WCNC Biodiversity Series No 5

Assessing Biodiversity

Status and Sustainability

WORLD CONSERVATION
MONITORING CENTRE

K(N 10813

;?
Lae
a
:
%
=
‘
=<
-
; —
P) , -
' 2

WCMC Biodiversity Series No 5

Assessing Biodiversity
Status and Sustainability

by the

World Conservation Monitoring Centre

WORLD CONSERVATION
MONITORING CENTRE

Editors

B Groombridge and M D Jenkins

World Conservation Press

March 1996

The World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), based in Cambridge, UK is a joint-venture
between the three partners in the World Conservation Strategy and its successor Caring For The Earth:
IUCN - The World Conservation Union, UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme, and WWE -

World Wide Fund for Nature.

The Centre provides information services on the conservation and

sustainable use of species and ecosystems and supports others in the development of their own information

systems.

Prepared for publication by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre with funding from the United
Kingdom Overseas Development Administration and within the funding arrangements made by IUCN,
WWE and UNEP in support of the Centre. This support is gratefully acknowledged.

WORLD CONSERVATION
MONITORING CENTRE

Published by:
ISBN:

Copyright:

Citation:

Cover Design:
Printed by:

Available from:

¢ tm \

LA

UNEP WWF

World Conservation Press, Cambridge, UK.
1 - 899628 - 04 - 5
1996 Overseas Development Administration, United Kingdom

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study,
or criticism or review, as permitted under UK Copyright Designs and
Patents Act 1988, this report may not be reproduced, stored or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission
of the Overseas Development Administration.

Although this report has been commissioned by the ODA, it bears no
responsibility for, and is not in any way committed to, the views and
recommendations expressed herein.

The designations of geographical entities in this report and the
presentation of the material do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of WCMC, the ODA or other participating
organisations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or
area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers
or boundaries.

World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 1996. Assessing Biodiversity
Status and Sustainability. Groombridge, B and Jenkins, M D (Eds),
World Conservation Press, Cambridge, UK. 104pp.

Michael Edwards

Staples Printers, Rochester, part of Martins Printing Group

World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road,
Cambridge,

CB3 ODL, UK. Tel : +44 1223 277314 Fax: +44 1223 277136
e-mail - info@wemc.org.uk

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements
WCMC credits

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. A Framework for Sustainability Assessment

3. Inventory and Assessment of Biodiversity

4. Identifying Direct Users of Wild Biological Resources
and Socio-Economic Importance of Use

5. Assessing Socio-Economic Threats to Biodiversity

6. Conclusions and Implications for Funding

References

Annex | Bibliography for socio-economic material
Annex 2 Further details of biodiversity assessment techniques
Annex 3 IUCN Red List categories

List of text inclusions

Figure 1.1 Diagram to indicate the relative need for assessment of different

kinds of biological resource at three geopolitical scales

Table 3.1 Processes involved in biodiversity inventory techniques
Table 3.2 Comparison of biodiversity inventory techniques
Table 5.1 | Economic policies and their potential environmental impacts

Box 2.2 Some approaches to assessing harvest levels in animals

Box 2.3 Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) principles for natural forest
management

Box 3.1 Some criteria used in habitat classification

Box 3.2 Some potential indicators of forest degradation

Box 3.3 Habitat loss and species extinction

Box 3.4 Measures of genetic diversity

Box 3.5 Features of potential indicator groups

Box 4.1 Core Rural Rapid Appraisal (RRA) techniques

Box 4.2 Examples of RRA analytical games

Box 4.3 Wild foods

Box 4.4 Three valuation methods

Box 4.5 Contingent Valuation Methods (CVMs)

Box 5.1 Characteristics of Common Property Resources (CPRs)
Box 5.2 Table for field assessment of relative significance of costs

and benefits of conservation

Box 5.3 Comparison of costs and benefits of conservation at the local,

national and global level

Box 6.1 Hurdles to long-term conservation of Kenya’s wild biodiversity

il

il

This document

This report was originally prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) under
contract to the Overseas Development Administration (ODA), UK. The work began in 1994 and the
final draft was submitted in August 1995. The task assigned to WCMC was to propose approaches and
methods for use by developing country governments to assess the status of national biodiversity and
the sustainability of current and projected uses. The document is now made available in the present
format by kind permission of the ODA (this version differs from the original in a few minor
improvements to the text; no new research has been undertaken).

Acknowledgements

We thank Gary Jenkins, Susan Ryland-Jones and Diana Webster of the ODA Environment Policy
Department for helpful liaison and for coordinating ODA response to drafts of this document.

The draft text was much improved by perceptive comments received from Cleber J R Alho (WWF-
Brazil), Katrina Brown (CSERGE-UEA), Linda Brown (ODA), Nels Johnson (WRI), Peter Landymore
(ODA), John MacKinnon (Asian Bureau for Conservation), Jeff McNeely (IUCN - The World
Conservation Union), David Morgan (JNCC), S K Puri (WWF-India). We are grateful for their
assistance. We thank Barry Coates (WWF-UK) for facilitating review within WWF. The final text is,
however, the responsibility of WCMC and does not necessarily reflect the views of the individuals or
organisations who have reviewed material.

WCMC credits

The project was developed in consultation with ODA by Tim Johnson and Mark Collins (WCMC).
The draft text was prepared by a team of WCMC staff and consultants comprising: Brian
Groombridge, Martin Jenkins, Chris Magin and Diane Osgood. The final document was compiled and
edited by Martin Jenkins and Brian Groombridge, and produced by Julie Reay. Other assistance was
provided by Angela Barden, Mary Cordiner and Jo Taylor.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The aim of this document is to outline approaches suitable for use by developing countries to assess,
with reference to socio-economic factors, the status and sustainability of national biodiversity.

Because biodiversity is such an all-encompassing concept, it is vital that questions asked of it are
properly focused, with particular reference to context and spatial scale. At the national level, each
country has a unique endowment of species and habitats which may be used sustainably as the country
sees fit, but each country also contributes to global biodiversity and has a responsibility to play a part
in its maintenance.

Despite recent emphasis on the property of sustainability, there are few studies on how in practice to
measure this: the concept may refer to use of a specific resource (fishes, timber), or to the ideal of
sustainable human development. Recent discussion has elaborated the concept of ecosystem health and
the need to maintain this, defined in terms of key structures and processes, as an over-arching goal.
However, ecosystem health remains difficult to measure in practice. In light of this, the current best
option is to revert to the goal of maintaining the elements of ecosystems (populations, species,
habitats) and to adopt the precautionary principle so that the widest possible range of species and
habitats, and the largest possible area of ecosystems are maintained.

Different aspects of biological resource use will be of particular interest at different scales and in
countries at different stages of economic development: although there is no single methodology that
can be applied to all situations, a conceptual framework can be developed and general guidelines
proposed. In particular it will be necessary for each country to establish the appropriate balance
between demands to conserve every element of biodiversity, or to conserve only those elements
demonstrably essential to human well-being; the key problem is that the costs and the benefits entailed
by each such trade-off will have different impacts at different spatial scales and among different
sectors of society.

To help ensure a wide spectrum of biodiversity is maintained, two different but complementary
approaches are needed: one concerned with maintaining the option and existence (intangible) benefits
derived from biodiversity, the other focused on the direct use values.

Intangible benefits are best maintained by ensuring that ecosystems remain as healthy as possible, and
persist in sufficient area: an efficient protected areas system is the best response to this need.

Direct use benefits can only be maintained by focusing on the resources in question; at the
macroeconomic level marine fisheries and timber are by far the most significant sectors of use: not
only are the products of great importance to humans but they are derived largely from wild resources.
Assessment of the impact of harvest of these and other wild resources is problematic. It is becoming
increasingly evident that effective management of these resources requires an approach based on
ecosystem functioning.

All management of wild resources requires baseline information concerning both status of the
resources and the human activities which impinge on them.

Data requirements on the status of wild resource should be selected and prioritised according to
national strategic goals and the UNEP Country Study Guidelines. A large number of techniques have
been developed for rapid biodiversity assessment, several based on extrapolation from occurrence of
indicator groups.

ill

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

As a first step, sources of existing data should be identified; research should then be undertaken to fill
gaps in information. The aim is to set baselines in order to monitor and identify trends. Emphasis
should be placed on endemic species, threatened species and resource species; information gathered
should include importance to human communities, rates of use and of loss. Priority geographic areas
are those rich in such species, and areas where human use of them is critical.

Assessment of habitat change at global level is hindered by lack of a standard habitat classification;
assessment at national level and below requires at minimum an internally consistent scheme that need
not necessarily apply elsewhere.

The status of individual species is best assessed using the revised IUCN/SSC category system which
is being enhanced to apply at national as well as global level; evaluating genetic erosion is of
particular importance for biological resources, including domestic species, local varieties, and their
wild relatives, but is technically demanding.

Assessment of the status of biodiversity should proceed hand-in-hand with assessment of the socio-
economic factors determining biodiversity use. For these studies it is essential to determine the
appropriate spatial scales for study: for many purposes the local village level will often be most
important. However regional and national level analysis is also important for a complete understanding
of the exploitation of major resources, such as fisheries and timber. Realistic goals must be adopted.
This will entail combining secondary material with select in-depth analyses and numerous rapid
surveys to reduce ignorance to a level where appropriate action is possible.

Varieties of Rural Rapid Appraisal (RRA) can provide an overview of those socio-economic sectors
most dependent on direct use of biological resources in subsistence and mixed economies at the village
level, but should be combined with selected in-depth studies. Economic analysis is more difficult in
market economies because complex modelling is needed and input data are scarce.

Analysis at all spatial scales of the socio-economic factors affecting use of biodiversity will provide
insight into the underlying or ultimate threats to biodiversity. Major factors are: land tenure and access
rights; population growth; inequitable distribution of the costs and benefits of biodiversity
conservation; distortions in the economy, caused by government policies and misleading market prices.

Addressing these problems is a major challenge. Long-term stable funding of conservation efforts is
required to meet recurrent costs and to ensure long-term goals are met. The great majority of Less
Developed Countries are not at present in a position to meet these costs without external financial and
technical assistance.

iv

1. INTRODUCTION

Summary

1.1

the aim of this document is to outline approaches suitable for use by developing countries to
assess, with reference to socio-economic factors, the status and sustainability of national
biodiversity;

each country has a unique endowment of species and habitats which may be used sustainably
as the country sees fit, but each country also contributes to global biodiversity and has a
responsibility to play a part in its maintenance;

because biodiversity is such an all-encompassing concept, it is vital that questions asked of it
are properly focused, with particular reference to context and spatial scale;

despite recent emphasis on the property of sustainability, there are few studies on how in
practice to measure this: the concept may refer to use of a specific resource (fishes, timber), or
to the ideal of sustainable human development;

recent discussion has elaborated the concept of ecosystem health and the need to maintain this,
defined in terms of key structures and processes, as an over-arching goal: ecosystem health
remains difficult to measure in practice;

the current best option is to revert to the goal of maintaining the elements of ecosystems
(populations, species, habitats) and to adopt the precautionary principle so that the widest
possible range of species and habitats, and the largest possible area of ecosystems, are
maintained;

it will be necessary for each country to establish the appropriate balance between demands to
conserve every element of biodiversity, or to conserve only those elements demonstrably essential
to human well-being; the key problem is that the costs and the benefits entailed by each such
trade-off will have different impacts at different spatial scales and among different sectors of
society;

different aspects of biological resource use will be of particular interest at different scales and
in countries at different stages of economic development: although there is no single
methodology that can be applied to all situations, a conceptual framework can be developed and
general guidelines proposed.

PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT

The intention of this document is to propose approaches and methods suitable for use by
developing country governments to assess the status of national biodiversity and the
sustainability of current and projected biodiversity uses.

The need for these kinds of assessment is made explicit in the text of the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) (UNEP, 1992). The CBD opened for signature in June 1992 at
the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, and entered into force on
29 December 1993. The objectives of the Convention are threefold (paraphrased from Article
1 of the CBD text):

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

e the conservation of biological diversity,
¢ the sustainable use of its components, and
* the equitable sharing of benefits from use of genetic resources.

In effect, the CBD aims to encourage and enable all countries to conserve biological
diversity, to ensure that its use in support of national development is sustainable, and to
reconcile national interests with the maintenance of highest possible levels of global
biodiversity. Each country has its own unique combination of living species, habitats and
ecosystems which together make up its biodiversity resource. Implicit in the CBD is the
concept that each country may exploit sustainably its own biodiversity in any way which it
sees fit, and because each country also contributes to overall global biodiversity, it has a
corresponding responsibility to play a part in its maintenance.

To enable it to carry out these functions effectively, each country requires a sound baseline
understanding of its own biodiversity, and how it fits into the global pattern, followed by
assessments of change in the status of biodiversity over time, and of the sustainability of
human uses of biodiversity. Finally, the policy, institutional and social framework must be
capable of making responses appropriate to such assessments.

This document is concerned with biodiversity assessment: more general issues in biodiversity
data management are addressed elsewhere. The UNEP/WCMC Biodiversity Data
Management project (supported by the Global Environment Facility) is designed to facilitate
the building of national capacity for biodiversity data management and exchange under the
CBD. Materials from this project are now becoming available: Guidelines for National
Institutional Survey (a framework for recording institutional involvement in biodiversity data
management), Framework for Information Management (principles and techniques for
developing national information systems to produce policy-relevant information for decision
making) (UNEP/WCMC, 1996), and The Resource Inventory (tools, data exchange standards,
thematic information standards, sources, reference material) (UNEP/WCMC, 1995).

Because biodiversity is such an all-encompassing concept, it is vital that questions relating
to it are focused. It is important to emphasise, for example, the distinction between
ecological services such as the role of forest cover in the prevention of erosion, where
diversity is not the paramount issue, and the role of land races in maintaining crop yields
under varying conditions, where biological diversity in the strict sense is the major factor.

Conservation activities, often funded by international and bilateral agencies, are in progress
in most countries at present. Major problems with them tend to be: lack of coordination,
leading to duplication and dissipation of effort; difficulty in translating knowledge into
action; and lack of political will to carry out actions. It is emphasised in this document that
a major priority in all countries is therefore to make more efficient use of existing resources,
activities and institutions. A first step should always be to determine whether required
information already exists in government archives or in academic or NGO reports, and needs
only to be located rather than researched anew. Note, however, that many standard sets of
statistical data will exclude subsistence economies and underestimate rural production,
immigration, and other parameters.

1.1.10

ileileiMn

1.2

1.3

{N25

SEZ

1. Introduction

Investigation of the sustainability of biodiversity use requires evaluation of biological data
in the context of human social, economic, and cultural development. These socio-economic
factors are paramount in establishing a balance between the conservation, preservation, and
extensive exploitation of biodiversity resources. The needs, concerns, and priorities of local
communities, and regional and national administrations with regard to biodiversity may be
different and even conflicting. All three groups play a significant role in maintaining or
depleting biodiversity. Therefore, where possible, the socio-economic issues should be
considered at the local, regional and national level.

Despite the implementation of many Integrated Conservation and Development Projects
(ICDPs) it remains in practice difficult to connect the goals of workers focusing primarily
on biodiversity conservation and those concerned mainly with human well-being, and to
achieve sufficient consensus between local communities and other national sectors.
Achieving such connections is complicated by, among other factors, questions of spatial and
temporal scale.

While some problems of monitoring and assessment have technical solutions, there is also
a challenging but fundamental requirement to address the sustainability of staff and
institutions, particularly in terms of funding support, in order to make use of these
techniques.

STRUCTURE OF THIS DOCUMENT

The introductory material in this chapter is intended to set the context for the study. It
provides basic definitions of biodiversity and outlines the various ways in which it is used
and valued by mankind. It then discusses the concept of sustainability and the difficulties
involved in making this concept operational, drawing particular attention to questions of
spatial and temporal scale. It then focuses on two different but complementary values of
biodiversity which need to be addressed, option values and direct use values. Chapter 2
outlines a framework for dealing with these. Subsequent chapters deal with: (#3) inventory
methods, (#4) investigation of users of biodiversity and the socio-economic importance of
that use, (#5) methods to assess the socio-economic origin of major threats to biodiversity,
and (#6) conclusions and implications for funding.

THE MEANING OF BIODIVERSITY

Biodiversity is a term which has gained enormous currency in the past few years. The more
widely it is used, the less precisely it is defined and the less well it is understood.
Technically, it is a contraction of ’biological diversity’. For the purposes of the CBD (Article
2. Use of Terms), ’biological diversity’ is "the variability among living organisms from all
sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the
ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between
species and of ecosystems". In practice, ’biodiversity’ is most often used as a collective noun
synonymous with nature or ’Life on Earth’.

It has become customary to address biological diversity at three hierarchical levels - genes,
species and ecosystems. In practice, species diversity is central to the evaluation of diversity
at other levels, and is a constant point of reference in biodiversity studies. However,

3

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

1.3.3

1.3.4

SkS)

1.3.6

diversity or heterogeneity is evident at all levels of biological organisation - from molecules
to ecosystems - and this diversity has different functional significance at each level.
Different manifestations of biodiversity become of significance at different scales, and
according to the practical or ethical interests of humans.

Biological diversity as a resource

In terms of human uses and needs, biodiversity can be looked on as part of the entire capital
stock on which development is based. This stock can be divided into: natural capital, living
and non-living environmental assets, including biodiversity; fabricated capital, machines,
buildings, infrastructure; human capital, human resources, and social capital, the social
framework (Serageldin and Steer, 1994). Analysing biodiversity within this context is an
extremely complex task but one which lies at the heart of all discussions concerning its
sustainable use. This complexity arises because of the multitude of different ways and range
of different scales, both in time and space, in which any given resource can viewed.

A theoretical distinction can be drawn between the value of some element of biodiversity
as a biological resource and the value of diversity itself. The latter is much more difficult
to conceptualise and attach a value to than the former. For example, the estimation of maize
production (ie. the value of maize as a biological resource) is straightforward, but the
calculation of the marginal contribution of genetic diversity from maize varieties is much
harder. Strictly speaking, an assessment of the importance of biodiversity per se and attempts
to measure the sustainability of its use would focus upon the latter, ie. the value of diversity,
but in practice it is virtually impossible to disentangle the two and it makes far more sense
to consider the individual components of biodiversity, be they genes, populations, species
or ecosystems, as biological resources to be assessed and managed.

A framework of ’total economic value’ helps to clarify this. Any given resource may have
several different forms of economic value attached to it. Direct values are derived from the
goods and services that are used in consumption or production; /ndirect values are functions
of the resources, for example watershed protection of forests regulates water flow, maize
varieties providing security from complete crop failure; Option values are associated with
the future potential uses of biodiversity, such as a pharmaceutical discovery; Existence
values are derived by an individual from the mere knowledge that biodiversity continues to
exist. Direct use values tend to reflect the value of the biological resource; option and
existence values tend to reflect the value of diversity; and indirect values tend to reflect a
mix of both. A fifth value is also sometimes regarded as a part of total economic value. This
is Bequest value, which is the value of leaving the other values (both use and non-use) to
future generations.

Whether such an economic framework will ultimately prove the most fruitful way of
examining the true value of biodiversity, particularly in the realms of existence and bequest
values, where ethical and aesthetic considerations predominate, is perhaps debatable.

1.4

1.4.1

1.4.2

1.4.3

1.4.4

1.4.5

1.4.6

1. Introduction

THE MEANING OF SUSTAINABILITY

Like biodiversity, sustainability is a term which has been increasingly widely used over the
past few years. It too is used in many different contexts and has come to mean many
different things. It is thus extremely difficult to attach a single meaning to the term, let alone
assess it quantitatively.

The concept of sustainability is most widely used at present in two separate, though related,
ways. The first is with reference to the sustainable use of a specific resource or suite of
resources, as in sustainable production of timber. The second is a much more general notion
of sustainable development.

Sustainable resource use

In the context of direct extractive natural resource use, ’sustainable’ means most simply that
an activity can be carried out within some band of intensity, through the foreseeable future.
This is exemplified by the fisheries concept of sustainable yield derived from a target
population. Sustainability will vary according to biological features of the resource and its
ecological surroundings, and to levels of use and the effects of any socio-economic controls
on that use.

More formally, and with a biological emphasis (IUCN, 1993), ’sustainable use’ may be
defined as: "use that does not reduce the future use potential, or impair the long term
viability, of either the species being used or other species; and is compatible with
maintenance of the long term viability of supporting and dependent ecosystems". The text
of the Convention on Biological Diversity itself (Article 2. Use of Terms) defines
*sustainable use’ as: "the use of components of biological diversity in a way and at a rate
that does not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity, thereby maintaining its
potential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations."

These definitions go beyond the simple basic concept of sustainability, with reference to
some given target stock, to include the requirement that other (non-target) species and
ecosystems suffer no lasting damage.

Sustainable development

The goal of sustainable development is to meet current human needs, in particular of the
world’s poor and disadvantaged, while also ensuring that future human generations at the
very least have the same opportunities for survival and for personal and cultural
development as present generations. At this level the concept is particularly problematic.
Rapport (1995) argues on the basis of thermodynamics that the notion of sustainable
development is at best ambiguous and at worst a contradiction in terms. Three strong reasons
for this are: a significant proportion of the world’s population is living in poverty (ie. is
perceived as not having its current needs met); the world’s human population is still
increasing at a very rapid rate; and much of the current energy consumption of the world’s
population is based on the conversion of non-renewable resources (fossil fuels). Given these,
any notion of sustainable development measured in conventional economic terms does not
appear a realistic concept.

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

1.4.7

1.4.8

1.4.9

1.4.10

1.4.11

1.4.12

1.4.13

Other definitions of sustainability have attempted to circumvent these problems. Thus the
concept has also been defined in broad economic terms, such that this criterion is met if the
entire capital stock (discussed above) on which development is based is maintained, although
acknowledging that degrees of conversion between components of overall capital will be
necessary (eg. converting some stocks of oil into means of sustainable energy production,
or via education, into increased human capital) (Serageldin and Steer, 1994).

Even if these much broader notions of sustainability are accepted, the continued expansion
of global human population and the very unequal distribution of benefits from resource use
mean that the goal of sustainable development remains doubly challenging from practical
and political points of view.

Sustainability of ecosystem functioning: ecosystem health

More recently, discussion of sustainability has tended to focus on the notion of maintaining
ecological processes at large geographical scale over many (human) generations. This view
regards the maintenance of individual elements (species and populations) which make up
ecosystems as of lesser importance provided that ecosystem functioning at the landscape
level is not impaired. This view of sustainability is strongly linked to ideas of ecosystem
health.

Within this context, ecosystem sustainability "implies the system’s ability to maintain its
structure (organization) and function (vigour) over time in the face of external stress
(resilience)" (Costanza, 1992). These notions of ecosystem organization, vigour and
resilience are central to most current discussions of ecosystem health. It is generally admitted
that, as is the case with human and societal health, goals and definitions will be determined
socially as much as scientifically. There will thus never be a single over-riding and
incontrovertible objective.

This concept of sustainability can be seen as an attempt to synthesise ideas related to
sustainable development with those concerned with sustainable use, direct or indirect, of
natural resources. Intuitively it appears to offer one of the strongest frameworks in which
to consider sustainability. Unfortunately its practical application is seriously hampered for
a number of theoretical, practical and political reasons.

Many ecological processes operate over decades and therefore require long-term data series
(ie. on this timescale) before it will be possible to begin to understand them. Even then,
analysis of data available will at best generate hypotheses (often several competing ones)
which need to be tested, preferably by experimental manipulation, again over time-periods
of the same order of those of the processes being studied. However, activities affecting the
environment and policy decisions controlling those activities are made over far shorter time-
scales. There is no ready answer to this problem apart from again counselling a
precautionary approach to the large-scale alteration of ecosystems and ecological processes.

Despite this problem, the concept of sustainability as the maintenance of long-term health’
of ecosystems can certainly be considered as the ultimate goal. Although difficult to pin
down, the concept does provide valuable insights, for example into questions of scale, both
geographical and temporal, which are central to any discussions of sustainability. These are
considered in more detail below.

1.5

ESE

1.5.2

1.5.3

1.5.4

1.5.5

1. Introduction

TOWARD A SYNTHESIS OF APPROACHES

In the current absence of a firm scientific basis for objectively assessing ecosystem health,
it is evident that a more pragmatic stance will have to be adopted, at least until a fuller
understanding of ecosystem processes can be gained. The most practical option involves:

* reverting to the goal of maintaining the elements of ecosystems (species, populations,
and their physical environment);

¢ adopting a precautionary principle so that as wide a range of species and ecosystems
and as large an area of intact ecosystems as possible are maintained.

The precautionary principle, and different interpretations of it, lies at the heart of conflicts
between conservation (the maintenance of biodiversity in all its facets) and other human
activities. An extreme conservationist view would argue that no element of biodiversity
should be lost or placed at risk, whatever the cost. Taken to its logical conclusion, this
would entail the cessation of much present human activity and is clearly therefore an
unrealistic proposition. At the other extreme there are those who would argue that efforts
should only be made to maintain those aspects of biodiversity which are incontrovertibly
demonstrated to be vital to human survival. This approach will ultimately lead to extreme
biotic impoverishment of the biosphere, with unforeseeable consequences.

The most sensible course of action undoubtedly lies somewhere between these two extremes.
It will essentially involve a trade-off between the benefits to be gained from maintaining
some aspect of biodiversity (eg. preserving an area of virgin forest) and the costs in doing
so, most of which are likely to be in the form of foregoing the benefits of conversion (ie.
foregoing the financial gain from logging the area, plus the actual costs of maintaining it)
(see, eg. Faith 1995). Determining where this trade-off should lie is one of the most
problematic areas in biodiversity conservation: not only is it essentially socially determined,
so that it will be based on the particular standpoints of those involved in the decision
making, but the various costs and benefits involved are experienced very differently at
different geographic scales and by different sectors of society. Establishing a consensus on
what action to take is thus extremely difficult. This is discussed further below.

Scale is all important. The concept of sustainability can be approached at the global level
(eg. Goodland et al. 1993), where uses of and impacts upon the entire spectrum of natural
resources need to be addressed. At issue at this scale is the condition of ecosystems and
ecosystem processes, and the future quality of life for humanity in general. At the other
extreme, sustainability can be approached from the local or village level, where the
availability of certain basic wild or agricultural biological resources needs to be addressed.
At issue here is the status of local resources, and the survival or quality of life of individual
people and communities.

Any given country will have to address issues of biological resource use at all these scales,
from the local to the national. In the best of all possible worlds, each country would prepare
a complete national biological resource audit, with detailed predictions of trends for all its
natural resources over the whole range of temporal and spatial scales, from the local and
immediate to the national and long-term. From this it would be possible to identify those
areas where resources were being used unsustainably and to put into place remedial
measures. Clearly in reality this is impossible to achieve. It is therefore vital that ways are

7

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

found for ordering priorities within countries, both for investigation and for action. Only in
this way can there be any hope of effecting change in a realistic time scale.

1.5.6 Different aspects of biological resource use will be of differing importance in different
countries and at the various scales. In particular developed countries are likely to have very
different perspectives from less developed countries. Even within these groupings, there will
be variation (eg. an LDC for which fisheries comprise a significant part of export earnings
and GNP will have a different perspective on fisheries management from one where fisheries
are only important locally, either for subsistence or for regional domestic markets).

3) Figure 1.1 illustrates very schematically some of these differences. It helps to demonstrate
some of the reasons why it is so difficult to produce a single methodology for assessing the
status of biodiversity and estimating whether its use is sustainable or not. It also highlights
one of the central problems in biodiversity conservation, namely the wide disparity in
perception between developed and less developed countries, which applies as much or more
so to their respective citizens as to the nations as a whole.

Figure 1.1 Diagram to indicate the relative need for assessment of different kinds of biological resource at three
geopolitical scales.

WILD RESOURCES DOMESTICATED RESOURCES

Intangibles Ecosystem Exploited resources Ecosystem Exploited resources
Services Services
SCALE

Local
Village

Key:

Numbers in cells indicate priority of needs: 3 (shaded) = top priority; 1 = least need.

Intangibles = option, existence, bequest values.

DC = developed country. LDC = less-developed country. These terms are for general comparative purposes only.

