Search

The authors reflect on knowledge-generating and communication processes involved in the recently developed Norwegian Nature Index, particularly the communication process among experts involved in providing the required biodiversity knowledge. Eliciting a comprehensive overview of biodiversity is a complex process involving choices of approaches and methods in order to reach a common understanding of uncertainties and values as a basis for quantification. Part of the complexity is the establishment of dialogue between experts from research institutions with different research traditions and approaches. The authors discuss how the index was developed through communication processes, challenging involved experts to provide not only biodiversity data for the current situation, but also forecasts of future trends, assessments of uncertainty, and evaluations of the urgency of biodiversity loss and possibility of implementing policy and management measures. The Nature Index framework has potential for informing the biodiversity policy debate by involving stakeholders beyond the science-policy community and enhancing deliberations about biodiversity policy in a wider context of sustainable development. As a policy tool, the Nature Index may develop through a process of practical application, which in turn may have an impact on the selection of narratives, definition of management targets, and technical concepts such as reference states. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The Norwegian Nature Index is a comprehensive effort to ‘make nature visible’ in communications between policymakers and the general public. To ensure that appropriate ‘early warnings’ for biodiversity loss are made available as a basis for precautionary approaches to sustainability and biodiversity policy, different knowledge sources need to be applied, such as the Red List for threatened species and the Nature Index, which gives a comprehensive overview of biodiversity. The article shows how the Nature Index can be supplemented with ‘early warnings’ of biodiversity from involved scientific experts, who were asked to assess the situation in 2020 for the indicators, in view of all available knowledge. They also assessed the uncertainty in their forecasts and their considerations of the need for and difficulty of implementing management measures to maintain biodiversity at the current level. Particularly for the major ecosystems considered to have a poor state, namely forests and open lowlands, experts indicated that urgent action was needed to improve the state of many indicators and that such management action would be possible. The findings indicate potential for eliciting experts' formal and informal knowledge in assessing the need and potential approaches to biodiversity policy. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

• We present an index-based assessment of ecological condition (IBECA). • We test the methodology using a regional case study in central Norway. • We investigate how IBECA aligns with two international frameworks. • We discuss challenges in indicator development and ecological condition assessments. • IBECA provides a transparent, flexible, cost-effective and management relevant tool. Sustainable nature management and ecosystem conservation depends critically on scientifically sound and stakeholder-relevant analytical frameworks for monitoring and assessing ecological condition. Several general frameworks are currently being developed internationally, including the Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBV), and the UN's SEEA EEA Ecosystem Condition Typology (ECT). However, there has so far been few attempts to develop empirical implementations of these general frameworks, or to assess their applicability for environmental decision-making at national or regional scales. In this paper, we aim to fill this implementation gap by demonstrating a practical application of an empirically-based ecological condition assessment framework, the Index-Based Ecological Condition Assessment (IBECA). IBECA defines seven major classes of indicators of ecological condition, representing distinct ecosystem characteristics, and empirically synthesizes indicators for each of these characteristics from various monitoring data. We exemplify and explore the utility and robustness of IBECA using a case study from forest and alpine ecosystems in central Norway, and we investigate how IBECA aligns with the two international frameworks EBV and ECT. In particular, we analyze how the different approaches to categorize indicators into classes affect the assessment of ecological condition, both conceptually and using the case study indicators. We used eleven indicators for each of the two ecosystems and assessed the ecological condition according to IBECA for i) each individual indicator, ii) the seven ecosystem characteristics (indicator classes), and iii) a synthetic ecological condition value for the whole ecosystem. IBECA challenges key concepts of the international frameworks and illustrates practical challenges for national or regional level implementation. We identify three main strengths with the IBECA approach: i) it provides a transparent and management-relevant quantitative approach allowing assessment of spatio-temporal variation in ecological condition across indicators, characteristics and ecosystems, ii) the high degree of flexibility and transparency facilitates updating the ecological condition assessments, also back in time, as improved data and knowledge of indicators emerge, and iii) the quantitative and flexible procedure makes it a cost-effective approach suitable for fast management implementations. More generally, we stress the need for carefully choosing appropriate classification and aggregation approaches in ecological condition assessments, and for transparent and data-driven analytical approaches that can be adjusted as knowledge improves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]