CAFF 2013: List of Marine Fishes of the Arctic Region Annotated with Common Names and Zoogeographic Characterizations

Geographical coverage

Geographical scale of the assessment Regional
Country or countries covered
Any other necessary information or explanation for identifying the location of the assessment, including site or region name

Conceptual framework, methodology and scope

Assessment objectives

A recent review of historical and new records of species presence produced an annotated list of the marine fishes occurring in the arctic region (Mecklenburg et al. 2010). Considerable new taxonomic and distributional information has already accumulated since that review. In addition to bringing the scientific names list up to date with new or removed species and various nomenclatural changes, in this edition authors have provided the most common or offficially recommended English, French, Norwegian and Russian vernaculars. Zoogeographic characterizations (e.g., arctic, arctic-boreal, boreal) from the earlier review are also included with a few additions following the same definitions.

This edition presented here is being used by the CBMP Marine Fish Expert Network as a baseline document which will be revised from time to time with, for instance, addition of names in other languages and new fish species as they are discovered in the arctic region.

A recent review of historical and new records of species presence produced an annotated list of the marine fishes occurring in the arctic region (Mecklenburg et al. 2010). Consider­able new taxonomic and distribu­tional information has already ac­cumulated since that review. In addition to bringing the scientific names list up to date with new or re­moved species and var­ious nomencla­tural changes, in this edition we have provided the most com­mon or official­ly recommended English, French, Nor­wegian, and Russian vernaculars. Zoo­geo­graphic characterizations (e.g., arctic, arctic-boreal, boreal) from the earlier review are also included, with a few additions following the same definitions.

Mandate for the assessment

Conceptual framework and/or methodology used for the assessment

URL or copy of conceptual framework developed or adapted

http://caff.is/marine/marine-monitoring-publications/257-list-of-marine-fishes-of-the-arctic-region-annotated-with-common-names-and-zooge

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)

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

Lessons learnt for future assessments from these reviews

Capacity building

Capacity building needs identified during the assessment

Actions taken by the assessment to build capacity

How have gaps in capacity been communicated to the different stakeholders

Knowledge generation

Gaps in knowledge identified from the assessment

How gaps in knowledge have been communicated to the different stakeholders

Additional relevant information