Reducing the rate of biodiversity loss:
towards a set of scaleable indicators
Summary
This document represents a collective set of ideas on what the conservation community1 can
contribute to efforts to monitoring global biodiversity status. It constitutes a response to a May
2003 meeting held in London, “2010 – The Global Biodiversity Challenge,” which
recommended, “that institutions and groups already working on data and information relevant to
assessing progress in achievement of the 2010 target, take into account of the findings of this
meeting, and consider ways in which their data can be effectively used in monitoring and
reporting on progress in achieving the target” (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA9/INF/9, para. 31). The
paper is divided into three sections. Section I gives background information and explains how
the indicators proposed in this paper might contribute to monitoring biodiversity status and
trends at the global level, in particular to measure progress toward the target to, “achieve by 2010
a significant reduction in the current rate of biodiversity loss” and the Millennium Development
Goals. Section II describes a set of indicators that are based on existing datasets and represent
practical measures of global biodiversity in the near term, as well as recommendations for
refining the proposed indicators. Section III describes indicators that the conservation
community believes to be of critical importance for describing the status of biodiversity,
however these indicators rely on concepts and datasets that require further development.
The table below provides a summary of the indicators described in this paper.
Indicators
Section II: Proposed
Species population
trends
Red List
Natural habitat
cover
Protected areas
Ecosystem services
1
Section III: To be
developed
Species Assemblage Trend
Index
IUCN Red List indicator
Percent natural habitat cover
Rate of natural habitat loss
Natural habitat fragmentation
Protected area coverage
Protected area management
effectiveness
Protected area network
distribution relative to
distribution of biodiversity
characteristics.
National protected area
policy checklist
National biodiversity
legislation checklist
Sentinel services
The primary contributors to this document are those listed in Annex 1.
November 2003. Prepared for the SBSTTA9 meeting of the CBD.
1
Each of the NGO contributors to this paper have developed indicators and monitoring
frameworks and are working to build local capacity to collect data and report on biodiversity
status. In addition, these NGOs are committed to working together and with governments,
international organizations, academia, and other stakeholders to refine the proposed indicators
and report in systematic fashion in the near term. Further, we are committed to helping define
and implement a research agenda that will allow a greater number of consistent, reliable
measures in the medium term. The community of organizations involved with the development
of this paper respectfully contributes the following for consideration by the global community as
a suite of scaleable indicators for measuring progress toward the 2010 target.
I. Introduction
In 2002, the world’s leaders, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), set a
target for ‘a significant reduction in the current rate of loss of biological diversity’ by the year
2010. This endorsed a previous decision by the Sixth Conference of Parties of the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) (Strategic Plan, decision VI/26), restated in the Hague Ministerial
Declaration of 14 April 2002.
The WSSD recognized the ‘critical role’ of biodiversity in ‘overall sustainable development and
poverty eradication’, and that ‘biodiversity is currently being lost at unprecedented rates due to
human activities’ (WSSD Plan of Implementation 2002). Effective biodiversity conservation is
thus fundamental to achieving the UN’s Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and in
particular to ‘ensure environmental sustainability’ (MDG Goal 7) and to ‘reverse the loss of
environmental resources’ (MDG Target 9).
Is the world making progress in achieving these targets? Unfortunately, at present we cannot tell.
This is because there is no systematic global framework for generating and interpreting data on
the loss of biodiversity.
A recent international meeting, 2010 – Global Biodiversity Challenge (21–23 May 2003),
organized by the CBD, the United Nations Environment Programme – World Conservation
Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),
included a working group which discussed measuring and reporting biodiversity loss at the
international level (working group B). Discussions in this working group, and during the wider
meeting, suggested that in order to inform decision makers and to track progress toward the 2010
target, a small set (fewer than 10) of high-level global indicators of biodiversity loss is needed.
These global indicators should:
o Meet three important criteria for effectiveness in the context of the 2010 target: 2 being
scientifically credible, legitimate, and useful in meeting policy and decision-makers’ needs;
o Provide at least three point measures between c. 1990 and 2010 to detect changes in rates;
o Cover all three levels of biodiversity (genetic, species and ecosystems, including ecosystem
function);
o Include state, pressure, and response measures;
2
Outlined at the 2010 target meeting by Walt Reid, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, who specifically mentioned
indicators of extinction risk and population sizes in this context.
November 2003. Prepared for the SBSTTA9 meeting of the CBD.
2
o
o
o
Ultimately be part of the country reporting requirements;
Be based largely on existing data
Be low cost where possible.
There is significant overlap between these criteria for global level biodiversity measures, and the
criteria put forward for indicators at both global and national levels, including:
 Criteria for selection of indicators developed by the Expert Meeting on Indicators
(UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/10, para. 33; UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/INF/7, para. 60);
 Criteria for selection of indicators noted by the meeting “2010 – The Global Biodiversity
Challenge” (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/INF/9, para. 44) and in a document produced following
the
meeting
that
explores
candidate
indicators
for
the
2010
target
(UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/INF/26, para. 14); and
 Criteria for indicator selection arising from preliminary lessons learned from the Global
Environment Facility Project on biodiversity indicators for national use
(UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/INF/19, pg. 4).
More specifically, five categories of indicators were proposed by working group B at the 2010
target meeting to measure changes in the rate of biodiversity loss (species population trends,
changes in natural habitat cover, Red List indicators, protected areas, ecosystem services). This
paper describes indicators in each of these categories. The indicators described have a tendency
to be terrestrially biased and marine and freshwater issues for monitoring global biodiversity
status need to be further addressed by this group in the future.
The meeting participants also recognized the important role played by conservation NGOs in
facilitating data collection and monitoring biodiversity loss. Some appropriate data are already
being collected globally, and with some refinement, these datasets could form the basis for at
least some of the indicators that are required. Finally, it was recognized at the meeting that
better co-ordination and collaboration among governments, international organizations, and
NGOs is needed to implement an effective global biodiversity monitoring system.
