WEBVTT

01
00:00:12.780 --> 00:00:16.900
Today we have here Anne Raunio,
Tytti Kontula, and

2
00:00:16.900 --> 00:00:21.520
Ulla-Maija Liukko from the
Finnish Environment Institute.

3
00:00:21.520 --> 00:00:26.420
We have an interesting
question: who decides what

4
00:00:26.420 --> 00:00:34.420
is an "ecosystem"? This question relates to
how when species’ threat status is assessed,

5
00:00:34.420 --> 00:00:38.800
the assessments are done on
scientifically described taxa,

6
00:00:38.800 --> 00:00:42.120
typically species or subspecies,

7
00:00:42.120 --> 00:00:46.000
and defining a species is therefore
pretty straightforward.

8
00:00:46.000 --> 00:00:52.060
But in ecosystems’ case the situation
is a little different.

9
00:00:52.060 --> 00:00:57.390
The report of the Finnish ecosystems'
threat assessment is quite a

10
00:00:57.390 --> 00:01:01.700
brick-like document, and
more than half of the pages

11
00:01:01.700 --> 00:01:06.660
are dedicated to descriptions
of the assessed ecosystems.

12
00:01:06.660 --> 00:01:12.810
Who wrote those descriptions
and what are they based on?

13
00:01:12.810 --> 00:01:18.050
Well, the classification, or typology,
of the ecosystems has been developed by the

14
00:01:18.050 --> 00:01:24.710
the same group of experts who
then assesses the risk of collapse.

15
00:01:24.710 --> 00:01:29.770
So ultimately they, in a way, decide
what those ecosystems are, but

16
00:01:29.770 --> 00:01:33.270
of course they have not done it alone.
Many classifications of ecosystems,

17
00:01:33.270 --> 00:01:37.450
or ecosystem groups,
rely heavily on

18
00:01:37.450 --> 00:01:41.540
Finnish knowledge on nature.
For example,

19
00:01:41.540 --> 00:01:45.300
mire and peatland vegetation
has been studied and categorized

20
00:01:45.300 --> 00:01:50.500
for decades, which
of course affects the

21
00:01:50.500 --> 00:01:52.960
ecosystem classification
in the threat assessment.

22
00:01:52.960 --> 00:01:57.280
But then, of course, there are also
some ecosystem groups 

23
00:01:57.280 --> 00:02:06.220
where assessors had to start the typification
from scratch, such as rock outcrops.

24
00:02:06.220 --> 00:02:12.380
Anne, what can you tell us about
the early days of ecosystem assessments?

25
00:02:12.380 --> 00:02:17.970
Did the work start from this kind
of typification of ecosystems?

26
00:02:17.970 --> 00:02:23.230
Yes, it did, and also from
outlining the assessment method,

27
00:02:23.230 --> 00:02:26.310
which, at that time, we constructed
ourselves, nationally.

28
00:02:26.310 --> 00:02:31.140
But of course there is a huge amount of work
behind the comprehensive typology

29
00:02:31.140 --> 00:02:33.090
of ecosystems that we have now.

30
00:02:33.090 --> 00:02:37.730
In Finland, we did not have a ready-made
typology that would have covered all the

31
00:02:37.730 --> 00:02:43.710
ecosystem groups. There have been different
classifications, mainly of forests and swamps,

32
00:02:43.710 --> 00:02:47.500
that were primarily based on the
economic use of nature and its resources.

33
00:02:47.500 --> 00:02:49.300
But there were no

34
00:02:49.300 --> 00:02:52.290
overarching ecological
classifications of nature.

35
00:02:52.290 --> 00:02:55.700
But, then [when making the typology] 
you have to take into account

36
00:02:55.700 --> 00:02:58.470
characteristics that are not 
ecological, as well.

37
00:02:58.470 --> 00:03:05.030
Specifically, there is the practical point of
the kind of information and data needed in

38
00:03:05.030 --> 00:03:07.410
the threat assessments - 
and whether that is available

39
00:03:07.410 --> 00:03:13.230
for the selected units of assessment.
Therefore, for example, typification of lakes

40
00:03:13.230 --> 00:03:19.130
went pretty much in the same line
than in the EU Water Framework Directive,

41
00:03:19.130 --> 00:03:27.010
so in the future, data accumulates from 
directive reports also to red-listing.

42
00:03:27.010 --> 00:03:31.550
So, an assessment unit, or
an ecosystem, is

43
00:03:31.550 --> 00:03:36.640
kind of a
contractual thing,

44
00:03:36.640 --> 00:03:38.960
which has its pros and cons.

45
00:03:38.960 --> 00:03:45.160
Now that the IUCN wants to compile a 
global Red List of ecosystems,

46
00:03:45.160 --> 00:03:50.390
that work also starts with typifying or
defining the ecosystems, so there

47
00:03:50.390 --> 00:03:57.290
is a global ecosystem typology
under way. It remains

48
00:03:57.290 --> 00:03:59.880
to be seen, then, how the Finnish
ecosystems fit into the global typology.