1.5.8

1. Introduction

Any given country should address all the columns in this matrix to assess whether its use
of biodiversity is sustainable or not. However, each column requires different emphasis and
often a different approach. The remainder of this document discusses these different
approaches. It is concerned particularly with wild resources rather than domesticated ones,
although the latter are touched on with reference to genetic diversity. The document has
also concerned itself with intangibles and exploited resources rather than with ecosystem
services. A reliable theoretical framework for assessing ecosystem services has yet to be
developed. In the absence of such a framework, it is believed that the best way forward is
to address the other two major aspects of wild resource value as fully as possible.

taut NEN AREY Bok™ 4 alt apioaamnnten

ree zit ‘Seibert Boece

ents heshonaee ore as nin
a er eR aay fans Mitrrewieary Ten
ae Se oe perenne we ty ates Mi
a ca ite wide'¢
ie siebbets. reo 6) acer
1 ae ;

4

” owe. & \onoeat ho ee
are a «eh
mn : al

ie oJ tan eee 4 Byte

9 ‘

é ire wae ia | eyed o0t
mr pear i= ', Poy aS ee Hi
ww i -

2. A FRAMEWORK FOR SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT

Summary

2.1

to help ensure a wide spectrum of biodiversity is maintained, two different but complementary
approaches are needed: one concerned with maintaining the option and existence (intangible)
benefits derived from biodiversity, the other focused on the direct use values;

intangible benefits are best maintained by ensuring that ecosystems remain as healthy as
possible, and persist in sufficient area: an efficient protected areas system is the best response
to this need;

direct use benefits can only be maintained by focusing on the resources in question; at the
macroeconomic level marine fisheries and timber are by far the most significant sectors of use:
not only are the products of great importance to humans but they are derived largely from wild
resources;

management of marine fish stocks requires an integrated ecosystem level approach, typified by
the Large Marine Ecosystem concept, and needs strong international cooperation;

inland fisheries are globally much less significant than marine fisheries, but locally provide
essential food resources; the stocks are affected by habitat changes in the watershed, indigenous
species are widely affected by the presence of introduced species; these systems also require
ecosystem level analyses;

assessment of the impact of harvest on populations of wild animals is usually problematic,
particularly the task of clearly distinguishing the effect of harvest from those of environmental
and stochastic factors;

in practice, a decline in the number of large and old individuals in a population, or an increase
in the effort required to attain a given harvest rate, have both been taken as indications of
excess harvest;

harvest of trees has a major impact on habitat structure and integrity; it is therefore particularly
important that assessment of use of tree resources takes into account the wider impact such use
has; principles and criteria for ecologically sound forest management have been developed by
the Forest Stewardship Council.

In accord with arguments developed in the previous chapter, two different but
complementary approaches are proposed: one focused on ecosystem health and the less
tangible values associated with this property, the other focused on directly used biodiversity
resources.

PLANNING FOR THE LONG-TERM: MAINTAINING INTANGIBLE VALUES

Large-scale, long-term planning can be undertaken with the goal of maintaining ecosystem
health, or, in economic terms, the less tangible values usually classified as the option,
existence and bequest values of biodiversity. These values lie at the heart of arguments for
the maintenance of biodiversity per se. That is, they are the principal justification for the
maintenance of those parts of biological diversity which cannot be demonstrated to have

11

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

2.2

Deal

12

important immediate direct and/or indirect value. They are thus arguments invoked in the
prevention of species extinction (particularly the conservation of threatened species) and the
maintenance of representative samples of natural ecosystems.

From an individual country’s point of view, sustainability of this sort is best viewed at the
national level. This applies both to developed and to less developed countries. Each country
should attempt to ensure that it minimises its loss of irreplaceable biodiversity (chiefly
individual species but also habitats and ecosystems where these are known to be unlikely
to regenerate naturally or difficult to restore artificially).

Central to this approach is the development of an adequate protected areas network, where
maintenance of species and ecosystems takes precedence over other activities, although does
not necessarily exclude them. The design and management of protected area networks is the
subject of a large amount of literature which it would be unrealistic to attempt to summarise
here. A suggested procedure for planning a protected area network with the aim of long-term
maintenance of biodiversity follows. Major publications which provide practical guidance
on these subjects are (full citations are provided (see References)):

Managing Protected Areas in the Tropics (Mackinnon et al., 1986).

Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A Guide for Planners and Managers (Salm, 1984).
Protected Landscapes: A guide for policy-makers and planners (Lucas, 1992).

Parks and Progress (Barzetti, 1993).

Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories (IUCN, 1994).

PLANNING A PROTECTED AREA NETWORK

This section presents an outline of the main steps involved in planning a protected area
network.

Assessment of national biodiversity stock

The first step is for each country to assess its natural resources and identify those which are
most important, or in this context, most irreplaceable. Such an assessment should look at
both species and ecosystems.

Priorities for species are, in order:
e Endemic threatened species;
e Endemic non-threatened species;
¢ Globally threatened species for which the country holds a significant part of the
world population;
¢ Other globally threatened species;
¢ Nationally threatened populations of globally non-threatened species;

Priorities for habitats and ecosystems are, in order:
¢ Ecosystems unique to the country;
¢ Ecosystems for which the country holds a significant part of the world total;
¢ Species-rich ecosystems;

222.

22S

2.2.4

DDS

2.2.6

Pedidd

Departs

2.2.9

2.3

2. A framework for sustainability assessment

Identify important areas

Important species and habitats identified above should be mapped as accurately as possible
to identify important areas.

Identify gaps

Gaps in knowledge will include both areas of the country which have been inadequately
surveyed and groups of species which have been inadequately monitored.

Prioritise filling of gaps in knowledge

Resources available for ground surveys (and/or analysis of data from remote sensing) are
almost invariably limited. It is important therefore that priorities are developed for field work
before large amounts of effort are invested.

Systems review of current protected area network

Determine how much the existing protected area networks cover those areas identified as
important for species and habitats (in the second step above (2.2.2)); determine gaps in
existing Protected area network for such areas.

All the above steps essentially involve different aspects of biodiversity inventory and
assessment. The various techniques to be employed in this are set out in detail in Chapter 3.
Having determined where action needs to be carried out, the next, usually far more difficult
step, is to determine what needs to be done practically to ensure that these biologically
important areas are maintained.

Attempt to fill gaps in protected area networks

Determine threats to existing Protected areas

Priority to be given to those identified as important under step 2.2.2.
Determine means of alleviating threats identified

These are essentially questions of policy, and of assessing the social and economic
determinants of land-use practices. Techniques for carrying out these forms of analysis are
elaborated in Chapters 4 and 5.

PLANNING FOR THE LONG-TERM: MAINTAINING DIRECT USE VALUES

An effective protected area network is undoubtedly the best means available at present of
maintaining the widest possible range of species and ecosystems. Other approaches have to
be adopted for the maintenance and management of biological resources which are directly
used. At a macroeconomic level, by far the most important sectors of wild resource use are
fisheries and timber. Not only do these represent resources of great importance to mankind
at a global level, but significant parts of each are derived from what is effectively wild
stock: in the case of fishes, less than 10% of the annual global fisheries production of

13

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

2.4

2.4.1

2.4.2

2.4.3

2.4.4

14

around 100 million tonnes is from aquaculture. These two areas thus deserve special
attention in any sustainability analysis.

Approaches to management of wild animals and plants are often different. The two will
therefore be dealt with separately, in sections 2.4 and 2.5 below.

DIRECTLY-USED ANIMAL RESOURCES

Wild animals are harvested for a wide variety of reasons. By far the most important is food,
but clothing (eg. leather, fur), medicines (eg. bones for oriental medicines), ornaments (eg.
tropical fishes for aquaria), companion animals (eg. parrots as pets), sport (eg. trophy
hunting), building material (eg. coral) are also sometimes important, as are a range of minor
products such as dyes and wax. As with any commodity, products from wild animals may
be used locally, transported within a country or traded internationally. They may be for
subsistence use (consumed by those who harvested them), bartered or they may enter the
cash economy. An overview of the various uses that wild animals are put to is provided in
WCMC (1992), while a detailed treatment of the international trade in wildlife and wildlife
products (excluding large-scale fisheries) is provided in Fitzgerald (1989).

As noted above, the harvest of finfishes and aquatic invertebrates is by far the most
important type of harvest of wild animals. In principle, methods for assessing sustainability
and developing management techniques are much the same as when dealing with terrestrial
species. In practice the two tend to be different. In particular control of marine (as opposed
to inland) fisheries is very different from control of terrestrial resources. This arises for a
number of reasons, including the sheer scale of fisheries operations, differences between
marine and terrestrial ecosystems and legal and practical differences between the control of
extra-territorial (ie. international) waters and terrestrial and inland water areas which are
strictly under national jurisdiction.

Marine Fisheries

Sherman and Busch (1995) discuss at some length the problems and challenges of assessing
human use of marine ecosystems. They regard the concept of the Large Marine Ecosystem
(LMB) as central to such analysis (see Box 2.1). Many LMEs include the coastal waters of
more than one state. In these cases, it will be effectively impossible for individual nations
to assess whether their use of marine resources is sustainable in isolation from neighbouring
nations. Coordination between states in monitoring and resource management will thus
become increasingly necessary as the pressures placed on these areas increase. At present
no single international body is in a position to coordinate action and reconcile the needs of
individual nations operating within particular LMEs.

The need for an integrated, ecosystem-level approach to the management of fisheries stocks
is underlined by the increasing awareness that fish population levels are determined by a
wide range of interacting factors, both human-induced and natural, of which harvest levels
are only one. Assessment of whether harvest of particular fish stocks is sustainable will
depend on integrated monitoring, research and management programmes.

2. A framework for sustainability assessment

Box 2.1 Large Marine Ecosystems

Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) are “regions of ocean space encompassing near-coastal areas from river basins
and estuaries out to the seaward boundary of continental shelves and the seaward margins of coastal current
systems. They are relatively large regions of the order of 200,000km’ or larger, characterized by distinct
bathymetry, hydrography, productivity, and trophically dependent populations. Nearly 95% of the usable annual
global biomass yield of fishes and other living marine resources is produced within 49 identified LMEs which lie
within and immediately adjacent to the boundaries of EEZs of coastal nations (Sherman and Busch, 1995).

2.4.5 Critical questions to be asked include the following (from Beddington, 1984):
¢ What levels of mortality imposed by a fishery will permit a sustainable yield?
e Are there levels below which a fish population will not recover?

¢ Can judicious manipulation of the catch composition of the fishery alter the potential of
the community to produce yields of a particular type (eg. high value species)?

¢ Can a community be depleted to a level where its potential for producing a harvestable
resource is reduced?

2.4.6 Core monitoring activities include the use of Continuous Plankton Recorders (CPRs) for
plankton and water quality assessment, bottom trawling for measuring changes in the fish
community and environmental pollution assessments. Sampling and monitoring efforts
undertaken by the Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment of the US National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) exemplify the range of information which
should be gathered:

* systematic collection and analysis of catch-statistics;
¢ fisheries-independent bottom and midwater trawl surveys for adults and juveniles;
* ichthyoplankton surveys for larvae and eggs;

° measurements of zooplankton standing stock, primary productivity, nutrient
concentrations;

* measurements of important physical parameters such as water temperature, salinity,
density, current velocity and direction, air temperature, cloud cover, light conditions;

* in some habitats, measurement of contaminants and their effects.

2.4.7 As with most other aspects of sustainability assessment, long-term data series (on a time-
scale of decades) are necessary to provide the data for analysis. Establishing cause-and-effect
relationships will depend on complex and sophisticated modelling using these data, along
with extensive hypothesis-testing including comparisons of areas under different management
regimes.

15

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

2.4.8

2.4.9

2.4.10

2.4.11

2.4.12

2.4.13

16

Freshwater or inland fisheries

According to FAO estimates (FAO 1994) 1992 global inland fisheries catch from wild
sources was around 6000 mt. This was less than one tenth estimated total marine catch from
wild sources (around 80,000 mt) and less than total inland aquaculture production (around
9000 mt). Globally therefore they are of much lesser importance than marine fisheries.
Locally they may be of great importance, both ecologically and economically.

As with marine fisheries, management of inland fisheries increasingly entails analysis at the
ecosystem level. This is because these fisheries are affected at least as much by habitat
modification as by fishery regimes. Important factors include pollution, siltation,
canalisation, damming and abstraction of water. Inland waters are much more susceptible
to most of these factors than marine waters, with land-locked or nearly land-locked seas (eg.
Caspian, Black and Mediterranean) occupying an intermediate position. A major factor in
many inland fisheries which is as yet of minor importance in marine fisheries is the presence
of introduced species. These have often come to dominate fisheries production and have had
far reaching and sometimes devastating impacts on aquatic biological diversity. There are
few clear-cut solutions as yet to the problem of managing such systems to maintain high
levels of production at the same time as preserving diversity.

Terrestrial animals

Globally, harvest of wild terrestrial animals is far less significant than fisheries, both in
terms of its ecological impact and its importance to humanity. Locally this may be far from
the case.

Uncontrolled hunting, usually for food, has been implicated as the main, and sometimes
only, cause of a large number of extinctions, particularly of mammal and bird species
(WCMC, 1992). There is growing evidence that hunting by local peoples is having a greater
impact than habitat loss on wildlife populations in many parts of the world, particularly
tropical moist forest regions in Africa, South-east Asia and South America (Bennett, 1994;
Bodmer, 1995). In these areas wild-caught animals (’bush-meat’) may make up a significant
proportion of animal protein intake in the diet. In addition, hunting may be a culturally
important activity which continues to be undertaken even when not necessary from the point
of view of food-provision.

Assessing sustainability of animal use

Assessment of the impact of harvest on wild animal species is usually problematic. It is
difficult, expensive and time-consuming to census populations of most animal species,
especially over wide areas. Wild populations of all animal species invariably fluctuate owing
to environmental variation and stochastic processes. These variations may be extremely
marked. Disentangling such variation from that caused by human actions is problematic, and
as with fisheries, generally requires time-series data running over many years and usually
decades. Even then it is unlikely that unambiguous causal relationships can be established
without experimental manipulation of environmental conditions.

Assessment of sustainability of harvest of terrestrial animal species is in one important
respect less problematic than assessment of use of trees or aquatic animals. This is in the

2.4.14

2.4.15

2.4.16

2.4.17

2. A framework for sustainability assessment

broad context of ecosystem health. This is because terrestrial animals are in general less
important components of the ecosystems in which they occur than are trees or marine
animals of their ecosystems. Trees are essential structural components of the ecosystems they
occur in, and they provide essential resources for a host of smaller organisms; their removal
self-evidently has far reaching effects. Plants (with few exceptions) are also primary
producers and therefore fundamental to the productivity of almost all ecosystems. Marine
animals are the major components of most marine ecosystems, particularly those outside the
photic zone (the surface layers of the sea which receive enough sunlight to allow
photosynthesis and thus the existence of phytoplankton); harvest of these is therefore very
likely to have far-reaching consequences. To this extent, therefore, it is more justifiable to
examine sustainability of use of particular species or populations independently.

Care must be taken, however, not to neglect the impact that terrestrial animals do have on
ecosystems. In some cases this may be very important (eg. the role of grazing herbivores in
maintaining grasslands; the role of insects, bats and birds in pollination; the role of many
species in seed dispersal). Harvest of some animal species may therefore have far-reaching
impact on ecosystem dynamics. In addition many forms of wildlife harvest can have
destructive effects on habitats (eg. tree-felling to collect wild honey; many fishing
techniques).

Management of animal use
Management of wild animal harvest consists of some or all of the following:

* Control on harvest through:

Closed areas (permanent or periodic);

Closed seasons;

Limiting who is allowed to hunting (eg. only indigenous peoples; only hunting
licence-holders);

Catch limits or quotas in terms of overall numbers of individuals taken per hunter
or per licence, or numbers of particular age-sex classes;

Limitation on harvest techniques (eg. banning of certain types of nets or firearms).

¢ Management to improve breeding and/or survival rates:
Enrichment of wild populations (fish/game-bird hatcheries);
Provision of food/breeding sites/shelters;
Reduction of presumed predators.

As management of the latter sort becomes more intensive, so the situation tends more and
more towards domestication.

The best way of estimating sustainable harvest levels is open to debate. There are two basic
approaches: the theoretical model (based wherever possible on empirical data) and the
pragmatic or indirect (in which various parameters of a population are monitored and its
degree of exploitation inferred).

Wildlife biologists use one of two models of population response (Shaw, 1991): the complete

compensation model, in which harvest has no real effect on a population until a certain
threshold level is reached, above which continued harvest will drive a population to

17

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

extinction; and the partial compensation model, in which any level of harvest affects the
population by depressing it beneath unharvested levels and by altering density-dependent
responses, eg. decreasing natural mortality, increasing fecundity etc. Caughley (1985)
concluded that the partial compensation model was more appropriate to most wildlife
populations.

2.4.18 There are also two basic kinds of computer models of the behaviour of harvested
populations under different sets of circumstances: accounting models, which focus on age-
specific estimates of fecundity and mortality; and stock-recruitment models, which require
only a few high-order variables such as population size and actual harvest, since they assume
that these accurately predict the outcome of the numerous lower-order variables such as age-
specific mortality and fecundity. Stock-recruitment models are generally favoured by wildlife
managers (Shaw 1991).

2.4.19 In many real situations cruder and more pragmatic measurements may be used to infer
acceptable harvest levels indirectly by monitoring the impact of current levels of harvest on
population parameters (see Box 2.2). Because of the large margins of error associated with
most population parameters, it is essential that the precautionary principle is applied in all
cases, so that quotas or harvest levels set err on the side of caution.

Box 2.2 Some approaches to assessing harvest levels in animals

Animal Biomass/Age Structure

Bodmer et al. (1994) compared animal biomass (measured by multiplying average body weight by the density of
individuals) and age structure of mammalian populations (measured by estimation of ages of skulls from hunted
animals) in heavily harvested and lightly harvested areas of Amazonian Peru. In heavily harvested areas, some
larger mammal species occurred at lower densities and had an age-structure strongly skewed towards young
animals. Bodmer et al. concluded that these species were being used unsustainably and recommended the
cessation of hunting of these species. A similar "age structure" study of the Western Atlantic Bluefin Tuna showed
that from 1970 to 1990 the numbers of ’giant’ adult tuna aged over 10 years old declined by 95% (WCMC 1992),
indicating that levels of harvest were not sustainable.

Kill Rates/Catch Per Unit Effort

In an alternative approach Vickers (1991) estimated hunting levels in Amazonian Ecuador from kill rates of different
species (ie. the numbers of kills per 100 man-hours of hunting per year) over a 10-year period. When a population
is first made productive by cropping, its numbers and kill rates decline. Vickers considered that if the initial decline
was followed by relatively stable kill rates over several years, data were consistent with that expected from
sustainable cropping, whilst if kill rates declined steadily this implied a steady reduction in populations caused by
over-exploitation. He found that the kill rates of the majority of animal species exploited by the Siona-Secoya, an
indigenous community of Amazonian Indians living at near-aboriginal densities, were relatively stable over time, and
concluded that they were being harvested sustainably. Such 'catch per unit effort’ measures are also widely used to
monitor the impact of harvest on fisheries.

Individual Body Mass

Another indirect approach is to measure the weights of hunted animals and compare with the distribution of weights
in a non-hunted population, or the same population at an earlier point in time. In effect, the body mass approach
relies on an indirect assessment of the age structure of the population. In hunted populations, adults live shorter
lifespans and so reach lower final weights, and often a high proportion of juveniles is taken (Robinson and Redford,
1991). The average weight of animals from a heavily hunted population is therefore lower than that of a non-hunted
or lightly hunted population.

18

2.5

Dal

PUB Pe

2.5.3

2. A framework for sustainability assessment

DIRECTLY-USED PLANT RESOURCES

It is useful to distinguish between trees and non-woody plants. In terms of volume and
economic value, especially at regional and national scale, plant use is nearly equivalent to
use of trees and their products. On the other hand, the importance of non-woody plants
should not be under-estimated, especially at local level.

Trees

A significant part of the use of trees involves removal of woody biomass. This changes
habitat structure in a way which the vast majority of harvest of terrestrial animal species
(and indeed of non-woody plants) does not, as the latter are not generally structural
components of habitats. In terms of its ecological impact, therefore, harvest of trees is
qualitatively different from other forms of terrestrial wildlife use. Assessing whether such
activity is sustainable or not is correspondingly more problematic.

Analysis of direct use of trees has to take the following into account:

¢ The various uses trees are put to: timber (sawn-wood, veneers, poles, secondary wood
products such as blockboards, chipboards); fuel (firewood, charcoal); fertilizer (slash-
and-burn); fodder (branches, leaves); food (fruits, palm hearts, sago, exudates);

medicines (roots, bark, leaves, flowers); others (rubber, oil, tannins, dyes, bark-cloth);
pulp (for paper);

¢ Whether use is destructive or not;

¢ Where products are used: all above products can be used within country, exported or
imported;

* Sources of products: plantations; managed natural or semi-natural forests; unmanaged
natural forests;

e Land tenure of forest resource: national forest domain; subnational (state, province)
forest domain; parastatal domain (eg. UK Forestry Commission); private; customary

tenure; open access;

¢ Whether use is legal or illegal.

Assessing sustainability of tree use
There are four principal questions:

¢ Is the direct use of resources from trees as set out above sustainable at national and local
levels?

¢ How does the use of tree resources affect the direct use values of other wild resources
harvested from the area?

19

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

DE

2.5.5

2.5.6

Dee

2.5.8

Ppa)

20

¢ How does the use of tree resources affect the option/existence values of habitats or
ecosystems with trees in them?

¢ How does the use of tree resources affect the ecosystem services or indirect values of
trees or the habitats and ecosystems which contain them?

Preliminary analysis has to be carried out at the national level. This will set the context for
more specific regional and local analysis, bearing in mind that the situation can differ
radically from region to region within a country. Essentially study should consist of a
comparison of supply and demand, both at the time and projected into the future.

This requires an assessment of standing stock of different timber types with estimates of
sustainable annual production, derived from measurements of production cycles in
plantations and measured or estimated annual increments of harvested species in natural
forests. Comparisons of production with measured and estimated demand allows sectoral
shortfalls to be identified. Because the same resource can be used for a wide range of
different purposes, studies of this sort are generally complex undertakings (see, for example,
the analyses of Kenya’s forestry sector in FAO/World Bank Co-operative Programme
Investment Centre, 1989, and Marshall and Jenkins, 1994). They are nevertheless vital for
any long-term planning.

Clearly it will not be feasible to look at local level use in detail throughout a country.
Priorities therefore have to be determined. From the point of view of natural resource
management (though not necessarily from the point of view of immediate amelioration of
living conditions for the maximum number of people), important areas are:

¢ Those identified as important for option/existence values, particularly buffer zones
around protected areas;

¢ Those where ecosystem services/indirect values of timber resources are known or
believed important.

When priority areas have been identified, the local situation can be analysed by application
of Rapid Rural Appraisal techniques (see Chapter 4).

Analysis of timber supply and demand will provide an answer to the first question in 2.5.3
above, ie. will give an indication of whether the timber industry is sustainable in a narrow
sense. Answering the remaining three questions, ie. addressing the wider concept of
sustainability, is a far more complex matter, for the reasons discussed in the introduction to
this document.

As yet, there is no satisfactory, universal definition of the term sustainable used in the wider
sense when applied to forest management and timber production. Organisations such as
WWE and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) which have been heavily involved in the
promotion of sustainable-use practices in forestry have instead generated a series of guiding
principles and criteria for the wise use of forests (see Box 2.3).

2. A framework for sustainability assessment

Box 2.3 Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Principles for Natural Forest Management

Principle 1: Compliance with laws and FSC Principles
Forest management shall respect all applicable laws of the country in which they occur, and international treaties
and agreements to which the country is a signatory, and comply with all FSC Principles and Criteria.

Principle 2: Tenure and use rights and responsibilities
Long-term tenure and use rights to the land and forest resources shall be clearly defined, documented and legally
established.

Principle 3: Indigenous people’s rights
The legal and customary rights of indigenous peoples to own, use and manage their lands, territories, and
resources shall be recognized and respected.

Principle 4: Community relations and worker’s rights
Forest management operations shall maintain or enhance the long-term social and economic well-being of forest
workers and local communities.

Principle 5: Benefits from the forest
Forest management operations shall encourage the efficient use of the forest's multiple products and services to
ensure economic viability and a wide range of environmental and social benefits.

Principle 6: Environmental impact

Forest management shall conserve biological diversity and its associated values, water resources, soils, and
unique and fragile ecosystems and landscapes, and, by so doing, maintain the ecological functions and integrity of
the forest.

Principle 7: Management plan

A management plan - appropriate to the scale and intensity of the operations - shall be written, implemented, and
kept up to date. The long term objectives of management, and the means of achieving them, shall be clearly
stated.

Principle 8: Monitoring and assessment

Monitoring shall be conducted - appropriate to the scale and intensity of forest management - to assess the
condition of the forest, yields of forest products, chain of custody, management activities and their social and
environmental impacts.

Principle 9: Maintenance of natural forests
Primary forests, well-developed secondary forests and sites of major environmental, social or cultural significance
shall be conserved. Such areas shall not be replaced by tree plantations or other land uses.

Principle 10: Plantations

Plantations shall be planned and managed in accordance with Principles 1 through 9, and the following criteria.
Such plantations can and should complement natural forests and the surrounding ecosystem, provide community
benefits, and contribute to the world's demands for forest products.

NB A detailed set of criteria for each of these principles is provided by the FSC.

Management solutions

2.5.10 The principles and criteria of the FSC provide a framework for developing wise management
of forest resources. In practice, management solutions will entail some or all of the

following:

21

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

2.5.11

Pars) Al7)

2.5.13

2.5.14

ZS

22

¢ Reducing demand by:
reducing level of the activity;
increasing efficiency of activity;
finding substitutes;

e Increasing supply by:
diverting from other uses;
increase harvest to non-sustainable levels (short term);
increase efficiency of management or increase in area of plantations (long-term);
import.

Constraints on these solutions:
capital investment required to implement changes;
human resources necessary;
political will necessary;
limits to transportation or alternative resources;

The very last of these is the major reason why analysis has to be carried out regionally and
locally as well as nationally. In most LDCs, transportation networks are inadequate and
transportation costs very high. Moreover, where use is subsistence or at the lower end of the
cash economy, users will not be able to afford products which have been transported any
distance. Generally the less developed the country, the more important it is to look at the
local (village) level. This is discussed in more detail in Chapters 4 and 5.

The economic and social consequences of unsustainable use of tree resources are likely to
be very far-reaching. They will ultimately lead to the restriction or cessation of the activities
dependent on them, or result in a switch to other resources. This may have knock-on effects
(eg. change to dung as fuel resource leads to loss of fertility of soils; migration; famine).

Solutions to local shortage or unsustainable use may well involve improvements in
transportation networks (including perhaps transport subsidies) but these can only help in
the short term or if entire country or region under consideration is in surplus (or at
equilibrium at worst). The situation is likely to be complex and results of changes
counterintuitive (eg. improving transport systems may cause local people to turn to natural
forests for fuelwood because they can no longer afford charcoal from plantation areas
because this is being transported to large towns, pushing prices up). Where major pressures
are local, solutions will almost certainly entail improved community management of
resources.

Plant resources that are not trees

Non-woody plants may be used for many of the purposes outlined above with respect to
woody plants (apart, of course, from the provision of timber and other wood products).
Perhaps the single most important use is as grazing for livestock on rangelands and other
areas of unimproved grassland. Second in importance is probably the use of wild plants for
medicines. In many LDCs the vast majority of medicines used by most of the population are
derived from wild plants. In addition in many predominantly agricultural societies, various
forms of wild food (usually plants) may be of great importance as emergency foods in times

2. A framework for sustainability assessment

of famine. Because their use is intermittent, their importance tends to be underestimated in
conventional economic analyses (see Chapter 4).

2.5.16 An overview of the uses of wild plant resources is provided in WCMC (1992). A discussion
of the international trade in wild plants is provided in Jenkins and Oldfield (1992). Although
this trade is of much lower volume than domestic use of plants it may have a
disproportionate effect on the conservation of species as a large part of it, particularly the
ornamental plant trade, will concentrate on rarer wild species.

23

ARETE: AR LTE SPANO Ad. ney

od bonuantten ibeatiotiyps (aberamteoopnogyn i tors setalhteteah 9k vie Seid eases wttireutt he

reubwolag evel uf Ge wetithernqurlD tn) amet ghee lonehagven>

napeeing Aficieocy of scvityy ” eH
noiewadih A (LOH SOMO habiyoay 2 anconsnani sri tir hc Wael by waive aA
dynetttlA (See! bio bn etidaot wi babiverig xd ebeuley hiv Rohwer leeriltereisti ont be
fh’ ovat Can Lee watiraly qe peny scteanod url agrvion toercl dud to ni obwen sd
ort s aascauin! i wniterroate’s pil! zo toni atancthogeiwid
gery at ‘emma Aalto ay costes bast st dhe oa seule, baseesa rate

Mi (pea Wines OF eg Os eer ae ol piegEr ci (Guage

eta) ; an iy &

- arenes =e te we nan

vs

250

an erro hy anal is

yj
i

rte ane Rm
j ox ‘ig abby ha vue) ;
be ih ABE gatatbacts AMHess rove Saree
a ie eoutva«. Bee emer we dee

a} a>

wah et 3 mie’

“ Mg ee gpa i
i, a pres q ; 7 <r
A ars : VN, ¥ ho

Rati gs i . eee ath ai: oe
in ¥ : : Sa ‘tthe’ ra qty, goat ee .
ne - if * sg aig Pen hse pubeget i
hs ae Wis ie 8 ms i |

7 Mae en seh os se kee ph nircan 4)
ethene eh RA MeN mp

perk Pee a3 ana ae ef Lees

¥

us

”
0

-
yA Pond

*
=

3. INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT OF BIODIVERSITY

Summary

select and prioritise data requirements according to national strategic goals and the UNEP
Country Study Guidelines;

emphasise endemic species, threatened species and resource species, including importance to
human communities, rates of use and of loss;

attempt to identify geographic areas rich in such species, and areas where human use of them
is critical;

identify sources of existing data; undertake research to fill gaps in information; aim to set a
baseline in order to monitor and identify trends;

assessment of habitat change at global level is hindered by lack of a standard habitat
classification; assessment at national level and below requires at minimum an internally
consistent scheme (that need not apply elsewhere);

the status of individual species is best assessed using the revised IUCN/SSC category system
which is being enhanced to apply at national as well as global level; evaluating genetic erosion
is of particular importance for biological resources, including domestic species, local varieties,
and their wild relatives, but is technically demanding;

a large number of techniques have been developed for rapid biodiversity assessment, several
based on extrapolation from occurrence of indicator groups.