To articulate more clearly the potential contribution of NGOs, an informal NGO grouping3 at the
meeting decided to describe a set of global measures that could be developed by integrating and
enhancing ongoing work. This paper is a result of this concept, and subsequent discussions and
input by a larger number of collaborators (see list in Annex 1 to this paper). Its purpose is not to
provide a comprehensive list of indicators; rather, this paper is structured to highlight what the
conservation NGO community can contribute to efforts to monitor global biodiversity.
The indicators described in this paper are highly relevant to the CBD’s efforts to establish a
framework for measuring progress toward achieving the target of ‘a significant reduction in the
current rate of loss of biological diversity’ by the year 2010. The indicators described in section
II are particularly important to measuring progress toward this target because they represent
measures that are achievable in the near term, allowing sufficient measurements between a
baseline year and 2010 changes in the rate of biodiversity loss. This emphasis on practicality is
consistent with many of the documents before SBSTTA9 that emphasize the importance of using
BirdLife International (Leon Bennun), The Nature Conservancy (Carter Roberts), The Zoological Society of London
(Georgina Mace,), IUCN (Sue Mainka), WWF-UK (Jonathan Loh), and Conservation International (Elizabeth
Kennedy, Rebecca Livermore and Simon Stuart)
November 2003. Prepared for the SBSTTA9 meeting of the CBD.
3
available data and information systems to support indicator development and implementation, in
order to deliver information to policy makers and other stakeholders in the near term
(UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/INF/9, paras. 45, 46; UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/INF/26, paras. 4, 7).
UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/INF/27 provides useful background information on the potential role of
existing international initiatives in reporting on the 2010 target.
There is significant overlap between the indicators proposed in this document, those proposed by
the Expert Meeting on indicators, and other indicators proposed in documentation for SBSTTA9.
This overlap is demonstrated in a chart in Annex 2.
The Open-Ended Intersessional Meeting on the Multi-Year Programme of Work (MYPOW)
recommended that COP7 “establish specific targets and timeframes on progress toward the 2010
target” and “develop a framework for evaluation and progress, including indicators”
(UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/14, para. 6). This might be accomplished through a pilot phase
between COP7 and COP8 to test a limited set of indicators for their suitability and feasibility, to
be implemented by national institutes of the Parties and international organizations with relevant
data and expertise. The indicators described in this document would be good candidates for such
a pilot phase because of their practicality, their significant overlap with the large number of
indicators proposed by the CBD Expert Meeting on Indicators and in other documents before
SBSTTA9, and the substantial support for their implementation by the NGOs and other
contributors to this paper.
In addition, the indicators described in this paper will be useful for measuring progress toward
achieving the MDGs. They are especially relevant to MDG Target 9, “reversing the loss of
environmental resources,” and represent a refinement of the MDG indicators, “proportion of
land area covered by forest” and “land area protected to maintain biological diversity.”
Ecosystem services indicators in particular will help measure success in maintaining natural
ecosystem functions necessary for achieving the MDGs goals and targets on poverty, hunger,
and health. Consistency between the global biodiversity indicators used to measure progress
towards the 2010 target and those integrated into the MDG framework is desirable for the
practical reasons of data collection, reporting, and communication, but more importantly because
such consistency will help facilitate the development of a clearer picture of some of the
relationships between biodiversity and sustainable development.
II. Proposed indicators for measuring biodiversity status
based on existing datasets
This section describes six indicators at the species to ecosystem scales for which conservation
NGOs can immediately contribute data. Indicators for biodiversity at the genetic scale are not
included in this paper. There is a terrestrial bias in the described indicators and additional work
needs to be done to refine this set of measures in order to fully address marine and freshwater
issues. Following brief descriptions, recommended actions for refining indicators are provided.
Each indicator described below has individual strengths and weaknesses, but as a set they can
provide a reliable picture of trends in global biodiversity, and are also useful at the national and
site levels. Very importantly, the testing and refining of methods of data collection and analysis,
and the generation of new data will greatly improve efficacy and rigor of these indicators,
strengthening our ability to assess changes in the rate of biodiversity loss into the future.
November 2003. Prepared for the SBSTTA9 meeting of the CBD.
4
A. Species population trends
A wide range of organizations around the world monitor populations of particular species
(mainly animals, especially commercially important species). Population trends across a set of
species can be combined into a single index (sometimes called a ‘Species Assemblage Trend
Index’, or SATI). Two existing examples are the Living Planet Index,4 the most recent of which
uses data on 730 separate populations of species from forest, freshwater and marine ecosystems;
and the Pan-European Common Birds Index (BirdLife International and European Bird Census
Council) which combines counts across Europe of 24 farmland and 24 woodland bird species.
Strengths
Limitations
 A representative set of species can
 Good long-term population estimates
provide a good indication of overall
exist for only a relatively small set of
environmental sustainability (e.g.,
species
decline in common and widespread bird  It is not easy to define a representative
species in Europe with intensification
set of species. Available population
of land-use, and decline in stocks for
trend data for species are biased
many commercially important fish
geographically (e.g., more monitoring
species with over fishing)
in developed countries), taxonomically
 Understandable
(e.g., more monitoring of bird and
 High relevance to users
mammals) and in other ways (focusing
 Data can often be collected relatively
on, for example, commercially
inexpensively by volunteers
important, charismatic, common or
threatened species). Further, it is
difficult to incorporate very rare, low
density or remote populations in
population trend indices, further
extending the potential for bias.
Achieving fully representative coverage
(both geographic and taxonomic) is
difficult at best, and may be
impractical.
 Populations fluctuate naturally (though
including many species and long timeseries in the index helps to reduce this
problem)
Species Assemblage Trend Index
This indicator uses species abundance data to measure species population trends. Using
population time series data, a set of focal indices can be developed to track certain classes of
species (e.g., commercially important or migratory species). Where desired, these indices might
be aggregated to derive an overarching index that would ultimately be less sensitive to change
than the individual targeted indices. Work is moving forward on amphibian, shark and other fish
time series data in addition to the work on birds and the Living Planet Index.
