council deliverables

WWF proposals for key Arctic Council deliverables by 2025

●       An Arctic Ocean spatial database of marine biodiversity, to enable ocean-scale monitoring and making data of conservation features available for national or subregional conservation planning and implementation (potentially as a joint work under CAFF and PAME).

●       A framework for safeguarding ecological connectivity across the Arctic Ocean to enhance conservation in and across protected area networks. This work could build on the PAME MPA-Network Toolbox and oceanographic aspects of ecological connectivity. The framework should guide the development and implementation of  monitoring and management tools for all aspects of ecological connectivity across the Arctic Ocean.

●       An initial review on how the obligations under the future BBNJ Agreement can be implemented in the Central Arctic Ocean: how to advance proposals of marine protected areas and related draft management plans; whether the adoption of and how Arctic littoral countries could jointly implement obligations of Environmental Impact Assessments in conjunction with the areas under their national jurisdiction.

●       Toolkit for marine spatial planning for shipping, based on the ecosystem approach, including vessel re-routing requirements, speed reduction, low impact corridors as well as  measures to manage underwater noise from shipping at safe levels for marine life; informing Indigenous and coastal communities about the navigation plans and schedules of ice-breakers; and incorporating Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge in marine spatial planning.

Key deliverables by 2027

●       Assessment of regional scale implementation of area-based conservation measures both in priority areas for conservation and for safeguarding ecological connectivity, including recommendations for regional scale priority actions for coming years.

●       Arctic region-specific framework for establishing ecosystem based integrated marine spatial planning, with measures and tools consistent with the ecosystem approach and  accompanied by guidance to states on how to implement the framework.

●       Adoption of appropriate regional governance measures to implement area-based conservation measures under the future BBNJ Agreement in the Central Arctic Ocean.

●       Review of progress in designating marine protected areas in the Central Arctic Ocean and drafting of associated management plans, and in applying the environmental impact assessments/strategic environmental assessments in relation to projects and plans affecting the biodiversity in the CAO.

Key deliverables by 2029

●       Assessment of regional/ocean scale progress on area-based conservation, including ecological connectivity, towards the implementation of relevant GBF targets, in particular Target 3 and related targets and taking into account the state of establishment of area-based conservation measures under the future BBNJ Agreement.

●       Proposals of area-based conservation measures in the Central Arctic Ocean towards an Arctic Ocean network of marine protected areas, also as a contribution to the implementation of global commitments under the Global Biodiversity Framework and the future BBNJ Agreement.

●       A unified and Arctic region-specific guidance on voyage planning based on highest environmental and safety standards as recommended by the Arctic Councils’ Arctic Shipping Best Practice Information Forum, including mapping of region-specific Areas to be Avoided (ATBA), especially in the areas where high shipping volumes converge with the migration routes of marine mammals and ecologically sensitive marine areas.