We investigate the effectiveness of biodiversity indicators in increasing the nature positivity of the Finnish tourism industry. Lapland, north of the Arctic Circle, plays a key role in Finnish tourism attracting an increasing number of international tourists to enjoy nature-based northern activities. Visit Finland’s goal is no less than make Finland the world’s leading sustainable travel destination. A nationwide Sustainable Travel Finland program, including biodiversity conservation and restoration measures, has been launched to achieve this goal. As the precise company level measurement of tourism’s biodiversity footprints and handprints on the is still in its infancy, the STF-program uses qualitative indicators to verify companies’ impacts and contributions. Hence, the program’s 15 biodiversity indicators balance between being relevant and effective for conservation and simultaneously, inspiring and easy to adopt for companies.
Our research is based on evaluating the STF-program’s indicator system and analyzing company-level indicator data from 2022 to 2024 (N=279-494 companies/year). This quantitative data is supplemented by 33 qualitative interviews with forerunner businesses scrutinizing their voluntary biodiversity actions. On the systemic level, STF’s biodiversity indicators include five strategic commitments, three concrete species level conservation indicators and seven wider ecosystems measures. Already during the first years of operation (program launch 2020), the program has fostered awareness and engagement; over 1200 tourism companies have engaged in the program with over 500 of them being already certified and 41% fulfilling at least two biodiversity indicators.
However, the effectiveness of well-intentioned actions is reduced by the indicators’ random and detached nature, small scale and narrow scope. Therefore, the indicators do not yet effectively support biodiversity conservation in the North and systemic transformation of tourism. For increased impact, we recommend raising the indicators’ rigor and level of ambition, developing quantitative measurements, increased ecological specificity as well as integration of private company actions with public conservation efforts. Otherwise, there is a risk of not proceeding from initial small-scale and loose steps to systematic and mainstreamed action. In that case, the indicators significance for biodiversity conservation would remain insignificant, maintaining and even greenwashing business-as-usual instead of promoting nature positive transformation and biodiversity stewardship.
How to cite: Sorakunnas, E.: From Indicators to Impact: Assessment of Biodiversity Stewardship in Arctic Tourism, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-326, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-326, 2026.
Sápmi refers to the traditional territory of the Indigenous Sámi people, encompassing northern Norway, Sweden, Finland, and the Kola Peninsula. Although extensive biodiversity data from this region are available through the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), the Indigenous origins, cultural context, and associated stewardship responsibilities remain almost entirely unacknowledged in the infrastructure. This lack of contextualization limits the interpretability of species records and obscures how observations relate to long-standing practices of land use, ecological relationships, and traditional knowledge systems have shaped human–environment interactions in Sápmi over generations.
This study explores how Sámi interests, priorities, and governance can be integrated more effectively into GBIF’s data ecosystem in ways consistent with both FAIR and CARE principles. By examining biodiversity items that hold cultural significance for Sámi communities, we assess the current visibility of Sámi names, taxonomies, and knowledge within GBIF-mediated data and identify where these dimensions are absent or poorly represented. We also analyze metadata needs related to cultural context, including traditional nomenclature, provenance, relationships to seasonal cycles, ecological interactions, and the role of knowledge holders in shaping species understanding.
A key focus is evaluating mechanisms that could enable Sámi authority, responsibility, and control over data linked to their territories. We investigate the potential application of Local Contexts notices and labels within GBIF, assessing how such tools might help communicate community expectations, governance protocols, and restrictions on sensitive knowledge. In addition, we explore technical approaches for associating cultural metadata with existing and future GBIF datasets while preserving community consent, protecting Indigenous rights, and maintaining data integrity.
The study also examines the feasibility of mobilizing new Sámi datasets, including those containing elements of traditional knowledge, and identifies the governance conditions necessary for their ethical inclusion within GBIF-supported infrastructures. Through this work, we aim to articulate a model for respectful, reciprocal, and community-informed data mobilization in Sápmi. The resulting framework seeks to support Sámi data sovereignty, improve the cultural fidelity of biodiversity data, and offer an adaptable pathway for other Indigenous communities engaging with global biodiversity data infrastructures.
