• Black carbon is an aerosol that warms the climate and is a component of fine particulate matter, PM₅. Black carbon enters the atmosphere through incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, as well as biofuels and biomass (Zaelke et al. 2023). 12-15% of black carbon deposition in the Arctic originated from boreal forest fires in Siberia, Canada, and Alaska (AMAP 2021). Forest fires are an increasingly important source of black carbon emissions in the Arctic, and the magnitude of emissions is expected to grow with increasing climate change leading to larger and more frequent fires (AMAP 2021, Bahr et al. 2023, Matthews et al. 2023). Fire risk within the Arctic will be variable and will depend on future scenarios of permafrost thaw, changes in precipitation with ongoing climate change, and expected increases in lightning frequency (AMAP 2021 full report). Proposed wildland fire management techniques include fuel management and prescribed burns (McWethy et al. 2019 in AMAP 2021 full report).

• Reducing black carbon emissions from wildland fire management will decrease solar absorption in the atmosphere and increase albedo of sea ice and snow in the Arctic as less black carbon accumulates.
  • Different proposed measures will operate in different ways specific to the measure.

• Areas most affected by fires in the Arctic are in Alaska, Canada, and Russia, with Nordic countries having less area affected by a factor of 50-60 (Högberg et al. 2021 cited in van Wijngaarden et al. 2023). Area in the Outside of the Arctic, boreal forests also contribute to emissions of black carbon that are deposited in the Arctic. Total land area in the Arctic is estimated to be 14 million km² (CAFF/PAME 2022).

• Land surfaces

• Boreal forests and areas in the Arctic region.

• Strongest in summer and fall
  • Black carbon emissions in the Arctic from forest fires are largest in summer and fall months (AMAP 2021 full report). These emissions overwhelm other anthropogenic sources of black carbon emissions in summer months (Xian et al. 2022).

• Black carbon is an aerosol that warms the climate and is a component of fine particulate matter, PM₅. Black carbon enters the atmosphere through incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, as well as biofuels and biomass (Zaelke et al. 2023). 12-15% of black carbon deposition in the Arctic originated from boreal forest fires in Siberia, Canada, and Alaska (AMAP 2021). Forest fires are an increasingly important source of black carbon emissions in the Arctic, and the magnitude of emissions is expected to grow with increasing climate change leading to larger and more frequent fires (AMAP 2021, Bahr et al. 2023, Matthews et al. 2023). Fire risk within the Arctic will be variable and will depend on future scenarios of permafrost thaw, changes in precipitation with ongoing climate change, and expected increases in lightning frequency (AMAP 2021 full report). Proposed wildland fire management techniques include fuel management and prescribed burns (McWethy et al. 2019 in AMAP 2021 full report).

• Reducing black carbon emissions from wildland fire management will decrease solar absorption in the atmosphere and increase albedo of sea ice and snow in the Arctic as less black carbon accumulates.
  • Different proposed measures will operate in different ways specific to the measure.

• Areas most affected by fires in the Arctic are in Alaska, Canada, and Russia, with Nordic countries having less area affected by a factor of 50-60 (Högberg et al. 2021 cited in van Wijngaarden et al. 2023). Area in the Outside of the Arctic, boreal forests also contribute to emissions of black carbon that are deposited in the Arctic. Total land area in the Arctic is estimated to be 14 million km² (CAFF/PAME 2022).

• Land surfaces

• Boreal forests and areas in the Arctic region.

• Strongest in summer and fall
  • Black carbon emissions in the Arctic from forest fires are largest in summer and fall months (AMAP 2021 full report). These emissions overwhelm other anthropogenic sources of black carbon emissions in summer months (Xian et al. 2022).

