Go to content

Day 2: Monday April 15, 2024

Breakout session 1

Topic: The use of the CBD OECM criteria in different context in the Nordic and wider Arctic, differences and commonalities in approach among Arctic States, and exploring the case for a common approach
Guiding questions:
  • What are the critical relevant steps to identify OECMs in the region (based on criteria, guidelines and national tools)?
  • What specific considerations are needed to apply OECMs in the Nordic and/or Arctic region as a management tool?
  • What considerations need to be taken into account to list categories of potential/​available OECMs in the Nordic and/or Arctic region for different sectors?
  • Are there areas that are unlikely/unsuitable to be OECMs? Should those be defined and how?

Table 1

  1. What are the critical relevant steps to identify OECMs in the region (based on criteria, guidelines and national tools)?
    • An overview of existing measures and partners/​stakeholders involved in the process is crucial. Identify who is involved and assess needs.
    • Early engagement with different sectors is essential, as demonstrated by Finland's approach of setting up thematic working groups and events. There is a need to understand who does the scoping at what stage of the process and engagement should occur throughout
    • For some countries, the focus is still on designing the process, with engagement with sectors and stakeholders yet to come.
    • For others the starting point for identifying OECMs was the low level of MPA coverage, leading to consideration of fisheries measures.
    • Some countries have initially focussed mainly on areas with fisheries measures and assessment of their conservation values and the alignment of such measures with the CBD criteria
    • Using a schematic flowchart and leveraging CBD criteria were highlighted as relevant steps. There is need for some level of international consistency in the application of criteria and sub-criteria in order to maintain the integrity of the intention of OECMs and contribute to the global goals.
  2. What specific considerations are needed to apply OECMs in the Nordic and/or Arctic region as a management tool?
    • Active involvement and participation of Indigenous Peoples, and processes to support inclusion.
    • Early engagement with sectors and stakeholders is crucial for effective implementation, especially as new/​emerging sectors are becoming more active in the Arctic.
    • There are strong seasonal changes in the Arctic marine context, and there is a need to understand natural variability in relation to con­servation measures, and if measures can be considered seasonal in nature but providing long-term benefits.
    • Alignment with both CBD and EU targets, where applicable, is necessary.
    • Further exploration of the threshold for what constitutes an acceptable OECM is needed.
    • The Arctic is also a transboundary region, so coopera­tion across borders and in areas beyond national jurisdiction is or particular importance to consider.
  3. What considerations need to be taken into account to list categories of potential/​available OECMs in the Nordic and/or Arctic region for different sectors?
    • Get an overview of what is there and who is doing what, and work to incenti­vize sectors to reduce any burden to action from their perspecti­ves. Care should be taken about making changes that could affect existing sectors.
    • Consider who does the monitoring and what reporting systems there are, as both carry a burden.
    • Assessment of existing measures and their alignment with CBD criteria.
    • Evaluation of biodiversity value and potential overlaps with fisheries measures, particular­ly in marine environ­ments.
  4. Are there areas that are unlikely/​unsuitable to be OECMs? Should those be defined and how?
    • Some areas have potential for new/​growing activities where an OECM could be unsuitable if the knowledge of sector activities and impacts on bio­diversity are unclear.
    • Even unlikely areas can go through the process of assess­ment and that standards and criteria should guide the assessments. If in doubt, leave it out. Unsuitable areas should still be documented and possibly revisited.
    • It may be beneficial to define criteria for identifying unsuitable areas as OECMs, possibly based on biodiversity assess­ments and sector-specific considera­tions.

