Pantropic Analysis of the
Functional Value of Biodiversity
Phase I
Final Draft Report
(version 2)
Kate Sebastian1
Stanley Wood2
Report produced as the final Phase I output of the Project “Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis” undertaken through a partnership of the World Bank (DECRG) and the ASB
(Alternatives to Slash and Burn) Consortium of CGIAR-affiliated research organizations and
their local partners and funded in part by the Bank Netherlands Partnership Programme (BNPP).
1
2
GIS Analyst/Consultant
Senior Scientist, International Food Policy Research Institute
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
BNPP Project
Pantropic Analysis of the Functional Value of Biodiversity
The primary objective of the BNPP Project is to look at the means, at various scales, of
assessing the functional contribution of biodiversity conservation to rural livelihoods.
The operational focus is on locating those areas where one might expect to find synergies
between conservation efforts and hydrological benefits for local populations.
The project goals comprise 1) to critically review existing and available global
datasets that could be used to identify the extent of a pantropical area of biodiversity
interest (or ‘Focus Area’); 2) to map and analyze the relationships among the defined
Focus Area and other globally available data to define areas of hydrological concern as
well as to assess the magnitude of populations living in these areas; 3) to provide a
framework and collection of databases for broadly identifying critical or priority areas
and 4) to work with DECGR’s GIS unit, to determine the value of performing such
analyses at a pantropic scale.
The Phase I activities described here involved three clusters of activities:
1. Delineation of the Pantropical Focus Area based on global climatological data.
The Focus Area was first defined using climate variables. The delineation of the
Focus Area allowed some basic measures of its relative importance to be addressed:
i. What share of the area and population of the tropics falls within the Focus Area?
ii. What is the regional and national breakdown of the Focus Area by area and
population?
2. Characterization of the Pantropic Focus Area.
These activities defined the intrinsic properties of the Focus Area and their spatial
variability in terms of land cover, hydrology and biodiversity. These activities
addressed the following questions:
i. What is the distribution of land cover within the Focus Area?
ii. How would the Focus Area change if it were defined on hydrologically-relevant
spatial units? What share of the area and population of the tropics falls within
such units?
iii. What is the coincidence of the Focus Area and tropical forest biomes? To what
extent have these forests been converted?
2
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
iv. Can we improve our representation of the physiographic characteristics of the
Focus Area? What is the distribution of physiographic characteristics within the
tropical forest biomes?
v. How well do the WWF Ecoregion boundaries correspond with the boundaries of
the Focus Area?
3. Identification of “Critical Areas”
Having assessed the broad heterogeneity of biophysical conditions within the Focus
Area, questions of critical sub-areas were addressed. This involved identifying
hydrological and biodiversity measures representing value or threat, that might therefore
be of priority in assessing the potential benefit of interventions. This is tricky at the
Pantropic scale, and much of the planned Phase II activity will be to validate and improve
such measures through 1) the incorporation of improved and/or new global datasets (e.g.
rural populations) and 2) comparative assessments with richer regional datasets for
Central America and Mountainous South-East Asia.
The questions posed in Phase I regarding potentially “critical” areas were:
i. What urban populations might be at risk from significantly altered hydrological
function as a consequence of upstream land use change?
ii. Where, within the Focus Area, are the most important areas of biological
diversity?
iii. What practical measures of biodiversity “value” are available for these critical
areas?
iv. Can we identify forest margin areas using existing coarse resolution satellite
data?
The remainder of the report contains question-by-question sections grouped within each
of these three activity areas. The final section summarizes the major findings and
recommendations with regard to proposed Phase II activities.
3
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
Section 1
Delineation of the Pantropic Focus Area
4
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
What share of the area and population of the tropics falls within the Focus
Area?
The first stratification of the BNPP/ASB pantropical region was ecological. This
stratification was based on agroclimatic factors derived from temperature and rainfall
(Figures 1-3 show the progress from Agroclimatic Zones to the Focus Area). Using these
data we defined the Focus Area as the Warm humid and subhumid tropics based on the
following criteria:
Tropics – areas with year-round average monthly temperature adjusted to sea
level of greater than 18 degrees Celsius
Humid – average length of growing period at least 270 days per year
Subhumid – average length of growing period 180 – 269 days per year
Warm – mean daily temperature during the growing season
greater than 20 degrees Celsius
As shown in Table 1, the humid and subhumid tropics comprise 29% and 25% of the
tropics, respectively. The majority of these regions have warm climates (92% and 90%,
respectively). By eliminating the cooler areas from the focus area we are able to focus on
regions that exhibit similar biophysical potential as well as greater spillover potential
related to policies and technical innovations. The resulting area, defined here as the
Focus Area, covers approximately 24 million square kilometers, just under 50 percent of
the tropics and approximately 19 percent of total global land area (excluding Antarctica).
Approximately 1.1 billion people live in the area – this represents over 56 percent of
those living in the tropics and approximately 19 percent of total global population.
Data sources:
Tropics: Agroclimatic Zones from FAO/IIASA (2000) Global Agro-ecological Zones CD
v1.0 based on University of East Anglia (UEA) monthly time series climate data (UEA
1998 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/cru.htm).
Length of Growing Period: Agroclimatic Zones from FAO/IIASA (2000) Global Agroecological Zones CD v1.0 based on University of East Anglia (UEA) monthly time series
climate data (UEA 1998 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/cru.htm).
Temperature: Modeled using FAO/IIASA Thermal Zone surface from FAO/IIASA
(2000) Global Agro-ecological Zones CD v1.0 and rules for defining major climate zones
(FAO 1981 Report on the Agro-Ecological Zones Project)
Population: Two global population datasets were used in this analysis. The Global
Population of the World (GPW) dataset (CIESIN 2000) is a raster dataset at a resolution
of 2.5 arc minutes (approximately 5x5 km) which contains population count and density
for 1995 (Figure 4). The GPW provides estimates of the population of the world in 1990
and 1995, both population counts (raw counts) and population densities (per square km)
5
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
are available. The gridded data is drawn from over 127,000 administrative units
(approximately 60,000 outside of the US). The national totals of these disaggregated data
have been harmonized with United Nations estimates for those years. The LandScan
Population dataset (ORNL 2000) is a raster dataset compiled at a resolution of 30 arc
seconds (approximately 1x1 km) containing population estimates for 2000 (Figure 5).
LandScan 2000 was developed as part of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Global
Population Project for estimating ambient populations at risk. Census counts (mainly at
sub-national level) were apportioned to each grid cell based on probability coefficients,
which are based on proximity to roads, slope, land cover and nighttime lights. Although
the Landscan data has a higher output resolution than the GPW, it is based on
significantly lower resolution input data (approximately 69,000 administrative units with
only 10,000 outside of the US) (Deichmann 2001).
Note: Most of the population estimates for this study were derived from GPW. In some
cases, however, estimates were made using both datasets and a range was given or an
average reported. This is noted on each the table.
*per GPW (CIESIN 2000)
Table 1: Area & Population* by Tropical Agroclimatic Zones
Agroclimatic Zone
Area
(000 sq km)
Population
(percent)
(000 people)
(percent)
Humid Tropics
Warm
Moderately cool / cool / cold
14,343
29.7%
548,168
28.4%
13,203
1,139
92.1%
7.9%
444,448
103,720
81.1%
18.9%
Subhumid Tropics
Warm
Moderately cool / cool / cold
12,053
24.9%
747,046
38.7%
10,838
1,214
89.9%
10.1%
641,263
105,783
85.8%
14.2%
Arid / Semi-arid Tropics
21,942
45.4%
632,875
32.8%
Total tropics
48,338
100.0%
1,928,089
100.0%
Focus Area
24,042
49.7%
1,085,711
56.3%
6
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
What is the regional and national breakdown of the Focus Area by area
and population?