• Black carbon is an aerosol that warms the climate and is a component of fine particulate matter, PM₅. Black carbon enters the atmosphere through incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, as well as biofuels and biomass (Zaelke et al. 2023). 12-15% of black carbon deposition in the Arctic originated from boreal forest fires in Siberia, Canada, and Alaska (AMAP 2021). Forest fires are an increasingly important source of black carbon emissions in the Arctic, and the magnitude of emissions is expected to grow with increasing climate change leading to larger and more frequent fires (AMAP 2021, Bahr et al. 2023, Matthews et al. 2023). Fire risk within the Arctic will be variable and will depend on future scenarios of permafrost thaw, changes in precipitation with ongoing climate change, and expected increases in lightning frequency (AMAP 2021 full report). Proposed wildland fire management techniques include fuel management and prescribed burns (McWethy et al. 2019 in AMAP 2021 full report).

• Reducing black carbon emissions from wildland fire management will decrease solar absorption in the atmosphere and increase albedo of sea ice and snow in the Arctic as less black carbon accumulates.
  • Different proposed measures will operate in different ways specific to the measure.

• Areas most affected by fires in the Arctic are in Alaska, Canada, and Russia, with Nordic countries having less area affected by a factor of 50-60 (Högberg et al. 2021 cited in van Wijngaarden et al. 2023). Area in the Outside of the Arctic, boreal forests also contribute to emissions of black carbon that are deposited in the Arctic. Total land area in the Arctic is estimated to be 14 million km² (CAFF/PAME 2022).

• Land surfaces

• Boreal forests and areas in the Arctic region.

• Strongest in summer and fall
  • Black carbon emissions in the Arctic from forest fires are largest in summer and fall months (AMAP 2021 full report). These emissions overwhelm other anthropogenic sources of black carbon emissions in summer months (Xian et al. 2022).

Impact on

• Unknown
  • Intended to increase albedo, but quantified information is unavailable.

• Global
  • Unknown
    • Estimates available for impacts on emissions (Phillips et al. 2022, van Wijngaarden et al. 2023), however none found for temperature.
• Arctic region
  • Unknown

• Global
  • Unknown
• Arctic region
  • Unknown

• Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
  • Potential for direct impact
• New or old ice?
  • Both
    • Albedo effect would impact existing sea ice, subsequent temperature reductions may impact growth of new ice.
• Impact on sea ice
  • Unknown what the impact of wildland fire management would have on sea ice. However, a study on the impact of wildfires on glaciers found that lower albedo from black carbon deposition corresponded to a 10% increase in ice melt (Aubry-Wake et al. 2022).

Scalability

• Difficult to scale
  • Wildland fire management will only be suitable in specific areas and is currently concentrated in areas near human settlements (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• Unknown

• Unknown

• Possible in 20 years if there is potential for impact
  • Practices are already developed and implementation could happen within 20 years (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• Possible in 20 years if there is potential for impact
  • Practices are already developed and implementation could happen within 20 years (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

Cost

• $12.63 per ton of avoided CO₂ emissions from fires
  • Estimate from Alaska for management via fire suppression (Phillips et al. 2022). This estimate is lower than other mitigation strategies, such as onshore wind power and utility-scale solar power.

• Estimated to be negative

Impact on

• Unknown
  • Intended to increase albedo, but quantified information is unavailable.

• Global
  • Unknown
    • Estimates available for impacts on emissions (Phillips et al. 2022, van Wijngaarden et al. 2023), however none found for temperature.
• Arctic region
  • Unknown

• Global
  • Unknown
• Arctic region
  • Unknown

• Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
  • Potential for direct impact
• New or old ice?
  • Both
    • Albedo effect would impact existing sea ice, subsequent temperature reductions may impact growth of new ice
• Impact on sea ice
  • Unknown what the impact of wildland fire management would have on sea ice. However, a study on the impact of wildfires on glaciers found that lower albedo from black carbon deposition corresponded to a 10% increase in ice melt (Aubry-Wake et al. 2022).

