Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) Overview Report
Impacts of a Warming Arctic (2004)
Geographical coverage
| Geographical scale of the assessment | Regional |
|---|---|
| Country or countries covered | Canada, Denmark, Greenland, Russia, Iceland, Norway, United States, Finland, Faroe Islands, Sweden |
| Any other necessary information or explanation for identifying the location of the assessment, including site or region name |
Arctic |
Geographical scale of the assessment
Regional
Country or countries covered
Canada, Denmark, Greenland, Russia, Iceland, Norway, United States, Finland, Faroe Islands, Sweden
Any other necessary information or explanation for identifying the location of the assessment, including site or region name
Arctic
Conceptual framework, methodology and scope
Assessment objectives
The 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) was prepared in response to a request from the Ministers of the Arctic Council, and is a follow-up to a preliminary evaluation of Arctic climate change issues included in the 1997/98 AMAP assessment.
The objective of the ACIA - as defined in the Arctic Council Ministers 'Barrow Declaration' - was “to evaluate and synthesize knowledge on climate variability and change and increased ultraviolet radiation, and support policy-making processes and the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).” ACIA should address “environmental, human health, social, cultural, and economic impacts and consequences, including policy recommendations.”
Mandate for the assessment
The assessment was produced by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) both Arctic Council working groups, and the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC). More than 250 scientists and six circumpolar indigenous peoples’ organisations participated in the ACIA.
ACIA was the first comprehensive multi-disciplinary assessment of the impacts of climate change in the Arctic. ACIA was also a milestone in that it was the first Arctic Council assessment to comprehensively include social science as well as natural science components - to assess the imacts of climate change on socio-economic conditions in the Arctic. Results of the ACIA were fed into the IPCC fourth assessment process and were instrumental in raising the profile of Arctic Climate Change issues in the UNFCCC and subsequent IPCC work.
Conceptual framework and/or methodology used for the assessment
URL or copy of conceptual framework developed or adapted
System(s) assessed
Species groups assessed
Ecosystem services/functions assessed
Provisioning
Regulating
Supporting Services/Functions
Cultural Services
Scope of assessment includes
Drivers of change in systems and services
No
Impacts of change in services on human well-being
No
Options for responding/interventions to the trends observed
No
Explicit consideration of the role of biodiversity in the systems and services covered by the assessment
No
Timing of the assessment
Year assessment started
Year assessment finished
If ongoing, year assessment is anticipated to finish
Periodicity of assessment
Assessment outputs
Website(s)
www.caff.is - http://www.caff.is/publications
www.amap.no - http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/impacts-of-a-warming-arctic-2004/786
Report(s)
Communication materials (e.g. brochure, presentations, posters, audio-visual media)
Journal publications
Training materials
Other documents/outputs
Tools and processes
Tools and approaches used in the assessment
Process used for stakeholder engagement in the assessment process and which component
Key stakeholder groups engaged
The number of people directly involved in the assessment process
Incorporation of scientific and other types of knowledge
Supporting documentation for specific approaches, methodology or criteria developed and/or used to integrate knowledge systems into the assessment
Assessment reports peer reviewed
No
Data
Accessibility of data used in assessment
Policy impact
Impacts the assessment has had on policy and/or decision making, as evidenced through policy references and actions
Independent or other review on policy impact of the assessment
No