Since there are many regional differences in agroclimatic conditions and since many
policy and investment decisions are made at the regional or country level the Focus Area
was further divided into sub-regions based on country level administrative boundaries.
This perspective helps us get a sense of the relative importance of the Focus Area by
region (and country) in terms of the share of total areas as well as the share of total
population. The 5 subregions are (see Figure 6):
Mesoamerica and the Caribbean
South America
Sub-Saharan Africa
Mainland Asia
Insular Southeast Asia (Peninsular Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines & PNG)
The majority of the focus area is in South America (44 percent) with 33 percent falling in
Sub-Saharan Africa (Table 2 and Figure 7). The share of total population in the focus
area is much lower for South America (11 percent) compared to the more densely
populated regions of Mainland Asia (42 percent), Insular Southeast Asia (21 percent) and
Sub-Saharan Africa (20 percent). The large discrepancy in area versus population share
for South America is primarily because a large portion of the focus area falls in the
sparsely inhabitated tropical forests of Brazil which alone accounts for 28 percent of the
total focus area (see Table 3). The warm humid tropics follow this same pattern with
South America and Sub-Saharan Africa containing most of the area (51 and 25 percent,
respectively) but Insular Southeast Asia having a majority of the population (41 percent)
followed by Sub-Saharan Africa with approximately 22 percent. The warm sub-humid
tropics are equally as skewed with most of the area in Sub-Saharan Africa or South
America (43 and 35 percent respectively) but most of the population living in Mainland
Asia (56-58 percent). Even at a highly aggregated regional level, these statistics
highlight the need to look at both the area and populations affected by policy decisions
and conservation measures.
Table 3 shows all countries with five percent or greater area within the focus region. As
noted, Brazil accounts for 28 percent of the focus area with the next largest share being
Indonesia with 7 percent.
7
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
Table 2: Focus Area - Area and Population by Sub-region
Total Focus
Area
Mesoamerica & Caribbean
South America
Sub-Saharan Africa
Mainland Asia
Insular Southeast Asia
Other
(sq km)
867,212
10,511,001
7,915,363
2,261,473
2,319,902
77,751
23,952,702
Warm Humid Tropics
Total
Population
Area
Population
GPW/LandS
can
(per
(Average)
(per GPW) LandScan)
(000 people)
(sq km)
(000 people)
59,783
412,171
23,228
24,176
122,736 6,712,666
49,178
53,065
228,396 3,216,773
93,632
112,068
469,319
560,195
88,076
90,863
233,366 2,200,869
179,762
195,090
5,359
31,420
1,923
1,868
1,118,960 13,134,094
435,799
477,130
Warm Sub-humid Tropics
Area
Population
(sq km)
455,041
3,798,335
4,698,590
1,701,278
119,033
46,331
10,818,608
(per
(per GPW) LandScan)
(000 people)
34,216
37,947
66,902
76,327
116,977
134,115
373,685
386,013
40,730
51,149
3,292
3,637
635,802
689,190
Share of tropics by region
Total Focus
Area
Mesoamerica & Caribbean
South America
Sub-Saharan Africa
Mainland Asia
Insular Southeast Asia
Other
3.6
43.9
33.0
9.4
9.7
0.3
100.0
Total
Population
GPW/LandS
can
(Average)
5.3
11.0
20.4
41.9
20.9
0.5
100.0
Warm Humid Tropics
Area
Population
3.1
51.1
24.5
4.3
16.8
0.2
100.0
(per
(per GPW) LandScan)
(percent by region)
5.3
5.1
11.3
11.1
21.5
23.5
20.2
19.0
41.2
40.9
0.4
0.4
100.0
100.0
Warm Sub-humid Tropics
Area
Population
(per GPW)
4.2
35.1
43.4
15.7
1.1
0.4
100.0
(per
LandScan)
5.4
10.5
18.4
58.8
6.4
0.5
100.0
* Note: The population estimates by region are given for both GPW and LandScan data. The difference in
the estimates (at this level of aggregation) are minimal (0-2 percent) thus instilling a level of confidence in
the use of either data set for regional or possibly sub-regional analysis. Further analyses at a more
disaggregated level will more than likely increase the differences but at the pan-tropic level either dataset is
appropriate for analysis.
8
5.5
11.1
19.5
56.0
7.4
0.5
100.0
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
Table 3: Countries with 5% or greater area within the focus region
Focus Area
Total Area
(000 sq km)
Total Population
Area
(000 people)
(000 sq km)
Share of
country
(percent)
Share of
focus
region
(percent)
Mesoamerica and the Caribbean
Bahamas, The
Belize
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Puerto Rico
12.9
22.2
51.6
110.4
48.4
20.7
109.5
27.2
112.9
1,962.9
129.0
74.7
9.1
272.2
207.6
3,319.4
11,102.3
7,760.0
5,752.5
10,321.3
7,044.9
5,367.1
92,380.9
4,275.1
2,562.0
3,647.9
12.9
22.2
43.7
110.4
41.5
20.7
75.1
27.2
97.2
362.9
125.6
71.0
9.1
100.0
100.0
84.6
100.0
85.7
100.0
68.6
100.0
86.1
18.5
97.3
95.0
100.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.4
1.4
0.5
0.3
0.0
South America
Bolivia
Brazil
Colombia
Ecuador
French Guiana
Guyana
Paraguay
Peru
Suriname
Venezuela
1,090.4
8,507.1
1,142.0
256.9
83.8
211.2
400.1
1,296.9
145.5
916.6
7,648.3
151,525.4
34,414.6
10,541.8
130.2
754.9
4,773.5
24,496.4
428.0
19,857.9
559.9
7064.1
937.7
116.8
83.8
201.9
121.8
637.3
145.5
814.4
51.4
83.0
82.1
45.5
100.0
95.6
30.4
49.1
100.0
88.9
2.2
28.1
3.7
0.5
0.3
0.8
0.5
2.5
0.6
3.2
Sub-Saharan Africa
Angola
Benin
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Central African Republic
Congo
Equatorial Guinea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Ivory Coast
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mozambique
Nigeria
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania, United Republic of
Togo
Uganda
Zaire
Zambia
1,252.4
116.5
273.7
27.3
466.3
621.5
345.4
27.1
1,132.3
261.7
240.0
246.1
33.6
322.2
96.3
594.9
119.0
788.6
912.0
196.9
72.5
2,490.4
17.2
945.0
57.3
243.0
2,337.0
754.8
11,527.3
5,175.4
10,164.7
6,011.0
13,218.5
3,149.5
2,318.3
386.4
53,143.0
1,561.2
16,698.1
62,420.1
1,085.8
13,498.9
2,902.4
13,046.7
10,660.5
16,604.7
97,228.8
8,116.6
4,551.7
27,713.4
842.8
28,386.3
4,048.4
18,144.4
41,025.9
8,778.7
640.1
75.6
28.0
6.1
407.2
597.1
345.4
27.1
113.2
261.7
221.8
243.0
12.6
322.2
96.3
207.6
21.4
291.0
465.4
12.5
72.5
472.4
2.5
548.3
54.3
165.6
2246.2
205.3
51.1
64.9
10.2
22.2
87.3
96.1
100.0
100.0
10.0
100.0
92.4
98.7
37.5
100.0
100.0
34.9
17.9
36.9
51.0
6.3
100.0
19.0
14.3
58.0
94.7
68.1
96.1
27.2
2.6
0.3
0.1
0.0
1.6
2.4
1.4
0.1
0.5
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.1
1.3
0.4
0.8
0.1
1.2
1.9
0.0
0.3
1.9
0.0
2.2
0.2
0.7
8.9
0.8
Mainland Asia
Bangladesh
Brunei
Cambodia
India
Laos
Myanmar (Burma)
Sri Lanka
Taiwan
Thailand
Vietnam
138.5
5.8
182.6
3,089.3
230.6
669.8
66.6
36.3
515.1
327.1
120,732.2
281.6
9,129.6
894,608.7
4,722.8
43,099.6
18,321.9
21,465.9
57,323.8
71,215.2
124.1
5.8
182.6
409.8
230.6
515.9
35.2
3.3
515.1
279.1
89.6
100.0
100.0
13.3
100.0
77.0
52.9
9.1
100.0
85.3
0.5
0.0
0.7
1.6
0.9
2.1
0.1
0.0
2.1
1.1
1859.3
330.3
91.9
98.7
97.3
100.0
1.7
1.2
7.4
1.3
Insular Southeast Asia
Indonesia
Malaysia
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Other
Fiji
New Caledonia
Solomon Islands
Vanuatu
1,910.8
330.3
466.2
298.1
189,331.2
19,626.4
4,039.0
428.3
65,981.1
294.3
19.4
19.1
27.7
12.5
755.0
178.0
366.0
165.0
9
19.4
19.1
27.7
12.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
Data sources:
Country boundaries – ESRI 1999.