Table 2

  1. What are the critical relevant steps to identify OECMs in the region (based on criteria, guidelines and national tools)?
    • Start with the use of existing screening tools such as Ecologi­cally and Biologically Sensitive Areas (EBSAs) in the Arctic. Utilize the CBD criteria as a foundational starting point.
    • Discuss whether to begin with an area or a management measure, referencing previous discussions with HELCOM.
    • Recognize the need for a structured approach akin to the MPA toolbox but tailored for OECMs.
    • Consider the varying agendas of partici­pants from different sectors and the importance of awareness in the initial stages.
    • Propose a desktop exercise to apply the criteria to real or fictitious examples to foster consistency in evaluation.
  2. What specific considerations are needed to apply OECMs in the Nordic and/or Arctic region as a management tool?
    • Different states are in different stages of OECM development. There is a need to develop a consistent-enough approach that provides sufficient flexibility for wide-ranging application in various contexts.
    • Develop a tool box and consider the flexibility of the tool as it relates to climate change and the ability to revise the approach.
    • Acknowledge data-poor areas and the potential for shared approaches among Arctic regions.
    • Highlight the diverse governance structures in the Arctic and the necessity of involving local communities and Indigenous Peoples’ organi­zations.
    • Explore approaches to marine OECMs beyond the Arctic for potential lessons learned and recog­nize the scarcity of marine OECMs in existing databases.
    • Consideration should be given to:
      • monitoring commitments and considera­tions in OECMs (existing or new), including sharing across industrial sectors;
      • challenges with how to define long-term benefits to biodiversity and how this might be jointly inter­preted for the Arctic;
      • opportunities for OECMs to contribute to conservation effectiveness of MPCA net­works in a rapid­ly chang­ing Arctic;
      • geographic scope of OECMs being aligned with relevant bio­diversity feature/​eco­system struct­ures and functions to be conserved (rather than considering jurisdictional boundaries predominantly);  
      • whether evaluation of OECM-related biodiversity conservation benefits in the Arctic – where data are often lacking – can benefit from practices and experiences in other parts of the world.
  3. Considerations for listing categories of potential/​available OECMs in the Nordic and/​or Arctic region for different sectors:
    • Examine differences in sectors active in the Arctic, such as shipping and fishing, and recognize that sectors may already have different manage­ment measures in place that could be classified as an OECM; there is a need to have this overview.
  4. Are there areas that are unlikely/​unsuitable to be OECMs? Should those be defined and how?
    • The group discussed the concept of temporary protection measures and whether they should be considered as OECMs, particularly in cases where they mitigate pressure for extended periods of time despite being temporary in nature.

Table 3

  1. What are the critical relevant steps to identify OECMs in the region (based on criteria, guidelines and national tools)?
    • Utilize established guidelines and case studies, such as the Canadian Guidance framework and HELCOM, for identi­fying OECMs, leveraging inter­national insights and strong stakeholder engagement.
    • Compare and evaluate different approaches, con­sidering starting points for identifi­cation (area/​biodiversity feature vs. regulatory/​gover­nance measure) and their respective pros and cons.
    • Ensure the presence and quality of bio­diversity benefits, although evaluating/​measuring these benefits may pose challenges.
    • Consider the case-by-case context, acknowledging the difficulty in stand­ard­izing minimal benefits and the risk of in­suffi­cient bio­diversity outcomes in measure-first approaches.
    • Recognize the importance of including both new and established measures as OECMs to meet global/​national biodiversity goals, despite challenges in identi­fying new OECMs without known biodiversity benefits.
    • Develop tools, such as decision trees, to bridge gaps between measure-first approaches and the need to evaluate biodiversity benefits, potentially con­sidering upgrading OECMs to MPAs for long-term conservation.
    • Emphasize open communication and data sharing to understand all activities within potential OECMs, considering environ­mental assessments and risk assessment processes.
  2. What specific con­siderations are needed to apply OECMs in the Nordic and/or Arctic region as a management tool?
    • Considerations included co-management with Indigenous Peoples/​Organizations, cross-border management, climate change adaptation, and utilization of marine spatial planning tools.
    • Monitoring challenges, the importance of data transparency, and stakeholder engage­ment were empha­sized as well as data sovereignty when discussing the role of Indigenous Know­ledge into data frameworks utilized for OECMs.
    • The role for inter­national fora in the Arctic context was discussed as an important element to improve alignment between national efforts. Arctic Council working groups may be especially important to collect, curate and disseminate important data, strategies and tools. International fora need to have a clear role and mandate and joint processes must be clearly defined and utilized when applicable.
    • A good communi­cation strategy is important. A clear inherent under­standing of the OECM concept is not a given and perceptions will differ.
  3. What considerations need to be taken into account to list categories of potential/​available OECMs in the Nordic and/or Arctic region for different sectors?
    • Exploration of sectors like shipping and their potential OECM opportunities, including speed reduction areas and noise control, was discussed.
    • Emphasis was placed on the need for National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) to drive the utilization of OECMs.
    • Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) was highlighted as a method to engage various sectors and promote biodiversity inclusive planning.
  4. Are there areas that are unlikely/​unsuitable to be OECMs? Should those be defined and how?
    • Areas with high biodiversity pressures, rapid activity changes, lack of local support, and limited management capacity may be considered unsuitable for OECMs.
    • Areas where bio­diversity benefits may be difficult to identify and where activities are too unpredictable.
    • Areas without local support, adequate consultation or where capacity for management is severely limited, as is where greenwashing may be a risk.

