Biodiversity Indicators for policy makers

Biodiversity Indicators for policy makers Presentation for the Modelling Workshop 24-26 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil By Ben ten Brink

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

Presentation: content

2

1. What is PBL? 2. 3. 4. 5.

What is happening with biodiversity? How to indicate? Why is it happening? Why is it important?

Ben ten Brink, March 2009

1. What is PBL?

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency 3

 Governmental, independent  Feedback & feed forward to policies NOT ADVICE!  Clients: Netherlands, EU, OECD, CBD, UNEP, FAO, IPCC biodiversity

Policy options

past

present

target

4 policy key questions: 1. What is happening? 2. Why is it happening? 3. Why is it important? 4. What can we do about it? future Ben ten Brink, March 2009

PBL activities & products

(biodiversity)

4

Activities:   

Understanding human - environment Building Tools: indicators & models & monitoring Assessments

P resent

Target

m easures

Products:   

0%

100% baselin e

Biodiversity indicators Biodiversity model: GLOBIO Assessments:

GEO1- 4; MEA , FAO-outlooks, OECD outlooks,

GBO2, GBO3.



Partner network


Cooperation with many partners

5

 UNEP- World Conservation and monitoring Centre  UNEP –GRID Arendal  University of Britisch Columbia (Ocean biodiversity)

GLOBIO consortium

 Universities 

Instutes: CSIR (South Africa), Ecosciencia (Ecuador), SINIA and UCA (Nicaragua), CRES, MPI (Vietnam), UNEP-GMS, EOC and Univ. Katsesart (Thailand), KWS (Kenya), ECOSUR, Conabio (Mexico), IRBIO (Honduras), FUNDAECO (Guatemala), La Molina (Peru) ULMRC (Ukrain), AideEnvironment, Wetland International, WWF, e.a. Studies & partner countries


2. What is happening with biodiversity?

6

What is biodiversity? • • • • • • • • •

•

Many definitions Many aspects (richness and abundance) Many components Many scales: alpha, beta and gamma Many organisational levels Wild and domesticated Many measures Which baselines How to aggregate

Total confusion

„biodiversity is the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species (genetic), between species and of ecosystems‟. We specified biodiversity as a natural resource („natural capital‟) containing all original species

with their specific abundance, distribution and natural fluctuations.


Ecosystem diversity: natural biomes

7


How many species are there?

(statistics) 8

 Estimates beween 2 and > 10 million (dependent on study)  Focus on visible biodiversity


Animal species diversity per biome

9

Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment


Plant species diversity

10


Biodiversity hotspots

11

according to Conservation International


3.How do we measure biodiversity? 12

Species Abundance

Naturalness

Functionality

Species richness Resilience

Biodiversity

Species extinction

Key species

Marine Trophic Index Endemic species Integrity

Threatened species RLI

Ecosystem extent Ben ten Brink, March 2009

Scientist - policy maker communication 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

S p ecies-rich n ess in p rop o rtion to su rface area b y co u n try, b io geo grap h ical regio n S p ecies-rich n ess b y 1 0 m ain E U N IS h ab itat typ es T ree sp ecies co m p o sition in fo rests C h an ges in sp ecies co m p o sition in w etlan d s E n d em ic sp ecies rich n ess in p ro po rtion to su rface area b y b io geo grap h ical regio n T ren d s o fd sp ecies gro u p s (carn ivo res, rap to rs, geese, sp ecies o f eco no m ic in terest) T ren d s o f selectio n o f rep resen tative sp ecies asso ciated w ith d ifferen t eco system s N u m b er o f th reaten ed taxa o ccu rin g at d ifferen t geo grap h ical levels N u m b er o f glo b ally th reaten ed species en d em ic to E u rop e P ercen tage o f glo b ally th reaten ed sp ecies p er b io geo grap h ical regio n P ercen tage o f E u rop ean th reaten ed sp ecies p er b io geo grap h ical regio n T h reaten ed fo rest sp ecies F o rest gen etic reso u rces W ild relatives o f cu ltivated p lan ts C ro p s and b reed gen etic d iversity T h reats in an d arou nd w etlan d sites L an d scap e-lev el sp atial p attern o f fo rest co ver D iversity o f lin ear featu res an d d o iversity o f cro p s in farm lan d s P ercen tage o f in trod u ced sp ecies th at h ave b eco m e in vasiv e p er b io geo grap h ical regio n S p read o f in vasive selected sp ecies o ver tim e In trod u ces tree sp ecies In trod u ces sp ecies in fresh su rface w aters In trod u ces sp ecies in m arin e an d co astal w aters P ro po rtio n o f glo b ally th reaten d sp ecies P ro po rtio n o f glo b ally th reaten ed fau n a sp ecies p ro tected b y E u ro pean in stru m en ts (E C D irectives an d B ern C on ven tion ) P ro po rtio n o f kn o w n sp ecies p resen t in E u ro p e p ro tected b y E u ro p ean in stru m en ts P ro po rtio n o f sp ecies o n ly p resen t in E u ro p e p ro tected b y E u ro p e an in stru m en ts P ro gress in im p lem en tatio n o f actio n p lan s fo r glob ally th reaten ed sp ecies F u nd s sp ent th rou gh L IF E N atu re p ro jects fo r sp ecies an d h ab itats T o tal area o f w etlan d s (an d o th er eco system s typ es) reclaim ed b y co un try, b io geo grap h ic regio n , E u ro p e C u m u lated area o f sites o ver tim e u nd er intern ation al co n ven tio n s an d in itiatives C u m u lated area o f sites p ro p o sed o ver tim e u n d er E U D irectives P ro po rtio n o f sites u nd er E U D irectives alread y p ro tected un d er n atio n al in stru m en ts C u m u lated area o f n atio n al d esign ated areas o ver tim e in P an -E u rop e S p ecies d iversity in d esign ated areas B ird sp ecies d istrib ution s an d Sp ecial P ro tection A reas (S P A s) co v erage R an ge o f S p ecies o f E u ro p ean Interest o r T h reaten ed S p ecies p resen t in d esign ated areas T ren d s o f selected sp ecies p o p u latio n w ith in and o u tsid e d esign a ted areas P ercen tage (in su rface area) o f A n n ex I h abitat-typ e in clu d ed in p oten tial S ites o f C o m m u n ity In terest (p S C Is) C h an ge (in su rface area) o f A n n ex I h ab itat-typ e in clu d ed in pS C Is R an ge o f H ab itats o f E u ro p ean Interest p resen t in d esign ated are as P ercen tage o f m ain activities rep o rted in p S C Is A gricu ltu ral lan d in d esign ated areas L an d co ver ch an ges in th e su rro un d in gs o f d esign ated areas D ead w o o d N u m b er o f in d ivid u als p er m ain fau n a sp ecies gro u p killed on ro a ds p er len gth p er year N u m b er o f fau n a p assag es p er in frastru ctu re len gth u n it F in an cial in vestm en t fo r fau n a p assages