Regional boundaries – derived from the country boundaries.
Population 1995: Global Population of the World (GPW) CIESIN 2000.
Population 2000: LandScan Population Project (ORNL 2000).
10
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
Section 2
Characterization of the Pantropic Focus Area
11
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
What is the distribution of land cover within the Focus Area?
An intersection of land cover data and the ecologically defined Focus Area by region
highlighted that, as expected, the majority of the Focus Area is classified as forest (51
percent) particularly in the humid regions (69 percent) with substantially less forest cover
in the sub-humid regions (29 percent). The next largest shares are in the grassland and
agriculture/other mosaic classes with 19 and 15 percent, respectively (see Table 4). As
shown in Figure 8, the sub-humid areas of each sub-region have significantly higher
shares of mosaic classes than the humid. This is particularly true in South America
where 51 percent of the subhumid region is classified as agricultural mosaics compared
to 12 percent for the sub-humid areas. In Asia there was not a significant difference
between the humid and subhumid regions with the mosaics comprising around 20-25
percent of each for Mainland Asia and Insular Southeast Asia.
The land cover data used for this analysis was the Global Land Cover Characteristics
Database (GLCCD 2000). This classification is based on an interpretation of the 30 arc
second (approximately 1km) resolution advanced very high resolution radiometer
(AVHRR) satellite imagery consolidated into monthly global composites for the period
April 1992 to March 1993. Scientists at USGS Eros Data Center (EDC) and the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln identified approximately 200 Seasonal Land Cover
Regions (SLCRs) per continent by identifying areas that demonstrated similar landcover
associations, physiographic characteristics, distinctive patterns of biomass production,
such as the onset, peak, and duration of greenness (GLCCD 1998; Loveland et al. 2000).
This interpretation captures both spatial and seasonal variations in vegetation cover over
the observation period. The most frequently used land cover map is the IGBP Land
Cover classification map which is an aggregation of the 961 SLCR classes into 17 land
cover classes (IGBP 1998).
For the BNPP/ASB pantropic analysis we hoped to gain an understanding of where
agriculture is currently taking place but more importantly where are the areas of mixed
forest/agricultural use and the margin areas between agricultural and forest lands. The
IGBP classification is less than ideal for these purposes since only 2 of the 17 classes
explicitly recognize agriculture, the ‘Cropland’ class in which more than 60 percent of
the area is interpreted as containing cropland, and cropland/natural vegetation mosaic
areas that contain 40-60 percent cropland. Fortunately the SLCR classification system
gave some scope for refining the data interpretation in order to explicitly recognize
occurrences of agriculture that occupy less than a dominant share (60 percent) of a SLCR
class. This process was first used, as part of the Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems
(PAGE) Agroecosystems study, to define the global extent of agriculture (Wood et al.
2001) and was further refined for this study to better isolate the agriculture/forest mosaics
from the other mosaic classes.
12
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
Table 4: Global Land Cover - the Warm Tropics
Total
Area
Cropland
Pasture
Cropland / Pasture mosaic
Agriculture / Forest mosaic
Agriculture / Other Mosaic
Forest
Grassland
Other
Share
Cropland
Pasture
Cropland / Pasture mosaic
Ag / Forest mosaic
Ag / Other Mosaic
Forest
Grassland
Other
1,558
14
185
1,771
3,490
11,901
4,385
96
23,400
Humid
(000 sq km)
612
5
32
1,140
689
8,833
1,363
52
12,727
6.7%
0.1%
0.8%
7.6%
14.9%
50.9%
18.7%
0.4%
100.0%
4.8%
0.0%
0.3%
9.0%
5.4%
69.4%
10.7%
0.4%
100.0%
Subhumid
946
9
153
631
2,801
3,068
3,022
44
10,673
8.9%
0.1%
1.4%
5.9%
26.2%
28.7%
28.3%
0.4%
100.0%
Figure 8
Land Cover for the Warm Tropics by Region
100%
90%
80%
70%
Other
Grassland
60%
Forest
50%
Ag / Other Mosaic
40%
Ag / Forest mosaic
Cropland / Pasture mosaic
30%
Pasture
Cropland
20%
10%
13
hu
m
id
su
bhu
m
id
SSA
hu
m
id
su
bhu
m
id
hu
m
id
SA
hu
m
id
hu
m
id
su
bhu
m
id
CAC
su
b-
hu
m
id
su
bhu
m
id
0%
Mainland Asia Insuler SE Asia
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
How is the focus area defined based on hydrologically-relevant units?
What share of the area and population of the tropics falls within such
units?
The second stratification approach was based on hydrology. One of the goals of this
analysis was to gain an understanding of the effects that conservation efforts would have
on hydrological function and also to determine how many people would be affected by
these policy decisions. The hydrological stratification was based on the basins from the
Hydro1k Elevation Derivative Database (USGS EDC 2001) and an indicator of terrain
type based on roughness derived by A. Nelson (2001) using the methodology from
Meybeck et al. (2001).
The Hydro1k basins were overlaid with the ecologically defined Focus Area.
Any basin that had any portion within the boundaries of the Focus Area was included in
the analyses (see Figure 10). These drainage basins were defined by USGS using the
concepts first described by Otto Pfafstetter (Pfafstetter 1989) (Verdin 2001). The system
is based on the topography of areas drained on the Earth’s surface and the typology of the
resulting hydrographic network. The basins and interbasins are identified by beginning at
the mouth of a river and working upstream to determine, using a DEM, the area that is
drained by that river. Along the way, it is important to differentiate between the main
stems and the tributaries. For the continental basin delineation the four largest tributaries
are identified according to the criterion of area drained. These are assigned values 2, 4, 6
and 8 and the interbasins are assigned the odd numbers, with the remaining area receiving
a value of 0, thus each continent is comprised of 10 basins (values 0-9: Pfafstetter coding)
(Verdin 2001: p.1-3).