4
Loh, J., et.al. (2000, 2001, 2002) Living Planet Report, WWF International
November 2003. Prepared for the SBSTTA9 meeting of the CBD.
5
Data and indicator development needs: To produce a meaningful global indicator, careful
consideration needs to be given to the species included and how their estimates are weighted. For
example, by breaking the index down by region and by broad ecosystem type. In the future,
extending population counts selectively to include a key set of ‘missing’ groups or habitats could
refine the index. The selection of species for SATIs has substantial biases. Greater attention
needs to be given to developing the data, expertise and organizations that can support inclusion
of a broader taxonomic sampling into global biodiversity monitoring efforts. As we develop
these global indices we have an opportunity to identify gaps in our ability to monitor biodiversity
as well as articulate the need to fill these gaps on a global basis.
B. Red List
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species is widely recognized as the world's most objective
and authoritative listing of species that are globally at risk of extinction. Placing a species in one
of the categories on the IUCN Red List involves a careful assessment of information against a set
of objective, standard criteria. Over the last few years, the IUCN Red List has been developing
into a global program to monitor the extent and rate of biodiversity degradation, both through
documentation of risk of extinction for individual taxa as well as through development of
indicators. The program is currently implemented by four partner organizations: the IUCN
Species Survival Commission, BirdLife International, NatureServe and the Center for Applied
Biodiversity Science (CABS) at Conservation International. Additional Partners are being
recruited, in particular to provide plant expertise.
The 2003 Red List (http://www.redlist.org/) includes assessments and re-assessments for more
than 23,000 taxa of mammals, birds, most trees and others (including sharks, Asian freshwater
turtles, mollusks, mosses, carnivorous plants and plants from several biodiversity ‘hotspots’) and
will be available online as of 18 November 2003. A major global assessment of amphibians is
nearing completion. A strategy is in place to assess a larger, more representative set of species
with an emphasis on improving the balance of marine, freshwater and terrestrial species in the
future. In addition to the individual taxa assessment process there are regular analyses of global
trends undertaken at approximately four-year intervals to coincide with the World Conservation
Congress.
Strengths
 Easily understandable
 Based on authoritative assessments that
are derived from recorded information
on population and threat
 High relevance to the users
 Transparency of the assessment process
(availability of documentation)
Limitations
 Relatively long lag time
 Covers a small and unrepresentative set
of taxa, and expanding the sample is
costly
 Does not well reflect trends among
‘Least Concern’ species — those that
are not yet immediately threatened
A sub-group of the IUCN Red List Committee is working to develop a Red List indicator based
on the Red List assessments, and the prototypes are now being tested on some well-documented
taxa. This indicator will be based on two broad classes of data. One (non-sampled) is based on
the Red List assessments of all taxa for groups, such as birds, in which all species have been
assessed more than once. The strength of this indicator is that data for one group (birds) extends
back to 1988. However, the number of completely assessed groups is currently limited: by 2010
November 2003. Prepared for the SBSTTA9 meeting of the CBD.
6
data will be available only for birds, mammals, and possibly amphibians. To address this
taxonomic bias, the second (sampled) indicator is under development. This is based on a
representative sample across all major taxa, stratified according to significant parameters such as
broad biome, region, taxonomic group (e.g., phylum) and Red List category. This suite of
species would be regularly reassessed, and overall changes in status could be taken to be
representative of wider biodiversity.
i. IUCN Red List indicator
This IUCN Red List indicator uses the Red List data to measure the frequency with which
species move across the threat categories. Changes in this indicator reflect step-wise changes in
the numbers of species in the different categories; a species moving from Least Concern to Near
Threatened contributes just as much to the changing score as a species moving from Endangered
to Critically Endangered.
Data and indicator development needs: We note that while the Red List Indicator process is
moving rapidly the indicators are still in the development phase. For well-known species such as
birds and mammals, much of the data is already available to implement the sampled and nonsampled data sets. Work is currently underway to make final decisions on Red List Indicator
methodology such as rules for identifying genuine versus non-genuine changes in categories.
For the sampled approach, the sampling strategy and species selection criteria are currently being
developed. Gaps in the present data are being identified and strategies being developed to ensure
that underrepresented groups receive greater coverage.
C. Natural habitat cover
Reduction and fragmentation of natural habitat cover may result in a reduction in ecosystem
diversity and are directly related to the loss of species and ecosystem services. 5 Over time,
changes in habitat cover can be measured by comparing satellite images and other remote
sensing analyses, which are classified by habitat type (e.g. humid forest, savanna, etc.). This
method makes it possible to generate at comparatively low cost a detailed picture of habitat
change across large areas. Estimates of changes in forest cover are already being assessed
globally by the Food and Agriculture Organization (Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000 6).
Conservation International is developing habitat monitoring based on MODIS 7 and 30-m
Landsat8 images for biodiversity hotspots and wilderness areas. Similarly WCS has conducted a
5
Human Development Report 2003, pg. 125, paragraph 2; Mooney and Cropper (Co-chairs). (2003). Ecosystems
and Human Well-Being: A framework for Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC.
6
FRA 2000 Assessing State and Change in Global Forest Cover: 2000 and Beyond. Forest Resources Assessment
Programme. Working Paper 31. Rome: FAO.
7
MODIS (or Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) is a key instrument aboard the Terra (EOS AM) and
Aqua (EOS PM) satellites. Terra's orbit around the Earth is timed so that it passes from north to south across the
equator in the morning, while Aqua passes south to north over the equator in the afternoon. Terra MODIS and Aqua
MODIS are viewing the entire Earth's surface every 1 to 2 days, acquiring data in 36 spectral bands, or groups of
wavelengths (see http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/about/index.html).
8
Landsat 7 is a U.S. satellite used to acquire remotely sensed images of the Earth’s land surface and surrounding
coastal regions. A recent anomaly of the satellite operation is presently being investigated. The Landsat 7 Project
has received authorization to attempt recovery of the scan line corrector that failed on May 31, 2003 (see
http://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/).
November 2003. Prepared for the SBSTTA9 meeting of the CBD.
