BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT AND
MONITORING
Guidance for practitioners
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2010 with funding from
UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge
http://www.archive.org/details/biodiversityasse03groo
DAA
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre
219 Huntingdon Road
Cambridge CB3 0DL
Tel.: +44 (0) 1223 277314
Fax: +44 (0) 1223 277136
E-mail: info@unep-weme.org
Website: www.unep-weme.org
Director: Mark Collins
The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre is the biodiversity assessment and
policy implementation arm of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
the world’s foremost intergovernmental environmental organisation. UNEP-WCMC
aims to help decision-makers recognise the value of biodiversity to people
everywhere, and to apply this knowledge in all that they do. The Centre’s challenge is
to transform complex data into policy-relevant information, to build tools and systems
for analysis and integration, and to support the needs of nations and the international
community as they engage in joint programmes of action.
Contributors
Brian Groombridge, Martin Jenkins, Adrian Newton
UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge,
UK CB3 OPA
Sonja Vermeulen, Izabella Koziell
Forestry and Land Use Programme, International Institute for Environment and
Development, 3 Endsleigh Street, London WCIH ODD, U.K.
Anna Lawrence
Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, 5 South Parks Rd, Oxford OX1
3UB, U.K.
Jeannette van Rijsoort
Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Department of Environmental
Sciences, Wageningen University, PO Box 342, 6700 AH Wageningen, Netherlands.
H. Gyde Lund
Forest Information Services, Gainesville, VA 20110-4627 USA
Ashbindu Singh
UNEP Division of Early Warning and Assessment -North America, USGS/EROS Data
Center, Sioux Falls, USA.
Disclaimer
The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP or
contributory organisations. The designations employed and the presentations do not
imply the expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP or contributory
organisations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its
authority, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
ISBN: **##**#*
For bibliographic reference purposes this publication should be referred to as:
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (2003) Biodiversity assessment and
monitoring. Guidance for practitioners. UNEP WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
Acknowledgements
This report has drawn on and further developed material provided in two previous
reports:
Groombridge, B.D. and Jenkins, M. (1996). Assessing Biodiversity Status and
Sustainability. World Conservation Press. World Conservation Monitoring Centre,
Cambridge, UK. www.unep-wemce.org
Vermeulen, S. and Koziell, I. (2002). Integrating global and local values: a review of
biodiversity assessment. International Institute for Environment and
Development, London, UK. www.iied.org
The contributions of Gemma Smith, Jerry Harrison and Tim Richards (UNEP
WCMC) are gratefully acknowledged. Financial support was provided by UNEP
DEWA, and the Darwin Initiative of the UK Government. Contributions to the
ETFRN Internet Conference on Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation of
Biodiversity 7-25 Januray 2002 greatly assisted the writing of the section on methods
for participatory assessment, and Sarah Gillett (Environmental Change Institute)
contributed to the design of the flow diagram. We are grateful to the European
Tropical Forest Research Network, Tropenbos International, and the UK Department
for International Development Forestry Research Programme for financial support to
this section, which is an output from a research project funded by the United Kingdom
Department for International Development (DFID) for the benefit of developing
countries (R7475 Forestry Research Programme). The views expressed are not
necessarily those of DFID nor ETFRN.
© UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 2003
19>)
" wantin tas AG a Pp ine bu peres li Was merida ‘ e alana
BYE ex jet. V0 cree rit quit 4 hee onto “ :
odie fi het Ne Aas
belt tatbets xy Wii
Spy ueaite
Mik ag jg 1m
ie wy sed i | acl
ene: 0 ab tisagat, As
held eatermiaie °°
ee CA cohen"
i
ey, {reap aaah
pp. 2? ani ee
ie ees? pvt Ow
Beant "0
oh ty" haha
Ye tl i
CONTENTS
Executive summary
1. Introduction
Context: unsustainable development
Scope of the report
A note on definitions
Structure of the report
2. Who needs biodiversity assessment?
Biodiversity information needs of different users
The information needs of intergovernmental agreements and organisations
A strengthened international policy context for biodiversity assessment and
monitoring: the 2010 target
3. How may biodiversity be valued?
Introduction
Values of biodiversity
Tools to assess biodiversity in terms of local values
4. What data and assessments exist?
Global data sources
Species data
Ecosystem data
Adequacy of available data and information
5. How can biodiversity be measured?
Introduction
Developing a conceptual framework
Selecting which variables to measure
Developing a measurement programme
Tools for data analysis and presentation
Examples of biodiversity assessment approaches
6. How should a participatory biodiversity assessment be conducted?
What is a participatory approach?
Why conduct a participatory biodiversity assessment?
Steps in the process
7. Which is the best approach?
Biodiversity assessments and decision-making
Lessons learned: some guidelines for biodiversity assessment
Principle-based approaches to biodiversity assessment
References
” aie he xe Geral i
Dy i ile he ery or eine ——
af PRLouainae oes wd ut¥ox ear as abe
> Tae wpb aber DEY ( g PARR
Teka ek ” gea nee das dees cn <
: ohh iat! alliage
falas ships Ue hs Jen re Qe
pine gtreire, at Eyal ane oN EF
lia’ es eal yar S .
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Biodiversity assessments are increasingly being carried out at a variety of scales by
direct users and managers of biological resources, government departments, non-
governmental organisations, research organisations, international bodies and the
private sector. The need for biodiversity assessment and monitoring is explicitly
recognised by policy processes such as Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
and Agenda 21. However, as biodiversity is a highly complex concept, uncertainty
exists among practitioners regarding how biodiversity can be assessed in practice,
including issues such as the selection of variables for measurement, definition of
appropriate measurement techniques, approaches for sampling and data analysis, and
the selection and use of indicators.
This report aims to provide guidance to practitioners involved in biodiversity
assessment and monitoring. The process of undertaking a biodiversity assessment
can be conceived as a series of stages:
= Identification of information needs
= Identification of different biodiversity values
» Assessment of existing information, and identification of information gaps
" Definition of what to measure, and how to measure it
= Development and implementation of a sampling programme
= Analysis and presentation of results
Guidance is provided for each of these stages, including identification of key sources
of information, and the relative merits of different approaches are considered.
Particular emphasis is given to how the values that underpin any biodiversity
assessment may be identified. In particular, many of the current approaches to
biodiversity assessment emphasise global over local values, a bias that is seldom
made explicit and is often not intended. Attention is therefore given here to how
“local values”, held by the direct users of biological diversity, may be assessed
using participatory approaches, and integrated with assessments of global values.
This report should therefore support practitioners in implementing the Ecosystem
Approach of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), which specifies the need for
pluralist, negotiated, adaptive management based at local levels.
} ls a9
=i : F af,
| :
Pay | a (shee be i Pte RRS
fo ta : ™ i ; og a
oe Hib ‘te vie ey i fl Maire “ta ty sy bai a4 aa) oe 1 Are Vtg x
ath Al afin Cy dager yas Nhe Atigs RR say et ti LA20uea i mil
; Sate | Leas x ahlew aileiata ile ecounngy spices: 1 eanar cay dh eee: /t PAL Lan
oe lea rit BE Tan aye wr thy petites ea eh Aiewe thy Aco a Ant
: iar titan net biel ih ahh dh ate « cine ru dLANidy-!2 6 ok
pens rip wath eu
rf co aes eer :
api Phas + oe nie Se
dacs REN Prupied | 8 Bes fh aad
ait ates es Oe tall iy Sealy Poe ten SEA
vere piss
ate
th ;
et ea
sy ie sae , oat ‘
ei | saa wll, tects ARs
ea ' ; ,
rd , 3 Diehl ay Re AL a Je
7 4 i fn ’ .
mace ;
pies)
os ae ;
iiaees @ctiviuls. Syvlad inate
—
1. INTRODUCTION
Context: unsustainable development
Although humans activities have had a significant impact on the biosphere for at least
400,000 years, evidence suggests that impacts on biodiversity and on the provision of
biosphere goods and services have intensified over the past four centuries. The rate of
species extinction over this period appears to be between 10 and 100 times higher
than the average background rate, as indicated by the fossil record (Groombridge and
Jenkins 2002). Humans now use or divert more than one third of net primary
production on land, and no other single species approaches humanity in numbers,
biomass and extent of distribution (Groombridge and Jenkins 2002). At the same
time, many millions of people are subject to poor nutrition, poor health, and social
inequality.
An implication of these trends is that current pathways of human development are
unsustainable at the global level. In 1992, Chapter 40 of Agenda 21 identified two
principal information needs that were considered to constrain progress toward
sustainability:
=» More data of suitable type, quality and scale were required “indicating the status
and trends of the planet’s ecosystem, natural resource, pollution and socio-
economic variables”
= Relevant information must be made more widely available to support policy
development and sound decision-making.
Progress has been made towards addressing these needs during the past decade. For
developed countries in particular, many more data have been collated and made
available, often using the internet as a means of delivery. Considerable effort has been
devoted to the design of information systems, and to building capacity among less
developed nations to take advantage of technological advances.
However, the data used to support policy development and decision-making are often
inadequate in quantity and quality, or are not presented in an appropriate form. Much
of the evidence used to assess the status and change of biodiversity is anecdotal or
qualitative, has been gathered retrospectively, and employs terms and measures that
are highly case-specific. There is therefore an urgent need to increase the amount of
high-quality information relating to biodiversity, particularly through the
establishment of appropriately designed monitoring and assessment programmes.
There is also a need to improve access to the large amount of information relating to
biodiversity that already exists, through development of appropriate delivery tools.
Finally, there is a need to provide biodiversity information in a form that is
appropriate to user needs.
Scope of the report
Among the general subject areas identified in Agenda 21, particular emphasis is given
to biodiversity assessment. Biodiversity assessment may be defined as the process of
— a ; ‘ fii 4 i, if F;
id is 5 : : , ei ‘ ta iniegertct , ve
: ay ie PR oquict i, - ais 7 jase :.
fee ‘lle “a vateifiake heal apstnidot iw» @ i ip wel
v er eT eee a isk alae OBIS vi jig seme est ? qe iw beike a : sf 3 he
hase aie m4 We: teal bind erg mh At
Di 96 aha halal ay bo ete ay x poh mire r > eat
i ae ”
ine : 1 ‘Sam ye “si nie P.
5 eae nN
7 in a -
aS Wid Pac pyre.
" ei, } clipes to Wehdagt
Serr vithig ove op Aa
1 we
bal i ae 3 anim of Boa bag ay
, a Heat ily cele
att 2h . me .« a s with
if ane Michien-: ye Gils Ay
iy Wi: as yo ep
© LOL.
hy Germ oo Vries oil.
LANE whee shi ii) inthe
ny kone) @ elt
shen, a aay ;
determining the biodiversity complement or value of particular areas or resources.
This may usefully be differentiated from biodiversity monitoring, which explicitly
addresses changes in the status or value of biodiversity over time. The analysis of
trends in biodiversity is particularly challenging, because it must be based on
measurements that can be repeated and are comparable over time.
This purpose of this report is to provide guidance for undertaking biodiversity
assessment and monitoring at a variety of scales. Given UNEPs mandate, which refers
explicitly to the provision of technical and policy advice to national Governments, this
report focuses particularly on biodiversity assessment and monitoring at the national
scale. However, it is recognised that national assessments will often be based on
information collected at the local scale, at which most decisions relating to patterns of
land use are actually made. Particular attention is therefore given here to how
information may be integrated across a variety of different scales. For example,
information on the detailed species composition of a patch of forest within some small
sub-national administrative unit is likely to have little relevance to a national
assessment of biodiversity. However, if the survey data can be aggregated and
mapped to a vegetation class that is valid at a national scale, the information may then
be highly relevant for broad environmental assessment purposes. This relationship is
reciprocal, because a key purpose of national assessments is to establish the wider
context in which local actions are undertaken, and to allow them to be better
prioritised.
A note on definitions
The term biodiversity may be used to refer to the extent of variation in some
biological entity, eg. the differing features of a series of geographical populations of a
species, or to the totality of biological variation at a site or in the world overall. Three
elements of biodiversity are generally differentiated: diversity within species, between
species and of ecosystems (Box 1). Diversity within species refers to phenotypic and
genetic variability, including diversity of genes and gene complexes. At the species
level, the number of species (species richness) present in an area 1s often considered to
be an important measure of biodiversity, although the number of taxonomically
different kinds of species, or the relative abundance of each, also contribute to the
range of possible measures. In addition, the endemicity of species present (ie. the
extent to which they are restricted to some defined area) is often considered to be
highly significant in assessing the biodiversity value of an area.
Ecosystems are composed of interacting species populations and non-living
components of the biosphere. In biological terms, and as originally described, an
‘ecosystem’ is defined by the flow of energy and materials between individuals
representing communities of species. In practice, ecosystems have come to be defined
by macro-scale physical and climatic features, eg. in terms of the dominant vegetation
cover in the case of most terrestrial systems, or depth and seabed characters in the
case of marine systems. Strictly, ‘habitat’ should be defined in relation to the space
occupied by some given species, but in practice the term is commonly applied to a
landscape-scale portion of any ecosystem complex, and in such usage, the terms
‘ecosystem’ and ‘habitat’ are largely interchangeable.
EY “Vit, bya ae Peery ee, Tete
Vie PROG: ie Koen ow Cag sak, Wipyeval ial = . = Se
er i : Wiis ry Gy O06 Le Salt ve :
fae “Hitt ol TE NT, NR PAD aha lait dbo 7
vite Popo. i ime “4 itn tote iets ks
‘ ‘ Ae : wl 7 " hip |
wien it ial a Suit bg ior ie ' £13
DAK a? oi Bis a} Pale: veo es neh ante: ee \.:,
edith cutie zh) Nat Vr ign’ as Peep aly Wii
Ife, fad ia K wnsTiNive ha er eel Haider |i ”
a ot ane a
gst ae bi Micaela aioe 4 ini.
1
oon. Me ie vs
im hi City, herria rad
“Eh wate
vad ish
OO ie Selena, tL ee
ai) fey ay an ;
a U7 giv win Vij aT) id ing’
hey .ane, ‘aa hyo fey ery
“itye ee ier co, WL ‘irene
WEAN abet eres ota a
: ae a ghd rss! ith he ae
ie ait if: a) %\ 24 ni =e): ae efi ne en 4
atthe at en a ly ox) reine Waka
philic netin( vi ml ahs
ae att 2rtiiivia ; 4
uti Pirie WTR Gere wily
odin, yh > Oo al at ’ ives
Jb 5
Sapa Saal a
CAMAMEAP Asia i) oh ofall
=n. —
Box 1. Definition of biological diversity (biodiversity) according to the Convention
on Biological Diversity (http://www.biodiv.org/):
Biological diversity means 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.
Biological resources includes genetic resources, organisms or parts thereof,
populations, or any other biotic component of ecosystems with actual or potential use
or value for humanity.
Habitat means the place or type of site where an organism or population naturally
occurs.
Protected area means a geographically defined area that is designated or regulated
and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives.
Sustainable use means 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.
> end of box
Structure of the report
The process of undertaking a biodiversity assessment can be conceived as a series of
stages:
= Identification of information needs
= Identification of different biodiversity values
= Assessment of existing information, and identification of information gaps
= Definition of what to measure, and how to measure it
= Development and implementation of a sampling programme
= Analysis and presentation of results
The report is structured according to these different stages.
The identification of biodiversity values is included here, as it is a key component of
any assessment, determing what is to be measured, and how. Different interest groups
identify and prioritise biodiversity values differently. For example, one contrast is
between “global values” — such as environmental services and intrinsic existence
values that accrue to all humanity — and “local values” held by the day-to-day
managers of biological diversity, whose concerns often prioritise direct use of the
goods that biodiversity provides. Assessments are based on such values. Many of the
current approaches to biodiversity assessment advocated by governments and
advisory bodies emphasise global over local values, a bias that is seldom made
explicit and is often not intended. Particular attention is therefore given in this report
to participatory methods of biodiversity assessment, which enable local values to be
incorporated in the assessment process.
he dei yar Oy Huger: Tie
nl > ae “1 an | wm i ‘ : d n j ‘ls > Chile
—s n
(a aaa ie sh sith Re 2 oii mo
BL eh a
a hy ¥ Eo 6 aaah i) rath a (Ps j DAP Wala i te a a
wide, mi BH
Powel
ce:
i : ae 2 < ;
~ Pay keith) be ee he ie RR ie
me oe ei ¢ ar
is
7
7
Pina
- _
Ee eal) horn Sola orgs yg PPT
tia rae had , patos ite aplty ae
oo
Gi - sila ‘ it di nie wy i (pis
wae
i ; : fj di pn are ia ee a
fs . hile - gers i aji fs i Pant
r a aa
nina ri, fi ine ae he
a py o-. Para e dcedy
Y ih i vee cy Hyatt regis) anh
yu? 7 4 Te. 1¢ é He wr erty spi
hasty) Wd} wi
; —
; rh
1 s
2. WHO NEEDS BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT?
The audience for biodiversity assessments is broad, and includes managers, planners,
policy-makers, decision-makers, educators and public-awareness builders, and
ultimately civil society itself. Such information users may include members of a
variety of different institutions, including governments (local and national), the
private sector, non-governmental organizations, local communities and
intergovernmental organizations. Within this overall structure it may be possible to
recognise a wide range of interest groups, some of which may overlap. Some of these
groups include providers as well as users of relevant information.
It is important to note that different types of user are likely to have somewhat different
information needs. A key element at the outset of any biodiversity assessment or
monitoring programme will be the definition of user needs, and an analysis of the uses
to which the information will be put. The following section outlines some of the most
important categories of users of biodiversity-related information and sets out what
their major requirements may comprise.
Biodiversity information needs of different users
Managers
This category includes a range of professionals responsible for natural resource
management, including:
= those who manage areas whose main aim is the maintenance of biodiversity;
=" those who manage various activities that exploit natural resources, such as
forestry, fisheries, game harvest or sport hunting;
= those who manage activities that may have collateral impact on biodiversity, such
as mining, farming, maintenance of waterways, outdoor sports including skiing,
off-road driving, climbing.
Increasingly, most managers have to deal with many different uses of any given area,
and are required to address the needs of a range of stakeholders. Their major
information needs are:
= information on the occurrence and frequency of natural resources and ecosystems,
and their use, within the area under the purview of the manager;
= contextual information indicating those aspects of the area that may have wider
importance eg. presence of nationally or globally threatened species, endemic
species, unique ecosystems, wildlife corridors;
= guidelines on best management practice, including evaluation of the limits of
sustainable use, and impact assessment.
Planners
At programme planning level, organisations need to be able to identify global,
regional and national level priorities for those activities that deal directly with
biological diversity. For this they require information on the occurrence and status of
globally or regionally important components of biological diversity in their own
country, or in the case of organisations with an international mandate, all those
countries in which they operate. Such components may include populations of
} alee hd
“ee a,
an Fr
NA? eT BaP oy Pare) AiR MER PASI
TAj el UL “fi Denier Di aut rth i
Oe ee tee a
a (i nale ian SNe) eikamiasien prlixcan
‘tle eiuidimme Tea, i
yes ethan Se ine (8 wea pines Linn LL
Bikes Gehan wae Hac aa en jes Po Sate;
| vere fs ah a irri a
) tpeitay ant We ‘toy ae
peat a) Yr tis falta woot
0 ett b pea tit ati
) hi in ay bial Ly Sie
i unary
lr dai ow
ad sate. stn i" tw
' igeiornat, Giee Wie Abs
cosets ast ‘Coen peli ene
sar WW sittin
i! austitihi ale E
Praeate
a 2 2 ee iv sec
et = hein 2A we ih “ty yi
a yt nyt awe aes oe aly ral lipee ct} sian ae
a a ak well dleanyo ul iit aig
threatened or endemic species, occurrence of unique ecosystems, wilderness areas,
areas of high diversity or of importance for particular groups of species (eg. Ramsar
wetland areas). Knowledge of potential impacts of human activity on biodiversity is
also needed.