From a hydrological perspective we considered it useful to divide basins into their
“upper” and “lower” parts. Upper watershed areas are those that occupy the highest
elevation ranges, relative to the elevation of the watershed outflow point, and are
normally associated with more steeply sloping terrain. Lower watersheds, on the other
hand, are those areas whose elevation is low relative to the watershed outflow, and where
gradients tend to be gentler. The characterization is useful in distinguishing between
areas that tend to erode soil and areas where sedimentation takes place. In upland areas,
overland flow energies are high and significantly greater potential for soil erosion exists.
In lowland areas, by contrast, overland flow energies are low and erosion is significantly
less important. Furthermore, since river channel gradients are low, flow velocities decline
and water-borne sediment from upper watershed is often deposited. Though more
controversial, there is also evidence that flood frequency and intensity are relative higher
in upland areas because of the decreased “time of concentration” of flow from the point
of incidence of rainfall to the river channel. Thus, watersheds with higher shares of
“upper” watershed terrain will be more erosive and likely more prone to “flash-flooding”.
The upper-lower classification was performed using the terrain typology
developed by Meybeck et al (2001), and applied globally for the purposes of the study by
Nelson (2001). The global terrain typology identified nine terrain types, based on
roughness, ranging from plains to high mountains. These terrain types were aggregated
into two classes: lower terrains (all plains, lowlands and low/middle plateaus); and upper
terrains (all mountains, and high plateaus) (see Figure 11).
14
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
The basins and terrains were combined to create a composite indicator of basin
and roughness as shown in Figure 12. Table 5 shows the area and population shares for
each region by basin and terrain type1. The first thing to notice is how much more land
area this stratification approach encompasses in comparison to the first stratification.
This should be an important determinant when choosing which stratification variables are
best suited for the pantropic analysis in phase II. The basins approach encompasses
almost of half of the worlds land surface (excluding Antartica) and includes over twothirds of the worlds population. This is most likely too broad an area for the overall
analysis but it does help determine the broader impact, in terms of area and numbers of
people, of policies and changes in land management within the Focus Area particularly
from a hydrological perspective.
Figure 13 depicts the share of total basin area by terrain type for the 24 basins
within the BNPP/ASB Focus Area. The basins range from those, such as the mouth of
the Amazon (SA5), with no area in upper terrains to those, such as the basins
encompassing the Andes down to the west coast of Central and South America (MAC9 &
SA1), with almost 60 percent of the basin area falling in the upper terrain. As expected,
catchments become more rugged, erosive, and prone to flash flooding towards the righthand side of this figure.
1
The Hydro1k Database available on the web did not include the names of the basins thus the table only
identifies the basin number. These numbers correspond to the numbers present on the map in Figure 11.
We have submitted a request to USGS EDC for the names.
15
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
Table 5
TROPICAL BASINS (by Region)
Total Area
(000 sq km)
Share in…
Upper
Lower
terrain
terrain
(percent)
Total
Population
(000 people)
Share in…
Upper
Lower
terrain
terrain
(percent)
Mesoamerica & the Caribbean (MAC)
7
1,472
9
4,322
6.8
56.8
93.2
43.2
114,627
172,650
5.2
52.7
94.8
47.3
South America (SA)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1,164
938
568
5,852
139
775
2,795
2,707
1,916
58.7
30.7
5.8
11.7
0.0
14.3
22.1
18.9
35.7
41.3
69.3
94.2
88.3
100.0
85.7
77.9
81.1
64.3
63,793
10,727
1,576
22,352
453
4,375
94,837
64,182
29,724
3582.2
541.5
5.3
201.8
0.0
130.4
842.5
854.3
372.3
1899.0
601.9
272.0
180.2
324.9
434.2
2551.0
1516.7
1179.3
Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)
0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2,436
3,068
3,794
1,383
3,759
3,679
712
2,110
2,059
12.8
27.0
42.8
33.1
35.5
23.2
19.0
9.4
3.4
87.2
73.0
57.2
66.9
64.5
76.8
81.0
90.6
96.6
29,186
127,176
114,292
26,036
60,181
56,844
26,505
65,754
90,964
8.4
44.2
56.4
49.8
49.9
36.8
19.1
9.0
2.5
91.6
55.8
43.6
50.2
50.1
63.2
80.9
91.0
97.5
Mainland Asia (MA)
1
9
4,683
7,753
33.9
48.1
66.1
51.9
1,180,571
1,503,043
11.7
23.0
88.3
77.0
Insular SE Asia (ISA)
9
2,680
26.8
73.2
229,142
21.7
78.3
Total
60,765
4,088,989
16
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
Figure 13 Area share of Basins by Upper and Lower Terrain type
100.0
90.0
80.0
(percent area)
70.0
60.0
LOWER
50.0
UPPER
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
3
AC
7
SS
A8
SA
4
SS
A0
SA
6
SA
8
SS
A7
SA
7
SS
A6
IS
A9
SS
A2
SA
2
SS
A4
M
A1
SS
A5
SA
9
SS
A3
M
A9
M
AC
9
SA
1
SA
M
SA
5
SS
A9
0.0
Tropical Basins
Data sources:
Basins: Hydro1k Elevation Derivative Database (USGS EDC 2001).
Terrain: Roughness Indicator at a resolution of 0.04167 dd (Nelson 2001) based on 30
arc second resolution elevation data.
Elevation: GTOPO30: Global 30 Arc Second Elevation Data Set (USGS 1998).
17
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
What is the coincidence of the Focus Area and Tropical Forest Biomes?
To what extent have these forests been converted?
The third stratification was based on biodiversity. The data used was the World Wildlife
Fund’s (WWF) Terrestrial Ecoregions database (WWF-US 2001a). The WWF
Ecoregions database was designed with conservation of ecoregion function as the
primary goal. Ecoregions are defined as ‘a relatively large area of land or water that
contains a geographically distinct assemblage of natural communities …. [which] share a
large majority of their species, dynamics, and environmental conditions (WWF-US
2001a).’
The ecoregions database is a hierarchical database consisting of three layers: Realms,
Biomes and Ecoregions. The realms are continental-scale biogeographic regions that
contain distinct groups of plants and animals. They are differentiated according to
geologic and climatic history (see Figure 14).
The Biomes are broad groupings of ecoregions that have similar:

climatic regimes

vegetation structure

spatial patterns of biodiversity

minimum requirements and thresholds for maintaining certain
biodiversity features

sensitivities to human disturbance.
(WWF-US 2001a).
The terrestrial biomes that have any portion falling within the Focus Area are shown in
Figure 15 that also shows the tropical Realms. Including all tropical biomes broadens the
focus area extensively to an area that cover 34 percent of the earth’s land surface
(excluding Antartica). For the purposes of this study it is more appropriate to focus on
the terrestrial forest biomes as shown in Figure 16. It should be noted that this
stratification alters the extent of the focus area significantly particularly in Sub-Saharan
Africa which has a large share of tropical and subtropical grasslands, savannas and
shrublands. It also decreases the total area of interest to 15.3 million square kilometers
with a population of approximately 850 million people (from approximately 24 million
square kilometers and 1.1 billion people within the Focus Area) (see Table 6).