7
human footprint analysis9 and The Nature Conservancy has conducted land cover analyses for
many regions and is embarking on a collaborative effort with other NGOs in assessing land
cover status of major habitat types globally to help determine conservation status.
Strengths
 Relatively inexpensive (as compared to
establishing an on-the-ground survey
method for determining habitat
coverage)
 Understandable
 Coverage can be truly global
 Direct link to MDG indicator
(proportion of land area covered by
forest)
 High relevance to users
Limitations
 At present, remotely sensed imagery
can only be used reliably to
differentiate a few land cover types.
Need to expand land cover
classification types and techniques,
particularly for non-forest habitats
 Lack of standardized techniques for
interpretation.
 Acquisition of quality remotely sensed
imagery is problematic in some regions
due to persistent cloud cover.
 Very difficult to apply to most aquatic
systems (except coral reefs)
 Does not necessarily detect habitat
degradation (not involving outright
loss)
A range of other measures can be calculated for specific sites where more detail is needed or
useful. We propose the following indicators.
i. Percent natural habitat cover indicator
This indicator uses remotely sensed imagery to measure changes in habitat cover over time. For
a defined habitat cover type, measuring the area for a described site will generate trend data for
percent of natural habitat loss over time. This indicator can permit tracking remaining habitat
area against a defined limit or threshold.
ii. Rate of natural habitat loss indicator
This indicator (a pressure indicator) can be calculated from the Percent Natural Habitat Cover
Indicator and the rate of habitat loss at the site compared to present rate for similar or
surrounding areas. Assessment of rates of change will signal if habitat loss is occurring more or
less quickly over time, and can provide a relative comparison among regions.
iii. Natural habitat fragmentation indicators
We propose to measure patch size distribution and distance to edge distribution.10 These
measures are useful in predicting the likely presence of associated area-sensitive or habitat
specific species (e.g., forest obligates), the potential for species invasions, and the likelihood that
ecological processes remain intact. WWF and WCMC measured forest fragmentation using
Sanderson EW, Jaiteh M., Levy MA, Redford KH, Wannebo AV, and Woolmer G. (2002) “The Human
Footprint and the Last of the Wild.” Bioscience 52 (10) 891-904.
10
A more complete set of fragmentation statistics can be developed and would include spatial indices of shape and
size, proximity and isolation, connectivity, and diversity of classes of land cover types.
9
November 2003. Prepared for the SBSTTA9 meeting of the CBD.
8
global forest cover data c. 1990 which might serve as a rudimentary baseline for the
fragmentation statistics (Living Planet Index, 1998).
Data and indicator development needs: Across the different organizations involved, and
especially for non-forest habitats, there is a need to establish standardized classification and
interpretation techniques to ensure that data are comparable. The primary requirement is an
agreed simple, standardized habitat classification system that can form a minimum description of
habitat types (e.g., forests, savannahs, deserts, grasslands, freshwater, and coastal marine
systems). Not all biomes are being monitored globally, especially marine and freshwater
habitats. Further, we need improved techniques for characterizing fragmentation in each of the
habitat types. Freshwater habitat fragmentation issues can be dealt with by tracking major
watershed quality based on land cover coupled with information on dam and flow alterations.
Coral bleaching events could be used as an indicator of reef condition.
D. Protected areas
Article 8(a) of the Convention on Biological Diversity enjoins parties to ‘establish a system of
protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological
diversity'. IUCN defines a protected area as ‘An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to
the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural
resources, and managed through legal or other effective means’.11 IUCN further recognises six
classes of protected areas with management ranging from strict protection to sustainable use of
natural ecosystems. A global list of protected areas in these six classes is maintained in the
World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) managed by IUCN and UNEP-WCMC and
currently being re-structured and updated through the efforts of the WDPA consortium.12
Strengths
 Understandable
 Potentially global coverage
 Direct link to MDG indicator (land area
protected to maintain biological
diversity)
 High relevance to users
Limitations
 An indicator based only on the total
area designated, without measures of
management effectiveness or the
biogeographical context, may be
misleading because the IUCN 1-6
categories are not hierarchical (see data
and indicator development needs
below)
 Depends on national authorities
keeping the WDPA updated: at present,
lags are often long
The CBD definition of a protected area is, “a geographically defined area which is designated or regulated and
managed to achieve specific conservation objectives” (Article 2).
12
BirdLife International (BI), Conservation International (CI), Fauna & Flora International (FFI), The Nature
Conservancy (TNC), United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEPWCMC), The World Resources Institute (WRI), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), World Wildlife Fund
(WWF) and Conservation Biology Institute are active members of the WDPS consortium working to update and
improve the quality and accessibility of protected areas data.
11
November 2003. Prepared for the SBSTTA9 meeting of the CBD.
9
i. Protected area coverage indicator
Indicators to track protected area coverage should include actual area in hectares (overall and by
IUCN category), and percent of total available habitat that falls under any protected area
designation.
Data and indicator development needs: Many concerns exist over the inconsistent quality and
frequency of data reporting on protected areas worldwide. Further, the lack of management
effectiveness measures associated with protected area information challenges the assumption that
protection indeed exists for species, ecosystems, and major habitat types globally. The NGO
community needs to work with government institutions and other partner organizations in
providing timely and relevant data. Use of this information can also be improved, not only for
tracking global targets, but also for adaptive management of protected area systems and sites.
Further, private lands protection and other forms of conservation are increasingly contributing to
biodiversity conservation targets and need to be integrated effectively into the WDPA. The
consortium managing the WDPA should work to strengthen the existing database and expand its
applicability to deliver data important to adaptive management at site, system and global scales.
Additional information, for example, data on capacity or protected area funding, might also be
integrated into the WDPA to better track resource needs for protected area strengthening.
III. Recommended indicators to be developed
While the proposed indicators represent what we think is a good start based on existing data and
methods, additional indicators will be required in order to improve our understanding of
biodiversity loss.