INTRODUCTION

Issues relating to trends in elements of biodiversity and the sustainability of biodiversity use
can be addressed most precisely on the basis of inventory and subsequent repeat
observations. This fundamental fact underlies the need for baseline surveys of national
biodiversity resources and their uses. In many cases, the first assessment for biodiversity
sustainability will have to serve as a base line, as much of the required information will not
have been compiled previously; efforts should always be made to identify existing data and
studies which might serve as partial baseline. Although quantified time-series data are
preferable, less rigorous or sometimes even anecdotal evidence can be valuable. The process
of determining what information is needed, how it could be managed, and what institutional
capacity is required, has received much attention in recent years, and is summarised in
UNEP?’s Guidelines for Country Studies on Biological Diversity (UNEP, 1993).

Sources of existing information may cover biodiversity at the local, national, regional or
global level; may be published or unpublished (reports, databases or digital files); and may
be held in-country or externally. In-country sources of information may include national
museums, universities, agricultural development agencies, government departments
(particularly forestry and wildlife), non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the private
sector. Because of the variety and number of such potential information sources it is not
possible to give specific guidance in this document; in some cases external organisations

25

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

3.2

3.2.1

B22,

323

26

might provide an efficient route to finding in-country sources. Examples of predominantly
external sources of global data are provided in Annex E of the Guidelines.

This chapter focuses on methods used to assess biodiversity in the broad sense. This
assessment provides the basis for investigation of status, threats and uses, which all need to
be addressed in the process of sustainability appraisal. Types of Rapid Rural Appraisal,
introduced in the next chapter, are suitable for identification of users of biological resources,
and these studies will in general also identify which resources are present and of socio-
economic importance.

Given this general background, there are three basic issues that must be addressed:

¢ which data are needed?
¢ how best to collect them?
¢ what to do with them?

UNEP COUNTRY STUDIES GUIDELINES

It was recognised in development of the Convention on Biological Diversity that
participating countries would need a national assessment of biological diversity to set a
baseline for development of national strategies and action plans. An Expert Advisory Team
for Country Studies on the ’costs, benefits and unmet needs for conservation and sustainable
use of biological diversity’ was established by UNEP. The document, Guidelines for Country
Studies on Biological Diversity, was prepared in order to assist countries undertaking such
studies.

The Technical Annex to the Guidelines provides details of the types of data recommended
for inclusion in the Country Study, divided into four sections: socio-economic factors
affecting biodiversity; biological data; assessment of benefits, costs and net monetary values
of biodiversity; and current capacity for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. The
fifth section of the Technical Annex contains a directory of international sources of
appropriate biodiversity data that may possess information pertinent to individual countries.

The Guidelines suggest how to determine what information is needed for a Country Study,
how to manage it, and how to identify gaps in existing institutional capacity, but specify that
individual countries are responsible for selecting elements for application in their Country
Study. Empirical studies (eg. Metroeconomica Ltd., 1994) have shown that, institutional
issues aside, collection of a significant proportion of the data covered by the Guidelines is
much too demanding; it is thus critical to define a minimum set of data in relation to
specific goals of a biodiversity strategy. Where funds and staff are limited the importance
of the need to select the most critical data for compilation or collection cannot be over-
emphasised.

3.3

3.3.1

Br See

3. Inventory and assessment of biodiversity

CATEGORIES OF DATA REQUIRED: HABITATS

Habitat loss and modification is the major factor causing the current decline in the world’s
biodiversity (WCMC, 1992). Habitat monitoring is therefore important in any national
assessment of biodiversity sustainability. Key requirements of habitat monitoring are:

* Mapping of current extent of habitats
¢ Estimation of change in the area of each habitat type over a specified time period
¢ Estimation of change in the condition of habitats

Habitat monitoring is technically difficult and made more so by the lack of universally
accepted habitat or ecosystem definitions and classification systems. Habitats are usually
defined by reference to the major plant species of which they are composed, often in
conjunction with notable structural, topographic or geological features. The problem is that
species distributions intergrade gradually, and boundaries between particular assemblages of
species are almost impossible to delimit. In practice, habitat types are usually taken as
corresponding to vegetation types, and the same caveats apply to the classification of both.
It is also important to distinguish between systems that attempt to map potential vegetation
(ie. before major human impact) from those that attempt to map actual vegetation as it
presently stands. These approaches have different applications, but in the context of
biodiversity assessment, the latter is needed. Box 3.1 notes some of the criteria that have
been employed in vegetation classification.

Box 3.1 Some criteria used in habitat classification

Numerous habitat classification systems exist, focusing primarily on vegetation characteristics (UNEP/WCMC,
1996). The main criteria applied in these classification systems are:

Physiognomic: features of height, growth form and coverage of vegetation

Bioclimatic: the prevailing climate regime

Phenological: leaf retaining characteristics (ie. whether vegetation is deciduous or evergreen)
Floristic: occurrence of certain principal plant taxa

Functional: management use (eg. fuelwood production)

Many schemes involve a combination of the above or include other parameters which affect vegetation cover such
as land use, disturbance history, soil type or geology. Classifications may indicate the actual vegetation present, or
indicate the ’potential’ vegetation that would occur in the absence of human activity.

3:35

3.3.4

A sample definition of one particular habitat type and its loss is that given by FAO, who
recently produced estimates of forest area and annual deforestation rates for over 85 tropical
countries (FAO 1991, 1993). Forests were defined as: "ecological systems with a minimum
of 10% crown cover of trees and/or bamboos, generally associated with wild flora and fauna
and natural soil conditions and not subject to agricultural practices"; while deforestation
was defined as: "change of land use or depletion of crown cover to less than 10%" .

Habitat classification systems have been developed at a number of scales: global, continental,
national/local systems. Scale obviously determines applicability: global scale schemes are
too coarse (have too low a resolution) for national level planning, and local level detail is
unwieldy at the continental and global level. It is important that whatever habitat definitions

27

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

3:32)

3.3.6

Shes)5//

3.3.8

353.9

28

are used for national biodiversity assessments are adhered to throughout the time series of
measurements from which rates of habitat change are calculated. Many countries have
undertaken national vegetation surveys and produced maps of vegetation types. From these,
a table can be derived showing:

e Area of each vegetation type
¢ 9% of country total area it comprises
° 9% of each vegetation type protected in national parks or protected areas

Several basic principles are involved in the measurement of habitat change. First and
foremost is the necessity for a consistent series of measurements taken over a period of time,
from which rates of habitat change can be determined. Coarse scale habitat losses (for
example decreases in forest cover) can be most easily measured by remote sensing. One very
powerful technique for rapid and cheap assessment of large areas is satellite imagery, but
systematic reconnaissance flights (SRFs) can be useful in smaller areas and for visually
confirming satellite-derived data. Finer scale investigation is necessary to adequately
inventory and monitor less extensive habitats, such as wetlands and freshwater systems, and
to determine the extent of habitat modification, for example changes in understorey
vegetation.

Stratified sampling, combining 100% coarse satellite coverage with 10% finer aerial survey
and 1% detailed ground truthing may be the most cost-effective approach (J. MacKinnon,
in litt.).

Definition of habitat condition tends to be highly purpose-dependent. For example, a forester
may be interested in standing woody biomass in the forest, its size-class distribution and the
incidence of commercial species; an ecologist may be concerned with ecosystem function
(eg. nutrient and water cycling); whilst a conservation biologist may be interested in the
integrity of the habitat and the variety of plants and animals that it supports. Each might
therefore choose different indicators of habitat condition.

For most purposes, forest integrity (as a habitat and for maintaining ecosystem function) and
biodiversity are useful indicators of forest condition. Pristine forests usually have high
structural integrity (they are continuous in large blocks) and high biodiversity.
Anthropogenic disturbance often reduces both integrity and biodiversity, but its intensity and
frequency determine the nature, magnitude and duration of its effects, and in many habitats
selective human uses (eg. coppicing of deciduous woodland or grazing of chalk grassland
in Europe) can increase biodiversity. Severely degraded forests have greatly reduced
biodiversity and structural integrity relative to pristine forests of the same region, and have
a limited recovery capability (see Box 3.2).

Various techniques have been developed for measuring the extent of habitat fragmentation,
although how this actually translates in terms of threat to biodiversity is not known. Most
use remotely acquired data: satellite images, aerial photos or good maps. Several different
indices to measure forest fragmentation have been developed in the past few years, two of
which (the Perimeter Area Index) and the edge/core ratio (ECR) were used by FAO. Full
definitions are given in FAO (1993). These indices could of course be applied to other
habitats.

3. Inventory and assessment of biodiversity

Box 3.2 Some potential indicators of forest degradation

Forest degradation which does not cause actual deforestation usually involves one or more of the following factors:

° Changes in species composition
. Changes in canopy cover
e Changes in age-structure of particular species

These can be monitored by field plot sampling. Other indicators of forest condition include changes in population
sizes of individual species; forest ‘health’ ie. incidence of disease, pests and pollution; canopy structure (which can
be remotely-sensed) and spatial change, eg. fragmentation. Field-measured indicators of habitat condition are
useful at the site level and perhaps at broader scale in some locations, but the data are limited to relatively small
areas. National level assessments of habitat condition need to be based on indicators that are more easily and
widely available. Suitable condition indicators for forests are:

Integrity Spatial information, such as forest extent, fragmentation (perimeter/edge ratios, fragment size distribution,
degree of isolation, connectedness); adjoining vegetation type or land use; canopy continuity.

Temporal information Stability over time (in terms of quality’, configuration and context).

Biodiversity In the absence of complete species inventories, the status of key species or species groups (eg.
primates, saproxylic ivertebrates, raptors) may provide insight into habitat condition.

Socio-economic Eg. distance to nearest population centre of a given size; distance from roads/river access; land
tenure; government colonisation/settlement programmes, etc.

Habitat loss and reduction of species richness

3.3.10 Habitat loss may reduce levels of biodiversity by eliminating species or communities
restricted to particular geographic localities; by decreasing the area of available habitat below
the minimum size required to maintain ecological processes; and by decreasing species
populations below the minimum viable population size, leading to local extinctions (see Box
3.3).

3.3.11 The effects of habitat loss may be compounded if habitat fragmentation (an indirect result
of habitat loss) occurs, ie. if the remaining habitat consists of dispersed patches separated
by converted areas. Small populations of species confined to habitat fragments are extremely
vulnerable to extinction in the medium to long term due to restriction of seasonal or
occasional migration patterns, isolation from immigrants (which can often ’rescue’ a
declining population), and chance demographic and genetic factors. Studies have shown that
certain species will be less able to tolerate habitat fragmentation than others, and the effect
will operate independently of the species loss predicted by the species-area relationship.
Effects are likely to be major, but are currently unpredictable (Simberloff, 1992). Thus a
seemingly large area of heavily subdivided remnant habitat may have less conservation value
than a smaller but distinct area.

29

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Box 3.3 Habitat loss and species extinction

Knowledge of the extent of habitat lost can be used to predict the resulting reduction in species diversity, since
direct scientific observation has found that the number of species in a given area tends to be proportional to the
size of the area. This is partly an effect of sampling (ie. a given habitat with randomly distributed species will
become more completely inventoried as the area sampled increases) and partly because larger areas tend to have
greater habitat diversity and thus a greater variety of species.

The ’species-area relation’ is a mathematical expression of this finding, usually expressed in the form S = CA’
(where S = the number of species, A = area, while C and z have different values for each set of species-area
data). The converse relationship is that if an area of habitat is reduced in size, the number of species present will
decrease. The most widely-quoted generalisation is that the loss of 90% of a habitat will result in the loss of
approximately 50% of the species originally present.

Estimates of habitat loss (particularly rates of tropical forest loss) coupled with biogeographic theory have been
used by a number of workers to estimate projected global extinction rates. There are a number of theoretical
problems with this approach (WCMC, 1992), and caution must be exercised in interpreting results. One of the most
recent estimates (Reid, 1992) predicts that 2-8% of the planet's species will become extinct in the next 25 years.

3.4 CATEGORIES OF DATA REQUIRED: SPECIES

3.4.1 It will not be cost-effective to attach high priority to compilation of a complete inventory
of every species in every higher taxon present in a country. Key requirements are the
identification of areas of high species diversity, coupled with identification of priority areas
for action on the basis of threat assessment. Inventory of threatened species, endemic
species, and economically or socially important species (including wild relatives of domestic
species) will in general be priorities for data collection. It will be feasible to concentrate on
the relatively well-known taxa, such as vertebrates, higher plants and certain groups of
invertebrates such as butterflies and dragonflies, as indicators of biodiversity in general, but
the extent to which this is legitimate has not been established. It might be appropriate to
devote resources to taxonomic inventory of other groups at a later date. The Guidelines
suggest that the first step in a Country Study should be to assess the available information
on parameters listed below (a shortlist of these is suggested in Chapter 2 above).

* Species threatened with extinction, assessed using an internationally accepted system of
threat categories (eg. IUCN, The Nature Conservancy (TNC))

* Country-endemic species whose conservation is the sole responsibility of that country
* Economically or socially important species

e Indicator species and keystone species of pivotal importance in ecosystems that can
serve as measures of their disturbance or condition

¢ lLandraces, varieties and wild relatives of domesticated species which require
conservation measures

¢ Species present in existing conservation areas

¢ Species held in ex situ collections within the country

30

3.4.2

3.4.3

3.4.4

3.4.5

3. Inventory and assessment of biodiversity

* Flagship species used to generate support for conservation actions

* Legally protected species - those mentioned in national legislation or on international
conventions to which the country is a contracting party

* Other species present in the country, concentrating on scientific and common names,
distribution and preferred habitat types (including breeding status in the case of
migratory species)

Threatened Species

Declining species all face eventual extinction if negative trends in their populations are not
reversed. Various programmes have developed methods of categorising the severity of
threats facing a species. The threat categories assigned are used as a conservation tool to
detect species at risk; activities can then be prioritised as appropriate. IUCN developed a
system of threat categories through its Red Data Book and Red List programme. The IUCN
system of threat categories has since become an accepted world-wide standard.

IUCN classify the severity of the threat of extinction faced by species based on a review of
the factors affecting them and the extent of the effect that these are having throughout the
species range. IUCN threatened species categories are applied to species on a global scale,
but have been widely adopted by countries preparing lists of nationally threatened species.
The original definitions of the categories of threat used in Red Data Books and similar
documents lacked objective criteria.

An entirely new system has been designed, intended to provide an objective framework for
the classification of species according to risk of extinction, and to be applicable across all
relevant taxa (IUCN/SSC 1994). To be categorised as threatened, any species has to meet
one of five sets of criteria, and the criteria (including population reduction, population size,
geographic area and pattern of occurrence, and quantitative population analysis) have been
formulated with the aim of allowing all kinds of species, with a wide range of biological
characteristics, to be evaluated. The new system can, with appropriate qualifications, be
applied to any taxonomic unit at or below the species level, and within any specified
geographical or political area. It was approved by the IUCN council in November 1994 (see
Annex 3).

Population and Habitat Viability Analysis (PHVA)

A second system of examining species conservation priorities is the Population and Habitat
Viability Analysis (PHVA) workshops organised for particular species or groups of species
by the Captive Breeding Specialist Group (CBSG) of IUCN’s Species Survival Commission
(SSC). The workshops assess the status of the species in the wild, use genetic and
demographic models to give quantitative estimates of the risk of extinction under various
scenarios, and, most importantly, make management recommendations based on these
predictions.

The types of data used in assigning IUCN’s new Red List categories are very similar to

those used in the process of evaluating the population viability of a species, population of
a species or subspecies in the PHVA workshops organised by CBSG. A PHVA assessment

31

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

3.4.6

3.4.7

3.5

3.5.1

3.5.2

B55

32

for each species consists of an in-depth analysis of information on the life history,
population dynamics, ecology and population history of the individual populations, coupled
with information on threats, habitat and protected area.

Two key features of PHVAs are the use of non-published data derived from assembled
experts; and the construction of simulated models of each population to ascertain the likely
effects of deterministic and stochastic events on population dynamics and extinction risks.
The likely effects of potential management options on population survival can also be
modelled, enabling conservationists to select the least damaging or most beneficial
alternative.

A drawback to the PHVA approach is that the models used require a knowledge of a great
many parameters of the ecology and life history of a species. These may be accurately
measured for small populations of well-studied species and captive populations, for which
the models are appropriate. However, their predictive power is greatly weakened when
applied to populations of the majority of wild species, whose conservation status and
reproductive parameters are shrouded in uncertainty.

CATEGORIES OF DATA REQUIRED: GENETIC DIVERSITY

The genetic diversity within a population is fundamental to its ability to evolve and adapt
to environmental change, and its maintenance is recognised as a high priority in many
conservation programmes.

The loss of genetic diversity (’ genetic erosion’), is widely recognised as a serious threat to
biodiversity. It can harm both wild and domestic species, but certainly has serious
implications for agricultural productivity. During centuries of domestication and selective
breeding, agricultural species have become progressively more diverse genetically in parallel
with increased adaption to local environmental conditions. This genetic variation is manifest
in the large number of distinct sub-species, breeds, varieties and land races of food crops and
domestic livestock. During the present century the number of distinct populations has
declined.

There are two main causes of reduction in agricultural genetic diversity. Firstly, local breeds
and varieties have been neglected or abandoned in many countries in favour of introduced,
high-yielding modern crop cultivars and domestic stock. The result is the disappearance of
genetic diversity. For example, in Greece, 95% of the native varieties of wheat have been
lost in 40 years (Davies, 1991). This may reduce potential for the future selective breeding
of crops and livestock better adapted to new, as yet unpredictable, environmental conditions.
In the case of crop plants, highly-bred crop cultivars tend to require heavy inputs of
agrochemicals, and excessive reliance on genetically almost uniform crops can be a high-risk
strategy in the event of pest attack or adverse weather. Secondly, populations of wild
relatives of agricultural species are being drastically reduced or lost altogether. For example,
around 90% of the Ethiopian highland forests which harbour the wild coffee Coffee arabica
have been destroyed, and large parts of the centre of genetic diversity of wild cocoa
Theobroma cacao in Colombia, Ecuador and Peru have been lost to agricultural expansion
which often follows in the wake of petroleum exploration (WCMC, 1992).

3.5.4

3.5.5

3.5.6

6257

3.5.8

3. Inventory and assessment of biodiversity

Genetic erosion is also a threat to wild species that have been reduced to small, fragmented
populations. Both the number of individuals surviving and their genetic diversity or
heterozygosity are important to population survival. In the short term heterozygosity is
positively correlated with individual fitness, and in the long term genetic diversity is
necessary for evolution by natural selection to occur. Genetic diversity can quickly be lost
by breeding with closely-related individuals, which leads to low levels of heterozygosity and
reduced offspring fitness, a phenomenon known as in-breeding depression. Various workers
have examined the minimum viable populations (MVPs) of species required to guard against
the negative effects of in-breeding in isolated populations. Suggested MVPs differ according
to the species examined. As a rough guide, Lande and Barrowclough (1987) suggest an
effective population size of 500 for large mammals.

Genetic diversity is impossible to quantify as a general property, but key parameters such
as karyotypic variation, mitochondrial DNA divergence or protein polymorphisms can be
measured. The first widely-used genetic survey technique for detecting molecular level
variants was protein electrophoresis, introduced in the mid-1960s. This method can provide
information on how many alleles there are at a locus, their frequencies within a population
and their geographical distribution over the species’ range. It is however only applicable to
those sections of DNA within the genome which code for the production of protein (usually
soluble enzymes).

A number of new techniques have recently become available, such as DNA fingerprinting,
the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), restriction site mapping and DNA sequencing (see Box
3.4). These have a number of advantages over protein electrophoresis (Templeton, 1994).
They have greater resolution and some can be applied to both coding and non-coding
sections of DNA, allowing investigation of the entire genome rather than just a small subset.
The last two techniques can also allow inference of evolutionary relationships. Such methods
to measure genetic diversity within or between populations require many samples and
analysis by trained personnel using sophisticated laboratory techniques.

Genetic diversity is not therefore the normal currency in which biodiversity is measured.
UNEP recommends that biological data on biodiversity are primarily collected at the species
level, and that subspecies, populations and genetic diversity per se are only considered where
they have some significant economic value or indigenous use, for example as sources of
genetic material useful in crop or breed improvement.

Assessing genetic erosion

The actual measurement of genetic erosion is problematic, since it requires the establishment
of a baseline against which to measure. A suggested procedure would be as follows: if
variability in the phenotype can be taken as an indication of variation in the genotype,
measurement of genetic erosion could consist of a comparison of the number of recognisably
distinct breeds or varieties present at some time in the past with those still present now. This
measure could be coupled with an assessment of the degree of threat currently facing the
existing breeds or varieties (eg. Loftus and Scherf, 1993), to allow the prediction of potential
future genetic erosion in the absence of conservation measures.

33

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Box 3.4 Measures of Genetic Diversity

Several different measures of genetic diversity exist.

Percent of polymorphic loci (P): A locus is commonly defined as polymorphic if the frequency of its most common
allele is less than 0.95. If p loci out of n are polymorphic, the percent of polymorphic loci is simply P = 100 (p/n).

Number of alleles (N): The number of alleles at a particular locus.

Heterozygosity (H): Two different measures are used.

Observed heterozygosity is the probability that an individual will be heterozygous at a locus.
It can only be applied to diploid genetic elements, and is even then not suitable for all
situations. For example, in a population of 100% self-fertilising plants, observed
heterozygosity will be close to zero for all loci, regardless of how many alleles they have or
the frequency of those alleles.

Expected heterozygosity (the more commonly used measure) is the probability that two
copies of a locus drawn at random from the gene pool have different allelic states. It can be
applied to both diploid and haploid genetic elements, such as mitochondrial DNA.

Average number of nucleotide differences (K): restriction site and DNA sequence techniques allow the estimation
of the average number of nucleotide differences between two genes drawn at random.

Number of segregating sites (S): the number of restriction sites or nucleotides that are polymorphic in the DNA
region under study.

Source: modified after Templeton (1994).

3.5.9

3.5.10

34

In trees and agricultural crop plants, genetic diversity can be measured by two methods:
provenance testing and allozyme screening (CMGGRAT 1991). Provenance testing involves
the collection of seeds from different populations (usually from different geographic and
climatic regions) and their growth under uniform environmental conditions at one or more
sites. Results of these experiments provide data on the variation among populations in
survival, growth, productivity and qualitative characteristics, and enable assessment of the
importance of the genotype-environment interaction. This indicates the extent to which
populations should be conserved separately and also bred separately in future.

Priorities for the conservation and management of genetic resources can still be set in the
absence of a genetic erosion measure, given a knowledge of the level of genetic diversity
among and between specific populations, or (and this will usually be more feasible) on the
basis of phenotypic diversity. To date most efforts have focused on agricultural plants, and
relatively little work has been done on agricultural animals.

3.6

3.6.1

3.6.2

3.6.3

3.6.4

3.6.5

3. Inventory and assessment of biodiversity

METHODS FOR COLLECTING NEW DATA

In the last decade a number of techniques have been developed for the inventory of
biodiversity. These techniques have been applied at both national and sub-national levels in
various efforts to identify priority areas (those of high biodiversity or possessing large
numbers of restricted-range or threatened species) to which the limited funds available for
conservation should be directed. Most techniques are referred to by acronyms, which tend
to be associated with particular conservation organisations (eg. RAP developed by
Conservation International). There is a profusion of acronyms (eg. RAP, RBA, REA, CBW)
but often little fundamental distinction between the methods. Most techniques focus on the
species as the measurable unit of biodiversity. In effect they target species diversity and
ignore subspecific diversity, taxonomic distinctness and other aspects of biodiversity.

Some of the more prominent biodiversity assessment techniques are summarised below.
These techniques rely on the compilation of existing data, the collection of new data, or, as
in the majority of cases, both. Data compilation, during which existing information from a
variety of sources is synthesised to provide an overall view of the known state of
biodiversity, is an important phase of all national-scale biodiversity assessments. From this
analysis priorities for conservation or further data collection can be identified. Consultation
with national and international experts is an explicit and integral part of the data compilation
process in two techniques: Conservation Biodiversity Workshops and Conservation Needs
Assessment. Both methods invite participants to workshops in order to capture existing
biodiversity knowledge. The aim is to build consensus on existing data, data requirements
and conservation priorities. Consultation with selected experts is probably also an implicit
part of other techniques, but is not as formalised.

The collection of new data may be conducted on the ground, or remotely via satellite or
aerial survey. Remotely-sensed data are usually only applicable to the monitoring of habitats:
species distributions and status must be ascertained by direct investigation at ground level.
Collection of new data is an essential component of all site-specific assessments (eg. All
Taxa Biodiversity Inventory).

Baseline biodiversity inventory techniques attempt to provide an overview of the species
composition of particular areas. Two operating principles, used separately or in combination
depending on the scale of the area inventoried, are fundamental to biodiversity inventory
techniques: use of indicator groups and use of extrapolation.

Use of Indicator Groups

The variety of living species in even a small area is so great that the identification of all
species present is impracticable. Certain taxa are therefore chosen as “indicator groups’ (also
sometimes referred to as "biodiversity surrogates’ or ‘predictor sets’) assumed to be
representative of total biodiversity. No one organism or group of organisms can be expected
to comprehensively reflect the patterns of distribution and abundance of all other taxa.
However, Noss (1990) and Pearson (1994) have developed a number of biological and
logistical criteria which they suggest should be considered during the selection of indicator
groups, in order to maximise their usefulness (see Box 3.5).

35

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Box 3.5 Features of potential indicator groups

Desirable indicator groups should be:

¢ Taxonomically well-known so that populations can be reliably identified and named
¢ Biologically well-understood
e Easy to survey (eg. abundant, non-cryptic) and manipulate

¢ Widely distributed at higher taxonomic levels (eg. order, family, tribe, genus) across a large
geographic and habitat range

¢ Diverse and include many specialist taxa at lower taxonomic levels (ie. species, subspecies) which
would be sensitive to habitat change

e¢ Representative (as far as is known) of distribution and abundance patterns in other related and
unrelated taxa

¢ Actually or potentially of economic importance

Source: modified after Noss (1990) and Pearson (1994)

3.6.6

3.6.7

36

In addition, it is highly desirable that indicator groups should consist of taxa which can
readily be discriminated to at least species level in the field (without recourse to museum
collections) by non-experts after a minimal amount of training. Such ’ parataxonomists’ are
increasingly used in many biodiversity inventory techniques. Pearson (1994) suggests that
the order of importance of the criteria above in the selection of indicator groups differs for
biodiversity monitoring and biodiversity inventory, and proposes a method of calculating a
standard index to determine the suitability of potential indicator groups to each task.
Common indicator groups used in biodiversity inventories are higher vertebrates (eg.
mammals, birds), certain invertebrate groups (eg. butterflies, ants, land snails) and higher
plants (particularly trees). Care should be taken in interpreting the results of inventories
based on indicator groups since the empirical relationships between biodiversity in different
groups of organisms (eg. between vertebrate species and fungi, or invertebrates and higher
plants) has been little investigated.

Use of Extrapolation and Prediction

It is impossible in practice to inventory every site. However, knowledge of species habitat
requirements, coupled with baseline data on climate, altitude, soil type, or vegetation cover,
can be used to predict their occurrence in areas not inventoried. A geographic information
system (GIS) is commonly used in biodiversity inventory techniques. GIS can be employed
to generate maps of the expected distribution of species from maps of the key environmental
factors known to affect their distribution. Analysis of maps of species ranges superimposed
allows the identification of areas potentially high in biodiversity. These predictions can be
verified (or ’ground-truthed’) if required by field surveys. The baseline GIS maps used may
be generated from satellite data, aerial survey, and existing maps, or created by field survey
and expert advice. A major advantage of GIS is that it enables the standard formatting of
all maps used, no matter what their source. Use of GIS implies an advanced and highly

3. Inventory and assessment of biodiversity

technical approach; this will not always be preferred, particularly where capacity of the
personnel involved is not appropriate and where staff continuity cannot be secured.

3.6.8 The key features of some of the techniques available are summarised below and in Tables
3.1 and 3.2. Further details and brief synopses of the pros and cons associated with each
technique are given in Annex 2, which is based on analysis of published reports. Whether
those techniques which can be applied nationally are suitable for a particular country
depends largely on its size. Other factors involved include the extent of existing technology
and expertise in-country, the degree of funding available, and the time-frame in which a
national-scale analysis is required.

3.6.9 The goal of baseline biodiversity inventories, whether conducted at the local or national
level, is not, generally speaking, to produce a complete but static picture of national
biodiversity. It is rather to facilitate comparison between sites to enable the prioritisation of
scarce conservation or development resources, and to act as a catalyst to further study and
inventory. In practice therefore, the conduct of a national biodiversity baseline inventory
may involve the simultaneous or sequential application of several of these techniques. For
example, a Conservation Needs Assessment might classify sites into a graded system of
immediate conservation priorities; locate unstudied areas in which Rapid Assessment
Programme inventories were required; and at the same time identify a need for Rapid
Biodiversity Assessments to determine future priorities in a series of relatively well-known
sites of apparently equal biodiversity.