Table 4

  1. What are the critical relevant steps to identify OECMs in the region (based on criteria, guidelines and national tools)?
    • Conduct baseline research to under­stand the region's basic elements and root biological concerns and ecosystem functions in the concept and criteria of OECM establishment.
    • Establish a clear and agreed-upon definition of OECMs.
    • Define a process for flagging OECMs in a rapidly changing environment.
    • Determine the need for a legal framework or guidelines for identifying OECMs.
    • Ensure sector involvement and awareness, con­sidering incentives for their partici­pation.
    • Communicate effectively with government and sectors, using appropriate tools, timelines and language.
    • Facilitate trans­border discussions and coordination across jurisdictions.
    • Apply a precautio­nary approach when determining the amount of infor­mation needed for establishing OECMs.
    • Utilize helpful tools like the HELCOM decision tree in the evaluation process.
  2. What specific considera­tions are needed to apply OECMs in the Nordic and/​or Arctic region as a management tool?
    • Address cross-jurisdictional and transboundary challenges.
    • Consider implications of OECMs in Bio­diversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) in the Arctic.
    • Recognize the rapid rate of change in the Arctic environment.
    • Adapt monitoring targets to the Arctic's specific characteristics.
    • Cooperate with multiple sectors to ensure effective implementation.
  3. What considerations need to be taken into account to list categories of potential/​available OECMs in the Nordic and/​or Arctic region for different sectors?
    • Ensure the concept of OECMs is not devaluated and addresses all threats.
    • Determine criteria for identifying what areas are not OECMs on a case-by-case basis.
    • Use case studies and consider various scenarios, such as protections across borders and different purposes for protected areas.
  4. Are there areas that are unlikely/​unsuitable to be OECMs? Should those be defined and how?
    • Establish clear criteria for deter­mining when an area loses its OECM status.

Breakout session 2

Question 1

What can be learned from the processes and approaches used from the case studies, and how can these lessons be applied in a broader context?