We identified the proportional area of trees found within the forest biomes as an indicator
of the extent of conversion. This proxy was calculated using the Percent Tree Cover
database. These data, interpreted by scientists at the University of Maryland, are based
on the same detailed satellite data that underpins the Global Land Cover Characteristics
Database used here to describe land cover. The satellite data was used to derive
additional vegetation characteristics including woody vegetation, defined as mature
vegetation whose approximate height is greater than 5 meters (DeFries et al. 2000). The
resulting map shows the percent tree cover (ranging from 0 – 80 percent) for each 1km
resolution mapping unit (see Figure 17).
18
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
Figure 18 shows the extent of conversion by region for the two tropical forest biomes.
Mainland Asia shows more conversion in both biomes than any other region and SubSaharan Africa shows a high level of conversion in the drier forest biome. Globally, all
of the regions show higher levels of conversion in the dry broadleaf forests than in the
moist broadleaf forest.
Data used:
WWF Terrestrial Ecoregions (WWF-US 2001a).
UMD Percent Tree Cover Database (DeFries et al. 2000).
Figure 14: Biogeographical Realms
19
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
Table 6: Area and Population by Terrestrial Forest Biome
Area (square kilometers)
Central America & the Caribbean
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
Tropical and
Subtropical Moist
Broadleaf Forest
Tropical and
Subtropical Dry
Broadleaf Forest
Tropical Forest
Biomes Subtotal Other habitat
Total
338,771
166,011
504,782
16,892
166,392
183,284
355,663
332,403
688,066
56,508
122,638
179,146
412,171
455,041
867,212
Insular Southeast Asia
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
2,121,927
43,957
2,165,884
22,617
54,518
77,135
2,144,544
98,475
2,243,019
56,325
20,558
76,883
2,200,869
119,033
2,319,902
Mainland Asia
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
410,446
730,888
1,141,334
111,863
928,606
1,040,469
522,309
1,659,494
2,181,803
37,886
41,784
79,670
560,195
1,701,278
2,261,473
South America
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
6,045,032
1,097,120
7,142,152
58,887
234,810
293,697
6,103,919
1,331,930
7,435,849
608,747
2,466,405
3,075,152
6,712,666
3,798,335
10,511,001
Sub-Saharan Africa
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
2,196,374
430,454
2,626,828
13,507
71,322
84,829
2,209,881
501,776
2,711,657
1,006,892
4,196,814
5,203,706
3,216,773
4,698,590
7,915,363
11,112,550
2,468,430
13,580,980
223,766
1,455,648
1,679,414
11,336,316
3,924,078
15,260,394
1,766,358
6,848,199
8,614,557
13,102,674
10,772,277
23,874,951
Total
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
Share by Biome
Tropical and
Subtropical Moist
Broadleaf Forest
Tropical and
Subtropical Dry
Broadleaf Forest
Tropical Forest
Biomes Subtotal Other habitat
Total
Central America & the Caribbean
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
67.1%
32.9%
100.0%
9.2%
90.8%
100.0%
51.7%
48.3%
100.0%
31.5%
68.5%
100.0%
47.5%
52.5%
100.0%
Insular Southeast Asia
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
98.0%
2.0%
100.0%
29.3%
70.7%
100.0%
95.6%
4.4%
100.0%
73.3%
26.7%
100.0%
94.9%
5.1%
100.0%
Mainland Asia
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
36.0%
64.0%
100.0%
10.8%
89.2%
100.0%
23.9%
76.1%
100.0%
47.6%
52.4%
100.0%
24.8%
75.2%
100.0%
South America
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
84.6%
15.4%
100.0%
20.1%
79.9%
100.0%
82.1%
17.9%
100.0%
19.8%
80.2%
100.0%
63.9%
36.1%
100.0%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
83.6%
16.4%
100.0%
15.9%
84.1%
100.0%
6.7%
36.5%
43.2%
19.3%
80.7%
100.0%
40.6%
59.4%
100.0%
81.8%
18.2%
100.0%
13.3%
86.7%
100.0%
74.3%
25.7%
100.0%
20.5%
79.5%
100.0%
54.9%
45.1%
100.0%
Total
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
20
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Share by ecological zone
Tropical and
Subtropical Moist
Broadleaf Forest
Pantropic Analysis
Tropical and
Subtropical Dry
Broadleaf Forest
Tropical Forest
Biomes Subtotal Other habitat
Total
Central America & the Caribbean
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
82.2%
36.5%
58.2%
4.1%
36.6%
21.1%
86.3%
73.0%
79.3%
13.7%
27.0%
20.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Insular Southeast Asia
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
96.4%
36.9%
93.4%
1.0%
45.8%
3.3%
97.4%
82.7%
96.7%
2.6%
17.3%
3.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Mainland Asia
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
73.3%
43.0%
50.5%
20.0%
54.6%
46.0%
93.2%
97.5%
96.5%
6.8%
2.5%
3.5%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
South America
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
90.1%
28.9%
67.9%
0.9%
6.2%
2.8%
90.9%
35.1%
70.7%
9.1%
64.9%
29.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
90.1%
28.9%
67.9%
0.9%
6.2%
2.8%
90.9%
35.1%
70.7%
9.1%
64.9%
29.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
84.8%
22.9%
56.9%
1.7%
13.5%
7.0%
86.5%
36.4%
63.9%
13.5%
63.6%
36.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
Population (000 people)
Central America & the Caribbean
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
Tropical and
Subtropical Moist
Broadleaf Forest
Tropical and
Subtropical Dry
Broadleaf Forest
Tropical Forest
Biomes Subtotal Other habitat
Total
15,921
11,412
27,333
3,111
11,263
14,374
19,033
22,675
41,707
4,195
11,541
15,736
23,228
34,216
57,444
Insular Southeast Asia
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
170,796
23,873
194,669
5,139
15,490
20,629
175,935
39,363
215,299
3,827
1,367
5,194
179,762
40,730
220,492
Mainland Asia
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
53,381
103,511
156,892
26,176
258,793
284,970
79,557
362,305
441,862
8,519
11,380
19,899
88,076
373,685
461,761
South America
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
37,827
26,498
64,325
2,707
3,631
6,338
40,534
30,129
70,663
8,643
36,773
45,417
49,178
66,902
116,080
Sub-Saharan Africa
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
59,869
26,290
86,159
213
782
995
60,082
27,072
87,154
33,549
89,905
123,454
93,632
116,977
210,609
337,795
191,585
529,379
37,348
289,959
327,307
375,142
481,544
856,686
58,734
150,966
209,700
433,876
632,510
1,066,386
Total
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
21
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Population share by
Biome
Tropical and
Subtropical Moist
Broadleaf Forest
Pantropic Analysis
Tropical and
Subtropical Dry
Broadleaf Forest
Tropical Forest
Biomes Subtotal Other habitat
Total
Central America & the Caribbean
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
58.2%
41.8%
100.0%
21.6%
78.4%
100.0%
45.6%
54.4%
100.0%
26.7%
73.3%
100.0%
40.4%
59.6%
100.0%
Insular Southeast Asia
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
87.7%
12.3%
100.0%
24.9%
75.1%
100.0%
81.7%
18.3%
100.0%
73.7%
26.3%
100.0%
81.5%
18.5%
100.0%
Mainland Asia
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
34.0%
66.0%
100.0%
9.2%
90.8%
100.0%
18.0%
82.0%
100.0%
42.8%
57.2%
100.0%
19.1%
80.9%
100.0%
South America
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
58.8%
41.2%
100.0%
42.7%
57.3%
100.0%
57.4%
42.6%
100.0%
19.0%
81.0%
100.0%
42.4%
57.6%
100.0%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
69.5%
30.5%
100.0%
21.4%
78.6%
100.0%
38.3%
123.3%
161.6%
27.2%
72.8%
100.0%
44.5%
55.5%
100.0%
63.8%
36.2%
100.0%
11.4%
88.6%
100.0%
43.8%
56.2%
100.0%
28.0%
72.0%
100.0%
40.7%
59.3%
100.0%
Total
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
Population share by
ecological zone
Tropical and
Subtropical Moist
Broadleaf Forest
Tropical and
Subtropical Dry
Broadleaf Forest
Tropical Forest
Biomes Subtotal Other habitat
Total
Central America & the Caribbean
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
68.5%
33.4%
47.6%
13.4%
32.9%
25.0%
81.9%
66.3%
72.6%
18.1%
33.7%
27.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Insular Southeast Asia
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
95.0%
58.6%
88.3%
2.9%
38.0%
9.4%
97.9%
96.6%
97.6%
2.1%
3.4%
2.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Mainland Asia
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
60.6%
27.7%
34.0%
29.7%
69.3%
61.7%
90.3%
97.0%
95.7%
9.7%
3.0%
4.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
South America
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
76.9%
39.6%
55.4%
5.5%
5.4%
5.5%
82.4%
45.0%
60.9%
17.6%
55.0%
39.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
76.9%
39.6%
55.4%
5.5%
5.4%
5.5%
82.4%
45.0%
60.9%
17.6%
55.0%
39.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
77.9%
30.3%
49.6%
8.6%
45.8%
30.7%
86.5%
76.1%
80.3%
13.5%
23.9%
19.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Warm humid tropics
Warm subhumid tropics
Sub-total
22
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
Can we improve our representation of the physiographic characteristics of
the Focus Area? What is the distribution of physiographic characteristics
within the tropical forest biomes?