Table 3.1 Processes involved in biodiversity inventory techniques

NATIONAL LEVEL SITE LEVEL

Consultation with Compilation of Identification of Collection of new | Collection of
national and existing data national priorities and | field data at new field data
international experts new data needs multiple sites at a single site

CNA: Conservation Needs Assessment

CBW: Conservation of Biodiversity Workshop

BIMS: Biodiversity Information Management
System

RBA: Rapid
Biodiversity
Assessment

RAP: Rapid
Assessment
Programme

ATBI: All-taxa
Biodiversity
Inventory

37

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

3.7

3.7.1

3.12

827-3

38

SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE INVENTORY TECHNIQUES
Gap Analysis

Gap Analysis, developed by US Fish and Wildlife Service and others, is essentially a coarse-
filter approach to biodiversity conservation. It is used to identify gaps in the representation
of biodiversity within reserves (ie. areas managed solely or primarily for the purpose of
biodiversity conservation). Once identified, such gaps are filled through the creation of new
reserves, changes in the designation of existing reserves, or changes in management practices
in existing reserves. The goal is to ensure that all ecosystems and areas rich in species
diversity are adequately represented in reserves. Gaps in the protection of biodiversity are
identified by superimposing three digital layers in a Geographical Information System (GIS),
namely maps of vegetation types, species distributions and land management use. A
combination of all three layers can be used to identify individual species, species-rich areas
and vegetation types that are either not represented at all or are under-represented in existing
reserves. In practice, vegetation, common terrestrial vertebrate species, and endangered
species are used as surrogates to represent overall biodiversity.

REA: Rapid Ecological Assessment

Rapid Ecological Assessment is a technique developed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
as a tool to aid conservation planning in large, poorly-studied, or exceptionally biodiverse
areas. The REA process consists of a series of increasingly refined analyses, with each level
further defining sites of high conservation interest. The levels involved are satellite
observation; airborne remote sensing; aerial reconnaissance; and field inventory. Analysis
of satellite images is used to produce maps of ecoregions, land cover and priority areas;
while integration with data from airborne sensors and aerial reconnaissance produces more
detailed maps, extended to cover vegetation types and ecological communities. These are
used to direct the cost-effective acquisition of biological and ecological data through
stratified field sampling. Such data are used to support the conservation planning process and
identify priority sites. Spatially-referenced information is managed by GIS, allowing easy
data handling and generation of maps. Other conservation information is managed through
manual files and a relational database called Biological and Conservation Data (BCD)
developed by The Nature Conservancy.

Conservation Biodiversity Workshops

Conservation Biodiversity Workshops (CBWs) were developed by Conservation International
(CI) as a means of setting conservation priorities in large geographic regions. The technique
entails collating biological information - in particular maps prepared by CI’s geographic
information system, CISIG - and using it as a focus for discussion at a Workshop of field
scientists who are the world’s leading experts on a region’s species and ecosystems. In this
way the knowledge attained by biologists through decades of field work can be captured.
Following this initial stage of the Workshop, the maps are used as catalysts to obtain a
group consensus on biological priorities for conservation throughout the region. One vital
output of the Workshop is a Final Workshop Map which summarises the information
available, synthesising and integrating the data and opinions of the experts who attend. This
provides a single coherent picture that decision makers can readily understand. Maps
continue to play a key role even after the Workshop is over, since as easily interpreted

3.7.4

3.7.5

3.7.6

3. Inventory and assessment of biodiversity

images reflecting a broad consensus among experts they can help governments, NGOs and
funding agencies decide where to allocate their resources.

CNA: Conservation Needs Assessment

The Conservation Needs Assessment (CNA) was implemented for Papua New Guinea by
the Biodiversity Support Program (a USAID-funded consortium of the World Wildlife Fund-
US, The Nature Conservancy and the World Resources Institute). The process involved is
outlined in the paragraph above on Conservation Biodiversity Workshops. Conservation
International was responsible for preparing the maps for participants at the Workshop, and
concerned itself primarily with biodiversity information. It is important to note that in
addition to biologically-oriented project teams, several non-biological project teams were
also appointed prior to the Workshop to examine conservation implementation. These were
a social scientist’s team, a legal team, an information management team and an
NGO/landowner team. The CNA process is considered to be a starting point for participatory
approaches to conservation and sustainable development, and takes account of social and
political realities.

National Conservation Review (using Gradsect sampling)

The aim of the National Conservation Review (NCR) is to identify an optimal or minimum
set of sites which is representative of the national biodiversity of Sri Lanka. This is achieved
through the collection of data on species distributions and their subsequent analysis. Surveys
are conducted to assess these distributions (see below). The sampling procedure involves the
following steps: identification of sites, positioning of transects along environmental
gradients, inventory of flora and fauna within plots. The NCR also has a hydrological and
soil conservation component. These attributes of forest are measured concurrently by a
separate survey team. An iterative complementarity procedure is being used to define a
minimum set of sites necessary to conserve Sri Lanka’s biodiversity. The biological survey
technique employed was Gradient-directed transect (Gradsect) sampling. Transects were
deliberately selected to traverse the steepest environmental gradients present in an area, while
taking into account access routes. This technique is considered appropriate for rapidly
assessing species diversity in natural forests, while minimising costs, since gradsects capture
more biological information than randomly-placed transects of similar length.

BIMS: Biodiversity Information Management System

The Asian Bureau for Conservation has developed and distributes a software package called
BIMS (formerly MASS = MacKinnon-Ali Software Systems) which can be used for
monitoring the conservation status of species, wildlife habitat and protected areas on a
national basis. The underlying principle is that the distribution and occurrence of species
whose habitat requirements are known is predictable and can be mapped. MASS monitors
the status of individual species by assessing the extensiveness, rate of loss and degree of
protection afforded to their required habitats. The technique uses empirical modelling to
estimate distribution and abundance patterns of species from sparse primary data, stored in
a relational database. It includes estimates of the threats to the species being modelled.
BIMS is based on a mapped habitat classification and can generate expected and confirmed
species lists for any locality.

39

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

SeIET

3.7.8

3579

40

RAP: Guidelines for the Rapid Assessment of Biodiversity Priority Areas

The World Bank and the GEF are currently funding CSIRO and other Australian institutions
to develop a series of Guidelines for Rapid Assessment of Biodiversity Priority Areas
(RAP). These will adapt RAP tools employed in Australia for use in developing countries.
The Guidelines are still under development. The basic principle is that priorities need to be
set in conservation. The technique used will be to compile a suitable database containing
maps of the spatial distribution of the biodiversity surrogate chosen, and then use it
systematically to identify a network of areas that collectively represents that surrogate. A
complementarity approach will be recommended, in which priority areas are added on the
basis of the elements of biodiversity they contain which are different from those already
covered. Application of CSIRO guidelines will enable assessment of the relative contribution
of different areas to overall biodiversity protection. Conservation initiatives will then be
focused on areas that make a high contribution.

ATBI: All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory

The aim of an All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory, developed by the University of Pennsylvania
in conjunction with INBio (Costa Rica), is to make a thorough inventory or description of
all the species present in a particular area, using highly trained taxonomic specialists
recruited internationally and nationally. The rationale behind this approach is that species
have to be used (ie. must have a utilitarian value to human societies) in order to be
preserved, and have to be described and understood before appropriate uses can be found
for them. The goals of ATBI are: to recognise and describe species and assign stable
scientific binomial names (facilitating information exchange between researchers in different
parts of the world); determine where at least some of the members of each taxon or species
live and can be found; and, through accumulation of ecological and behavioural information,
determine their role in the ecosystem.

RBA: Rapid Biodiversity Assessment

Rapid Biodiversity Assessment, developed by MacQuarie University (Australia) and others,
is based on the premise that certain aspects of biological diversity can be quantified without
knowing the scientific names of the species involved. Data are gathered on certain groups
of organisms. Several groups, chosen as good ’predictor sets’ or ’biodiversity surrogates’ of
biodiversity are needed at each location inventoried. The main characteristic of RBA is
reduction of the formal taxonomic content in the classification and identification of
organisms. There are two methods by which this can be achieved:

Ordinal RBA In this approach only those taxonomic levels needed to achieve the goals of
the assessment in question are used. Ordinal RBA is frequently used in environmental
monitoring. For example, if it is known from prior studies that the presence or absence of
a particular family or genus indicates disturbance or pollution, it may only be necessary to
resolve the species collected at a site to the level of family or genus to ascertain
environmental quality.

Basic RBA The identification of large numbers of specimens obtained from a particular area
during a biodiversity inventory may be problematic. An alternative to formal and correct
species identification by expert taxonomists is the creation of locally functional schemes for
classification and identification, using easily observable morphological criteria. For example,

3.7.10

3. Inventory and assessment of biodiversity

butterflies might be distinguished on the basis of wing colour, pattern and size resulting in
classifications such as ’Small, red with white spots.’ The units of variety recorded by such
a scheme may be called morphospecies, operational taxonomic units (OTUs) or recognisable
taxonomic units (RTUs). Depending on whether operational procedures have been
standardised and calibrated by conventional taxonomic measures, these units may or may
not be less representative of natural biological variation than species per se. Biodiversity
technicians trained by taxonomists can be used to separate specimens into RTUs. Studies
show that if properly trained such personnel can be very effective.

RAP: Rapid Assessment Programme

Conservation International (CI) created the Rapid Assessment Program (RAP) in 1989 to fill
the gaps in regional knowledge of the world’s biodiversity ’hotspots’. These hotspots cover
less than 4% of the Earth’s surface, but are nonetheless inadequately inventoried. The RAP
process assembles teams of world experts and host country scientists to conduct preliminary
assessments of the biological value of poorly-known areas. RAP teams usually consist of
experts in taxonomically well-known groups such as higher vertebrates (eg. birds and
mammals) and vascular plants, so that ready identification of organisms to the species level
is assured. The biological value of an area can be characterised by species richness, degree
of species endemism (ie. percentage of species that are found nowhere else), the uniqueness
of the ecosystem, and the magnitude of threat of extinction. A RAP is a precursor to
prolonged scientific study. RAPs are undertaken by identifying potentially rich sites from
satellite images / aerial reconnaissance, and then sending in ground teams to conduct field
survey transects. Such field trips last from two to eight weeks, depending on the remoteness
of the terrain. Reports of RAP activities are made available to the widest possible audience.
Subsequent research and conservation recommendations and actions are the responsibility
of local scientists and conservationists.

41

S3IHLNNOD
SNIdO13A30

NI ASAWNS
TVNOILWN HOS
SSSN3LVIYdOudd

Svayv
SIHdVHDO039
a9uv1

Od ALIIEVLINS

jeuonen

jeuonen

jeuonen

JeB00)
/jeuonen

jB90|
/ (eUONEN

/ (euoyyen

aos

ueinyg
pueRyeyL

BUIYD

BURT US JO SJselo4

PBeUIND MeN ended

ulseq uozewy

BeUIND MeN ended

BIUIB,IA
HO spue|si seuseg |/BWS

oo1xeW MON

(ey 00s'2rL'L) Borewer

ouep|

Spilg }seJ0} UBI/eEMeH

Q3M1OANI VA8V
/ NOILVLN3SW31dWI
dO SAIdWVX3

sjueweuinbes
yeyiqey seiseds

jo eBpaymouy

pue sdew

yeyqey Buysixe
Bulsn eouepunge
puke suolnquisip
seloeds

Jepow o} eseqeiep
Jeuojejes & sesp)

yndu) jeaiBojouyoe}
Mo] pue

syom Aesuns pet
@AISUB}XE SEA\OAU|

yoroidde

jeuonewej}u!
pue jeuoneu jo
doysyom jo esp)

suedxe
jeuonewe}u}

pue jeuojeu jo
doyss0m jo esr)

Buiyynyj-punos6
jeyueysqns
pue Aenins

jeuee jo esr)

saunlvas
Wwid3adS

peuinbei jon

Ppeuinbed joy

seloeds Aex

jo sdew uoynquisip
pue ‘sebesenod
jeoiGojospAy

pue ‘jeoiydes6odo}
‘asn pur] ‘uoyejebe,

sejoeds Aey

jo sdew uolnquisip
pue !seBeevoo
jeo1BojospAy

pue ‘jeoiydes6odo}
‘asn pur| ‘uoejebe,

sefeienod
jeolBojoe6 pue ‘ulee}
‘asn pup ‘uojejebe,

suo||nquisip sejseds
Jenjoe Jo peyo|peid
‘seBesenoo esn
pur] pue uo)ejeGe,

sieAe| SID

jeg] sejloeds
0} sdnoi6 sojesipuj

[eA] seloeds
0} sdnoi6 Joyeoipuj

Buyyynay

punoi6, se |e@ne}
sejoeds 0} sdnoib
Joyeoipul BulAjyuep}
so}IS UleLeD

ye sAenins @AjOAU!
jou Aew Jo Aey

Jeng] YS Je
Asoyueau! D}WOUoxe |

gayINoOsY VLvG

seaie
pejoejoid pur jeqey
OjI|pjiM ‘sejoeds

jo snes uo}eAuesuod
ey) Buo}uo;

Ajiss@Aipoig jeuoHeU
JO eAnejueseides
‘uoneAesuod

JO} S8}!S jO JeS
(winwiuiw Jo) jewydo
ue jo UONBOYyHUep|

solyees jeonyod

pur je190s jo junod0e
Bulye} ‘uoNe~iesuoo
JO} seese

Ayuoud jo uoNeoynuep}

UONBAUBSUOD JO} Seale
Ayuoud jo uoyedynuep|

UONBAJBSUOD JO} SBGJe
Ayuoud jo uoeodynuep}

sease pojoe}oid
u Ayisueaipoig jo
uo}}e}uesesdes 6} Ul
sdeB jo uoneoynuep|

aSOdund

wa\sks
uo}eUuoju}
Ay\si@nipoig
swig

(6uijdwes
yoespei5
Bulsn) meiney
uoljenesuod
JeuoneN

juewssessy
speen
uoyeAesuoD
VWNO

sdoysoM
Ayssanipolg
uoNenesuod
Mago

juawssessy
jeoiBojoo3 pidey
va"

sishjeuy de5

SNOINHOSL

sanbiuyoe| Aiojuanu| Ajissanipolg JO UOSHedWOD Ze eIGeL

spoujew Jayjo
yim uoSUN[UOD

u) ses
pojyeede je pesn
@q UBD Ng :Mo7

Spoyjew Jeo
UyIM UONSUN[UOD
u) seyis

pejeede je pesn
@q UBD jNq :Mo7

SaIHLNNOD
SNIdO1SASG0 SVauV
NI ASAXNS SIHdVHDOAD
TWNOILLWN HOS a9uv1
SSSNSLVIddOUdd YO4 ALIIEVLINS

oyjoeds
“BUS
18909,

oyloeds
-9US
1}B907)

jeuo|be.
/ euoyeNn

388/9 BHI BENIN
pue Buogejiig sueAy

BiUBWSe| We}se3

(24 000'000's)

9z\|9g ‘eueseYy
180/04 JEA}y BIQUIN|OD

(By 000'OLL) Poly
BJSOD ‘Bei UO}}BAIeSuOD
eyseoeueNyS

eA se auOKN

G3AN1OANI VAHV
/ NOILWLNSW3ATdWI
dO S31dWVx3

*e|B9S JU|Od-E B UO ESBO YORE | PeJNseewW ‘Boe piepUe]s jBO}}eyjodAY eB Oo} palidde se senbiuyoe} au} jo A)

(Ayejiwis payee)
q pinoo sjuR|d
pue seyesqayen

yBnouye)

sdnoi6 J0j;e9|pu}
@)B1G9UaAU!

Uo peyesjueou09
eaey B}ep

0} SVG ‘es|yedxe
‘9|WOUOXe}

e)1) seujnbe,
syoinb Ajawesyx3

suedxe
jeuoyeweju! pue
JBuo}eu jo Wee}
jews Seuinbes
syoinb Ajawesx3

sejoeds

Mau jo uO!|duosep
pue Aueaoosip eu}
4M adoo 0} yndu}
o|Wwouoxe) Pedxe
e|qeiep|suoo
seujnbey

9/98) SIU) U
senbjuyoe} eyo
@4} JO UO}BUI|qUIOD
B esn Aiqeqoid

IM juawdojenep
Jepun Ajjueuino

saunilvasa
Wwid3dS

pauinbe: jon

pouinbe joy

Hate
Hall

si9Ae| SID

yun 9]WouoXe}
e|qes|ubooe,

Jo jBuo|yeiedo

0} 40 ‘(Ayjwie}

‘snueb ‘e}) sejoeds
4) UBY) JeyBiYy sjene}
o|WoUoXe} 0} sdnob
Joyeo|puy jo AiojUeAu|

|@A9| sejoeds
0} sdnouB 10}e9}puj jo
Aiojueau| Aveujwi|ed

[ene]
sejoeds 0} sdnos6
JB yo Aiojueny jejo |

Jeng] ey/s ye
Aioyusau} o}wouoxe |

Q3yiNO3Y Viva

suwsjuB6j0

JO UOHEBO\\UEP}

pue uo}eoyisse|o

U) PeAjoAu) WOHe
O|WOUOXR} |BULO} BU}
Buls}wiujwi ysjiym sey\s
jo Ajisieaip jeoiGojoig
uj JO JUBUSSESSY

Beije UMOU-ALOOd B
jo Ajjsueaip jB9|60/01q
8} JO JuBWSsesse
Aieujwijalg

Bele JeBjnojped eB
u| juesesd sejoeds eu)
jo AuojuBAu! eyej\dwo9

uojDe}01d

Ay|ss@a!poig 40}
peBeuew eq pinoys
yo|ym seujunoD

JO SeWO!q UjyIIM
seoe|d JO UO}}BOy UEP}

SaSOduNd

1N pue peads '}soo eAneieduiod ey) Jo SeyBU|Se Uje}UOD SUWN|OD pUBY-{4BU 1NO} BU) :e10N

juewssessy
AySJOAIpOIg
pidey

va"

ewweibod
juswissessy
pidey

dV

Aioyueau|

seaiy Ayuoud
Aysi@n\polg

jo jUewssessy
pidey eu}

SNODINHOSL

we

id

Te,

¢

“b> : 7 D = f fy
; a eth: ae ee > ae err a

"gon bid ogee bee aiieks 365 teeter sestdi chal

Te 7 * — << , Pr. s s

a
aie ~ 7 et P 4 s Zz
_ 7 1 > = Pa

“ a a i eri

?
i vom SAO Gey
;
a

4. IDENTIFYING DIRECT USERS OF WILD BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF USE

Summary

° determine the appropriate spatial scales for study: for many purposes the local level will be
most important, and regional and national level will be particularly based on village analysis;

° adopt realistic goals: aim to reduce ignorance to a level where appropriate action is possible;

° varieties of Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) can provide an overview of those socio-economic
sectors most dependent on direct use of biological resources in subsistence and mixed economies
at the village level, but should be combined with selected in-depth studies;

° economic analysis will be difficult in market economies because complex modelling is needed
and input data are scarce;

° recent approaches combine RRA and Contingent Valuation Methods (CVM) to assess use
preferences and value at subsistence level;

° regional and national data analysis are also necessary for a more complete understanding of
trends in use and dependency.

4.1 INTRODUCTION

4.1.1 To understand the socio-economic issues surrounding biodiversity conservation, use, and
sustainability assessment it is necessary to establish:

¢ the critical spatial scale of use,

* which communities are using biodiversity directly at each scale, including subsistence
and market economy use,

¢ how critical biodiversity use is for the welfare of each user.

4.1.2 Only when the users are identified is it possible to start setting priorities for conservation
activities. In the majority of less-developed countries (LDCs), a high proportion of the
population and an even higher proportion of those who make direct use of wild biological
resources live in rural situations, usually in villages. For this reason, most studies regarding
the economic and social importance of biodiversity in these countries should initially be
directed at the village level. Regional and national pictures can then emerge by working up
the hierarchy of spatial scales. To do this, the critical links between spatial scales need to
be determined.

4.1.3 In more developed countries increased industrialisation and more intensive mechanised
farming may mean that the regional or national level is a more appropriate scale for study.
Key questions in both cases are: who are the users in villages, who are the users in
individual industries in urban or rural areas?

4.1.4 It is also important to define the type of economic system in which biodiversity use takes

place. Is it mainly a subsistence economy or is it a market driven economy? Most of the
world’s population lives in a mixed economy, existing not only by subsistence activities nor

45

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

4.2

4.2.1

A422

4.2.3

46

relying entirely on the market for all goods. However, because there is a marked tendency
to underestimate the significance of the subsistence economies, it is essential to ensure that
this segment of the economy is well represented in any assessment.

Finally the extent of dependency on biodiversity for each user at the different levels needs
to be determined. At the subsistence level, what is the proportion of ‘wealth’ or daily
nutrition from biodiversity resources? Existing opportunities to find substitutes for particular
biodiversity resources (food, fuel) should be identified.

Realistic expectations of such assessments are required because singular studies will never
be able to collect enough quality information to build a truly complete picture. The aim is
to reduce ignorance to a level at which useful and valid decisions can be made.
Comprehensive data collection is hindered by the seasonality of natural resource, the
occurrence of vital but intermittent use in emergencies (eg. famine), and time constraints.
More detailed and focused surveys will be required to gather extensive data. A rapid and
superficial analysis is likely to seriously under-estimate local level dependence on
biodiversity for direct (including emergency) uses. A nationwide sample of rapid surveys,
which may be statistically more representative, should be balanced by select case studies
chosen either by ecological priority (eg. near fragile ecosystem) or because of
socio-economic importance (dependent users represent large proportion of population). The
major risk is to underestimate rural dependency on biodiversity resources because much of
it is outside of the cash economy.

ASSESSING DIRECT USE AT THE VILLAGE LEVEL

The goal is to identify the use of and preference for biological resources for food sources,
construction material, fuelwood, artisanal product and so forth. The following section first
outlines the most important methods used for this type of assessment, both for subsistence
and cash economy use. Because most of the world lives in a mixed system, distinctions
between the two are often blurred.

The first step is to check existing data sources and literature for references and case studies
on use of indigenous species. In many countries there is a wealth of information already
collected and therefore, it is not always necessary to initiate ground surveys. Studies and
projects in forestry, agroforestry, nutrition, traditional medicine, hunting and gathering, as
well as agricultural extension and NGO reports can often supply base line data. Secondly,
new studies will have to be commissioned to fill in the gaps. The use of and dependence on
biodiversity resources at the local level must be aggregated where possible to regional and
national levels because it is not possible to undertake nationwide detailed studies of all uses.
Therefore, the selection of sites must be done with care that they are regionally
representative of the socio-economic conditions of users and of the natural landscape and
biodiversity present. The work should be undertaken by qualified and trained social scientists
familiar with the region and participatory research methods. Special attention should be paid
to the use of biological resources as wild foods and medicines.

Several methodologies are suggested for identifying users of biodiversity resources, the
importance of these resources, and an assessment of threats and trends in biodiversity
sustainability. These guidelines are descriptive rather than instructive and are not intended
to provide step by step guidance on how to employ each of these complex methods. Indeed,

4.2.4

4.3

4.3.1

4.3.2

4. Identifying direct users of wild biological resources...

most of the techniques require professional training and substantial data. References for
further technical information and illuminative case studies are provided in Annex 1. The
method most often employed is Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA).

RRA can help answer questions about the needs for biodiversity resources and the influences
of their use at the local level. The term RRA refers to a wide range of techniques and
methods; it is a structured and systematic activity designed to generate new insights about
the range of opportunities and constraints of rural people. For this reason, RRA provides
relevant and appropriate methods to assess the sustainability of biodiversity, as well as issues
concerning the livelihoods of those dependent upon biodiversity resources. Advantages of
RRA are that it is quick, cheap, insightful, relatively easy to learn, does not rely on existing
baseline data, and involves a multi-disciplinary approach. Although designed to be employed
by a team, RRA can be used by a single researcher. It is not a pre-set packaged
methodology (Pretty and Scoones, 1989). It is suite of methods from which choices can be
made to best suit any given situation. The use of various sources and various methods of
data compilation promotes accuracy. RRA attempts to make biases and the level of
ignorance explicit. RRA methods can be employed in a way that is sensitive to issues of
gender and wealth distribution at the village level. Often a woman researcher is needed on
the team to assess effectively women’s access and use of biodiversity resources. The core
techniques of RRA are outlined in Box 4.1.

VILLAGE LEVEL ANALYSIS OF SUBSISTENCE ECONOMIES

Use RRA techniques to identify which resources are being exploited, why, and any changes
in quantity harvested. Specifically, an analytical game may be employed to discover
preferences and uses of biodiversity resources for food sources, construction material, etc.
Three examples are given in Box 4.2. An assessment should attempt to establish the
availability of close substitutes, and the full socio-economic trade-offs of employing them.
Two areas particularly worthy of examination are the use of biodiversity resources as wild
foods and medicines.

Wild Foods

Direct interviews and RRA methods can be used to establish food uses of biodiversity,
employing wild food categories and modes of acquisition given in Box 4.3. Wild foods can
be a critical part of local livelihood strategies. They often provide a critical proportion of
daily nutrition for the rural poor, generate cash for rural households, provide food in crisis
situations, and add prestige for special events such as marriages. This important dependency
on biodiversity should not be overlooked. The following five steps can be employed to
assess their importance (adapted from Evans 1993):

e Short list the species used as wild foods by different ethnic groups in each ecological
region of a country. This can be done using rank order of preference by a) season and
b) use-value category of the food (see Box 4.3) Stratification by socioeconomic and

socio-cultural groups, age, and gender is useful

¢ Enumerate frequencies and quantities of wild foods used by different groups

47

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

¢ Include a time frame to help indicate actual change in wild foods populations, their
habitat, and relate this to locally perceived change

¢ Assess the actual and potential contribution of wild food for local income generation,
and for local incentive to conserve wildlands

¢ Assess the actual and potential contribution of the most commonly used wild foods to
local diet.

Box 4.1 Core RRA Techniques
The core techniques common to most RRAs are:

Secondary data review
Relevant published or unpublished data acquired by other studies and individuals are reviewed.

Direct observation
Direct observations of field objects, events, processes, relationships or people are recorded by the team.

Semi-structured interviews
Guided interviews are conducted for which only some of the questions are predetermined and new questions that
arise during the interview are presented. Checklists can be used as reminders of topics that should be covered.

Analytic games

Simple games draw out the knowledge and preferences of the interviewees in order to produce a comparative
ranking and to discover the criteria on which those choices have been made. It is very useful for identifying which
families and individuals are most dependent on biodiversity resources and their preferences and seasonal needs.
Seasonal calendars and pair-wise preference games are two analytical games often employed.

Stories and portraits

Short, colourful descriptions told by the interviewees which produce a ‘snapshot’ of information which is otherwise
difficult to compile.

Diagrams

Simple schematic diagram constructed with the informant which presents information in a uncomplicated visual
form and serves to dramatically simplify complex information.

Workshops
A common means of bringing people together, they can be useful to review and analyse compiled information.

Source: adapted from Pretty and Scoones (1989) and McCraken et al. (1988)

48

4. Identifying direct users of wild biological resources...

Box 4.2 Examples of RRA Analytical Games
RRA Analytical Games

Pairwise Choices

Informants may be asked to make pairwise choices between six different biodiversity resources of interest to both
the interviewer and interviewee, such as six indigenous trees used for fuelwood. The interviewer then asks pair-by-
pair which is preferable, together with why. In this way, a ranking of the most to least preferred is produced, along
with all the criteria used. The process requires about one hour to complete.

Seasonal Calendars

Seasonal calendars are constructed together with the interviewee to represent all the major changes which occur
within the year, and when and which biodiversity resources are exploited. The calendar can be constructed on the
basis of individual interviews or group questions and discussion. There should be room on the calendar to include
problem times, such as periods of drought, and times of opportunity, such as when new crops are grown. A few
rounds of the calendar game can be done to cover areas of basic use of biological resources. For example, one
game can be done for food, fuelwood, and building materials.

Advantage and Disadvantages of RRA games

A wider and more comprehensive variety of biodiversity uses will be discovered by means of RRA games than
with interview or other techniques. Initial assessment would serve as a base line for various types of research.
However the games are time-consuming and fewer interviewees can participate. Thus, the need to extrapolate
becomes greater.

Source: adapted from Pretty and Scoones (1989)

Box 4.3 Wild Foods
Three Classifications of Wild Food

Hunger Foods

Used only when preferred foods are not available, often in crisis situation where starvation could occur. People do
not readily admit to eating them, and only socially marginal groups sell them. Nonetheless, they are vital in times
of crisis.

Staple Wild Foods

Served as common accompaniments to everyday meals. Their use varies with the seasons and ability to buy
‘modern’ food. Examples include leaves, fruits, berries, tubers, flowers, insects, reptiles, gums and resins, honey,
fish, and game.

Luxury Wild Foods
Afforded by relatively rich people or for special occasions. They are usual scarce, which adds to their prestige and

cost.

Modes of Acquisition
Extraction: collecting or hunting in the ‘wild’.
Tended in situ, within the natural habitat.
Semi-domesticated: ex-situ, without a strong attempt to selectively improve their genotypes (eg. use
of seeds, captured wildlife, fish, etc).

Source: adapted from Evans 1993

49

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

4.3.3

4.4

4.4.1

4.4.2

4.4.3

4.4.4

50

Medicinal Uses

Biodiversity may play a significant role in traditional medicines. In poor nations, at least
75% of all medical drugs are based on plants and animals (Principe, 1991). Furthermore,
analyses of medicinal plants shows that the cultural role of these plants is central to how
they are utilised and how their habitat is managed (Brown and Moran, 1993). Ascribing an
economic value to medicinal plants can be based either on the current use values or the
potential future use values (‘option values’). For this type of assessment, a focus on current
use is more useful. The valuation can focus on the replacement cost of ’traditional’ medicine
by purchased drugs, or focus on the value of the medicine in terms of its life-saving
properties, using a value of a ’statistical life’. See Annex 1 (Bibliography) for references of
these types of studies.