13


Process of biodiversity loss: Pressures

14

Habitat destruction

100%

Invasives

Original biodiversity

Protected areas

0%

Pollution Over-exploitation Climate change Fragmentation & infrastructure

Abatements measures Restoration Sustainable use

time Ben ten Brink, March 2009

Process of biodiversity loss: land use

F irst strik e: larg e an im a ls lo st

S econ d strik e: h abitat con version

T h ird strike : in ten sificatio n

15

C ou n ter m ove: p rotected areas

? O rigin al ecosystem

H u n tin g & g a th e rin g

E xte ns iv e a g ric u ltu re

In te n sive a g ric u ltu re

C u rren t ecosystem

Degraded ?

tim e

D ecreasing biod ive rsity in natural e cosyste m s ( M S A ) D ecreasing biodive rsity in agri-e cosyste m s (M S A ) S ettlem ent Protecte d area Ben ten Brink, March 2009

Process of biodiversity loss

16

Decrease in abundance of many original species increase in abundance of a few, often man-favoured species as a result of human interventions

homogenisation Extinction just a last step, species richness may initially increase Source: Pauly et al., 1998; Ten Brink, 1990, 2000; Lockwood & McKinney, 2001; Meyers and Worm, 2003; Scholes and Biggs, 2005; MEA, 2005.


Process of biodiversity loss: homogenisation 17

“Fishing down the foodweb (Pauly)”

We also log, plough, burn, convert, burn, Ben ten Brink, March 2009 pollute and hunt down ecosystems

Schematic view of biodiversity loss 18

RLI S pec ie s abun danc e

S pecie s a b unda n ce

S p e cie s a b u nd a n c e

R a n g e in in tac t e c o sy s tem

R an ge in intact e cosystem

R a n g e in intac t e co sy stem

MSA ab c de f g h

x y z o rigin a l s p ec ie s of ec o s ys te m

ab c de f g h

x y z orig ina l sp ec ies of eco s yste m

a b c de f g h

x y z orig ina l species of ec osystem

Time Mean abundance of the original species compared to the original ecosystem

Or: Mean Species Abundance (MSA) shop analogy


Biodiversity loss A landscape view

100% MSA 100%

19

0% Ben ten Brink, March 2009

Criteria for choosing indicators

Source :UNEP/CBD (2003) 20

P rin cip les fo r ch oo sin g ind ica to rs O n in d ividu a l in dicato rs: 1. P olicy releva n t a n d m ea n in gfu l In d icato rs sh o uld send a clear m essage an d p ro vid e info rm atio n at a level app ro priate fo r p olicy and m an age m en t d ecision m akin g b y assessin g ch an ges in th e statu s o f bio d iversity (or pressu res, resp on ses, u se o r cap acity), related to b aselin es an d agreed p olicy targets if p o ssible. 2. B io d iversity relev a nt In d icato rs sh ou ld ad dress key p ro p erties o f b io d iversity o r related issu es as state, p ressu res, resp o n ses, u se or capacity. 3. S cientifica lly so u n d In d icato rs m u st b e b ased on clearly d efin ed , verifiab le an d scien tifically acceptab le data, w h ich are co llected u sin g stan dard m eth o d s w ith kn o w n accu racy an d p recisio n , or b ased o n traditio nal kn o w led ge th at h as b een validated in an app ro priate w ay. 4. B ro ad a ccep ta nce T h e p o w er of an in dicator d ep en ds o n its b road accep tan ce. In vo lve m en t o f the p o licy m akers, an d m ajo r stakeh old ers an d ex perts in th e d evelo p m en t of an in dicato r is crucial. 5. A ffo rd a ble m o nitorin g In d icato rs sh ou ld b e m easu rable in an accu rate and affo rd able w ay and part o f a su stainab le m o n ito rin g system , u sin g d eterm in ab le baselines an d targets for the assessm en t of im p ro ve m en ts an d d eclin es. 6. A ffo rd a ble m o d ellin g In fo rm atio n on cau se-effect relatio n ships sh o uld be ach ievab le an d qu antifiab le, in ord er to lin k p ressu res, state an d resp o nse in dicators. T hese relation m o d els en able scen ario an alyses an d are the b asis o f th e ecosystem ap p ro ach . 7. S en sitive In d icato rs sh o uld b e sen sitive to sh o w tren d s and , w h ere p o ssible, perm it d istin ctio n b etw een h u m an in d u ced and n atu ral ch an ges. In d icato rs sh o uld th u s b e able to detect ch an ges in system s in tim e fram es an d o n th e scales that are relevan t to th e d ecisio n s, b u t also b e ro b u st so th at m easu rin g errors d o n ot affect the in terpretatio n . It is im p o rtan t to d etect ch an ges b efo re it is too late to correct the p ro b lem s b ein g d etected .