Table 7 shows the percent area for each biome by region by terrain type. On average 7582 percent of the forest biomes are in lower terrains (plains, lowlands & low/mid plateaus
with 18-25 percent in upper terrains (mountains and high plateaus). The forest areas of
South America exhibit the most area in lower terrains for both forest types whereas the
drier forest areas of Mesoamerica have a much larger percentage classified as upper
terrains.
Table 7: Share of Terrestrial Forest Biomes in Upper and Lower Terrains
Lower
Upper
Mesoamerica & the Caribbean
Tropical and Subtropical Moist Broadleaf Forest
Tropical and Subtropical Dry Broadleaf Forest
78.3
56.0
21.7
44.0
South America
Tropical and Subtropical Moist Broadleaf Forest
Tropical and Subtropical Dry Broadleaf Forest
82.3
76.0
17.7
24.0
Sub-Saharan Africa
Tropical and Subtropical Moist Broadleaf Forest
Tropical and Subtropical Dry Broadleaf Forest
66.4
77.4
33.6
22.6
Mainland Asia
Tropical and Subtropical Moist Broadleaf Forest
Tropical and Subtropical Dry Broadleaf Forest
64.5
85.9
35.5
14.1
Insular Southeast Asia
Tropical and Subtropical Moist Broadleaf Forest
Tropical and Subtropical Dry Broadleaf Forest
72.8
66.1
27.2
33.9
Average
Tropical and Subtropical Moist Broadleaf Forest
Tropical and Subtropical Dry Broadleaf Forest
75.5
82.5
24.5
17.5
23
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
How well do the WWF Ecoregion boundaries correspond with the
boundaries of the Focus Area?
The third level in the hierarchy of the WWF Terrestrial Ecoregions database is the
ecoregions. The database contains over 800 ecoregions that form a contiguous coverage
of the world. Each ecoregion is identified by name and a number of conservation and
biodiversity characteristics including:






Biological Distinctiveness Index (BDI) which is a biogeographic scaledependent assessment of the biological importance of ecoregions
Current conservation status
Future status – based on modifying the current status based on future
threat
Priority status for conservation action based on an integration of
biological distinctiveness with future status
Global status – a 30 year prediction of future conservation status
Global 200 region – the Global 200 ecoregion of which this ecoregion is a
part
This database provides general data on the biological importance of these ecoregions with
a particular focus on conservation. WWF-US did extensive research based on the
valuation, count and location of species in order to define the boundaries of the
ecoregions so that they roughly coincide with the area over which key ecological
processes take place (WWF-US 2001a).
With this wealth of data related to biodiversity and conservation as well as the possibility
of working with WWF-US in the future to better understand the biodiversity criteria that
went into defining these ecoregions a stratification approach based on ecoregions may be
more appropriate for the BNPP/ASB study and is certainly something worth exploring in
Phase II. Figures 19-22 illustrate how the ecoregions correspond to the climate defined
Focus Area.
24
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Section 3
Identifying Critical Areas
25
Pantropic Analysis
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
What urban populations might be at risk from significantly altered
hydrological function as a consequence of upstream land use change?
As mentioned before the use of watersheds or basins as a stratifier is important since it
helps us understand the externalities and broader-reaching impacts of policy and land
management decisions. By combining available data on urban populations (World Bank
2001) with the Hydro1k watershed data (USGS EDC 2001) we looked at the urban
populations that might be at risk from changes in hydrological function as a consequence
of upstream land use change. The urban population database contains location and
estimated population for approximately 3,200 urban settlements around the world. We
used these data to determine 1) the urban population by watershed and 2) how many large
cities are located within each watershed (see Tables 8 & 9).
Table 8: Urban Populations in Tropical Watersheds
Tropical Watersheds
Region
Mesoamerica & Caribbean
South America
SubSaharan Africa
Mainland Asia
Insular Southeast Asia
Total
Number
Area
(000 sq km)
Tropical Watersheds
with Urban Populations
Number
Share of
total Area
Urban Population within
Tropical Watersheds
Total
(000 people)
Share of
global total
5
62
59
12
9
1,383
12,751
10,302
3,159
2,154
5
28
28
12
5
100.0%
73.8%
73.7%
100.0%
92.6%
26,661
40,232
52,934
95,176
64,353
9.5%
14.4%
18.9%
34.1%
23.0%
147
29,750
78
79.1%
279,355
100.0%
The majority of the tropical urban populations reside in Mainland Asia where 100 percent
of the tropical watersheds contain at least one urban center (population greater than
100,000). Meso and South America have the fewest urban centers with only 24 percent
of the total urban population in the tropics residing in these regions combined.
In order to define ‘Critical watersheds’ we looked at the watersheds that had a very high
urban population to total area ratio. These were defined as ‘critical’ following the
assumption that watersheds that were more densely populated with urban areas had
greater potential for negative impacts on the flood regime. Figures 23-25 show these
plots and highlight the ‘critical’ watersheds on a regional basis.
In Latin America the critical watersheds are in the northern coasts of Colombia and
Venezuala and the northeast of Venezuala at the mouth of the Orinoco. In Africa, these
critical areas are more spread out covering areas in Nigeria, Cameroon, Gabon,
Democratic Republic of Congo and Ghana. Not surprisingly, the critical areas in Asia are
in the densely populated coastal areas of southern and eastern India and Bangladesh.