VILLAGE LEVEL ANALYSIS OF MARKET ECONOMIES

In market economies, economic analysis can help determine the importance of biological
resources at the village, regional, and national level. At the local level, marginal analysis can
help determine the dependency upon biological resources and the rates at which substitutes
can be employed (eg. rubber being replaced by plastics at local factory). There are
difficulties with these methods. First, trained economists are needed to undertake
sophisticated modelling, and second, detailed data on values and quantities of biological
resources are necessary but seldom available. Values are not easy to obtain because
biological resources seldom have observable prices. Those that do have prices are often
under priced’ by the market because the market does not recognise the total value of
resources. Other methods must therefore be employed.

Direct interviews

This approach may be used to investigate use of a key resource by a wide variety of users.
For example to determine the changing patterns in charcoal and wood use in the Sudan,
Pretty and Scoones (1989) report interviewing brick-makers, builders, carpenters, cheese-
makers, bakers, farmers, displaced merchants, charcoal-makers and others. The advantages
of direct interviews is that a wide variety of social sectors can be polled relatively quickly.

Survey local markets

The aim is to monitor change in produce available. Once a baseline is established, changes
in price and availability can be monitored. For example. are exotic fruits flooding the
market? While this method may be quick, it will exclude any change in subsistence
activities.

Hypothetical Market Methods

These approaches can be used when resources do not have observable prices. Some of these
methods require that individuals state their ‘willingness to pay’ (eg their price) in a
hypothetical context. Other methods observe actual behaviour and infer valuations based on
that behaviour. Box 4.4 outlines the different methods which might be used, and Box 4.5
highlights one methodology, the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM). One method

4. Identifying direct users of wild biological resources...

developed in response to the need to attach value to biodiversity resource use combines RRA
and CVM techniques to determine subsistence use of resources by using pictures and games
(Emerton, in prep. ESCOR/BDDEA field study). Once a list of most-used resources is
established (eg. firewood, grazing areas, wild honey) the farmer is asked to name and price
a consumer good he/she would like to acquire. This good, usually a bicycle or radio, is then
added to the list of resources. Next, the farmer is asked to prioritise the resources by
distributing 10-15 pebbles or matchsticks among the list of resources. The result is a cashless
comparison between biological resources and consumer goods, which can be translated
roughly into monetary terms via the priced consumer goods.

Box 4.4 Three Valuation Methods

Valuation methods
The following techniques are frequently used to estimate the value of natural resources. The application of these
techniques to biodiversity is challenging and the interpretation of the data must be done with great care.

Replacement Cost Technique

This technique estimates the cost of replacing or restoring biodiversity loss. It measures the benefit assigned to the
original asset, not the replacement. For example, the ‘insurance’ value of planting seven varieties of sesame
Sesamum indicum might be inferred from the cost of crop failure insurance. The major difficulty lies in identifying
close replacements for lost biodiversity.

Travel Cost Method

Expenditures on commodities that are substitutes or complements for the biodiversity good/service are employed
to value changes in that biodiversity good. For example, the travel cost of visiting a park to observe wildlife may
indicate the value of the biodiversity in the park. There are numerous problems with this method concerning
aggregation and the relation between the number of trips and the price.

Hedonic Price Methods

This method estimates an implicit price for an environmental attribute, such as the real estate value of two identical
houses, one near a park, the other near a chemical plant. Wage risk premiums also often used to value changes
in morbidity and mortality arising from environmental hazards. However, these methods may not be suited to
developing countries where land and labour markets are unlikely to function so as to capture such differences in
value.

Source: adapted from Brown and Moran, 1993

4.4.5 Survey local industries

Assessment should also include individual industries which are based on locally produced
natural resources such as rattan, rubber or indigenous wood. Priority for assessment can be
given to the industries which either generate the most employment, export earnings, or
infrastructure development. If relevant data are available, marginal analysis or input-output
analysis (see below) can be undertaken. Otherwise, a crude analysis of the quantity of
resources used per year and the potential of using substitutes should be carried out.

31

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Box 4.5 Contingent Valuation Methods (CVMs)

Background to CVMs

The primary source of valuation data is observation of market prices and quantities exchanged. However, there is
a range of techniques that may be employed to determine non-marketed and economic values of biodiversity and
biodiversity resources. Economic models of consumer behaviour describe how individuals make purchases (or
direct extraction of biodiversity good) according to their preferences and income constraints.

Willingness to pay (WTP) Surveys

WTP is a CVM method which uses surveys to ask people how much they are (hypothetically) willing to pay for a
change in a given biodiversity resource. The typical survey begins by giving background information to
respondents on the resource in question, then they are told about the change in the resource (eg. conservation or
possibility of extinction). The answers are interpreted in the context of conventional economic theory.

Disadvantages
There are numerous problems with these methods, notably the numerous potential biases in any survey. It is a

laborious process to construct the model, conduct surveys, and analyse the results of a CVM. Further, because
CVM surveys do not measure preferences, they are not suitable for cost-benefit analysis (Hausman 1993).

4.5 ASSESSING DIRECT USE AT REGIONAL AND NATIONAL LEVELS

4.5.1 To understand the social and economic issues surrounding biodiversity sustainability at the

regional and national level, it is necessary to establish which sectors of the economy are

dependent upon biodiversity and biological resources. Important sectors of the economy

include agriculture, fisheries, forestry, tourism, as well as natural resource based industries

such as rubber, timber products, and rattan. Major steps are:

¢ identify major industries which draw resources from across regions and analyse their

dependency on natural resources;

¢ extrapolate from case studies completed at the village level to regional level for major

economic sectors and individual industries which draw depend upon local natural
resources (eg agriculture, forestry, fishers, small scale furniture production, etc);

¢ identify major trends in land and water use change.
4.5.2 Input-Output and Marginal Analysis

Economic analysis such as input-output models and marginal analysis may be helpful to
identify the extent to which industries are dependent upon biological resources, assuming
data are available. Input-output models measure flows of resources into and out of a given
industry and are useful to analyse linkages between areas of economic activity at the
regional and national level. Marginal analysis can describe the possible rates of substitution
for natural resources inputs of a given industry. To do this, the demand for the resource
input, the price paid, the quantities available, and the possibilities of substitutes must be
known. Data for these types of analysis should be available for some larger industries, but
lack of data is likely to remain a problem in most industries.

52

4.5.3

4.5.4

4. Identifying direct users of wild biological resources...

Extrapolation

Extrapolation from the village to regional levels, as well from regional to national levels,
should be based on statistically sound methods to prevent unnecessary biases. It is advised
that extrapolation be based both on representation of ecological zones as well as socio-
economic trends. Emphasis throughout any assessment of the status of biodiversity, and
trends therein, must be placed at the local and village level because this is the scale at which
ultimate causes of threat exert their effect ’on the ground’, and it is at the same time the
scale at which conservation and management measures are implemented or resisted,
according to the attitudes of local residents.

Looking for Trends

In addition to identifying users of biodiversity resources, it is important to identify spatial
and other variation in patterns of use, for example:

¢ region: are the people in region X more dependent than in region Y?
* socio-economic measures: are the poorest more dependent?
* economic sector: are cash croppers less dependent than subsistence farmers?

¢ gender: do women farmers use more biodiversity resources for daily use than their male
counterparts?

* industry: are small natural resource based industries, such as rattan furniture making,

dependent upon resources which come from another region? Is there interregional
dependency?

53

RGA HOARE Hy Mae tied clea Se

dies i a a wollen road

7 alien dnertine hen digad urait ilow ec. atv oi eomigor al da slly att ie uspigeres *
a cen tpt settee nine Heine abd omnia poametal take

pares si “4 ee ick ti waist Be sss gi oh il a
‘ el % Broo Mea a pan %, “uel, eerciod oe a) ooEMties ;
a fa Saag, nt Ada ead ved sual 5 US, wf te Boot ox at, fens dere 58
Iplrongiieomn. wiv ieee tev ala: he ge v3 409 saat fC ate
eet ay wy peri ‘arr fete ify si ie ih
me (ee Pee stages Alig
epathern pe Oe 25 } colt ry a re af

pons i sy Sed (me

apap oricahin hes ew ashes nA ew YA
op agin cl eer ‘ Spier ah Camed: 3 an
i ty any wi realt: iechign ae en wisi eo ee

7 - *
4 een ae

2 on ery 'aty:
ra 2 ae a

5. ASSESSING SOCIO-ECONOMIC THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY

Summary

5.1

5.1.1

underlying or ultimate threats to biodiversity arise within the socio-economic and policy
framework generated by human communities;

issues of land tenure and access rights to biological resources are central to sustainable use,
and it is unrealistic to expect individuals without solid tenure or access rights to manage
resources wisely;

RRA and other survey methods should be used to establish rights and the extent to which they
apply in practice;

growth and spread of human settlements often have adverse impacts on biodiversity; evaluation
of this factor requires analysis of human demography and regional studies of factors driving
growth and movement;

the costs of conserving biodiversity are often borne locally while the benefits accrue at national
or global levels; this is a powerful disincentive to sustainable use but challenging to correct;

distortions in the economy, caused by government policies and misleading market prices, create
the conditions which give people the incentive to misuse biological resources and expedite
biodiversity loss.

INTRODUCTION

Biodiversity losses above background rates can be attributed to human economic, cultural
and social activities, and relate in particular to land tenure systems, the scale and growth of
human population, and the direction of economic incentives. It is necessary to gain some
understanding of the causal factors, which operate at the village, provincial, national and
international systems level.

Environmental economists (eg. Pearce and Moran, 1994) are converging on a model
involving ’economic failure’ as the root cause of biodiversity loss. There are several kinds
of economic failure; most fundamentally, there is disparity between the way costs and
benefits are perceived by the individual or organisation and the way they affect society,
nationally or globally. In other words, existing market systems fail to capture the true value
of natural resources. An action of benefit to an individual (eg. direct dumping of pollutants
in a river) may entail social costs elsewhere (reduced water quality downstream), but these
externalities are not perceived by the individual and are thus ignored. Similarly, an action
good for society (eg. strict protection of a block of woodland) may entail costs to individuals
(loss of foraging rights) but give no perceived benefits. At another scale, preservation of a
species-rich forest might have benefits to the global community, in terms of biodiversity
maintenance, but without compensatory benefits there may be insufficient incentive to the
country managing the forest.

55

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

5). Jes}

5.2

5.2.1

56

The following taxonomy of economic failure can be proposed:

¢ market failure
local, failure in free markets to take account of externalities, or to take benefits of
biodiversity conservation into account;
global, missing markets or global appropriation failure, where countries or
communities external to those bearing the costs of conservation receive benefits with
no costs;

e intervention (or government) failure
failure of governments to intervene appropriately in markets, eg. by under-pricing
water or subsidising deforestation.

The magnitude of the kinds of economic failure can be demonstrated only by putting in
place a system of biodiversity resource valuation. According to Pearce and Moran (1994),
the information available does not suggest that biodiversity conservation will never be the
preferred option over land conversion, nor is it the case that biodiversity conservation will
always be the preferred option; rather there are likely to be many cases where it will be able
to compete with other uses of land provided that systems exist ensuring parity with
alternative uses and the fair appropriation of global benefits. This latter in part underlies the
emphasis put by the Convention on Biological Diversity (Article 21) on development of a
financial mechanism allowing funds to flow from more developed to less developed
countries in support of biodiversity conservation in the latter.

An assessment of the underlying causes of biodiversity loss should focus on the regional and
national policies and trends, with some ’ground truthing’ at the village level. It will not be
possible to identify all threats to a nation’s biodiversity. Therefore, it is suggested that an
assessment begins with the ecosystems and species thought to be most threatened or those
which are most depended upon by sectors of the economy.

The following material outlines methods to assess five main underlying threats to
biodiversity: land tenure, population change, cost-benefit imbalances, cultural factors, and
mis-directed economic incentives. The significance of these issues will vary from country
to country, but it is recommended that an assessment consider all five aspects, because the
influences of these factors may not be initially transparent and may differ from region to
region.

LAND TENURE

Land tenure and the rights of access to natural resources are critical to sustainable use of
biodiversity. It is unrealistic to expect an individual or community with no long-term tenure
or legally-backed rights of access to manage resources in a sustainable manner (UNEP,
1993). The important consideration in analysing property rights is to assess the extent to
which the current pattern precludes sustainable resource use or jeopardises the maintenance
of essential ecological services. It is necessary to focus on the vulnerable members of society
whose tenure rights are most often ill-defined. Women may also be of special concern in this
part of the assessment as their traditional rights tend to erode more quickly than those of
men. It must be noted that often ’on the ground’ tenure situations are very different from
those set out in title deeds and legislation. Therefore, it is imperative that in sensitive areas,

Se?

5.2.3

5.2.4

5.3

S)sapil

5. Assessing socio-economic threats to biodiversity

such as at forest boundaries, RRA techniques be used at the village level to establish the true
situation of functioning tenure practices.

Common property can be either open access or restricted by some social sanction. Open
access resources, from which no one can be excluded, tend to be over-exploited because
even if an individual wanted to conserve parts of the resource for future use, another
individual could still extract resources for personal gain. This is not to say that only
privately owned property is desirable. On the contrary, well managed common property
resources (CPR) are often extremely efficient mechanisms for promoting sustainable use.
The choice of assessment method depends partially on the type of tenure system. The
following outlines appropriate methods by tenure system. It will in general be necessary also
to assess the institutional capacity of relevant government departments to enforce access laws
and property rights. See Annex 1 (Bibliography) for references on land tenure, common
property and open access resources.

Methods for assessing land tenure: private or state owned property

Undertake a systematic review of property rights laws by region. Use Rapid Rural Appraisal
to check local application of property rights and resource exploitation of state owned land.
Techniques might include interviews and games, with care to ensure that all sectors of the
community are included in the assessment. Special regard should be given to assess trends
in women’s land tenure rights. Carry out formal interviews of those responsible for state
owned land to assess trends in capacity to manage and maintain restrictions on access.

Methods for assessing land tenure: common property resources

Common Property Resources (CPRs) occur where there are limited but multiple members
who are dependent on a given resource as a source of economic activity. The key fact is that
the members are linked and interdependent so long as they continue to share a single CPR.
The members may be herders on common pastures, fisherfolk using common streams or
ports, irrigators relying on a common water source, etc. With effective CPRs, resources can
be managed in a sustainable manner over time. Box 5.1 outlines seven characteristics of
long-enduring CPRs. RRA techniques should be employed to assess any changes in these
parameters. Deterioration may result in the CPR breaking down into inefficient or
unsustainable resource use. A framework of complex variables is proposed for assessment
rather than a model. The key aspect of CPRs is the definition of boundaries of the resource
and/or the specification of individuals who can use the resource. Without these boundaries,
’outsiders’ are permitted to exploit the resource and the resource becomes ’open access’.

REGIONAL AND NATIONAL POPULATION CHANGE

The effects of human settlements and activities are perhaps the most important factors in
biodiversity planning. It has been shown that in some areas rapid population growth leads
inevitably to increased degradation and over-exploitation of biodiversity. However, a few
studies have shown that population growth can have positive socio-economic and technical
effects which outpace threats to natural resource depletion (eg. Tiffen et al., 1994). A
complex set of causes interacts to affect both rates of population growth and increase (or
decrease) in biodiversity and natural resource use. Communities of indigenous peoples,

57

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

minority ethnic groups, and others who are closely associated with biological resources, such
as forest dwelling peoples, require particular attention.

Box 5.1 Characteristics of CPRs
The following seven characteristics of a healthy CPR should be assessed on a regular basis:

Clearly defined boundaries
Individuals or households who have rights to extract or use resources from the CPR must be clearly defined, as
must the boundaries of the CPR itself

Congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions
Appropriate rules restricting time, place, technology, and/or quantity of resources are related to local conditions
and to rules providing labour, material, and/or money input to the CPR.

Collective-choice arrangements
Most individuals affected by the operational rules can participate in modifying the operational rules

Monitoring
Monitors, who actively audit CPR conditions, are accountable to the community. Monitors may be integrated into
the CPR itself and difficult to identify.

Graduate sanctions
Members of the CPR who violate operational rules are likely to be given graduated sanctions, depending on the
seriousness of the offense.

Conflict resolution
Members of the CPR have rapid access to low-cost local means to resolve conflicts among themselves or local
Officials

Minimum recognition of rights to organise
The rights to members to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external governmental authorities.

Source: adapted from Orstrom 1990.

Sr Population movements are commonly analysed by study of the topology of rural-urban and
rural-rural movements. This method is often not adequate because it does not make the
distinction between temporary and long-term movements. For analysing the effect of
population change on natural resource use, Tiffen et al. (1994) found it necessary to make
the distinction between migration (change in location of entire family) and circulation
(temporary movements for particular purpose, often by single members of a family).

Methods to monitor the relationship between population and biodiversity sustainability
Soke) Analyse human population data

Gather and analyse population data from national censuses, partial information from local
governments, academic research, NGOs, etc. The principal disadvantage of this method is
that this class of data, especially at the national level, is generally not adequately detailed
to determine causal factors. The most important demographic factors will differ depending
on the circumstances of individual countries. The following are likely to be among the key
parameters (after UNEP, 1993):

58

5.3.4

5.4

5.4.1

5.4.2

5.4.3

5.4.4

5. Assessing socio-economic threats to biodiversity

¢ population density and distribution

¢ existing and projected growth rates

¢ age distribution

¢ gender distribution (related to migration)

e education level

¢ health

e relative proportion of urban/rural population

e size and pattern of human settlement

¢ population migration, including seasonal movements both historic and current.

In-depth regional studies

The intention here is to determine more precisely the impact of population growth on
biodiversity. Factors such as availability of capital and security, knowledge of opportunities
and technologies, economic incentives and access to jobs, land or markets should be
considered as well as those given above. Tiffen et al. (1994) provides a model of this kind
of detailed regional study.

COST-BENEFIT IMBALANCES

Benefits derived from conserving biodiversity may accrue directly or indirectly to the world
as a whole; however, in many cases the costs are borne at the national and local level, with
the heaviest burdens often sustained at the village level in rural areas. This has been proven
to be a powerful and significant disincentive to sustainable biodiversity conservation (Wells,
1992).

These imbalances must be mitigated using site-specific and/or national strategies. Therefore,
it is critical to assess and monitor the distributions of costs and benefits at both the local and
national levels. Where significant imbalances are found, priority consideration should be
given to correct the imbalance through efforts such as local income generation schemes,
extractive reserves, and integrated conservation-development projects.

Methods to Assess Distribution of Costs and Benefits

Local level

At this level, cost and benefit categories as given in Box 5.2 can serve as a framework.
Qualitative and quantitative assessments are required, and RRA techniques may be best
employed to make estimates.

National level

At the national level, a general comparison can be made using the format suggested in Box
5.3. Data can be compiled from national ministries (eg. of tourism), relevant aid flows,

extrapolating from valuation case studies, etc. See the UNEP Guidelines for detailed
guidance on compiling appropriate data.

59

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Box 5.2 Table for field assessment of Relative Significance of Costs and Benefits of Conservation.

Relative significance of protected areas/conservation projects benefits and costs at on three spatial scales.
Complete framework by indicating on a scale (eg. 1-10) where the benefits/costs have the potential to be most

significant.

Benefits

consumptive
recreation/tourism
non-consumptive benefits
ecological processes
education/research
biodiversity benefits

Costs

direct
indirect
opportunity costs

Source: adapted from Wells 1992

SPATIAL SCALE

LOCAL

NATIONAL

GLOBAL

Box 5.3 Comparison of Costs and Benefits of Conservation at the Local, National and Global Level.

Comparison of protected areas/conservation projects benefits and costs at on three spatial scales. Complete
framework either by indicating on a scale (eg. 1-10) where the benefits/costs have the potential to be the most
significant or with compiled economic estimates.

Potentially most significant benefits

Consumptive benefits
Recreation/Tourism
Future values

Recreation/Tourism
Watershed values
Future values

Biological diversity
Non-consumptive benefits
Ecological processes
Education and research
Future values

Source: adapted from Wells 1992

60

LOCAL SCALE

REGIONAL/NATIONAL SCALE

TRANSNATIONAL/GLOBAL SCALE

Potentially most significant costs

Indirect costs
Opportunity costs

Direct costs
Opportunity costs

(Costs tend to be minimal)

5.5

Spb

SOD

5.6

5.6.1

5.6.2

5.6.3

5. Assessing socio-economic threats to biodiversity

CULTURAL FACTORS

Cultural factors can play a significant role in the use and conservation of biodiversity. For
example, sacred groves may be preserved, the killing of certain wild animals may be
constrained, or the density of cattle grazing may be controlled by long-established customs.
As with effective CPRs, cultural traditions risk deterioration, resulting in the break down of
customary management of resources. The pressures on traditions need to be assessed and
monitored. Most of these factors cannot be quantified; therefore the most suitable methods
for assessing them are RRA techniques such as diagrams, games, and interviews of local
informants.

Cultural factors are very time-consuming to assess. Furthermore, they are locale specific and
difficult to extrapolate to any meaningful generalisations. It is best to examine secondary
data sources such as PhD theses and NGO reports on specific communities before launching
cultural studies.

MIS-DIRECTED INCENTIVES

Economic incentives help determine the behaviour of individuals, companies, and
governments. One of the most important factors influencing the use of natural resources is
the pattern of economic incentives, which can either encourage or discourage behaviour
leading to conservation of biological diversity. There are many ways in which the
government’s policies can influence the use of natural resources and habitats. For example,
policies on trade and taxation may be designed for other purposes, but they may impact the
decisions people make about resource use. The main sources of mis-directed incentives are
*market failures’ and ’policy failures’. Market failure refers to the fact that markets do not
fully reflect the value of biodiversity. For example, the price of timber does not reflect the
cost of the lost habitat for forest animal species. The second refers to the policies which
provide incentives for activities which result in biodiversity loss. The two types of failures
are often interwoven and compounding. Table 5.1 outlines different types of economic
policies and their potential environmental impacts.

Policy analysis is required to ’disentangle’ the various linkages between policies and the lack
of prices for environmental goods and services. First, models must be designed so we can
understand the web of linkages, between say lower interest rates and extension of grazing
lands into a savanna landscape.

Macro-economic analysis and econometric modelling can also be useful to identify
incentives which provoke biodiversity loss. See Brown and Pearce, 1994, for examples of
studies which identify policy failures leading to tropical deforestation. Both policy analysis
and economic modelling require extensive data and experienced social scientists to undertake
the analysis. See Barbier, Burgess, and Folke (1994), and Panayotou (1993) for case studies.

61

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Table 5.1 Economic policies and their potential environmental impacts.

MACRO FISCAL GOVERNMENT
EXPENDITURE
TAX/SUBSIDY

MONETARY

INTER- EXCHANGE RATE
NATIONAL

CAPITAL
CONTROLS

SECTORAL PRICE
CONTROLS
TAXES/
SUBSIDIES

Source: from Bishop et al., (1991).

62

Publicly funded agencies can protect biologically
unique areas; public infrastructure (roads and
dams) may encourage land uses that degrade
fragile areas.

Multi-sector instruments can alter general demand
conditions and thus use of resources; eg. income
tax breaks may encourage speculation in land
and/or unnecessary conversion of natural areas;
"polluter pays" taxes and user fees can reduce
waste and air/water pollution.

Tied-credit analogous to subsidies; credit rationing
and interest rate hikes may reduce demand, but
can also discourage conservation investment.

Devaluation increases prices of imported inputs
(eg. pesticides, logging equipment), while
increasing profitability of exports (eg. crops and
timber); environmental impacts will depend on the
nature of the resource and product affected.

Import/export taxes and quotas have effects similar
to devaluation but on selected commodities only;
may alter relative returns to environmentally
destructive versus benign products.

When used to prop up over-valued currency, similar
to revaluation of exchange rate.

May stimulate or retard environmentally damaging
production; depends on nature of resource and
products affected.

Usually indirect impact via changes in demand, but
may alter choice of inputs/outputs; eg. incentive
subsidies to livestock production may promote
deforestation; fertilizer subsidies may retard
adoption of soil conservation; pesticide subsidies
may increase negative health effects of
agrochemical run off, etc.

6. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUNDING

Summary

6.2

6.2.1

current human use of biodiversity is unsustainable in the long-term, but it remains difficult to
predict the socio-economic impact of this;

research into ecosystem functioning, coupled with active management of biological resources,
needs to be expanded;

it will generally be necessary to correct cost/benefit imbalances in order that local communities
are enabled or persuaded to manage resources more sustainably;

long term stable funding of conservation efforts is required to meet recurrent costs and to ensure
long term goals are met.

INTRODUCTION

The preceding parts of this report have outlined methods for assessing the status of
biodiversity and the impacts of human activity on it. They have also outlined strategies for
attempting to ensure that human use of biodiversity is sustainable in the long term. This
chapter draws together in brief some of the major points and makes some observations
regarding implications for funding of biodiversity-related activities in Less Developed
Countries.

Human activities are undoubtedly leading to a global decrease in biological diversity. Some
of this decrease, most notably that associated with the extinction of species, is permanent
and irreversible. In this sense at least, current use of biodiversity is not sustainable in the
long-term.

It remains difficult to predict what the socio-economic impact of the unsustainable use of
biodiversity will be, particularly in the long-term. However some of it, for example that
associated with large-scale deforestation or major overexploitation of many marine fish
stocks, is likely to be grave.

The major reason for the unsustainable use of biodiversity is, simply, that short-term,
immediate economic benefits accrue to individuals who exploit biodiversity, while the costs
of such exploitation are usually borne more generally (by society at large) or are deferred
into the future. It will therefore generally pay any individual to exploit resources to the
maximum. The corollary of this is that any attempt to conserve biodiversity or ensure that
its use is sustainable (which will normally entail some lowering of the rate or intensity of
exploitation) will be perceived as a cost by those involved in the exploitation, both in terms
of forgone benefits and actual costs of conservation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR ACTION
A major implication of this is that actions to maintain biodiversity cannot be planned

efficiently until local and national interests, which very often conflict, can be reconciled at
the appropriate scale.

63

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

6.2.2

6.2.3

6.2.4

6.2.5

6.2.6

64

Our understanding of biodiversity and, in particular, the operation of large-scale ecological
processes, is still very imperfect. A great deal of theoretical and practical work still needs
to be carried out, both by academic institutions and by agencies actively involved in
management, policy and planning. Both types of institution are often seriously under-
resourced in many Less Developed Countries (and, increasingly, elsewhere). There is a need
for major technical and financial investment in these areas. Most LDCs are not currently in
a position to provide this investment unaided.

Because resources are limited, it is important that priorities are set, both for areas of research
and for projects to be implemented on the ground. A particularly important aspect of this
is the use of Cost-benefit analysis. Costs need to be balanced with effectiveness in order
to maximise the benefits obtained from the funds available. Measuring ’effectiveness’ is very
difficult as there is a degree of uncertainty surrounding many aspects of biodiversity.
However, there are some indicators of importance, cost, and feasibility of intervention, and
degree of threat. To be cost-effective, interventions will need to focus on the feasibility of the
project, the importance of the outcomes (eg. number of species ‘saved’), the least cost
measures, and where the threats are containable and ideally reversible. This method
requires clear measures of total costs of conservation, indicators of significance of the
biodiversity in question, and the an assessments of the degree of threat. For an example of
estimating costs of conservation activities, see IIED’s economic analysis of the Costa Rican
National Biodiversity Institute (Aylward et al., 1993).

Sustainability of funding

Often, the correction of government failure, market failure and reduction of population
pressure may not be sufficient to conserve a nation’s biodiversity. In many cases, the
opportunity cost of conservation is very high, especially when the short term pressures of
economic and social development may call for expansion of certain activities to meet cash
and employment shortages. Often governments will not have sufficient funds to commit over
the necessary long periods of time required for successful conservation. Therefore, the
presence of multi- and bi-lateral aid is necessary to help overcome national budget
constraints. This was recognized internationally by the Convention on Biodiversity which
was adopted by over 150 nations. The Convention recognizes the implicit deal that northern
countries help poorer nations conserve some of their species.

Conservation is traditionally plagued by a lack of long-term investments, financially stable
institutions and recognition as a national priority. Long-term funding, regardless of its
origins, is necessary to help promote change in these areas by permitting financial security
in a way that builds local institutional capacity and engenders long-term community
participation.

Some projects will generate income, but rarely will they secure sufficient funds to cover all
recurrent costs. The nature of most donor funding is short-term, usually less than seven
years. Many conservation activities, however, require sustained funding of recurrent costs
to secure a lasting impact. The institutions involved, as well as activities themselves, need
assurance of future funding. Recurrent costs refer to any expense incurred on an annual basis
to maintain the project, such as salaries to park wardens and maintenance of vehicles. In
cases where donors do provide further financing for projects, detrimental interruptions in
funding flows between separate project cycles are common. Long-term financial commitment

6. Conclusions and implications for funding

from the national government and where appropriate from donor nations and organizations
is necessary for programme stability, long range planning, training and recruitment of
personnel, and overall impact of a programme. At the same time, however, entitlement
should not be created; a system of monitoring and evaluation must be integrated so that
funding can be terminated if the objectives of the project are frustrated.

