WEBVTT

1
00:00:12.720 --> 00:00:17.770
We are now in 2022.

2
00:00:17.770 --> 00:00:22.620
When will the next
Finnish Red Lists

3
00:00:22.620 --> 00:00:28.730
be published? Ulla-Maija, what
is the situation of the species assessment?

4
00:00:28.730 --> 00:00:31.350
The assessments always begin with the initiative

5
00:00:31.350 --> 00:00:36.820
from the Ministry of the Environment, and the
latest one was actually in the government program.

6
00:00:36.820 --> 00:00:46.590
The next assessment is likely to be done
somewhere around 2030, but currently,

7
00:00:46.590 --> 00:00:54.350
we don’t have more specific information on that.
- How about the ecosystem [habitat] assessment?

8
00:00:54.350 --> 00:00:56.380
Do you know about that, Anne?

9
00:00:56.380 --> 00:01:01.780
Well, if we stick to that 10-year cycle,
that we've had so far, then the next

10
00:01:01.780 --> 00:01:07.200
ecosystem assessment should
be completed in year 2028.

11
00:01:07.200 --> 00:01:12.120
2028 would be quite a good time to complete
it because it is close to

12
00:01:12.120 --> 00:01:17.480
the year 2030, which
is an important checkpoint of,

13
00:01:17.480 --> 00:01:24.920
for example, the EU biodiversity
strategy objectives.

14
00:01:24.920 --> 00:01:30.660
At that point, we should have halted
the ongoing biodiversity loss,

15
00:01:30.660 --> 00:01:34.980
and Finland, too, must evaluate
and report the situation

16
00:01:34.980 --> 00:01:38.460
here, but we have not yet made

17
00:01:38.460 --> 00:01:41.100
an official decision as to when

18
00:01:41.100 --> 00:01:44.740
the next Red List assessment will be done.

19
00:01:44.740 --> 00:01:50.240
Resources are always needed, and the resources
come from the Ministry of the Environment.

20
00:01:50.240 --> 00:01:52.880
So in that sense we

21
00:01:52.880 --> 00:01:56.810
must expect the decision makers’
statement on when

22
00:01:56.810 --> 00:02:01.180
the work will actually begin.

23
00:02:01.180 --> 00:02:03.650
The 10-year cycle was already brought up.

24
00:02:03.650 --> 00:02:08.500
10 years is considered a sort of a
magical time span in threat assessments,

25
00:02:08.500 --> 00:02:11.660
and it comes
from the IUCN:

26
00:02:11.660 --> 00:02:16.500
on a global level, the instructions are
to do threat assessments

27
00:02:16.500 --> 00:02:22.820
in 10-year cycles. IUCN’s reasoning
behind this is that 10 years is,

28
00:02:22.820 --> 00:02:26.580
in terms of
conservation practices,

29
00:02:26.580 --> 00:02:31.420
the shortest time period in which
it can be assumed 

30
00:02:31.420 --> 00:02:38.160
that changes take place or consequences
of conservation management emerge.

31
00:02:38.160 --> 00:02:41.860
The aim is that the status of both
species and ecosystems

32
00:02:41.860 --> 00:02:46.100
would be assessed every 10 years.

33
00:02:46.100 --> 00:02:48.960
Has Finland managed

34
00:02:48.960 --> 00:02:51.720
to do this? Regarding ecosystems,

35
00:02:51.720 --> 00:02:56.720
yes, because two assessments have been made
and they have been published with 10 years between them

36
00:02:56.720 --> 00:03:02.410
But what about species
assessments? Ulla-Maija?

37
00:03:02.410 --> 00:03:06.820
We’ve roughly managed that.
The first assessment was done in the 1980s,

38
00:03:06.820 --> 00:03:09.550
and then the second in the 1990s, and

39
00:03:09.550 --> 00:03:12.840
then in 2000, 2010, and 2019.

40
00:03:12.840 --> 00:03:16.560
Additionally, in 2015 we did 

41
00:03:16.560 --> 00:03:21.910
an extra assessment

42
00:03:21.910 --> 00:03:24.050
for mammal and bird species.

43
00:03:24.050 --> 00:03:30.450
I think that, given that the assessment work
continues, we will probably maintain the 

44
00:03:30.450 --> 00:03:33.090
10-year interval in the future, as well.

45
00:03:33.090 --> 00:03:36.550
Why was the recent,
sort of extra, mid-term 

46
00:03:36.550 --> 00:03:40.730
assessment made for mammals and birds?

47
00:03:40.730 --> 00:03:47.970
Well, among the assessed species, there are
a bunch species that are hunted

48
00:03:47.970 --> 00:03:54.830
and we wanted to re-assess them
to inform their sustainable hunting.

49
00:03:54.830 --> 00:03:58.720
And additionally, there was a bit
of a discussion around

50
00:03:58.720 --> 00:04:05.650
several species that had 
increased in abundance since 2010.

51
00:04:05.650 --> 00:04:12.820
So the 2010 assessment had become a bit outdated
pretty quickly after its completion.

52
00:04:12.820 --> 00:04:17.760
So that's why the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
and the Ministry of the Environment

53
00:04:17.760 --> 00:04:24.920
together agreed that these two groups of
organisms should be assessed again.

54
00:04:24.920 --> 00:04:28.740
And not just a part of mammal and bird species;
instead, it was decided that a complete assessment

55
00:04:28.740 --> 00:04:32.380
should be done for all
mammals and all birds.

56
00:04:32.380 --> 00:04:39.090
It was a kind of mid-term assessment that should
not be called a mid-term assessment. 

57
00:04:39.090 --> 00:04:43.520
It was a proper, complete assessment.