Scalability

• Difficult to scale
  • Wildland fire management will only be suitable in specific areas and is currently concentrated in areas near human settlements (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• Unknown

• Unknown

• Possible in 20 years if there is potential for impact
  • Practices are already developed and implementation could happen within 20 years (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• Possible in 20 years if there is potential for impact
  • Practices are already developed and implementation could happen within 20 years (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

Cost

• $12.63 per ton of avoided CO₂ emissions from fires
  • Estimate from Alaska for management via fire suppression (Phillips et al. 2022). This estimate is lower than other mitigation strategies, such as onshore wind power and utility-scale solar power.

• Estimated to be negative

Impact on

• Unknown
  • Intended to increase albedo, but quantified information is unavailable

• Global
  • Unknown
    • Estimates available for impacts on emissions (Phillips et al. 2022, van Wijngaarden et al. 2023), however none found for temperature.
• Arctic region
  • Unknown

• Global
  • Unknown
• Arctic region
  • Unknown

• Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
  • Potential for direct impact
• New or old ice?
  • Both
    • Albedo effect would impact existing sea ice, subsequent temperature reductions may impact growth of new ice
• Impact on sea ice
  • Unknown what the impact of wildland fire management would have on sea ice. However, a study on the impact of wildfires on glaciers found that lower albedo from black carbon deposition corresponded to a 10% increase in ice melt (Aubry-Wake et al. 2022).

Scalability

• Difficult to scale
  • Wildland fire management will only be suitable in specific areas and is currently concentrated in areas near human settlements (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• Unknown

• Unknown

• Possible in 20 years if there is potential for impact
  • Practices are already developed and implementation could happen within 20 years (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• Possible in 20 years if there is potential for impact
  • Practices are already developed and implementation could happen within 20 years (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

Cost

• $12.63 per ton of avoided CO₂ emissions from fires
  • Estimate from Alaska for management via fire suppression (Phillips et al. 2022). This estimate is lower than other mitigation strategies, such as onshore wind power and utility-scale solar power.

• Estimated to be negative

• 9 – Practices already in place, however as fires become more intense and are increasingly remote, challenges may arise (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023 citing Hoffman et al. 2021).

• Technically feasible within 10 years, however as fires become more intense and are increasingly remote, challenges may arise (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• 9 – practices already in place, however as fires become more intense and are increasingly remote, challenges may arise (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023 citing Hoffman et al. 2021).

• Technically feasible within 10 years, however as fires become more intense and are increasingly remote, challenges may arise (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• 9 – practices already in place, however as fires become more intense and are increasingly remote, challenges may arise (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023 citing Hoffman et al. 2021)

• Technically feasible within 10 years, however as fires become more intense and are increasingly remote, challenges may arise (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• TRL 9 – practices already in place, however as fires become more intense and are increasingly remote, challenges may arise (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023 citing Hoffman et al. 2021)

• Technically feasible within 10 years, however as fires become more intense and are increasingly remote, challenges may arise (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023)

• • TRL 9 – practices already in place, however as fires become more intense and are increasingly remote, challenges may arise (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023 citing Hoffman et al. 2021)

• • Technically feasible within 10 years, however as fires become more intense and are increasingly remote, challenges may arise (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023)

• TRL
  • TRL 9 – practices already in place, however as fires become more intense and are increasingly remote, challenges may arise (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023 citing Hoffman et al. 2021)
• Technology feasibility within 10 years
  • Technically feasible within 10 years, however as fires become more intense and are increasingly remote, challenges may arise (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023)

Physical and chemical changes

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Unknown

Impacts on species

• Co-benefits
  • Prevention of species loss during fires.
• Risks
  • Unknown

Impacts on ecosystem

• Co-benefits
  • Indigenous fire stewardship can increase biodiversity and habitat heterogeneity (Hoffman et al. 2021).
• Risks
  • If fire suppression is the main method, there could be a buildup of combustible material and increased fire risk (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

Impacts on society

• Co-benefits
  • Many Indigenous communities have historically managed their lands for forest fires (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023) and may benefit from restoration of their traditional practices and the benefits for ecosystems and society (Hoffman et al. 2021).
  • Reduction in forest fires would improve air quality, preventing asthma, pneumonia, and cardiovascular diseases linked to particulate matter (Phillips et al. 2022).
  • Increased wildland fire management could increase employment opportunities (Phillips et al. 2022).
• Risks
  • If fire suppression is the main method, there could be a buildup of combustible material and increased fire risk (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