6.2.7 The need for financing to meet these needs arise because:

* revenue generating activity (and potential) from ecologically sound management of these
resources is usually very limited;

* protection of globally important biodiversity lacks priority as a national development
activity, so that once international funding ends, national funding is usually lacking;

* when surpluses are generated from ecotourism or other commercial, ecologically sound,
ventures, they are captured for general national revenue, leaving capital replacement and
maintenance capacities of the area impoverished;

* conservation and administration staff are too few, too poorly paid, and sometimes
weakly motivated; they need job security, training and steady pay;

* most conservation sites are remote from urban centres, far away from where the cash
economy and government administration is strongest.

Box 6.1 Hurdles to Long-term Conservation of Kenya’s Wild Biodiversity

Kenya is world famous for its number and variety of rare, endangered, and endemic animal and plant species.
Tourism is well developed and in large measure based on wildlife and natural landscapes. Revenue from tourism
is Kenya’s number one earner of foreign currency. However, the parastatal organization which is responsible for
the wildlife and game parks, Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), is far from being self-sustaining in financial terms.
Furthermore, costs at local level often outweigh benefits reaped from tourism: elephants damage crops, crocodiles
can sometimes kill people, and large game parks prevent pastoralists from grazing cattle on what were once tribal
lands. Tourist revenues do not meet all financial requirements, and the national opportunity costs of conserving
large habitats for endangered species are very large. It thus appears that donor funds will be required over the
long term to meet recurrent costs of conservation.

Annual Figures for Kenya Wildlife Service:

US $ 68 million budget for wildlife conservation

US $ 14 million revenue from national park entrance fees

US $ 3.4 million Government of Kenya (raised from taxes on residents and tourists)
US $ 40 million annual funds received from multi- and bi-lateral aid and NGOs

US $ 6-10 million shortfall

Source: Bradley-Martin and Lockwood, 1994)

Methods to assess sustainability of funding

6.2. Complete review of all funding for conservation projects, including projects funded
nationally, internationally, and with bi-lateral funds, to answer the following questions:

65

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

66

What is the percentage of projects with fewer than seven years of guaranteed funding?
..Less than five years? Do a majority of these projects include contingency plans for
future funds?

Which areas have the highest recurring costs? What are the mechanisms in place to meet
these recurring costs in five, seven and ten years?

Are there any long-term funding mechanisms being developed for the most critical
areas?

REFERENCES

Alcorn, J.B. (ed.) 1993. Papua New Guinea Conservation Needs Assessment. Vol. 1. Biodiversity
Support Program, Washington, D.C. and Department of Environment and Conservation,
Boroko, Papua New Guinea. 216 pp.

Aylward, B., Echeverria, J., Fendt, L., Barbier, E.. 1993. The Economic Value of Species Information
and its Role in Biodiversity Conservation: Costa Rica’s National Biodiversity Institute,
LEEC Paper DP 93-06, International Institute for Environment and Development, London

Barbier, E., Burgess, J. and Folke, C. 1994. Paradise lost? The Ecological Economics of Biodiversity.
Earthscan, London.

Barzetti, V. (ed.) 1993. Parks and Progress. (UCN, Washington DC.

Beattie, A. J., Majer, J.D. and Oliver, I. 1993. Rapid Biodiversity Assessment: A Review. Pp 4-14 in:
Rapid Biodiversity Assessment. Proceedings of the Biodiversity Assessment Workshop 3-4
May 1993, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Research Unit for Biodiversity &
Bioresources, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

Beddington, J.R. 1984. The response of multispecies systems to perturbations. In: May, R.M. (ed.).
Exploitation of Marine Communities. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Pp. 209-255.

Beehler, B.M. (ed.) 1993. Papua New Guinea Conservation Needs Assessment. Vol. 2. Biodiversity
Support Program, Washington, D.C. and Department of Environment and Conservation,
Boroko, Papua New Guinea. 433 pp.

Bennett, E.L. 1994. Dance of the hunters. Wildlife Conservation 97(6): 56-72.

Bishop, J., Aylward, B. and Barbier, E.B. 1991. Guidelines for applying environmental economics in
developing countries. IED, London. Gatekeeper Series No. LEEC 91-02.

Bodmer, R.E. 1995. Priorities for the conservation of mammals in the Peruvian Amazon. Oryx 29(1):
23-28.

Bodmer, R.E., Fang, T.G., Moya I.L. and Gill, R. 1994. Managing wildlife to conserve Amazonian
forests: population biology and economic considerations of game hunting. Biological
Conservation, 67: 29-35.

Bradley-Martin, E. and Lockwood, L. 1994. David Western Interviewed. Swara 17 (6) Nov/Dec.

Brown, K., and Moran, D. 1993. Valuing Biodiversity: The Scope and Limitations of Economic
Analysis, CSERGE GEC Working paper 93-09.

Caughley, G. 1985. Harvesting of Wildlife: Past, present and future. Pp. 3-14 in: Beasom, S.L. and
Roberson, S.F. (Eds.) Game harvest management. Ceasar Kleberg Wildlife Research
Institute, Kingsville, Texas.

CMGGRAI (Committee on Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Imperatives). 1991.
Managing Global Genetic Resources: Forest Trees. National Academy Press, Washington,
D.C., USA. 228 pp.

Costanza, R. 1992. Toward an operational definition of ecosystem health. In: Costanza et al. (Eds.)
Ecosystem Health - New Goals for Environmental Management. Island Press, Washington
DC. Pp. 239-256.

Cranston, P. and Hillman, T. 1992. Rapid assessment of biodiversity using “biological diversity
technicians’. Australian Biologist 5: 144-155.

Davies, J.C. 1991. Global support and coordination: conserving germplasm of world crop species and
their relatives. In: Hawkes, J.G. (ed.) Genetic Conservation of World Crop Plants. Published
for the Linnaean Society of London by Academic Press.

Evans, M., 1993. Wild Food Under Threat: Increasing the Prestige of Traditional ’Free Food’,
Potential Benefits and Dangers, Conference Proceedings, International Conference on the
Convention on Biological Diversity: National Interests and Global Imperatives, UNEP,
Nairobi. January 26-29, 1993.

Faith, D.P. 1995. Biodiversity and Regional Sustainability Analysis. CSIRO, Australia. 29 pp.

67

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

FAO. 1991. Second Interim Report on the State of Tropical Forests by Forest Resources Assessment
1990 Project. Tenth World Forestry Congress, September 1991, Paris, France.

FAO. 1993. Forest Resources Assessment Project. Tropical countries. FAO Forestry Paper 112. Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

FAO. 1994. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 815 Revision 6, FIDI/C815. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

FAO/World Bank Co-operative Programme Investment Centre. 1989. Kenya: Forestry sub-sector
development project preparation report, 116/89 CP-KEN 24, 2 vols.

Fitzgerald, S. 1989. International wildlife trade: whose business is it? WWF-US, Washington DC.

Goodland, R.J.A., Daly, H.E. and El Serafy, S. 1993. The urgent need for rapid transition to Global
Environmental Stability. Environmental Conservation 20(4): 297-309.

Green, M.J.B. and Gunawardena, E.R.N. 1993. Conservation Evaluation of some Natural Forest in Sri
Lanka. UNDP, FAO and IUCN. Unpublished report. 163 pp.

Grossman, D.H., Iremonger, S. and Muchoney, D.M. 1992 Jamaica: A Rapid Ecological Assessment.
The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Hausman, J.A. (ed.) 1993. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment, Elsevier, New York

IUCN. 1993. Sustainable use of wildlife. Proceedings of a Workshop held in 1990 at the 18th Session
of the IUCN General Assembly, Perth, Australia. IUCN, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK.

IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. CNPPA with the assistance of
WCMC. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. x + 261pp.

IUCN/SSC. 1994. IUCN Red List Categories. As approved by the 40th Meeting for the IUCN
Council, Gland, Switzerland. 21 pp.

Janzen, D.H. and Hallwachs, W. 1994. All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory (ATBI) of Terrestrial Systems:
A generic protocol for preparing wildland biodiversity for non-damaging use. Draft report
of an NSF Workshop, 16-18 April 1993, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Jenkins, M.D. and Oldfield, S. 1992. Wild Plants in Trade. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK.

Lande, R. and Barrowclough, G. F. 1987. Effective population size, genetic variation, and their use
in population management. pp 87-124 in: Soulé, M. E. (Ed.) Viable Populations for
Conservation. CUP, Cambridge, New York.

Loftus, R. and Scherf, B. 1993. World Watch List for Domestic Animal Diversity. FAO, Rome, Italy.
376 pp.

Lucas, P.H.C. 1992. Protected Landscapes: A guide for policymakers and planners. Chapman & Hall,
London, UK. xvi + 297pp.

MacKinnon, J. 1991. National Conservation Plan for Bhutan. Annex I. Forestry Masterplan for
Bhutan. ADB/Royal Government of Bhutan. 120 pp.

Mackinnon, J.; Mackinnon, K.; Child, G. and Thorsell, J. (comps.) 1986. Managing Protected Areas
in the Tropics. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. xvi + 295pp.

McCraken et al. 1988. An Introduction to Rural Rapid Appraisal, International Institute for
Environment and Development, London

Marshall, N.T. and Jenkins, M.D. 1994. Hard times for hardwood: indigenous timber and the timer
trade in Kenya. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK.

Metroeconomica Ltd. 1994. The Biodiversity Convention and Conservation Programmes in Developing
Countries. Case Studies from Kenya and Mexico. Final Report (unpublished). Prepared for
the UK Overseas Development Administration.

Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology,
4: 355-364.

Orstrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action,
Cambridge University Press, New York

Panayotou, T. 1993. Green Markets. Institute for Contemporary Studies, San Francisco.

68

References

Parker, T.A. and Bailey, B. (Eds.) 1990. A biological assessment of the Alto Madidi region and
adjacent areas of northwest Bolivia, May 18-June 15, 1990. Conservation International,
Washington D.C., USA. 108 pp.

Parker, T.A.P. III., Gentry, A.H., Foster, R.B., Emmons, L.H., Remsen, J.V. Jr. 1993. The Lowland
Dry Forests of Santa Cruz, Bolivia: A Global Conservation Priority. Rapid Assessment
Program Working Papers No. 4. Conservation International, Washington D.C., USA /
Fundacion Amigos de la Naturaleza, La Paz, Bolivia. 104 pp.

Pearce, D. and Moran, D. 1994. The economic value of biodiversity. Earthscan, London and IUCN -
The World Conservation Union.

Pearson, D.L. 1994. Selecting indicator taxa for the quantitative assessment of biodiversity.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences, 345: 75-79.

Pretty, J. and Scoones, I. 1989. Rapid Rural Appraisal for Economics: Exploring Incentives for Tree
Management in Sudan, International Institute for Environment and Development, London

Principe, P.P. 1991. Valuing the Biodiversity of Medicinal Plants. In Akerel, O., Heywood, V., and
Synge, H. (Eds.) The Conservation of Medicinal Plants, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 79-124.

Rapport, David J. 1995. Ecosystem Health: am emerging integrative science. In: Rapport D.J, Guadet,
C.L. and Calow, P. (Eds.) Evaluating and Monitoring the Health of Large-scale Ecosystems.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin (Published in cooperation with NATO Scientific Affairs Division).
NATO Advanced Science Institutes Series. Series 1: Global Environmental Change, Vol. 28.
Pp. 5-31.

Reid, W.V. 1992. How many species will there be? In: Whitmore, T.C. and Sayer, J.A. (Eds.)
Tropical deforestation and Species Extinction. Chapman Hall, London, UK. Pp. 55-73.

Robinson, J.G. and Redford, K.H. 1991. Sustainable harvest of Neotropical forest mammals. Pp. 415-
429 in: Robinson, J.G. and Redford, K.H. (Eds.) Neotropical Wildlife Use and Conservation.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA. 520 pp.

Salm, R.V. 1984. Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: a guide for planners and managers. IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland.

Scott, J.M., Mountainspring, S., Ramsey, F.L. and Kepler, C.B. 1986. Forest bird communities of the
Hawaiian Islands: their dynamics, ecology, and conservation. Stud in Avian Biol. 9. 431 pp.

Scott, J.M., Davis, F., Csuti, B., Noss, R., Butterfield, B., Groves, C., Anderson, H., Caicco, S.,
D’Erchia, F., Edwards, T.C. Jr., Ulliman. J. and Wright, R.G. 1993. Gap Analysis: A
Geographic Approach to the Protection of Biological Diversity. Wildlife Monographs, 123:
1-41.

Serageldin, I. and Steer, A. 1994. Epilogue: expanding the capital stock. pp 30-32 in Serageldin, I. and
Steer, A. (Eds.) Making development sustainable: from concepts to action. Environmentally
Sustainable Development Occasional Paper Series, No. 2. The International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. Washington, D.C.

Shaw, J.H. 1991. The outlook for sustainable harvests of wildlife in Latin America. Pp. 24-34 in:
Robinson, J.G. and Redford, K.H. (Eds.) Neotropical Wildlife Use and Conservation.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA. 520 pp.

Sherman, K. and Busch. D.A. 1995. Assessment and monitoring of large marine ecosystems. In:
Rapport D.J, Guadet, C.L. and Calow, P. (Eds.) Evaluating and Monitoring the Health of
Large-scale Ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. (Published in cooperation with NATO
Scientific Affairs Division). NATO Advanced Science Institutes Series. Series 1: Global
Environmental Change, Vol. 28. Pp. 385-430.

Simberloff, D. 1992. Do species-area curves predict extinction in fragmented forest? Pp 75-89 in:
Whitmore, T.C. and Sayer, J.A. (Eds.) Tropical Deforestation and Species Extinction.
Chapman and Hall, London, UK. 153 pp.

69

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Tangley, L. 1992. Computers and Conservation Priorities. Mapping Biodiversity. Lessons from the
Field I. 28 pp. Conservation International, Washington D.C., USA.

Templeton, A.R. 1994. Biodiversity at the molecular genetic level: experiences from disparate
macroorganisms. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological
Sciences, 345: 59-64.

Tiffen, M., Gichuki, F., Mortimore, M., 1994. More People, Less Erosion: Environmental Recovery
in Kenya, Overseas Development Institute, London

UNEP. 1992. Convention of Biological Diversity, UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya

UNEP. 1993. Guidelines for Country Studies on Biological Diversity, UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya

UNEP/WCMC. 1995. Electronic Resource Inventory: A searchable resource for biodiversity data
management. WCMC, Cambridge, UK. [Windows 3.1 or higher].

UNEP/WCMC. 1996. Framework for information management. 2nd edition. WCMC, Cambridge, UK.

Vickers, W.T. 1991. Hunting yields and game composition in an Amazonian Indian territory. Pp. 53-
81 in: Robinson, J.G. and Redford, K.H. (Eds.) Neotropical Wildlife Use and Conservation.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA. 520 pp.

WCMC. 1992. Global Biodiversity: Status of the Earth’s Living Resources. Chapman and Hall,
London, UK. 585 pp.

Wells, M. 1992. Biodiversity Conservation, Affluence and Poverty: Mismatched Costs and Benefits
and Efforts to Remedy Them. Ambio: Vol. XXI, No. 3

70

ANNEX 1
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC MATERIAL, ARRANGED BY SUBJECT
Economic Valuation

Aylward, B. 1993. The Economic Value of Ecosystems: 3 Biological Diversity. Gatekeeper Series No
LEEC Paper GK 93-03. International Institute for Environment and Development. London

Aylward, B., Echeverria, J., Fendt, L., Barbier, E. 1993. The Economic Value of Species Information
and its Role in Biodiversity Conservation: Costa Rica’s National Biodiversity Institute, LEEC Paper
DP 93-06. International Institute for Environment and Development, London

Brown, G., Goldstein, J. 1984. A Model for Valuing Endangered Species. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management Vol. 11, pp. 303-309.

Brown, K., and Moran, D. Valuing Biodiversity: The Scope and Limitations of Economic Analysis.
CSERGE GEC Working paper 93-09.

Hausman, J.A. (ed.) 1993. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Elsevier, New York
International Institute for Environment and Development (ITED), and World Conservation Monitoring
Centre ((WCMC). 1994. Forest Resource Accounting: Stock Taking for Sustainable Forest
Management. Final Report of an activity for the International Tropical Timber Organization, ’Forest
Resource Accounting: Monitoring Forest Condition and Management’, ITED Forestry and Land Use
Series No. 1, London.

Pearce, D., Brown, K., Swanson, T., Moran, D. 1993. The Economics of Biodiversity: A Report to
The Global Environment Facility. CSERGE, University College London, London

Polasky, S., Solow, A., Broadus, J. 1993. Searching for Uncertain Benefits and the Conservation of
Biological Diversity. Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 3, pp 171-181.

Rural Rapid Appraisal

Cole, D. 1992. Traditional Ecological Knowledge Use Among the Naskapi of North Eastern Quebec,
Manuscript Report Prepared for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council, Canada.

McCraken et al. 1988. An Introduction to Rural Rapid Appraisal. International Institute for
Environment and Development, London

Pretty, J., Scoones, I. 1989. Rapid Rural Appraisal for Economics: Exploring Incentives for Tree
Management in Sudan. International Institute for Environment and Development, London

Economic Policy
Aylward, B., Bishop, J., Barbier, E. 1993. Economic Efficiency, Rent Capture and Market Failure in
Tropical Forest Management. Gatekeeper Series No LEEC GK 93-01, International Institute for

Environment and Development, London

Panayotou, T. 1994. Getting Incentives Right: Economic Instruments for Environmental Management
in Developing Countries. Institute for Contemporary Studies, San Francisco

Pearce, D., Brown, K., Swanson, T., Moran, D. 1993. The Economics of Biodiversity: A Report to
The Global Environment Facility. CSERGE, University College London, London

71

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Economic Cost-Benefit Measures and Biodiversity Prospecting

Pearce, D., Brown, K., Swanson, T., Moran, D. 1993. The Economics of Biodiversity: A Report to
The Global Environment Facility. CSERGE, University College London, London

Ried, W. et al. 1993. Biodiversity Prospecting. World Resources Institute, Washington DC

Wells, M. 1992. Biodiversity Conservation, Affluence and Poverty: Mismatched Costs and Benefits
and Efforts to Remedy Them. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment, Vol. XXI, No. 3

Other Economic Techniques

Midmore, P.(ed.). 1991. Input-Output Models in the Agricultural Sector, London

UNEP. 1993. Guidelines for Country Studies on Biological Diversity, UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya

Measures and Indicators of Poverty

Bourguignon, de Melo, Morrison. 1991. Poverty and Income Distribution during Adjustment. Policy
Research Working Paper, World Bank

Lipton, M. 1989. New Seeds and Poor People. Unwin Hyman, New York

U.S. AID. 1989. Indicators for Measuring Changes in Income, Food Availability and Consumption,
and the Natural Resource Base. US AID, Washington DC.

Methods for Assessing Impacts of Population Growth and Famine Risks

Dreze, J. 1988. Famine Prevention in Africa. Suntory-Toyota International Center for Economic and
Related Disciplines, London School of Economics, London

Lipton, M. 1989. New Seeds and Poor People, Unwin Hyman, New York

Tiffen, M., Gichuki, F., Mortimore, M. 1994. More People, Less Erosion: Environmental Recovery
in Kenya. Overseas Development Institute, London

Land Tenure Issues

Orstrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.
Cambridge University Press, New York

Pearce, D., Brown, K., Swanson, T., Moran, D. 1993. The Economics of Biodiversity: A Report to
The Global Environment Facility. CSERGE, University College London, London

UNEP. 1993. Guidelines for Country Studies on Biological Diversity, UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya

Economic Analysis of Medicinal Plants

M2;

Brown, K., and Moran, D. 1993. Valuing Biodiversity: The Scope and Limitations of Economic
Analysis. CSERGE GEC Working paper 93-09.

Farnsworth, N.R. and Soejarto, D.D. 1985. Potential Consequences of Plant Extraction in the United
States on the Current and Future Availability of Prescription Drugs. Economic Botany 39.3:231-240.

Annex I

Farnsworth, N.R. et al. 1985. Medicinal Plants in Therapy. Bulletin of the World Health Organization.
63.6:965-981.

Principe. P.P. 1991. Valuing the Biodiversity of Medicinal Plants. In Akerel, O., Heywood, V., and
Synge, H. (eds), The Conservation of Medicinal Plants. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 79-
124.

Ruitenbeek, J. 1989. Republic of Cameroon: The Korup Project. Cameroon Ministry of Planning and
Regional Development.

Wild Foods
Evans, M. 1993. Wild Food Under Threat: Increasing the Prestige of Traditional ’Free Food’,
Potential Benefits and Dangers. Conference Proceedings, International Conference on the Convention
on Biological Diversity: National Interests and Global Imperatives, UNEP, Nairobi. January 26-29,
1993.
examples of sources of information on wild foods:

Kuchar, P. 1981. Plants of Kenya. Kenya Rangeland Ecological Monitoring Unit, Nairobi

Martinez, M. 1987. Catalogo de nombres vulgares y cientificos de Plantas Mexicanas. Fond de
Cultura Economica: Mexico DF.

73

eee Re ei a a eA

nea A boat iAieeroncr iiegetaiees 7 seg pasasat PAR Wy en negra
We epiend fa

~ ’ a » i von we, Sewtin; eat é Ce )
he ow DO ede mer iaatotnes te saiesiaiate nd act SLT ey ait
ray marteneeriet ap heey apes ania’, \gaehaltndil ly veMthaEeseeD UAP Reha) HH vegans

Me ; oi aay ies ames ype iacsn 32

tym ne we en t ahedge nos ao

ar ral
cide tana ie la 1 ‘ if
4 i a

ee ee ee eet eta
pe , Tattihai hee aa a o>, acme

ae of ae . i

is 1 eal / ; : ahaa i ».cnielliiahtlets wecnnce'ts voheaeas
Wik Th. at oe nn) BNI Ninglieonitestiun ducing, Ader oriete
peer ween ute (80) 4 antl

7 \ >a ;
Pere. ew
ay >i ee Thi ele, ty ne: erie at rs Awalt ti paamrtrs
poe oN Tape te ie re

; * aaa

ANNEX 2
FURTHER DETAILS OF BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES

This section provides expanded discussion of the survey and inventory approaches introduced in chapter 3 above.
Citation of a key reference will be found at the start of the description of each method, and each closes with a
brief appraisal of the features of the method and its suitability for different purposes.

GAP ANALYSIS (US Fish and Wildlife Service and others)
Source: Scott, J.M., et al., 1993.

Brief summary of technique

Gap Analysis is essentially a coarse-filter approach to biodiversity conservation. It is used to identify gaps in
the representation of biodiversity within areas managed solely or primarily for the purpose of biodiversity
conservation (referred to below as reserves). Once identified, such gaps are filled through the creation of new
reserves, changes in the designation of existing reserves, or changes in management practices in existing reserves.
The goal is to ensure that all ecosystems and areas rich in species diversity are adequately represented in
reserves.

Gaps in the protection of biodiversity are identified by superimposing three digital layers in a Geographical
Information System (GIS), namely maps of vegetation types, species distributions and land management. A
combination of all three layers can be used to identify individual species, species-rich areas and vegetation types
that are either not represented at all or under-represented in existing reserves. In effect, vegetation, common
terrestrial vertebrate species, and endangered species are used as surrogates to represent overall biodiversity.

Data needed

1 Maps of existing vegetation types, which are prepared from satellite imagery and other sources. The
smallest unit mapped is usually 100 ha, because the overall process covers entire states or regions.
Vegetation maps are checked through ground-truthing and examination of aerial photographs. Landsat
Thematic Mapper digital imagery is now the standard source for Gap Analysis vegetation maps.

2 Predicted species distribution maps. These are based on existing range maps and other distributional
data, extrapolated to include potential species ranges using data on known habitat preferences. Maps
of a particular group or groups of species of political or biological interest can be synthesised from
maps of individual species distribution. Gap Analysis normally uses vertebrate and buiterfly species
(and/or other taxa, such as particular groups of vascular plants) as indicators of overall biodiversity.

3 Land ownership and management status maps.

Assessment of likely availability of data
Vertebrates (particularly birds, followed by mammals) are the best-studied groups of animals. If a national data
set for any taxonomic group exists, it is most likely to be for birds.

Costs involved

A GIS-supported Gap Analysis requires technical infrastructure, a great amount of baseline information, and
highly-trained personnel. It is likely to be an expensive undertaking. Projects identified so far have been carried
out mainly in developed countries: eg. the United States and Australia.

Human resources involved/required

A high level of technical competence is necessary to interpret satellite images, prepare maps, and manipulate
the complex GIS data layers involved.

715

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Data generated
Data generated by the Gap Analysis process include vegetation maps, maps of species’ actual and potential
distribution, and prioritisation of protected areas needs.

Time frame
No indication of the time required from satellite image acquisition to publication of Gap Analysis results is
available.

Examples of implementation

Scott et al. (1986) conducted a Gap Analysis on endangered forest birds in Hawaii. Gap Analysis is now also
being used on a state by state basis in the USA - results and recommendations of one for Idaho were under
review in 1993.

Points for and against

For

° Gap Analysis provides a quick and efficient assessment of the distribution of vegetation and
associated species, and can be used to generate recommendations for the conservation of biodiversity
at short notice in response to rapid rates of habitat loss.

° The data layers generated and the GIS framework in which they are stored can be used as the basis
for monitoring and evaluating changes in biodiversity at both fine and coarse levels.

. Data generated during the Gap Analysis exercise can be combined with other geographic datasets Gif
available) such as road networks, urban development etc.

° Many different questions in conservation biology and land-use planning can be addressed by Gap
Analysis data, including potential impacts of human-induced changes.

Against

° Mapping units have a minimum size, which may result in the omission of significant but small
patches of habitat, for example meadows and wetlands in a predominantly forest matrix.

° Vegetation maps often fail to distinguish between different successional (seral) or age stages in the
plant community, which may result in the under-representation of a particular stage of a particular
community. For example, they can identify large areas of unfragmented forest, but not whether the
habitat is regrowth following a clear cutting or a forest fire, or ‘old-growth’ forest.

° Vegetation classes used in mapping must be distinguishable in remotely-sensed images and
identifiable in large to medium-scale aerial photographs.

° Vegetation classes used must be compatible with those used to describe animal habitat preferences.

e Gap Analyses in the United States have shown about 70% accuracy in the prediction of species

present in a given area. The presence of species of particular importance, such as rare or threatened
ones, requires confirmation prior to site-specific management activity.

° Gap Analyses tend to be focused on national or regional reserve systems. In developing countries,
many highly biodiverse regions will lie outside the protected areas network, and alternative strategies
to the gazetting of new reserves may be required.

° Predicting species distributions on the basis of habitat types may ignore highly influential additional
factors. For example anthropogenic factors (eg. pollution, hunting, disturbance) may greatly modify
actual species distributions.

° For some groups, eg. reptiles, species distributions predicted on the basis of vegetation types may
show poor correlation with actual distributions unless climatic variables are included as data layers.

° Predicting distributions of aquatic (riparian and wetland) species generally requires the use of a
separate data layer representing hydrological features.

° Gap Analysis predicts the presence or absence of a species, but does not indicate whether it is rare

or common at a particular site. Field work is necessary to determine the abundance of a species at
a given location.

° The choice of indicator species groups may greatly affect the results of Gap Analysis. In addition,
the empirical relationship between biodiversity in vertebrate species and other groups of organisms
(eg. fungi, invertebrates, ferns, higher plants) has not yet been established.

76

Annex 2

° Gap Analysis requires a relatively high level of technical expertise (in GIS, satellite image
interpretation etc).
° Gap Analysis is not a substitute for field investigation. The establishment of new reserves or

management changes to existing ones should only be attempted after careful on-the-ground studies.

Appraisal

Gap Analysis can be a useful tool for identifying areas worthy of further investigation for biological significance
and conservation needs. Gap Analysis should be viewed as complementary to conserving individual threatened
species. It potentially permits the identification of areas of high biodiversity which are most in need of additional
protection. It is probably most suitable for relatively developed countries with a high degree of technical
infrastructure and a well-established existing reserve system.

RAPID ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT (REA): The Nature Conservancy
Source: Grossman, D.H. et al., 1992

Brief summary of technique

Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA) is a technique developed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) as a tool to
aid conservation planning in areas that are large, poorly-studied, or exceptionally biodiverse. The REA process
consists of a series of increasingly refined analyses, with each level further defining sites of high conservation
interest. The levels involved are satellite observation; airborne remote sensing; aerial reconnaissance; and field
inventory. Analysis of satellite images is used to produce maps of ecoregions, land cover and priority areas;
while integration with data from airborne sensors and aerial reconnaissance produces more detailed maps,
extended to cover vegetation types and ecological communities. These are used to direct the cost-effective
acquisition of biological and ecological data through stratified field sampling. Such data is used to support the
conservation planning process and identify priority sites.

Spatially-referenced information is managed by Geographic Information System (GIS), allowing easy data
handling and generation of maps. Other conservation information is managed through manual files and a
relational database called Biological and Conservation Data (BCD) developed by The Nature Conservancy.

Data needed

1 Maps, prepared from satellite data with aerial reconnaissance input and some ’ground-truthing’. The
primary data need is for a vegetation map, but maps of the physical and social components of the
landscape are necessary to identify threats. In a recent REA of Jamaica, Landsat Thematic Mapper
(TM) data were acquired and processed; digital terrain data were obtained from existing GIS datasets
and used to generate slope, aspect and altitudinal classes, and an existing 1:250,000-scale geology
map was digitised and coded by TNC into GIS format.