Decision-makers
While in some circumstances, resource managers may have a considerable amount of
autonomy, they generally operate within a legislative and policy framework that is
established at a national or regional level. Decisions made at these levels can affect
biodiversity conservation within a country, and can also have an impact elsewhere, for
example though bilateral aid and trade policies. Higher level decision-makers usually
have little detailed knowledge of biodiversity. Typically, they depend on technical
advisors to provide them with targeted briefing documents summarising major issues,
within a national or international context. Technical advisors typically require
concise, accurate, synthesised information presented at national level and above.
Educators
There is a worldwide need for information on biodiversity and ecosystems for
educational purposes. Under Article 13 of the Convention on Biological Diversity,
Parties to the Convention — which comprise the great majority (c 180) of the world’s
countries — are obliged to promoie and encourage the understanding of the importance
of, and the measures required for, the conservation of biological diversity, as well as
the inclusion of these topics in educational programmes.
Information needs in education are very variable. Roughly, they can be divided into
requirements at the primary, secondary and tertiary level. Materials may be directly
aimed at specific syllabuses or may be more general. In the former case they often
need to be country specific, particularly at primary and secondary levels. Information
products may be designed differently for use by pupils or by educators. In all cases,
considerations of clarity of presentation and simplicity of language are paramount. At
tertiary level there is far more scope for more generic products, which can often be
detailed and of considerable technical complexity. In all cases, educational materials
should ideally be designed to have a relatively long life both materially and in terms
of content, as few educational establishments can afford rapid turnover.
Public-awareness builders
There is considerable overlap between education and public-awareness raising. In
particular, materials intended primarily for the latter may often be used in a more
strictly educational context. However, there are differences in emphasis and approach.
Most importantly, raising of public awareness depends strongly on timeliness and
initial impact. This particularly applies to information that is mediated through the
press, television or radio, where in general “newsworthiness” is a prime consideration.
Generally, the media also look for local (that is national or sometimes sub-national)
issues to which news items may be linked, unless the wider issue is considered of
global importance.
10
a a 7 hd ih Date ee acpi ( a meal
ies eta) phen igs nM apy) *
Fiteyts 2 a Ae le
fp
ce y
hth
ie
4
t
a
a
bic ah, | ip ay 7
: 7 ‘ : hy by:
o ; = Phare ae =:
Oia 6, e1n rr, y ara
- ;
af 7.
vei i .
Te ®
rn ee! ont eat ¥ rr a entire
etiirs: Co ce ri} A “nh iy
i id he } py ibe be “il i whee
beeen! iy isa mai dasks 958. nies /
Ribs nthe iy de tiring «his ta
i =
" « ei) -
pM se a Repens a i i
; .
aes, aa ‘3
ou Dig tinage ie eats, Sate fetta a
AV Teo gain
fre =i 4h beeen Geen o WS ahs aii,
m te al i, gael Soni 8
es Prigen: OUR? le T My
; ae as Ae Pe
Government departments
Government departments that deal directly with environmental and natural resource
issues have the most explicit need for information on ecosystems and other aspects of
biodiversity. These departments also generally recognise the need for such
information. However, many other sectors of government, including industry,
transport, trade and education, also have an impact on environmental issues, and
should therefore also be making use of biodiversity information. Often, however, the
importance of environmental information is not fully acknowledged within these
sectors, and as a result the incorporation of biodiversity information into decision-
making may be problematic.
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) and Aid agencies
The GEF is a facility for financing projects, using multilateral sources and operating
in conjunction with national stakeholders. All major bilateral and multilateral aid
agencies now engage to a greater or lesser degree with environmental issues. Most
include projects that directly address these issues as part of their portfolio. The World
Bank is the single most important multilateral aid agency.
Information needs of such organisations are quite complex, reflecting the several
dimensions in which they operate. They need to be able to influence policy, both
nationally and internationally, and respond to questions put to them by national
decision-makers. This is necessary in order to secure funding from national
exchequers, and approval for the policies and programmes undertaken. These
agencies also need to be able to explain the basis for their policies and programmes to
governments in countries in which they operate. They thus require information
appropriate to high-level decision-makers, as outlined above. At programme planning
level, they need to be able to identify global, regional and national level priorities for
those activities that deal directly with biological diversity. For those agencies that
implement projects on the ground, they also require specific management-level
information.
Non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
NGOs form an extremely heterogeneous group, with a wide range of constituencies
and aims, operating at all levels from the local the global. Their roles variously
include advocacy, education and raising of public-awareness, capacity-building and
implementation of field programmes and projects. Virtually all also have to engage in
fund-raising. Globally-operating NGOs that implement field programmes have the
most extensive information needs, which are essentially the same as those for aid
agencies outlined above. Important NGOs that operate at this level include WWF,
WRI, Conservation International, IUCN — the World Conservation Union (which is
also an IGO), WCS, FFI and the BirdLife network.
Local communities
Information on biodiversity may be required at very local scales, by the people who
depend on natural resources for their livelihoods, or by communities aiming to
conserve or sustainably manage biodiversity in areas close to where they live. Such
information may be needed to support decision-making, for example to assist the
development and implementation of management plans for communally owned lands,
or the allocation of areas to different forms of land use. Local communities may also
be important sources of information regarding the status, trends, values and uses of
3 — = a a f :
Seashore Teme ui, Sa hs HRT nadia gait | (ARaane) a ass fy yea din 7 Le 80mg
) ‘. 7 ‘ * + = 7
fay iP na Rae RE RE re aera Onis thi 2A ek oe) ys 7) PI otc a
Wea @
‘yhadiae ayel whom * wh thas Ail Fe ~ Mr aS: jas weremreae inst)
rl = ides hen ii hi lagen me a1) Se Gr ; [ eal |
sun a Ra AO) 2B nS unk Gaal
. ie eee : Re tg eal, ape re ;
ie ox -, oa i) 1 Ya em Bis aS iil a
ff oe ae i ae Gee wax PM al Saeed
’ P
ij bas - . ne, a (
' a ai, ai fot? Bay a Af . re. td , : ‘
ehh
agian ae
ves bale is
eT, Je oe iy Bed 0
-
aut -
7 7
i 7
Lol.
Al rAB es an Lit vieeddl :
natty.” » hativiiy
, a
im ry rats ap hic
meet
—-_
pe aie’ 2 0 yer
oa sv . Ni
Ore wien at
i a Ss
species and habitats with which they are familiar. Approaches to participatory
biodiversity assessment, involving the collection and use of biodiversity information
by local people, are considered on detail in a later section in this report.
The information needs of intergovernmental agreements and organisations
The major international entities that require information on biodiversity-related issues
are the multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and a number of the UN
agencies and processes, most importantly UNEP, FAO, UNESCO, UNDP, CSD and
the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF), and also the World Bank and the GEF (referred to
above). As with many of the other organizations discussed here, each of these may fill
a variety of roles. In many cases they are not strictly the end-users of information but
are responsible for the compilation and synthesis of information for presentation to
member governments and civil society (notable exceptions are those that act as
implementing agencies for environmental programmes and projects on the ground; in
this context, their information requirements are similar to those of aid agencies
outlined above). Nevertheless, they all have information requirements which in many
cases cannot be met internally and, as discussed further below, may have important
procedural constraints on the ways in which information is obtained and presented.
Overall, they are undoubtedly among the most significant global-level users of
information on biodiversity.
The main global MEAs relating to biodiversity are:
# The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
* The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
=" The UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)
= The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention)
= The World Heritage Convention
= The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)
= The Convention on Migratory Species (Bonn Convention)
In addition there is a wide range of regional agreements (eg. the UNEP regional seas
conventions and their associated protocols, CCAMLR, the Bern Convention on
European Habitats) and those dealing with particular aspects of natural resource use
(International Tropical Timber Agreement, UN Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks
and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks).
Information requirements of the CBD
Of all the MEAs, the Convention on Biological Diversity has the most explicit
mandate to make use of information on all aspects of biodiversity. Under Article 25,
its Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) is
charged with providing the Conference of the Parties (COP) with scientific and
technical assessments of the status of biological diversity, in accordance with
guidelines laid down by the COP.
As it has evolved, the CBD has envisaged assessments undertaken within each of the
thematic work programmes under the Convention, following the ecosystem approach,
eee.
RiMreeyrs | mine apa ayy | a4
el Eat Bi py ane , :
v naigil-as 30 8 ve yd & ol ne seer th tie ‘ iow Sei
‘OF
= ‘
ris has ise All neon re Te ips) Yel ie untearromatzat Ss
/ sf I ihe : ;
Ahihiciew EP Ph shear auhe au rial Cr it ies cy Boyt 5 itor. pion
Mig ait i i 0 iBE ¥ pi tah ree Ree Ag ich Oey
Da Aili el Ale oye Tat ey: ie fait BY Seep aad Sa alla
af er nsf Wpeared sala 4 I ve lig fn : pat? «ft
aR Hit. = t shea iy Sage C laslicibit gt
4 pare canst she iG ended ten
Re Mme eS ee
7 psi athe whi 8 enous oak fi
ricgtibubray, es ois:
Ae ic. Tomo d eg
BPRS Ce iy. RieRs
u
ety hie, spate tial y
ae
o
me
wiht Sees eres vt q
ies Wels Tele
eneaah > os dont je
bepthaanbe i
7 wey eee tieY ie 4.
ut
which has been adopted as the fundamental paradigm of the Convention's
implementation. The major thematic work programmes cover:
= marine and coastal biological diversity
* inland water biological diversity
* forest biological diversity
* agricultural biological diversity
= dry and sub-humid lands
It is expected that a work programme on mountain ecosystems will be established at
the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties, probably to be held in 2004.
Each work programme calls for assessments of the state of biodiversity within that
ecosystem type to be made (and in the case of agriculture, on the effects of
agricultural practices on biodiversity in other ecosystem types). Each is formulated in
a somewhat different way. Thus the work programme for agricultural biological
diversity calls for country-driven assessments while that for inland water biological
diversity indicates that SBSTTA should have primary responsibility for carrying out
the assessment. The Secretariat of the Convention is responsible for any assessments
of marine and coastal biological diversity. An ad hoc technical expert group has been
established on forest biological diversity, which is mandated to carry out an
assessment of the status of, and trends in, forest biological diversity. It is generally
stated that assessments should make use of existing information and be carried out in
cooperation with relevant organisations.
The CBD requested contracted parties to systematically report on Articles 5 to 26 of
the Convention, via national reports. This is achieved by answering a series of
questions, relating to the implementation of each of the articles of the Convention
within each country. Article 7 of the Convention, ‘identification and monitoring’, is
the only article that specifically relates to monitoring. Countries are requested to
indicate whether they have ecosystem or species monitoring programmes in place, are
developing national biodiversity indicators or are co-operating with other parties to
demonstrate assessment and indicator methodologies. The reporting process for this
Convention is evolving and becoming more precise, something that is likely to
continue, increasing the need for information on status and trends in biodiversity to be
collected at the national scale.
The Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) is now following in the steps of the
CBD, with the development of clearer information guidelines. Many of the other key
global wildlife and biodiversity conventions, such as the Ramsar Convention, World
Heritage Convention and Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) are
working together to harmonize their reporting processes, providing clearer direction
regarding the information required to show that the obligation is being met. Clearer
guidelines and improved information will provide a better opportunity to inform the
global community about the state of the world’s environment, pressures being placed
upon it and responses to reduce or combat such pressures. However, progress has
been limited to date.
jag
amy Tiny er iewine
it Oe rede Be
> Text Box:
Requirements of the CBD relating to biodiversity assessment and monitoring.
Article 7 of the Convention requires that each Contracting Party shall, as far as
possible and as appropriate,
(a) Identify components of biological diversity important for its conservation and
sustainable use having regard to the indicative list of categories set down in Annex
I, namely:
e Ecosystems and habitats: containing high diversity, large numbers of endemic
or threatened species, or wilderness; required by migratory species; of social,
economic, cultural or scientific importance; or, which are representative,
unique or associated with key evolutionary or other biological processes;
e Species and communities which are: threatened; wild relatives of domesticated
or cultivated species; of medicinal, agricultural or other economic value; or
social, scientific or cultural importance; or importance for research into the
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, such as indicator
species; and
e Described genomes and genes of social, scientific or economic importance.
(b) Monitor, through sampling and other techniques, the components of biological
diversity identified pursuant to subparagraph (a) above, paying particular attention to
those requiring urgent conservation measures and those which offer the greatest
potential for sustainable use;
(c) Identify processes and categories of activities which have or are likely to have
significant adverse impacts on the conservation and sustainable use of biological
diversity, and monitor their effects through sampling and other techniques; and
(d) Maintain and organize, by any mechanism data, derived from identification and
monitoring activities pursuant to subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) above.
Source: http://www. biodiv.org.
> End of text box
Information requirements of other major MEAs
The other MEAs have more specific, and sometimes indirect, information
requirements:
The Climate Change Convention's major interest is in carbon sequestration and the
role of different ecosystem types, particularly forests, in this process. It too has a
subsidiary body charged with providing the Conference of the Parties with scientific
advice.
14
‘, Ce te wake fy Pentohee ces
‘Ag ripen one
' Py srt Lt. Foe oe
% 7
Age
y i
" -
7 uh
Pn | inj ity Gack eet
it a The a "yj seq li eflyal * ie
i
a ‘A
ay
Saal
The World Heritage Convention requires contextual information by which to judge
submissions of sites for inclusion in the list of World Heritage Sites, specifically in
this case with regard to sites of biological importance. It also monitors the status of
World Heritage Sites to determine whether they should be included in the list of sites
in danger.
CITES requires information on the status of species included in its appendices (and in
which international trade is prohibited or monitored) and, periodically, on the status of
species proposed for inclusion in the appendices. In particular, it requires information
on the impact of harvest for international trade of such species. Theoretically, under
Article IV it also requires information on the role of Appendix-II listed species in
their respective ecosystems, although this requirement is rarely exercised in practice.
The Bonn Convention requires information on the status of those species listed in its
two appendices, and particularly those in Appendix I. This includes information on
the status of important sites and migratory routes for those species.
The Ramsar Convention needs information on the status of inland aquatic species and
ecosystems, particularly those used to judge whether a given site is of international
importance. It also needs more detailed information on the state of Ramsar sites
themselves, and on sites proposed for classifying as Ramsar sites. There is
considerable overlap between this convention’s information needs and those of the
inland waters programme under the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The Convention to Combat Desertification needs information on the status of
“susceptible drylands”, that is, areas of arid or semi-arid land (excluding hyperarid
regions) that are susceptible to land degradation. In this respect, there is much overlap
between the needs of this convention and of the work programme on dry and sub-
humid lands of the Convention on Biological Diversity. However, the focus of the
UNCCD is very strongly on sustainable development, so that its information needs are
tailored more specifically towards an understanding of the role of land degradation on
poverty and human needs in dryland areas.
A strengthened international policy context for biodiversity assessment and
monitoring: the 2010 target
The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), convened in 2002,
recognised that despite the progress made since the 1992 Earth Summit, biodiversity
is still being lost at a high rate. While the WSSD did not create any new international
processes to remedy this, it endorsed existing international commitments such as the
UN Millennium Declaration and those arising from the Convention on Biological
Diversity, which held its sixth Conference of the Parties in April 2002. At this
meeting, through Zhe Hague Ministerial Declaration and the Strategic Plan for the
Convention (Decision VI/26), Parties committed themselves to a target of a significant
reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national
level by 2010, as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on
earth. This target was further endorsed at WSSD.
Agiay jet
jon rit
BE ctsticangt: uh’ ee
; mos Epa bia scabrs
Soave ants aa Pal Pee
i I mative nett lst
a ”
yl. re cig add Mis: whines: 0
: eet aana tian
ital 9X, et CAL ute sa fier he
i 7
dena orpugrry Voi
ba” ii i mat Bev
br brafienai
ba 1) “ny ic tn yvé
+e mene fi MAT eared
~ Lip tto: bw TH ish) tte
ata paler treme bites:
ale ps wa dave art Ay ae ae ’
Seah tesawebary Hagel hah :
af rt bri Aa! Praean ange
v Sr wsipwly ay Ginn S
re gage nore Fea
ore! bibl a e
[ee abs a Lange su i
a
a welsh pte ait ii) : on
ss iicdiah Ra rig, (raw:
LL se val o@et
Arce s 7! 5~" Sila
eal A pales
Geo Hire oe Sede
Ag i ri i “ it ens bee ¥
ATEN AOR) fn et 4 sy
pores Ce
Raldierereap see) tsledtiraters ota
Me py tata =e ‘\ aaainatinas
é
BD ke
For the first time, therefore, a global consensus has been reached in establishing a
major biodiversity target, and in setting a date (2010) by which that target should be
met. As the global community will need ascertain whether this target has been met,
these policy developments strengthen the need for biodiversity assessment and
monitoring. In particular, information will be required on the rates of biodiversity loss
at global, regional and national levels, in order to allow assessment of the change in
that rate between now and 2010. In addition, it may be necessary to define what
should be measured, and how. The current report has been prepared to help address
such questions.
5 si re | ni
Mi) alieg
3. HOW MAY BIODIVERSITY BE VALUED?
Introduction
Biodiversity is a good example of a resource that is often managed locally, but is also
subject to much wider claims as a public good — often a public good valued for the
diffuse actual or potential value to all humanity around the world. As public concerns
about biodiversity management grow, so there is increasing demand for
communication between local and global approaches to valuing, and hence managing,
biodiversity.
Evaluating, or assessing, a resource is a fundamental prerequisite for its effective
management. Approaches to biodiversity assessment depend ultimately on underlying
social values. Sometimes there are stark differences between the values that local
people see to accrue locally, and what is valued for the public good. These
differences are reflected in the ways that biological variety 1s described and evaluated.
Biodiversity assessments are not merely an outcome of different sets of values and
different ways of managing ecosystems. They are also a potentially a very useful tool
for facilitating communication among these different approaches. In recent decades,
there has been a growing awareness that management of natural resources is more
efficient, sustainable and equitable when done locally. The primary framework for the
implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), is the “ecosystem
approach”, which endorses principles of negotiated local governance and adaptive
management (see later).
Shared, adaptive decision-making over management of ecosystems requires better
communication. For biodiversity assessment this means at best, joint evaluation, and
at least a mutual understanding and agreement about how the variety of life is
measured. This section explores how multiple values attached to biodiversity may be
integrated in a biodiversity assessment process.
The primary purpose of biodiversity assessments is to provide the sort of information
to decision-makers that facilitates more effective management of biodiversity and
associated resources. Perhaps the most important of these decision-makers, in terms of
how much they value and how much they influence biodiversity, are the most direct
users and managers: farmers and other people whose livelihoods depend immediately
on the variation and variability of biological resources. People have been assessing
biodiversity for millennia, often in ways that are not documented or accessible by
outsiders.
