Nordic Biodiversity Framework : Laying the foundation for Nordic synergy regarding the Global Biodiversity Framework
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Rapid biodiversity loss is one of the most pressing issues of our time. In response, 196 countries, including the Nordic countries, signed the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) in 2022. Now the task is to move from agreement to implementation and policy. This challenge requires careful science-based policy grounded in knowledge of local and regional ecosystems and biodiversity challenges, as well as transnational and transdisciplinary collaboration. The Nordic Biodiversity Framework (NBF), a collaborative project between Iceland, Finland, and Denmark, was developed in 2024 to support such synergy. The cultural, political, and historical similarities between the Nordic countries provide good grounds for Nordic cooperation on the protection of nature and biodiversity. However, there are lessons to be learned through comparison. Iceland, Finland, and Denmark have relevant differences in climate, nature, political culture, and infrastructures for biodiversity protection. Both the similarities and differences provide the diversity to create synergy that enables us to learn from each other and identify important issues and leading practices. The NBF aimed to lay the groundwork for this by compiling existing knowledge about biodiversity issues and examining the status of GBF implementation of Targets 1–8 in each of the member countries (Iceland, Finland, and Denmark). To accomplish this, three workshops were conducted in 2024, one in each member country, as well as several supportive side activities. Some of the main differences between NBF member countries are political, primarily in terms of EU membership, which affects policy making, implementation, and governance of biodiversity actions. The threats to biodiversity differ greatly between the three countries but a common thread is competition between biodiversity and business (or defence) interests. Other common themes and messages emerged, such as the need for a better understanding and larger role of the Ecosystem Approach, conflicting interpretations or misunderstandings of key concepts (e.g., biodiversity, protected areas), a lack of effective or relevant policies for biodiversity conservation, and a lack of support and resources. There are different obstacles to implementing the national targets (NBSAPs): Finland's NBSAP has not been approved by the government, Denmark’s NBSAP was criticized by the Danish Biodiversity Council and Iceland failed to submit an updated NBSAP to the Convention of Biological Diversity Secretariat for COP16 in 2024. Regardless of these barriers, there are various efforts ongoing to implement the GBF’s goals and targets in these countries, and there is clearly a general increase of awareness of biodiversity within both the public and political spheres.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,047 | 0,026 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,020 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,013 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,011 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».