Consistency between Arctic States
Achieving consistency in OECM implementation across Arctic states is acknowledged as challenging due to the diverse range of sectors, stakeholders, and rightsholders involved, and important local/​regional/​national contexts. However, the group identified existing processes that could serve as a foundation for promoting alignment. These processes include collaborative forums where stakeholders from different sectors can convene to discuss common goals and strategies. Understanding the legal jurisdiction differences between Arctic states is paramount for establishing consistency in OECM identification and management. By aligning frameworks and regulatory approaches, Arctic states can create a cohesive strategy for OECM recognition that transcends national boundaries.
Involvement of Rightsholders, Partners, and Stakeholders
Early and frequent engagement with a broad range of stakeholders and rights holders emerged as a key theme. It was empha­sized in the group the importance of including diverse voices in the decision-making process, particularly Indigenous Knowledge holders who are often rights holders in the regions where OECMs are designated. Recognizing Indigenous Knowledge as a valuable source of long-term monitor­ing data can enrich the understanding of ecosystem dynamics and contribute to more holistic management strategies. In addition to engaging Indigenous Peoples, engaging stakeholders such as industry representatives, environmental organizations, and local communities is essential for fostering collective ownership and support for OECM initiatives. Incentivizing biodiversity conservation for stake­holders, perhaps through financial incentives or regulatory mechanisms, can further enhance stakeholder buy-in and commitment to OECM objectives.
Communication
Effective communication emerged as a critical component of successful OECM implementation. The group emphasized the need for clear and consistent messaging tailored to different sectors, stakeholder and rightsholder groups. Developing common terminology and ensuring a shared understanding of OECM concepts are fundamental to facilitating meaningful dialogue and collaboration. Moreover, the group highlighted the importance of visual communication tools, such as maps, diagrams, and infographics, to convey complex information in a compelling and accessible manner. Investing in science communication strategies can help bridge communi­cation gaps and foster greater public awareness and support for OECM initiatives.
Different Knowledge Systems and Data Collection and Monitoring
The incorporation of diverse knowledge systems, including Indigenous Knowledge, alongside scientific data, was underscored as essential for comprehensive OECM assessment and monitoring. Indigenous Knowledge holders possess valuable insights into local eco­systems, biodiversity trends, and resource management practices that can comple­ment scientific data and enhance the robustness of OECM assessments. Developing common databases and standardizing monitoring protocols are critical steps toward harmonizing data collection efforts and facilitating cross-border collaboration. Addressing challenges related to data storage, management, sovereignty, and accessibility is para­mount for ensuring the reliability and usability of OECM monitoring data over the long term.
Flexibility
OECMs offer greater flexibility compared to MPAs, allowing for adaptive management approaches that can accommodate changing environmental conditions and stakeholder needs. However, the group recognized challenges in utilizing short-term management measures to achieve long-term con­servation goals. Discussions centered on scenarios where short-term measures could be counted toward OECM targets provided they contribute to long-term biodiversity conservation objectives. The group also discussed what timeframe may constitute as a short term measure. The group emphasized the importance of developing monitoring frameworks that assess both short-term management effectiveness and long-term biodiversity outcomes to ensure the integrity and credibility of OECM designations.
In conclusion, the group's discussion highlighted the multifaceted nature of OECM implementation in the Arctic context and under­scored the importance of collaboration, communi­cation, and adaptive management approaches. By embracing diverse per­spectives, engaging rights­holders and stake­holders at all levels, and leveraging existing processes and knowledge systems, Arctic states can enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of OECM initiatives, thereby contributing to the con­servation and sustainable management of marine and terrestrial ecosystems in the region.

Question 2

What would be needed in an OECM toolbox to support best practices?

Format of the Toolbox
The group emphasized the importance of building upon existing resources rather than creating a new frame­work from scratch. They suggested expanding the current PAME MPA toolbox to include OECM tools, advocating for a col­laborative approach through workshops, including Indigenous Peoples, to develop a common vision for Arctic OECMs and MPAs. Additionally, they proposed that the toolbox serve as a forum for stakeholders and rightsholders to share knowledge and best practices, with a focus on establishing a shared vision for Arctic conservation efforts.
Content of the Toolbox
In terms of content, the group emphasized leveraging existing materials and guidance from organizations such as the CBD, IUCN, HELCOM and the FAO. They identified the need for the toolbox to address both the process of recommending OECMs and the operational management of existing ones. Key suggestions included the development of decision trees, maps of existing and potential OECMs, case studies, and standards for data reporting and evaluation. They high­lighted the importance of including examples of successful conservation initiatives and practical guidance on incorporating Indigenous Knowledge into OECM management.
Communication Strategies
Effective communication was deemed crucial for the toolbox's success. The group recommended real-time sessions and "OECM office hours" to facilitate engage­ment and collaboration among stakeholders. They stressed the importance of involving Indigenous Knowledge holders in the toolbox's development, recognizing the importance and effectiveness of Indigenous management practice. Additionally, they suggested showcasing successful industry communi­cation examples as valuable tools for encouraging and facilitating OECMs.
Communicating Toolbox Results:
The group underscored the importance of communi­cating the results of the toolbox to stakeholders. This involved showcasing the utility of OECM tools for addressing specific Arctic marine conservation issues, clarifying how existing marine governance mechanisms can support OECM identification and management, and evaluating measures' contributions to biodiversity conservation benefits. They emphasized the need for clear and accessible communication of the toolbox's findings to ensure widespread under­standing and adoption of OECM best practices.
Overall, the group's reflections highlighted the importance of collaboration, leveraging existing resources, and effective communication in developing and imple­menting an OECM toolbox tailored to the Arctic context. By incorporating these insights into the toolbox's design and implementation, stakeholders can work towards enhancing conservation efforts and biodiversity protection in the region.