As biological resources became scarcer relative to human populations, claims have
been made for biodiversity as a global good. Over the past century, the perception
that the benefits of biodiversity accrue globally has given rise to a strong international
conservation lobby and a swathe of international processes and agreements that refer
to biodiversity. As noted earlier, many of these agreements require signatories to
conduct some form of biodiversity assessment. Signatories are national governments,
who are subject to both national and international interests. The rising interest in
biodiversity assessment has not been confined to governments. The private sector too
has had to comply increasingly with environmental criteria that include standards for
17
nn. part re ui
: enrae nf
Maia es jw ae fail
ih male = ‘apt a * axl We by
vy UO A oe ca
ay. "vs 7 ta hai
maida, ae ahi ira dyahs
ae ihe
Aajittins Nip:
a a idles won ts
, beatin stabi Mio’ ] a4
Pal ee itn ' -@ -i-ie al
“ 71 by 2 perma ’
etal sa! \ rant or. ne
Chub ee ail afta
Te )) ee eae ee
a a wal
bP Manele.
id afew Unad iy
D witeas © Jolt ala
h egie Agseieiet, h
hw peed Ri ;
es hall aa ae m4 .
biodiversity, and companies have also been able to take advantage of new commercial
opportunities for managing and monitoring biodiversity.
For all stakeholders, management of biodiversity is increasingly about interacting
with other interest groups, in particular interest groups made up of local residents and
resource users. The shift towards acknowledging the authority of local groups to
analyse, plan, negotiate and act in the management of biodiversity is borne out by the
“ecosystem approach” adopted by the Conference of Parties of the CBD. The
operational guidelines of the ecosystem approach are based on 12 principles that
explicitly acknowledge the trade-offs between local and global biodiversity values
and advocate an inclusive and pragmatic approach to decision-making (Box 2).
International agreements naturally do not guarantee agreement or action at the local
scales that matter, but at least in principle a large number of national governments are
committed to work towards decentralised and collaborative modes of biodiversity
management. Inter-governmental and non-governmental bodies are also responding
to this challenge. How then can methods for assessing biodiversity be made useful as
tools in exchange of information among stakeholders, or in shared decision-making?
18
‘
ange ee
DS Pant ids ?0e
F , " 4
yy iti Sl r=
= t~
apm a of
WD th
4
Box 2. Principles of the Ecosystem Approach
The following 12 principles are complementary and interlinked.
Principle 1: The objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a matter of
societal choices.
Principle 2: Management should be decentralised to the lowest appropriate level.
Principle 3: Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual or potential) of their activities
on adjacent and other ecosystems.
Principle 4: Recognising potential gains from management, there is usually a need to understand and
manage the ecosystem in an economic context. Any such ecosystem-management programme should:
a) Reduce those market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity;
b) Align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use;
c) Internalise costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible.
Principle 5: Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, in order to maintain ecosystem
services, should be a priority target of the Ecosystem Approach.
Principle 6: Ecosystems must be managed within the limits of their functioning.
Principle 7: The Ecosystem Approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal
scales.
Principle 8: Recognising the varying temporal scales and lag-effects that characterize ecosystem
processes, objectives for ecosystem management should be set for the long term.
Principle 9: Management must recognise that change is inevitable.
Principle 10: The Ecosystem Approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and integration
of, conservation and use of biological diversity.
Principle 11: The Ecosystem Approach should consider all forms of relevant information, including
scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices.
Principle 12: The Ecosystem Approach should involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific
disciplines.
Source: CBD 2002
Biodiversity assessments arise from many different motives, contexts and cultures.
But the many approaches to biodiversity assessment have some basic common
features, such as frameworks of time and space, and reliance on observation of only a
small sub-set of the facets of biological variety and variability. Each of the stages
involved in implementing a biodiversity assessment requires a decision, essentially a
prioritisation of what matters more and what matters less: a value judgment. Choices
must be made about which organisms or processes to measure, and what to measure
about them. The complexity of the natural world means that there is no single
universal objective measure of biodiversity. Instead, all measurements and
assessments of biodiversity are predicated on value judgments about which facets of
biodiversity matter more and which matter less.
19
d fi 4h exper canine
ee
Bris We
at
il a featey. m ’
mn
, 2 ead. sine
re
aeina\|
ee) alts ns
re ee ong
‘prvatn
n
f
api ig j
<=
wale
a
J na (i
Values of biodiversity
What is biodiversity good for?
Biodiversity may be considered as a provider of goods and services to people, rather
than being simply equivalent to biological resources (Box 6). These goods and
services can be grouped into three categories — direct use, indirect use and non-use
values (Table 1).
Box 6. Biodiversity values versus biological resource values
The valuation of biodiversity has often been based on the assumption that biological
resources are “the physical manifestation” of biodiversity. Thus, the value of
biodiversity has often been taken as equal to that of the value of biological resources.
However, if biodiversity is taken to represent the diversity of biological resources
rather than the biological resources themselves, the value of one will not necessarily
be equivalent to the value of the other. Aylward (1991) argues that valuing
biodiversity as biological resources has meant that the role of biodiversity per se is
actually overlooked in land use decision making. For example, consider two
competing land use investment alternatives with the same biological resource values
and the same direct costs. Plan A maintains a high level of diversity and Plan B a
low level of diversity. If these two plans are compared on the basis of their
biological resource value then there will be no discernible difference between the
two plans. The value of diversity therefore needs to be made explicit to make the
optimal land use decision in these kinds of cases.
The relationship between biodiversity and the provision of goods and services to
people is poorly understood. Empirical evidence linking biodiversity with direct
benefits of increased or more stable yields, indirect benefits such as watershed
protection or carbon sequestration, or option values of present or yet-to-evolve
organisms, is scanty. Much of the challenge is methodological, as experiments on
biodiversity are costly and difficult to generalise to other (or more complex)
situations. Although it is difficult to quantify the benefits of more biologically diverse
compared to less diverse systems, there is a general consensus about the kinds of
goods and services that can be provided by biodiversity:
= Direct use values of biodiversity accrue from the benefits of a wider range of raw
materials (e.g. foodstuffs, medicines, building materials and fodder for livestock).
Often the most valuable aspects of biodiversity as a direct use are associated with
supply of food resources during critical periods of time when staples are not
available (e.g. dry seasons or droughts).
= Indirect use values of biodiversity are mostly associated with the environmental
services that biodiversity sometimes enhances. More diverse ecosystems may be
better providers of stable and effective microclimate regulation, protection from
erosion, or other services. A perhaps underestimated indirect use value of greater
biodiversity is protection from predators, parasites and diseases.
fe
mt theta poet
oe rent hgh GBM
4 Ii am Dy ; an , > j ? = path, : pinot > ‘ sis j hry he
pie
P on ~ we Deiat sh ih ‘a
teeny oh ah by cis ae tee
Pree mere j ies bing’ ety t
ea ao =. Fh ee +
Filanes) it wie abe 4S Sawaicl 5
‘ cat emt? El ey iia sal
rn fie i
Tie ae Cea
ea pie i it me a witeee ie ;
matty Oh ag Heo ania cha i
Bh hi vise en “lye ns whys
ho ee = pt aot it,
: wile aes fe ang faye cine
Dita) Ae dap i
in ad ours ele etry ‘esi «hog,
> aS “io aoc DHiee, wl cba bi
/ ats ac eine hay eerie ssi nily> dota a Aaa
A apres: adit gis. 1) yy elt: lacah oe
Po
praggaert) } Ay 8 hs rt fh i
* Non-use values of biodiversity consist primarily of the option to use biological
resources in the future (Table 1). More diverse communities of plants and animals
offer a greater variety of potential future uses as well as a greater capacity to
evolve new forms and processes. Also included as a non-use value is the concept
of intrinsic value, which some consider to override all other biodiversity values.
A consideration of the different values of biodiversity provides a framework for
appreciating the different meanings of biodiversity to different people and at different
times. The various values of biodiversity can augment or compete with each other,
and augment or compete with other direct, indirect or non-use values of biological
resources. There may also be trade-offs between biodiversity values and the non-
biological values associated with alternative land uses. Various stakeholders will rank
these sets of competing values differently. Stakeholders’ assessments are strengthened
as decision-making tools by clear links between what they measure and what they
value about biodiversity. Trade-offs in biodiversity values are considered in more
detail in the following section.
: rs oe ¥
cae Cur er
we i?
eedia! &
my
eo
onaysoy
suasouyjed
ysurese
uonoajo1g
SOOIAIOS
wa}sksooq
orumouoog
onoysoy
jemunds
OISULQU]
SATLULIOJSUBI |
ortydorg
NUTS
[eo1s0[00q
AVA [RID0S
dIWUOUON
OISULQUT uondo
ysonbaq ammseayd
pue uondg | pue sonayjsoy
eontpodoan ({eo1d0]099) SOOIAIOS
eorsojoogq | asn yoarpuy | peyuouuOMAUA
asn
proyasnoy
JOYALU [RIOT
oy IeUI
jeuoisay | (aTqepe.n pue
y10dxa doudjsIsqns) dANONpolg
jeuoneusajuy | asn 0911 aandumsuod
Loot Wud
9661 S9BABL
1007 1D
8661 J99IdS
pue
u0jsey
OISULNUT
uondo
“SON[RA ISN JOOIIPUT YI asay aUTquIOS
sioyjne yeRIoAgg ‘(anjeA olsuLnu) sueumy o. AHN
JO Ssa[piedo1 JSIXd 0] pamoT[e aq pynoys swuaysXsooa
pue sustuesi0 yuaroyjIp Jey) jJorjaq oy} pue ‘(anjea
jsonbaq) suoneiaues aimyny 0} ysonbaq ‘(anyea uondo)
juoredde ourosaq sasn se ‘ainjny ay) ul AjISIOAIPOIg JO
s}a0Rj asn 0} uoNdo ay) :syuauodwOs samy) apnjour asay.y
Areuonnoaa
/ [euoNRULIOJUT
SOOIAIOS
[eyuotWUOIAU
ayqepel
a0Ud}sISqns
1007 Il9!Z0M
‘UOTRULIOJ [IOS pure Ayyenb Jaye ‘Aypenb sre ‘ayeurrys Jo
uonR[Ndar sev ons ‘saotAsas [eJUatWUOMAUS ATJURUTOpeid
oie asoyy ‘suraq-jjam uewmny yoddns yey} sapraoid
AJISIOATPOIQ SOdIAIOS AULT OY} WOIJ dATIOP asoyL
“op yey aso}
WOIJ JOYILW Y) 19]Ua JOU OP Jey] Spoos ysinsunsip 0}
sonyea (a]qepe. 10) aA Onpoid pue sanjea (asn proyssnoy
JO) a0ua}sisqns udeMjoqg paplarp Ayjuonbay oie sonjea
asn joaNq ‘awoour pue y)yeoy ‘von Nnu SurAocidut
Aq gduexa 10J ‘spooyryear s,afdoad 0) Apoormp
SOINGLIUOD APISIOATPOTG YOIYA\ UT SABA\ dY]} WIADUOD asay T.
uondiossag
HSO-NON
qsn
LOFYIGNI
ASN LOI
Sd1.1039}8D
*(ULI9} Stes oY} Aq SSUTYY
JUDIOJJIP SOUITJOUIOS UU SIOYINE JUIOJJIP — JOwxo JOU dv ssoUdpUOdsa.10 ‘g’N) ‘sIOYINE JUSIAIJIP 0} Surps1o0dsov AjISIOATPOIg JO sanjeA ‘| IQEL
rr nga 5 Sh Le eee ote pt reac TaeG ae
2 SS >? AA oie au ai ee lip at |
nee ne, WA
— af)
|
|
Global values and local values: whose count?
Biodiversity is a moving target: its manifold facets, ever dynamic, confer numerous
and sometimes competing goods and services. All humans value direct use, indirect
use and non-use values of these goods and services in some way, but the specifics of
those values are also liable to change over time, and vary considerably among the
people that hold them. Different people can be expected not only to have very
different understandings of what biodiversity means, but also to prioritise the various
facets of diversity differently, and to make different judgments on the trade-offs
between biodiversity and non-biodiversity values. The values that people attach to
biodiversity will affect the ways in which biodiversity is assessed, and in turn the land
use and natural resource management decisions that are based on these assessments.
Management of biodiversity may therefore be subject to competing perceptions,
claims and priorities, and the choice of assessment methods may also be subject to
disagreement. However, the ways in which biodiversity assessments reflect different
sets of values, and the links between these sets of values and management decisions,
are often not explicit. One of the root causes of the lack of transparency in the
biodiversity debate is the poor empirical understanding of how biodiversity delivers
goods and services, noted earlier. Under these circumstances, a sensible management
policy is the “precautionary principle” (Myers 1993), suggesting that where there are
threats, we should not wait for full scientific knowledge before taking steps to protect
the environment. The precautionary principle tends to guide management of
biodiversity to the extent that the terms “biodiversity” and “conservation” are almost
synonymous, at least at global and national levels. In the absence of understanding
which facets of biodiversity maintain which direct and indirect use values,
conservation of the broadest range possible of ecosystem and taxonomic diversity is
considered the best way to maintain benefits to production, environmental services
and options for the future. These benefits accrue ultimately to everyone on earth, and
thus can be described as “global values”.
For the vast majority of the world’s population who are poor and rural, these global
values matter, but may not matter as much as more immediate goods and services
gained from biodiversity locally, or “local values” (Box 8). This difference in
emphasis translates directly into different priorities for management of land and
biological resources. For example, given the choice between 100 ha of a globally rare
type of forest or 50 ha of that forest and 50 ha of diverse cropland, global values
would prioritise the first option and local values the second, even if some measures of
biodiversity (such as plant species diversity) were identical.
Box 8. Some features of local biodiversity values, with illustrative examples
» Biodiversity is especially important as a contribution to food security. In the Altiplano Andes of
southern Bolivia, each family cultivates 3-4 varieties of quinoa belonging to two main groups: (a)
varieties of high productivity in good years and (b) varieties of high resistance to frosts, pests and
other environmental pressures, that yield a minimum production even in a bad year (Gari 1999).
= The frontier between wild and domesticated biodiversity is dynamic. African crops and livestock
remain closely enough related to their locally occurring wild relatives that gene exchange
continues. Minor crops and “weeds” make critical contributions to food security, particularly in
marginal environments, and farmers regularly experiment with cultivation of “new” species
TH
ac?
aN adit
ferent
(Blench 1997).
* Links between the diversity of resources (species and genetic diversity) and the diversity in
supporting processes (ecological diversity) are well recognised. The Damara people of Namibia
base their timetables and techniques for harvesting a wide range of grass seeds on detailed
knowledge of the habitats and habits of the various harvester ants that store the seeds in nests
(Sullivan 1999).
= Maintenance of biodiversity at the community level may be more important than diversity
maintained by individuals or households. In Idere, western Nigeria, individual farmers specialise
in favourite crops — perhaps indigenous tobacco, a particular green vegetable, or tangerines — and
make use of local exchange to maintain diversity in their own consumption (Guyer 1996).
There are some noteworthy contrasts between global and local biodiversity values
(Table 2). In particular, global values link conservation primarily with indirect
(environmental service) and non-use (option and existence) values of biodiversity
rather than with direct use values. Sustainable use of biodiversity tends to be seen as
a pragmatic, but not ideal, means to achieve conservation via compromise with local
direct use values of the biological resources and their diversity — impacts on global
direct use values are seldom mentioned. Meanwhile, local biodiversity values, of all
kinds, remain poorly documented and poorly represented in the global political arena.
Table 2. Differences between global and local biodiversity values
GLOBAL LOCAL
Indirect use and non-use values are Direct use values as important or more
primary concerns important than indirect use and non-use
Emphasis on conservation, with or Emphasis on sustainable use
without sustainable use
Usually no specified user groups Specified user groups
Endemics (species that occur locally Endemics no more important than other
only) and other rare species given high | Species
values
Focus on genotypes (genetic Focus on phenotypes (observable
information) qualities)
Wild and agricultural diversity treated | No clear boundary between wild and
separately agricultural biodiversity
Biodiversity assessment as advocated and practised by national and international
bodies — including governments, the private sector and NGOs — is overwhelmingly
P ¢ at J
Ba uf vd
re al
nie
as
a hy
predicated on global values, dominated by implicit conservation goals based on the
precautionary principle. There are perhaps two main reasons for this. One is the
strong influence of the international conservation lobby. The other is the absence of
information on local biodiversity values, and a more fundamental dearth of
appropriate methods to assess biodiversity in terms of these values.
Many institutions, such as national governments and bilateral donor agencies, are
anxious to perform biodiversity assessments that are more useful to decision-making,
cost-effective, representative and communicable among different interest groups.
One of the biggest challenges is integrating measures of biodiversity that reflect the
various values placed on it by different people. The gulf between global and local
values is most apparent, but there are many other levels of contrasting values that may
be difficult to weigh up against each other or to integrate (Box 9). Rather than
holding simple sets of global and local values, real stakeholders fit into a suite of
competing and complementary groupings. The diversity of a single forest, for
instance, might interest local people, national, provincial and village-level
governments, farmers’ unions, traditional rights activists, pharmaceutical firms,
logging companies, tourism businesses and environmental groups.
The following sections of this report explore opportunities for integrating local and
global values. A pluralist approach for every biodiversity assessment is not necessary,
nor are local values inherently more important than global values. However, practical
decisions about land use and natural resource management would benefit from
biodiversity assessments that, case by case, make explicit decisions about which
values to incorporate, then use these decisions to shape the process of decision-
making throughout the assessment cycle.
Tools to assess biodiversity in terms of local values
National and international policy processes (notably the CBD) are creating demand
for assessment of local biodiversity values. What is needed is not so much a means
for people to assess local biodiversity for themselves, but a means to communicate
their values and assessment of local biodiversity to other stakeholders. A number of
methods, mostly external in origin, are now emerging as potential tools to evaluate
biodiversity as it is perceived locally in ways that are meaningful to outsiders. Here
some of the most promising approaches are briefly described.
Ethnobotany
Ethnobotany is the study of how cultural groups classify and use plants.
Ethnobotanical surveys typically produce annotated checklists of local plant species,
detailing their local uses and names in various languages. The usual aim is to be as
comprehensive and as accurate as possible, which means that ethnobotanical
checklists can be invaluable sources of information about local use of plants of
different types. Information linking biodiversity to local livelihoods can also be
included, such as indications of which plants are used in carpentry, herbal medicine,
domestic cooking (firewood and food) and so on (e.g. Dounias et al. 2000; Pandey
and Kumar 2000).
sy
ere) yn
; J yo cagh P| Line!
Jr. cella iia ne
te and esa i Pus = orf
ay peeve ete orf tae
aria) i 7A :
ui eit: - SF iSull dike) esta
> pti wy YS thee, bpaee The onc Pein
ae chins au ie ie eae yatta x reat
uy ile HN Aspro Elta a sib Lenco 509
bat, yok thine é Canal tore fraser ‘ fraeat
ss fer Sia a welt: oth ah
: a. 4 rw a ye: sy te De
Fated ‘ks or ne
Kah ideals xi wii,
: pik: al
P oe qolastynr bf
Senor of
A major advantage of ethnobotanical checklists is that they present information
largely in the terms of local people, for instance without drawing false distinctions
between “wild” and “cultivated” species. Ethnobotanical studies have also revealed
some fascinating general principles, for example that all over the world
ethnobiological systems of classification are based primarily on the affinities that
humans observe among the taxa themselves, quite independent of the actual cultural
significance and uses of those taxa (Berlin 1992).