How to cite: Johansson, V. A., A. Siri, S. R., Heatta, M. J., and Axelsson, P.: A model for data mobilization that supports and upholds Sámi data governance, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-747, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-747, 2026.
The new SILA biology bachelor program at Ilisimatusarfik (the University of Greenland) is a new take on how biology should be taught and interpreted. It is a bachelor’s degree that integrates Greenlandic Inuit knowledge to the curriculum, and the education material is focused specifically to Arctic life and its surroundings. Multiple knowledge systems are introduced within the curriculum creating a more inclusive understanding of nature. Educators are not limited to people from an academic background, but include fishermen, hunters, the industry and cultural knowledge holders who see biology and climate change from different points of views. This setup seeks to equip the students to tackle the gap there currently is between scientists, hunters, fishermen and in the Kalaallit (Greenlandic) society. The understanding and caring for Arctic biodiversity are taught to students who are part of the Arctic biodiversity themselves and can reflect their daily lives to each subject. The mindset of being part of the ecosystem is important to underline, because it is such a big part of Indigenous and Inuit culture. We are part of nature, and our lives affect how the ecosystem thrives. The students coming from various parts of Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland) diversifies their own knowledge shared in the classroom. A student from Avanersuaq (Northwestern Greenland) who grew up with family members catching narwhals using qajaqs have a different perspective of nature to a student who grew up in Kujataa (South Greenland) who grew up in a sheep farm. The inclusion of situated and place-based knowledge is something which is focused on, because it fosters diversity of knowledge. The students are beside biology introduced to innovation and must frequently showcase how you can sustainably utilize nature’s resources. These assignments activate the students’ creative side of the brain as well as integrate the Inuit values of utilising everything nature offers us. We at the SILA department hope the SILA biology students will be leading examples of transformation within Arctic science in Kalaallit Nunaat.
How to cite: Johansen, M.: Inuit culture-based biology degree, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-973, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-973, 2026.
Arctic ecosystems are undergoing rapid climate warming, driving shifts in environmental conditions that directly influence plant survival, reproduction, and community composition. Understanding plant responses across biological scales—from seed physiology to landscape-level vegetation change—is critical for predicting ecosystem resilience and supporting informed conservation actions. This presentation synthesizes two complementary studies that address these challenges within the context of Arctic biodiversity.
The first study investigates seed viability and freezing tolerance in seven Arctic species—Bistorta vivipara, Cerastium arcticum, Eriophorum scheuchzeri, Oxyria digyna, Saxifraga cespitosa, Silene acaulis, and Silene uralensis—collected from Svalbard. Seeds were exposed to temperatures from −50°C to 25°C under contrasting moisture conditions simulating mid-winter and early-spring environments. Imbibed (moisture-saturated) seeds exhibited substantially higher freezing susceptibility, with lethal temperature thresholds (LT50) between −15°C and −25°C. Notably, Bistorta vivipara and Silene acaulis maintained >50% germination across all tested treatments, indicating exceptional freezing tolerance and suggesting these species may gain a competitive advantage as snow regimes shift.
The second study advances remote-sensing tools to monitor Arctic vegetation dynamics at broader spatial scales. Ground-based hyperspectral imagery from Adventdalen Valley, Svalbard, was used to classify dominant plant species and construct high-resolution spectral libraries. A one-dimensional convolutional neural network (1D-CNN) classifier achieved >98% accuracy, outperforming random forest and support vector machine approaches. The resulting spectral library provides a critical foundation for tracking vegetation change and scaling ground observations to larger Arctic landscapes. This integrated framework strengthens our capacity to link fine-scale plant traits with ecosystem-level change across rapidly warming Arctic regions.
Together, these studies demonstrate that Arctic plant responses to climate change operate through both physiological mechanisms and community-level transitions. While altered snowpack conditions can threaten seed viability, highly frost-tolerant species may be poised to expand under future climates. At the same time, advanced remote-sensing techniques offer powerful tools for detecting and interpreting vegetation shifts in real time. Integrating these approaches enhances our ability to understand, monitor, and ultimately care for Arctic biodiversity amid accelerating environmental change.
