© Elisabeth Kruger / WWF
WWF Arctic Council Scorecard
Conservation areas
Pressure on the Arctic’s ecosystems is rapidly growing. Industrial fishing, the disruption of habitats, marine shipping, oil and gas development, and mining all have negative impacts on Arctic biodiversity. Furthermore, climate change represents the most serious threat to Arctic biodiversity and exacerbates all other threats.
Ratings
Detailed ratings
B
Canada
| Identification of conservation areas | 5/6 |
| Protecting areas of ecological importance | 2/4 |
| Mechanisms to safeguard connectivity | 4/6 |
| OVERALL RATING | 11/16 |
D
Kingdom of Denmark (Greenland & Faroe Islands)
| Identification of conservation areas | 3/6 |
| Protecting areas of ecological importance | 0/4 |
| Mechanisms to safeguard connectivity | 3/6 |
| OVERALL RATING | 6/16 |
All ratings for Kingdom of Denmark (Greenland & Faroe Islands)
B
Finland
| Identification of conservation areas | 0/2 |
| Protecting areas of ecological importance | 4/4 |
| Mechanisms to safeguard connectivity | 2/2 |
| OVERALL RATING | 6/8 |
B
Iceland
| Identification of conservation areas | 4/6 |
| Protecting areas of ecological importance | 2/4 |
| Mechanisms to safeguard connectivity | 2/2 |
| OVERALL RATING | 8/12 |
C
Norway
| Identification of conservation areas | 4/6 |
| Protecting areas of ecological importance | 1/4 |
| Mechanisms to safeguard connectivity | 3/6 |
| OVERALL RATING | 8/16 |
C
Russia
| Identification of conservation areas | 2/6 |
| Protecting areas of ecological importance | 2/4 |
| Mechanisms to safeguard connectivity | 4/6 |
| OVERALL RATING | 8/14 |
B
Sweden
| Identification of conservation areas | 0/2 |
| Protecting areas of ecological importance | 3/4 |
| Mechanisms to safeguard connectivity | 2/2 |
| OVERALL RATING | 5/8 |
C
USA
| Identification of conservation areas | 4/6 |
| Protecting areas of ecological importance | 1/4 |
| Mechanisms to safeguard connectivity | 2/4 |
| OVERALL RATING | 7/14 |