BiodiversityIndicatorsforNationalUse - PDF document

1 BiodiversityIndicatorsforNationalUse 0 5
BiodiversityIndicatorsforNationalUse 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 B I N U ExperienceandGuidance ExperienceandGuidancePhilipBubb,MartinJenkins,ValerieKaposin collaboration withNetherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyECUADOREcociencia and the Ministry of the EnvironmentKENYAKenya Wildlife ServiceThe Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) and The Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) The Ukrainian Land and Resource Management Center (ULRMC) The Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources BiodiversityIndicatorsforNationalUse 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 B I N U UNEPWorld Conservation Monitoring Centreel:+44 (0) 1223 277314Fax:+44 (0) 1223 277136Email:info@unep-wcmc.orgebsite:www.unep-wcmc.orgONSERVATIONONITORINGbiodiversity assessment and policy implementation arm of theUnited Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),the worldÕsoremost intergovernmental environmental organization.UNEP-WCMC aims to help decision makers recognize the value ofbiodiversity to people everywhere,and to apply this knowledgeto all that they do.The CentreÕs challenge is to transform complexdata into policy-relevant information,to build tools and systemsor analysis and integration,and to support the needs of nationsand the international community as they engage in jointprogrammes of action.UNEP-WCMC provides objective,scientifically rigorous productsand services that include ecosystem assessments,support forimplementation of environmental agreements,regional and globalbiodiversity information,research on environmental threats andimpacts,and development of future scenarios for the living world.Bubb,P.,Jenkins,J.,Kapos,V.,(2005).Biodiversity Indicators forNational Use:Experience and GuidanceUNEP-WCMC,Cambridge,UK.URL:http://www.unep-wcmc.org/resources/publications/binuWritten by Philip Bubb,Martin Jenkins and Valerie Kapos incollaboration with MNP-RIVM and the national partners.Printed in the UK by Cambridge PrintersThe contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views orpolicies of the United Nations Environment Programme,theUNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre,or the supportingand contributing organizations.The designations employed and thepresentations do not imply the expressions of any opinionwhatsoever on the part of these organizations concerning the legalstatus of any country,territory,city or area or its authority,orconcerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.Supporting

2 organizationsDepartment for Environment
organizationsDepartment for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)London SW1P 3JR,UK http://www.defra.gov.uk/ The Department for International Development (DFID) 94 Victoria StreetLondon SW1E 5JL,UKhttp://www.dfid.gov.uk/Global Environment Facility (GEF)GEF Secretariat1818 H Street,NWashington,DC 20433,USAhttp://www.gefweb.org/The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign AffairsThe Netherlands Ministry of Foreign AffairsPO Box 200612500 EB The Hague,The Netherlandshttp://www.minbuza.nl/Swiss Agency for the Environment,Forests andLandscapeSwiss Agency for the Environment,Forests and Landscape (SAEFL)CH-3003 Bern,Switzerlandhttp://www.umwelt-schweiz.ch/United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)United Nations Avenue,GigiriPO Box 30552,00100Nairobi,Kenyahttp://www.unep.org/Cover images (clockwise from top):The first ever map of agricultural ecosystems in Ukraine wasderived by the BINU team by combining data on land use withsatellite derived landcover data.Analysis of the resulting map showsthat 70% of the national territory is in agricultural ecosystems;Flamingo,Kenya (Emily Short/UNEP/Topham);sp.,Andeanainforest (W.Ferwerda);Fish farm,Philippines (Victor T.Manausala/UNEP/Topham). 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 B I N U 3 Biodiversity Indicators for National Use his booklet is based on the resultsproject carried out between 2002 and 2005on biodiversity indicators for national use,or BINU for short.The BINU project was fundedthe Global Environment Facility (GEF),UNEP,the governments of the United Kingdom (Depart-ment for International Development (DFID) andDepartment for Environment,Food and RuralAffairs (DEFRA)),the Netherlands (the Dutch Min-istry of Foreign Affairs),Switzerland (the SwissAgency for Environment,Forests and Landscapes)and the participating countries.The BINUproject was developed as a collab-oration between UNEP-WCMC,The NetherlandsEnvironmental Assessment Agency (MNP-RIVM),Ecociencia and the Ministry of the Environment inEcuador,Kenya Wildlife Service in Kenya,the Bureauof Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) and theProtected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) in thePhilippines,and the Ukrainian Land and ResourceManagement Center (ULRMC) and the Ministry ofEnvironment and Natural Resources in Ukraine.More results and interim outputs of theproject can be found on the CD-ROM includedwith this report.The final reports of the projectwill be available in the second half of 2005.Further information can be obtained from