In general, ethnobotanical studies are not conducted with the primary aim of
informing local or national policy. The usefulness of simple checklists as assessments
of local biodiversity utilisation and values may be limited by the absence of
prioritisation among species. Furthermore, they do not usually include estimates of
abundance and they tend to deal only with species diversity without reference to
genetic or ecological diversity. Despite these kinds of technical limitations,
ethnobotanical checklists can provide a good starting point for more detailed
quantitative or qualitative assessments of biodiversity in terms of local values. Of
course, ethnobotanical data can feed into quantitative statistical analyses or other
discriminatory techniques (Hoft et al. 1999). However, there remains an ethical
challenge in that publication of local knowledge about plants and their uses without
full permission can constitute an infringement of intellectual property rights.
Ecological anthropology
Case studies by ecological anthropologists can provide much deeper understanding of
local biodiversity values than any of the other methods described here. Ecological
anthropologists investigate the links between human beings and their environments,
or how culture and nature are interdependent in the broadest sense. Their holistic
approach draws on sociology, economics and biology, though with an emphasis on
qualitative rather than quantitative perspectives. Not surprisingly, work in this field
draws attention to both cultural and biological diversity.
Over time, ecological anthropology has moved from a paradigm of materialism, in
which human culture is interpreted as a product of adaptations to our natural
environment, towards a less deterministic and more historical approach. Furthermore,
many ecological anthropologists now present their work in an explicitly political
context, as constructive critiques of prevailing environmental policy. For example, a
careful study in Africa has refuted the popular concept of “virgin” rainforest and
shown instead that human beings have practised shifting cultivation over wide areas
of forest for thousands of years (Fairhead and Leach 1996). This kind of evidence has
implications for the level of human activity allowable in protected areas.
Through their particular interest in the cultures of societies who live close to nature,
ecological anthropologists regularly act as a voice for poor rural people to the outside
world. This role is strengthened by the strenuous efforts that anthropologists make to
articulate peoples’ own perceptions of their environments. For instance, a recent
study in Namibia reveals not only the extensive use and trade among women of a
wide variety of perfumed plants, an “invisible” resource to official natural resource
holt apoaeen aK
frites ‘
t aon tipelg 5
rales
agen “Age i
Pedal daa
=e
mi : uo sai at rol
Vernigt 7
managers, but also conveys the importance that women attach to. these plants and their
preparation, as manifestations of their identity and autonomy (Sullivan 2000).
To summarize, ecological anthropology tends to be skills-intensive, labour-intensive
and academic, but very useful in providing critical insights into local systems of
interaction with biodiversity that can inform more standardised assessment
methodologies and provide a wider perspective of value than can be expressed in
formal economic terms (see below).
Participatory rural appraisal
PRA methodologies are now well known and used throughout the world. They
comprise selections of tools to elicit group knowledge and perceptions — tools such as
maps, time-lines, transect walks and ranking exercises — used to guide and stimulate
discussion. Ideally, the methods are introduced by outsiders but become co-opted and
adapted by local people into ongoing planning processes. The methods can also be
useful to provide other decision-makers, including regional and national policy-
makers, with a practical understanding of how the day-to-day managers of
biodiversity use and value their natural environments. PRA has the capacity to draw
attention to facts obvious to local people but obscure to outsiders. For instance, PRA
can demonstrate how availability of useful species is not simply a function of their
abundance per area (as measured in scientific biodiversity assessments) but also of the
many factors that limit access to resources, such as tenure rights, seasonality or
proximity to roads or paths.
During the 1990s, a great deal of research effort was put into applying the principles
of PRA to economic valuation techniques (see below) in order to evaluate the total
value of goods and services provided by biological resources to local people. The
rationale was that formal methods tend to ignore the wide suite of goods and services
that are not marketed in the monetary economy (dubbed the “hidden harvest” by Guijt
et al. 1995) and the multiple values co-existing within a single community. The new
participatory valuations not only incorporated a wider range of biodiversity and
functions of biodiversity, as valued locally, but also drew attention to some of the
shortcomings of conventional economic assumptions, for example that households
seek to maximise economic welfare, rather than, say, social obligation (Guijt and
Hinchcliffe 1998). Put to best use, PRA techniques are a means of empowerment, for
example by giving communities tools to track the sustainability of local development
(Lee-Smith 1996).
PRA also has several limitations. Direct comparison between questionnaire-based
and participatory valuations suggests that many of the claims made for PRA, such as
its superior capacity to capture real behaviour and attitudes, are overstated (Davies et
al. 1999). Another important problem is that while PRA expresses data in an easily
accessible, often visual, format, national-level policy-makers can find micro-macro
linkages difficult to make from what appears as very locally specific information. To
date participatory valuation has focussed on individual resources, treating biodiversity
as the sum of these rather than as the added value of variety and variability. A further
need might be to elicit to what extent this bias reflects local perceptions of
Rhoades seats vet 236
7 Ane purtthiae Weee fuses lett. ¥! “a a re 1 owe
aii
u ¥ Airhead: oles Ay. y , ‘ ;
yon! gust (pkeiedsd. rae EY eo oe Ny
eth nectar btvat
FY ve) Rik sae a
Ne
ny.'«
ees ha rit
Ry ; eA ede ait
acy ecb
aint ia
4 A anil yiaea
eae 2 2-3: ie
AL a
is
ps hl
biodiversity and, if appropriate, to develop PRA methods for discussing the value of
diversity itself.
Economic valuation methods
In recent years economic valuation techniques have become sophisticated tools for
comparing and evaluating goods and services from biological resources, with
particular emphasis on valuation of non-marketed benefits. There are five broad types
eh approach (IIED 2001):
market price valuation, including estimating the benefits of subsistence production
and consumption;
= surrogate market approaches, including travel cost models, hedonic pricing and the
substitute goods approach;
* production function approaches, which focus on biophysical relationships between
forest functions and market activities;
= stated preference approaches, mainly the contingent valuation method and variants;
* cost-based approaches, including replacement cost and defensive expenditure.
These techniques are useful for assessing biodiversity in terms of individual biological
resource values. Each technique has a suite of advantages and disadvantages, beyond
the scope of the present discussion, but all in all they provide a flexible approach to
assessment of local values attached to various taxa (e.g. Grieg-Gran et al. 2002) or to
various goods and services provided by one taxon (e.g. Lynam et al. 1994). There are
several strengths of these types of economic valuations as assessments of local
biodiversity values. They give relative estimates of value that permit comparisons of
resources within sites and among sites. By assigning monetary values to non-marketed
values they allow direct comparisons among different goods and services. The use of
monetary terms also facilitates communication to a wide audience, including local
people, though to many people to express a cultural value — say the value of a group of
trees as a social meeting place — in monetary terms is meaningless. Another weakness of
these techniques for assessing biodiversity is low cost-effectiveness in terms of time and
required expertise.
Biodiversity, in the strict sense, is usually classed by economists as being exclusively an
option value (Aylward 1991; ITED 2001). Future options are based on utilisation in the
pharmaceutical and agro-chemical industries. In an unusual example of economic
assessment of the added value of diversity on top of the underlying biological resource
value, the biodiversity value of Indonesian forests has been calculated in terms of their
pharmaceutical bioprospecting potential based on estimates of the number of plant
species in the country, probability of any single species providing a commercial drug and
average royalties earned from new drugs (Aylward 1995).
Multidisciplinary landscape assessments
A major initiative to improve methods of assessing biodiversity in terms of local values,
and of expressing express this information in ways useful to governmental decision-
makers, is presently underway at the Centre for International Forestry Research
(CIFOR). The central premise is the same as the central premise of this report: that
'
i Aer he ea ite Pile ADA Wl ls Os
b acts Vat ‘hes
eee
biodiversity assessments are predicated on particular value systems. Thus practical
methods of assessment require more explicit attention to what is important to whom and
how to weigh up alternative land use options in terms of these values.
Many biodiversity scientists claim that policy-makers ignore their research. There
may be a number of reasons, but perhaps the most important is that the policy-
makers do not see why it matters. The research described here is based around the
development of a new paradigm that explicitly recognises the value-laden aspects
of real world decision making. We cannot just record species, formations and sites
and expect that to be useful, we need to indicate the relevance of this information
and how it might be weighed against other considerations.
Sheil (2000)
As a start to developing appropriate methods of local valuation, a multidisciplinary case
study is underway at Paya Seturan village in Bulungan, Indonesia (Sheil 2000). The
researchers aim to derive what they term “decisive information” about biodiversity,
meaning information that is feasible to obtain and that reduces the level of uncertainty in
decision-making. The study has combined a short technical biophysical assessment (e.g.
soil samples) to give a basic characterisation of the environment with a holistic set of
qualitative and quantitative assessments of how the natural landscape is used and valued
by local people. Innovative methods are emerging from the research. For example a
classic PRA group ranking exercise — in this case ranking a number of forest species
(both plants and animals) under various use categories — was combined with a statistical
analysis for salience (Smith’s S). This technique can give a range of useful outputs, such
as overall values of the forest for different uses and the relative values of different
landscape types. The results from Paya Seturan revealed that forest products were used
for subsistence while most cash income came from non-forest products, but that people
did not value the forest below other landscape types.
The study has also identified some key unsolved methodological challenges, such as:
= A way to measure the accessibility of products
= A way to measure the scarcity of products
= A way to measure the frequency of use of products
» A way to measure the quantity of a product (i.e. how much product can be
harvested from an individual plant)
= How to weight species, products and landscapes according to their importance
This pilot study illustrates that there is great possibility for novel approaches to assessing
biodiversity in usefully value-specific terms. At the same time the rationale for the
CIFOR study is a reminder that we have a long way to go before we arrive at an
adequate array of methods for cost-effective, reliable and policy-conversant assessments
of local biodiversity values. Some general guidance for undertaking a participatory
approach to biodiversity assessment is provided in a subsequent section (Section 6).
- reative tt, ? 52, 6) + ran 3 i i
2 Be pie UE Mantes) Ut fem te, i Wy
vii? 444 i
Sel oe oer i A = ss
: / THe
i tae 8 Me er
: 7 i - ~~ a 4 > 7 P
pa wit, ; ie “7 ane us x abiity:! =a net
2 mening Cae rR RADE a) 8 ce
- “s =
er a ie at ee
es 1, a ee ad ae A Se ee A ie OR ae 3
dpe - AAG Te RN Aa
i hats gh
i) psy: iw) &< ; eiy » UAea he, “Se a
-. eve | Fyn: vt Cit«p< tien ia
, hah) One toate lies! aH hae if
Pi tal
i peat a ad ft ye ky
ale 2h ie
stati Lik S Fanti! 21S AE Re
ao 7, oi aii; ij i if Weist
sont, aa Pp be = :
DA aera af ti ;
= ; ih vai ge > Sey itt. 35
kee us i? ye tally
peace jena! on oe ‘ae te * Ltiqnal? toh
: veil: pers Tt Ape: nA ee ae
2h wit urs Dh dd te sere it
pilin eg, Sane mu geet eth:
‘ i pr Pihee La 2 ereoryp taka aia “
iyi gee Re) aves A
sae Falvigp orn sy Oar ign tuples
ee eee it i
- boi Ts nant ert han” niece 2 Ate Ak
waar ah sale Senile «
ae ess. a Bi taningn naam
. = aie ans wlyptayliy,
om
= oe a
ae
rush
I€
Son[RA asn
JOOAIP [BIO] UO Passndoy ey OS :MOT
SAN]RA JUA1IJJIP BuLUTqUIOD pue
SULINSKALL JOJ SUBILE WAX :YSIH
suondo asn pur] sAneUaye
dn ysiom pur uoneoiunuui0s
Ry O} paudisap Aypeoytoads :ysiy
snoiqnp
PoloptSuOd SISeq ING ‘sadrssoul
paolo Aype1oueuy “1eayo :WINIpayA)
airy
poos oqnd
JO suonRiapisuos ysurese dn ysiom
40 dn-ayros 0) sanbruysa} May YA
SANSSI [BIO] UO PassNdo] UIA > MOT
Sany]vA [qos pur
[BIO] JO UONVABIJUL 1OJ [LIUIIOg
YNIYFIP
S]PA9] [LOO] AAOge UONL]Ode.}Xd :MO7T
[00) Adtjod su ssaujnyasn
Jeyuajod pur Ajipiquvotunuw0e)
AsN-UOU / ASN JOOAIPUT /
padojarap uaaq
Spoyjout Udy asva.19ap
[JIM asttadxa 107 sjuautasinbat
Ysiy Wod.Lind :wINIpay|
UOT}SaT[O9
riep Areuiuid aatsuaqut
Nat saywuljsa a|qeipa. :Ao7
ajdoa
[Loo] WO. popurwoap oun
JO JUDUNSAAUT YSIYy SOUIALULOS
ynq sanbruyosay aydurts
ATUreUL :Ys1y 07 LUNIpayA
dousipne oiwiapeoe o} AyuIeU
payeoiunuutod ‘asiiodxa
JO JUAUSAAUL YSIY MOT
syuruLojul Koy
jo Aqypiqerjar pur aspajmouy
uo spuadap :uunipayy)
SSOUIAI}IIJJO-JSOD
asn yoa11p
(0) i
asn-uou °
[Boo] ‘peqoys °
[P00] "|
asn-uou ‘asn yda1Ipul
‘asn JOOP °Z
[roo] *|
asn joa.11pul
‘asn JOOP °Z
[eo] “|
ex SOBA
wWoydxo 0 yroudwy
yordunt ‘ainjon.ns
RU
a
Oinjon.ys *
[emnqpnouise “py *
exe}
yorduir
‘ssoooid ‘oimjon.ys *¢
[BINQ|NOLITe “pI °Z
oua3
“PXB] “UUdSASO9A "|
yorduit
‘ssaood ‘ainjons *¢
[BIN][NILISe “ppm °Z
ouas
“exe ‘WUd}SASO9O *|
—aM
jorduut ‘ainjonys “¢
[RIN|NOLIBL “ppIM °7
ouasd ‘exr) '|
» pa.nsvau
A}ISADAIPOIq
JO sjaovy
Asn JI *Z [RIO] / eQoya “| 44 JOwdunssaooid /aimjonays’¢ [BANY[NOLISe /ppiM *Z audd/exry/tua}sXsoo9
[e007
jeqoys
‘yeuoneu
“je007
[e907
[voo7T
[e007
yua
Wwoa.nsvoul
Jo apvag
‘Lx
S1oyeu
-Aotpod jaag]-1oysty
0} [NyBururow
SULIO] UT SanyRA s]UdUIssasse
AUSIIAIPOIG [LOO] odeospur|
ssaidxa 0] s[oo} Aieurdiosip
Jo quaudojaaaqg =n
S9d.1NOSAL Pa}oACUL
-WOU LO} SaN|eA
AreqouOUl SULALIOG
uonenyra
aULOUody
suonerordde
aydnini Vud
SON|RA APISIOAIPOIG
jo uonenyraad Asopodoryque
popus-uadg [eorsojooq
SOdINOSAL
[Bo1doyorg [LI0|
Jo sasn pur saweu
Jo uonRuaUIND0g Aurjoqouyy
JUDSSassE JO [LOD $8990.1d
SPOYJOW PUL syUdUSsassE AjIS.AIAIPOIG [VIO] JO UOSLIUdWOD puv ArvUUNS “9 9]qQU I,
ake»
2h Ataeal
oar ss a ,
an | 4
2 . ; ater : et we = Sail id a
i
ay =
“t+ od : = => I
] i es 7 |
)
is
oe
mr ye Sd 0 Pedant tee
rales oS, aoe le. ined 7/0
ripe >i le & dl
WORLD ay
prey), Pleere dy phir} ot
4g >
~The whe: dy
~~ ead 7
"
vastly 4 fi yo oe ri =,
man ee Ver ere wilh ian
‘ a pa lerdy f jar itt Ue
| seat NMRA ce teommmang ae
TRO Wals Fee ts Ve taapapy Po ogy ca
ae War Uy RI ep aaa
tage 3 pte ie
im Dt i benne iy res emai
en Cnt oN i i
ra bi Petes
* ti
ms th jeer
te
arn ha ce tin ae
- (ie, c }
4. WHAT DATA AND ASSESSMENTS EXIST?
Most biodiversity assessments begin with a survey of available information. This section
provides an overview of key sources of information.
Global data sources
Several overviews of global biodiversity data and sources of synthesised information are
available, a selection of which is provided in Table 1. In general, these overviews are
intended for a broad audience, ranging from students and the concerned public to policy
processes and decision-makers.
Table 1. Selection of global information sources on biodiversity and ecosystems.
Project/Product Lead organisation Scope Format
Global Biodiversity UNEP A comprehensive independent analysis of Hardcopy
Assessment (GBA) biodiversity, including inventory, monitoring, and only.
ecosystem function. Defines current state of
1995 biodiversity knowledge, gaps, critical issues, and
research needs.
Living Planet Report World Wide Fund For Details change in the status of marine, freshwater Hardcopy
(LPR) Nature (WWF) and forest ecosystems, including species trend and from
indices, and present consumption data. Includes internet.
Annually from 1998 policy recommendations.
(http://www.panda.org/news_facts/publications/gene
ral/livingplanet/|pr02.cfm)
World Atlas of UNEP-WCMC Provides a map-based assessment of global Hardcopy
Biodiversity (published by biodiversity. Covers fossil record, distribution and only
University of uses, and response measures. Reviews marine,
2002 California Press) terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems.
(http://www.unep-wemc.org/)
IUCN Red List of IUCN Provides a global assessment of those taxa Hardcopy
Threatened Species considered to be threatened with extinction, and from
according to the IUCN Red List Criteria. internet
2002 - : : (http://www.redlist.org/info/introduction.html) : we
~ Global 200 Report World Wide Fund For An overview of the world’s most distinctive and Hardcopy
Nature (WWF) important ecoregions and from
2000 _(http://www.worldwildlife.org/global200/spaces.cfm) _ internet __
Pilot Analysis of World Resources Reviews and analyses global data on five major Hardcopy
Global Ecosystems Institute (WRI) ecosystem types; partly incorporated in World and from
(PAGE) Resources 2000-2001. (http://www.wri.org/) internet.
2000
A number of ongoing global environmental assessments (GEAs) are currently in progress,
which include assessments of biodiversity as part of their activities (see Table 2).
Although only the lead organisation is listed here, it should be noted that all of the
assessments are collaborative processes, often involving a large number of partners. Each
of the assessments produces and disseminates information in a variety of ways; in many
cases, the internet is increasingly becoming the main method of dissemination. It should
also be noted that while biodiversity is of relevance to all of these assessments, the entire
remit is often broader, including other aspects of the environment or socio-economic data.
33
. a ion . ¥ — (ZV ae
Mi OTR 2) AL ese oN r
a : : eS e fes evi re
o 200reE RN, ey Na = . ie Ls : me
; 11s: Be letgge aes i . ite 2 “ z . : .
ect ang ies Ih Neha eI aii itt a8 ‘ An ' ’ | ; | ;
~—,
40 Tey oa
In addition, in almost every case (with the notable exception of the FAO), these GEA’s
are not involved in primary data collection, but focus their activities on integrating data
obtained from a variety of other sources.
