Circumpolar trends in primary productivity as indicated by the maximum Normalised Difference Vegetation Index, 1982–2017. (a) Brown shading indicates negative MaxNDVI trends, green shading indicates positive MaxNDVI trends. (b) Chart of trends for the circumpolar Arctic, Eurasia, and North America. Modified from Frost et al. 2020. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 30 - Figure 3.1

Geographic area covered by the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment and the CBMP–Terrestrial Plan. Subzones A to E are depicted as defined in the Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Map (CAVM Team 2003). Subzones A, B and C are the high Arctic while subzones D and E are the low Arctic. Definition of high Arctic, low Arctic, and sub-Arctic follow Hohn & Jaakkola 2010. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 1 - Page 14 - Figure 1.2

Boundaries of the 22 ecoregions (grey lines) as defined in the CSMP (Irons et al. 2015) and the Arctic Marine Areas (colored polygons with names in legend). Filled circles show locations of seabird colony sites recommended for monitoring (‘key sites’). The current level of monitoring plan implementation are green = fully implemented, amber = partially implemented, red = not implemented. The CSMP provides implementation maps for each forage guild. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/seabirds" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 132 - Figure 3.5.1 This graphic displays the status of seabird monitoring at key sites in CBMP areas across the Arctic.

Polar cod in the Barents Sea. Acoustic estimate of polar cod 1-year-old and older (green) and pelagic trawl index of age 0-group abundance (yellow). Source: Joint IMR-PINRO ecosystem survey (Prozorkevich 2016). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/marine-fishes" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 116 - Figure 3.4.3

Population estimates and trends for Rangifer populations of the migratory tundra, Arctic island, mountain, and forest ecotypes where their circumpolar distribution intersects the CAFF boundary. Population trends (Increasing, Stable, Decreasing, or Unknown) are indicated by shading. Data sources for each population are indicated as footnotes. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 70 - Table 3.4

Figure 2-1 The CBMP takes an adaptive Integrated Ecosystem based Approach to monitoring and data creation. This figure illustrates how management questions, conceptual ecosystem models based on science and Traditional Knowledge (TK), and existing monitoring networks are designed to guide the four CBMP Steering Groups (marine, freshwater, terrestrial, and coastal) in their development. Monitoring outputs (data) are designed to feed into the assessment and decision-making processes (data, communication and reporting). The findings are then intended to feed back into the monitoring program. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 2 - Page 15 - Figure 2-1

Average relative abundance of the main zooplankton groups (calanoid copepods, cyclopoid copepods, cladocerans) for the sub-Arctic (n=150), low- Arctic (n=154), and high-Arctic (n=55) regions. Samples with a single taxon have been excluded. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 61 - Figure 4-28

Figure 4-5 Terrestrial ecoregions that are included within the circumpolar region within the CAFF boundary and/or the ABA boundaries. Source: Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World (TEOW; Olson et al. 2001). State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 28 - Figure 4-5

Current state of monitoring for Arctic terrestrial biodiversity FECs in each Arctic state. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 4 - Page 102 - Figure 4.1

Trend quality categories are: (1) data are lacking such that trends are unknown, (2) regional and site-specific monitoring allow for assumptions of trend, (3) international monitoring allows estimation of trend direction, and (4) rigorously designed international monitoring programmes yield estimates of precision. Modified from Smith et al. 2020. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapte31 - Page 59 - Figure 3.26