3 :www.unep-wcmc.org/collaborations/BINUor
:www.unep-wcmc.org/collaborations/BINUor from Philip Bubb,BINU Project Co-ordinator,philip.bubb@unep-wcmc.orgFurther information on the Ukraine BINU resultscan be found at:http://www.ulrmc.org.ua/services/binu/index.htmlFurther information on the Ecuador BINU resultscan be found at:http://www.socioambientalecuador.info/ UNEP-WCMC,MNP-RIVM and the national BINUpartner organisations wish to thank the manyorganisations that provided financial and in-kindsupport to the project,as well as the members ofthe project Steering Committee for their advice.The authors would also like to thank the co-ordinators of the four BINU country teams Ð VasylPrydatko in Ukraine,Anderson Koyo in Kenya,Malki Saenz in Ecuador,and Noel Barut in thePhilippines Ð for their collaboration in producingthis report,as well as their commitment toproducing biodiversity indicators for the conservation and wise management of theircountryÕs biodiversity.The results of each countryare the product of extensive teams involving manytypes of institutions,which are acknowledged inthe national reports on the CD-ROM whichEqually,we would like to thank Ben ten Brink,onnie Tekelenburg,and Mireille de Heer of theNetherlands Environmental Assessment Agency(MNP-RIVM) for their great contribution to allstages of the BINU project,including this report.The BINU project originated from a proposal by Preface The BINUproject team at UNEP-WCMC,Cambridge,UK in July 2003. n the past few decadesthere has been growingunderstanding that human well-being isfundamentally linked to the state of theenvironment.One manifestation of this is theincreasing acceptance of biological diversity(ÔbiodiversityÕ) as an important focus for humanconcerns.At international level this has perhapsbeen most clearly expressed by the entry intoce and continuing implementation of theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD).Through this and other mechanisms,biodiversityhas become the subject of many national andinternational policies and regulations.One result of this is a growing perception ofthe need for reliable ways to assess both the stateof biodiversity in countries and the effectivenessof measures designed to help maintain it.Calls tomeet this need have been voiced in many differentarenas,particularly at international level underthe CBD.One of the earlier decisions made bythe Conference of the Parties to the CBD urgedParties to identify indicators of biologicaldiversity as a high priority.It also called on Partiesto collaborate

4 on a voluntary pilot project todemonstr
on a voluntary pilot project todemonstrate the use of successful assessment andaking this as a starting point,four countrypartners,UNEP-WCMC and MNP-RIVMdesigned a project on biodiversity indicators fornational use (BINU) at a workshop in Kenya in2000,funded by the GEF.As part of the workshopthe team reviewed work on biodiversityindicators to date and found that,although muchhad been written about them,most of this wasfrom a theoretical standpoint and much of itlacked focus and clarity.Our first endeavour wastherefore to try to ensure that everyone on theproject team had a common understanding ofwhat indicators were and what biodiversity mightbe.In our discussion on indicators we took ourcue from other disciplines such as economics andmedicine.We decided that we could describeindicators as:Ômeasures or metrics based onrifiable data that conveyed information aboutmore than just themselvesÕ.Examples from otherdisciplines included relatively simple measuressuch as body temperature and retail price indices,and more complex measures such as humandevelopment and quality of life indices.Our understanding of biodiversity was based inbroad terms on that given in the CBD,namely Ôthevariability among living organisms from all sourcesterrestrial,marine and otheraquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes ofwhich they are a part;this includes diversity withinspecies,between species and of ecosystemsÕ.Having established this,the BINU teamdecided that the focus of the project should beon biodiversity indicators for use withincountries,and particularly for use at levelery quickly we agreed on two fundamentalThey were only of any use if they addressedquestions to which someone wanted to know theanswer.They were only feasible if the data to generatethem could be obtained.From the first of these aspects we developeda question-led approach,in which stakeholdersto be identified and asked what their mostimportant questions about biodiversity were.Armed with these questions,the national teamould seek out relevant information fromwherever it might be found.There would thenllow an indicator development phase,in whichattempts would be made to use the informationgathered to generate indicators that wouldespond in a meaningful way to questions askedthe stakeholders.It was then intended to testthese indicators by presenting them to thestakeholders,and to refine them further on thebasis of any feedback obtained.Because of the complexity of the issue,wealso decided that e

5 ach country partner wouldconcentrate on
ach country partner wouldconcentrate on one major biome:agriculturalecosystems in the Ukraine;marine and coastalecosystems in the Philippines;inland waters inya;and forests in Ecuador (later expanded toinclude all terrestrial ecosystems).We also agreedthat each country should have as much flexibilityas possible in deciding the best way to implementthe process. 4 Biodiversity Indicators for National Use Introduction While the primary aim of the project was thedevelopment of a tested core set of indicators foreach country (and each biome),we also viewed itas an opportunity for learning about the indicatordevelopment and application process itself.Inparticular we considered the following questionsas likely to be important:How useful is the indicator approach incommunicating issues on biodiversity to a widerange of people?What are the major constraints on indicatordevelopment?What are the major constraints on indicatoruptake?How helpful were conceptual frameworks indeveloping useful indicators?what extent are experiences common to thedifferent country partners and to what extent dothey diverge?How far are the same approaches applicable atdifferent scales and in different ecosystems?This booklet draws on experiences gained inimplementing the BINU project to attempt toanswer some of these questions,in the hope thatthis will be useful to others intending to developindicators of their own.For each major step in theprocess,we have set out how what happened inpractice related to our original intentions and whatconclusions and recommendations we can drawfrom this.We conclude with some general lessonsand pointers to the future. 5 Biodiversity Indicators for National Use Identify stakeholders Identify y questions Present tostakeholders Improve &develop new indicators objectives & targets Biodiversity indicators for national use:the process licies and targetsAll countries have policies in place that havedirect or indirect impact on biodiversity.Optimistically,it might be expected that thesepolicies would have clearly stated objectives andexplicit targets.Demonstrating progress towardsthese targets should,in theory,provide a majorole for biodiversity indicators.In reality,biodiversity-relevant policies are scatteredthrough a wide variety of sectors and many donot include clear objectives or targets.Oftenpolicies in different sectors are not wellcoordinated and may sometimes be contradictoryor even antagonistic.Because of the broad range of instrumentsand secto