A. Protected areas
We acknowledge that the protected area coverage indicator must be complemented by measures
of protected area management effectiveness and protected area distribution in relation to
biodiversity features. To optimize conservation outcomes, designation of protected areas should
be a response to the pressures on biodiversity, however this was not the case for most of the
protected areas established prior to the 1970s. Using the results of a recent global gap analysis, 13
and assessing the total extent of protected areas (which can be broken down by region and
habitat, and by IUCN class) thus could provide a straightforward response indicator for global
biodiversity into the future. There are other important aspects of the response, however. These
include management effectiveness (are sites really protecting biodiversity as intended?), a
measure of how well protected area systems cover particular ecoregions (biogeographical units),
and a measure of how well they incorporate ‘key biodiversity areas’ (sites that are internationally
recognized for the important biodiversity they contain).
A vast array of policies governing actions ranging from trade and economic development at the
international level to fisheries quotas at the level of a community-managed reserve have
significant implications for the status of biodiversity. Further response measures might come
13
Rodrigues, et.al. (2000) Global gap analysis: Towards a representative network of protected areas. Advances in
Applied Biodiversity Science 5. Washington, DC, Conservation International. Full report can be downloaded from
http://www.biodiversitysience.org/ (under Publications>In-house Publications>AABS)
November 2003. Prepared for the SBSTTA9 meeting of the CBD.
10
from an evaluation of national policy frameworks for protected areas and more broadly for
conservation.
Thus we recommend four additional indicator types: management effectiveness, protected area
network distribution relative to distribution of biodiversity characteristics, a national protected
area policy checklist, and a national biodiversity legislation checklist.
i. Management effectiveness indicators
Methodologies for measuring management effectiveness have been proposed14 but are not yet
widely agreed or used. There are ongoing discussions on how to establish global methods to
monitor protected area management effectiveness.
ii. Protected area network distribution relative to distribution of biodiversity
characteristics
Assuming the WDPA is updated and refined as planned, and governments continue to contribute
the appropriate information, then tracking the total extent of Protected Areas designated (and
their relationship to ecoregions and key biodiversity areas) should be achievable. For example, a
recent global gap analysis15 provided an initial overview of the effectiveness of the worldwide
network of protected areas in covering species in several major taxonomic groups and revealed
that more than 1,000 species are not protected in any part of their range (with ~ 700 of those
species threatened with extinction). We should build from this and similar analyses. Useful
complimentary analyses might include underrepresented habitat types.
iii. National protected area policy checklist
As protected areas are the most well tested, and arguably the most effective, action for
conserving biodiversity, we propose a National Protected Areas Policy Checklist as a tractable
and representative measure of national level commitments to curbing biodiversity loss. This
indicator is in the form of a “checklist” of steps that we believe are fundamental for the
establishment and management of effective protected area systems. It complements the
proposed indicators for measuring protected area coverage, management effectiveness, and
placement with respect to biodiversity features.
Possible questions to address in such a checklist include:
o Is the protected area system representative of the diversity of ecosystems, communities,
and species within the nation's boundaries?
o Is it based on quantitative goals set for representing that biodiversity?
o Does the protected area system represent the terrestrial, freshwater, and (if appropriate)
marine biodiversity?
o Where biomes, ecological systems, and species ranges cross national political boundaries,
have governments cooperated in goal setting and collaborative conservation for these
biodiversity elements?
o Does the protected area system capture irreplaceable sites?
14
Stolton et al. 2002 for WWF and the World Bank and Hockings et al. 2000 for IUCN.
Rodrigues, et.al. (2000) Global gap analysis: Towards a representative network of protected areas. Advances in
Applied Biodiversity Science 5. Washington, DC, Conservation International. Full report can be downloaded from
http://www.biodiversitysience.org/ (under Publications>In-house Publications>AABS)
15
November 2003. Prepared for the SBSTTA9 meeting of the CBD.
11
o Does the protected area system consider and include appropriate corridors and levels of
connectivity for wide ranging species, and gene flow across the landscape?
o Is a management effectiveness monitoring system in place to measure context, inputs,
process, outputs, and outcomes?
o Do protected area authorities have the final voice about all resource use, including
permits for logging, mining etc?
o Does the protected area system have a sustainable financing plan?
o Has the protected area system been designed appropriately based on its socioeconomic
context?
o Has the protected area system been designed with local community and other stakeholder
participation?
This indicator should be informed by the proceedings of the World Parks Congress and the
programme of work on protected areas to be established by governments at the Seventh
Conference of the Parties to the CBD in February 2004.
iv. National biodiversity legislation checklist
It is widely accepted that particular regulatory and legislative frameworks are important in
achieving biodiversity conservation. Thus, noting the presence (or absence) of key legislation or
legislative tools that are in place nationally to support biodiversity conservation provides a useful
measure of the status of enabling policy conditions. Recent analysis of 114 legislative tools 16
across 27 tropical high biodiversity countries resulted in the following list of 20 key laws or
legislative tools that could potentially be used in a national biodiversity legislation indicator.
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
vii)
viii)
ix)
x)
xi)
xii)
xiii)
xiv)
xv)
xvi)
xvii)
xviii)
xix)
xx)
16
Classification of lands as protected areas and forest reserves
Promotion of mechanisms for the creation of protected areas
Development of a national system of protected areas
Creation of protected areas of the maximum possible size
Protected areas’ core area maximized
Management plan required for any activity with negative impacts on biodiversity
Adequate funding for park system, including enforcement activities, ensured
Establishment of buffer zones around protected areas
Only “certain” activities allowed within buffer zones
Prohibition to set burns in forest terrains and surroundings
Distance requirements to set up fires near forest areas
Prohibition to introduce chemicals within forest domains or watercourses
Obligation to use chemicals in an environmentally benign manner
Prohibition to introduce / propagate nonnative species that damage wildlife
Inclusion of biological corridors as a management category
Creation of biological corridors to connect fragmented habitats
Management plans, EIAs, and permit required for any forest exploitation
Establishment of general criteria and principles on forest management
Prohibition of deforestation and illegal exploitation
Prohibition to exploit or fell any protected tree
Asquith N. and C. Gascon (2003) personal communication.
