Grønlandsudvalget 2016-17
GRU Alm.del Bilag 51
Offentligt
1755346_0001.png
FACTSHEET
WWF ARCTIC COUNCIL
CONSERVATION SCORECARD
The Scorecard assesses six areas of the
AC’s work:
•
•
•
Scorecard.
See the full Scorecard at panda.org/acscorecard
© WWF-US / ELISABETH KRUGER
 GRU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 51: WWF Verdensnaturfonden lancerer Arctic Council Conservation Scorecard
1755346_0002.png
RATINGS
A
More than 80% of
the maximum score
Full or substantive
implementation of the
direction.
B
60-80% of
the maximum score
Encouraging progress
on implementation of the
direction.
C
40-60% of
the maximum score
Some progress on
implementation of the
direction.
D
Less than 40% of
the maximum score
Little progress on
implementation of the
direction.
What the Scorecard
does not do
The Scorecard is an assessment of
conservation and biodiversity-related agreed
direction for the period of 2006-2013. WWF has
not assessed Arctic states on:
•
their implementation of conservation
commitments made outside of the Arctic
Council;
state of the Arctic environment within their
respective jurisdictions;
follow up on Arctic Council direction.
WWF realizes that this gap may produce
contradictory messages about overall progress
environmental protection and sustainable
development. We also believe that the value of
this Scorecard is to encourage discussion about
how we can all do more to safeguard the Arctic.
•
•
 GRU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 51: WWF Verdensnaturfonden lancerer Arctic Council Conservation Scorecard
1755346_0003.png
Implementation of collective actions (as the Arctic Council)
Conservation
Areas
Biodiversity
Shipping
Cooperation on
oil spills
and Adaptation
EBM
1/1 100%
2/6 33%
12/12 100%
7/9 78%
5/5 100%
1/4 25%
National implementation
Conservation
Areas
Biodiversity
Shipping
Cooperation on
oil spills
and adaptation
EBM
Canada
6/11 (55%)
5/17 (29%)
5/11 (45%)
19/24 (79%)
8/8 (100%)
7/12 (58%)
Kingdom of
Denmark
7/11 (64%)
6/17 (35%)
5/11 (45%)
22/24 ( 92%)
7/8 (88%)
3/12 (25%)
Finland
3/4 (75%)
7/14 ( 50%)
2/4 (50%)
12/12 (100%)
6/7 (86%)
4/6 (67%)
Iceland
2/8 (25%)
3/17 (18%)
3/11 (27%)
21/24 (88%)
4/8 (50%)
2/12 (17%)
Norway
7/11 (36%)
6/17 (35%)
4/11 (36%)
21/24 (88%)
6/8 (75%)
8/12 (67%)
Russia
6/11 (55%)
7/17 (41%)
3/11 (27%)
20/24 (83%)
7/8 (88%)
2/12 (17%)
Sweden
1/4 (25%)
7/14 (50%)
2/4 (50%)
12/12 (100%)
6/7 (86%)
3/6 (50%)
United
States
7/11 (64%)
10/17 (59%)
3/11 (27%)
23/24 (96%)
6/8 (75%)
3/12 (25%)
 GRU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 51: WWF Verdensnaturfonden lancerer Arctic Council Conservation Scorecard
1755346_0004.png
RECOMMENDATIONS
“The Council
faces challenges
related to...
implementation
recommendations
member states.”
Joint Memorandum of a Multilateral Audit
on the Arctic States’ national authorities’
work with the Arctic Council Conducted by
the Supreme Audit Institutions of Den-
mark, Norway, the Russian Federation,
Sweden and the United States of America
2015. The Arctic Council: Perspectives on
a Changing Arctic, The Council’s Work,
and Key Challenges.
ARCTIC COUNCIL SCORECARD
WWF recommends that:
•
•
•
•
•
•
PANDA.ORG/ACSCORECARD
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT
Why we are here
To stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and
to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.
panda.org/arctic
Learn more: panda.org/acscorecard