6 rs concerned,we found during theBINU pro
rs concerned,we found during theBINU project that it was often difficult to identifyand analyse relevant policies comprehensively.Obvious policies that were relatively accessibleincluded national biodiversity strategies andaction plans (NBSAP),protected areas systemsplans and endangered species legislation.Relevantpolicies in natural resource management sectorsincluded national forest plans,fisheries policies,water policies,land-use plans and environmentalimpact legislation.Even when the relevant policiescould be found,their objectives were oftenframed very generally and no mechanisms formeasuring progress were specified.In otherinstances the declared indicators did not matchthe policy objectives and targets.maximize the role of biodiversityindicators in supporting policies,we found itimportant to engage with policy makers across awide range of sectors,including those fallingoutside the normal areas of expertise of theindicator development team.Involving stakeholders There are many different groups with interests in biodiversity.Some of these,such as governmentconservation agencies,conservation-focused non-ernmental organizations (NGOs) and relevantdepartments in both universities and researchinstitutions,are relatively obvious.Others,including government agencies responsible formanagement of natural resources and land-useplanning,agencies with an interest in ruraldevelopment and indigenous peoples groups,areless obvious.Many groups also have an importantdirect or indirect impact on biodiversity withoutnecessarily having a conscious interest in it,suchas those involved with road construction oragriculture.These are potentially some of themost important groups to reach in com-unicating information about biodiversity but arealso some of the hardest to engage with.Someimportant groups may be surprising at first sight Ðin the Ukraine,for example,the military becameengaged in the BINU process as they hadesponsibility for large areas of land whosemanagement could have impacts on biodiversity.ound that the indicator development teamshad varied connections with other stakeholdergroups,generally having closest links with thosewhose interests were most closely aligned withtheir own,usually natural resource managementagencies,conservation NGOs and academicsorking in the area.It was important that theteams made particular efforts to engage thoseoutside their normal spheres and thatppropriate mechanisms for engagement wereused.These varied greatly with circum

7 stances anddepended,for example,on wheth
stances anddepended,for example,on whether suchconsultation was a common practice locally andwhether different stakeholder groups wereother Ð under some circumstances,it wasvident that the presence of some stakeholdergroups could inhibit the frank expression ofviews and concerns by others.also found that a major barrier tomeaningful interaction with stakeholders provedunderstanding of what biodiversity is and why itmay be important.As a general rule it is evidentthat consultation processes need to includediscussions of these issues from the beginning.This is to try to ensure that stakeholders,including members of the indicator developmentteam,understand each other as clearly aspossible.However,because of the multi-dimensional nature of the term biodiversity,and 6 Biodiversity Indicators for National Use the different and sometimes irreconcilable value-sets of each group involved,ultimate agreementon terms and issues will never be reached.Instead,it is more important to acknowledge thatthere will be some areas where individuals andgroups will have to agree to disagree.An examplebiodiversity.Conceptual frameworks such as thepressure-state-response framework can help toclarify issues and provide a relatively stableframework for discussion (see below).Many stakeholders may not in the firstinstance be clear what questions they haveegarding biodiversity-related policies andmanagement.They may also differ widely in theirwareness and understanding of the relationshipsbetween biodiversity and their own interests.Presentation of potential indicators can help tostimulate stakeholdersÕ thinking and awareness ofquestions that may be important to them.Thisequires that teams leading the process play aproactive role,which inevitably means that theirwn values and interests are likely to come to thehis is not necessarily a problem providedthat it is openly acknowledged,that teams makeery effort to respond to outside ideas,and thatit leads to fruitful results.Identify key questions After initial discussions regarding what is meantÔbiodiversityÕ and what are biodiversity-relatedissues (and policies),groups consulted typicallycame up with a hundred or more questionscovering an enormous range of subjects.Many ofthese initial questions,however,proved not to bethe kind that are amenable to being addressedthrough indicators.Sometimes it was apparentthat the groups or individuals involved had a verydifferent understanding of what they were beingasked to do from that of th