November 2003. Prepared for the SBSTTA9 meeting of the CBD.
12
B. Ecosystem services
Ecosystem services are highly relevant to the Millennium Development Goals and their
indicators. We recognize that the results of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment will help
define a framework within which to develop indicators. We already have some proxies from the
UNDP Human Development Index (e.g., availability of freshwater, catch per unit effort of
fisheries). These indicators have the most obvious relevance to the persistence of life on earth
for both human and non-human species.
i. Sentinel services indicator
Define sentinel services and establish a systematic method for aggregating datasets at the
regional and global levels (e.g., a network of data providers). Some suggestions for services to
include as part of this indicator are:
o net primary production
o sedimentation at major river mouths
o water quality
o net mining of soil nutrients
o carbon storage
o fisheries production
o amount of water impounded
o water stress index
o volume and reliability of stream flow
o pesticide application per kilometer squared
o climate regulation
o protection from storm damage (provided by reefs, seagrass beds, salt marshes, etc.)
November 2003. Prepared for the SBSTTA9 meeting of the CBD.
13
Annex 1. List of contributing authors and reviewers
Name
Organization
Jonathan Baillie
London Institute of Zoology
Andrew Balmford
University of Cambridge
Leon Bennun
BirdLife
Thomas Brooks
CI
Sara Christiansen
WWF
Sheldon Cohen
TNC
Randy Curtis
TNC
Gustavo Fonseca
CI
Marc Hockings
IUCN
Peter Herkenrath
Birdlife
Elizabeth Kennedy CI
Ann Koontz
EWW
Rebecca Livermore CI
Johnathan Loh
WWF
Georgina Mace
London Institute of Zoology
Susan Mainka
IUCN
Richard Margoluis Foundations of Success
Brad Northrup
TNC
Sheila O'Connor
WWF
Jeffrey Parrish
TNC
John Pilgrim
CI
Kent Redford
WCS
Walter Reid
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Taylor Ricketts
WWF
Konrad Ritter
TNC
Carter Roberts
TNC
Nick Salafsky
Foundations of Success
Dan Salzar
TNC
Sanjayan Muttinglam TNC
Marc Steininger
CI
Eleanor Sterling
American Museum of Natural History
Simon Stuart
IUCN
Harry Van der Linde AWF
John Waugh
IUCN
Stacy Vynne
CI
David Wilkie
WCS
Email
Jonathan.baillie@ioz.ac.uk
apb12@hermes.com.ac.uk
Leon.bennun@birdlife.org.uk
t.brooks@conservation.org
sarah.christiansen@wwfus.org
scohen@tnc.org
rcurtis@tnc.org
g.fonseca@conservation.org
m.hockings@mailbox.uq.edu.au
Peter.herkenrath@bl.org.uk
e.kennedy@conservation.org
AnnKoontz@aol.com
r.livermore@conservation.org
jonathan@jloh.vispa.com
georgina.Mace@ioz.ac.uk
SAM@hq.iucn.org
Richard@fosonline.org
bnorthrup@tnc.org
soconnor@wwfint.org
jparrish@tnc.org
j.pilgrim@conservation.org
KHRedford@aol.com
reid@millenniumassessment.org
Taylor.Ricketts@WWFUS.ORG
kritter@tnc.org
croberts@tnc.org
Nick@FOSonline.org
d.salzar@tnc.org
msanjayan@tnc.org
m.steininger@conservation.org
sterling@mail.amnh.org
s.stuart@conservation.org
hvanderlinde@awf.org
jwaugh@iucnus.org
s.vynne@conservation.org
dwilkie@wcs.org
We would also like to thank Jeremy Harrison, Ben ten Brink, and Robert Höft for their helpful
comments.
November 2003. Prepared for the SBSTTA9 meeting of the CBD.
14
Annex 2. Overlap between indicators proposed in this paper and those proposed in other SBSTTA9 documents.
Indicator Indicator CBD
category (italics =
objective
"to be
developed"
)
Pressure/
State/
Response/
Use
Biodivers Aggre SBSTTA/9/14,
ity Level gation "Integration of outcomeoriented targets…"
POSSIBLE TARGETS
and (POTENTIAL
INDICATORS)
SBSTTA/9/INF/26,
"Proposed
biodiversity
indicators…"
PROPOSED
INDICATORS
SBSTTA/9/10, National
Level Monitoring and
Indicators
INDICATIVE LIST OF
SUITABLE INDICATORS
(single and composite)
Species Species
conservation + state
Populatio Population sustainable use
n Trends Trend
Index
species compo Rate of decline of particular trends in species
Trends of set of species:
(groups) site
species reduced (2.1)
abundance (2)
representative of the
(species assemblage indices, trends in community ecosystem, part of a particular
living plant index)
abundance (3-6)
taxonomic group, exploited
species assemblage species, endemic species,
trend index (22)
species of cultural interest,
migratory species, waterfowl,
etc. (p. 31)
Species Assemblage Trend
Indices (p. 34).
Red List IUCN Red conservation
List
Indicator
species
state
compo Rate of decline of particular trends in species
Trends of set of Red List
site
species reduced; halt in the abundance: Red List Species (p. 31).
increase in the number of (8)
Red list indicators on species
species at risk (2.1) (number Red List indicator groups (p. 34)
of threatened species as
(25)
percentage of those
assessed)
November 2003. Prepared for the SBSTTA9 meeting of the CBD.
