State Of Biodiversity In The Nordic Countries

The Nordic countries have agreed on a common target to halt the decline in biodiversity by 2010. This report aims at evaluating the 2010-target by presenting indicators that can describe trends in biodiversity in the Nordic countries. Our results comprise the most comprehensive documentation of land use in the Nordic countries to date. The area of important nature types such as mire, grassland and heathland have decreased significantly over the past one to two decades, whereas the area of constructed habitats, including city areas and transport networks, has grown considerably in all of the Nordic countries. Each of these trends in land use will cause biodiversity to decline. Looking into the quality aspect of biodiversity, our results reveal that two-thirds of the quality indicators presented show declines and the remaining one-third show improvements (or steady-state). Overall, our results indicate that biodiversity has declined in the Nordic countries since 1990. In particular, farmland, mire, grassland and heathland habitats show declines in biodiversity, but also the remaining habitats show negative trends. Therefore, based on the findings from this study, we conclude that it is highly unlikely that the target of halting biodiversity loss by 2010 can be achieved by the Nordic countries. Our results should be perceived as a first attempt to make an overall assessment of biodiversity in the Nordic countries. We believe that if further efforts were directed towards scrutinising existing and historic monitoring programmes and data sources, additional indicators could be calculated and hence a better knowledge base would be achieved.

Abstract: The Nordic countries have agreed on a common target to halt the decline in biodiversity by 2010. This report aims at evaluating the 2010-target by presenting indicators that can describe trends in biodiversity in the Nordic countries. Our results comprise the most comprehensive documentation of land use in the Nordic countries to date. The area of important nature types such as mire, grassland and heathland have decreased significantly over the past one to two decades, whereas the area of constructed habitats, including city areas and transport networks, has grown considerably in all of the Nordic countries. Each of these trends in land use will cause biodiversity to decline. Looking into the quality aspect of biodiversity, our results reveal that two-thirds of the quality indicators presented show declines and the remaining one-third show improvements (or steady-state). Overall, our results indicate that biodiversity has declined in the Nordic countries since 1990. In particular, farmland, mire, grassland and heathland habitats show declines in biodiversity, but also the remaining habitats show negative trends. Therefore, based on the findings from this study, we conclude that it is highly unlikely that the target of halting biodiversity loss by 2010 can be achieved by the Nordic countries. Our results should be perceived as a first attempt to make an overall assessment of biodiversity in the Nordic countries. We believe that if further efforts were directed towards scrutinising existing and historic monitoring programmes and data sources, additional indicators could be calculated and hence a better knowledge base would be achieved

We all depend on biodiversity, but we must make biodiversity relevant to people. The long-term loss of nature and biodiversity is, however, not as easily translated into clear messages, let alone economic opportunities, as are measures to tackle climate change. The changes are dispersed, and often act slowly and subtly. Connecting the economic problems and threats people face due to the degradation of our biological resources is also frequently hard to express in facts and figures, as we have seen with the efforts to replicate the review of the economic impacts of climate change. Yet we all see the impact of degradation and loss of biodiversity in our daily lives when we are hiking, fishing, hunting and enjoying nature. We must create a vision and a powerful metaphor, communicated to and understood by ordinary people, that describes our co-existence with and dependence upon nature and how the loss of nature reflects on ourselves as Nordic people and societies. The need to stop the loss of biodiversity does not end in 2010. What will we call upon now? That is our challenge. On 26-27 October 2009, the Nordic Council of Ministers hosted a Nordic symposium on biodiversity in Trondheim, Norway. The title chosen for this symposium was Nordic Biodiversity Beyond 2010 - Challenges and Experiences in Global Perspective. The aim was to take stock of Nordic biodiversity and look beyond 2010. About 70 participants from all the Nordic countries gathered in Trondheim for two days to start this work. They represented public authorities, non-governmental organizations and research institutions concerned with the goal of halting the loss of biodiversity in the Nordic countries. This report contains the results from this symposium as well as conclusions and recommendations for the future.

