1 / 18

The Nature Index for Norway: Expert evaluations in precautionary approaches to biodiversity policy

The Nature Index for Norway: Expert evaluations in precautionary approaches to biodiversity policy. Iulie Aslaksen , Statistics Norway Erik Framstad , NINA Norwegian Institute for Nature Research Per Arild Garnåsjordet , Statistics Norway Magnar Lillegård , Statistics Norway

hampton
Télécharger la présentation

The Nature Index for Norway: Expert evaluations in precautionary approaches to biodiversity policy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Nature Index for Norway: Expert evaluations in precautionary approaches to biodiversity policy Iulie Aslaksen, Statistics Norway Erik Framstad, NINA Norwegian Institute for Nature Research Per Arild Garnåsjordet, Statistics Norway Magnar Lillegård, Statistics Norway Silvio Funtowicz SDI-Project: Sustainable development indicators (SDI) in the context of the precautionary principle, Research Council of Norway, grant 190054 ESEE 2011 Conference, Istanbul, 14-17 June 2011

  2. Overview of presentation • The Nature Index: Ecological knowledge base for sustainable development indicators and biodiversity policy • Precautionary approach: Supplement the Nature Index with early warning signals of threats to biodiversity • Survey: Experts providing data to the Nature Index were asked about their evaluation of the state of biodiversity in 2020, relative to the state in 2010

  3. Survey questions • How do you assess the indicator value in 2020 compared to 2010, given today’s management? Much lower, lower, unchanged, higher, much higher • How certain is the above statement? Very uncertain, uncertain, medium certain, certain, very certain • If the answer is “Lower” or “Much lower” to question 1, do you think it is possible to re-establish the 2010-situation through action? Yes, no, do not know • If the answer to question 3 is “Yes”, how urgent is it to implement actions?Not very urgent, hardly urgent, medium urgent, urgent, very urgent • If the answer to question 3 is “Yes”, how difficult is it to implement actions? Very easy, easy, medium difficult, difficult, very difficult

  4. Overview of survey of biodiversity in 2020 • A large number of experts responded • Considerable differences between ecosystems • For marine ecosystems, many indicators show a better state of biodiversity in 2020 • For terrestrial ecosystems, evaluations for 2020 were most negative for open lowland and forest • Mostly, evaluations for 2020 corresponded with earlier trends

  5. The percentage of indicators for each main ecosystem for which the experts estimate lower, unchanged and higher values in 2020, compared to 2010. The numbers in parentheses indicate the number of indicators assessed for each main ecosystem. 5

  6. Foto: Ellen Johanne Svalheim 6

  7. Experts’ evaluations of biodiversity in open lowland in 2020 Open lowland has the greatest share of indicators with lower values in 2020. Abandonment of traditional agricultural practices that previously maintained the biodiversity of unimproved grasslands and coastal heath land. The experts were more certain about trends for open lowlands. Generally, experts were more certain about the trend when development is negative. In surprisingly many cases where experts expected negative development, they also considered it possible to re-establish the 2010-situation For open lowlands experts considered it very urgent or extremely urgent with management action – and in many cases only medium difficult to re-establish the 2010-situation. Indicators that are sensitive to changes in land use, such as in open lowland and forest, provide better possibilities for re-establishing the 2010-situation. Foto: Egil Michaelsen

  8. Experts’ evaluations of biodiversity in mountains in 2020 • The experts regard the biodiversity indicators for mountain as less responsive to human intervention • Many indicators in the mountain ecosystem are expected to be particularly affected by long-term climate change Foto: Egil Michaelsen

  9. The trends 1990-2010 for the indicators for Open lowland which the experts believe will have lower values in 2020 compared to 2010

  10. The trends 1990-2010 for the indicators for Open lowland which the experts believe will have higher values in 2020 compared to 2010

  11. The trends 1990-2010 for the indicators for Forest which the experts believe will have lower values in 2020 compared to 2010

  12. The trends 1990-2010 for the indicators for Forest which the experts believe will have higher values in 2020 compared to 2010

  13. The experts’ responses on whether it is possible to return to the 2010-state (given that they expect the state in 2020 to be lower than in 2010). Percentage of all assessed indicators and geographical areas for each main ecosystem

  14. The experts’ assessments of how urgent it is to act in order to improve the situation for the indicators that will have a lower value in 2020 than in 2010, and how difficult this is. Percentage of all assessed indicators and geographical areas for each main ecosystem.

  15. Summary of dialogues with experts • Survey contributes to reflection: • General perception of experts that survey is useful. • Need to ensure consistent interpretation of questions before next survey. • Marine researchers: Future trends are crucially dependent on resource management. • Gain experience over time: • Concept of survey of future trends will be more familiar next time • Need closer link between survey of future trends and main Nature Index study • Report future trends together with the respective ecosystems

  16. Summary of dialogues with experts • Reasons for non-response on survey of future trends: • Ecological reasons: Natural fluctuations of population of this indicator • Practical reasons: Lack of time and lack of communication – most important reason? • Science-policy reasons: Experts’ multiple roles: Resource management vs. nature management/environmental management • Uncertainty in experts evaluations: • How do experts assess the difficulty of implementing management/policy means? Technical constraints vs political constraints? • Open lowlands: Surprisingly large response that implementing management policy means is possible/easy. Technically or politically feasible? • Changes in biodiversity due to e.g. land-use or agricultural policy perceived as “easy” to counteract, in contrast to changes in biodiversity due to e.g. climate change.

  17. Summary of dialogues with experts • Time perspective: • Experts may have different time perspectives on urgency: • Urgency in order to avoid extinction • Urgency in order to re-establish pristine conditions • Pressure factors on biodiversity: • Same pressure factors as today relevant when forward-looking, or other factors? • Future use of Nature Index for policy: • Budget proposal from Ministry of Environment: Define target levels for state of ecosystems, in context of Nature Index, corresponding to Water Framework Directive: good or very good quality of ecosystem state.

  18. Policy targets in terms of the Nature Index

More Related