Breakout session 3

Table 1

Topic: Next steps for marine OECMs
Guiding questions:
  • What case studies should be in the report, who is writing which sections of the report and what is a timeline for deliverables?
  • What key elements could be included in the PAME MPA toolbox to better consider perspectives on OECM approaches and applications?
  • What opportunities exist for advancing OECMs in the wider marine Arctic?
  • What is essential knowledge needs to advance marine OECMs in the Arctic? What parties and peoples can contribute to advancing this understanding?
  • What are some potential next steps to advance marine OECMs in the Arctic

Case Studies

The discussion emphasized the significance of including case studies in sections three and four of the CAFF/​PAME OECM report. Participants recognized the need to illustrate diverse approaches to identifying marine OECMs among Arctic Council member states. For section three, where member state approaches are detailed, suggestions ranged from summarizing existing approaches, like those of Canada, to providing updates on the development progress of other countries. This approach aimed to offer insights into the varying stages of OECM implementation across Arctic nations.
In section four, which focuses on relevant case studies and best practices, participants explored various thematic areas to be covered. These included addressing multi-sectoral challenges, integrating Indigenous perspectives, examining the efficacy of short-term and seasonal management measures, and guarding against practices akin to greenwashing. The group emphasized the importance of selecting case studies that illuminate key issues and offer actionable lessons for OECM implementation.
Regarding the timeline for deliverables, the group aimed to complete the report before the conclusion of the Norwegian chairmanship (May 2025), allowing for dissemination and feedback within the Arctic Council. Additionally, there was a recognition of the need for ongoing updates, acknowledging that OECM approaches and case studies will continue to evolve, making the report a dynamic resource.

Key Elements for the PAME MPA Toolbox

Participants brainstormed key elements to enrich the PAME MPA toolbox's consideration of OECMs. They discussed the integration of MPAs and OECMs within the framework document, proposing distinct sections or tabs for each concept to accommodate their unique features. The toolbox was envisioned as a repository for decision-making tools, such as decision trees, to aid stakeholders in identifying and evaluating OECMs. Mapping tools for existing and potential OECMs were suggested to provide spatial context and facilitate planning.
Standardization emerged as a crucial theme, with recommendations for setting standards for data reporting, modification processes, and evaluation criteria. The group underscored the importance of Indigenous Knowledge and practices, advocating for their inclusion in the toolbox to ensure culturally sensitive approaches to OECM management. Effective communication strategies were highlighted as essential to engage stakeholders and convey complex concepts clearly.

Opportunities for Advancing OECMs

While grappling with the question's interpretation, participants explored opportunities to extend OECM initiatives beyond national boundaries. Binational collaboration across exclusive economic zones (EEZs) was identified as a promising avenue for advancing OECMs in the wider marine environment. Evaluating existing management measures and identifying opportunities for collaboration and harmonization were deemed essential steps in this process.
The discussion also touched on the importance of considering connectivity and representativity in OECM recognition, emphasizing the need to account for ecological linkages and species movements across marine ecosystems. Climate change modeling emerged as a critical aspect, with participants highlighting the necessity of anticipating future management needs in response to shifting environmental conditions.