49
00:03:59.880 --> 00:04:07.370
The global typology has actually just

50
00:04:07.370 --> 00:04:10.940
been published, in Nature,

51
00:04:10.940 --> 00:04:21.120
just a week or two ago.
- Oh, great, I must read the paper right away.

52
00:04:21.120 --> 00:04:28.280
OK, if we continue to think about the
differences between assessing species and ecosystems,

53
00:04:28.280 --> 00:04:34.680
what kinds of differences are there in
the practices of these assessments? For example,

54
00:04:34.680 --> 00:04:39.840
if you think about how the assessment proceeds?
It was just pointed out that with ecosystems

55
00:04:39.840 --> 00:04:44.920
quite often the starting point is defining 
the units of assessment, that is, making the ecosystem

56
00:04:44.920 --> 00:04:48.000
definitions and descriptions 
into an ecosystem typology.

57
00:04:48.000 --> 00:04:53.040
With species, the scientifically
described taxa are the starting point.

58
00:04:53.040 --> 00:04:58.030
So that is one clear difference.

59
00:04:58.030 --> 00:05:03.930
But if you think of the work as a project
that begins at this starting point and ends

60
00:05:03.930 --> 00:05:08.640
in the publication of the Red List, which is
the results document that is printed and put

61
00:05:08.640 --> 00:05:13.260
online for people to see, what happens 
in between the beginning and the end?

62
00:05:13.260 --> 00:05:19.960
Would you like to summarize the process
of species threat assessment, Ulla-Maija?

63
00:05:19.960 --> 00:05:25.380
There is quite a lot going on there, too,
at a higher administrative level, as well,

64
00:05:25.380 --> 00:05:30.060
so the project starts with
preparation.

65
00:05:30.060 --> 00:05:34.200
After that, we organize ourselves
into expert groups and train participants.

66
00:05:34.200 --> 00:05:37.260
Then there is the actual
assessment phase, and then comes

67
00:05:37.260 --> 00:05:40.120
the summarization and reporting phase.

68
00:05:40.120 --> 00:05:44.120
And if we talk only about

69
00:05:44.120 --> 00:05:47.040
the actual assessment phase, then

70
00:05:47.040 --> 00:05:53.690
once the assessor teams have been organized
and trained, and they have read all the guidelines,

71
00:05:53.690 --> 00:05:57.310
then they start the work by examining the
previous assessment's species lists

72
00:05:57.310 --> 00:06:01.080
to see if they are up to date

73
00:06:01.080 --> 00:06:07.020
and decide how to delimit
the species groups

74
00:06:07.020 --> 00:06:09.640
included in the assessment.
By this I mean,

75
00:06:09.640 --> 00:06:14.100
there are species that are left unassessed [NE]
or that are deemed not applicable [NA]

76
00:06:14.100 --> 00:06:18.000
for the threat assessment.
Are the old species lists

77
00:06:18.000 --> 00:06:21.140
up to date, in that way:

78
00:06:21.140 --> 00:06:22.960
are there any new species
that need to be added

79
00:06:22.960 --> 00:06:25.370
or have any taxonomic changes occurred
within the species group.

80
00:06:25.370 --> 00:06:29.220
All these things happen in that initial phase.

81
00:06:29.220 --> 00:06:32.820
And there has been a general rule
that when the species lists

82
00:06:32.820 --> 00:06:36.140
are ready, then the so-called NE species,
that is, those excluded from the assessment,

83
00:06:36.140 --> 00:06:39.420
and the NA species, which are
the ones ineligible for assessment,

84
00:06:39.420 --> 00:06:47.000
and the species that are obviously LC,
those are all dealt with first.

85
00:06:47.000 --> 00:06:49.400
These are 

86
00:06:49.400 --> 00:06:52.220
taken care of in the beginning

87
00:06:52.220 --> 00:06:55.080
and then we wll concentrate
on the species

88
00:06:55.080 --> 00:06:59.400
that need to be investigated in more detail.
For them we need to go through 

89
00:06:59.400 --> 00:07:03.100
the Red List criteria, think about the
result categories, and so on.

90
00:07:03.100 --> 00:07:07.750
This is done in the expert teams,

91
00:07:07.750 --> 00:07:12.400
that do the assessment work
for their particular species group.

92
00:07:12.400 --> 00:07:15.940
The team, then, makes a summary
of the results of their assessment

93
00:07:15.940 --> 00:07:20.340
to a national steering group. The results are
reviewed by the steering group, and when

94
00:07:20.340 --> 00:07:26.360
they are approved of, 
the team, or a part of the team -

95
00:07:26.360 --> 00:07:30.180
that depends on how they 
have organized themselves –

96
00:07:30.180 --> 00:07:33.560
the experts summarize the results,

97
00:07:33.560 --> 00:07:37.900
they write an article, or whatever it is called,
which will be published in the Red List book.