34
a
PAS cearlh. AAA me Ap aes Tae pay ert aie? ne, A a
Mh Petia wr San, freee. dive) ed nde $5 Wiis
af i ee
CO0T
wlodayy sl 0007
s.lvak OM] AldAD
poonpo.d s).10da.1
‘000 Hod. 5,.¢
S00T — 1007
1007 Hoda. ..¢
COOT - 6661
jenuure
-1q ‘TOOT paonpo.d
yoda. ¢-QqD
‘sy1oda. enuur-1g
*S.IROA
Ol At9Aq Q00T VU
“1007
WO. yudtUdo]aAap UT
a1quyout y,
‘[euolsal
[euoIsa. ‘yeqo|H
[Roo] ‘jeuoyeu
‘jpuOIsal ‘[eqo|D
[euoIsal ‘eqo|H
[euolsa.4 ‘jeqo[H
[euolsa. ‘jeqo[H
jeuoyeu
‘jeuOIsa. ‘[eqo[H
Jeuoneu
‘jeuOIsal ‘[eqo|D
Jeuorsa. ‘peqolH
gyvos
Jayeaysa. /TRMM/1}eM/S.10°OOSOUT MAVAN//- TY OOSANNA
aseqJodo] #uny 00a
saHioysty | 008X/AT008 X/£00/daYOOG/5110 oep MMA Ova
SODIAIIS WY SpooyH
— suulaysksooq 5.10 JUSUISSOSSPLUNTUU |] TCU AVANAN//- cy daNn
adury) ayeuo | /ys 0dr MMM / dy DOdI
S.IDJBM
(Arepunogsue.y)
[euoNeUIoU] OW EMTS MMA CAY daNn
JUUIUO.IAU uy Xepul/OqH/s.10 daun MMa//-dyy dann
s1so.10 4 dsl Xapul/e.y/Of/ANSO10J/S10 OKPF AM AM//. IY Ovd
WS T[Nefop/epr|/fou/foe/se/s1o- orp MMM//-dny OVvd
ays jousoquy uonesTues.10
peo]
ce
(dVMM)
DUILUBADOI JUILUSSASSY 19} A\ PLO AA,
(VI4OS) ainynoenby
PUP SOLIOYSL] PHLOAA JO a1019
(VI)
JUSLUSSOSSY woysksooq WINLUUD || LIA
(QOd]) a8ueyD
DILUN]D UO JOUR [BIUOUUIDAOS.ID}U]
(V MID) Jusussassy
S.19]v A [PUONRUID}UT [PGo|H
(OAD) YOopNO Jowuuo.uAuy [eqo[H
$]SO.10] PLIOAA dU} JO 9301S
(VU) JUSUISsassy Sdd.1NOsay] S910 4
(vdv1)
JUDUISSassy UONepeiseg pur] puryAiq
dUIBU JUIUISSISSY
JUOUUSSasse A}ISIOAIPOIG 0} SUNLIAI SOIIATOR SULYLLIOpUN syUSUIsSassY [vIUOUUOMAU [eqO[D *Z aIquL,
* .
i
=
sd a
re Bs i.
= = =
»
“ si . _
: a —~. ley
Bs At:
‘ = .
‘3 a ) stew @
by aod r é 2 4
I Re Mad ae : 4
. © Ma 2 a
a ~
5 a ie
i = hi d ‘
re Pig = ‘
Phe fe! H Sl Ti : ;
no baie — y q
‘ 4.
< :
i a0. 47' 2 ‘ i +
ae a te
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) is currently in the process of developing a
comprehensive overview of the status of global biodiversity, which should become
available in 2004. This assessment could provide a baseline for assessing future trends,
for example monitoring progress towards the 2010 target. However, at present there is no
global process that has been developed to undertake such monitoring.
In addition to these assessment processes, a number of other initiatives are in progress,
aimed at providing information on biodiversity. These include scientific and technical
networks, and processes for gathering and exchanging information. Although some are
global in scope, others are regional, or focus on one particular element of biodiversity.
Details of a selection of relevant initiatives are provided on Table 3.
An abundance of information exists relating to biodiversity within individual countries.
Sources include expedition reports, natural history society journals, field study reports,
impact assessment documents, taxonomic reviews of particular groups or organisms or
areas, museum and herbarium specimen labels and catalogues, technical advice to farmers
and breeders, and so forth. A number of countries have recently established national
centers for biodiversity assessment and information management, such as INBIO in Costa
Rica and CONABIO in Mexico, and these institutions are now important information
sources themselves.
Although an enormous body of pertinent data exists, considerable effort is required to
create harmonised sets of data that can be readily analysed, and used as a basis for
presentation of information to a non-technical audience. Many data, often collected with
difficulty and at great expense, remain entirely in specialised and technical spheres, and
have never been applied to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management. The
collation, integration and analysis of patchy, inadequate data is one of the most significant
challenges to biodiversity assessment, at any scale. This reflects the fact that relatively few
systematic surveys of biodiversity are currently being undertaken.
36
i
“kt Bikolvat
METI Lal }
weit a
dnt Pi ae me
a ett neo
Phy Pipa) ee ay.
ay hie
moh 4 a APY: i me
iti also! :
+ ayierens Yah heirwie secon Le ‘me . LHe}
eT ha ayh Sepae M4 1 ee yi % Sat: = “ur ert)
iF) SAPP aye weve creas wih gE TIE sae ae +i
ih | hs, 4 er
ee het eh nan
‘WOJJa JO UNO dnp ou aimsua 0} AJISO]O YIOM 0} paosse savy YOOT setdedsg pue
AIGD LLD aq woddns [pr yey) woishs UOeULIOJUT A}ISIOATPOIG OY} se palynuapT
uaeaq sey AIGD (INH) wsrueysoyy dsnop]-SuLeayO oy) SuIpnyour ‘suonestues.10
pure soutueisoid paystqeiso YIM UONeIadO-09 dsO[d UT YAIOA [IIA J] ‘S}JOUNq
[PIOOS PUL [PJUSLUUOIAUD “OTUTOUODA [RUOTLU dONpOId 0} UONLUIOJUT APISIOATPOIG
JTQLTIVAL S pjIOM ayy ATdde pure ssadoe 0} siasn a,qeud [JIA Jey} STOO) AZopouysa}
UONLULIOFUT puv saseqeiep AUSIOAIPOIG JO YOAJoU aTqeiadosajUr UP aq [JIM JIGO
"sansst 3unino sso.1o pue
ONLY} UO UONUSAUODZ ay} JO soumtuRITOId YIOM dy} JO UOTeJUOLU] duu J10ddns
0} papuayut ATpeoryioads st [LH ay] ‘Soedinosas oNoUds WO Padtiap s}yausq ay}
Jo Surieys ayqeiinbo puke asn o[qeurejsns ‘UONRAJAsUOD UT SuLyeU-UOIsTOap oAordut
Agajoy} pur ‘ppiom oy} Jo syed Auewi ur o[qeyieae asyiodxa pur uoneusozut
OIMLOUOXK} JO YOR] SY} SSOppe O} Sate dy) JO aduasayUOD ay) Aq paysipqeisy
syjouog JO Sursmeys ayqeyinba pur sey
ay} pure ‘syusUOdUIOS sjI JO asn ayqeurejsns dy} ‘A}ISIOAIP [POISOTOIG JO UOPAIASUOD
ay :saatjoalgo jedroutid dary} sy pue uoNUaAUOD ay} Jo j10ddns ut uoTe1ado09
OIFNUATOS pue [LorUYyda} ayeyI[Lovy pue ajowod 0} GOD ,1 24) Aq poystqeisy
SITIAIIE pur ajoy
966] Arenuer ur
Poysi]qeiso sea Jey} SoNeULIOJUT [RoIsojoIg
uo dnoiy SUIyIOA\ WNIOJ adUaTOSeBaYy
GOO 9} JO FIOM dy} Woy dsoIe FTGH
‘dH Nf U! pesnoy
SI ‘AJISIOATG [BOISO[OIg UO UOTUBAUOD,
dy} JO WrRJaI9ag ayy Jo yred se ‘PL H ayy.
“ddNN) Ut pesnoy
SI ‘AJISIOAI [BOISO[OIg UO UOTUDAUOD
OY} JO JELIVJIINIS IY} FO ied se ‘WHO Stag
snjejs pure UIsLIG
Le
[510 Jigs MMM//-dyY
(ald)
AVR
UONVULAOJUT AVISAIAIPOIg [BqoTy
dse}[nejap/AWIOUOXP}/SuINS-ssol
J/SOUIUB.13 0.10 75.10 ATPOIG MMM): yy
AVISIOAI [ROTSOTOTLg
UO UONUSAUOD at} JO (TLD)
sAQVIUT AWOUOXR | [BQO]
/UUYD/S.10ATPOIG MMA: CY
(GD) Ausi9Aq
[BdISO[OIg UO UOTUAAUOD ay} JO
(NHO) Wstuvydso]] sno H-suLtvaD
epLL
SOATJLIIUL POJLIOI-APISIOAIPOIG PUL S9dINOS UOHLUMIOJUT ALISIOAIPOI JofeuUl Jo UOTOITAS VW “¢€ 9TQRL
7a
— " SUNY hopes wea
*
iet ih eiipesiall ; oe
‘ r tevic-slt b dogbaiely Pas a re rey , ood :
‘ " thets- Hy : 7 ae
y ; a
Mk |
f irecay Ty a
net, 0 nn tee i bret Keartt hie :
HO rast fics) Sadie ities sad ah oat
es. rersig purist we side. SephY- = wale a
ee
Dy
“Ayiqeiadosayur ajourosd
0} pur ‘sdiysuoneyar eyep puke sopns [eo1so] wot dopaaap 0} ‘saleuOHoIp
BILp pur ‘spjay vyep ‘ABopourUI9) UOWUOS a}oWO.d 0} stUTY “saseqeiep
MUUOUOXE} UI sJUdtUdo[aAap Jars pue ‘sprepue}s pasodoud ‘sosequyep SIWUOUOXR}
JO sjoadse [RoIUYoa} JO UOTSSNOSIP S19}SOJ OMC_L ‘Siuauoduros orwrouoxe}
YMA Saseqeyep [LoIsoporg 1oF ajqrsuodsar sjenprArIpul puk suONMINSUL opnyoul
SIaquIayy ‘s}uR]d 0} payoLsas jou Mou ‘syoafod aseqeyep o1woUOXe) JuLTd 1ofeu
udamjaq UONRIOgL][OS puke UONesUEpues JoF suUONdo a10]dx9 0} Cg] Ut dn jog
‘TO0T-1L007 (AOD
Ika K UONRAIASGG AUSIOAIPOTY [LUOHLUIIU] PayeNIUl Se] “AUSIOATPOI UO J9AQ]Jo
ay) pure satoads aarsevaut (9) ‘suorsuowp urUNY (¢) :ATISIOATpOT Joye puLTUl (fp)
SAUISIOAIPOIG [eIGosOIU (€) SAUSIOATPOIG SULTLUT (Z) :AJISIOATPOI JUSLUTPS PUP [TOS
(1) (SYVLS) Yorvasay Jo svary Josie yp persadg xg “AySIOAIpOr JO osn o]qeureysns
pue UONLIOJSAI ‘UORAIASUOD (¢) :A]ISIOATPOI JO SULIOWUOU (f) [WONBOTFISSeIS
pure SurAsoquaaut :soneuraysds (¢) A}ISIOAIpoOrg Jo aduLY puke souRUDIUTeUL ‘SUISIIO
(Z) ‘Suruopoung Wia}sAs0d9 UO APISIOATPOT FO JOATJo IYI ([) :SBore ALF UT S}USUTI]O
awUeIBOId 9102 “APISIOAIPOTG JO JoUATOS JY} 10F AyORded APIMP]IOA\ B Ping 0} pue
‘saomosal dHOIG S,ye_ ay} JO asn ay} Jo AqIqeurejsns pue AysIArporg JO smv}s
dy} JO SJopow ANorpoid puke UONRULIOJUL SIFHUSTOS oJe.INIOe aprlAaoid 0} st [eos oY],
AUSIOAIG [ROISO[OIg UO UONUAAUOD Nf} oy) JO tustuLYoay] asNoP] SurV]D oy} YA
payeroosse pue ‘166 1-966] AUULIBOIg YIOA\ ATSIDAIPOIG dANN ou) Aq passopug
‘yOJJO JO uoNRoT|dnp
OU INSU 0} AJaSO]d YOM O} PadATe aavy QOOT Satdedg pue ATqH ‘saroods
[Je Jo Surwmeu pue uoLoyrsse[o ‘snqeys ay} Suppoayo 10j andoyeyeo aatsuayosduros
B (fF) PUL {SOLIOJTOAUT UddM\JOq WOsTLIedUIOS IO} Wd}SAS DOUdIATAI B (€) SOPIA\-PLIOM
saseqniep Asiaatporq/satoads 0) AvMayesS JOULID}UT Ue IOJ XopUT auf} (Z) ‘OPIM-P]IOM
sjoafosd AIOWWOAUT UT Asn OJ IST] Satoads ouTTaseq STUONSaIA Ue (]) :aplAord 0} Japs0
ut satsads UMOUY []e JO SAUL JO XOpUT Poyepl]|vA pure WIOJTUN B ayeaIO 0} SUTLUTY
saseqeyed dItUOUOXR | UO UOTSSTUILOD
ayy se (SAI) seouards Jeorsojorg
JO UOTUL] [PUONeUIDIU] OY} YIM payerpyye
Mou dnois SuppjiOM [euONRUIUT Uy
‘teiso1g aioydsorg-a1aydsoayH,
[EUOTRUIOIU] oY) pur ‘yUoWUOIAUA
dy} JO SUIA[GOIg UO dayTIUMUOD)
OJIUSIOG IU} ‘SONOIDOG [LOTSOTOIGOIOL
JO UOTUL) [BUONRUIDIUT IY} “SAOUdTO
[eorBoyorg Jo uoruA [eUONeUIDIU]
ay} (ASOD auatdg Fo [lounoD
[EUONLUIIIUT It} FO SIaQtUIT at} FO [LIDAOS
pue OOSANN Aq parosuods souatos
AUSIOAIPOTG JO WeIsoId [RUOTeUIAIUT WY
“SICTI pue ‘asequsty
‘LLAMA SISO “OAAOL NAMTY
‘UOpUOT WHN opnyour sioquuat Surpunoy
P66] Jaquiaidas ut (SAT) SeHat90g
[BOTBO[OIGOIONA] JO UOTUP] [RUOTRUIOUT OY}
pue (VY LVGOO) Asopouysay, pur aouatss
OJ PIL UO dayTUTWIOD ay} YW UoNeIodo
-09 UT (SGI) SAUdIDS [ROIBOpOI
Jo uo [euONeUIAUT ay) Aq payst[qrisq
8e
5.10 GMP MMM
(OMAL)
Sasuqujed ITWOUOXe |,
U0 dnowy SuLyAOAA [BUONRUA1I}UT
SV _LISUAAIC sto MSOF AMA: dnY
SVLISUTAIC
7510 D00CUS MMA: dy
0007 SAIOUdS
“S]991 [LOO $,PLIOM dU} JO OUL[IAP aU} ASIAAAI 0} PAUSISap LOJJa aaTIOGLI[OI V
“QBULYO JIVUUT[O JO S}SLODIOF OJ SISeq OY) pure ‘a[qissod se peoye Iey se IO}
BOS JY} JO SUONIPUOD JIMNY dy} JO s}seda10J SNONUT}UOD ‘saoinosar SUIAT] SuIpNyouUt
‘suvad0 OY] FO 9}¥}s JUasaid oy) JO SUONdIIOSap ayeINddv aptAold [JIM SOOD
‘OPIMPLIOA Sad1A.las ue|d0 [eUOTeIAdo Joddns 0} sayqeizeA Ukd00 pu sue
jo stsAyeue pue Surjjapour ‘suoneArasqo Io} wosAs [eqoys JuoueULad & SI SOON
‘OOSANN Jo Hed v ‘uorsstumu0D o1ydesSouRId_ [eJUIUTUIDAOSIOIU] Ie PIsOH
‘says Surpdures QQ‘ AWOs Jo satias papplis ev pue suone}s
Pay ‘sezyuso YoIvasar [eoIso]OIO pur [BINI[NILIBe ‘s]uIIpeIs [eJUOUTUOMAUD JOfeU
SYR oy) JO sorpnys a[eos-oS1e] SuLATOAUT AdoeNs Sutures vjep 191}-aATy ev UO
paseq sI Wass ayp ‘suIa}sAsooa [RINJeU PUR poseuR Ady S,P[IOM dy} IOJ W9}SAs
BuIAIasqoO JuoUeULIAd B 9q [JIM SOLD JO 9109 dy], “OBJPOM UPUINY UT syUSUTDAOI1dUIT
pue yuaurdoyaaap urejsns 0} sturaysAso9e [eLNSa1a} JO Ayroedeo ayy ul sosueyo
jo Sururem Apiva SurAis pur Suyeooy ‘surdynuenb “sunoajap 10j wep aptaoid 0} st
SOLD JO UOISSIw [eIUAD oY] “WAsAg Ye oy) Ul osuRYS [eqo]s Jo Surpueysiapun
Jadaap v 10] sy[eo [eUONRUIAIUT 0} asUOdsaI UI paywasd sePM SOLD (SOOD)
suea90 ay} puke (SQOHD) ayeuUll[d 1OJ suId]sAs BUIAIASQO [BQO]S Ie[IUIS YIM IOYyIISO |,
“svore
po}o9}01d ur susTueS10 UO WONRULIOJUT SuUIseUueU IO] (RUNeAGYWW pue LO] JGVW)
saseqeyep AIOJUAAUI [BOISOTOIG ]qu[IeAe pue podojaaap spew sey (WIN Ado
dy} JO syuotuamnbar ay} Busou oj [Oo} 10few ev yuasasdas yey) (TOOT Joquiaidas)
SOLNUNOS $6 UI SaAJASaY oydsorg | |p JO YOMJoU dANeAOUUT UP dojaAap
0} payiom sey Gy ‘JWouruoAus oy pue ajdoad usomjaq drysuoneyes [egos
ay} aaoidurt pure ‘sooinosar sJoydsorg JO UONBAIOSUOS pue asN [BUOTeI IOJ SIseq
ay} dopaaap 0) papuayur Surure.y pue yoreasal Jo oumwmess01d Areur[drostpiayur uy
6£
YSty POM ‘sioujied Surpunoy YIOMION UO IY Jody [10D [eUHeUsAIUT
“syoaford
SOOD JO} IeLIRJOINAs ay] SurprAoid
ODOT WIM “(ASOT pue “OWA “OI ‘daNN)
suorjestuesio inoy Aq ul poysi[qeiq
]S003/5.10 OoSoUT o01//-d ny
(SOOD)
UWI9}SAS BUIAIISGG ULIIO [BqQO[D
“‘yRLILJOINAS