O n th e set o f in dicato rs: 8. R ep resentative T h e set of in dicators p ro vid es a representative p ictu re o f th e p ressu res, b io diversity state, resp o nses, u ses an d cap acity (co verage). 9. S m a ll n um b er T h e sm aller th e to tal nu m b er of ind icators, th e m o re co m m u n icab le th ey are to po licy m a kers an d th e p u b lic and the lo w er th e cost. 10. A g g reg atio n an d flexib ility In d icato rs sh o uld b e designed in a m an n er th at facilitates aggregatio n at a ran ge o f scales for different p u rp o ses. A ggregatio n o f in d icators at the level o f eco system typ es (th em atic areas) o r th e n atio nal or in tern atio n al levels req u ires th e u se o f co h erent ind icato rs sets (see criteria 8) an d co n sisten t baselin es. T his also ap plies fo r pressure, resp on se, u se an d cap acity in d icators.


How do we measure biodiversity?

Macro-ecological indicators 21

E C O S Y S T E M IN T E G R IT Y , G O O D S A N D S E R V IC E S M a rin e tro p h ic in de x C o n n e ctivity/fra g m e nta tio n of e c os ys te m s W ate r qu a lity in aq u atic e co s ys te m s

1 2 3 4

STATUS AND TRENDS O F C O M P O N E N T S O F B IO V E R S IT Y T re n ds in e x te n t of se lec ted b io m e s , e c os ys te m s , h a bita ts C o ve ra g e o f p ro tec te d a re a s T re n ds in a b un d anc e a n d d is trib u tio n o f s e lec ted sp e cies C h a n g e in s ta tu s o f th re a ten ed a n d /o r p ro te c ted sp e cies T re n ds in g e ne tic d iv e rs ity o f d o m e s tic a te d an im a ls , cu ltiv a te d p la n ts , fis h s pe cies o f m a jor s o cio ec o no m ic im p orta nc e

S U S T A IN A B L E U S E A re a o f e c os ys te m s u n de r s u s ta ina b le m a n a ge m e n t  F o re s t  A g ric ultu re  F is he ry  A q u a cu ltu re  E c o log ica l fo o tp rin t

T H R E A T S T O B IO D IV E R S IT Y N itro g e n d ep o sition N u m b e rs and co s ts o f inv as ive a lien s pe cie s Im p ac t of clim a te c h an g e


Towards a set of macro-ecological indicators

22

RLI

Threatened Red List Index Species abundance

Species abundance

Natural range in intact ecoystem

100%

MVA

Species abundance Natural range in intact ecoystem

MSA MSA MSA

0%

species abundance ecosystem quality

Ecosystem extent

a b c def g h Original species of ecosystem

xyz

ab c de f g h Original species of ecosystem

xyz

a bc def g h

MSA

xy z Original species of ecosystem

time

Ecosystem extent Ben ten Brink, March 2009

4. Why it happens? 23

Natural ecosystem Water basin

National Park

crops golf

Shrimp farm

timber plantation

road city

cattle Energy crop

1 n a tu ra l

2

C lim a te re g u la tio n

C lim a te

e xte n s iv e

C lim a te re g u la tio n

re g u la tio n

Food Food

E n e rg y

Food

E n e rg y

E n e rg y

-

S o il

S o il p ro te c tio n

p ro te c tio n

F re s h w a te r

F re s h w a te r

S o il p ro te c tio n

F res h w a ter

3

in te n sive

„We parcelate the world‟ ten Brink, March 2009 Swap services forBengoods

5. Why is it important? 5

Trophic level

24

beauty, recreation, education cultural identity

4

3

2

1

-1 -2 -3 -4

agri- disease regulation fish, meat, pollination food, fiber, fuelwood, freshwater C-seq, soil formation, flood control Soil fertility, C-seq, water purification, nutrient recycling


Avoid a lose-lose, or else…

25

beauty, recreation, education cultural identity

agri- disease regulation fish, meat, meat pollination fish, fuelwood, freshwater food, fiber, fuelwood C-seq, soil formation, flood control

original

deteriorated Intensive use

Soil fertility, fertility, water water purification, purification, Soil nutrient recycling recycling nutrient Ben ten Brink, March 2009

k you 26


27


Assessing biodiversity change 28

Assessment principle

the more the better ?

services

value

goods production species richness naturalness

? Original

Hunting & gathering F irs t s trik e : L a rg e a n im a ls lo s t

Extensive agriculture

Intensive agriculture T h ird s trik e : in te n s ific a tio n

S e c o n d s trik e : H a b ita t lo s s

C o u n te r m o ve : P ro te c te d a re a s

Current ecosystem Fourth strike over-use


time

Composite indicators Comparing composite Species Abundance indicators

Indicator RLI STI LPI NCI BII MSA

species tax groups tax groups, cross section cross section cross section cross section

Baseline viability 1980 1970-2000 pre-industrial present PA low impact

29

assess. principle risk extinction more -> better more -> better naturalness + agri naturalness naturalness

They vary in: assessment principle, averaging, truncation, plague species, stepwise aggregation, species or ecosystem equity/weighing, distinction between agriculture-natural, exotics,