8 e project team.This initself was a valua
e project team.This initself was a valuable lesson.At the very least itshowed what a complicated concept biodiversityis and how important it is to develop tools forcommunicating at least some aspects of it to non-It became evident that the consultationprocess should be regarded,even in this initialstage,as iterative Ð that is a preliminary session ofeliciting questions should lead to furtherdiscussion and explanation,led by the projectteams,and further refinement of the questions.Here again it is important that teams are able andprepared to facilitate through keeping discussionsconstructive and moving forward withoutdominating or leading too much Ð there is atendency to tell people that they have asked theÔwrongÕ questions if the questions concerned donot fit into the framework originally anticipatedthe project team.Even after such a process of clarification andefinement of questions asked,there wouldtypically be 50 or more questions that werethought likely to be amenable to being addressedbiodiversity indicators.This was generallyegarded as too large a number to be dealt withsatisfactorily under the project,and likely to beunfeasibly large under most indicator processes.deal with this,some questions were prioritizedand groups of others synthesized into moregeneral overarching questions.High-priorityquestions were generally those that were askedthe largest number or widest range of people.Grouping questions together was an analyticalexercise generally carried out by the core projectteams.As noted above,established conceptualframeworks,particularly pressure-state-responseand its variants (e.g.driver-pressure-state-impact-sponse),were often helpful in organizingquestions,although there was a risk of trying toassign all the key questions to this frameworkbeyond the point of meaningful analysis.The GEFÕsbiodiversity programme framework for assessingthe impact of conservation programmes alsoproved useful in some instances.The synthesized questions selected proved tobe very general in most cases.All the countrieshad questions about the state of biodiversity oftheir focal ecosystems and what were the mainfactors causing pressures on this biodiversity.Thepressure-related questions reflected the prioritiesof each country and the institutions conductingthe work.For example,in Ecuador the questionsincluded the effects of population increase,poverty levels and infrastructure on terrestrialbiodiversity.Identification of ownership and usersof wetlands was iden

9 tified as an important issue inya.Key qu
tified as an important issue inya.Key questions on the impacts of land-usechange on biodiversity were identified in Ecuadorand Ukraine,and later in Kenya.Questions relatedto response measures included ÔWhat agriculturallands could be returned to the natural state in the near future?Õ in Ukraine,and ÔWhat is the contribution of protected areas to the 7 Biodiversity Indicators for National Use conservation of terrestrial biodiversity?Õ inEcuador.It proved crucial to retain an understanding ofthe specific questions underlying the generalones,in order to ensure that the indicatorsselected produced answers that are applicable toas many as possible of the original questions.Thus,for example,several individual questionsabout trends in the status of particularcombined into a single question on the Ôstatus ofbiodiversityÕ.The indicators chosen to addressof species trends (see below),but strong interesta particular stakeholder group in trends in onespecies or group (e.g.flamingos as important forecotourism in Kenya) meant that trends in thoseindicator for addressing the general question.Italso proved important for teams to track whoasked which questions as this information is keyto subsequent effective communication of theGathering data ound in all cases that the data readilyvailable for answering key questions were farfrom complete or ideal.However,teams whothought outside the immediate sphere ofconservation found many additional data thatcould be applied to answering biodiversityquestions in a diverse range of locations andsources.Thus,for example,catch statisticscollected by the fisheries department in Kenyauseful for providing information on wetlandcollected for agricultural and developmentpurposes proved helpful in Ecuador.Understandably,teams found it difficult toidentify and gain access to data sets that were insectors outside their normal realm of expertise.Similarly,individuals tended to think of data at theparticular spatial scales that they tended to use intheir other work.It became evident,therefore,that creative thinking and a broad approach wereimportant in locating and gathering the maximumamount of potentially useful information.However,we also found that there was a dangerof diluting effort by being uncritical about whichdata were likely to be of the greatest use.Thiscould be solved through constant reference tothe key questions and their component originalquestions,as well as logistic and technicalRelevant data came in many different form

10 s,including spatially mapped data (these
s,including spatially mapped data (these days usuallyin the form of digital geographic informationsystems (GIS)),statistical compendia and surveyesults.Statistics and survey results usuallyneeded to be geographically referenced in someway to be useful.Sometimes it was possible to make use ofexisting expertise and experience,as well as datato generate information for buildingindicators.This was especially true where ÔhardÕdata were lacking but researchers and managershad large amounts of accumulated experience ofthe ecosystems and species of interest.Forexample,the team from Ukraine asked a body ofexperts to estimate population levels of species inthe agricultural landscape relative to a fixedbaseline,and were able to combine the resultingdata into a single species trend index (see below).While it is important to track the uncertainty inthese kinds of data,such ÔsoftÕ approaches havethe additional advantage of preserving knowledgethat is often unrecorded in any formal sense andwhich may disappear as individuals move on oreach the end of their careers.Generating indicators Using the available data to produce indicatorsthat respond to specific key questions requires acombination of creative thinking and scientificrigour.Creative thinking is required because theindicators with the greatest impact are oftenproduced by applying and presenting data innovel ways and by combining different kinds ofdata in ways that may not seem immediatelyCreative thinking is also required indeveloping methods for presenting data to non-specialists.Scientists and technicians used todealing with large amounts of complex data mayfind it hard to understand the problems thatnon-specialists have in dealing with and under-standing such data.Complicated graphs with adozen different variables on them,or denselypacked tables with rows of figures to six decimalplaces are difficult even for those with sometechnical expertise to interpret.For non- 8 Biodiversity Indicators for National Use specialists they are often incomprehensible,notto say alienating.or this reason,it is generally necessary tosimplify in order to convey useful information toa wide audience.The art in developing indicatorsis to simplify without losing scientific credibility.This requires a thorough understanding of theconcepts being dealt with,competence inand innovate.None of these is straightforward,and it is important not to underestimate thechallenges in developing robust,resonantindicators.Whatever procedures