How to cite: Lee, Y. K.: Arctic Plant Responses to Climate Change: From Seed Resilience to Vegetation Monitoring, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-200, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-200, 2026.
The goal of biological scientists can be generalised to adhere to one overarching theme – understanding our biological subjects. Oftentimes, the desire to generate such knowledge comes from caring about our subjects, but does our knowledge production in turn contribute to caring for biodiversity? In the midst of a biodiversity crisis, we find we are faced with an uncomfortable situation where our personal values (caring) and our scientific goals (understanding) often do not align. Perhaps nowhere is this so apparent as it is in the Arctic, the most rapidly warming region of the world, to which scientists travel thousands of kilometres, frequently by plane, to study the impacts of climate change on biodiversity, creating a kind of cognitive dissonance about our role in the process. Certainly, this has been my experience as a plant ecologist new to Arctic research and it has raised a key question for me: does the knowledge we are generating justify the impacts we are having in these threatened places?
The ‘publish or perish’ mindset of modern science fuels an extractivist culture within research, particularly in Arctic locales, where scientists fly in, extract knowledge, and fly out again. With intense pressure to push our work forward into the academic arena, it leaves little time and energy to consider the disconnect between the processes through which we understand and through which we care for the Arctic. This can lead to disempowerment of local communities, a distrust for science and scientists, and a lack of knowledge co-creation with those who live in this rapidly changing area of the world. I suggest that in order to care for biodiversity through our knowledge generation, we need to prioritise reciprocity – taking and giving back. In this presentation, I reflect on my personal experiences as an Arctic ecologist to highlight and discuss how we got to this point and how, through first acknowledging the dualities in our work, we can move one step closer to truly caring for Arctic communities and the biodiversity they support.
How to cite: Gerwin, M.: Understanding, but not always caring, for Arctic biodiversity: personal reflections on the role of science (and scientists) in the Arctic, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-586, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-586, 2026.
Arctic ecosystems are undergoing unprecedented environmental and societal change, driven by accelerated climate warming and expanding human activities. These transformations alter key ecological processes, reshape biodiversity, and directly affect the well-being, food security, and cultural heritage of Arctic Indigenous peoples and local communities. Despite the growing urgency of these changes, the ecosystem services (ES) concept (now widely used in biodiversity conservation, land-use planning, and policy-making elsewhere) remains underdeveloped and underutilized in the Arctic. Only a small fraction of global ES assessments explicitly address Arctic systems, reflecting both conceptual misconceptions and structural barriers to uptake.
We argue that an appropriately adapted ES framework can provide an essential bridge between science, policy, and Indigenous and local priorities in the North. We identify three overarching reasons for the limited use of ES in the region: persistent misunderstandings of ES as primarily monetary valuation; fragmented, multi-level Arctic governance that limits coordinated policy integration; and existing ES frameworks that inadequately represent Arctic socio-ecological realities. Climate-driven ecological transitions, strong seasonal dynamics, and culturally embedded relationships with the land, all call for Arctic-specific approaches to ES assessment.
Building on the well-established MAES framework, we propose a revised, Arctic-tailored approach that embeds Indigenous and Traditional Knowledge throughout the assessment process, adapts ES classifications to reflect Arctic-specific values and ecosystem functions, and incorporates seasonality and rapid ecological change. We also highlight opportunities for improving governance uptake, including the potential of Arctic Council bodies such as CAFF and AMAP to support co-developed ES initiatives, enhanced collaboration with Indigenous rights-holders, and greater visibility of Arctic ES in science-policy platforms such as IPBES, as well as in international statistical and accounting frameworks like the SEEA-EA. Integrating an ES lens into Arctic biodiversity research and decision-making is both timely and necessary, and a co-developed, context-aware ES framework can support more inclusive dialogues at the science–policy–decision-making interface, strengthen intercultural understanding, and contribute to more sustainable actions in a rapidly changing Arctic.