Available online: https://pub.norden.org/nord2021-038/ 3000 Nordic young people have contributed to a Youth Position Paper with 19 action points to save biodiversity. It will be used to push decision makers around the world to prioritize young people’s biodiversity demands.

https://pub.norden.org/temanord2022-562/ The world is currently facing a biodiversity and climate crisis which are globally interlinked. Nature-based solutions (NBS), defined as “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural and modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously benefiting people and nature” is part of the solution to these challenges. Here we give a status overview of nature-based solutions in the Nordic countries, obtained within the S-ITUATION project focusing on 1) what is the current status of research on NBS in the Nordic countries? 2) what policy framework(s) exist for NBS in the Nordic countries? 3) what challenges do Nordic countries experience in the process of mainstreaming NBS? 4) what key examples of projects implementing NBS exist in the Nordic countries? We have done this using several approaches: 1) a review of the academic literature, providing insights on the status of research on NBS in the Nordic countries; 2) a grey literature review in each Nordic country, to describe the policy framework for NBS and practical implementation of NBS projects across the Nordic countries; 3) compilation of a Nordic NBS case projects catalogue, which contains implemented case projects from each Nordic country, using NBS in all major ecosystems: terrestrial (forests and agricultural land), freshwater, coastal and marine, to show the breadth of NBS used in the Nordic countries, 4) Nordic NBS stakeholder consultations. Research on NBS across the Nordics includes several research initiatives. Currently the most central research initiatives are the Nordic Council of Ministers programme on NBS, which is a focused four-year programme. Many Nordic universities and research institutes are also involved in different research projects focusing on or including NBS and there is an exponential interest from researchers in this area. Most of these research projects are targeting NBS in urban areas. In a structured peer-review of scientific publications using the term ‘nature-based solutions’, 64 research papers were found related to the Nordic countries. These studies varied from large-scale ecosystem-based approaches to small-scale NBS. Most of the studies assessed the NBS functions in relation to biophysical qualities, such as water retention capacity, flood risk reduction, health benefits and biodiversity contribution, but there were also studies focusing on potential economic benefits from NBS. Regarding policy frameworks it is evident that these are at different stages of development when it comes to mainstreaming the concept of NBS into policy across the Nordics. Norway and Sweden have adopted the term to a larger degree than Denmark, Finland and Iceland. Still, all five countries conserve, restore and work actively on developing sustainable use of nature, but use other terms (e.g., ‘blue-green infrastructures or solutions’, ‘restoration’, or ‘ecosystem services’) in their policies and guidelines. NBS governance and implementation is an area that is currently advancing rapidly. At the same time, there are still several challenges as well as also opportunities for using NBS to mitigate and adapt to climate change, protect biodiversity and ensure human well-being. Regarding challenges and gaps, we divide these into 1) natural-scientific and technical knowledge gaps, 2) economic shortcomings, 3) regulatory, governance, and policy challenges, and 4) weak stakeholder collaboration. In the project we have identified 54 key examples of projects implementing NBS in the Nordic countries. Most of these cases were related to freshwater, followed by urban/artificial NBS. The number of implemented NBS projects has increased, especially in the last couple of years. Our key messages and recommendations for future mainstreaming of NBS are: 1) clear political prioritization is needed to mainstream NBS into policy and practice, 2) appropriate institutional structures, procedures and policy instruments at all governance levels are essential to facilitate the implementation of NBS, 3) better funding structures for NBS are needed, 4) we need to develop common standards, long-term monitoring and better cost-benefit evaluations of NBS, and 5) the knowledge base in all phases of NBS projects needs to be strengthened.

Abstract: The Nordic countries have a common goal to halt the decline in biological diversity by 2010. Indicators and indices are important tools to describe the development in biodiversity and hence evaluate the 2010-target. At a workshop held in March 2006, the quality, availability and policy relevance of biodiversity data in the Nordic countries were evaluated. Available data differ between countries but it was agreed that the overall quality of the data allows the development of an aggregated index (and a set of indicators) that can describe the state of biodiversity in the Nordic countries. In a Nordic biodiversity index, quantity of biodiversity should be measured as total area of each habitat type, both inside and outside protected areas. Quality should be measured as species abundance and, when applicable, as species composition and/or habitat structure (e.g. dead wood). The index should be illustrative, easily understood and based on transparent calculations and assumptions.

This report describes the status and trends of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the Nordic region, the drivers and pressures affecting them, interactions and effects on people and society, and options for governance. The main report consists of two volumes. Volume 1 The general overview (this report) and Volume 2 The geographical case studies. This study has been inspired by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services (IPBES). It departs from case studies (Volume 2, the geographical case studies) from ten geographical areas in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden) and the autonomous areas of Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Åland. The aim was to describe status and trends of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the Nordic region, including the drivers and pressures affecting these ecosystems, the effects on people and society and options for governance. The Nordic study is structured as closely as possible to the framework for the regional assessments currently being finalized within IPBES. The report highlights environmental differences and similarities in the Nordic coastal areas, like the inhabitants´ relation to nature and the environment as well as similarities in social and policy instruments between the Nordic countries. This study provides background material for decision-making and it is shown that Nordic cooperation is of great importance for sustainable coastal management and should be strengthened in future work.