Editing IPCC:AR6/SROCC/Chapter-3 (section)

==== 3.5.4.3 Resilience-based Ecosystem Stewardship ====

<div id="section-3-5-4-3-resilience-based-ecosystem-stewardship-block-1"></div>

Renewable resource management and biodiversity conservation that seek to maintain resources in historic levels and reduce uncertainty before taking action remains the dominant paradigm in polar regions (Chapin III et al., 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r2289|2289]]</sup> ; Forbes et al., 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r2290|2290]]</sup> ). The effectiveness of this approach, however, is increasingly challenged as the ranges and populations of species and state of ecosystems are being affected by climate change (Chapin III et al., 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r2291|2291]]</sup> ; Chapin III et al., 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r2292|2292]]</sup> ). Three practices that build and maintain social-ecological resilience in the face of climate change include Adaptive Ecosystem Governance, Spatial Planning for Biodiversity, and Linking Management of Ecosystem Services with Human Livelihoods.

<div id="section-3-5-4-3-resilience-based-ecosystem-stewardship-block-2"></div>

<span id="adaptive-ecosystem-governance"></span>
===== 3.5.4.3.1 Adaptive ecosystem governance =====

‘Adaptive Ecosystem Governance’ differs from conventional resource management or integrated ecosystem management (Chapin III et al., 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r2293|2293]]</sup> ; Chapin III et al., 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r2294|2294]]</sup> ; Chapin III et al., 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r2295|2295]]</sup> ), with a strong focus on trajectories of change (i.e., emergence), implying that maintaining ecosystems in a state of equilibrium is not possible (Biggs et al., 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r2296|2296]]</sup> ; ARR, 2016). This approach strengthens response options by maintaining or increasing resource diversity (to support human adaptation) and biological diversity (to support ecosystem adaptation) (Biggs et al., 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r2297|2297]]</sup> ; Chapin III et al., 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r2298|2298]]</sup> ; Quinlan et al., 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r2299|2299]]</sup> ) ( ''high confidence'' ). Adaptive ecosystem governance emphasises iterative social learning processes of observing, understanding and acting with collaborative partnerships, such as adaptive co-management arrangements currently used in regions of the Arctic (Armitage et al., 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r2300|2300]]</sup> ; Dale and Armitage, 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r2301|2301]]</sup> ; Chapin III et al., 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r2302|2302]]</sup> ; Arp et al., 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r2303|2303]]</sup> ). This approach is also currently realised through adaptive management of Arctic fisheries in Alaska that combines annual measures and within-season provisions informed by assessments of future ecosystem trends (Section 3.5.2.1), and the use of simulation models with Canadian caribou co-management boards to assess the cumulative effects of proposed land use change with climate change (Gunn et al., 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r2304|2304]]</sup> ; Russell, 2014a <sup>[[#fn:r2305|2305]]</sup> ; Russell, 2014b <sup>[[#fn:r2306|2306]]</sup> ). Linking these regional efforts to pan-polar programs can enhance resilience building cross multiple scales (e.g., Gunn et al., 2013) ( ''medium confidence'' ).

<div id="section-3-5-4-3-resilience-based-ecosystem-stewardship-block-3"></div>

<span id="spatial-planning-for-biodiversity"></span>
===== 3.5.4.3.2 Spatial planning for biodiversity =====

Shifts in the distribution, abundance and human use of species and populations due to climate-induced cryosphere and ocean change, concurrent with land use changes, increase the risks to ecosystem health and biodiversity (Kaiser et al., 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r2307|2307]]</sup> ). Building resilience in these challenging conditions follows from spatial planning for biodiversity that links multiple scales and considers how impacts to ecosystems may materialise in social-ecological systems elsewhere (Bengtsson et al., 2003 <sup>[[#fn:r2308|2308]]</sup> ; Cumming, 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r2309|2309]]</sup> ; Allen et al., 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r2310|2310]]</sup> ). Developing pathways for spatial resilience in polar regions involves systematic planning and designating networks of protected areas to protect connected tracts of representative habitats, and biologically and ecologically significant features (Ban et al., 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r2311|2311]]</sup> ). Protected area networks that combine both spatially rigid and spatially flexible regimes with climate refugia can support ecological resilience to climate change by maintaining connectivity of populations, foodwebs, and the flow of genes across scales (McLeod et al., 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r2312|2312]]</sup> ). This approach reduces direct pressures on biodiversity, and thus gives biological communities, populations and ecosystems the space to adapt (Nyström and Folke, 2001 <sup>[[#fn:r2313|2313]]</sup> ; Hope et al., 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r2314|2314]]</sup> ; Thomas and Gillingham, 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r2315|2315]]</sup> ) ( ''medium confidence'' ). Networks of protected areas are now being planned (Solovyev et al., 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r2316|2316]]</sup> ) and implemented (Juvonen and Kuhmonen, 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r2317|2317]]</sup> ) in the marine and terrestrial Arctic, respectively; expanding the terrestrial protected area network in Antarctica is discussed (Coetzee et al., 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r2318|2318]]</sup> ). The planning of protected area networks in polar regions is currently an active topic of international collaboration in both polar regions (Arctic Council, 2015b <sup>[[#fn:r2319|2319]]</sup> ; CCAMLR, 2016a <sup>[[#fn:r2320|2320]]</sup> ; Wenzel et al., 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r2321|2321]]</sup> ). Designating marine protected area networks contributes to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 14 and the Aichi Targets of the CBD but is often contested due to competing interests for marine resources.

<div id="section-3-5-4-3-resilience-based-ecosystem-stewardship-block-4"></div>

<span id="linking-eosystem-services-with-human-livelihoods"></span>
===== 3.5.4.3.3 Linking eosystem services with human livelihoods =====

Incorporating measures of ecosystem services into assessments is key in integrating environmental, economic, and social policies that build resilience to climate change in polar regions (CAFF, 2015a <sup>[[#fn:r2322|2322]]</sup> ; Malinauskaite et al., 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r2323|2323]]</sup> ; Sarkki and Acosta García, 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r2324|2324]]</sup> ) ( ''high confidence'' ). Currently, there is limited recognition of the wide range of benefits people receive from polar ecosystems and a lack of management tools that demonstrate their benefits in decision-making processes (CAFF, 2015a <sup>[[#fn:r2325|2325]]</sup> ). The concept of ecosystem services is increasingly used in the Arctic, yet there continues to be significant knowledge gaps in mapping, valuation, and the study of the social implications of changes in ecosystem services. There are few Arctic examples of the application of ecosystem services in management (Malinauskaite et al., 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r2326|2326]]</sup> ). A strategy of ecosystem stewardship, therefore, is to maintain a continued flow of ecosystem services, recognising how their benefits provide incentives for preserving biodiversity, while also ensuring options for sustainable development and ecosystem-based adaptation (Chapin III et al., 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r2327|2327]]</sup> ; Guerry et al., 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r2328|2328]]</sup> ; Díaz et al., 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r2329|2329]]</sup> ). Arctic stewardship opportunities at landscape, seascape, and community scales to a great extent lie in supporting culturally engrained (often traditional indigenous) values of respect for land and animals, and reliance on the local environment through the sharing of knowledge and power between local users of renewable resources and agencies responsible for managing resources (Mengerink et al., 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r2330|2330]]</sup> ) ( ''high confidence'' ). In the Antarctic, ecosystem stewardship is dependent on international formally-defined and informally-enacted cooperation, and the recognition of its service to the global community (Section 3.5.3.2).

<span id="synopsis"></span>