11 are followed,and whatever indicators are
are followed,and whatever indicators are produced,it is offundamental importance that they remainscientifically defensible Ð many issues related tobiodiversity are contentious and may involveconflict between different interest groups.Indicators that are pressed into service in suchconflicts are likely to be subjected to close andsometimes hostile scrutiny.This has occurred,forexample,with the global Living Planet Index ofWWFÐWorld Wide Fund for Nature,which hasbeen attacked by those who wish to dispute thatthere is any kind of global biodiversity crisis.Tocounter these attacks it proved vital that themethods used to produce it,and the underlyingdata,were scientifically defensible.In general,procedures used in indicator generation must betransparent and testable,sources of dataerifiable and any potential weaknesses or biasesacknowledged.Most of the indicators developed resolvedthemselves into two fundamental types:map-based or spatial indicators and graph or index-based indicators.Map-based indicators wereoften found to have considerable initial appeal,asend-users generally find maps intrinsicallyattractive.However,because much GIS work islatively new,map-based data sets often do notexist as time series,but rather as single datasets.These may be useful for generatingsnapshots of a particular characteristic at onepoint in time,but cannot demonstrate changeer time,which is one of the most importantattributes normally looked for in indicators.However,reliable snapshot maps can be useful asbaselines against which to monitor future changeÐ because of the rapid advance of mappingtechniques,and particularly those based onemote sensing,it may be expected that mostmap-based variables will be much morefrequently monitored in future.However,somecurrent GIS data sets incorporate informationgathered at different times (e.g.national forestmaps may be compilations of a number of localmaps made at very different times,extendingfrequently over a period of years) and do nottherefore even show a reliable snapshot at anyone time.The visual appeal of maps may mask the factthat they can be hard to interpret meaningfully.Graphs,on the other hand,particularly thoseshowing simple changes over time (frequently astrend lines),are generally quite easy to interpret,although they may be less appealing.We foundthat the most effective forms of communicationoften combined the two approaches.Where data were scanty and not directlyamenable to mapping or graphing as trend lines,othe

12 r approaches were investigated.For examp
r approaches were investigated.For example,in Kenya the team looking at freshwater swampsorked on developing scorecards as a way ofcapturing information on a wide range ofvariables.This generated some interestingpreliminary results,but also raised a number ofissues,not least that of how to combine such anpproach with other methods when trying topresent a wider picture.This remains unresolvedat present.indicator approaches,we found that some weremost appropriate to particular ecosystem types.Indicators based on mapping and measures of extent proved most appropriate forquantifying land cover,particularly forests(including mangroves),and were not very helpfulor aquatic or marine systems.Indicators andindices based on direct population measuresmost useful in open ecosystems wherepopulation census is practical,for example birdsin wetlands and nesting sea turtles.Indirectmeasures such as fish catch per unit effort wereespecially helpful in aquatic systems,both marineand freshwater. 9 Biodiversity Indicators for National Use 10 Biodiversity Indicators for National UseThe BINU teams produced a great many indicators.A few examples are presented hereto illustrate some key points in generating and presenting indicators.Further detail isincluded on the CD-ROMaccompanying this report.Final outputs will be available in theMap-based indicatorsPrevious work in Ecuador has resulted in a valuable series of ecosystem and land use maps.These are visually attractive and can be used in several different ways.For example,side-by-side presentation of maps of ecosystem distribution and land use intensity allow people to identify visually the ecosystems under pressure from intensification (Figs 1 and 2).However,the very complexity of the maps makes it difficult for users to extract much meaningfulinformation,and a graphical summary of statistics derived from combining the maps is likely to be more useful.Such summaries make quantitative assessments feasible and enable users to make direct comparisons between categories (Fig 3).On the other hand,simplified maps may be able to convey a very clear message,particularly where time series exist.The loss of forest cover in the catchment of lake Nakuru in Kenya is a cause of increasing pressure on the wetland resulting from siltation and changes in the surrounding hydrology. EXAMPLES OF INDICATORS GENERATED BY NATIONAL TEAMS Fig 1:Potential distribution of native Fig 2 Distribution of current land use (2001)in Ecuador Fig 3:Perce