Essential Knowledge Needs and Potential Next Steps

Although time constraints limited in-depth exploration, informal discussions during lunch provided valuable insights into essential knowledge needs and potential next steps for advancing OECMs in the Arctic marine environment. Participants highlighted the importance of aligning MPA and OECM strategies, particularly within the context of emerging frameworks like the BBNJ Agreement. They also discussed the report's role as a living document, emphasizing the need for periodic updates to reflect evolving practices and knowledge in OECM management. Overall, the conversation underscored the collaborative effort needed to advance OECMs in the Arctic and the significance of ongoing learning and adaptation in this dynamic field.

Table 2

Topic: Next steps for marine OECMs
Guiding questions:
  • What case studies should be in the report, who is writing which sections of the report and what is a timeline for deliverables?
  • What key elements could be included in the PAME MPA toolbox to better consider perspectives on OECM approaches and applications?
  • What opportunities exist for advancing OECMs in the wider marine Arctic?
  • What is essential knowledge needs to advance marine OECMs in the Arctic? What parties and peoples can contribute to advancing this understanding?
  • What are some potential next steps to advance marine OECMs in the Arctic

Case Studies

The group highlighted various case study options for inclusion in the report. They proposed incor­porating existing case studies such as Disko Fan in the Canadian Arctic and theoretical case studies simulating areas with diverse industrial activities. Additionally, they emphasized the importance of documenting processes used by different countries for identifying and recognizing OECMs, especially for those still in the development phase. The group also suggested exploring MSP theoretical examples and simulations conducted by experts. Regarding the timeline, while there was brief discussion, the group aimed to meet the May 2025 deadline for deliverables.

Key Elements for the PAME MPA Toolbox

Participants proposed several key elements to enrich the PAME MPA toolbox for better consideration of OECM perspectives. These included leveraging the sticker wall concept to gather potential examples, compiling information on important Arctic species and critical habitats, and mapping current EBSAs and critical habitats across the Arctic region. Flowcharts were suggested to simplify governance and manage­ment processes, while defining key criteria based on CBD standards was deemed essential. Comparing MPAs and OECMs to delineate their differences was also highlighted as crucial for clarity.

Opportunities for Advancing OECMs

The group identified various opportunities to advance OECMs in the wider Arctic marine context. They emphasized the potential of transboundary OECMs and stressed the importance of recognizing the dynamic nature of species distribution within ocean environments. Incentives were suggested to encourage countries to initiate OECM recognition, with a focus on collaboration with the Arctic Council and learning from non-Arctic countries' experiences to glean valuable insights.

Essential Knowledge Needs and Potential Next Steps

The discussion underscored the importance of accessing international best practices beyond Arctic states, citing examples from countries like Indonesia and utilizing tools like ArcNet for analysis. Participants emphasized the need for comprehensive knowledge exchange and learning from global experiences to inform Arctic-specific OECM initiatives effectively.
The group acknowledged the value of the workshop and proposed additional focused workshops to delve deeper into case studies and communication strategies. They emphasized the need for targeted workshops involving communi­cation experts, stakeholders, and OECM specialists to enhance understanding and facilitate effective communication of OECM concepts to diverse audiences.

Table 3

Topic: Next steps to advance progress on the Nordic OECM project (Marine)
Guiding questions:
  • What type of information would be relevant to include in the planed summary report/​fact sheets?
  • What do we want to communicate and to whom? What translations may be necessary? What are the relevant platforms to reach target audiences?

What type of information would be relevant to include in the planned summary report/​fact sheets?