98
00:07:37.900 --> 00:07:43.300
After this, the book has an editorial board
that writes the general parts and

99
00:07:43.300 --> 00:07:46.880
edits and submits
the national Red List.

100
00:07:46.880 --> 00:07:49.320
And then, of course,

101
00:07:49.320 --> 00:07:53.140
in addition to the Red List book, there are all kinds of
online services we provide, and publicity work

102
00:07:53.140 --> 00:07:58.900
to do. That is the overall process
in a nutshell.

103
00:07:58.900 --> 00:08:06.920
Is the process as smooth with 
the ecosystems threat assessment?

104
00:08:06.920 --> 00:08:09.750
How would you describe that process, Anne?

105
00:08:09.750 --> 00:08:15.090
The basic principle of the
process is similar,

106
00:08:15.090 --> 00:08:17.770
but maybe on the ecosystem side

107
00:08:17.770 --> 00:08:25.610
there is even more interpreting
and handling of data and information sources.

108
00:08:25.610 --> 00:08:31.250
So, among other things, the experts need to
think about how the ecosystems that are named

109
00:08:31.250 --> 00:08:36.750
differently in different data sources,
correspond to each other,

110
00:08:36.750 --> 00:08:39.970
and make decisions about what data
can be used and what cannot.

111
00:08:39.970 --> 00:08:41.770
And, indeed, oftentimes for ecosystems

112
00:08:41.770 --> 00:08:45.980
there quite rarely are any
comprehensive and clear data available

113
00:08:45.980 --> 00:08:51.140
from which it would be possible to directly
measure changes in quality and quantity.

114
00:08:51.140 --> 00:08:56.560
Geographic analysis and
combining data is, therefore,

115
00:08:56.560 --> 00:09:01.960
often required, to better
extract information on ecosystems.

116
00:09:01.960 --> 00:09:08.040
So, quite a lot of demanding
work with spatial data and 

117
00:09:08.040 --> 00:09:13.890
ecosystem occurrence modelling
is required.

118
00:09:13.890 --> 00:09:17.210
And those methods require expertise.

119
00:09:17.210 --> 00:09:22.310
I mean, making the assessments is not easy,
and in fact, when it comes to species,

120
00:09:22.310 --> 00:09:24.110
IUCN requires a certain level of training,

121
00:09:24.110 --> 00:09:28.770
a specific kind of assessor training, for
the species’ threat assessments.

122
00:09:28.770 --> 00:09:34.090
I do not think that anything similar has been
established for the ecosystems' assessors;

123
00:09:34.090 --> 00:09:38.930
there it is more of a case of relying
on the Red List coordinators to ensure 

124
00:09:38.930 --> 00:09:45.860
that the experts are up to date.
Isn't that right?

125
00:09:45.860 --> 00:09:51.740
Or have you been planning on some kind
of new method curriculum for us, Tytti?

126
00:09:51.740 --> 00:09:53.540
No, I have not.

127
00:09:53.540 --> 00:09:59.160
I haven't had time to think about such a thing.
Usually our expert groups

128
00:09:59.160 --> 00:10:02.350
are organized in such a way that

129
00:10:02.350 --> 00:10:09.800
there is a key person,
a secretary, who then is under

130
00:10:09.800 --> 00:10:16.540
very close supervision, I could say, or
belongs to a very close-knit project team,

131
00:10:16.540 --> 00:10:23.270
that has adopted the Red List criteria
so well that we can be confident that

132
00:10:23.270 --> 00:10:29.390
the assessment truly does go
by the book.

133
00:10:29.390 --> 00:10:33.920
Maybe in the next assessment
we will have to give Tytti

134
00:10:33.920 --> 00:10:39.470
the title of assessor, to add
even more weight to the assessment,

135
00:10:39.470 --> 00:10:43.830
to show that she determines
how things are done.

136
00:10:43.830 --> 00:10:47.760
"Assessor" sounds great.

137
00:10:47.760 --> 00:10:52.200
Yeah, it has not been quite so strict

138
00:10:52.200 --> 00:10:58.570
with species, either. Assessing species
on national level has been done

139
00:10:58.570 --> 00:11:04.370
without IUCN-educated assessors.
There is the steering group, which

140
00:11:04.370 --> 00:11:09.010
has been established for, among other things,
going through the assessments with the

141
00:11:09.010 --> 00:11:13.790
expert teams and ensuring that
they have been conducted the work

142
00:11:13.790 --> 00:11:16.650
according to the Red List criteria
and that different

143
00:11:16.650 --> 00:11:20.480
interpretations of the classifications

144
00:11:20.480 --> 00:11:23.600
correspond to each other.

145
00:11:23.600 --> 00:11:30.060
In fact, the IUCN assessor training 
is actually directed to

146
00:11:30.060 --> 00:11:33.720
those who are doing the
global species assessments.