Indicator: population size? 30

number of dolphins 2000

Present

1970

Natural State

Good or bad? Okay? Hmm? Bad?!? 0

Viable population

500

1000

1500

10000


Criteria check 31

MSA

Red list

SR -

Species trends (LPI) +

Trophic index +

Homogenisation

+

+/-

Trends in abundance Model human impact Measurable

+

+/-

-

+

+

+

-

-

+

+

+

+/-

-

+

+

Scale independent Communicate

+

-

-

+

+

+/-

+

+/-

-

+/-

Policy relevant

+

+

-

+/-

+/-


32


Assessments:

Can we achieve the 2010-target? 33

MSA-GLOBIO as tool to support policies An illustration: •

From business-as-usual scenario 6 policy options

•

From global national

•

From 3000 BC 2050 AD

•

From boreal tropical rain forest


Assessments

Can we achieve the 2010-target? 34

Six policy options GBO2: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

WTO liberalisation agricultural marked WTO + Poverty alleviation in Africa Sustainable meat production (less meat?) Climate mitigation (max + 2oC; 450 ppm) Sustainable forest (wood plantations) Protected areas (20% per biome)

(higher efficiency?)

Baseline scenario (OECD business as usual)


How do we calculate biodiversity?

No biodiv data! 35

GTAP – TIMER – IMAGE ---- > GLOBIO model History: GEO1, GEO3, GBO2, GEO4, OECD-outlook

Baseline scenario • Population • Economic growth Indirect drivers • Technology • Food demand • Lifestyle (meat cons) • Energy demand • Energy mix • Wood demand • Food trade Options: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

WTO Poverty Climate Meat Plantations Protected area

Pressures • Land use change • Climate change • N-deposition • Forestry • Infrastructure • fragmentation

State

-Biodiversity (MSA) -Biome extent

H a b ita t d e stru ctio n

100%

In va sive s P o llu tio n

P ro te cte d a re a s

O ve r-e xp lo ita tio n C lim a te ch a n g e

A b a te m e n ts m e a su re s R e sto ra tio n

F ra g m e n ta tio n & in fra stru ctu re

S u sta in a b le u s e

0% tim e

Not all pressures & options & biomes! Ben ten Brink, March 2009

Baseline scenario

36

Sources: OECD, IEA, FAO

Scenario (2000 -> 2050):      

Current policies Kyoto 1.5 x global population 2.5 x global energy use 3 x income per person 1.8 x food efficiency


Human population in Antropocene

37

Klein Goldwijk et al., 2008 Ben ten Brink, March 2009

A brief history of land use

3000 BC 38

Grazing & crop cropland



0 AD 39




1000 AD 40




1700 AD 41




1800 AD 42




1950 AD 43




2000 AD 44



Biodiversity loss A landscape view

100% MSA 100%

45

0% Ben ten Brink, March 2009

Biodiversity in 1970 (MSA)

46



47



48



49


Global biodiversity loss: 70% -> 63% - 59%

63%

59%

50

Future loss Less optimistic scenario

Similar to loss entire USA Ben ten Brink, March 2009

Biodiversity loss accelerates 51

richer ecosystems

poorer ecosystems


Zooming in on Europe: loss not halted 52


Zooming in on Latin America & Caribbean 53


Zooming in: South East Asia 54


Zooming in 55


Zooming in 56


Zooming in on regions

(MSA in 2000-2050)

2000 2050

57


Zooming in on regions

(MSA in 2000-2050, quality

> 80%)

2000 2050

58


Zooming in on biomes

(MSA in 2000-2050)

2000 2050

59

forests

grasslands


Zooming in on biomes

(MSA in 2000-2050, >

80% quality)

2000 2050

60

forests

grasslands


Grasslands in 2000 61


Grasslands in 2050 62


Forest in 2000 63


Forest in 2050 64


Option 1: Trade liberalization

65

Full implementation of WTO Doha Round from 2015 Expectation: higher productivity/ha

   

+ 6.5% agricultural area in latin America & Southern Africa - 20% OECD-Europe & N-America -1.3% biodiversity

 Not higher production/ha but cheaper production, “trashing” natural ecosystems


Option 2: Trade lib. + poverty alleviation SS-Africa

66

ODA: investment 0,7% GNP Expectation: safes biodiversity in long term !

• + 3% agricultural area /+ 25% SS Africa • + 40% SS-African GDP! • - 0.4% biodiversity / -6% SS Africa Key question: • Does demographic transition take place after 2050?


Option 3: Sustainable meat production

67

Global production standards  Improving animal welfare  Avoiding epidemic deseases  Limiting N-emissions

Expectation: less agricultural area

 5% decrease consumption  - 2% agricultural area  + 0.3% biodiversity


Option 4: Climate mitigation by biofuels Max temperature rise: World energy use: Energy crops:

68

2 oC (after 2100)* 400 -> 650 (250 EJ efficiency increase) 23% total energy use

Expectation: • mitigates climate • causes habitat loss • medicine worse than diseas?