The group deliberated on the essential content for both the summary report and fact sheets. They recognized the need for a dual approach to cater to different audience preferences and information needs. While the summary report would provide a comprehensive overview, the fact sheets would offer succinct and visually appealing key points. By incorporating infographics and clear language, the fact sheets aimed to distill complex information into easily digestible snippets. The group emphasized the importance of maintaining consistency in terminology between the summary and fact sheets to avoid confusion among readers. Additionally, they stressed the necessity of defining key questions and objectives to ensure coherence and relevance in the communication materials. This approach would facilitate effective dissemination of information about the Nordic Marine OECM project.

What do we want to communicate and to whom? What translations may be necessary? What are the relevant platforms to reach target audiences?

In discussing the communication strategy, the group focused on the clarity of messaging and audience engagement. They highlighted the importance of defining the target audience and tailoring communication accordingly. This involved identifying key stakeholders, policymakers, managers, administrators, journalists, and sector representatives who would benefit from understanding the project's objectives and implications. To ensure inclusivity, the group acknowledged the necessity of translations into various Nordic languages, including Saami and Kalaallisut. They discussed leveraging automatic translation services as a preliminary step, followed by manual editing for accuracy and cultural relevance.
Regarding communication platforms, the group identified the CBD conference as a strategic venue for showcasing the project's outcomes alongside presentations to the Nordic Council of Ministers. They also considered webinars, posters, and country-specific approaches as effective means to reach a broader audience. Internal communication within each country's ministries and sectors was deemed crucial for raising awareness and soliciting feedback on potential OECM sites. The group emphasized the need for a multifaceted approach to engage stakeholders at various levels and underscored the importance of involving marine spatial planners due to their pivotal role in coordinating activities across different sectors.

Table 4

Topic: Next steps to advance an understanding of Nordic terrestrial OECMs
Guiding questions:
  • If a terrestrial OECM project were to be suggested as a new Nordic or CAFF project, what should be considered in project objectives, scope, budget and timeline?
  • Are there particular types of terrestrial OECMs to consider? Are there specific considerations needed to be given to terrestrial aspects related to OECMs? How can these be addressed?
  • Which priority sectors should be engaged in terrestrial OECMs and what types of regulations need to be considered?
  • What opportunities exist for advancing terrestrial OECMs in the Arctic and Nordic Arctic?

Project Objectives, Scope, Budget, and Timeline

The group emphasized the importance of aligning any proposed terrestrial OECM project with existing initiatives like the CAFF/ PAME and Nordic projects. By building on these ongoing efforts, the project can leverage existing networks, knowledge, and resources, thereby ensuring synergy and avoiding duplication of efforts. However, the group noted the need to carefully consider the unique aspects of terrestrial OECMs, particularly in relation to governance structures and ownership models, which may differ significantly from those in marine environments.
Regarding project objectives, the group proposed several key aims, including assessing the current status of terrestrial OECMs across the region, identifying gaps and challenges in their implemen­tation, and developing strategies to overcome barriers and enhance conservation outcomes. Additionally, the project could seek to promote collaboration and knowledge exchange among stakeholders, facilitate the sharing of best practices and lessons learned, and ultimately contribute to the effective management and protection of terrestrial eco­systems in the Arctic and Nordic regions. They found a need to contextualize OECMs as a tool to help achieve conservation goals, with the possibility to conduct a coherence analysis of the current protected areas network to ascertain what OECMs are there, assess the contribution of OECMs, and identify gaps in coverage or adequacy. This would allow for an active tool that can target high priority areas. Key questions include: What does biodiversity need? What principles ensure that the network (including OECMs) can deliver for biodiversity? What needs to be considered across the Arctic to ensure national jurisdiction also considering what biodiversity needs?
In terms of next steps, the group suggested organizing a “sharing circle” as an initial step to engage stakeholders and gather input on key issues and priorities. This sharing circle could provide a platform to review existing activities of terrestrial work and projects across Arctic states and further share experiences, discuss case studies, and outline potential strategies for advancing terrestrial OECMs in a specific project proposal to CAFF, as the topic links to CAFF mandate, activities and essential strategic considerations. Once scope was determined and co-leads identified, a project proposal could be delivered to CAFF. The project may benefit from a series of workshops to bring multiple stakeholders together in a terrestrial context. A culminating deliverable may be produced that could be similar to the CAFF/PAME marine project.
Regarding budget and timeline considerations, the group did not provide specific details during the discussion. However, they recognized the importance of securing adequate funding to support project activities, including workshop organization, data collection and analysis, stakeholder engagement, and communication efforts. A realistic timeline would be essential to ensure that project objectives are achieved in a timely manner while allowing for sufficient consultation and collaboration among participants.

