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.

The Arctic territory is roughly subdivided along two main axes in latitudinal subzones (Fig. 9.1) and longitudinal floristic provinces (Fig. 9.2). The latitudinal northsouth axis mainly reflects the present climate gradient divided into five different subzones, which are separated according to climate and vegetation in the lowlands of each zone. Published in the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment, Chapter 9 - released in 2013

Albedo is a reflection coefficient that describes the reflecting power of a surface. Data compiled for CAFFs Land Cover Change Initiative with dataset for the firs of very month during 2001- 20112. - <a href="http://www.caff.is/indices-and-indicators/land-cover-change-index" target="_blank"> Land Cover Change Initiative (LCC)</a>

Temperature and copepod abundance in Zackenberg, northeastern Greenland. Temperature is measured at 80 m for Microcalanus and 5 m for Pseudocalanus (Arendt et al. 2016). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/plankton" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 76 - Figure 3.2.7

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.

Vegetation monitoring occurs across the Arctic, but the duration of monitoring efforts is variable and is dependent upon both study design and access to resources. Although many field studies on vegetation have been conducted in the Arctic (Figure 3-5), not all can be considered monitoring since some recorded only select measurements over limited time frames. Studies reporting on abundance and composition of vegetation reflect a larger and more widespread geographical coverage than the typically more site-limited and time-consuming phenology studies (Figure 3-5). Geographical gaps in coverage of Siberia and large parts of the Canadian Arctic are evident. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 34 - Figure 3.5

Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) are regions of ocean space encompassing coastal areas from river basins and estuaries to the seaward boundary of continental shelves and the seaward margins of coastal current systems. Fifty of them have been identified. They are relatively large regions (200 000 km2 or more) characterized by distinct bathymetry, hydrography, productivity and trophically dependent populations. The LME approach uses five modules: 1. productivity module considers the oceanic variability and its effect on the production of phyto and zooplankton 2. fish and fishery module concerned with the sustainability of individual species and the maintenance of biodiversity 3. pollution and ecosystem health module examines health indices, eutrophication, biotoxins, pathology and emerging diseases 4. socio-economic module integrates assessments of human forcing and the long-term sustainability and associated socio-economic benefits of various management measures, and 5. governance module involves adaptive management and stakeholder participation.” Source: http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/3440/en Reference: Sherman, K. and Hempel, G. (Editors) 2009. The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystem Report: A perspective on changing conditions in LMEs of the world’s Regional Seas. UNEP Regional Seas Report and Studies No. 182. United Nations Environment Programme. Nairobi, Kenya. Data available from: http://lme.edc.uri.edu/ - LMEs of the world Updated shape file - 2014

Appendix 10.2. Data on diversity of lichens and lichenicolous fungi in the Arctic and separately for the sectors of the Arctic (Beringia, Canada, North Atlantic, European Russia, W and E Siberia) and the single floristic provinces: numbers of species, numbers of species in the low and high Arctic, percentage of species with respective growth form (crustose, squamulose, foliose, fruticose), the estimated number of missing crustose lichen species (explanations below), percentage of species on the respective substrate on which the lichen species grow, and rarity of species within and outside the Arctic.

Distribution by broad geographic region and low or high arctic zones.

Monthly snow cover extent (SCE) for Arctic land areas (>60° N) for (a) May and (b) June 1967–2020, a 54-year record. Anomalies are relative to the 1981–2010 average and standardised (each observation was differenced from the mean and divided by the standard deviation, and thus unitless). Solid black and red lines depict 5-year running means for North America and Eurasia, respectively. Filled circles are used to highlight 2020 anomalies. (Mudryk et al. 2020). STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 2 - Page 23 - Figure 2.3