• + 10% agricultural area • mitigate climate effect


Baseline

69

Loss by:

75% Biodiversity Level 2000

70%

agriculture

other

65%

climate

60%

55%

50% 2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Time Time


Biofuele option

70

Loss by:

75% Biodiversity Level 2000

70%

agriculture

Energie crops other

65%

climate

60%

55% climate option

50% 2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Time Time


Option 5: Sustainable forestry

71

Wood plantations meet demand by 2050 Expectation: safeguarding current forest B io d iv e rs ity lo s3,00 s

Indices

p la n ta tio n s 2,50

2,00

+ 6.5% agricultural area brake-even around 2040 + 0.1% biodiversity

T u rn in g p o in t 1,50

1,00

b a s e lin e 0,50 1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

ye ar Biodiversity loss in Baseline

Biodiversity loss in Forestry option


Option 6: Protected areas

72

20% each ecological region hotspots endemic & critically endangered species Expectation: significant reduction of the rate of loss

 + 1% biodiversity + less extinction!  Safeguarding intact ecosystems  Length or width

not protected

not protected protected


6 options compared 73


Liberalisation: trade off from Europe to Latin America 74


Biodiversity loss Latin America per pressure 75


High biodiversity footprint Zooming in on the Netherlands 76

Infrastructure

Biodiversity impact Dutch consumption ca. 3.5 x terrestrial area Netherlands

Climate

Wood Agriculture


Development & biodiversity inversely related over time? 77

HDI

MSA


Conclusions 78

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Biodiversity loss will continue Individual measures just ripples Measures may even worsen initially Free trade trashes biodiversity Is there a way out? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

6.

intensify, intensify intensify land use… smart options efficiency increase protection networks conserve forest in stead of biofuels Green development mechanism?

Fundamental choices unavoidable 1.

Biodiversity utilization space?


Policy benefit of MSA-GLOBIO 79

1. Past - present – future 2. Substitute for lacking data 3. Cheap 4. Target evaluation

5. Target exploration 6. Cost-effective options 7. Share per pressure & sector Ben ten Brink, March 2009

80

Thank you !


81


Policy support 82

Indicators: • key factors

Monitoring: • trends? • distance to target?

Modeling: • causes? • how to achieve targets?

Biodiversity or

Goods&Services Policy options

or

National Target or MDG

Food & Income

past

present

future Ben ten Brink, March 2009

Indicator development at MNP 83

 Natural Capital Index (NCI)  Relative Mean Species Abundance of Original Species (MSA)  Changes in extent of ecosystems and biomes (using Remote Sensing and models)  Nitrogen deposition: Model  Extent of Protected areas (UNEP-WCMC)


Indicator: Extend of natural ecosystems

Original

Hunting & gathering F irs t s trik e : L a rg e a n im a ls lo s t

Extensive agriculture S e c o n d s trik e : H a b ita t lo s s

Current ecosystem

Intensive agriculture T h ird s trik e : in te n s ific a tio n

84

C o u n te r m o ve : P ro te c te d a re a s

Decreasing biodiversity in natural ecosystems

time

Decreasing biodiversity in natural ecosystems Decreasing biodiversity in agri-ecosystems Settlement Protected area


Indicator: number of species? 85


Biodiversity hotspots (Brooks, 2006)

86

 plaatjes uit artikel knippen.


Biodiversity hotspots (Brooks, 2006)

87

 Hotspot strategies that prioritize high threat

 Hotspot strategies that prioritize low threat


Indicator: population size? 88

number of dolphins 2000

Present

1970

Natural State

Good or bad? Okay? Hmm? Bad?!? 0

Viable population

500

1000

1500

10000


Fair comparison? 89

100

Baseline: natural or pre-industrial state

Brazil

Netherlands 1900

2000

2050 Ben ten Brink, March 2009

Fair comparison? 90

Netherlands 100

Baseline: 2000

Brazil

1900

2000


Consistency between indicators 91

State of the Environment report:

Assessments principles/baseline

•

Forest area halved in 20 years

(1980)

•

Crane population became viable

(viability)

•

Starling population twice target

(policy target)

•

Defoliation decreased: 70% -> 75%

(natural state)

•

Lynx from vulnerable to nearly extinct

(extinction risk)

•

Red dear population doubled

(the more the better)

+ State of country

?? Ben ten Brink, March 2009

Time frame 92

Tons Cod

stock

Viable pop

2000

2005

2010


Time frame 93

Pre-industrial

Tons Cod stock

Viable pop past

2000 2005 2010

future


Fair comparison? 94

100

Baseline: natural state

Brazil

Netherlands 1900

1950

2000


Many single indicators 95

Genetic diversity Species abundance Habitat loss Biodiversity

Marine Trophic Index

Threat


Aggregation: composite indicators for overview 96

Pressure index Natural Capital Index Biodiversity Intactness Index Biodiversity

Living Planet Index

Red List Index

Species Assemblage Trend Index


From single indicators to composite indicators 97

Single-species abundance trend index

Company income

Species group abundance trend Index

Sector income

Mean species abundance trend index

GDP

Example: RLI, STI, NCI, LPI, BII, MSA


98

Indicator RLI STI LPI NCI BII

species tax groups tax groups, all or cross section all or cross section all or cross section

baseline (year/value) extint 1980 1970-2000 pre-industrial present PA

baseline assess. principle risk extinction more -> better more -> better naturalness + agri naturalness


MSA: Quality times Quantity 99

100%

100%

100%

Quality

35% 7%

0%

100%

0%

100%

Quantity

0%

100%

areas


The Mean Species Abundance 100

   

Mean abundance of original species relative to pristine Relative to minimum of natural population Higher than natural set to 100% Average of original species only

S pec ie s abun danc e

S pecie s a b unda n ce

S p e c ie s a b u nd a n c e

R a n g e in in tac t e c o sy s tem

R an ge in intact e cosystem

R a n g e in intac t e co sy stem

MSA ab c de f g h

x y z o rigin a l s p ec ie s of ec o s ys te m

ab c de f g h

x y z orig ina l sp ec ies of eco s yste m

a b c de f g h

Red List

x y z orig ina l species of ec osystem

Time Ben ten Brink, March 2009

Fair comparison? 101

Netherlands

biodiversity Baseline: 2000

100

Brazil

0 2000


Zooming in on Latin America & Caribbean (area)

