Cumulative numbers of marine fish diversity (n = 633, Appendix 6.2) in the Arctic Ocean and adjacent seas (AOAS) from 1758 to the present. Species are broadly grouped according to zoogeographic pattern (cf. Section 6.3.1): Arctic (A, blue symbols) and non-Arctic (Σ AB, B, WD, red symbols). Grey bars denote periods with many descriptions of new Arctic species. Note that 75% of the non-Arctic species known to science were described by 1912, whereas the same proportion for Arctic species was only reached in 1976. See text for further information. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, CAFF 2013 - Akureyri . Arctic Biodiversity Assessment. Status and Trends in Arctic biodiversity. - Fishes(Chapter 6) page 220

Arctic Marine Areas (AMAs) as defined in the CBMP Marine Plan. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine" target="_blank">Chapter 1</a> - Page 15 - Figure 1.2

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.

Human activity is expanding in the Arctic marine environment, in part due to warming ocean temperatures and the dramatic loss of summer sea ice. New and expanding human uses include fishing, shipping and offshore oil and gas development. All have the potential to place major additional stress on ocean ecosystems which are already undergoing profound change related to warming, sea ice loss, and alterations in ocean chemistry. Because activities conducted in one nation's waters can affect other parts of the region, effective management of some human uses in the Arctic marine environment will require international cooperation. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in conjunction with other international agreements and national laws and regulations, provides a general legal foundation. However, new rules may be necessary to protect the Arctic marine environment. Examples of possible areas of international cooperation include: development of new standards for Arctic marine shipping, regulation of new or expanding Arctic fisheries, rules to protect the environment in the course of natural resource development, stricter regulation of Arctic tourism, mechanisms to assess and manage the cumulative impacts of multiple activities affecting the same ecosystems, and procedures for the establishment of representative networks of protected marine areas. Ecosystem-based management has the potential to provide an organizing framework for these new or enhanced management measures in the Arctic. Such an approach, as generally accepted at the international level, includes defining portions of ocean space for management purposes based on oceanographic and ecological criteria, and the development of management arrangements that address all human uses of that space in an integrated fashion. A central element of ecosystem-based management is the identification of ecologically significant or vulnerable areas that should be considered for protection due to their role in maintaining valued ecosystem functions and resilience. This data was created with the purpose to identify these areas within the Arctic marine environment.

Sites of existing lake biotic and abiotic data as compiled by the Freshwater Expert Monitoring Group (FEMG) of the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Group (CBMP) Published in the CBMP Freshwater Brochure 2013 http://www.caff.is/monitoring-series/view_document/277-arctic-freshwater-biodiversity-monitoring-plan-brochure

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

The Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) and Protection of the Arctic Marine Environments (PAME) working groups of the Arctic Council developed this indicator report. It provides an overview of the status and trends of protected areas in the Arctic. The data used represents the results of the 2016 update to the Protected Areas Database submitted by each of the Arctic Council member states (Annex 1). This report uses the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) definition for protected areas (see Box 1) which includes a wide range of Management Categories – from strict nature reserve to protection with sustainable use. Consequently, the level of protection and governance of these areas varies throughout the circumpolar region and its countries.

Appendix 20. Arctic indigenous languages status and trends. Data used to compile the information for the table was collected from both census records and academic sources, each of the CAFF countries and indigenous peoples organizations (Permanent Participants to the Arctic Council) where possible also provided statistical information.

Figure 4 12 Diatom groups from Self Organizing Maps (SOMs) in lake top sediments, showing the geographical distribution of each group (with colors representing different SOM groups). State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 39 - Figure 4-12