13 ntage remaining natural area of major te
ntage remaining natural area of major terrestrial ecosystem types in Ecuador Dry interandean vegetation Moist interandean vegetationCoastal moist forestestern dry foreststern montane moist forestMangrove Eastern montane dry forest Eastern montane moist forestDry paramo Amazionian moist forest Seasonally flooded Amazonian moist forestrmanent snow and ice The maps (Fig 4) are a clear way to show how these pressures have increased over time.Time seriesdata derived from maps can also be very useful without the accompanying map (Fig 5).Species trend indicatorsIn many countries there are data on trends in the populations of species that are important because they are of economic value,because they are culturally significant or because they have been the subjectof scientific study.or example,the Kenya Wildlife Services andvarious researchers have over the decadescensused water birds on several lakes in Kenya.Asa result many time series of population estimates(Fig 6A) are available.Though these data are toocomplex in their raw form to be interpreted bymost people,they can be simplified into meaningfulindicators in different ways to answer differentCalculating a multi-species trend indicatorprovides an overview of the trend in species statuser time in these wetlands and by implication ofthe trend in biodiversity status more generally. 11 Biodiversity Indicators for National Use Fig 4:Lake Nakuru catchment basin:changes in forest cover 1930-1998Fig 5:State of mangrove cover for allmangrove sites in the Philippines 1918-1993 1930 1970 1986 1998 Natural forest Plantation forest Illegal felling Freshwater Area (Õ000 ha)1918197031%31% 12 Biodiversity Indicators for National UseHowever,the Kenyan team found that a different approach was more appropriate for those primarilyinterested in the economic value and use of wetlands.In this case the trends in a single species key forecotourism,the lesser flamingo (6C) proved more meaningful.In other circumstances where species census data are lacking,the expertise and experience ofesearchers as well as conservation practitioners are a valuable source of information that can beharnessed in semi-quantitative form to provide similar indicators.For example,in Ukraine,experts asked to provide estimates of the populations of species relative to a historical baseline (1935).These estimated tends were then combined using the LPI technique to show changing agrobiodiversityIndirect measuresOther sources of data also serve to pro

14 vide information on the state of ecosyst
vide information on the state of ecosystems and the causes of trends within them.In this case,fisheries data on landings in the Philippines (Fig 7) show how themagnitude of pressure on fish changes over time.Exploitation rate,the ratio of fisheries-inducedmortality to total mortality,shown here for demersal species (Fig 8) both an indication of pressure er time and,when compared to a standard threshold value of 0.5,an instantaneous measure of species Fig 6C:Combined Lesser Flamingopopulations on three Kenyan lakes,1954-2003 1970199020002010 Fig 6D:UkraineÕs changing agrobiodiversity Fig 7:Marine capture fisheries production inthe Philippines,1970-1994 19601980199219751980198519901995Fig 8:Average exploitation rate (E) ofmarine fish in the Philippines,1955-1995 Fig 6A:Population trends for eight birdspecies on Lake Naivasha,1981-2000Fig 6B:Composite index for eight birdspecies on Lake Naivasha,1981-2000 198120001990199519812000 opulation (Õ000,000)Population (Õ000,000)195519691974199219951997199920012003Threshold value 13 Biodiversity Indicators for National Use status (stable or over-exploited).Assessing the relative importance of different causes of biodiversity change is frequently problematic.The Ukraine team drew on the same experts who estimated speciespopulations to assess the principal causes of the changes theyestimated.The resulting data (Fig 9) are expressed as the fraction ofspecies for which the each cause of change is the principal oneMeasures of ResponseMany of the key questions called for indicators of how effectiveactions are in conserving biodiversity.These were some of the mostproblematic for the BINU teams to supply,but several options didemerge in the Philippines.A very effective one came from thestatistics gathered by sea turtle protection programmes (Fig 10)which show increases in both the number of eggs produced and theproportion conserved over the time since the programme wasImportant indicators of effectiveness can be generated from GIS overlays of protected areas and land cover,which were used in Ecuador to identify the degree of ecosystem conversion withinprotected areas.Combining a map of the protected areas of Ecuador,with maps of both ecosystem distribution andland use intensity allowed the Ecuadorean team to assess theamount of the remaining ÔnaturalÕ area (i.e.the area neitherconverted nor in a mosaic in the process of conversion) included inthe national system of protected areas.As before,the map (Fig 11) is att

15 ractive and informative,but agraphical r
ractive and informative,but agraphical representation of this analysis may be more easilyunderstood (Fig 12).It shows that although approximately 25 percent of the countryÕs natural area is protected,some ecosystems arepoorly protected.The user can grasp immediately whichecosystems are best covered by the protected areas system in theirnatural state. Nature managementFactors abroadLowering groundwaterEutrophication % of species affected Fig 12:Protection of remaining natural area of majorterrestrial ecosystems in Ecuador (2001)Fig 11:Location of continental terrestrialprotected areas in the Ecuadorean NationalSystem of Protected Areas (SNAP) in 2003,in relation to ecosystem status in 2001(converted,mosaic in the process ofconversion,or natural). Fig 9:Causes of species population change in agroecosystems in UkraineFig 10:Sea turtle eggs conserved orxpoited on the Philippine Turtle IslandsProportion of ecosystem natural and protecedProportion of ecosystem natural and not protectedProportion of ecosystem converted or mosaic Converted Eggs conserved Ô84Ô90Ô95Ô00ermanent snow and iceSeasonally flooded Amazonian moist forestEastern montane moist forestDry paramoAmazonian moist forest Mangrovestern montane moist forestCoastal moist forestMoist interandean vegetationEastern dry forestEastern montane dry forestDry interandean vegetation Continued stakeholder input and review As an integral part of the BINU project,it wasenvisaged that key stakeholders would be asked toview the indicators produced and give feedback onwhich ones were the most understandable and usefulor answering their questions about biodiversity,andtherefore appropriate for supporting decisionmaking.A key first step was the critical review ofindicators by the teams themselves and othersdirectly involved in indicator development.In thisprocess it was important to refer both to the originalquestions,remembering who asked them,and to thesynthesized key questions.All the teams found it difficult to conduct awider review of the indicators within the time frameof the initial indicator development process (twoears),which made meticulous internal review evenmore important.They recognized that ultimatelythey would need feedback from both thestakeholders involved in the initial consultations andfrom a broad range of end-users of the indicators.Establishing meaningful contact with the latter groupmay be more problematic than continuing to interactwith the more familiar stakeholders.learned that wor