102


Example: Forest land-use change and MSA 103

MSA 100%

Literature review - Tropical & temperate regions - Plants, insects, birds, other vertebrates

Selective logging

50%

1,2 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2

pasture

cropland

plantations

agroforestry

secondary forest

selective logging

0

primary forest

Secondary vegetation

mean species abundance

Pristine forest

Biodiversity indicator Mean Species Abundance

Plantation

Map color Degraded 0% Ben ten Brink, March 2009

104


NCI- scenarios: The Netherlands 105


Implementation: The Netherlands

106


107


Has biodiversity loss been halted? Zoom in:

108

Mire, bog and fen habitats (-107044) heathland, scrub and tundra (-298108) Coastal habitats (-3231) inland unvegetated or sparsely vegetated (-42197) Cultivated, agriculture, horticulture (-801538) Grassland (-223555) Marine habitats (-6580) Woodland and forest (603421) Inland surface w ater (99513) Constructed, industrial, artificial habitats (779362) -4

-2

0

2

4

6

% change

Change in extent/biome Intactness/integrity?

Extent

Habitats & Species Eu interest

species abundance

Quality distribution 120

100

100

Farmland birds

90 0.95

80

All common birds

70 Red List Index of species survival

Forest birds

80 % of Cattle Population consisting of native breeds

60 50 40

0.90

% of Native Cattle Breeds Endangered

30 20 10

60

40 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

0

0.85 1994

2004 Year

Threatened

1995 2000 2005 1995 2000 2005 1995 2000 2005 2001 2004 1995 2000 2005 France

Germany

Greece

Netherlands

Poland

Agro-genetic

ten Butterflies Brink, March 2009 STI birdsBen and

Findings on state

(fictitious, as example, based on the indicator set): 109

Overall, biodiversity loss has not been halted. Homogenisation continues. 1.

All ecosystem types lose area except for forest.

2.

At the species level less-vulnerable species show slight improvements, while more-vulnerable species show further decline. Consequently the Red List grows. The number of invasive alien species rapidly grows.

3.

Less then 10% of the ecosystems have kept their original integrity. About x% of the ecosystems have lost their capability to produce goods & services.

4.

Agro-genetic diversity is low and probably continues to decline.

5.

Zooming in, most species and habitats of European interest are in an unfavourable conservation status.


Will the 2010-target be met? 110


Do threats decrease

(HIPPOC)

? 111

2000 1800

Number of species

1600 1400 1200 Primary producers & fungi

1000

Invertebrates

800

Vertebrates 600 400 200

>1 19 900 00 -1 19 90 10 9 -1 19 91 9 20 -1 19 92 9 30 -1 19 93 9 40 -1 19 94 9 50 -1 19 95 60 9 -1 19 96 9 70 -1 19 97 9 80 -1 19 98 9 90 -1 99 9 20 0 un 0 kn ow n

0

Year of introduction

Habitat loss & fragmentation Pollution (N + P) & Climate Water conc

Invasive aliens

Share per pressure

Exploitation

N-dep Balance estimate EU-27, 2005

Iceland Bulgaria Russian Federation Italy Ukraine Turkey M ontenegro Slovenia Germany Romania Cyprus Denmark United Kingdom M oldova Luxembourg Belarus Georgia Norway Poland

2005

Serbia

2000

Slovakia

1990

Netherlands Austria Croatia Hungary Spain Liechtenstein France Belgium Latvia Lithuania Greece Czech Republic Switzerland Sweden Portugal Finland Estonia M acedonia, FYR Albania

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

max. value: 550 max. value: 297 max. value: 233

130

Ratio Fellings to Increment (%)

Ben ten Brink, March 2009 % Fellings/increment

Findings on threats (Fictitious)

(hipoc):

112

Some pressures have decreased, but not sufficiently: 1. Urbanisation and infrastructure continue to expand, leading to habitat loss and fragmentation. 2. Number of alien invasive species rapidly increase 3. Eutrophication declines in aquatic systems and by N-deposition, but absolute levels are still too high 4. Agriculture intensifies, especially in the east. At the expense of HNV.

5. Marine fish is over-exploited 6. Climate change will worsen


Is agriculture sustainably managed? 113

Footprint

State 100% 100%

Food A re a u se d o u tsid e E u ro p e

T o ta l a g ric u ltu re % E u ro p e

M in im u m le ve ls

H N V fa rm la n d 0

Agricultural area

0%

tim e

1960

2005

HNV area

Pressure

120

N -in p u t

Response

100

200

Farmland birds 80

Forest birds All common birds

N -in p u t

40 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

%

B io d ive rs ity -frien d ly farm lan d

60

2005

40

0

STI farmland birds & butterflies

N-input

A g ri-e n v. sch e m e s O rg a n ic fa rm in g

tim e

Potentially supporting practices 100 90

440

80

410

% of Native Cattle Breeds Endangered

30 20 10

AT 320 290

CZ DE

260 230 200 170

1995 2000 2005 1995 2000 2005 1995 2000 2005 2001 2004 1995 2000 2005

140

France

Germany

Greece

Netherlands

Poland

80

FI

20

HU

2005

2

LU NL

PT SE

UK

0

19 85 19 86 19 87 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05

C

-10

2003

4

IE

SK

Agro-genetic

6

FR

PL 50

2000

ES

IT 110

8

DK

GR

0

10

BE

Ita ly yp ru s La tv ia Li th Lu ua x e ni a m bo ur g H un ga ry M N a et he l ta rl a nd s Po la Po nd rtu ga Sl ov l en Sl ia ov ak ia Fin la nd S U ni wed te e d Ki n ng do m EU 25 N or w ay

40

350

C

50

Kg per Ha

60

12

380

% of Cattle Population consisting of native breeds

Au st ria ze Bel ch giu m R ep ub li c D en m G a rk er m an y Es to ni a Ire la nd G re ec e Sp a in Fr an ce

70

N-balance

Ben ten Brink, March 2009 % organic farming

Is forest sustainably managed?