How to cite: Villoslada, M., García, M., Ramage, J., Schaepman-Strub, G., Kumpula, T., and Burkhard, B.: Ecosystem Services in the Arctic: A pathway for better integration into policy making, management, and research., World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-706, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-706, 2026.
“Doom and gloom” has become a dominant narrative about the impacts of climate change on the Arctic and its unique cold-adapted biodiversity. However, recent work highlights that such narratives can prevent us from being proactive and take exactly those steps needed to create the best possible future. The visioning of “desirable” futures is increasingly recognised as a tool that can help overcome negative mindsets and inspire transformative action. During the World Biodiversity Forum 2024, we co-created visions of desirable futures for Arctic biodiversity during a workshop with representatives from academia, Indigenous Peoples, business, and policymaking. Here, we will report about the outcomes of the workshop. Appreciating the diversity of our perspectives, we identified five common themes in our visions: governance, biodiversity-climate interactions, co-management of ecosystems, economy and infrastructure, and food security. Using hindcasting, we determined high-level actions that would enable the positive outcomes shared in our visions, these included: boosting education, rethinking Arctic biodiversity governance, elevating the voices of Indigenous Peoples and the voices of local communities, developing scalable monitoring systems, as well as evaluating impacts of policies and economic activities. Many of the participants reported a positive shift in attitude and empowerment after the workshop, showcasing the ability of desirable futures to inspire change. Co-creating visions with a diverse group was perceived as particularly valuable. Building on our experience, we encourage people from all backgrounds to come together, collaborate and co-create the best possible future for biodiversity in the Arctic and beyond.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Inge Thaulow for participating in the workshop as well as the World Biodiversity Forum 2024 for providing a venue and context for the workshop. The workshop was supported by funding from the EU CHARTER project as part of the European Union Horizon 2020 programme (agreement No 869471), the University of Zurich and the Oliver Wyman Social Impact programme.
How to cite: Assmann, J. J. and the Co-Authors: Envisioning desirable futures for Arctic biodiversity to overcome “doom and gloom”, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-338, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-338, 2026.
The Arctic tundra's unique biodiversity holds profound intrinsic and cultural value for Indigenous peoples, and supports ecosystem stability under rapid climate change. The thin layer of Arctic vegetation is crucial, buffering immense permafrost carbon storage from the atmosphere—a key component of climate feedback mechanism. Yet, the precise composition and distribution of this diversity remain poorly resolved.
Current assessments of Arctic plant diversity are often conducted locally or rely on broad plant functional types, offering only a coarse approximation of actual species composition and relative abundance on regional scales. To address this gap, we utilize the Arctic Vegetation Archive (AVA), an unprecedented international effort to compile thousands of standardized Braun-Blanquet vegetation surveys and local floras collected over decades. This unique, high-resolution dataset, currently released for the Russian and Alaska Arctic, and forthcoming for Canada and Greenland, provides precise species-level and community-level data. It includes moss and lichen species, significantly underrepresented in current biodiversity assessments.
In this study, we leverage the AVA to develop high-resolution predictive models of Arctic plant diversity. We employ two modelling approaches: standard Species Distribution Models (SDMs) for individual taxa and a recently introduced multi-species deep-SDM approach to predict entire plant communities. The latter approach was previously shown to account for inter-species correlations and predict community composition more accurately on a national scale. Our models integrate critical environmental factors, such as temperature, precipitation and site water balance (CHELSA) with high-resolution remote sensing data (Sentinel-2) to capture the specific environmental niche and spectral signatures of both single species and plant communities.
We will present the first results of this modelling effort, offering a refined, species-level understanding of Arctic biodiversity distribution. We invite the broader community to discuss the potential for integrating these results into various applications, including conservation and future scenarios.
We hope that our results contribute to understanding of Arctic biodiversity and support maintaining it.
How to cite: Plekhanova, E., Brun, P., Zemlianskii, V., Zimmermann, N. E., and Schaepman-Strub, G.: Mapping Arctic tundra plant species and communities, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-630, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-630, 2026.