D Site-specific inventories of species present, conducted through field sampling at sites identified during
initial analyses. Although not stated in the Jamaican methodology, it is likely that certain taxonomic
groups are concentrated on. Suggested taxa are birds, mammals, butterflies and vascular plants.

Assessment of likely availability of data

The availability of satellite maps of vegetation and the physical and social components of the landscape is likely
to vary by country. Field survey of specific sites is relatively straightforward, but it might prove difficult to
access remote areas.

Costs involved

No indication of costs is available. The preparation of vegetation maps from satellite data is presumably a costly
exercise, and requires highly-trained personnel.

77

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Human resources involved/required
A high level of technical competence is necessary to manipulate the complex GIS data layers involved, and to
interpret satellite data and images. Field surveys will not require either very many or well-qualified personnel.

Data generated

Phase 1 of the Jamaican REA produced an updated classification system of the vegetation types of the island,
together with digital and hard copy vegetation maps, and digital and hard copy Landsat TM image data. Field
surveys will provide site-specific inventories of key ‘indicator’ groups of species. These will be used to identify
priority sites and conservation actions.

Time frame

A recent REA of Jamaica completed the field work for phase 1, an island-wide survey of the natural
communities and modified vegetation types of the entire country, in six months. Jamaica however is relatively
small in area (c. 11,425 km’). In addition many of the required GIS data sets and maps already existed in a
national database, the Jamaica Geographic Information System (JAMGIS), developed from 1982 onwards by the
Rural and Physical Planning Unit (RPPU).

Examples of implementation

The Nature Conservancy has used REA on small barrier islands off Virginia, and to support conservation
planning and inventory in Jamaica (Grossman et al. 1992), Mato Grosso (Brazil), South Carolina, Georgia and
New Mexico (USA), and Venezuela.

Points for and against
The points for and against associated with the mapping component of the Gap Analyses technique also apply
here. In addition the following points should be considered:

For

° REA involves substantial data acquisition from field surveys to ’ground truth’ the impressions
obtained from map preparation and analysis.

° REA is not restricted in scope to a protected areas network.

Against

° REA is not a particularly rapid technique, in spite of the name. Phase 1 of an area equivalent to
Jamaica may take considerably longer than 6 months if existing GIS datasets are not available.

Appraisal

In effect, REA uses the same GIS datasets as a Gap Analysis, and then supports the analysis with subsequent
ground-truthing. It is most appropriate for small countries (or defined regions of large countries) without
comprehensive protected areas networks. It can be used to predict where high levels of biodiversity in need of
protection exist.

CONSERVATION BIODIVERSITY WORKSHOPS: Conservation International
Source: Tangley, L. 1992.

Brief summary of technique

Conservation Biodiversity Workshops (CBWs) were developed by Conservation International as a means of
setting conservation priorities in large geographic regions. The technique entails collating biological information,
in particular, maps prepared by CI’s geographic information system (CISIG), and using it as a focus for
discussion at a Workshop of field scientists who are the world’s leading experts on a region’s species and
ecosystems. In this way the knowledge attained by biologists through decades of field work can be captured.
Following this initial stage of the Workshop, the maps are used as catalysts to obtain a group consensus on
biological priorities for conservation throughout the region. One key output of the Workshop is a Final Workshop
Map which summarises the information available, synthesising and integrating the data and opinions of the
experts who attend. This provides a single coherent picture that decision makers can readily understand. Maps

78

Annex 2

continue to play a key role even after the Workshop is over because - as easily interpreted images reflecting a
broad consensus among experts - they can help governments, NGOs and funding agencies decide where to
allocate resources.

Data needed

1 GIS data layers including topography, hydrography, vegetation type, political boundaries, management
categories (including protected areas and timber logging concessions), roads and population centres.
The CBW process does not generate new data layers; rather it harmonises existing ones obtained from
other institutions and government departments, by formatting them to a standard scale (eg. 1:1 million
or 1:3 million) and projection.

2 Basic species distribution maps, representative of ’keystone’ groups. These can be obtained from
published sources, or through the distribution of blank maps to acknowledged experts, who are asked
to draw their impressions of species’ ranges. These data are then digitised for consistency and to
allow their superimposition on other data layers. Such maps may be the result of individual
contributions, but more often experts in a particular discipline are appointed to a ’ project team’ which
is asked to submit a composite map providing a summary of their individual opinions.

Assessment of likely availability of data

GIS data layers are likely to exist for all countries, but their availability may be a matter of political sensitivity
in some areas. Experts able to contribute advice and impressions of species ranges are probably available for
most countries.

Costs involved
A CBW is an expensive process, requiring $US 100-500,000 (Silvieri, pers. comm.).

Human resources involved/required
The preparation of GIS data layers and maps requires GIS and computing expertise. The organisation of a CBW
requires considerable input from a combination of international and national experts. The actual Workshop itself
is a partnership between CI, government departments and (where available) NGOs. Up to 200 representatives
from up to 50 institutions may attend.

Data generated

The CBW process generates a number of useful products, including compatible GIS coverage of the entire
country (or region); refined maps of many species’ distributions; a Final Workshop Map delimiting priority areas
for conservation; and a database of the biological data gathered.

Time frame

The Workshop itself may only take 10 days to 2 weeks, but the process of preparing the maps and collecting
biological data, together with training of host nationals in GIS techniques, and organising the Workshop and its
constituent working groups may take 1-2 years.

Examples of implementation

CI organised a CBW for the Amazon basin in Manaus, Brazil in January 1990. The Final Workshop Map
produced has been used by several Amazonian countries to guide conservation policy decisions. The second
CBW was held in Madang, Papua New Guinea (PNG) in April 1992. During this CBW process, a number of
working groups were organised on a thematic basis (eg. 5 faunal groups, 2 botanical, 1 socio-economic etc).
Team leaders were appointed for each thematic group, responsible for collecting data from their constituent
members. Further CBWs are planned for the Atlantic Forest region of Brazil and the Central African Region.

79

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Points for and against

For

. By using a consultative, workshop approach, a CBW produces a broad consensus of expert opinion
on conservation priorities. This can be used to wield more influence on government opinion than if
a narrow, sectoral approach was used.

° Provides a visual synthesis of nationally important areas for biodiversity conservation in the form of
a Final Workshop Map.

- The process is relatively fast.

° A CBW entails the technology transfer of databases and computers to the host country.

° Uses existing maps and reformats them into compatible GIS coverages.

Against

° Requires the availability of substantial data sets (particularly GIS data layers).

° A CBW is really only the first stage in the setting of national or regional biodiversity conservation
priorities. It identifies areas in which field surveys/conservation measures may be necessary. Their
implementation is an entirely separate process.

Appraisal

CBWs effectively summarise the existing biological knowledge of a region or country. They are most appropriate
for setting investigation priorities in large, relatively unknown areas. A subsequent phase is to despatch RAP
teams to unknown areas thought to contain high biodiversity (see below for a description of RAP).

CONSERVATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT: Biodiversity Support Program
Sources: Alcorn, J.B. (ed.) 1993. Beehler, B.M. (ed.) 1993.

Brief summary of technique

The Conservation Needs Assessment (CNA) was implemented for Papua New Guinea by the Biodiversity
Support Program (a USAID-funded consortium of the World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy and the
World Resources Institute). The process involved is outlined in the section above on Conservation Biodiversity
Workshops. Conservation International was responsible for preparing the maps for participants at the Workshop,
and concerned itself primarily with biodiversity information. It is important to note that in addition to
biologically-oriented project teams, several non-biological project teams were also appointed prior to the
Workshop to examine conservation implementation. These were a social scientist’s team, a legal team, an
information management team and an NGO/landowner team. The CNA process is considered to be a starting
point for participatory approaches to conservation and sustainable development, and takes account of social and
political realities.

Data needed

1 *Base Maps’ prepared at the same scale and on the same projection of a number of factors affecting
biodiversity, ie. political boundaries; coastlines; hydrogeographic features; roads; topography;
vegetation type and cover; population centres; protected areas and timber rights purchases.

2 Biological maps of species distributions, which are prepared on the base maps by ’project teams’ of
scientists with expertise in a particular area or taxonomic group. These maps are debated and refined
at the Workshop.

Assessment of likely availability of data
GIS data layers are likely to exist for all countries, but their availability may be a matter of political sensitivity

in some areas. Experts able to contribute advice and impressions of species ranges are probably available for
most countries.

80

Annex 2

Costs involved
No indication of the costs of the exercise are currently available, but it is obviously an expensive process.

Human resources involved/required
A CNA coordinates a multi-disciplinary team of international and national experts. Preparation of base maps
requires GIS expertise.

Data generated

The CNA process generates the same kinds of product as the CBW, namely compatible GIS coverage of the
entire country (or region); refined maps of many species’ distributions; a Final Workshop Map delimiting priority
areas for conservation; and a database of biological data gathered during the whole exercise. In addition, in
Papua New Guinea, Workshop proceedings were published as a 2-volume series entitled Papua New Guinea
Conservation Needs Assessment’.

Time frame
The CNA process for Papua New Guinea took 15 months from start to the completion of the Workshop and
preparation of the Final Workshop map.

Examples of implementation
To date only one CNA has been implemented, in Papua New Guinea.

Points for and against

For

° CNAs adopt a truly multi-disciplinary approach to the conservation of biodiversity, focusing on both
the social dimensions of conservation and the geographic dimensions of biodiversity.

- A CNA involves cooperation between the State, government and customary Landowners.

° The PNG CNA developed a process for information sharing and consensus-decision making.

° The PNG CNA covered both terrestrial and marine areas.

Against

C Requires the availability of substantial data sets (particularly GIS data layers).

e A CNA is really only the first stage in the setting of national or regional biodiversity conservation
priorities. It identifies areas in which field surveys/conservation measures may be necessary. Their
implementation is an entirely separate process.

Appraisal

CNAs effectively summarise the existing biological knowledge of a region or country, but in addition provide
an overview of the social and economic factors affecting biodiversity, and take these into account when setting
conservation priorities. They are most appropriate for setting conservation priorities in large, relatively unknown
areas. As is the case with Conservation Biodiversity Workshops a CNA will also highlight areas where further
field surveys are needed.

NATIONAL CONSERVATION REVIEW (using Gradsect sampling): Sri Lanka Forest Department
Source: Green, M.J.B. and Gunawardena, E.R.N. 1993.

Brief summary of technique

The aim of the National Conservation Review (NCR) is to identify an optimal or minimum set of sites which
is representative of national biodiversity. This is achieved through the collection of data on species distributions
and their subsequent analysis. Surveys are conducted to assess these distributions (see below). The sampling
procedure involves the following steps:

1 Identification of sites
2 Positioning of transects along environmental gradients

81

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY
3 Inventorying of flora and fauna within plots

The NCR also has a hydrological and soil conservation component. These attributes of forest are measured
concurrently by a separate survey team. An iterative complementarity procedure is being used to define a
minimum set of sites necessary to conserve Sri Lanka’s biodiversity. This procedure is fully explained in Green
and Gunawardena (1993).

In Sri Lanka, the survey technique employed was Gradient-directed transect (Gradsect) sampling. Transects are
selected deliberately to traverse the steepest environmental gradients present in an area, while taking into account
access routes. This technique is considered appropriate for rapidly assessing species diversity in natural forests,
while minimising costs, since gradsects capture more biological information than randomly-placed transects of
similar length. Altitude may be the most significant environment gradient, and was the one chosen in Sri Lanka.
Others could be eg. precipitation, temperature, latitude etc.

Data needed
1 Sites for survey were identified based on a 1:500,000 forest map of Sri Lanka. An accurate
topographic map is needed to locate the gradsects within the chosen site.

2 The presence or absence of species in selected groups of fauna and flora was ascertained during the
field survey. Faunal groups inventoried were mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, butterflies,
molluscs, and mound-building termites, while fishes were identified opportunistically. Floral inventory
was restricted to woody plants.

Assessment of likely availability of data
Topographic maps are usually available for most countries. In extensive forests, Landsat TM images can be used
to distinguish between different types of community, in order to ensure that each was representatively sampled.

Costs involved
The Gradsect survey technique is a field-oriented process. It involves low technological input, and costs are
therefore likely to be low.

Human resources involved/required
A competent zoologist and botanist are required, together with unskilled labour to assist in positioning and
marking the transects.

Data generated

The faunal part of the survey was restricted to identification of the presence of higher vertebrates and a few
invertebrate groups (butterflies, molluscs, and mound-building termites). Floral survey was confined to woody
species. Specimens were collected of species which could not be identified in the field, and were sent to
museums for positive identification. Species lists were therefore generated for each forest surveyed. Subsequent
analyses were based mainly on the woody plants data, because of the large number of biases involved in faunal
survey, and the likelihood that faunal diversity was greatly under-estimated due to the speed at which the survey
had to be conducted.

Time frame
The forests of the Southern Province of Sri Lanka, comprising 10% of the country, were surveyed in | year. To
complete for the whole country would take an estimated further 4 years.

Examples of implementation
This technique has been carried out in Sri Lanka’s forests under a UNDP/FAO/IUCN programme.

Points for and against
For

° An NCR using Gradsect sampling is based on real data, not hypothetical or modelled data.

82

Annex 2

: Gradsect sampling is relatively cheap.

Against

° As employed in Sri Lanka, the method is only suitable for investigating pre-identified sites. not
selecting possible sites.

° The technique records the presence or absence of a species, but gives no indication of how abundant
it is.

e The time-frame is long, but could be speeded up by training and deploying more survey teams.

° Identification of specimens by museums takes time and adds an element of delay.

Appraisal

This technique is suitable for the investigation of, and conservation priority setting between, pre-identified sites,
but not for conducting a first-tranche assessment of biodiversity. Although it has only been used in forests,
modifications to the methodology would enable its adaptation to other habitats as well. It would be suitable for
small countries with a limited number of sites of conservation interest.

BIMS (BIODIVERSITY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM): Asian Bureau for Conservation
Source: MacKinnon, J. pers comm.

Brief summary of technique

The Asian Bureau for Conservation has developed and distributed a software package called BIMS (formerly
MASS) which can be used for monitoring the conservation status of species, wildlife habitat and protected areas
on a national basis. The underlying principle is that the distribution and occurrence of species whose habitat
requirements are known is predictable: in other words a good naturalist with knowledge of the condition of a
certain site can usually predict whether a particular species will be found there. BIMS monitors the status of
individual species by assessing the extensiveness, rate of loss and degree of protection afforded to their required
habitats.

The technique uses empirical modelling to estimate distribution and abundance patterns of species from sparse
primary data, stored in a relational database. It includes estimates of the threats to the species being modelled.
BIMS is based on a mapped habitat classification which uses a small fraction of the computer space that an
equivalent approach to species mapping using GIS would.

Data needed
BIMS requires a mapped habitat classification (ie. the best available vegetation map) with the following minimal
layers:

s physical base map

° biogeographical divisions

. habitat classification (original distribution)

= habitat classification (current distribution based on remote sensing)
° protected areas system

Topographic coverage, and knowledge of species habitat requirements (particularly habitat type and altitudinal
range) are also required. Data on threats such as hunting can be added optionally to increase the accuracy of
computer-generated predictions.

Assessment of likely availability of data
All countries are likely to have habitat classifications or vegetation maps available at some degree of resolution.

Costs involved
Relatively low.

83

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Human resources involved/required
Competent computer operators and experienced biologists/naturalists are needed to input realistic data and model
it correctly.

Data generated
BIMS can be used to generate predictive maps of species distribution, estimate population sizes, and assign
categories of threat on a national basis.

Time frame
Can be very quick where data are available.

Examples of implementation

BIMS databases have been established in most Asian countries and have been used to determine conservation
priorities in China, Thailand, Bhutan, Vietnam and Indonesia: for example in the preparation of a forestry
masterplan for Bhutan (MacKinnon 1991).

Points for and against

For

° Provides ’maps’ of species occurrence without using GIS technology

® Fast

° Cheap

° Gives acceptably accurate predictions of species actual occurrence

° Can be used to estimate species population sizes

° Can be used to assign categories of threat to individual species on a national basis
Against

° Not suitable for species whose habitat requirements are not well known
° Has so far only been used in Asia

Appraisal

Suitable as a first-cut approach to examining the biodiversity of a country and selecting species/habitats that are
predicted to be threatened. Enables biodiversity managers to make sensible decisions about the relative value for
biodiversity conservation of different areas, even in the absence of survey data. Predictions need to be validated
by field survey before conservation measures were enacted on the ground.

GUIDELINES FOR THE RAPID ASSESSMENT OF BIODIVERSITY PRIORITY AREAS (RAP):
CSIRO (and others)

Brief summary of technique

The World Bank and the GEF are currently funding CSIRO and other Australian institutions to develop a series
of Guidelines for Rapid Assessment of Biodiversity Priority Areas (RAP). These will adapt RAP tools employed
in Australia for use in developing countries. The basic principle is that priorities need to be set. The technique
used will be to compile a suitable database containing maps of the spatial distribution of the biodiversity
surrogate chosen, and then use it systematically to identify a network of areas that collectively represents that
surrogate. A complementarity approach will be recommended, in which priority areas are added on the basis of
the elements of biodiversity they contain which are different from those already covered.

Application of CSIRO guidelines will enable assessment of the relative contribution of different areas to overall
biodiversity protection. Conservation initiatives will then focus on areas that make a high contribution.

Data needed
Some combination of data on the distributions of species, habitat types and environments are needed.

84

Annex 2

Assessment of likely availability of data
Which data are chosen will depend heavily on the actual availability of data.

Costs involved
Unknown, but expected to be low.

Human resources involved/required
Unknown, but it is expected that the Guidelines will recommend training of biodiversity technicians or ’para-
taxonomists’ to assist with field surveys.

Data generated

First phase products will include DOS-compatible databases for collating information from field surveys and
collections, mapping tools for identifying areas of conservation concern, guidelines, and a handbook for their
application.

Time frame
Unknown, but expected to be short.

Examples of implementation
The CSIRO Guidelines have not yet been fully developed or implemented.

Points for and against

For

° Will provide a manual for biodiversity managers interested in national biodiversity inventory

° Will provide DOS-compatible databases for collating information

° Scientists from developing countries will review the preparation and development of the CSIRO
materials, ensuring that they are compatible with their aims

Against

° Methodology not yet available

Appraisal

The CSIRO guidelines will provide valuable overall approach to conducting baseline biodiversity inventories on
a national basis. It is expected that they will consist of an amalgam of the most appropriate techniques discussed
in this paper.

ALL TAXA BIODIVERSITY INVENTORY (ATBI) - University of Pennsylvania in conjunction with
INBio, Costa Rica.

Source: Janzen, D.H. and Hallwachs, W. 1994.

Brief summary of technique

The aim of an All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory is to make a thorough inventory or description of all the species
present in a particular area, using highly trained taxonomic specialists recruited internationally and nationally.
The rationale behind this approach is that species have to be used (ie. must have a utilitarian value to human
societies) in order to be preserved, and have to be described and understood before appropriate uses can be found
for them.

Data needed

An All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory attempts to determine for all the taxa and a very large number of species

in one area:

C What they are - ie. recognise and describe species and assign stable scientific binomial names. The
latter facilitates information exchange about particular species between researchers working in
different languages in different parts of the world.

85

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

° Where they are - determine where at least some of the members of each taxon or species live and can
be found.
° What they do - through accumulation of ecological and behaviourial information, determine their role

in the ecosystem.

Assessment of likely availability of data
It is extremely unlikely that data are currently available anywhere in the world at the level of detail required for
an ATBI. However, specialists who could generate the required data do exist internationally for many taxonomic

groups.

Costs involved
Hugely expensive. The proposed budget for a five-year programme in Guanacaste, Costa Rica, is US$ 88 million.

Human resources involved/required
The ATBI proposal for Guanacaste calls for 279 staff annually, including 100 ’ parataxonomists’, trained locally
by up to 40 visiting specialists.

Data generated
An enormous amount of basic data would potentially be generated.

Time frame

A thorough species-level inventory of a large and biodiverse area is impossible in less than 2-3 years. Two years
of planning followed by five years of field activity is a more realistic estimate, and is the time scale proposed
for the Guanacaste project.

Examples of implementation
To date, the ATBI approach has only been tried in the Guanacaste Conservation Area, a reserve of 110,000 ha

containing three tropical forest ecosystems (dry forest, cloud forest and rain forest) in north-west Costa Rica.

Points for and against

For

* Produces a thorough inventory of a particular site, which could potentially be used as a benchmark
from which other site evaluation techniques could be calibrated.

° Mutualistic scientific advantages from having scientists representing all the major taxa conduct their
biodiversity actions at one site.

2 High levels of training are associated with an ATBI: large numbers of graduate students and trained
parataxonomists would be produced, most of them host nationals.

Against

. An ATBI attempts to inventory all taxa from viruses to trees and large mammals, which is very time-
consuming.

° ATBI is an experimental technique, started in 1993 and representative results are not available.

° An ATBI is not an exercise in site choice for conservation planning, since it does not entail a
comparison between sites.

° An ATBI is not directly applicable to marine environments.

° The technique involves a considerable input of specialist knowledge from invited expatriate
systematists.

Appraisal

ATBI is not the right technique to apply to a number of sites to determine their conservation value. It is site-
specific, expensive, and time-consuming. It relies totally on formal taxonomic identification of species - in
complete contrast to Rapid Biodiversity Assessment (see below).

86

Annex 2
RAPID BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT (RBA): MacQuarie University
Source: Beattie, A. J., et al., 1993.

Brief summary of technique

Rapid Biodiversity Assessment (RBA) is based on the premise that certain aspects of biological diversity can
be quantified without knowing the scientific names of the species involved. The main characteristic of RBA is
the minimisation of the formal taxonomic content in the classification and identification of organisms. There are
two methods by which this can be achieved:

1 Ordinal’ RBA. In this approach only those taxonomic levels needed to achieve the goals of the
assessment in question are used. Ordinal RBA is frequently used in environmental monitoring. For
example, if it is known from prior studies that the presence or absence of a particular family or genus
indicates disturbance or pollution, it may only be necessary to resolve the species collected at a site
to the level of family or genus to ascertain environmental quality.

2 *Basic RBA’. If large numbers of specimens are obtained from a particular area during a biodiversity
inventory their identification may be problematic. There may be a shortage of taxonomists familiar
with the groups in question, or perhaps none available at all in the country in which the inventory is
being carried out. An alternative to formal and correct species identification by expert taxonomists
is the creation of locally functional schemes for classification and identification. Specimens can be
distinguished by easily observable morphological criteria. For example, butterflies might be
distinguished on the basis of wing colour, pattern and size resulting in classifications such as ’Small,
red with white spots.’ The units of variety recorded by such a scheme may be called morphospecies,
operational taxonomic units (OTUs) or recognisable taxonomic units (RTUs). Depending on whether
operational procedures have been standardised and calibrated by conventional taxonomic measures,
these units may or may not be less representative of natural biological variation than species per se.
Biodiversity technicians trained by taxonomists are used to separate specimens into RTUs. Studies
show that if properly trained such personnel can be very effective.

Data needed
Data are gathered on certain groups of organisms. Several groups, chosen as good ’predictor sets’ of biodiversity
are needed at each location inventoried. Appropriate groups are ones which:

° Are relatively abundant

° Have a high species richness

° Contain many specialist species

° Are easy to sample

° Have taxonomic traits accessible to RBA methods

In contrast to RAPs (see below) which tend to use vertebrate and higher plant taxa as indicator groups, RBAs
focus on invertebrate groups, such as butterflies, ants, termites, certain beetle families, grasshoppers and spiders.

Assessment of likely availability of data
Once the indicator groups of species have been chosen, RBA needs no further data.

Costs involved
Since the RBA technique utilises low-levels of technology and expertise, it is relatively cheap.

Human resources involved/required
Trained - but relatively unskilled - biodiversity technicians are needed to separate the organisms inventoried into

recognisable taxonomic units. Identification to species level requires specialist taxonomists.

Data generated
Data obtained are representative measures of the species diversity of the area for particular taxonomic groups.

87

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Time frame
RBAs are relatively quick.

Examples of implementation

RBA has been used extensively in recent years in Australia, where invertebrate groups (particularly ants) are
increasingly used in environmental audit programmes. For example, Cranston and Hillman (1992) conducted
RBAs at Ryan’s Billabong and Mitta Mitta Creek in Australia using Odonata (dragonflies) Ephemeroptera
(mayflies) and Chironomidae (midges) as indicator groups.

Points for and against

For

° Quick and cheap.

° Requires a low input of highly-skilled labour.

° Uses non-invasive sampling, eliminating the time spent in collecting specimens and subsequent
identification.

Against

° Data are only directly comparable with other sites assessed by precisely the same method. Since no

standard method exists, comparing data from neighbouring countries or between RBA programmes
conducted by different organisations may prove difficult.

° RBAs focus on invertebrate groups. The relationships between biodiversity in different groups of
invertebrates (and those with vertebrate diversity) are even less well understood than that between
different groups of vertebrates and higher plants.

Appraisal

A very rapid, cheap and attractive way of assessing the relative biodiversity value of different sites: provided
they are assessed using the same indicator groups of species. A type of national or regional overview is however
required as a preliminary step to identify areas meriting investigation by RBA.

RAPID ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (RAP): Conservation International
Source: Parker, T.A.P. III. et al., 1993.

Brief summary of technique

Conservation International (CI) created the Rapid Assessment Program (RAP) in 1989 to fill the gaps in regional
knowledge of the world’s biodiversity *hotspots’. These hotspots cover less than 4% of the Earth’s surface, but
remain inadequately inventoried.

The RAP process assembles teams of international experts and host country scientists to conduct preliminary
assessments of the biological value of poorly-known areas. RAP teams usually consist of experts in
taxonomically well-known groups such as higher vertebrates (eg. birds and mammals) and vascular plants, so
that ready identification of organisms to the species level is possible. The biological value of an area can be
characterised by species richness, degree of species endemism (ie. percentage of species that are found nowhere
else), the uniqueness of the ecosystem, and the magnitude of threat of extinction. A RAP is a precursor to
prolonged scientific study.

RAPs are undertaken by identifying potentially rich sites from satellite images/aerial reconnaissance, and then
sending in ground teams to conduct field survey transects. Such field trips last from two to eight weeks,
depending on the remoteness of the terrain. Reports of RAP activities are made available to the widest possible
audience. Subsequent research and conservation recommendations and actions are the responsibility of local
scientists and conservationists.

88

Annex 2

Data needed
1 Satellite images are used where available, to determine the extent of forest cover and likely areas
which would repay investigation.

2 Aerial reconnaissance data are needed from surveys in small aircraft or helicopters to identify
vegetation types and points for field transects.

3 Field survey transects, undertaken on foot, by car or boat. Species groups inventoried are usually
vascular plants and higher vertebrates (mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians).

Assessment of likely availability of data
By definition RAPs are conducted in relatively unknown regions, where previous scientific studies are rare. At
a minimum, survey overflights and field transects are needed to conduct a RAP.

Costs involved
No indication of the costs involved is currently available.

Human resources involved/required

Local experts are a central part of any RAP team, especially critical to understanding areas where little
exploration has been undertaken. However, one of the key elements is the participation of international experts,
who are able to review the results obtained from a global or regional perspective.

Data generated
Preliminary species lists for the groups inventoried: vascular plants and higher vertebrates.

Time frame

Rapid Assessment is by its nature a very quick, first-cut, attempt at inventorying the biodiversity of a region.
CI conducted the fieldwork for one RAP of an area of 50,000 km’ of forested eastern Andean slopes in Alto
Madidi, north west Bolivia, in one month (Parker and Bailey 1990). It should be noted that field transects were
restricted to small areas within this.

Examples of implementation

CI has carried out RAPs in various forested parts of South America. So far the lowland and montane forests of
Alto Madidi, in La Paz state, and the dry lowland forests of Santa Cruz (Bolivia); the Cordillera de la Costa
(Ecuador); the Columbia River Forest Reserve (Belize); and the Kanuku Mountain region (Guyana) have been
inventoried by RAP.

Points for and against

For

° Quick: RAPs to date have taken around 1 month of fieldwork.

° Uses non-invasive sampling, eliminating the time spent in collecting specimens and subsequent
identification.

. Data gathered are fully comparable with those collected from other areas.

2 Produces preliminary species inventories for major taxa, filling in gaps in scientific knowledge.

Against

. In large areas, focuses (through necessity) on small local sample sites.

° Compared to RBA needs a higher level of technical input from experts.

Appraisal

RAPs are most suited for investigating the biological diversity of previously unexplored areas. in a comparison
between relatively known sites, RBAs are probably cheaper and quicker.