Types of Terrestrial OECMs and Considerations

The group identified CAFF's dormant Circumpolar Protected Areas Network (CPAN) as a valuable resource for assessing terrestrial OECMs and their potential role in bridging gaps between protected areas. The group recognized that terrestrial OECMs may present greater complexity compared to marine environments, particularly due to factors such as private land ownership, diverse governance structures, and competing land uses. They acknowledged that monitoring may be relatively more accessible in a terrestrial environment than in an Arctic marine context and therefore there is the potential for a strong knowledge base. To address challenges, the group emphasized the need for careful consideration of regulatory frameworks, land tenure systems, and stakeholder engagement processes. They suggested exploring innovative approaches to governance and management that integrate Indigenous Knowledge as well as local knowledge, engage Indigenous Peoples as well as local communities, and promote collaborative decision-making. Additionally, the group highlighted the importance of capacity building and knowledge sharing to support the effective implementation of terrestrial OECMs across the region.

Priority Sectors

Key sectors identified for engagement in terrestrial OECMs included the forestry and mining sectors. The forestry sector, in particular, was highlighted for its significant impact on terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity, as well as its potential to contribute to OECM design and manage­ment. Other "sectors" mentioned included hunting, water manage­ment, tourism, energy, cultural heritage, military, areas under restoration, and nature-based solutions.

Opportunities for Advancement

The group explored various opportunities for advancing terrestrial OECMs in the Arctic and Nordic regions, including leveraging existing international conventions and agreements. They noted ongoing discussions within the Ramsar Convention regarding the potential contribution of wetlands to the CBD process, suggesting this as a concrete opportunity to strengthen the argument for terrestrial OECMs. Additionally, the group highlighted the importance of communication and outreach efforts to raise awareness, build support, and mobilize resources for terrestrial conservation initiatives.
Overall, the group's discussion underscored the importance of integrating terrestrial OECMs into existing conservation frameworks, engaging stakeholders across sectors and jurisdictions, and leveraging international cooperation and collaboration to advance terrestrial conservation efforts in the Arctic and Nordic regions. By building on existing initiatives, sharing knowledge and best practices, and fostering partnerships among governments, Indigenous Peoples, local communities, industry and other stakeholders, the region can work towards achieving its conservation goals and ensuring the long-term sustainability of terrestrial ecosystems.

Final words

Tom Christensen wrapped up the discussions by expressing gratitude for the productive dialogue. He acknowledged the progress made on both the Arctic and Nordic projects, highlighting the valuable insights gained from the workshop. Moving forward, the plan is to utilize the outcomes to produce a workshop report with assistance from the CAFF and PAME Secretariats. This report will be circulated for feedback, serving as a platform for future project developments. Project follow-up meetings will be held with engagement of the wider expert group, with a focus on establishing a timeline for deliverables, aiming for milestones before the May 2025 deadline. Christensen emphasized the importance of collaboration between research scientists and administrators, expressing appreciation for the diverse participation in the workshop. He also acknowledged the significance of Indigenous Knowledge and hoped for continued involvement in the next phase.
On behalf of the Chairs of CAFF and PAME, Katrine Nissen, PAME Chair, concluded by commending the collective effort of the participants and emphasizing the value of collaboration across working groups and projects. She encouraged ongoing reflection and idea-sharing, underscoring the need for sustained engagement beyond the current project period.
Nordic Council of Ministers I www.norden.org/publications I pub@norden.org