Ullrika Sahlin

This report is an external evaluation of the scientific basis of the Norwegian assessment system for ecological condition (Fagsystem for økologisk tilstand), commissioned by the Ministry of Climate and Environment (KLD). Two assessment methods are currently used for various terrestrial and marine ecosystems: the Panel-Based Assessment of Ecological Condition (PAEC) and the Index-Based Ecological Condition Assessment (IBECA). The purpose of the evaluation is to scrutinise and compare the respective scientific strengths and weaknesses of the two assessment methods, as well as the assessments carried out since 2017, and to evaluate the suitability of the two assessment methods for evidence-based policymaking. The evaluation should cover possible improvements and adjustments to the assessment system regarding methods and scientific design, including opportunities and dilemmas, and “as far as the available information permits” discuss the role of the two assessment methods as basis for decisions in policy and public administration including any limitations of this knowledge base.
The evaluation panel has consisted of seven international experts, coordinated by the Norwegian Research Council. The panel has evaluated twelve PAEC and IBECA reports including an advisory report setting the framework conditions for the assessment system. Three peer-reviewed articles describing the respective methods have been considered. Further, the panel has interviewed five experts involved in the assessments and 14 stakeholders to better understand the methods for assessment and the potential use of the assessment results for policy and management. The evaluation panel’s overarching conclusion is that the PAEC and IBECA methods have been developed for the same purpose but in partly different institutional and policy contexts. We find that neither of the two methods follow all our proposed scientific and management criteria for an efficient assessment system for ecological condition, but that the PAEC method is better designed overall to this aim compared with the IBECA method. Since our knowledge of the processes influencing the functioning of the different ecosystems are incomplete, and indicators must be selected based on data availability and best available knowledge, we fully acknowledge the need for structured and well-documented expert judgements. In this respect, we find that the PAEC method outweighs IBECA. IBECA relies heavily on quantitative indices and aggregation of data with comparatively low transparency and high uncertainty in relation to the setting of a normative threshold of ‘good ecological condition’. Inevitably, to evaluate changes over time and critical thresholds not to be exceeded will require insightful expert judgement from different perspectives and needs to be presented in a transparent manner.
We end our evaluation by proposing specific recommendations both to the PAEC and IBECA methods and to the Ministry for Climate and Environment for the future direction of the assessment system for ecological condition.