SOLD oy} 10} Woddns ay) Surpraoid
OVA YM “(SOT pue “OWA “OOSANN
‘OVA ‘da NMA) suonestuedio 3ut1osuods
-09 dary Aq Q66] Arenuee ur poysi[qriq
/S0}S/o.10 ORF MMM] AY
(SOLD)
Wa}SAg
SUIAIISGO [VI-DSIL19], [RQOTD
w
JU Xopur/qeul/s.10 OosouN MMAN//- yy
(GVW)
‘OOSANN Jo owueisoid y a1oydsorg ay) pue uel
dee ea neem? pb
eet
eA a Sie He ee ewe :
agH yy i re r a ee ; qdabiny: ses W
? Sy ee a ; ~ ee :
>} ye 4 : ~,. i : ; _
i as ee SRN Tl : t a : i ne ' Z
; spat Ride pee ot cs |
aH sailed i
3 ANT, Sc :
ie
DIM YOIYM JO py ‘sourtuvisoid [euorsar / | ur ajedronsed saroyuay, pue saqejg
[PISLOD Op] ULY) SOU APUILIND ‘s}SIOUT [LITUTTOITAUS Pareys 199}01d 0} pausisap
(auIU ATJUDLIND) SUOMUSATIOD [BUOTBAI JO Satis B YIM JoYI990} ‘UOTSaI YoRa
JO} JUOWUISeULL PUNOS Id}SOF 0} SULTG WOW JO UOTRAID sapnyoUy “uoWoseueUT
JUSLUUOIIAUD [2]SLOD PUL dUTIeL UO UONeIAdoOd [eUOTBaI Ja}SOJ 0} STW
jsonbal JUSUUIOAOS UO SMOITADI
Sunstxa Jo sayepdn 10 syuatussasse [euorsal / euoNeuU 0} WoOddns ‘(9007 YoIeW
‘onseH ay) UNIO IVA PLOA\ puUOdaS oY] 10} poredoid suoIstA [eUOISAI 39
[eqo]s ay} UO Surpying 2 soLeudos UO Sutsnooj (ZZ) JWoulssasse [epeoap ‘joolo1d
JUDUISsSaSsSY S1aeA\ [PUONRUIDIU] [RQOTH porosuods {qH sy} 0} suonNqiyUoS
‘apnypoUr sure IBNoIeg ‘sowueIso1d uOTOe [BUONRU JOJ YIOMOWLIT poye1s9]Ur ue
aplaold [JIM suonezruesio pue soumtuPIsOId seas [RUOTSOI 1oY}O dy} pue oUTURISOIg
seag [eUuOIsay GAN UL ‘SoIpnis Juossosse pur UONROTNUSp! JURAITOI
JO OSULI APIM PB OYPLIOPUN 0} $9}L}1G 0] OPEL d1B SUOTRPAUTUIOSAI SLIOUIH “SOMIATOR
paseg-pur] WO UONepeIsop JUTIeUT O]RUTLUT[S IO/pue [OIUOS ‘adnpai “WUaAdtd 0}
uOTOv pouTeisns SuNustuaydu pue SuIsIAdp 1OJ SoNLOYINe [PUOTSAI 1O/puL ;euONeU
Aq uodn umeip aq 0} sourpins [eonovid pur jenjdaouos Jo a0.1mos v Aq 0} pousIsaq
‘slUvIDOId JUOWIDSLULL dOINOSAI PUL VONPAIOSUOD [RUONRUIOIUI
pue [euoneu [e1aAas ul aor aATLIOddns Aay v Avy [JIM NYY] ‘SJoor [e109
YIM suoneu Suowre Aorod aansoddns ‘pautojur Jo yuourdopaaap ay} 107 ATessooou
UONLULIOJUT SPIAOIC 0} SANTATVOR YIM UOTOe PUNOIS-dYj-UO o1SI}e.NS SUTQUIOS
Ady], UONPOTUNUIUOD pue jUaUIssassy ‘UOHOY JUOWAseuRy] :s}UdUOdUIOD day)
OWT [[P} NVYAO] JO SAAN e sy ‘CUOMION UONeULIOJUT Joy [RIOD ;euoNeUIDU]
JY} PUL YIOMJON SULIOJUOTY JOY [POD [eQOTH oy} YM) oanentuy Jory
[eloD [eUOHeUIDIU] ay} JO stun feuoNesado damp} JO UD “SOOT O} 100T Wo aseyd
uonoe Iead-Ino} & pue “Surosuo Mou ‘aseyd dn-yeys 1ed4-auo k& JO s}stsuod ydafod
dL UONRAIASUOD pu JUOWIASeULUT JadI [IOI IOJ SddIORId poos Jo UONRIOFI[OId ay}
DLIPLO’F [JIM JY) SaNTATIOR AreyuataTduroo ‘payur]-19j Ur JO Jas vB JO S]sIsSUOD NVYAOI
“SJUDUTULIOAOS
OUITIUW YIM WONPIOgR][OS Ul “GaN
Aq paeulps100d AWANOR ULId}-Suo] V
‘yeLIRJaINAs ay} SOprAoid spuvpsapoN oL
‘ansey ay] Ul a01JO uoNeUIpIOND gyaNN
“S66I Ul O'G UO\SuTYyse AA UT “WOTSsTUTUOD
uvodoing oy) pur ‘s]UdUTUIAAOD)
801 Aq pardope sea Wd OU
“(ANM) vonepunoy
suoneN payup ay) Aq payioddng
(dAUdS) wesso1g yUOUTUO.MAU [eUOTsaYy
optoed YINoG oy} pue “(TVYOD) souerly
JOoY [RIOD MP “(OdO-TUOD) sent
Suruur] SUNLUIPIOOD-dANeNIU]
Jooy [RIOD [euoNeUaU] OY) ‘(NIWYOD)
YIOMION BULIOWUOPY JaoyY [RIOD
[eQOTD ou} (PAM) WANINsUT sdoINOsayY
POM 24) “((OWOM-daNN) 2nu99
SULIOPUOJ UONAIOSUOD PLIOM-ddNN
ay} pue (qANN) suueiso01g jUOWUOIAUA
SuONeN pay ay) (WAV TOD 221099
OF
[tug OUUOYs./seas/yo daun MMM: dy
SVIC [VUOIZIY
Joio daurreds MMAN//-dyY
(vd))
SOMTADIV
paseg-puey] wo. jusWUOAUT
IULAVIA] AY) JO U0T}I9}0.1d
IY} 10} UOT IV Jo uLTg [eqo[H
/s10 UbIOT MMM //-dyY
(NVUOD
YIOMIIN
! ty ie
diet cd eee
=
Lit ys Taae drama (uber HS. AE wea
whi ah Ve eA a 8 dian 2 sai) ale ti : Fr 8 =). ane ¥ " TT et | —s ; ie f= ><
ir Soh ret" Ose ie Bi pode Rk oes eeak i rats et en / Te ete Hh : Th pd rs wenn) ; a “ ; as
- nh A ae Line : ae - i ae ty
! roe gs ell ee - r* #
hema beret oy sa ora batt - a
ee ee nen
“ene sid iy ae Haider tee empire akbreRe: Os ie ls pp: an i = eal
‘ yee ae hi S) tay a pono Aas sa ‘gia, x
u hg Bau atl = SPURT wih Mesa Nit eee oo
RO
et cement
ve Me uae ieee ead mip Ae sagt Vs Xe Ke) nee 3 "ed ee
Rds ‘ee : 2) Shane
pada Na tad keew | eat De tT; |e Lae ee ee le hee
tr Me ia imine scales Sobe 5 sii i tebytha( heb an 3
an, oe wen ' gai sna aise rid! ely rey ely wih oa ie =p ol ha CO ae '
a i ts; My r % .
Hah . a Les ate ae NaN,
Me
cai pei
Fins py. a4
a9 itn
figure, it still represents an extremely small proportion of the approximately 52,000
vertebrate species now extant.
More data tend to be available for species of widespread interest, either for economic
reasons (game animals, marine food fishes, cetaceans) or from a natural history viewpoint
(birds and a few butterflies). The greatest monitoring effort for any group of species is
devoted to marine fishes of economic importance, and the greatest volume of time-series
data relate to stock estimates and catch levels in the marine fish populations targeted by
industrialised fisheries of developed countries. Recent years have seen increased
awareness of the need to take species interactions into account. Birds come a close second
to marine fishery stocks, in terms of data availability. The bird species that are surveyed
regularly by networks of mainly amateur ornithologists in developed countries are by far
the best known large terrestrial group.
In recent years considerable attention has been devoted to the monitoring of amphibian
numbers, against a background of rising concern for the widespread decline and
extirpation of local amphibian populations. Although many time-series data are local in
scope, and mostly relate to North American or European species, a considerable volume
of data is becoming available.
Information on a selection of monitoring programmes is presented in Table 4. The emphasis
here is on the field monitoring programmes themselves, with mention of the organisations
involved, rather than on organisations that make subsequent use of monitoring data. A
limited selection of national or restricted scale projects is also mentioned.
45
; —
¥ aM Cy i mor Af } ir t
~~
Srp ee yey tisha A: F ;
: ; :
Poe fe ee a lier mere ed) en ee bore ' tees
ee es) Pans ey
a = *. ’ J =
ey eet | eee waylsifi CEE ab We Ee or ere: te : : ;
ee Tiass 1PM asia: eis The J ial. wh
pant 2s Port, 5S wap se, pir: ae Fi
: ‘a : ae aap SE ft Miemiqgie Mite es ey luutigisiuty
A 1 ‘ig gt nn 4 are way kA m4 ppb yay, eo, eet
E dig, ae is he . & : ks — ; eyirte ie “
poe oe etiesr nee iA clotonalisac: Sieg
a els Foie apf i en eee Paar, |
6 aie anal S-
“SOYSI] JEIOU@WWUOO
‘(atuUeW pue ono pue jeqUaD
“‘JUSWUOIIAUS
LY
‘JousayU! Ayjedioud ‘Qyloeg ‘pue|PUNOYMEN ‘ueNUaINe7) pue saoinosa
au} uo pue Adoo — ‘sadinosai jeoiBojoiq sa}njsul yoseasal jeuoiBas aal4 jeoiBojoig (sayemyse.y
puey se ajqeyieay [ela WWOo “snyeys pue) auew jo asn (04a)
“spoday snje}s JO UoneAJasuOCo “SABAINS —_- YOO}S JO SA}BWI}SE yeuejainas ueipeueo Bulyoddns sueaoQ pue saaysi4
yoo}S se paysijqnd pue Buojyiuopy Med} YOIeEasSay aAHeyWUeND juawssassy 400}S ueipeued saloijod sdojaneq § jo juawedaq uelpeued |
‘aways (S30) Ses
WO F JUe}SUOD ‘Aanins saioads albus
“‘saioads pug ‘QWAYOS PlOD9y JSAN ‘(Sga;A) ABAINS
Jo snjey}s ul saBueyo “SJBO}UN|OA Pig Pue|anA ‘snsuad sawuday “YIN au}
0} salouaby pa}euipsooo “sAaAIns Sag) Aesuns pulg Buipaaig ‘Aenins UI SPdIq PIM Bulo}UOW
“sodas se paysijqnd Ayunog pue Aq uayeyiapun WO} SO}EWISS pilg Buipaaig shemuayeny ‘Aanuns ‘ysnu} youeasal OyUdIOS (Og) ABojoujIWE |
eyep pashjeuy OONP au} Haye OL uol}oa]]09 e}eq anjeWUueNnD — pulg SAenuayeAA 'SNsuad psig UOWWOD juapuadapul uy Joy snuy ysnug |
“soieuAp uonedionied
uonejndod 499}UN|OA YBnosy} spuig
JEWIOY pue uoqnquisip “SJBOJUNIOA ‘sayewisa ‘yoaloig Buo}Uopy BulApnjs uojesiuebio
dew ul pajuasaid pig ueljeqsny Aq suoneniasqgo uoleindod uoneindod Japen !}0af01d YEA diyssaquiaw
ejep jeneds ayebysonul oO, | pial SAE WUCNO Aaid $0 Pilg yuNOD pulg ueleENsny yyoud-uou y eleysny spuig
(NWI) HOMeN BuLo}UO
uonesbiy) UeIpeueD aU, Aq pasaujeh
ejep jo sishjeue ay} sa}eulpso0g
‘yauyied JUNOD piig SeW}SHYD
‘Jeusa}U! ay) UO ueIPeURD ‘(SPIIGJA}EAA |E}SEOD ‘SIME
paysijqnd ae NWIWO “syeqiqey JeuNJOON) SAasyns jeuo!Bas ‘Aanuns “sjeyiqey Jay) pue spulq
ay} Aq pauleyqo JI9Y} PUe SPJIG PIIM “sAQAINS *‘ssoquinu = Ud07] Saye] ueIpeued ‘(qIIW)) WesBold PIIM JO UONeAJaSUOCD
saiosads Asoyes6iu jo uojeiosidde pue = pas eq-saa}UN|OA Pilg yO sjunoo Huo} YsueW !eqnd ul spiig jo Qu} 10) uoNHesiuebio
JO} Spud} UOHeindog UOIJEAJ@SUOD BY Ajurey aAHeWUeNH SAOAING JA}UIAA ‘YOJENUapPsE4 JOalOlY Wyoud-Joj-jou y |
Epeued SaIPN}S Pig —
sawweibod
Ayyiqejreay paj2aj}09 AUN pa}99]]09 MOH Jeluayew yo adAy | /sjuawyedap Buiojuow Jo sajdwexg uondioseaq uonesiuebio
SOUMUPISOId SULIOJTUOU APISIOAIPOIG P}O9J9S “p 91qeL
ieee een, ee ai eee
“elesSN JOY
Yodey juawuUoIAUg
Uj JO B}E}S
ay} ase Suoneoiqnd
Aay ‘ays Jausayul
ye ajqeyiene soles
dew dayjoesayu|
‘paseq Ajjeneds }!
JO yon ‘a}Is Jawa}!
94} Je aigejiene eyep
Jo Ayyuenb aaisuayxy
“sisAjeue
jeonsneys Buyeme
aseqejep e ul
paulejulew aie eyep
MeY ‘J@UsA}U! BU}
uo ajqeyiene jewayew
Jeoiydes6 Aye3
*sdnolig
BuUIyJOM IYNUIIDS
YIWVSO 844
Aq pajidwoo syoday
‘aseqejeq snsueg
(Buiddew)) pig
Hulpsasg ueipeueg
au} ‘aseqeyeq spuas|
Pilg UeIpeued
“sadJnosal
jeunyeu jeuoeu
Jo Burojyuoy\
“suoljeindod
ueiqiudwe
JeuoiBas 40} wayshs
Buiuiem Ayes,
ue jo juawdojanap
ay} SPuemo}
Pa}99}}09 UOEWIOJU]
“saounosal oOUeUY
jo asn asim au}
Spuemo} UdYeYEpUuy)
*S9DINOSAL SJI|P|IM
JO uONeAJasuOD
“youeasal
jeuoissajoud
pa}oadip
Ajesaueg
*s}siBojoiq
JOa}UN|OA
Aq suoneniasgo
Play JOa1IQ
“SKAAINS
yoieasas
payoeiip
‘sJaAlasqo
pauolssiwwoo
‘syiodas Joquiaw
uOoISSIWWOD
(saa
6a) sAasuns
J9Q]UN|OA
‘suolensasgo
Play Joo1I1q
‘pasn sjunoo
pue siojyeolpul
anyeyjenb
pue ajeyjuenb
snoue/
‘(09)xa!N)
ooy euRUIND
pue azijag
ul ueiqiydwe
Jo suojejndod
pa}oajas JO}
ejep anyejjuenb
$0 UOH}D9]|0D
‘payesoueb
(snje}s uonejndod)
anneyjenb
pue (‘oJ azis
yoo}s ul sabueyo)
SAE UEND
*saBueyo
uolejndod
sa}elui}se
SAHEUEND
| ‘uONGUASIP pue |
solweuAp uojejndod ul saBueyo wie} |
-Buo} siojiuow awayos Bulpueg jeg
pue piig ueleysny ay, ‘uolerasasuoo
puejjam ‘saisads aAljeu-uOU/aAISeAu!
JO peaids au) ‘(sooseHuey
Ba) saoinosal ayl|plim Jo Juawabeuew
uj} se Yyons sanss! jeo|Hojo09
PU dJI|P|IM SJO}!UOW Pue SayeBiISaAu|
(sosn
99S) we/bolg BuojUuOW Uelgiyduy
ueouewy YON auj ‘6a sawwesboid
Hurojjuow ueigiydwe Hulobuo sow 0}
paxul Ajjesaueb si 41dVG “2661 Suiinp |
(41dVG) 24) $0 dno Buon eziiag
ayy Aq payeniu! (NOWWAVW)
yooloid Huo}iuop| UeINUY }Se104 CACY |
‘(dW3O) wesBold |
Buioyuo|) Wa}SASOOF YIWWIO |
H 8u} UIUJIM Uaye}LJapUN saloads
juapusdap pue pajsaney Jo sayeuljsy |
‘(NAWO) OMEN BuLoUoyy
uones6iy) ueIpeueD ‘epeued ul splig
awe AjojesbiIy\ Jo sNye}s ‘epeued
Ul aSaByd jo suoneindod ‘(Sqqg)
| Kaaing pig Bulpseig uedaWy YON
“abe8H
pue JuaWUOLIAUg
9} JO JUaUedag
JUBWUIBAOS ueljesjsny
“Sanss| UOHeAJaSUOD
pue sauljoap
ueiqiydwe Buluiwexa
S}]SIUOI}EAJ@SUOD pue
S}S]UBIOS JO YOMJOU YY
“sadiunosal
jea1Bojoig onoveyuy
Jo asn jeuones ayy YIM
P9UJBDUOD UOISSILULWOD
Je]UBWUJaA0619}U]
“SIOEW O4I/P|IM
Jesapay |je ayeyopun
SMO “Juawjedaq
JUSWUIBA0S
epeued JUBWUOIIAUQ
BU} JO BOIMAS OJIIPIIMA
abeyaH
pue juawuUolIAUg
JO JusWyedaq
edjsny JUaWUOIAUQ
‘(41dva)
90104 ySe | SuoHeindog
ueiqiyduy Bululj99q
‘(YIWVOO) seoinosey
Buiarq eueyy onOVe}UYy
JO UOeAJaSUOD
84} JO} UOISSILUWOD
(SMO) 8918S
SJIIPIIM UeIPeUeD
in
a a a
ee a
ps 5
= boi
Ps. Sew
" Gebrowe-
etme! o>
‘
‘y!eyap
ul passasse usaq
aney JEU} SY9O}S
SOU} JO} papiAoid
Ajuo ase eyeq
"JEWOY
yausaj}u! pue Adoo
“psey Ul SAD] Woy
syiodai paysijqnd
se ajqeyiene
sonsieys savaysi4
JEWIOY
Jausaju! pue Adoo
-puey ul ajqeyiene aie
1LV90! Aq peysiiqnd
syodai pue sojsjeys
WLH 2?
