The Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program, a cornerstone programme of the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), Arctic Council working Group is an international network of scientists, government agencies, Indigenous organizations and conservation groups working together to harmonize and integrate efforts to monitor the Arctic's living resources.CBMP experts are developing four coordinated and integrated Arctic Biodiversity Monitoring Plans to help guide circumpolar monitoring efforts. Results will be channeled into effective conservation, mitigation and adaptation policies supporting the Arctic. These plans represent the Arctic's major ecosystems(Marine, Freshwater, Coastal, Terrestrial). It is important that monitoring programs develop the most effective reporting strategies if they are to inform decision making. To facilitate effective and consistent reporting, the CBMP has chosen a suite of indices and indicators that provide a comprehensive picture of the state of Arctic biodiversity – from species to habitats to ecosystem processes to ecological services. These indices and indicators are developed in a hierarchical manner, allowing users to drill down into the data from the higher-order indices to more detailed indicators. These are being developed through an expert consultation process. The Arctic Species Trend Index (ASTI) is part of this suite of indicators and indices developed by CAFFs CBMP. It tracks trends in over 300 Arctic vertebrate species and comprises the Arctic component of the Living Planet Index. It is important to identify how wildlife and ecosystems are changing in order to develop effective conservation and adaptation strategies in the Arctic, an environment undergoing dramatic changes. The ASTI describes overall trends across species, taxonomy, ecosystems, regions and other categories.

We present the first digital seafloor geomorphic features map (GSFM) of the global ocean. The GSFM includes 131,192 separate polygons in 29 geomorphic feature categories, used here to assess differences between passive and active continental margins as well as between 8 major ocean regions (the Arctic, Indian, North Atlantic, North Pacific, South Atlantic, South Pacific and the Southern Oceans and the Mediterranean and Black Seas). The GSFM provides quantitative assessments of differences between passive and active margins: continental shelf width of passive margins (88 km) is nearly three times that of active margins (31 km); the average width of active slopes (36 km) is less than the average width of passive margin slopes (46 km); active margin slopes contain an area of 3.4 million km2 where the gradient exceeds 5°, compared with 1.3 million km2 on passive margin slopes; the continental rise covers 27 million km2 adjacent to passive margins and less than 2.3 million km2 adjacent to active margins. Examples of specific applications of the GSFM are presented to show that: 1) larger rift valley segments are generally associated with slow-spreading rates and smaller rift valley segments are associated with fast spreading; 2) polar submarine canyons are twice the average size of non-polar canyons and abyssal polar regions exhibit lower seafloor roughness than non-polar regions, expressed as spatially extensive fan, rise and abyssal plain sediment deposits – all of which are attributed here to the effects of continental glaciations; and 3) recognition of seamounts as a separate category of feature from ridges results in a lower estimate of seamount number compared with estimates of previous workers. Reference: Harris PT, Macmillan-Lawler M, Rupp J, Baker EK Geomorphology of the oceans. Marine Geology.

Rates of change among different terrestrial parameters, using average annual standardised data for the pan-Arctic. *identifies parameters with statistically significant trends. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 95 - Figure 3.33

The Arctic Basin where suggested future long-term monitoring of trawl-megafauna should capture possible changes along the flow of the Arctic Circumpolar Boundary Current (Figure A, blue line) and the Arctic deep-water exchange (Figure b, green line). Adapted from Bluhm et al. (2015). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/benthos" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 88 - Figure 3.3.1

Seasonal abundance (1000 individuals m- 2) of sea ice meiofauna at landfast sea ice (Barrow, 2005-2006, A and C) and pack ice (North of Svalbard, 2015, B and D). A and B show larval stages (polychaete juveniles and nauplii, respectively), while C and D show nematodes and harpacticoid copepods, respectively. Circles represent individual cores (n = 107 for A and C, and 39 for B and D), shading the extent of minimum as well as maximum values, and blue line indicates mean values. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/sea-ice-biota" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 43 - Figure 3.1.5 From the report draft: "In addition to showing composition and peak abundance ranges, we illustrate the phenology of ice meiofauna over the ice-covered season in the entire combined data set. For this purpose, the data were normalized to the daylight hours at each location during the date of sampling using R package geosphere (Hijmans 2015) and a method described in Forsythe et al. (1995). This was necessary, because ‘spring’ arrives earlier at lower latitudes than at higher latitudes, so that using month or day of year would obscure the pan-Arctic integration of the data. Other influential factors such as snow depth, ice thickness and nutrient concentrations were not accounted for in this analysis."