58
00:04:43.520 --> 00:04:46.880
This shows how much

59
00:04:46.880 --> 00:04:53.020
the time span can vary, and how changes in
threat status can occur in a relatively

60
00:04:53.020 --> 00:04:58.170
short period of time. And now that we are
living through the sixth mass extinction,

61
00:04:58.170 --> 00:05:02.690
we need up-to-date information
in order to be able to monitor

62
00:05:02.690 --> 00:05:05.360
the state of nature,
and also to support decision-making.

63
00:05:05.360 --> 00:05:10.780
And then another thing, that
came up there earlier, is how 

64
00:05:10.780 --> 00:05:15.940
international biodiversity agreements
and the monitoring they require

65
00:05:15.940 --> 00:05:18.760
affect the timing of Red List assessments

66
00:05:18.760 --> 00:05:23.930
This, of course, is a part of
the political and social 

67
00:05:23.930 --> 00:05:35.030
dimension of nature conservation.

68
00:05:35.030 --> 00:05:40.570
How much pressure there is,
for example, from the EU to

69
00:05:40.570 --> 00:05:45.620
collect and use the information
on threat status?

70
00:05:45.620 --> 00:05:49.840
The EU currently has
a lot of processes,

71
00:05:49.840 --> 00:05:52.340
where a lot of information on
ecosystems and species is needed.

72
00:05:52.340 --> 00:05:58.200
The EU is preparing different
commitments to improve the status of 

73
00:05:58.200 --> 00:06:03.640
species and ecosystems. Additionally, there is
a legislative initiative on restoration underway,

74
00:06:03.640 --> 00:06:09.010
and this is currently a very, very
interesting issue politically.

75
00:06:09.010 --> 00:06:14.400
So, there is a great need for information.

76
00:06:14.400 --> 00:06:18.420
Yes and then we also have national
legislative obligations,

77
00:06:18.420 --> 00:06:22.360
of course. The Nature Conservation Act
is currently being reformed

78
00:06:22.360 --> 00:06:27.250
and sections addressing threatened
species and ecosystems

79
00:06:27.250 --> 00:06:34.170
have been included in it.
So yes,

80
00:06:34.170 --> 00:06:41.090
endangerment really is a topic that
is also socially significant,

81
00:06:41.090 --> 00:06:47.770
although perhaps it is often a
little hidden in public discussions.

82
00:06:47.770 --> 00:06:53.100
As for the EU, when it comes to species, 

83
00:06:53.100 --> 00:06:56.220
I haven’t noticed cases where EU would
want the information on 

84
00:06:56.220 --> 00:07:00.600
threat status, directly, because EU has
developed its own classification scheme

85
00:07:00.600 --> 00:07:03.710
with specific terminology, and there
they talk about the conservation status

86
00:07:03.710 --> 00:07:07.440
and whether it's favourable or not.
So the EU-level discussion, sort of,

87
00:07:07.440 --> 00:07:09.400
goes along those terms.

88
00:07:09.400 --> 00:07:13.720
But of course, when species 
or ecosystems

89
00:07:13.720 --> 00:07:18.920
are assessed, then that provides 
an assembled knowledge base

90
00:07:18.920 --> 00:07:23.540
that can also be used to
answer to these questions of

91
00:07:23.540 --> 00:07:27.020
favourable conservation statuses.

92
00:07:27.020 --> 00:07:30.380
The "favourable conservation status"
has a positive feeling to it.

93
00:07:30.380 --> 00:07:34.520
Improving the
conservation status is actually

94
00:07:34.520 --> 00:07:36.780
an opposite to the
process of endangerment.

95
00:07:36.780 --> 00:07:41.270
Tytti, did you want to
say something?

96
00:07:41.270 --> 00:07:45.300
I was just going to add
to what is

97
00:07:45.300 --> 00:07:49.220
possibly expected of us
on the international side.

98
00:07:49.220 --> 00:07:55.060
Ecosystems' threat statuses have
been assessed also

99
00:07:55.060 --> 00:08:02.020
at the European level, too.
There the Finnish data and results

100
00:08:02.020 --> 00:08:06.630
were utilized to a great
extent. And then,

101
00:08:06.630 --> 00:08:12.310
the IUCN has set a goal of
making a global assessment 

102
00:08:12.310 --> 00:08:16.310
on all ecosystems by year 2025,
which is not that far away,

103
00:08:16.310 --> 00:08:19.560
so we’re starting to be in a 
bit of a hurry with that one.

104
00:08:19.560 --> 00:08:24.830
But regional threat assessments are collected
to provide a background for 

105
00:08:24.830 --> 00:08:28.430
the global Red List of Ecosystems.

106
00:08:28.430 --> 00:08:30.970
And I've heard such a rumor,

107
00:08:30.970 --> 00:08:38.410
I don't know when this will happen, but that
a new indicator, IUCN Red List Index of Ecosystems,

108
00:08:38.410 --> 00:08:46.750
might be developed and included in the
international biodiversity indicators.

109
00:08:46.750 --> 00:08:50.130
Regarding nature conservation issues,
a lot is happening

110
00:08:50.130 --> 00:08:53.130
at the international level.

111
00:08:53.130 --> 00:08:57.540
And the fact is that when
we talk about the state of nature

112
00:08:57.540 --> 00:09:05.590
the information and the data quite often 
come from here, from the national level.

113
00:09:05.590 --> 00:09:08.950
Hey, thank you very much!

114
00:09:08.950 --> 00:09:13.990
Time has really flown. I would’ve
had many more questions,

115
00:09:13.990 --> 00:09:21.170
but this will already provide our course
participants with a lot of good information.

116
00:09:21.170 --> 00:09:26.710
Thanks again, Anne, Tytti, and
Ulla-Maija, and we will certainly return

117
00:09:26.710 --> 00:09:31.600
to the topics related to endangerment,
hopefully in the near future.