Global Strategy for SBSTTA/9/10, National Level Monitoring
Plant Conservation and Indicators
(Decision VI/9)
INDICATORS IN USE PER RESPONSE
TARGETS
TO CBD QUESTIONNAIRE (# of countries
using indicator out of 52 responding
Parties)
A preliminary
assessment of the
conservation status
of all known plant
species, at national,
regional and
international levels
(ii)
No species of wild
flora endangered by
international trade
(xi)
Population growth and fluctuation trends of
special interest species (23)
Temporal change in number of species
(increase/decrease) (21)
Species with decreasing populations (25)
Species with stable or increasing populations
(20)
Absolute and relative abundance, density,
basal area, cover, of various species (27)
Number of forest dependent species whose
populations are declining (17)
Population levels of representative species
from diverse habitats monitored across their
range (13)
Changes in the distribution and abundance of
native flora and fauna (17)
Number of
endemic/threatened/endangered/vulnerable
species by group (31)
Species threatened with extinction (number or
percent) (28)
Endemic species threatened with extinction
(28)
Species risk index (9)
Number of extinct, endangered, threatened,
vulnerable and endemic forest-dependent
species by group (e.g. birds, mammals,
vertebrates, invertebrates) (30)
Threatened freshwater fish species as a
percentage total freshwater fish species known
(20)
Threatened fish species as a percentage of total
fish species known (17)
15
Annex 2. Overlap between indicators proposed in this paper and those proposed in other SBSTTA9 documents.
Indicator Indicator CBD
category (italics =
objective
"to be
developed"
)
Pressure/
State/
Response/
Use
Biodivers Aggre SBSTTA/9/14,
ity Level gation "Integration of outcomeoriented targets…"
POSSIBLE TARGETS
and (POTENTIAL
INDICATORS)
Natural
Habitat
Cover
state
Percent of conservation
Natural
Habitat
Lost
Rate of
Natural
Habitat
Loss
conservation + pressure
sustainable use
conservation
Natural
Habitat
Fragmentat
ion
state
SBSTTA/9/10, National
Level Monitoring and
Indicators
INDICATIVE LIST OF
SUITABLE INDICATORS
(single and composite)
Global Strategy for SBSTTA/9/10, National Level Monitoring
Plant Conservation and Indicators
(Decision VI/9)
INDICATORS IN USE PER RESPONSE
TARGETS
TO CBD QUESTIONNAIRE (# of countries
using indicator out of 52 responding
Parties)
ecosyste single Rate of natural habitats
size of ecosystem
m
decreased (1.1) (forest
type (1)
cover; status of coral reefs;
existence of other natural
habitats; land-use change)
Trends of set of structural
variables which is
representative of the
ecosystem (p. 31).
Annual conversion of selfgenerating area as % of
remaining area: disturbance,
habitat alteration (p.32).
ecosyste single For selected areas of
threats to
m
importance to biodiversity, biodiversity/single
rate of loss and/or
pressures (11)
restoration (1.1) (forest
cover; status of coral reefs;
existence of other natural
habitats; land-use change)
Trends of set of structural
variables which is
representative of the
ecosystem (p. 31).
Annual conversion of selfgenerating area as % of
remaining area: disturbance,
habitat alteration (p.32).
ecosyste single
m
Trends of set of structural
variables which is
representative of the
ecosystem (p. 31).Annual
conversion of self-generating
area as % of remaining area:
fragmentation (p.32).
At least 10% of each Change in habitat boundaries (17)
of the world's
Changes in largest block of a particular habitat
ecological regions type (10)
effectively
Total forest area (45)
conserved (iv)
Total forest area as a percentage of total land
area (43)
Percentage of forest cover by forest type (38)
Forest area change by forest type (30)
Change in land use, conversion of forest land
to other land uses (deforestation rate) (27)
Area and percentage of forest area affected by
anthropogenic effects (logging, harvesting for
subsistence) (27)
Forest conversion affecting rare ecosystems by
area (9)
Change in habitat boundaries (17)
Changes in largest block of a particular habitat
type (10)
Total forest area (45)
Total forest area as a percentage of total land
area (43)
Percentage of forest cover by forest type (38)
Forest area change by forest type (30)
Change in land use, conversion of forest land
to other land uses (deforestation rate) (27)
Area and percentage of forest area affected by
anthropogenic effects (logging, harvesting for
subsistence) (27)
Forest conversion affecting rare ecosystems by
area (9)
Fragmentation of forests (17)
November 2003. Prepared for the SBSTTA9 meeting of the CBD.
SBSTTA/9/INF/26,
"Proposed
biodiversity
indicators…"
PROPOSED
INDICATORS
16
Annex 2. Overlap between indicators proposed in this paper and those proposed in other SBSTTA9 documents.
Indicator Indicator CBD
category (italics =
objective
"to be
developed"
)
Pressure/
State/
Response/
Use
Biodivers Aggre SBSTTA/9/14,
ity Level gation "Integration of outcomeoriented targets…"
POSSIBLE TARGETS
and (POTENTIAL
INDICATORS)
Protected Protected
Area
Area
Coverage
response
ecosyste single Percent of the world's
Response: protected
m
ecological regions
areas (16)
effectively conserved (1.2)
(percent of each biome or
ecoregion under protected
areas; Inclusion of hotspots,
Important Bird Areas,
Important Plant areas etc;
size/connectivity of
protected areas)
ecosyste compo Pathways for potential alien
m
site
invasive species controlled;
Management plans in place
for at least 100 major alien
species that threaten
ecosystems, habitats or
species (4.2) (Legal
frameworks in place and
status of implementation,
numbers and descriptions of
management plans)
conservation
Protected conservation + response
sustainable use
Area
Manageme + benefit
sharing
nt
Effectivenes
s
November 2003. Prepared for the SBSTTA9 meeting of the CBD.
SBSTTA/9/INF/26,
"Proposed
biodiversity
indicators…"
PROPOSED
INDICATORS
SBSTTA/9/10, National
Level Monitoring and
Indicators
INDICATIVE LIST OF
SUITABLE INDICATORS
(single and composite)
Global Strategy for SBSTTA/9/10, National Level Monitoring
Plant Conservation and Indicators
(Decision VI/9)
INDICATORS IN USE PER RESPONSE
TARGETS
TO CBD QUESTIONNAIRE (# of countries
using indicator out of 52 responding
Parties)
At least 10% of each Total area of protected areas (use IUCN
of the world's
definition of protected areas) (38)
ecological regions Size and distribution of protected areas (37)
effectively
Percentage of protected area of total forest area
conserved (iv)
(36)
Percentage forest protected areas (by forest
type, age, class, successional stage) (21)
Number of protected areas
Development of
with management plan (p. 33). models with
Effectiveness of area
protocols for plant
protection, effectiveness of site conservation and
management (p. 34).
sustainable use,
based on research
and practical
experience (iii)
Management plans
in place for at least
100 major alien
species that threaten
plants, plant
communities and
associated habitats
and ecosystems (x)
17
Annex 2. Overlap between indicators proposed in this paper and those proposed in other SBSTTA9 documents.