20VOOL/Ys!|buS/pu
[72D 0b 08 MMW). d}}4
'SOU9S JO}EDIPU|
je}uawWUOLIAUQ
Jeuowen ueipeueog
au) Buipnjout
“S8DIAJOS JO Soda
paysiqnd se yawajul |
ayy uo aigeyiene |
Ajjesauab jewayey\|
“Aysnpul
Huljeym ajqeuleysns
e SpJemo}
SyO0}S B}EYM
jo uonevsasuog
“saounosai jeolBojoiq
pue swa}sXhsooa
auew onueny
YON JO UOH}D9}014
“sy00]S
sy [eloueWWOO
Jo asn ajqeureysns
Buryew
uolsioap pawJojul
SPJEMO} Jea}eW
JeyuawuUOsIAUa
JO UOISIADIg
“eJep JOa|]OO osje
s}uawuU38A06
Jaqual\|
“sjaSSan
youeasas
P9uUOIss!LULUOD
Aq skanins
OYNUBIOS
“shaAins
jeuoissajoid
paj}oadig
“‘saled
Buljoesuog
Aq payioda
sBuipue|
pue sayojyeo
jo sishjeuy
“DINOS AJIIPIMA
ueipeued
‘Ba sjuawyedap
pajyejai
Aq uayeyepun
sauwweiboid
JO SdIPNy}s wos
paye||oo uaaq
sey ajqeyieae
jevayew
94} $0 YON
“‘pepiaoid
aue sayeuiysa
anyeyjuenb
alqissod a10y\A
"SYOO}S YS}
Jofew 40} ajqeyiene
S| UOEWJOJU!
anneyjenb pue
aayeyjuenb yog
‘ajqeyiene
jeuayew (snje}s
y90}s) aAeqenb
pue (‘o}98 azis
yoo}s ‘sBulpue})
aAneyUeNnD
“saoue}sqns
Bunajdap auozo
JO suolssiwa
0} solweuAp
uoleijndod
saioads ‘6a
Jewayew aajeqenb
pue anjeyjuenb
jo a6uel apm
|
|
“SYOO}S BJEYM JO JUaWSSasSse
SOYEYOPUN Ba}ILULWOD IYUBIDS
OMI 8UL ‘sAavuns paseg-pjay Buipnjoul
youeasal JEUONeUJa}U! Sa}OWOd
pue siosuods uolssiwwog auf
“S400}S YS}
JE10J9WLUOD SN}e}s By} Jnoge sosHe}s
Buipnjoul ‘juawUOsIAUa auLeEW
ONHUB}YY JSEQ YON 84} UO Seseqejep
abe sulejurew yeuejaloas ay,
|
“s}UaWSSasse y0}s |enuue paylejap
sdojanap pue ‘saisads ay!|-eun} pue
eun) jo sBulpue| pue sayojeo payodas
JO SlEJap sulejulew JeWe}oI0eS ay)
“SOLAS JOJEOIPU| Je}UBWUOIIAUQ
JEUOHEN ueIPeUeD au} S}SOH
‘(awwes6oid BulAanuns 1a9a}UN|OA
ueiqiyduwe sapnjoul) }UawWUOLIAUd
S,epeued Jo} wayshs Bulusem |
Aiea ue se ayesado 0} swe yey) |
({aYy OnUIjueWE/es MOO MMNy/-CAY)
(NVI) JOMON JUBLUSSessY pue |
HulJo}!UOP| [29/50/0099 84} Sa}euUIPIOOD
“‘Buryeym Buyjejnbas yim
PausJaDU0D UOISSILULUOD
Je}UdWUIaA06198}u|
‘uonesiuebio
goual0s sue
Je}uswWUJaA0619}u]
“seas
juaoelpe s}i pue ues0Q
oqueny eu) ul saloeds
ay!|-eun} pue seuny
JO UONEAIBSUOD BU} 104
| ajqisuodsa uonesiuebio
jejuawuUJenobielu]
“epeued JUaWUOIIAUZ JO
juswedap e Ss! a0INas
AJIPIAA UEIPeUeD
ay. ‘JuawUOJIAUa
jeunjeu ay} Buoj1uow
JO} BD1jO JUBWUIAAOS
(OMI) UoIssIWWOD
HuIeYUAA [eUOeUJa}U
(S30) e8S |
OU} $0 UOHeJO|dx> Oy}
4Oj [IOUNOD |EUO|}eUIA}U]
(1vO9}) seuny |
nue JO UOeAJaSUOD |
OY} 10} UOISSILULUOD
JEUOHeUIS}U
|
i
epeued juatuollAuy
i
6r
Sa! eA His 5 .
ot ae aR ee
ee et oe Pe
<- A tien 3 eet
= Sree =. r
“sAaAins
489] UN|OA — *s}eqiqey pue a4!/pjim Ul Spua.} Jo}UOWW
payeulpso0o ‘ayqeyiene yeu} Sjuaujedap aje}s jenpiAipul
| awos ‘shajuns | eyep jeneds | pue ‘sadiyjo jeuoibas uanas ase “UONEAIASUOD JUeId pue
jeuoissajoid awos ‘jevayew | ajay, (AsojuaAu| Spueya\A [EUOHEN | AflIPIIM ‘US| Jo aANoa{go
‘SM4 S/N WOl | “SBdINOSAI d4I|PJIM JO pa}oai1p annewenb *JOU!) UONEAJBSUOD JE}IGeH JO UOISIAIG Asewid ay} yim (SM4SN) a01NNaS
ayqeyiene Ajjesauag asn pue Burojuoy| Ajjesauas pue aajeyqueno | ‘weiBold salsads pesebuepug = AouaBe juatuian0g Sf M pue usi4 ‘s'n
*sjoeloid i i
“sounseaw po}!wu}] a10W i i
‘Jausa}U! uoleAJaSUOD JO} yseloads ‘saioads | i
ay} UO paysijqnd qe Jo ssa0o0ns Aq skaning paus}eaiu} ‘sowueibod
‘auyied e s| Aja1I90S ay} Buipnyjoul “SIBBJUN|OA JO} SJUNOD Pa}Da1IG Huyo}UuoW jeuoeuajul Auew |
8} YOIUM Ul ‘Sgan suojejndod payeulpi00d = SAaAINS Jaa}UN|OA —_ Jy JOUPed ‘saloads oyloads 10} SAeAINS (g@dSy)
se yons shanins Pig yo snyeys Aq uayeyapun wo} Sa}EWI}Sa payoauip (Sgq) Aanins pig Bulpaaig “A\eYO UOIEAI@SUOD SPllg JO UOND9}O1d
jaBie}) wos eyeq ay) Buvopuo/\ sAanins sa6ue7 aAeyUeNo (Sgam) Aavins pilg pueNanA IM ysabue] s,adoing OU} 10} AyalN0S jeAoy
“Saled
‘yelWe}9199S OAVN “ONURNY ISAAA Bunoejuog "SYOO}S YS} “OUR ISAA\ ULON
OU} WO4} JEWOY UJON 84} JO S490}s Aq payiodas = sofew 40} ajqejiene “SJUBLUSSASSP YOO}S Jenuue Pallejap Al} JO} sadinosey Ales
yousaju! pue Adoo USI |eINJBWWOD ay} s6ulpue| S| UONEWWOJUI sdojanap jevejaioas ay| ‘saeq jo jugwabheuew jeuones (O4VN)
-puey ul ajgeyiene jo asn ajqeuleysns pue sayojeo aajeyenb pue Bunoesjuo9 Aq payiodas sonsie}s QU} JO} UOI}UBAUOD uonesiuebic saaysi4
s}Jodai pue soisieys pue uoleniasuo9g jo sisAjeuy aaeyjuenb yjog Hulpue} pue sayojeo jo siejaq | JejuaWUJaA0bi9}u| onueNy JSOEMULON
*‘Kdoo
puey se pue JeusajUul | “OL!PIIM
uo paysijqnd ease “AUSIAAIP eoIBojo1q i | JOUJO pue SPsiq UO sNdo}
Val JO sdeyy ‘Jausaju! s,yyee au} pue ‘s\vql4o Buiddew | “JOJEUIPIOOD (\Vg}) e UyIM ‘Swa}shso0a
9u} UO paysi|qnd Aye wny Jo }yauaq pue uojeoynuap] seal piig jueyodw Sq ‘Aenuns pulg Jeunyeu Bulojsau |
JEWIO} aseqejyep Uj JO} ‘Stua}SASo09 i “syaquunu Hulpsaig UeDWaWY YON au} UNOD pue Bulnasuoo |
ul ajqeyiene eyep jesinyeu 310}S9J SA8Ains Pilg JO s}unoo plig pueAyoeg yea :yo}eppsapse4 SpJeMo} uOH}esIueHIO Ayai00s
spud} uoeindog pue aAJasuod O| = paseqg-Jaa}unjoA, | aaneyUeND yoalold ‘JUNOD Pilg SEWISHYD yyoud-uou y | uognpny |euoien
| “epueba
“0002 AjIssaaipolg | ‘saounosed | “sojwapeoe pue | “UONELWJOJU! i JO (QGGN) yUeg ejeq “epueby
s,epuebp jo ajejs | jeolBojoig jeuoeu | sjeuolssajoid Aq | anyeyjenb “A\SIAAIP [eo1Bo|o1g s,epueByA jo ajeys | AJISIOAIPOIg JeEUOHHEN | ‘SadJNOSaY jeunjeNy pue
8Y 1, WOdds MaIAJBAO
O}u! ps}e||O9 e}eq
jo Buuoyiuow | sfaAins payoauip
pue uoeAiasuog | Ajjesauag
pue oajeyquenb | ay} ssasse 0} pasn aye yoIym Woy = ayy BulGeuew aynyysu! | jU@WUOIIAUZ Jo ayNyHSU|
ujog jo sjes eBye7] = e}EP GQGN eu} Sule}UIeEW a}nNNSUI eu, peseg Ajisianiup | ‘AYSIOAIUA) B1BJAye/\
\ $y ee» - ‘ ,
2 Ne ene ea | :
dh yt
dep Hy Peg
“OPIS JOUIBJUI OONL
94} uO peysiiqnd
S}JINS81 SganA
“IM Wody
aiqeyiene sjioday
“aSeSAIP |e100
‘Ba sdew Buipnjoul
‘sue|d uoleviasuoo
salads pue jeyIqey
‘JEWIOJ JOUJO}UI
pue Adoo puey
ul suodai pasAjeue
pue ejyep mes ujog
‘Apog SOSN
ajyeudoidde ay} wo
ajqeyiene Ajjesduab
aie sodas paysijqnd
pue eyep mey
“UONeAIaSUOD
puejam Huojuop\
*seioads puejjom
pue spueyjam
JO asn ajqeulejsns
pue uojeviasuog
“soloads
pasebuepua
pue sy90}s
Aiaysij |e10saWWw0o
Bulpnyjoul
‘saounosai jeoiBojoiq
JO uoeAsasuoo
pue Buyoj}!uoyy
*sadinosal jeunyeu
jo asn ajqeulejsns
pue uoneAiasuoo
‘Buo}!uoy|
“SJBOJUNJOA
jo dnoi6
abe) Aq shanins
a}eulplo0g
“saldjuNoo
OZ} ue} a10W
ul uayeyiapun
ase SAAN
“syiedxa
jeyUsWUJaAOB
-uou pue
Je}UaWUIBAOB Jo
ylomjau jeqo|6 v
“sAQAUNS
jUaWUaA0b
pa}oa11q
"S199 UNJOA
payeulpioo0o
Aq pasaujyeb
UO}EWJOJUI asn
sjoafoid uleyag
“RAAINS OYNUdIOS
pa}oeuIp
yBnosu} Ajsoyy
‘(asaeb
ajoeuseg ‘SueMS
s,yoImeg ‘6a)
SAQAINS J8A}UN|OA
WoO} Sa}ewI}sa
aayeyjuenb
JO Saas-awi |
“soyewiy}sa
pua} aaiezyenb
pue anjeyueno
“eyep
jeneds ‘sAanins
WO} Sa}eWI}Se
SAHEWUEND
‘asnoybuea|9
ejeq jenedsoasy
SOSN eu}
yBnosy) ajqeyieae
ejep jeneds
‘eyep anjeyjenb
pue aajeyqueno
(SaeM)
AQAINS PJIG PUBAAA BU} JO} JEUE}SIDGS
“SO8OIJO
jeuoiBai uno} ase aay] “;mMopa}eM UO
HuljesjuadUON sdnoJb jsijeEl0ads saioads
H pue oewau} jo Jaquinu abe) y¥
“SOIJUBD BOUBINS PUL SBdIHO
jeuoibay al4 “savaysi4 ajqeule}sns
JO BIO ‘uOHeAJaSUOD Je}IGeH Jo
BOO ‘S8dINOSAY PI}99}O1d JO BdIWO
“(weiBold
Huvo}luopy ueIqiudwiy UeoWeWYy
YON au} pue ‘Aevuns pulg Buipsaig
| uedWawy YON ay, ‘Buipnyjoul
sawwe6oid Buo}uowW snoJawnu
UJIM PSAIOAU!) 1a}UaD YOIeasey
SJIPIIAA JUaxNyed :Hulpnjoul ‘sasjuso
yoieasas aoualos oi}ewWeu} pue jeuoibal
jueoduwi jo Jaquunu e aie aay
“Spulg PUeaM o1e1
uo Bulsnoo} ‘spueyam
JO uo}eAJasuoo
uy} Bujowoid AyWeyo vy
*saioads
puejjam pue spuejam
Jo uoeAuasuod
8U} U}IM pauadU0d
uonjesiuebio oid
-UOU |BUO!}eUsa}U! UY
seounosas aulew
Bulal| jo JuUsWabeueW
pue uoeAiasuod ay}
Bulsoddns sawwesbod
(VVON) uonejsiulpy
puy o1uea00 |euOHeN
S/N SJ9}SIUIWPe SAIN
“saqualos jeinyeu
9y} Ul UOEWOJUI
pue yojeasal
oynusios BuipiAoid
Aouabe juawusaro0g sn
(LMM) SNL
SPULNAN 8 IMOJPIIAA
(IM)
JeuoHeusaj}U] SPUBHA/A\
(SAIN)
BdINIBS SaaYsi4
Suey |EUOHEN *S'N
(sosn)
Aanins |eo|bojoa9g +s i
Is
Deny bilan (picket site? mah yi
is
|
nat et,
ibs nih vs mits ;
at a ite hil ape dy
Ecosystem data
In the context of sustainable development, maintaining ecosystem condition and the integrity
of ecological processes at large geographical scale over many human generations is the
ultimate objective. However, ecosystem ‘health’ or condition is a complex concept, and one
that is difficult to evaluate because it is based on concepts of ecosystem structure and
function that remain weakly defined and primarily qualitative. Although some level of
diversity is essential to maintain ecosystem processes, the relationship between diversity and
ecological function remains poorly defined. In practice, ecosystem trends are chiefly assessed
in terms of:
= current extent of habitats, which may provide a baseline for future monitoring,
= change in the area of each habitat type, derived by repeated assessment of extent over a
specified time period,
= change in the apparent quality or integrity of habitats, eg. in terms of community
composition, spatial integrity or physico-chemical features.
None of these options is straightforward, and not all of them are applicable to all systems. For
example, change in area is of little relevance to assessing the condition of Lake Baikal or the
pelagic ocean ecosystem.
Habitat monitoring is technically difficult and is further complicated by the lack of
universally accepted habitat or ecosystem definitions and classification systems. Terrestrial
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.
Many ecological processes operate over decades and therefore require series of data collected
over several decades before it is possible to begin to understand them. However, field
research and environmental decision-making typically take place over far shorter time-scales.
There is no ready answer to this problem apart from recommending a strongly precautionary
approach to the large-scale alteration of ecosystems and ecological processes. Ecological
models offer the only practical tool for assessing the possible long-term environmental
consequences of any management intervention or other human activity.
Measurement of ecosystem or habitat condition is problematic and many different variables
can be chosen for measurement according to the primary interests of the investigator. For
example, a forester is likely to assess condition in terms of standing woody biomass, the size-
class distribution and the frequency of commercial tree species; an ecologist may be
interested in nutrient and water cycling or other aspects of ecosystem function; a conservation
biologist may be most interested in the diversity of species present and trends in their
population size.
Measuring and monitoring ecosystem extent
Assessment of change in ecosystem area primarily requires a consistent series of
measurements taken over a significant period of time. Coarse scale change in terrestrial
habitats, e.g. loss of forest cover, can be measured most easily by remote sensing. Of remote
sensing options, satellite imagery is rapid and relatively cheap but aerial photographs from
ay?
7 r
~ a #4
PANN) te j
Ai A Be Ay j rm
Ki Ry Sparta Gers ree ar ~ an
nes Sw t f y - 5 : Ms
it fil bs Fee] y r ys :
Lieber Tel Hi sbily hi pate 1 ’ hare’ ; pees aa ‘ Ta
: batiy ory Wh i y f tN hie ial
ai ; Yalow: aaah AvAti j oY Pet i PRT eh a i be, lee iia Aai ran
+ ‘ Le] 4 c
ies ya
i eb) iO Seat
. S96 Pn ‘ ini i
a ha ee
elt Gla i fii ’
ies fed vingat ‘it —
pat Py wal hay ye a Tea sa rietie ie Wea pan
ane ul Pe hrod hres AW aise
7 j ws i ce gts “fet nie oe
‘t
‘A
oe
Nay it
-
sifliic © si ae nee au i is,
AA Hai laer. i a
wasn ep le
ee al
(hence the common use of AVHRR data, which are acquired daily), but increases the costs of
handling large volumes of data. Programmes that depend on sensors with a low frequency of
return have greater difficulties with the availability of good quality data, which are seen in the
gaps in the Pathfinder data set and in the constraints on the TM sampling programmes of the
TREES project and FAO.
FAO and the TREES and Pathfinder programmes are the only global ones with activities
underway that are explicitly directed at monitoring rather than one-off assessment. A number
of assessment programmes, such as the EROS GLCCD include no specific provision for
repeated assessment over time, but apparently end with the production of an assessment for a
single point in time.
Even the programmes that anticipate monitoring suffer from problems of standardisation and
comparability of data over time. For example, each of the two different phases of the TREES
project used a different approach for processing and classifying digital AVHRR data. To
some degree this problem is inherent in the rapidly evolving discipline of remote sensing, in
which sensors and methods of data processing are changing constantly. As the TREES
projects, like most others, set out to deliver improved methods as much as results so the
change in methods over time is one appropriate outcome. However, when setting goals for
project, inadequate care has been taken to ensure that improved methods are inter-calibrated
with more antiquated ones so that data sets may be comparable over time. The data generated
by FAO from national inventories and statistical reporting are also subject to comparability
problems that limit their utility for trae monitoring because of changes in definitions and
modelling approaches between assessments.
In sum, no programme has yet produced consistent and comparable time series data on
changes in global ecosystem extent. GOFC (Global Observations of Forest Cover) is the only
remote sensing-based programme to explicitly specify monitoring as a major function with
specified assessment intervals, but it is not yet clear how this will be achieved. The FAO has
a mandate for producing periodic assessments of forest cover, but has changed approaches
and definitions between assessments. It currently anticipates increased investment in on-the-
ground inventory, which may well provide an improvement in accuracy, but will yet again
raise issues of comparability over time. To avoid these problems in future, it is essential that
the requirements for monitoring be emphasised when setting goals and procedures for
projects.
A number of national and regional assessments also provide baseline data, and in a few cases,
have made significant progress in establishing effective monitoring programmes. This
overview does not attempt to list comprehensively or evaluate national and regional
programmes. Selected examples in Table 3 include the recent development in seven Central
American countries of national vegetation maps based on Landsat data interpreted at
1:250,000 and extensive ancillary information. These may provide useful baselines for
subsequent monitoring efforts, but only if resources are available and effort is made to ensure
consistency of approach. Regional assessments, such as that for South America provided by
the Woods Hole Research Centre, can also serve this function, but frequently suffer from the
problems of coarse spatial resolution. The Amazon deforestation monitoring conducted by
the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research is an example of a purpose-driven
monitoring programme. Although there have been some problems of comparability in the
early years of this programme, it has at least recognised the need to establish and maintain
54
mraiter
“ es
HAs, Se,
We ne ea os oe
>
t
pln eyooady ee
fa:
consistency of approach over different sampling intervals. An important challenge is to
consider ways in which such geographically restricted efforts can contribute to global
assessment and monitoring programmes.
There remains a clear need for increased co-ordination in the collection of data on global
ecosystem extent, for wider institutional recognition of the need for such data, and for the
remote sensing community to ensure that its many advances are adequately inter-calibrated
with previous approaches. It is possible that an important role for umbrella programmes and
processes such as GOFC, GTOS and CEOS will be in promoting the inter-calibration of new
methods with old ones and the establishment of appropriate and comparable time series data
on ecosystem extent.
Another possible avenue for progress is in the use and integration of data sets covering more
restricted areas. For example, the high-resolution data sets used by FAO and TREES for
detailed sampling and calibration of estimates of forest cover and/or deforestation rates are
potentially an important resource. They are high-quality images and, at least in the case of
TREES, are a carefully stratified sample designed to represent a full range of deforestation
scenarios. The full utility of data sets of this type for inter-calibration between broader scale
assessments, and/or for the generation of representative time series data, remains to be
explored.