26
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
South America
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
84
87
88
89
Total
Total Urban
Population
(000 people)
221.5
474.9
0.0
1,606.8
1,199.6
8,576.8
566.6
0.0
282.4
3,806.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
251.3
0.0
219.6
0.0
258.3
0.0
0.0
176.6
0.0
0.0
233.5
1,127.0
147.4
695.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
120.9
0.0
450.6
96.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1,894.2
984.9
3,062.7
3,841.0
827.2
406.8
283.5
7,873.8
0.0
0.0
545.6
40,231.7
Number of cities with populations:
100,000 500,000
2
3
na
0
6
16
0
na
1
5
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
1
na
1
na
1
na
na
1
na
na
1
0
1
3
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
1
na
2
0
na
na
na
na
2
2
6
9
4
2
2
21
na
na
2
95
500,000 - 1,000,000 1,000,000 5,000,000 > 5,000,000
0
0
na
2
0
0
1
na
0
2
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
0
na
0
na
0
na
na
0
na
na
0
0
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
0
na
0
0
na
na
na
na
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
na
na
0
10
0
0
na
0
0
2
0
na
0
1
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
0
na
0
na
0
na
na
0
na
na
0
1
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
0
na
0
0
na
na
na
na
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
na
na
0
7
0
0
na
0
0
0
0
na
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
0
na
0
na
0
na
na
0
na
na
0
0
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
0
na
0
0
na
na
na
na
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
na
na
0
0
Sub-Saharan Africa
4
6
24
26
27
28
29
30
37
38
39
41
42
43
44
46
48
49
51
52
53
54
55
57
58
59
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
81
82
83
85
87
88
89
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
Total
Pantropic Analysis
Total Urban
Population
(000 people)
Number of cities with populations:
100,000 500,000
134.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2,310.7
406.8
0.0
205.1
154.4
0.0
370.6
0.0
0.0
355.3
0.0
0.0
549.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5,757.6
1,423.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
664.9
0.0
209.2
3,538.6
514.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1,635.7
152.2
1,737.8
426.3
957.8
502.5
163.2
1,977.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19,537.2
214.8
2,821.5
0.0
2,647.6
825.2
2,738.5
0.0
52,933.6
1
na
na
na
na
na
3
1
na
1
1
na
1
na
na
2
na
na
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
2
2
na
na
na
0
na
1
3
0
na
na
na
1
1
2
1
1
0
1
2
na
na
na
na
12
1
2
na
0
3
2
na
47
27
500,000 - 1,000,000 1,000,000 5,000,000 > 5,000,000
0
na
na
na
na
na
2
0
na
0
0
na
0
na
na
0
na
na
1
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
0
1
na
na
na
1
na
0
2
1
na
na
na
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
na
na
na
na
4
0
1
na
0
0
1
na
18
0
na
na
na
na
na
0
0
na
0
0
na
0
na
na
0
na
na
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
2
0
na
na
na
0
na
0
1
0
na
na
na
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
na
na
na
na
2
0
1
na
1
0
1
na
10
0
na
na
na
na
na
0
0
na
0
0
na
0
na
na
0
na
na
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
0
0
na
na
na
0
na
0
0
0
na
na
na
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
na
na
na
na
1
0
0
na
0
0
0
na
1
Total Urban
Population
(000 people)
Central America
19
75
93
94
95
Total
Insular Southeast Asia
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
Total
Mainland Asia
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
95
96
97
98
99
Total
Number of cities with populations:
100,000 500,000
500,000 - 1,000,000 >
1,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
2.5
12,960.3
2,013.0
951.3
10,733.7
26,660.7
0
21
5
3
21
50
0
2
1
0
5
8
0
4
0
0
2
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,859.8
0.0
25,901.6
536.1
2,153.5
0.0
4,902.2
0.0
0.0
64,353.2
27
na
51
0
5
na
9
na
na
92
7
na
3
1
0
na
2
na
na
13
6
na
2
0
1
na
1
na
na
10
1
na
1
0
0
na
0
na
na
2
5,189.5
851.6
122.9
1,321.9
23,508.7
449.3
29,129.4
11,730.5
3,021.6
16,937.8
818.7
2,094.5
95,176.3
6
5
1
7
35
1
51
15
7
12
1
3
144
0
0
0
0
2
0
8
0
2
0
1
0
13
1
0
0
0
2
0
3
2
0
3
0
1
12
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
3
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
Where, within the Focus Area, are the most important areas of biological
diversity?
WWF has identified over 200 ecoregions that are ‘unique expressions of biological
diversity, …, ecological processes, and evolutionary phenomena (WWF-US 2001b).’
These Global 200 ecoregions are a collection of the Earth’s most outstanding and diverse
areas where loss of biological wealth will be most severely felt, and where conservation
efforts must be the strongest (WWF-US 2001b). The WWF Terrestrial Ecoregions
database includes information on the Global 200 ecoregions related to their conservation
status as a Global 200 region as well as the conservation information included for all of
the ecoregions (see question How well do the WWF Ecoregion boundaries correspond
with the boundaries of the Focus Area? for a complete list).
We intersected the Focus Area with the ecoregions in the Global 200 to determine the
share of the BNPP/ASB mandate area that is considered of biological importance
according to WWF (see Figure 26 and Table 10).
Table 10 Global 200 ecoregions within the Focus Area
Global 200*
Share of
Share of
Total Focus Global 200* Area within focus area in Global 200*
Area
Total Area focus region Global 200* in focus area
(sq km)
(sq km)
(sq km)
Central America & Caribbean867,212
South America
10,511,001
Sub-Saharan Africa
7,915,363
Mainland Asia
2,261,473
Insular SE Asia
2,319,902
Other
77,751
Total
23,952,702
315,483
6,686,896
2,797,917
3,120,785
1,677,802
37,199
89,294
5,313,585
2,371,069
1,352,313
1,616,155
23,700
10.3%
50.6%
30.0%
59.8%
69.7%
30.5%
28.3%
79.5%
84.7%
43.3%
96.3%
63.7%
14,636,082
10,766,116
44.9%
73.6%
The map and table include only those Global 200 ecoregions that had at least part of their
area within the Focus Area2. 45 percent of the Focus Area falls within a Global 200
* ecoregion
includes only
those Global
ecoregions
that coincide
with the focus
region
highlighting
that200
much
of the Focus
Area is considered
of biological
importance. The area share of the Global 200 ecoregions that coincides with the Focus
Area is 74 percent indicating that a large percentage of the tropical areas that are
considered to be strong areas for conservation fall within the BNPP/ASB mandate area.
2
96 percent of the Global 200 terrestrial ecoregions are included in this ‘tropical’ subset
28
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
What practical measures of biodiversity ‘value’ are available for these
critical areas?
We discovered when doing the overlay of the Global 200 ecoregions with the Focus Area
that all of the ASB clusters of sites were located within a Global 200 ecoregion3. But, at
this scale, can we learn anything about the biodiversity of the ASB sites from looking at
characteristics of the Global 200 ecoregions? Table 11 shows the Global 200
characteristics for each of the clusters of ASB sites. There is little value gained from this
except for the implication that the ASB sites are in areas of high conservation value and
biological significance but there is potential, through working with the researchers at
WWF-US, to gain a better understanding of what the biodiversity issues are for each of
these sites and to learn more about the spatial patterns of biodiversity within these
specific ecoregions, how they correspond to these clusters of sites and thus what
conservation efforts are most important at the site level.
