CAFF 2010: Arctic Biodiversity trends: selected indicators of change
Geographical coverage
| Geographical scale of the assessment | Regional |
|---|---|
| Country or countries covered | Canada, Greenland, Russia, Iceland, Norway, United States, Finland, Sweden |
| Any other necessary information or explanation for identifying the location of the assessment, including site or region name |
Geographical scale of the assessment
Regional
Country or countries covered
Canada, Greenland, Russia, Iceland, Norway, United States, Finland, Sweden
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
In 2001, the Arctic Council´s Conservation of ArcticFlora and Fauna (CAFF) Working Group published thereport Arctic Flora and Fauna: Status and Conservation[7], the first truly circumpolar overview of Arcticbiodiversity. The report provided, “a clear understandingof the importance of the Earth´s largest ecoregion and status in the face of a rapidly changing world”. The report observed that while much of the Arctic was in natural state and that the impacts of human activity wererelatively minor, individuals, species, and ecosystemsthroughout the Arctic faced threats from many causes,and that the long-term consequences of human impactswere unknown. It particularly noted that the informationnecessary to determine status and trends of Arctic faunawas fragmentary, and almost entirely non-existent for flora.
Mandate for the assessment
Conceptual framework and/or methodology used for the assessment
URL or copy of conceptual framework developed or adapted
http://arcticbiodiversity.is/abt2010/index.php/en/the-report
System(s) assessed
- Marine
- Coastal
- Island
- Inland water
- Forest and woodland
- Grassland
- Dryland
- Polar
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
Yes
Impacts of change in services on human well-being
Yes
Options for responding/interventions to the trends observed
Yes
Explicit consideration of the role of biodiversity in the systems and services covered by the assessment
Yes
Timing of the assessment
Year assessment started
2010
Year assessment finished
2010
If ongoing, year assessment is anticipated to finish
Periodicity of assessment
Unknown
Assessment outputs
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
