of processes like global warming. As mentioned above, the fundamental threats to Arctic biodiversity associated with climate change, transboundary contaminants, habitat fragmentation, and other stress factors requires identifying international agreements that might be relevant to biodiversity in unconventional ways.

Consequently, more emphasis should be placed on broadening and mainstreaming our understanding of what constitutes an “Arctic-relevant environmental agreement” so that biodiversity MEAs do not run on a parallel track to international agreements that focus on greenhouse gas emissions, trade arrangements, investments in ‘green’ technologies, agricultural and forestry policies, shipping regulations, non-Arctic MEAs, and so on. If adequately implemented in their appropriate regions, these measures might alleviate some of the development pressures facing the Arctic region’s resources. Although they are important management measures, parks and protected areas in the Arctic can only reduce to a certain extent the fundamental impacts on ecosystems caused by drivers as climate change.

Such a major change of focus would require more global, cross-sectoral and interdisciplinary thinking by policy- makers, scientists, and other stakeholders. It would also

A synthesis of the main points from this chapter Strengthening and improving on existing structures in the Arctic

• Harmonise national reporting on issues of common concern and engage all stakeholders to foster synergies between MEAs and make the international agreements more effective

• Support long-term observation and monitoring programmes of Arctic biodiversity and strengthen the interrelations between science and policy for more effective governance of this biodiversity

• Increase the extent of Arctic protected areas, especially in coastal zones as well as the marine environment.

require additional efforts to make clearer linkages between the economy and the environment within the Arctic region as well as between the Arctic and the rest of the world. By applying an ecosystem approach to biodiversity conservation we can achieve a closer integration of conservation, sustainable use, and human development needs in the region. A holistic approach in biodiversity conservation could also ensure governance systems and management practices that are resilient and quickly adaptable.

Given the importance of engaging non-Arctic countries and organizations in the protection of Arctic biodiversity, emphasis should be put on identifying and communicating the global impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss in the Arctic, and the relevance of the Arctic to environmental and economic thinking. MEA networks could serve as arena for dialogue and initiating targeted activities. Another area could be the Arctic Council, the primary political forum for dialogue on Arctic issues. The Arctic Council has a vital role to play in broadening the understanding of the impacts of global activities on the Arctic as seen through its support to the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment, the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Programme, and Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks.

I

II

Recognising limitations and thinking “outside the box”

• Engage policy-makers, scientists and other stakeholders in global cross-sectoral and interdisciplinary thinking to deal with increasing pressures on Arctic biodiversity.

• Recognise and address the linkages between the economy and the environment within the Arctic region, and also between the Arctic and the rest of the world.

• Further work on identifying and communicating to non- Arctic countries and organizations about the global impacts of climate change, contaminations and biodiversity loss in the Arctic, and engage non-Arctic states in implementing appropriate measures outside the Arctic region.

LIMITATIONS AND STRENGTHS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS 37