Indicator Indicator CBD
category (italics =
objective
"to be
developed"
)
Protected conservation
Area
Network
Distribution
Relative to
Distribution
of
Biodiversity
Characterist
ics
Ecosyste Sentinel
m
Services
Services
Pressure/
State/
Response/
Use
Biodivers Aggre SBSTTA/9/14,
ity Level gation "Integration of outcomeoriented targets…"
POSSIBLE TARGETS
and (POTENTIAL
INDICATORS)
response
species + compo Percent of the world's
ecosyste site
ecological regions
m
effectively conserved (1.2)
(percent of each biome or
ecoregion under protected
areas; Inclusion of hotspots,
Important Bird Areas,
Important Plant areas etc;
size/connectivity of
protected areas)
Areas of particular
importance to biodiversity
protected (1.3) (Status of
Important Bird Areas,
Status of Important plant
areas, Status of "hotspots")
Percent of threatened
species of suitably
documented taxonomic
groups conserved in situ
(2.2) (percentage of
threatened species
conserved in situ by
taxonomic group)
ecosyste single Improved water quality of
m
seas and waterways (6.1)
(water quality;
eutrophication events;
episodic events - fish kill,
algal blooms etc; N
deposition)Reduce
greenhouse gas emissions
according to targets set
within the framework of
UNFCCC [biological
carbon sequestration] (6.2a)
(GHG emissions)Maintain
capacity of ecosystems to
deliver goods and services
(7) (production of food,
fibre, including fisheries;
flood control; protection
against erosion)
conservation + state/use
sustainable use
November 2003. Prepared for the SBSTTA9 meeting of the CBD.
SBSTTA/9/INF/26,
"Proposed
biodiversity
indicators…"
PROPOSED
INDICATORS
SBSTTA/9/10, National
Level Monitoring and
Indicators
INDICATIVE LIST OF
SUITABLE INDICATORS
(single and composite)
Global Strategy for SBSTTA/9/10, National Level Monitoring
Plant Conservation and Indicators
(Decision VI/9)
INDICATORS IN USE PER RESPONSE
TARGETS
TO CBD QUESTIONNAIRE (# of countries
using indicator out of 52 responding
Parties)
At least 10% of each Size and distribution of protected areas (37)
of the world's
ecological regions
effectively
conserved (iv)
Protection of 50% of
the most important
areas for plant
diversity secured (v)
60% of the world's
threatened [plant]
species conserved in
situ (vii)
threats to
biodiversity:
acidification and
eutrophication of
terrestrial
ecosystems,
eutrophication and
nitrogen load in
rivers
(13,14)services of
biodiversity: carbon
sequestration per
ecosystem type, soil
stability and
suspended solids in
rivers, river flow
characteristics/flood
s and drought
(17,18, 20, 21)
Estimate of carbon stored (18)Soil quality
(31)Surface water quality (33)Ground water
quality (30)Biological oxygen demand (BOD)
on water bodies (eutrophication) (29)Stream
sediment storage and load (14)Escherichia coli
counts and nutrient levels as % of baseline
levels (17)Lake levels and salinity (15)
18
Annex 2. Overlap between indicators proposed in this paper and those proposed in other SBSTTA9 documents.
Indicator Indicator CBD
category (italics =
objective
"to be
developed"
)
Biodivers National
ity Policy Protected
Area
Checklist
National
Biodiversity
Legislation
Checklist
Pressure/
State/
Response/
Use
Biodivers Aggre SBSTTA/9/14,
ity Level gation "Integration of outcomeoriented targets…"
POSSIBLE TARGETS
and (POTENTIAL
INDICATORS)
conservation + response
sustainable use
+ benefit
sharing
--
compo Pathways for potential alien
site
invasive species controlled;
Management plans in place
for at least 100 major alien
species that threaten
ecosystems, habitats or
species (4.2) (Legal
frameworks in place and
status of implementation,
numbers and descriptions of
management plans)
conservation + response
sustainable use
+ benefit
sharing
--
compo Pathways for potential alien
site
invasive species controlled;
Management plans in place
for at least 100 major alien
species that threaten
ecosystems, habitats or
species (4.2) (Legal
frameworks in place and
status of implementation,
numbers and descriptions of
management plans)
SBSTTA/9/INF/26,
"Proposed
biodiversity
indicators…"
PROPOSED
INDICATORS
SBSTTA/9/10, National
Level Monitoring and
Indicators
INDICATIVE LIST OF
SUITABLE INDICATORS
(single and composite)
Global Strategy for SBSTTA/9/10, National Level Monitoring
Plant Conservation and Indicators
(Decision VI/9)
INDICATORS IN USE PER RESPONSE
TARGETS
TO CBD QUESTIONNAIRE (# of countries
using indicator out of 52 responding
Parties)
NBSAP objectives met (p. 33). Development of
models with
protocols for plant
conservation and
sustainable use,
based on research
and practical
experience (a.iii)
Management plans
in place for at least
100 major alien
species that threaten
plants, plant
communities and
associated habitats
and ecosystems (x)
NBSAP objectives met (p. 33). Development of
models with
protocols for plant
conservation and
sustainable use,
based on research
and practical
experience (a.iii)
Management plans
in place for at least
100 major alien
species that threaten
plants, plant
communities and
associated habitats
and ecosystems (x)
No species of wild
flora endangered by
international trade
(xi)
Existence of the institutional capacity, policy
and regulatory framework for the planning,
management and conservation of biological
diversity (28).
*Chart does
not
specifically
address
Marine and
Freshwater
November 2003. Prepared for the SBSTTA9 meeting of the CBD.
19