Trends and distribution of muskoxen populations based on Table 3-5. Modified from Cuyler et al. 2020. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 79 - Figure 3.30

Megafauna distribution of biomass (g/15 min trawling) in the Barents Sea in 2007, 2011 and 2015. The green circles show the distribution of the snow crab as it spreads from east to west, and the blue triangles show the invasion of king crab along the coast of the southern Barents Sea. Data from Institute of Marine Research, Norway and the Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography, Murmansk, Russia. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/benthos" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 95 - Figure 3.3.2 The annual joint Norwegian–Russian Ecosystem Survey provides from more than 400 stations and during extensive cruise tracks covering more or less the whole Barents Sea in August– September. The sampling is based on a regular grid spanning about 1.5 millionkm2 with fixed positions of stations which make it possible to measure changes in spatial distribution over time. The trawl is a Campelen 1800 bottom trawl rigged with rock-hopper groundgear and towed on double Warps. The mesh size is 80 mm (stretched) in the front and 16–22 mmin the cod end, allowing the capture and retention of smaller fish and the largest benthos from the seabed (benthic megafauna). The horizontal opening was 11.7 m, and the vertical opening 4–5 m (Teigsmark and Øynes, 1982). The trawl configuration and bottom contact was monitored remotely by SCANMAR trawl sensors. The standard distance between trawl stations was 35 nautical miles (65 km), except north and west of Svalbard where a stratified sampling was adapted to the steep continental shelve. The standard procedure was to tow 15 min after the trawl had made contact with the bottom, but the actual tow duration ranged between 5 min and 1 h and data were subsequently standardized to 15 min trawl time. Towing speed was 3 knots, equivalent to a towing distance of 0.75 nautical miles (1.4 km) during a 15 min tow. The trawl catches were recorded using the same procedures on the Russian and the Norwegian Research vessels to ensure comparability across Barents Sea regions. The benthic megafauna was separated from the fish and shrimp catch, washed, and sorted to lowest possible taxonomic level, in most cases to species, on-Board the vessel. Species identification was standardized between the researcher teams by annually exchanging the benthic expert’s among the vessels and taxon names were fixed each year according toWORMSwhen possible.This resulted in an Electronic identification manual and photo-compendium as a tool to standardize taxon identifications, in addition to various sources of identification literature. Difficult taxa were photographed and, in some cases, brought back as preserved voucher specimens for further identification. Wet-weight biomass was recorded with electronic scales in the ship laboratories for each taxon.The biomass determination included all fragments.

The Seabird Information Network (SIN) developed by the Circumpolar Seabird expert group (<a href="http://caff.is/seabirds-cbird" target="_blank">CBird</a>) of the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (<a href="http://caff.is" target="_blank">CAFF</a>) working group of the Arctic Council focuses on the development of a data entry and analysis portal system allowing for circumpolar seabird colony information to be contributed, mapped, and shared by scientists and monitoring programs around the Arctic. - <a href="http://axiom.seabirds.net/maps/js/seabirds.php?app=circumpolar#z=2&ll=NaN,0.00000" target="_blank"> Circumpolar Seabird portal</a>

Many population counts of gregarious migrant species, such as waders and geese, take place along the flyways and at wintering grounds outside the Arctic which stresses the importance of continued development of movement ecology studies. Monitoring of FEC attributes related to breeding success and links to environmental drivers within the Arctic takes place in a wide network of research sites across the Arctic, although with low coverage of the high Arctic zone (Figure 3-25) STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 58 - Figure 3.25

A national Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) science advisory process was held in Winnipeg, Manitoba from June 14-17, 2011 to provide science advice on the identification of Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) in the Canadian Arctic based on guidance developed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. This science advisory process focused on the identification of EBSAs within the following marine biogeographic units: the Hudson Bay Complex, the Arctic Basin, the Western Arctic, the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and the Eastern Arctic. Source: <a href="http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/344747.pdf" target="_blank">Fisheries and Oceans Canada</a> Reference: DFO. 2011. Identification of Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA) in the Canadian Arctic. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2011/055. DFO. 2011. Identification of Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) in the Canadian Arctic; June 14-17, 2011. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Proceed. Ser. 2011/047.