Ease of reversibility

• Easy
  • Wildland fire management is largely reversible (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

Risk of termination shock

• Low
  • It is possible that if forest fires were over-managed, that the removal of such practices would lead to rapid shifts in fire regimes (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

Physical and chemical changes

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Unknown

Impacts on species

• Co-benefits
  • Prevention of species loss during fires.
• Risks
  • Unknown

Impacts on ecosystem

• Co-benefits
  • Indigenous fire stewardship can increase biodiversity and habitat heterogeneity (Hoffman et al. 2021).
• Risks
  • If fire suppression is the main method, there could be a buildup of combustible material and increased fire risk (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

Impacts on society

• Co-benefits
  • Many Indigenous communities have historically managed their lands for forest fires (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023) and may benefit from restoration of their traditional practices and the benefits for ecosystems and society (Hoffman et al. 2021).
  • Reduction in forest fires would improve air quality, preventing asthma, pneumonia, and cardiovascular diseases linked to particulate matter (Phillips et al. 2022).
  • Increased wildland fire management could increase employment opportunities (Phillips et al. 2022).
• Risks
  • If fire suppression is the main method, there could be a buildup of combustible material and increased fire risk (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

Ease of reversibility

• Wildland fire management is largely reversible (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

Risk of termination shock

• It is possible that if forest fires were over-managed, that the removal of such practices would lead to rapid shifts in fire regimes (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Unknown

• Co-benefits
  • Prevention of species loss during fires.
• Risks
  • Unknown

• Co-benefits
  • Indigenous fire stewardship can increase biodiversity and habitat heterogeneity (Hoffman et al. 2021).
• Risks
  • If fire suppression is the main method, there could be a buildup of combustible material and increased fire risk (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• Co-benefits
  • Many Indigenous communities have historically managed their lands for forest fires (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023) and may benefit from restoration of their traditional practices and the benefits for ecosystems and society (Hoffman et al. 2021).
  • Reduction in forest fires would improve air quality, preventing asthma, pneumonia, and cardiovascular diseases linked to particulate matter (Phillips et al. 2022).
  • Increased wildland fire management could increase employment opportunities (Phillips et al. 2022).
• Risks
  • If fire suppression is the main method, there could be a buildup of combustible material and increased fire risk (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• Wildland fire management is largely reversible (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• It is possible that if forest fires were over-managed, that the removal of such practices would lead to rapid shifts in fire regimes (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Unknown

• Co-benefits
  • Prevention of species loss during fires
• Risks
  • Unknown

• Co-benefits
  • Indigenous fire stewardship can increase biodiversity and habitat heterogeneity (Hoffman et al. 2021).
• Risks
  • If fire suppression is the main method, there could be a buildup of combustible material and increased fire risk (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• Co-benefits
  • Many Indigenous communities have historically managed their lands for forest fires (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023) and may benefit from restoration of their traditional practices and the benefits for ecosystems and society (Hoffman et al. 2021).
  • Reduction in forest fires would improve air quality, preventing asthma, pneumonia, and cardiovascular diseases linked to particulate matter (Phillips et al. 2022).
  • Increased wildland fire management could increase employment opportunities (Phillips et al. 2022).
• Risks
  • If fire suppression is the main method, there could be a buildup of combustible material and increased fire risk (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• Wildland fire management is largely reversible (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• It is possible that if forest fires were over-managed, that the removal of such practices would lead to rapid shifts in fire regimes (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Unknown