Yield 114 C on su m p tion (m 3 )

W ood Y ie ld (m 3 )

State

tim e

Yield & consumption

Forest area

Footprint

10 0%

Quality distribution

T im b e r A rea u sed ou tside E u ro pe

120

100

Farmland birds 80

0%

Forest birds All common birds

19 60

40 1980

20 05

Area used outside Europe

60

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Pressure

STI forest & butterflies

Balance estimate EU-27, 2005

100%

Iceland Bulgaria Russian Federat ion It aly Ukraine Turkey

100

M ont enegro Slovenia

u n d istu rb e d fo re st

Germany Romania

D e a d w o o d a s % b a se lin e

Cyprus Denmark Unit ed Kingdom M oldova Luxembourg Belarus Georgia Norway Poland

2005

Serbia

2000

Slovakia

1990

Net herlands Aust ria Croat ia Hungary

50

Forest Protected area

Spain Liecht enst ein France Belgium Lat via Lit huania Greece Czech Republic Swit zerland Sweden Port ugal Finland Est onia M acedonia, FYR Albania

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

max. value: 550 max. value: 297 max. value: 233

130

Ratio Fellings to Increment (%)

tim e

RLI forest

Response

Dead wood

% Fellings/increment

0% 1970

2000

Benarea ten Brink, March 2009 Protected

Is fisheries sustainably managed? 115

State

Footprint

Catch 100%

F ish C a tch fro m o u tsid e E u ro p e

Stocks within safe limits

0% 1960

Pressure

2005

Response 10 0% M a rin e P ro te cte d a re a

0%

Trophic index

1970

2000

Protected area

RLI marine

Bottom disturbance & discards

% of eco-labeled production to total

% of Eco-labed production to total 100 80 60 40 20 0 2000

Eco-label

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005


Findings on sustainable use

(Fictitious, as example): 116

Sustainable use in fisheries, forestry and agriculture is not on track, yet. 1. Fisheries are managed unsustainably. Most stocks are overexploited. The yielding technique is unselective, resulting in high ecosystem losses due to discards (x% biomass)and bottom trawling 2. Forests are managed unsustainably from an ecological perspective. The biodiversity is low, and Europe has a large timber footprint outside its borders. 3. Agriculture is highly efficient, but the wild and agro-biodiversity are low and severly in decline. High Nature Value farmland is decreasing. The food and fodder footprint outside Europe is large. High N-input leads to a major leakage into the environment. Biodiversity supportive policies are not effective in halting the loss. 4. The European footprint outside Europe of its entire consumption corresponds with an area similar to Europe.


Goods&services ???? Yes, I do

117

34 Yes: 77%

Yes, but I w ould like to do even more

33

No, because I do not know w hat to do

21 No: 31%

No, for other reasons

Other

DK/NA

10

0

2

Awareness

Visits of nature area??


Findings on goods & services: ??????

118


What can we do about it? 119

1 200 000

80 000

70 000 1 000 000 60 000 800 000

600 000

40 000

Number of sites

Area, km2

50 000

30 000 400 000 20 000 200 000 10 000

0 1895

0 1905

1915

1925

1935

1945

1955

1965

1975

1985

1995

2005

Proteced area in 39 EEA countries (16%) Nationally designated

0.120% 0.096%

0.100%

0.082%

0.077% 0.080%

0.077% 0.074% 0.066%

0.055% 0.060%

0.066%

0.052% 0.058%

0.040% 0.038% 0.020%

0.000% 1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

% total EU expenditure on Life project 1995 - 2006 Ben ten Brink, March 2009

Findings on response:

120

Measures are taken but not sufficiently to halt the loss 1. Protected area increases towards 16% of Europe‟s area ?? 2. Europe‟s budget for biodiversity conservation is 0.066% of the total budget, and is decreasing 3. Public awareness is growing


Fishing down the foodweb (Pauly, 1998) 121

Homogenisation

We also log, plough, burn, convert, burn, pollute and hunt down ecosystems Ben ten Brink, March 2009