16 kshops may not be the bestormat for this
kshops may not be the bestormat for this review,but that more valuableeedback might be obtained from informalinteractions between members of the developmentteams and single or small groups of individuals,especially if they have been provided in advance withindicator examples.This approach has the addedadvantage of effectively marketing the indicators andbuilding support for them,which is vital to ensuretheir uptake and continued use.Countries also found that different groups hadgreatly differing expectations of the degree to whichthey expected to be involved in indicator review as anongoing process.In Kenya,for example,four differentgeneral categories of stakeholder had distinctexpectations of their involvement.Local communitiesand resource users were mainly interested in the endsults of the process to the extent to which thesecould empower them in decision making andesource use.Policy makers and regulators were alsomainly interested in the end results of the process,toprovide them with background information on thestate of the resource.Resource management andesearch institutions,on the other hand,oftenbecame actively involved in the indicatordevelopment process,using it to build their owncapacity and understanding.Non-governmentalorganizations were also often interested in theprocess as much as in the end-product,seeing it as apossible way of enhancing the participation of thewider community in decision making.Whatever the perspectives of differentstakeholders and end-users,it became evident thatcontinuing to seek guidance from them beyond theinitial stages of development is fundamental toensuring that the indicators are appropriate and topromoting their uptake and continued use.Thisconsultation should be regarded as an ongoing,iterative process.Organization and sustainability Being a relatively new subject,biodiversity indicatorsquire capacity and new ways of thinking that maynot exist within a single agency.We found that bothNGOs and government agencies were able to workin successful partnerships to generate indicators,andthat such partnerships helped to resolve problems ofcapacity.The need for additional capacity was notsolely in technical areas but also for some teams insuch areas as communication and writing skills.Therefore,teams made up of several individuals withdiverse backgrounds and training were found likelyto be most effective in generating and commu-The ways that indicator development teamsorganized their work varied widely,from ve

17 rycentralized work by a few individuals
rycentralized work by a few individuals (Ecuador),tork by specialized task forces focusing on particularsubsets of the ecosystem or issue (Kenya),tooutsourcing of large amounts of the work(Philippines).Each approach was found to have itsadvantages and disadvantages.A team that is limitedin numbers and scope is likely to have a moreconsistent overview of the resources available andthe materials it has generated.However,it losessome opportunities for cross-fertilization betweendisciplines and for mutual motivation among teammembers.There may also be less perceived incentiveor careful documentation in this case.Sub-groupscused on subsets of the ecosystem or issue allowenergies to be concentrated on the most relevantareas for each subset,but can then present problemsin generalizing the indicators chosen to broaderscales.Outsourcing to specialists has the advantageof harnessing advanced skills and knowledge,but canbe difficult to manage in a coordinated fashion.orking in partnerships and different 14 Biodiversity Indicators for National Use organizational configurations makes even moreimportant the need to document carefully the workthat is done,and especially the data that are collated.Careful management of data and their associatedmetadata is vital.Drafting a fact sheet for eachindicator is an important means of documentation toensure clarity and continuity in its future use.Weound that this process was also an important step inwithin the team,and that the drafting processsometimes highlighted methodological problems thatneeded to be resolved.major factor in ensuring the uptake and sustainabilityof the indicators.Involving representatives of nationalstatistical agencies as stakeholders early in theindicator development process provided oneeffective way to promote uptake.Both Ecuador andUkraine did this and report that inclusion ofbiodiversity indicators in national statisticalsummaries is now officially planned.The greatest utility of the indicators will arisefrom their sustained use and repeated calculation toshow trends and progress (monitoring).Thismonitoring can itself foster further continuity andraise awareness of new issues that need to beaddressed both by policy and indicators.Therefore,to ensure that subsequent biodiversity-relateddecisions are based on appropriate and timelyinformation.Concepts of biodiversity in general and biodiversityindicators in particular are new.Certainlybiodiversity is a concept that appears to havebecome ever more