• Co-benefits
  • Prevention of species loss during fires
• Risks
  • Unknown

• Co-benefits
  • Indigenous fire stewardship can increase biodiversity and habitat heterogeneity (Hoffman et al. 2021).
• Risks
  • If fire suppression is the main method, there could be a buildup of combustible material and increased fire risk (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• Co-benefits
  • Many Indigenous communities have historically managed their lands for forest fires (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023) and may benefit from restoration of their traditional practices and the benefits for ecosystems and society (Hoffman et al. 2021).
  • Reduction in forest fires would improve air quality, preventing asthma, pneumonia, and cardiovascular diseases linked to particulate matter (Phillips et al. 2022).
  • Increased wildland fire management could increase employment opportunities (Phillips et al. 2022).
• Risks
  • If fire suppression is the main method, there could be a buildup of combustible material and increased fire risk (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• Wildland fire management is largely reversible (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• It is possible that if forest fires were over-managed, that the removal of such practices would lead to rapid shifts in fire regimes (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• National jurisdiction

• Varies nationally
  • Current governance structures rely on reactive fire suppression but should move to proactive mitigation and management measures (UNEP 2022).
• The Arctic Council launched a Wildland Fires Initiative to advance the issues of wildland fires in the Arctic.

• Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.
• Distributive justice
  • Unknown
• Procedural justice
  • Unknown
• Restorative justice
  • Displacement of Indigenous Peoples and the outlawing of cultural burning practices prevented Indigenous fire stewardship and disrupted knowledge transmission (Hoffman et al. 2022). Governments are starting to recognize the value of traditional ecological knowledge and Indigenous fire stewardship, but significant barriers still exist to establish Indigenous Peoples as partners in wildland fire management (Hoffman et al. 2022).

• Limiting wildfires is generally accepted by the public but has not been explicitly considered as a climate mitigation strategy (Phillips et al. 2022, van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• Engagement of Indigenous people in wildland fire management and fire stewardship varies by region. There are calls for co-management or Indigenous-led management of forested areas and wildfire stewardship but significant barriers remain (Hoffman et al. 2022).
• Within the Arctic Council’s Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working Group, Gwich’in Council International is leading the Arctic Wildland Fire Ecology Mapping and Monitoring Project (ArcticFIRE) that aims to improve understanding of fire ecology and impacts, reduce threats of wildland fires. The Gwich’in Council also leads the Circumpolar Wildland Fire Project to improve coordinated responses to wildland fires in the Arctic.

• National jurisdiction

• Varies nationally
  • Current governance structures rely on reactive fire suppression but should move to proactive mitigation and management measures ().
• The Arctic Council launched a Wildland Fires Initiative to advance the issues of wildland fires in the Arctic.

• Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.
• Distributive justice
  • Unknown
• Procedural justice
  • Unknown
• Restorative justice
  • Displacement of Indigenous Peoples and the outlawing of cultural burning practices prevented Indigenous fire stewardship and disrupted knowledge transmission (Hoffman et al. 2022). Governments are starting to recognize the value of traditional ecological knowledge and Indigenous fire stewardship, but significant barriers still exist to establish Indigenous Peoples as partners in wildland fire management (Hoffman et al. 2022).

• Limiting wildfires is generally accepted by the public but has not been explicitly considered as a climate mitigation strategy (Phillips et al. 2022, van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• Engagement of Indigenous people in wildland fire management and fire stewardship varies by region. There are calls for co-management or Indigenous-led management of forested areas and wildfire stewardship but significant barriers remain (Hoffman et al. 2022).
• Within the Arctic Council’s Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working Group, Gwich’in Council International is leading the Arctic Wildland Fire Ecology Mapping and Monitoring Project (ArcticFIRE) that aims to improve understanding of fire ecology and impacts, reduce threats of wildland fires. The Gwich’in Council also leads the Circumpolar Wildland Fire Project to improve coordinated responses to wildland fires in the Arctic.

• National jurisdiction

• Varies nationally
  • Current governance structures rely on reactive fire suppression but should move to proactive mitigation and management measures ().
• The Arctic Council launched a Wildland Fires Initiative to advance the issues of wildland fires in the Arctic.

• Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.
• Distributive justice
  • Unknown
• Procedural justice
  • Unknown
• Restorative justice
  • Displacement of Indigenous Peoples and the outlawing of cultural burning practices prevented Indigenous fire stewardship and disrupted knowledge transmission (Hoffman et al. 2022). Governments are starting to recognize the value of traditional ecological knowledge and Indigenous fire stewardship, but significant barriers still exist to establish Indigenous Peoples as partners in wildland fire management (Hoffman et al. 2022).

• Limiting wildfires is generally accepted by the public but has not been explicitly considered as a climate mitigation strategy (Phillips et al. 2022, van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• Engagement of Indigenous people in wildland fire management and fire stewardship varies by region. There are calls for co-management or Indigenous-led management of forested areas and wildfire stewardship but significant barriers remain (Hoffman et al. 2022).
• Within the Arctic Council’s Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working Group, Gwich’in Council International is leading the Arctic Wildland Fire Ecology Mapping and Monitoring Project (ArcticFIRE) that aims to improve understanding of fire ecology and impacts, reduce threats of wildland fires. The Gwich’in Council also leads the Circumpolar Wildland Fire Project to improve coordinated responses to wildland fires in the Arctic.

• National jurisdiction

• Varies nationally
  • Current governance structures rely on reactive fire suppression but should move to proactive mitigation and management measures ().
• The Arctic Council launched a Wildland Fires Initiative to advance the issues of wildland fires in the Arctic.

• Distributive justice
  • Unknown
• Procedural justice
  • Unknown
• Restorative justice
  • Displacement of Indigenous Peoples and the outlawing of cultural burning practices prevented Indigenous fire stewardship and disrupted knowledge transmission (Hoffman et al. 2022). Governments are starting to recognize the value of traditional ecological knowledge and Indigenous fire stewardship, but significant barriers still exist to establish Indigenous Peoples as partners in wildland fire management (Hoffman et al. 2022).

• Limiting wildfires is generally accepted by the public but has not been explicitly considered as a climate mitigation strategy (Phillips et al. 2022, van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• Engagement of Indigenous people in wildland fire management and fire stewardship varies by region. There are calls for co-management or Indigenous-led management of forested areas and wildfire stewardship but significant barriers remain (Hoffman et al. 2022).
• Within the Arctic Council’s Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working Group, Gwich’in Council International is leading the Arctic Wildland Fire Ecology Mapping and Monitoring Project (ArcticFIRE) that aims to improve understanding of fire ecology and impacts, reduce threats of wildland fires. The Gwich’in Council also leads the Circumpolar Wildland Fire Project to improve coordinated responses to wildland fires in the Arctic.

• National jurisdiction

• Varies nationally
  • Current governance structures rely on reactive fire suppression but should move to proactive mitigation and management measures ().
• The Arctic Council launched a Wildland Fires Initiative to advance the issues of wildland fires in the Arctic.

• Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.

• Distributive justice
  • Unknown
• Procedural justice
  • Unknown
• Restorative justice
  • Displacement of Indigenous Peoples and the outlawing of cultural burning practices prevented Indigenous fire stewardship and disrupted knowledge transmission (Hoffman et al. 2022). Governments are starting to recognize the value of traditional ecological knowledge and Indigenous fire stewardship, but significant barriers still exist to establish Indigenous Peoples as partners in wildland fire management (Hoffman et al. 2022).

• Limiting wildfires is generally accepted by the public but has not been explicitly considered as a climate mitigation strategy (Phillips et al. 2022, van Wijngaarden et al. 2023).

• Engagement of Indigenous people in wildland fire management and fire stewardship varies by region. There are calls for co-management or Indigenous-led management of forested areas and wildfire stewardship but significant barriers remain (Hoffman et al. 2022).
• Within the Arctic Council’s Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working Group, Gwich’in Council International is leading the Arctic Wildland Fire Ecology Mapping and Monitoring Project (ArcticFIRE) that aims to improve understanding of fire ecology and impacts, reduce threats of wildland fires. The Gwich’in Council also leads the Circumpolar Wildland Fire Project to improve coordinated responses to wildland fires in the Arctic.