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

Species-richness in proportion to surface area by country, biogeographical region Species-richness by 10 main EUNIS habitat types E C O S Y S T E M IN T E G R IT Y , G O O D S Tree species composition in forests A N D S E R V IC E S Changes in species composition in wetlands a rin e tro p h ic in de x Endemic species richness in proportion to surface area by biogeographicalMregion C o n n e ctivity/fra g m e nta tio n of Trends ofd species groups (carnivores, raptors, geese, species of economiceinterest) c os ys te m s Trends of selection of representative species associated with different ecosystems W ate r qu a lity in aq u atic e co s ys te m s Number of threatened taxa occuring at different geographical levels Number of globally threatened species endemic to Europe Percentage of globally threatened species per biogeographical region Percentage of European threatened species per biogeographical region Threatened forest species Forest genetic resources Wild relatives of cultivated plants Crops and breed genetic diversity Threats in and around wetland sites Landscape-level spatial pattern of forest cover STATUS AND TRENDS O F Diversity of linear features and doiversity of crops in farmlands C O M P O N E N T S O F B IO V E R S IT Y Percentage of introduced species that have become invasive per biogeographical region T re n ds in e x te n t of se lec ted b io m e s , e c os ys te m s , h a bita ts Spread of invasive selected species over time C o ve ra g e o f p ro tec te d a re a s Introduces tree species T re n ds in a b un d anc e a n d Introduces species in fresh surface waters d is trib u tio n o f s e lec ted sp e cies Introduces species in marine and coastal waters C h a n g e in s ta tu s o f th re a ten ed Proportion of globally threatend species a n d /o r p ro te c ted sp e cies Proportion of globally threatened fauna species protected by European instruments T re n ds in (EC g e neDirectives tic d iv e rs ity and o f Bern Convention) d o m e s tic a te d an im a ls , cu ltiv a te d Proportion of known species present in Europe protected by European instruments p la n ts , fis h s pe cies o f m a jor Proportion of species only present in Europe protected by European instruments s o cio ec o no m ic im p orta nc e Progress in implementation of action plans for globally threatened species Funds spent through LIFE Nature projects for species and habitats Total area of wetlands (and other ecosystems types) reclaimed by country, biogeographic region, Europe Cumulated area of sites over time under international conventions and initiatives Cumulated area of sites proposed over time under EU Directives Proportion of sites under EU Directives already protected under national instruments Cumulated area of national designated areas over time in Pan-Europe Species diversity in designated areas Bird species distributions and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) coverage Range of Species of European Interest or Threatened Species present in designated areas Trends of selected species population within and outside designated areas Percentage (in surface area) of Annex I habitat-type included in potential Sites of Community Interest (pSCIs) Change (in surface area) of Annex I habitat-type included in pSCIs Range of Habitats of European Interest present in designated areas Percentage of main activities reported in pSCIs Agricultural land in designated areas Land cover changes in the surroundings of designated areas Deadwood Number of individuals per main fauna species group killed on roads per length per year Number of fauna passages per infrastructure length unit Financial investment for fauna passages

S U S T A IN A B L E U S E A re a o f e c os ys te m s u n de r s u s ta ina b le m a n a ge m e n t  F o re s t  A g ric ultu re  F is he ry  A q u a cu ltu re  E c o log ica l fo o tp rin t

122

T H R E A T S T O B IO D IV E R S IT Y N itro g e n d ep o sition N u m b e rs and co s ts o f inv as ive a lien s pe cie s Im p ac t of clim a te c h an g e


123

modeling

monitoring

indicators

Ecosystem assessments Ben ten Brink, March 2009

Species Abundance based indicators 124

Mean Species Abundance MSA

Biodiversity Intactness Inde BII

Biodiversity

Living Planet Index LPI

Species Assemblage Trend Index STI

Natural Capital Index NCI

Red List Index RLI


Criteria check 125

MSA

Red list

SR -

Species trends (LPI) +/-

Trophic index +

Homogenisation

+

+/-

Trends in abundance (CBD) Model human impact Measurable

+

+/-

-

+

+

+

-

+/-

+

+

+

+/-

+/-

+

+/-

Scale independent Communicate

+

-

-

+

+

+/-

+

+/-

+/-

+/-

Policy relevant

+/-

+

+/-

+/-

+/Ben ten Brink, March 2009

Mean species abundance a sub sample

126


127

Pressure indicators

State indicators

Use indicators

Response indicators


Threats

State indicators 128

Agriculture (HNV-intensive) Forestry (lightly use- plantation) Fisheries (capture-aquaculture) Built up Infrastructure Invasives Pollution • Ndep • [N+P] Climate change Fragmentation Fragmentation rivers Fire Hunting Water use

Ecosystem extent

Species abundance

Threatened

Breed variety Ben ten Brink, March 2009

Why is biodiversity important? 129

Ecosystem services  Provisioning services:  food, water, timber, fiber  Regulating services:  regulation of climate, floods, disease, water quality, waste treatment  Cultural services:  recreation, aesthetic enjoyment, spiritual fulfillment  Supporting services:  soil formation, pollination, nutrient cycling


Overview increase cultivated area per option 130

Trade: Poverty: Meat: Climate: Plantations: Protected:

+ 6,5% + 3,1% - 2% + 10% + 6,5% 0%


Biodiversity Indicators for policy makers

Biodiversity Indicators for policy makers

Suggest Documents

Soil biodiversity: functions, threats and tools for policy makers

INSIST_Recommendations Policy Makers

Biodiversity Indicators 2017

Rev.1 - Biodiversity Indicators

BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS & THE 2010 BIODIVERSITY TARGET ...

On the potential policy use of some selected biodiversity indicators ...

Foresight for policy & decision-makers - PLACARD interchange

Summary for policy makers - Nitrogen in Europe

Biodiversity Indicators for Sustainable Forestry: Simplifying ... - Manomet

Identification of Appropriate Biodiversity Indicators for ... - UKM

Accessible DRUSSA UNIVERSITY research for policy-makers

CSIRT Basics for Policy-Makers - New America

Summary for Policy Makers - Forest Europe

CSIRT Basics for Policy-Makers - New America

Biodiversity Indicators for Sustainable Forestry: Simplifying ... - Manomet

Biodiversity Indicators for Sustainable Forestry: Simplifying ... - Manomet

Biodiversity Indicators for European Farming Systems - BioBio

INDICATORS FOR MONITORING SOIL BIODIVERSITY Introduction ...

Indicators for Monitoring Soil Biodiversity

Costefficiency of biodiversity indicators for ...

Costefficiency of biodiversity indicators for Mediterranean ecosystems ...

ICT Policy Guidelines for the Policy Makers of Ghana - Scientific ...

UK Biodiversity Indicators 2018 - JNCC

Policy paper providing guidance to policy makers for developing ...