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.

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.

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.