Table 11 ASB Sites - Biodiversity Status
BDI*
Current
Status
Threat
Future
Status
Priority
Status
Philippines moist forests
Highest
Critical
-
Critical
Highest
Yurimaguas_Peru
Napo moist forests
Highest
-
-
Highest
Peru 08 S: 74-75 E
Southwestern Amazonian moist forests
Highest
-
-
Relatively
Intact
Indonesia 01 S: 101-102 E
Sumatran Islands lowland and montane forests
Highest
Endangered -
Critical
Highest
Indonesia 04 S: 104-105 E
Sumatran Islands lowland and montane forests
Highest
Endangered -
Highest
Global Status
Critical or
Endangered
Critical or
Endangered
Relatively Stable or Intact
Critical or
Endangered
Critical or
Endangered
Brazil 10 S: 61-62 W
Southwestern Amazonian moist forests
High
Medium
Vulnerable
Brazil 09 S: 66 W
Brazil 10 S: 67 W
Southwestern Amazonian moist forests
Freshwater - Amazon River and
Highest
Highest
Medium
Highest
Vulnerable
Vulnerable
Cameroon 03 N: 11 E
Congolian Coastal Forests
Highest
Cameroon 02 S: 11 E
Congolian Coastal Forests
Highest
Cameroon 04 S: 11 E
Congolian Coastal Forests
Highest
Mae_Chaem_Thailand
Kayah-Karen/Tenasserim moist forests
Highest
Clusters of ASB sites
Global 200 Ecoregion
Mindinao_Phillipines
Medium
-
-
Relatively
Stable
Relatively
Stable
Relatively
Stable
Relatively
Intact
-
Critical
Relatively
Stable
Relatively
Stable
-
Medium
Vulnerable
Highest
Vulnerable
Medium
Vulnerable
Highest
Vulnerable
Medium
Vulnerable
Relatively
Intact
Highest
Vulnerable
Relatively Stable or Intact
-
Medium
*BDI - Biological Distiveness Index
3
Note: all of the ASB clusters of sites are located in the Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forest
biome.
29
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
Can we identify forest margin areas using existing coarse resolution
satellite data?
From a conservation perspective many of the areas that are most critical are those that are
on the margins between agriculture and forest. These areas are more vulnerable to
further degradation due to poorly managed agricultural practices, clear cutting for
agricultural expansion, loss of biodiversity due to fragmentation of habitat and damage to
the hydrological function. It is often difficult to gain a systematic understanding of
where the forest margin areas are, if they form a pattern across space and if they are a
logical place to target for conservation or research efforts.
The Global Land Cover Characteristics Database was used for this study to determine the
land cover within the Focus Area (see question What is the distribution of land cover
within the Focus Area?). Using these same data, we identified all areas that fell on the
margin of forest and agriculture based on a buffer zone of 1 pixel or 1 square kilometer.
Figure 27 shows an example of the resulting ‘margin areas’ map. The brown and dark
orange areas are those that fall in the areas adjacent to agricultural activity.
This type of analysis can help identify target areas for conservation or improved land
management strategies. It can also aid in the identification of patterns of conversion
across both narrow and broad areas.
30
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
Section 4
Findings and Recommendations
31
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
On the basis of this initial interpretation of the data compiled and harmonized for the
Phase I Pantropic Assessment, some useful findings and recommendations have emerged.
It is useful to select characterization variables that are hierarchical (e.g., we used a
nested basin/watershed typology, and a nested biome/ecoregion typology) to better
support truly multi-scale assessments.


It appears problematic to define hydrological functions at the pantropic scale.
If we can define landscapes in terms of physiography (e.g. roughness factor) and land
cover then the measures developed here might also be useful in a landscape context

Biomes appear to hold more promise for defining the BNPP/ASB Focus Area, rather
solely climate-based, ecologically-defined areas.

To test the validity and potential extrapolation power of the type of characterizations
done here, we need to test them against sub-regional data and analyses (e.g., in
Mesoamerica and Montane Mainland SEA).

32
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Section 5
References
33
Pantropic Analysis
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
Center for International Earth Science Information Network. (CIESIN). 2000. Gridded
Population of the World (GPW) v2.0. Data available online at:
http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/plue/gpw/index.html
DeFries, R.S., M.C. Hansen, J.R.G. Townshend, A.C. Janetos, and T.R. Loveland. 2000.
“A New Global 1-Km Data Set of Percentage Tree Cover Derived from Remote
Sensing.” Global Change Biology 6: 247-254.
Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI). 1996. World Countries 1995.
Included in ESRI Data and Maps. Volume 1. CD-ROM. Redlands, CA: ESRI. Country
names and disputed territories updated at WRI and IFPRI as of 1999.
FAO. 1978-81. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Report of the
Agro-Ecological Zones Project. World Soil Resources Report no. 48 vol. 1-4, Rome:
FAO.
FAO/IIASA. 2000. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Global Agro-ecological Zoning.
FAO Land and Water Digital Media Series # 11. CD-ROM version 1.0.
Global Land Cover Characteristics Database (GLCCD), Version 2.0. 2000. Data
available online at: http://edcdaac.usgs.gov/glcc/glcc.html.
IGBP. 1998. International Geosphere Biosphere Programme (IGBP) Data and
Information System, IGBP-DIS Global 1-km Land Cover Set DISCover.
Loveland, T.R., B.C. Reed, J.F. Brown, D.O. Ohlen, Z. Zhu, L. Yang, and J.W.
Merchant. 2000. “Development of a Global Land Cover Characteristics Database and
IGBP DISCover from 1 km AVHRR Data.” International Journal of Remote Sensing 21
(6/7): 1303-1330).
Meybeck, M, P. Green, C. Vorosmarty. 2001. “A New Typology for Mountains and
Other Relief Classes: An Application to Global Continental Water Resources and
Population Distribution”. In Mountain Research and Development. 21(1): 34-45.
Nelson, A. 2001. Global Terrain Surface. Derived from GTOPO30 Elevation Data
(USGS 1998) using methodology from Meybeck et al. 2001. Unpublished Data.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (ORNL). 2000. LandScan 2000: Global Population
Project. http://www.ornl.gov/gist/projects/LandScan/SIMPLE/smaps.htm. Data
available online at: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/plue/gpw/landscan/
34
BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity
Pantropic Analysis
Pfafstetter, O., 1989, "Classification of hydrographic basins: coding methodology",
unpublished manuscript, DNOS, August 18, 1989, Rio de Janeiro; translated by J.P.
Verdin, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Brasilia, Brazil, September 5, 1991.
USGS EROS Data Center (EDC). 2001. Hydro1k Elevation Derivative Database. Data
available online at: http://edcdaac.usgs.gov/gtopo30/hydro/.
USGS. 1998. United States Geological Surveys Earth Resources Observation Systems
(EROS) Data Center, GTOPO30: Global 30 Arc Second Elevation Data Set. Sioux Falls,
SD: USGS EDC.
Verdin, K. 2001. A System for Typologically Coding Global Drainage Basins and Stream
Networks. Online documentation: http://edcdaac.usgs.gov/gtopo30/hydro/P311.html.
Downloaded 8/29/01.
Wood, S., K. Sebastian, S.J. Scherr. 2001. Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems:
Agroecosystems. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute and
World Resources Institute.
World Bank. 2001. Urban Settlements. Unpublished Data.
World Wildlife Fund (WWF-US). 2001a. Terrestrial Ecoregions Database. WWF-US.
Washington, DC. Unpublished Data and readme file).
World Wildlife Fund (WWF-US) 2001b. Global 200 information page located at:
http://www.worldwildlife.org/global200/spaces.cfm?sectionid=25&newspaperid=20.
December 9, 2001.
35