89

ARNE. AOR GET AAT AM Mier aria ‘py

~

Tye trey ;
Tiieek dt (eee -were faee) Ps molk2 OW ores 4 ilaitare oyactve bev Ue agora sailtate®

ouiiagtypval yen bhivg: folbe coho:
Fae ge at bet, mar ~— od a is
Bake or bah, ae imei Are? Ghew Ais pu elede torte Ry eed - eireghpeiion NEITS) Tue
omacrtn meng phe iia: AA! lay tlacrw) eniaanane CAR Siaerpiet, Lon Suglye apt bain
ROAM 8 he os ditpriag wie Shr A ie Amato ured Oo of qgngelinaly: Be wrote) fina k 3
Nagin nae Wnt Nie. Ara! aiheiee Ag elt (dot ay weAnabet sarah ypeige Bhat z Be at
j ) ipimaittislcires thin Achat “Gard cheung) Soe wtvieiie octtgle! be ahs whey % ie A
Protas ar cra aad ache i
Bone ad Le yiidatges «fea mL en
UA siet vrata tinea suioverie snail a wowgertnan ylaegie ly, 18 Satcbinet tne Mak vealaitah 6 Af
* Pinal 0 Pe OLA nemeebaey bed ot Pioeetwo GP Loe ety ther, cae soeinbale oe
‘ (94s natant 4 Jaa Deh at) te Sia Se a ii peice ay
’ we nee hay By. = persis .
Aah nléaiteve scat @ beerioval inn udp ire
~~ teh rr sit ad = growers phic try apubtates ty cintrcd > siete afta § = wor
; a . ‘ S PeoMte: rca pres eT cebhye #4 DN bortinesemed | a
Ba MR ye Nes Soi, mans a renga A pl ke
a pcr cdi We ee ee ea
ee 1 ne | ein) Manto ath canoe! wobethe or edgar
Vt Ee ea

“

Plata hasta shay tl we aad adap adler
fe ee eT fear weld
. of ae, A ape *, grote site yi ye dente
. teri beipsreedien eisai 8 ai een
hes ge Ye asi sew wR agi travis ott
PL tapes ateetts alimoree 10 oh atv ell eer ol
ans Sempsiitinssinidiin auoern then
> ‘ : - reltabonuntqunt Yo 2
anetp badass! eooeay a PUT pay b
cece doe pani acgMf al
Bip 5 aap i: ieee: a ee 4).

ey ee ee
‘eager ate

: 3 Piuad o-oo cae etre. ce ue

: Rg piemanesse tba y hte wan

yt Pee LA ey et

orn ,

seni gn Deiiiteaa ag
ie

ANNEX 3

IUCN RED LIST CATEGORIES

Prepared by the

IUCN Species Survival Commission

As approved by the
40th Meeting of the IUCN Council
Gland, Switzerland

30 November 1994

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

IUCN RED LIST CATEGORIES

1) Introduction

il. The threatened species categories now used in Red Data Books and Red Lists have been in place,
with some modification, for almost 30 years. Since their introduction these categories have become widely
recognised internationally, and they are now used in a whole range of publications and listings, produced by
IUCN as well as by numerous governmental and non-governmental organisations. The Red Data Book
categories provide an easily and widely understood method for highlighting those species under higher
extinction risk, so as to focus attention on conservation measures designed to protect them.

2. The need to revise the categories has been recognised for some time. In 1984, the SSC held a
symposium, ’The Road to Extinction’ (Fitter & Fitter 1987), which examined the issues in some detail, and
at which a number of options were considered for the revised system. However, no single proposal resulted.
The current phase of development began in 1989 with a request from the SSC Steering Committee to
develop a new approach that would provide the conservation community with useful information for action
planning.

In this document, proposals for new definitions for Red List categories are presented. The general aim of
the new system is to provide an explicit, objective framework for the classification of species according to
their extinction risk.

The revision has several specific aims:
- to provide a system that can be applied consistently by different people;

- to improve the objectivity by providing those using the criteria with clear guidance on how to
evaluate different factors which affect risk of extinction;

- to provide a system which will facilitate comparisons across widely different taxa;

- to give people using threatened species lists a better understanding of how individual species
were classified.

3h The proposals presented in this document result from a continuing process of drafting, consultation
and validation. It was clear that the production of a large number of draft proposals led to some confusion,
especially as each draft has been used for classifying some set of species for conservation purposes. To
clarify matters, and to open the way for modifications as and when they became necessary, a system for
version numbering was applied as follows:

Version 1.0: Mace & Lande (1991)
The first paper discussing a new basis for the categories, and presenting numerical criteria
especially relevant for large vertebrates.

Version 2.0: Mace et al. (1992)

A major revision of Version 1.0, including numerical criteria appropriate to all organisms and
introducing the non-threatened categories.

oy

Annex 3

Version 2.1: IUCN (1993)
Following an extensive consultation process within SSC, a number of changes were made to the
details of the criteria, and fuller explanation of basic principles was included. A more explicit
structure clarified the significance of the non-threatened categories.

Version 2.2: Mace & Stuart (1994)
Following further comments received and additional validation exercises, some minor changes
to the criteria were made. In addition, the Susceptible category present in Versions 2.0 and 2.1
was subsumed into the Vulnerable category. A precautionary application of the system was
emphasised.

Final Version

This final document, which incorporates changes as a result of comments from IUCN members,

was adopted by the IUCN Council in December 1994.
All future taxon lists including categorisations should be based on this version, and not the previous ones.
4. In the rest of this document the proposed system is outlined in several sections. The Preamble
presents some basic information about the context and structure of the proposal, and the procedures that are
to be followed in applying the definitions to species. This is followed by a section giving definitions of
terms used. Finally the definitions are presented, followed by the quantitative criteria used for classification

within the threatened categories. It is important for the effective functioning of the new system that all
sections are read and understood, and the guidelines followed.

References:
Fitter, R., and M. Fitter, ed. (1987) The Road to Extinction. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

IUCN. (1993) Draft IUCN Red List Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Mace, G. M. et al. (1992) "The development of new criteria for listing species on the IUCN Red List."
Species 19: 16-22.

Mace, G. M., and R. Lande. (1991) "Assessing extinction threats: toward a reevaluation of IUCN threatened
species categories." Conserv. Biol. 5.2: 148-157.

Mace, G. M. & S. N. Stuart. (1994) "Draft IUCN Red List Categories, Version 2.2". Species 21-22: 13-24.

93

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY
II) Preamble

The following points present important information on the use and interpretation of the categories (=
Critically Endangered, Endangered, etc.), criteria (= A to E), and sub-criteria (= a,b etc., i,ii etc.):

ilk Taxonomic level and scope of the categorisation process

The criteria can be applied to any taxonomic unit at or below the species level. The term ’taxon’ in the
following notes, definitions and criteria is used for convenience, and may represent species or lower
taxonomic levels, including forms that are not yet formally described. There is a sufficient range among the
different criteria to enable the appropriate listing of taxa from the complete taxonomic spectrum, with the
exception of micro-organisms. The criteria may also be applied within any specified geographical or
political area although in such cases special notice should be taken of point 11 below. In presenting the
results of applying the criteria, the taxonomic unit and area under consideration should be made explicit.
The categorisation process should only be applied to wild populations inside their natural range, and to
populations resulting from benign introductions (defined in the draft [UCN Guidelines for Re-introductions as
"..an attempt to establish a species, for the purpose of conservation, outside its recorded distribution, but
within an appropriate habitat and eco-geographical area").

2 Nature of the categories

All taxa listed as Critically Endangered qualify for Vulnerable and Endangered, and all listed as Endangered
qualify for Vulnerable. Together these categories are described as ‘threatened’. The threatened species
categories form a part of the overall scheme. It will be possible to place all taxa into one of the categories
(see Figure 1).

Figure 1; Structure of the Categories

Extinct

Extinet in the Wild

Critically Endangered

— (Threatened) —+ Endangered

Vulnerable

= (Adequate data) _|
-—— Conservation Dependent

Lower Risk — | Near Threatened

—— Least Concern
— (Evaluated) ——

Data Deficient

Not Evaluated

94

Annex 3

35 Role of the different criteria

For listing as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable there is a range of quantitative criteria;
meeting any one of these criteria qualifies a taxon for listing at that level of threat. Each species should be
evaluated against all the criteria. The different criteria (A-E) are derived from a wide review aimed at
detecting risk factors across the broad range of organisms and the diverse life histories they exhibit. Even
though some criteria will be inappropriate for certain taxa(some taxa will never qualify under these however
close to extinction they come), there should be criteria appropriate for assessing threat levels for any taxon
(other than micro-organisms). The relevant factor is whether any one criterion is met, not whether all are
appropriate or all are met. Because it will never be clear which criteria are appropriate for a particular
species in advance, each species should be evaluated against all the criteria, and any criterion met should be
listed.

4. Derivation of quantitative criteria

The quantitative values presented in the various criteria associated with threatened categories were developed
through wide consultation and they are set at what are generally judged to be appropriate levels, even if no
formal justification for these values exists. The levels for different criteria within categories were set
independently but against a common standard. Some broad consistency between them was sought.
However, a given taxon should not be expected to meet all criteria (A-E) in a category; meeting any one
criterion is sufficient for listing.

5: Implications of listing

Listing in the categories of Not Evaluated and Data Deficient indicates that no assessment of extinction risk
has been made, though for different reasons. Until such time as an assessment is made, species listed in
these categories should not be treated as if they were non-threatened, and it may be appropriate (especially
for Data Deficient forms) to give them the same degree of protection as threatened taxa, at least until their
status can be evaluated.

Extinction is assumed here to be a chance process. Thus, a listing in a higher extinction risk category
implies a higher expectation of extinction, and over the time-frames specified more taxa listed in a higher
category are expected to go extinct than in a lower one (without effective conservation action). However,
the persistence of some taxa in high risk categories does not necessarily mean their initial assessment was
inaccurate.

6. Data quality and the importance of inference and projection

The criteria are clearly quantitative in nature. However, the absence of high quality data should not deter
attempts at applying the criteria, as methods involving estimation, inference and projection are emphasised to
be acceptable throughout. Inference and projection may be based on extrapolation of current or potential
threats into the future (including their rate of change), or of factors related to population abundance or
distribution (including dependence on other taxa), so long as these can reasonably be supported. Suspected
or inferred patterns in either the recent past, present or near future can be based on any of a series of related
factors, and these factors should be specified.

Taxa at risk from threats posed by future events of low probability but with severe consequences
(catastrophes) should be identified by the criteria (e.g. small distributions, few locations). Some threats need
to be identified particularly early, and appropriate actions taken, because their effects are irreversible, or
nearly so (pathogens, invasive organisms, hybridization).

Ws Uncertainty

The criteria should be applied on the basis of the available evidence on taxon numbers, trend and
distribution, making due allowance for statistical and other uncertainties. Given that data are rarely available
for the whole range or population of a taxon, it may often be appropriate to use the information that is
available to make intelligent inferences about the overali status of the taxon in question. In cases where a
wide variation in estimates is found, it is legitimate to apply the precautionary principle and use the estimate
(providing it is credible) that leads to listing in the category of highest risk.

95

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Where data are insufficient to assign a category (including Lower Risk), the category of ’Data Deficient’
may be assigned. However, it is important to recognise that this category indicates that data are inadequate
to determine the degree of threat faced by a taxon, not necessarily that the taxon is poorly known. In cases
where there are evident threats to a taxon through, for example, deterioration of its only known habitat, it is
important to attempt threatened listing, even though there may be little direct information on the biological
status of the taxon itself. The category "Data Deficient’ is not a threatened category, although it indicates a
need to obtain more information on a taxon to determine the appropriate listing.

8. Conservation actions in the listing process

The criteria for the threatened categories are to be applied to a taxon whatever the level of conservation
action affecting it. In cases where it is only conservation action that prevents the taxon from meeting the
threatened criteria, the designation of "Conservation Dependent’ is appropriate. It is important to emphasise
here that a taxon require conservation action even if it is not listed as threatened.

sh Documentation

All taxon lists including categorisation resulting from these criteria should state the criteria and sub-criteria
that were met. No listing can be accepted as valid unless at least one criterion is given. If more than one
criterion or sub-criterion was met, then each should be listed. However, failure to mention a criterion should
not necessarily imply that it was not met. Therefore, if a re-evaluation indicates that the documented
criterion is no longer met, this should not result in automatic down-listing. Instead, the taxon should be re-
evaluated with respect to all criteria to indicate its status. The factors responsible for triggering the criteria,
especially where inference and projection are used, should at least be logged by the evaluator, even if they
cannot be included in published lists.

10. Threats and priorities

The category of threat is not necessarily sufficient to determine priorities for conservation action. The
category of threat simply provides an assessment of the likelihood of extinction under current circumstances,
whereas a system for assessing priorities for action will include numerous other factors concerning
conservation action such as costs, logistics, chances of success, and even perhaps the taxonomic
distinctiveness of the subject.

11. Use at regional level

The criteria are most appropriately applied to whole taxa at a global scale, rather than to those units defined
by regional or national boundaries. Regionally or nationally based threat categories, which are aimed at
including taxa that are threatened at regional or national levels (but not necessarily throughout their global
ranges), are best used with two key pieces of information: the global status category for the taxon, and the
proportion of the global population or range that occurs within the region or nation. However, if applied at
regional or national level it must be recognised that a global category of threat may not be the same as a
regional or national category for a particular taxon. For example, taxa classified as Vulnerable on the basis
of their global declines in numbers or range might be Lower Risk within a particular region where their
populations are stable. Conversely, taxa classified as Lower Risk globally might be Critically Endangered
within a particular region where numbers are very small or declining, perhaps only because they are at the
margins of their global range. IUCN is still in the process of developing guidelines for the use of national
red list categories.

12: Re-evaluation

Evaluation of taxa against the criteria should be carried out at appropriate intervals. This is especially
important for taxa listed under Near Threatened, or Conservation Dependent, and for threatened species
whose status is known or suspected to be deteriorating.

13. Transfer between categories

There are rules to govern the movement of taxa between categories. These are as follows: (A) A taxon may
be moved from a category of higher threat to a category of lower threat if none of the criteria of the higher
category has been met for 5 years or more. (B) If the original classification is found to have been erroneous,

96

Annex 3

the taxon may be transferred to the appropriate category or removed from the threatened categories
altogether, without delay (but see Section 9). (C) Transfer from categories of lower to higher risk should be
made without delay.

14. Problems of scale

Classification based on the sizes of geographic ranges or the patterns of habitat occupancy is complicated by
problems of spatial scale. The finer the scale at which the distributions or habitats of taxa are mapped, the
smaller will be the area that they are found to occupy. Mapping at finer scales reveals more areas in which
the taxon is unrecorded. It is impossible to provide any strict but general rules for mapping taxa or habitats;
the most appropriate scale will depend on the taxa in question, and the origin and comprehensiveness of the
distributional data. However, the thresholds for some criteria (e.g. Critically Endangered) necessitate
mapping at a fine scale.

III) Definitions

1. Population

Population is defined as the total number of individuals of the taxon. For functional reasons, primarily
owing to differences between life-forms, population numbers are expressed as numbers of mature individuals
only. In the case of taxa obligately dependent on other taxa for all or part of their life cycles, biologically
appropriate values for the host taxon should be used.

2 Subpopulations
Subpopulations are defined as geographically or otherwise distinct groups in the population between which
there is little exchange (typically one successful migrant individual or gamete per year or less).

3 Mature individuals
The number of mature individuals is defined as the number of individuals known, estimated or inferred to be
capable of reproduction. When estimating this quantity the following points should be borne in mind:
- Where the population is characterised by natural fluctuations the minimum number should be
used.

- This measure is intended to count individuals capable of reproduction and should therefore exclude
individuals that are environmentally, behaviourally or otherwise reproductively suppressed in the
wild.

- In the case of populations with biased adult or breeding sex ratios it is appropriate to use lower
estimates for the number of mature individuals which take this into account (e.g. the estimated
effective population size).

- Reproducing units within a clone should be counted as individuals, except where such units are
unable to survive alone (e.g. corals).

- In the case of taxa that naturally lose all or a subset of mature individuals at some point in their
life cycle, the estimate should be made at the appropriate time, when mature individuals are
available for breeding.

4. Generation

Generation may be measured as the average age of parents in the population. This is greater than the age at
first breeding, except in taxa where individuals breed only once.

97

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

J Continuing decline

A continuing decline is a recent, current or projected future decline whose causes are not known or not
adequately controlled and so is liable to continue unless remedial measures are taken. Natural fluctuations
will not normally count as a continuing decline, but an observed decline should not be considered to be part
of a natural fluctuation unless there is evidence for this.

6. Reduction

A reduction (criterion A) is a decline in the number of mature individuals of at least the amount (%) stated
over the time period (years) specified, although the decline need not still be continuing. A reduction should
not be interpreted as part of a natural fluctuation unless there is good evidence for this. Downward trends
that are part of natural fluctuations will not normally count as a reduction.

he Extreme fluctuations

Extreme fluctuations occur in a number of taxa where population size or distribution area varies widely,
rapidly and frequently, typically with a variation greater than one order of magnitude (i-e., a tenfold increase
or decrease).

8. Severely fragmented

Severely fragmented is refers to the situation where increased extinction risks to the taxon result from the
fact that most individuals within a taxon are found in small and relatively isolated subpopulations. These
small subpopulations may go extinct, with a reduced probability of recolonisation.

9. Extent of occurrence

Extent of occurrence is defined as the area contained within the shortest continuous imaginary boundary
which can be drawn to encompass all the known, inferred or projected sites of present occurrence of a taxon,
excluding cases of vagrancy. This measure may exclude discontinuities or disjunctions within the overall
distributions of taxa (e.g., large areas of obviously unsuitable habitat) (but see ‘area of occupancy’). Extent
of occurrence can often be measured by a minimum convex polygon (the smallest polygon in which no
internal angle exceeds 180 degrees and which contains all the sites of occurrence).

10. Area of occupancy

Area of occupancy is defined as the area within its ’extent of occurrence’ (see definition) which is occupied
by a taxon, excluding cases of vagrancy. The measure reflects the fact that a taxon will not usually occur
throughout the area of its extent of occurrence, which may, for example, contain unsuitable habitats. The
area of occupancy is the smallest area essential at any stage to the survival of existing populations of a taxon
(e.g. colonial nesting sites, feeding sites for migratory taxa). The size of the area of occupancy will be a
function of the scale at which it is measured, and should be at a scale appropriate to relevant biological
aspects of the taxon. The criteria include values in km’, and thus to avoid errors in classification, the area of
occupancy should be measured on grid squares (or equivalents) which are sufficiently small (see Figure 2).

11. Location

Location defines a geographically or ecologically distinct area in which a single event (e.g. pollution) will
soon affect all individuals of the taxon present. A location usually, but not always, contains all or part of a
subpopulation of the taxon, and is typically a small proportion of the taxon’s total distribution.

12s Quantitative analysis

A quantitative analysis is defined here as the technique of population viability analysis (PVA), or any other
quantitative form of analysis, which estimates the extinction probability of a taxon or population based on
the known life history and specified management or non-management options. In presenting the results of
quantitative analyses the structural equations and the data should be explicit.

98

Annex 3

e
Se
s e
e _ : ® e e oe
e
ne ee? ea. ee?
ee ° ~ ‘i A °°, ee°
-—e
\ “y ee!
@® e |

Figure 2:

Two examples of the distinction between extent of occurrence and area of
occupancy. (a) is the spatial distribution of known, inferred or projected sites of
occurrence. (b) shows one possible boundary to the extent of occurrence, which is
the measured area within this boundary. (c) shows one measure of area of
occupancy which can be measured by the sum of the occupied grid squares.

99

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

IV) The categories '

EXTINCT (EX)
A taxon is Extinct when there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died.

EXTINCT IN THE WILD (EW)

A taxon is Extinct in the wild when it is known only to survive in cultivation, in captivity or as a naturalised
population (or populations) well outside the past range. A taxon is presumed extinct in the wild when
exhaustive surveys in known and/or expected habitat, at appropriate times (diurnal, seasonal, annual),
throughout its historic range have failed to record an individual. Surveys should be over a time frame
appropriate to the taxon’s life cycle and life form.

CRITICALLY ENDANGERED (CR)
A taxon is Critically Endangered when it is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the
immediate future, as defined by any of the criteria (A to E) on pages 12 and 13.

ENDANGERED (EN)
A taxon is Endangered when it is not Critically Endangered but is facing a very high risk of extinction in the
wild in the near future, as defined by any of the criteria (A to E) on pages 14 and 15.

VULNERABLE (VU)

A taxon is Vulnerable when it is not Critically Endangered or Endangered but is facing a high risk of
extinction in the wild in the medium-term future, as defined by any of the criteria (A to D) on pages 16 and
17.

LOWER RISK (LR)

A taxon is Lower Risk when it has been evaluated, does not satisfy the criteria for any of the categories
Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable. Taxa included in the Lower Risk category can be
separated into three subcategories:

1. Conservation Dependent (cd). Taxa which are the focus of a continuing taxon-specific or
habitat-specific conservation programme targeted towards the taxon in question, the cessation of
which would result in the taxon qualifying for one of the threatened categories above within a
period of five years.

2. Near Threatened (nt). Taxa which do not qualify for Conservation Dependent, but which are
close to qualifying for Vulnerable.

3. Least Concern (Ic). Taxa which do not qualify for Conservation Dependent or Near
Threatened.

DATA DEFICIENT (DD)
A taxon is Data Deficient when there is inadequate information to make a direct, or indirect, assessment of
its risk of extinction based on its distribution and/or population status. A taxon in this category may be well

' Note: As in previous IUCN categories, the abbreviation of each category (in parenthesis) follows the English
denominations when translated into other languages.

100

Annex 3

studied, and its biology well known, but appropriate data on abundance and/or distribution is lacking. Data
Deficient is therefore not a category of threat or Lower Risk. Listing of taxa in this category indicates that
more information is required and acknowledges the possibility that future research will show that threatened
classification is appropriate. It is important to make positive use of whatever data are available. In many
cases great care should be exercised in choosing between DD and threatened status. If the range of a taxon
is suspected to be relatively circumscribed, if a considerable period of time has elapsed since the last record
of the taxon, threatened status may well be justified.

NOT EVALUATED (NE)
A taxon is Not Evaluated when it is has not yet been assessed against the criteria.

V) The Criteria for Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable

CRITICALLY ENDANGERED (CR)
A taxon is Critically Endangered when it is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild
in the immediate future, as defined by any of the following criteria (A to E):

A) Population reduction in the form of either of the following:

1) An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected reduction of at least 80% over the last
10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer, based on (and specifying) any
of the following:

a) direct observation

b) an index of abundance appropriate for the taxon

c) a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and/or quality of habitat

d) actual or potential levels of exploitation

e) the effects of introduced taxa, hybridisation, pathogens, pollutants, competitors or
parasites.

2) A reduction of at least 80%, projected or suspected to be met within the next ten years
or three generations, whichever is the longer, based on (and specifying) any of (b), (c),
(d) or (e) above.

B) Extent of occurrence estimated to be less than 100 km? or area of occupancy estimated to be
less than 10 km’, and estimates indicating any two of the following:

1) Severely fragmented or known to exist at only a single location.
2) Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the following:
a) extent of occurrence
b) area of occupancy
c) area, extent and/or quality of habitat
d) number of locations or subpopulations
e) number of mature individuals.
3) Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:
a) extent of occurrence

b) area of occupancy
c) number of locations or subpopulations

101

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY
d) number of mature individuals.
C) Population estimated to number less than 250 mature individuals and either:

1) An estimated continuing decline of at least 25% within 3 years or one generation,
whichever is longer or

2) A continuing decline, observed, projected, or inferred, in numbers of mature
individuals and population structure in the form of either:

a) severely fragmented (i.e. no subpopulation estimated to contain more than 50
mature individuals)
b) all individuals are in a single subpopulation.

D) Population estimated to number less than 50 mature individuals.

E) Quantitative analysis showing the probability of extinction in the wild is at least 50% within 10
years or 3 generations, whichever is the longer.

ENDANGERED (EN)
A taxon is Endangered when it is not Critically Endangered but is facing a very high risk of
extinction in the wild in the near future, as defined by any of the following criteria (A to E):

A) Population reduction in the form of either of the following:

1) An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected reduction of at least 50% over the last
10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer, based on (and specifying) any
of the following:

a) direct observation

b) an index of abundance appropriate for the taxon

c) a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and/or quality of habitat

d) actual or potential levels of exploitation

e) the effects of introduced taxa, hybridisation, pathogens, pollutants, competitors or
parasites.

2) A reduction of at least 50%, projected or suspected to be met within the next ten years
or three generations, whichever is the longer, based on (and specifying) any of (b), (c),
(d), or (e) above.

B) Extent of occurrence estimated to be less than 5000 km” or area of occupancy estimated to be
less than 500 km’, and estimates indicating any two of the following:

1) Severely fragmented or known to exist at no more than five locations.

2) Continuing decline, inferred, observed or projected, in any of the following:
a) extent of occurrence
b) area of occupancy
c) area, extent and/or quality of habitat

d) number of locations or subpopulations
e) number of mature individuals.

102

Annex 3
3) Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:

a) extent of occurrence

b) area of occupancy

c) number of locations or subpopulations
d) number of mature individuals.

C) Population estimated to number less than 2500 mature individuals and either:

1) An estimated continuing decline of at least 20% within 5 years or 2 generations,
whichever is longer, or

2) A continuing decline, observed, projected, or inferred, in numbers of mature
individuals and population structure in the form of either:

a) severely fragmented (i.e. no subpopulation estimated to contain more than 250
mature individuals)
b) all individuals are in a single subpopulation.

D) Population estimated to number less than 250 mature individuals.

E) Quantitative analysis showing the probability of extinction in the wild is at least 20% within 20
years or 5 generations, whichever is the longer.

VULNERABLE (VU)
A taxon is Vulnerable when it is not Critically Endangered or Endangered but is facing a high risk
of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future, as defined by any of the following criteria (A
to E):

A) Population reduction in the form of either of the following:

1) An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected reduction of at least 20% over the last 10
years or three generations, whichever is the longer,, based on (and specifying) any of
the following:

a) direct observation

b) an index of abundance appropriate for the taxon

c) a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and/or quality of habitat

d) actual or potential levels of exploitation

e) the effects of introduced taxa, hybridisation, pathogens, pollutants, competitors or
parasites.

2) A reduction of at least 20%, projected or suspected to be met within the next ten years

or three generations, whichever is the longer, based on (and specifying) any of (b), (c),
(d) or (e) above.

B) Extent of occurrence estimated to be less than 20,000 km? or area of occupancy estimated to be
less than 2000 km’, and estimates indicating any two of the following:

1) Severely fragmented or known to exist at no more than ten locations.

103

ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY
2) Continuing decline, inferred, observed or projected, in any of the following:

a) extent of occurrence

b) area of occupancy

c) area, extent and/or quality of habitat
d) number of locations or subpopulations
e) number of mature individuals.

3) Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:

a) extent of occurrence

b) area of occupancy

c) number of locations or subpopulations
d) number of mature individuals.

C) Population estimated to number less than 10,000 mature individuals and either:

1) An estimated continuing decline of at least 10% within 10 years or 3 generations,
whichever is longer, or

2) A continuing decline, observed, projected, or inferred, in numbers of mature
individuals and population structure in the form of either:

a) severely fragmented (i.e. no subpopulation estimated to contain more than 1000
mature individuals)
b) all individuals are in a single subpopulation.

D) Population very small or restricted in the form of either of the following:
1) Population estimated to number less than 1000 mature individuals.

2) Population is characterised by an acute restriction in its area of occupancy (typically less
than 100 km’) or in the number of locations (typically less than 5). Such a taxon would
thus be prone to the effects of human activities (or stochastic events whose impact is
increased by human activities) within a very short period of time in an unforeseeable
future, and is thus capable of becoming Critically Endangered or even Extinct in a very
short period.

E) Quantitative analysis showing the probability of extinction in the wild is at least 10% within
100 years.

104

i
hg
ww
wy
aree

WORLD CONSERVATION
MONITORING CENTRE

Assessing Biodiversity Status and Sustainability

lf human use of biological resources and human impacts on
biodiversity generally are to be made sustainable - and this is the
acknowledged goal of all those countries that have become Parties
to the Convention on Biological Diversity - it is necessary to confront
a number of challenging issues. Among these are: the meaning of
sustainability; what kinds of data must be collected; which scale of
analysis is needed for different purposes. With the needs of
developing country governments most in mind, this document outlines
some approaches to assessment of the status of national biodiversity
and the sustainability of its use. An introductory chapter outlines
central concepts and terminology. The key second chapter develops
a framework for assessment of status and use, and subsequent
material covers biodiversity inventory, the users of biodiversity, and
the threats entailed.

The WCMC Biodiversity Series presents the results of projects carried
out by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, often in partnership
with IUCN, WWF, UNEP or other organisations. This new series is
focused on providing support to the Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity, helping them to identify and monitor their
biodiversity, to manage and apply information on_ biodiversity
effectively and to exchange information.

The WCMC Biodiversity Series General Editor is N. Mark Collins,
Director of the World Conservation Monitoring Centre.
Other titles in the series:
Biodiversity Data Sourcebook
The Biodiversity Clearing House - Concept and Challenges
Priorities for Conserving Global Species Richness and Endemism

The World Conservation Monitoring Centre, based in Cambridge,
UK. is a joint-venture between the three partners in the World
Conservation Strategy and its successor Caring For The Earth: IUCN
- The World Conservation Union, UNEP - United Nations Environment
Programme, and WWF - World Wide Fund for Nature. The Centre
provides information services on the conservation and sustainable
use of species and ecosystems and supports others in the
development of their own information systems.

Further information is available from
World Conservation Monitoring Centre
219 Huntingdon Road

Cambridge CB3 ODL, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1223 277314

Fax: +44 (0)1223 277136

e-mail: info@wemce.org.uk

¢ am \

WORLD CONSERVATION PRESS

ISBN -1-899628-04-5