Environmental conditions and Impacts for Red list Species
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 Norwegian territories on the Northern hemisphere, incuding 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 Norwegian territories on the Northern hemisphere, incuding marine.
Conceptual framework, methodology and scope
Assessment objectives
The aim is to give an insight into the environmental conditions under which the species live in various kinds of Norwegian ecosystems and which human-induced impacts are believed to act negatively on the population development of the threatened and near threatened species.
Mandate for the assessment
Part of the mandate for creating a national red list assessment for species as additional ecological knowledge.
Conceptual framework and/or methodology used for the assessment
Other (please specify)
Compliation and analysis of data collected in the national Red List Database.
URL or copy of conceptual framework developed or adapted
Framework described within the final Report: http://www.artsdatabanken.no/Article/Article/133640
System(s) assessed
- Marine
- Coastal
- Inland water
- Forest and woodland
- Cultivated/Agricultural land
- Grassland
- Mountain
- Polar
Species groups assessed
All major taxonomic groups are part of the compilation and analysis
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
Yes
Timing of the assessment
Year assessment started
2007
Year assessment finished
2010
If ongoing, year assessment is anticipated to finish
Periodicity of assessment
Repeated
If repeated, how frequently
Planned to be repeated in connection to Red list assessment revisions, possibly every 5th year.
Assessment outputs
Website(s)
Publication download: http://www.artsdatabanken.no/Article/Article/133640
See also www.biodiversity.no
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
- Indicators
Process used for stakeholder engagement in the assessment process and which component
Compilation of knowledge from the scientific community
Key stakeholder groups engaged
Scientists
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
Reference list and Red List database (in Norwegian)
Assessment reports peer reviewed
No
Data
Accessibility of data used in assessment
Most data available through the Red List Database.
Policy impact
Impacts the assessment has had on policy and/or decision making, as evidenced through policy references and actions
Important input to development of National environmental targets and policy.
Independent or other review on policy impact of the assessment
No
Lessons learnt for future assessments from these reviews
The great interest from decision-makers challenges even more type of assessments like this, pehaps with even more detailed and standardised knowledge as output.
Capacity building
Capacity building needs identified during the assessment
More capacity needed on species' habitat requirement and drivers who impact ecosystems and species both directly and indirectly.
Actions taken by the assessment to build capacity
Workshops, Developing/promoting and providing access to support tools
How have gaps in capacity been communicated to the different stakeholders
Seminars with the forestry sector which demands more high precison data to be able to improve their impact. Focus here has been improved knowledge on forest ecosystems and more common understanding of interpreting the knowledge.
Knowledge generation
Gaps in knowledge identified from the assessment
More knowledge needed on species' habitat requirement and drivers who impact ecosystems and species both directly and indirectly.
How gaps in knowledge have been communicated to the different stakeholders
Through workshops, meetings, seminars and articles in media.
Additional relevant information
No
