Norwegian Red List for Ecosystems and Habitat types 2011
Geographical coverage
| Geographical scale of the assessment | National |
|---|---|
| Country or countries covered | Norway, Svalbard and Jan Mayen |
| Any other necessary information or explanation for identifying the location of the assessment, including site or region name |
All environments: Terrestrial, freshwater and marine |
Geographical scale of the assessment
National
Country or countries covered
Norway, Svalbard and Jan Mayen
Any other necessary information or explanation for identifying the location of the assessment, including site or region name
All environments: Terrestrial, freshwater and marine
Conceptual framework, methodology and scope
Assessment objectives
Risk assessment for all ecosystems in Norway to determine threat status.
Mandate for the assessment
To establish an official national red list for ecosystems.
Conceptual framework and/or methodology used for the assessment
Other (please specify)
Red List assessment methodology for ecosystems recently developed by IUCN
URL or copy of conceptual framework developed or adapted
http://www.artsdatabanken.no/Article/Article/133438 http://www.iucnredlistofecosystems.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Keith-etal-2013-Scientific-Foundations-Red-List-of-Ecosystems-PLoSONE.pdf
System(s) assessed
- Marine
- Coastal
- Inland water
- Forest and woodland
- Cultivated/Agricultural land
- Grassland
- Mountain
Species groups assessed
No particular. Focus on ecosystems as defined in the national classification system.
Ecosystem services/functions assessed
Provisioning
Regulating
Supporting Services/Functions
- Habitat maintenance
Cultural Services
Scope of assessment includes
Drivers of change in systems and services
Yes
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
2009
Year assessment finished
2011
If ongoing, year assessment is anticipated to finish
Periodicity of assessment
Repeated
If repeated, how frequently
Planned to be every 5th year
Assessment outputs
Report(s)
Norwegian Red List for Ecosystems and Habitat Types 2011
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
- Modelling
- Geospatial analysis
Process used for stakeholder engagement in the assessment process and which component
The assessment has been subsequently focused as an independent scientific assessment due to its credibility. The stakeholder involvement has therefor been focused on information activities related to relevant Ministries and the scientific community.
Key stakeholder groups engaged
Scientific community and Ministries of Envorinment and Research and Education.
The number of people directly involved in the assessment process
10-100
Incorporation of scientific and other types of knowledge
- Scientific information only
Supporting documentation for specific approaches, methodology or criteria developed and/or used to integrate knowledge systems into the assessment
Some material in Norwegian only.
Assessment reports peer reviewed
No
Data
Accessibility of data used in assessment
Most of data accessible through a database.
Policy impact
Impacts the assessment has had on policy and/or decision making, as evidenced through policy references and actions
High political focus. Integreted part of Norway's policy on biodiversity and ecosystems.
Independent or other review on policy impact of the assessment
No
Lessons learnt for future assessments from these reviews
No specific reviews, but many inputs regarding improved knowledge for revision of this assessment.
Capacity building
Capacity building needs identified during the assessment
More capacity needed on several topics.
Actions taken by the assessment to build capacity
Developing/promoting and providing access to support tools, Communication and awareness raising
How have gaps in capacity been communicated to the different stakeholders
Through media coverage, seminars and participation in numerous meetings.
Knowledge generation
Gaps in knowledge identified from the assessment
Many gaps identified, in particular in marine, coastal and freshwater systems. Also the level of human-induced systems needs improved knowledge.
How gaps in knowledge have been communicated to the different stakeholders
Gaps has been adressed in many stakeholder meeting on different levels, and has been promoted in various relevant channels of policy development.
Additional relevant information
This assessment has raised a high focus on ecosystems and knowledge needed to manage these properly and sustainable.