18 difficult to define as the termitself h
difficult to define as the termitself has gained currency.With little fundamentalagreement as to what it actually means,it is notsurprising that it is hard to gain consensus on whatmakes a good indicator for it.Our way of trying to deal with this was to turnthe process round and allow a range of people todetermine what questions they wanted answeredabout biodiversity,however they understood theterm.Members of the BINU teams quickly graspedthe value of this approach.It did represent,however,a major departure from the way most people wereaccustomed to carry out their work and proveddifficult to sustain through later phases of theprocess.That is,when data were being assembled andindicators developed,it was easy to lose sight of they questions and those who had asked them.Different stakeholders want indicators for differentpurposes and will use them in different ways;thescientific teams who develop indicators have to makespecial efforts to understand these different needsand uses.Identifying the users of indicators andinvolving them throughout the development processis key to ensuring both the usefulness and use of theIndicators could be used,for example,for raisingwareness and stimulating policy development,formonitoring progress towards targets,or as analytictools for trying to understand particular processes.Itis very easy to confuse these different roles whencarrying out indicator development.Most importantly,it became increasingly evidentthat indicators were likely to be of only very limiteduse to most stakeholders unless they could bedirectly linked to actions Ð that is responses Ð ofsome kind.The main interest,for example,of users ofenewable natural resources such as fishers was inensuring that their resource base was maintainedand could continue to deliver benefits to them intothe future.That is,their main concern was thateffective management should be in place.Without an existing responsive management or policyframework for indicators to feed into,their role willcontinue to be highly compromised.Having said that,there are examples where development of effectiveindicators can itself apparently drive policy andmanagement decisions:in the United Kingdom,thepopulation status of farmland and woodland birdshas led to the development of policies and targetsaimed at reversing declines in these,which shouldultimately lead to changed management practices onthe ground.In the BINU process it proved difficult within the30-month project period to develop

19 a finely honedsuite of biodiversity ind
a finely honedsuite of biodiversity indicators that were widely takenup by stakeholder groups.Nevertheless,the projectprocess itself generally helped to raise the profile ofbiodiversity as an issue within the country concerned,stimulating discussion of the subject in sectors thathad previously given it little consideration.In addition,participants in the project enhanced their individualcapacities substantially both through implementingthe process and through interacting with other teamsand international partners. 15 Biodiversity Indicators for National Use he BINU project was begun at a time whenw had any understanding of whatbiodiversity indicators were.We believe thatthe project has shown that,even from a very basicstarting point and with limited resources,it ispossible to make great strides in the developmentof biodiversity indicators in a relatively short spaceof time.In all the participating countries we haveshown that there is a potential user-base for suchindicators,and that data already exist to enable atleast some useful indicators to be developed.The international profile of biodiversityindicators has increased considerably while theBINU project has been in progress.Mostimportantly,they are closely linked to the 2010biodiversity target,agreed by the Parties to theConvention on Biological Diversity at their 6thmeeting in April 2002 and by the participants at theorld Summit on Sustainable Development in theautumn of that year.This target is to achieve,by 2010,a significant reduction in the current rate ofbiodiversity loss at global,regional and national levels.The work done under the BINU project makes anotable contribution to efforts to measure progresstowards the target,particularly at the national level.There is a strong relationship between many of theindicators developed under BINU and the list ofindicators agreed by the CBD Conference of theParties (in February 2004) for assessing andcommunicating progress towards the 2010biodiversity target at the global level (Table 1).Thismeans that national and global level indicators can beutually reinforcing and this in turn should helpensure that coherent messages about biodiversityare conveyed to a wide range of audiences.It is important therefore that momentum inbiodiversity indicator development is maintained inthe countries already involved but equallyimportant that as many other countries as possiblebegin their own processes.Encouragingly,somehave already started out Ð Uganda,for examp

20 le,isbeginning to use indicators of the
le,isbeginning to use indicators of the kind discussedabove in its state of the environment reporting.Thepartners in the BINU project are very keen toshare their experiences and to support othercountriesÕ efforts to develop biodiversity indicatorsor their own national needs,including trackingprogress towards the 2010 target. 16 Biodiversity Indicators for National Use Overall,considerable interest in biodiversitypart in the project.However,it was evident that,given the generally limited resources available foractivities related to biodiversity in these and otherdeveloping countries,external support will still beneeded if substantial further progress is to be made. le 1:Indicators proposed by CBD COP7 for monitoring progress towards the 2010 targetOccurrence among BINU teamsÕ indicators EcuadorKenyaPhilippinesUkraine Change in extent of selected biomes,ecosystems & habitats  Coverage of protected areas  Change in status of threatened species Marine trophic index ends in genetic diversity of domesticated plants & animals ater quality in inland waters Nitrogen deposition;numbers and costs of alien invasions Connectivity and fragmentation of ecosystems Health and well-being of people in biodiversity-dependent communitiesOther pressure indicators were developed by the BINU countries. CD-ROM of the BINUproject interim reportsThis CD-ROM presents the interim reports of the four national teams of the ÔBiodiversity Indicators forNational UseÕ (or BINU for short) project,as of December 2004.The final reports will be available in theThe aims and formats of each national teamÕs reports vary according to the needs and audiences of theircountry,as the projectÕs outputs are firstly for national use.The structure of the reports also reflects thedifferent ways in which the project was organised in each country.The CD-ROM contains an introductionto the reports. BiodiversityIndicatorsforNationalUseExperienceandGuidanceThis booklet gives a summary of the experience of a GEF-funded project carried outbetween 2002 and 2005 on biodiversity indicators for national use,or BINU for short.The overall aim of the project was to develop operational national-level biodiversityindicators to support planning and decision-making in the four participating countries: 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 219 Huntingdon Road,Cambridge CB3 0DL,United Kingdomel:+44 (0) 1223 277314Fax:+44 (0) 1223 277136 E-mail:info@unep-wcmc.org ebsite