The above overview has dealt mainly with areas where significant tree cover is present.
Measuring area and assessing condition in other terrestrial habitats present additional
difficulties, mainly arising from the lack of a consistent global classification framework, and the
fact that information of interest is less readily derived from remote sensed data. Photosynthetic
activity can be assessed from satellite data and this, to the extent that within and between year
variability can be taken into account, can provide some indication of variation in land cover.
Marine ecosystems
Oceanic ecosystems, which cover 71% of the earth's surface, are in general much less well
understood than terrestrial ecosystems. Biogeographic classification of oceanic ecosystems are
made problematic because they are significantly more dynamic than terrestrial systems, with far
fewer natural boundaries. However, a classification system is necessary if effective monitoring
and management of the marine biosphere is to be developed.
Several classifications of the marine realm exist, some based on biogeography, others, as in the
case of two recent systems, on oceanographic and ecological features. Longhurst (1995)
classified the world ocean into four ecological domains and 56 biogeochemical provinces,
largely on the basis of estimates of primary production rates, and changes over time, plotted on
a one-degree grid. These values were derived from long-term and geographically extensive data
on sea surface colour obtained during 1978-1986 by the CZCS radiometer carried on the
Nimbus orbiting satellite. The Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) scheme elaborated by Sherman
and Busch (1995) is a widely used alternative system, although this is selective in that it
concentrates on shelf waters, and did not initially cover all such areas.
Core monitoring activities which would be central to development of marine biodiversity
indicators include the use of Continuous Plankton Recorders (CPRs) for plankton and water
quality data, assessment of change in the fish community by bottom trawling or other techniques
according to substrate, and environmental pollution assessments. Further sampling techniques
55
Hs - tye ee kya eeh iw Jot Alig tin BN aye ah iby , i ,
{he «
s ’ =
i) aby eb elie ji i” Arba te haeey -aerimh fh i Haren B
‘2 ul diet paiihe are ; j op: art higes Sy ie Ps a) be,
ATA REM. PRT Mayet Foal ful Ee: Hiipaet Higher ey Sk UD
Pay Ppa | geen iffy meet Big.
visual Een ns vary
er
hs |
veh a Ee
ee
ned ipa eS |
7 peng te Aik Meee
on riietocd' Jina
Pinal tanec © cso Bol
dla ‘ sa ue Mai
" pati yi bo
are required for particular habitat types, but the sampling and monitoring efforts undertaken by
the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) illustrate a range of
information relevant to the marine environment in general:
* systematic collection and analysis of catch-statistics:
" fisheries-independent bottom and midwater trawl surveys, or other appropriate technique,
for adults and juvenile fishes;
* 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; and in some
habitats, measurement of contaminants and their effects.
Inland waters
Traditional assessment of freshwater ecosystem quality has largely focused on measuring
organic and inorganic pollutants, including suspended matter and salinity levels. Monitoring
of trends in species abundance has mostly concentrated on human pathogens (such as
coliforms), a select few commercially managed fish species, and a number of aquatic bird and
mammal species.
For the majority of freshwater species (non-commercial fishes, invertebrates and plants) in
developed temperate countries, trends in distribution area or abundance numbers are poorly
known, and even fewer species have been monitored in tropical countries. A few high-profile
species and a few sampling sites are relatively well known, and so some data are available on
increasing rarity of occurrence or declining river length occupied, for example. While the
general lack of information on trends in aquatic species is partly a result of the difficulty of
assessing abundance in aquatic habitats, more generally it stems from the low level of
attention previously paid to these species by both resource managers and conservation
organisations.
/
pitied dp
t
i 7 | =
= 5 |
piel aid wie) Te aa
hung: Uv baba A
pain dl : i : easy
po vniiede ahorey
bats ‘ a ele
sajeuijsa ease
JO UOHeugijeo UONN|OSel-YyBiy Ou s! ajay, “suoiGas Uaamjaq a|qesedwoo
JOU pue xajdwoo ase Sassejo J9A09 pue| Aue “Swajqoid asneo
UED YIM ‘UOHEDISSE|O JO S}JOadse SWOS JO} UONEWeA |euOseas sas;
‘spoyjaw Uoe}asduaju! pue UOHEd\ISsejO 0} payoeye SuJadU0D
jeolbojopoujaw awos ase ajay} yng ‘Saas Atul jnJasn e aq pinog
jualussasse uo}e}Sal0jap
JO} Payless ‘aj\dwes aAnejuasaidas e aq 0} pauBbisap AjjeonsyeyS
Auabeuwt
uoNNjosal-YyBiy YM UoHeiqies BIA aUOP aq PjNOd jnq ‘ajqisea} jou s!
UOSHECWOD JOaJIP B1ojasay} ‘AHojopoujew siayje Ng ‘| S44Y1 uO spling
‘pauBisap Ajjeosieys uey}
Jaujes osiunyoddo si ajdwes uojnjosas-ybiy ay) yng ‘jnydjay si AvaBeuw!
uoN|Osal-YyBiy YM eyep UONN|OSaJ asjeOD ay} JO UONeIqueo ay,
“(eda |esJUaD OU ‘SWa|qoid J8A09 Pnojo els 4S) suoibe. awos ul
9}a|dwoou! si jey} Soido} piuny ay) JO} auljaseq jeiiu! UON|OSas-asueoD
Buroyuo JO} |e1Ua}0g
‘uol6as Jad sassejo
GSz 0} Z| wos Bulbued ‘sawayos uoljeoylsse|o
UdJaJJIP AAW Buisn Sdetw 1909 pue| jeucibay
sjasejep yespue7 |ey6ip
‘UONJEJSAJOJAp JO Sa}EWIJSA jeo!}se}s ajeos jeucibay
Sa}ewSE UOHe}|SA0JaQq
BIS 3S JO uoIsuaA Ays Jea}9 Buipnjoul
‘sdeW aAoge au} JO SUOISIOA Mau LONeJedaJd U/
sajyewuse
JOAOD JSOIO} PAJEsquled ‘uoNJOdoJd sao} pue
uoleyuawb6edj }S9J0j UO sjasejyep jeoido.jued “els
WS sejnsu| pue eisy 3S JeyUaUUOD ‘eoaWYy YyNOS
Jeoidos | piuny ‘eouyy jesjUaD Jo sdeyy uo|e}aba/,
s}ndjno
wy |
WOE
WOE
Wy/
Wy,
uonnjosey
jeeds
£€6-26 YYHAV
S06 8
SO8-PIW ‘SOL6L
aye| Ajjeulwou
WL pue
SSW yespue)
26 pue
Z66} Ajjeulwou
‘sajdues
WL yespuey
26-96 YSLV
pue uonjejabe)
LOdsS
€6-26 YYHAV
aoiunos e}eq
(9aa) ad9919
-Sid-da9l
Japuyuyed
ll- SA5NL
I- SASeL
awweiboig
BILP SUTSUAS dJOWUIAI UO pase JUd}X9 Wa}SAsOdd JO SULIOPUOU [eqo]s SurprAoid sassacoid Ud.LIND aWIOg “¢ 9IqUL,
“eyep ayijayes Bunaidsayur
pue Buisfjeue 10} spoujaw parojdwi pue Japjo ugemjeq uONesq!jeo
-Jajul aBeinooua jeu} Spsepue}s Pue SauUl|apinb JaAljap 0} jenuajod
ey} sey aAjeniul ay, “AjluNWWOd Jasn ay} pue Way} UgeMmjaq Syul|
pue 19A09 }S$aJ0} UO Bulyiom Sauweboid Bulsuas ajowel uaiayip Aue
au} Buowe uoNeuIpso-09 apiAoid 0} papuayu! aANeNiu! ejjasquun jeqo|g
“eyep
SOY} WO1 BWOD O} UONEWUOJUI SSEWOIG PU dIN}JONJ}S }S9JO} paylejap JO}
Jenuajod ‘Ajjeoyloads pabesiaua uojoun HulJo}iuow ON ‘uOeoyIsse|o
peaoidw yoddns 0} Ajjediouid yng ‘suoseas jusJajip ye paulejgo eyeq
payeiqijeo Ajayenbape 4! auljaseq se jenuajog
“spouad
awl} Uamjeq SWe|qold UO}eJj}siHa1 YIM pajyeioosse si pue uONNjosad
yBiy au} jo |!eJap au} yO YON saso| sabeww! ulyjIM pb Bul|dwes
“pauBbisap Ajjeojsieys ueu} Jayjes ONSIUNOddo si saBew! Jo UONNGUISIG
SUOHE}! LUI] UONNJOSaI jeNeds pue UOHeoIssejO SJayiNs
yng ‘auljaseq jenuajod y “eyep Aueyjoue pue GQ0 19 wo panueq
ejep
payodai Ajjeuojeu Hulsipsepuejs ul pasn suoniuyjap pue seyoeoidde
HulBueyo Jo swajqoid UM jnq ‘jas eyep jeonsie}s Saves ow |njasn vy
“uolN|osal
W Gz je Seale }Sas0} snjd ‘ajoAo wea-g e uO
UO!]N|OSOJ ASJeOD }e JAAD pue| Jo Hulddew sipoiag
SOO}
|23J0q pue S}SaJ0} ules JO JAAOD jeqo|BH yo sdey\
4909 uoHe}aBan Jo sdew jeqo|gH
sejdwes
uoljnjosai yBiy uo pase uolje}SaJOJap Jo sa}ewi}sy
JOAOD }S910+ Jo dey jeqo|D
0002
‘O66L ‘O86] JUaWSsSEssy SedJNOSAY }SaJO4 |eqo|D
W 000L-0S2
WOOL
Wy |
WOE
wy |
Ayewuuns
Jeuonen
snouen
L-OANA
pue |-SYar
woy eyep (YS)
Jepe ainyiede
aneyUAS
SO66L
aye] uonejaba)
LOdsS
0002 8
066) Ajjeulwou
SaUus0S
LLL ‘sajdwes
WL yespue7
€6-26 YYHAV
soda
@ SOlO}UBAU|
(9409)
J9AOD JS9JO4
Jo uoljeasasqo
leqoi
weibold
Buiddew
ysa104 |EGOo|D
000z uoNejaba,
Ov4
a
. 7 a sal |
eI Ry ae ne
Titskpat Oe
bine, gee
i ba i ¥
De eat Sale
pt nb - fs rie
.. ee eee ee
6S
uolun
JOINOS JOWIOJ BY} JO dew JaA00 puey VOWeseda/d U/
ejep Aseyjioue
“payedionue Ajyioidxa
pue saoipul 4a)Ua9
yeadas ON ‘auIjaseq jnjasn e WO} Pjnod yng ‘eyep UOI|N|OSaJ-YBiy UiUoge (Bae gels). 2o ust /e0 uum Aa ssouuael6 yoeasay
UM UOHeIgIeo ON “UOHeOYISSE|O |NnJasn yng ‘uoNN|osel jeneds esueOD BoelWy YINOS jo dew JeAo0o puey WY GL-L YYHAV B|OH SPOON
(azI19q
openjes
{9 ‘eyewajyen5
‘SeInpUuOH,
‘enBeieoin
“Kem Japun jII}S UoHesiuoWJeY |euoIBay “sal4juNOD “‘eoly e}SOD
UBEMJaq PUL UIY}IM AW} JAAO ADUa}S!ISUOD jedIKo|OpoujawW aunsua 000'0SZ:L ‘eweued)
0} SB80iJNOSAI JO JUBLUJSAAU! JUROIIUBIS UjIM AjUO jeNUa}Od Bulo}UOW yng ye Ajjensia saljunoo
‘anyoedsied adxe jeuoeu BHulssaippe ajiym Saijunoo Huowe parjdde dew ajeos jeuoibas uoesedaid uj payaidsajul eyep Ayeyjioue UuBQWOWYy
yoeoidde JejlWis Jo asnedaq anijeliul JueWOdwwI! pue sauljaseg jNnjasn 000‘0Sz:1 3e Sdew UuoNe}JaHan jeuoNeN woe snid Wt yespueq |e4jUaD UBABS
000'0SZ:1 3e
payasdiajur
“WOE WL yespue] \IZe1g ‘SdNI
SAAILVILINI IVNOIDS3Y /IVWNOILVN
Adequacy of available data and information
Because of the very broad range of information needs that exists among potential users of
biodiversity information, it is difficult to assess in a rigorous fashion the suitability of the data
and information products that are available.
Most countries have a reasonable working knowledge at the inventory level of at least the
terrestrial vertebrates, vascular plants and main ecosystem types within their territory. Some have
very detailed information on a wide range of organisms, sometimes with supporting data on
abundance and trends. In general, information on threats to biodiversity and ecosystem integrity
has not been collected in a systematic fashion, and trends have typically been identified on the
basis of anecdotal or qualitative information.
Land cover data available tend to be patchy in coverage, with much variation in origin, date,
resolution and quality, and linked to inconsistent ecosystem classifications. For example, within
the OECD, probably the largest political and economic grouping where generally good quality
data are available for each national or regional component, each such source typically uses a
different ecosystem or vegetation classification. Nevertheless, and despite many gaps, all
developed countries have a body of information that is potentially available for assessment
purposes.
Although a considerable amount of information exists within the world scientific community, it
is often scattered, relatively inaccessible and in a form that is not easy to understand or
synthesise. Drawing this information together to produce reliable assessments has proved
problematic, and the needs for development and adoption of reliable standard methodologies,
and for long-term funding support remain to be met.
60
eee Li san ry vege i
_ en site vee be aytd | fi hint e ve
wer Lee “re
\ nif
vr
lady nee dy idafs ah ‘eee Bl eae Pe RELA
Py si Ai ape ital i ster ay a,
ae apt! Fibs Ritiae ie) SSO pee
by deeded ane
soe ee erent >?
pre ahtir ‘oi abt ui 7
Saint 20 oy ie ant bias ae al leet Wy ie alr a
a 3 , - in 7
5 veer a
i ia +. ast nant gee ‘
Wie
L fairl a
pagliante: + are | edthraas! .% 2 me weipahistiee! “ 7
Sh se me Ae a eae . 3 pow
i “yr
Bera eg Ph Hep of rN
wy ili sala het hea
2 ate Bie Sikes che
5. HOW CAN BIODIVERSITY BE MEASURED?
Introduction
Biodiversity assessments can be elaborate and complex processes, involving a large number of
different participants and technical approaches, and generating a great deal of complex
information, which can be challenging to manage and simplify. This report does not attempt to
provide a comprehensive overview of different assessment methods, as numerous other sources
of information are available that deal with such technical aspects. Rather, the intention here is to
highlight a limited number of key concepts and principles, which may be of use in designing a
biodiversity assessment.
This section first considers different analytical frameworks that are available for biodiversity
assessment, then considers the selection of appropriate variables to measure. The design and °
implementation of a biodiversity survey or inventory is then considered in detail. Finally, some
examples of current assessments are provided, to illustrate the different approaches adopted in
practice.
Developing a conceptual framework
Some form of framework or conceptual model is required to structure the process of information
gathering and analysis. The most widely used is the ‘pressure-state-response’ (P-S-R)
framework, which was developed by the OECD (OECD 1993) on the basis of the “stress-
response” model developed by Friend and Rapport (1979). The P-S-R framework states that
human activities exert pressures on the environment (such as clearance of forest for agriculture),
which can induce changes in the state of the environment (for example, the extent of forest
cover). Society may then respond to changes in pressures or state with policies and programs
intended to prevent, reduce or mitigate pressures and thereby reduce environmental damage.
Indicators provide tools for identifying P-S-R relationships, both at the reporting stage and
during policy analysis.
The P-S-R framework has been widely applied to biodiversity assessment; for example it is
explicitly recognised by the CBD. A variant of this approach, namely the “Driving Force - State
— Response” (D-S-R), has been applied by the CSD (CSD 2001). In the D-S-R framework, the
term "pressure" has been replaced by that of "driving force" in order to accommodate more
accurately the addition of social, economic, and institutional indicators. In addition, the use of
the term "driving force" allows that the impact on sustainable development may be both positive
and negative, as is often the case for social, economic and institutional indicators.
The PSR scheme was further expanded by the European Environment Agency to include drivers
and impacts, forming the DPSIR framework (EEA 1998). Both the PSR and the extended
DPSIR models are based on the fact that different societal activities (drivers) cause a pressure on
the environment, causing quantitative and qualitative changes of it (changing state and impact).
Society has to respond to these changes in order to achieve sustainable development. According
to the DPSIR framework, different indicators of sustainability may be developed, relating to
drivers, pressure, state, impact and response.
61
j
=,
i i ‘
* gt ¥%§ s 1 t i) a *
os ~
i ; ee 3
4 e:
Bm ava erele A Spon £
eer ?
2% Py h tye ae yh Re ayy SL ot Te eres f Oa ia | sit Rise 3 ta See ecahey a
: d ; y 4 = “va
. we ¥yr & 4 - ~ care eo .
p Je rE a Le Woe wis Be a beth Yeas ieee baat 2 eth os a npel Br tay wit as
Bh ae ee Nib skean aay RPG
Sy a Tan. ome Neh Esa my ai" : ta Rina Bic gu ary : Ts he rol oli?
re a A" the if 0 ge a) GIN cetats, rate ij \iet fp heke nt g nee
pe fide eet ney Homer
teh Gotan kg
ray oe arate Recipe ARN 4 ge Sue it
ie ae ne ae iy meh tails sraahatitl ie me ie
é “elite, Tiga! ite yest ws nie:
see. eel Beis Sea sthedsiiias! aes cepts i, hihi ie Hiway
arian shite anaes sili! 3
Ag P
Fs Ib tecdieteas ab cerem
* in ggest we Leia
J i
i ise +
Spelt’, Lites the teh
\ ‘ k i ; a on i
rie te =sghtch ijpeaee gehen tna. te a Fant aia
th, eet sla lity ae
*y RE tly, coh)!
. a
ne reed wane
rk & eeu J
iat eal Wale
any: pul ay ie
e ath 53
a Pails if
‘agitate -. ; 1 “hy ial 0 ee, Bra] eel | Hh
TE eel MLL
i “i a ie Die
ie!
A number of additional frameworks have been proposed by different scientific researchers.
There is no general consensus about which framework provides the best basis for any given
biodiversity assessment. However, various versions of the P-S-R model are now commonly used
within different policy processes, and therefore if the results of the assessment are intended to be
communicated to a policy-related audience, then adoption of a policy-relevant framework such
as P-S-R is of key importance.
Selecting which variables to measure
The choice of variables to be included in the assessment will obviously depend on the choice of
values, objectives, and availability of existing data. Any assessment or monitoring programme
will be subject to limitations in terms of scope, financial support, technical capacity etc., and
these limitations will also influence the choice of variables to be measured. Ideally, the
conceptual framework selected at the outset should help guide the selection of those key
variables of interest; for example, it may often be desirable to assess a particular threat or
environmental pressure, and examine the impact that this is having on the state of biodiversity
within a given area (according to the DPSIR framework). The appropriate variables in this case
might include those describing the principal threat occurring in the area (for example, the amount
of harvesting of wildlife), and the abundance of those species at greatest risk (for example, those
species being harvested).
Biodiversity indicators
As it is impossible to measure every aspect of biodiversity, variables are selected that summarise,
or act as proxies for the biodiversity component of interest. A great deal of research has been
devoted to the development and selection of such biodiversity ‘indicators’. Again, a
comprehensive treatment of this subject is beyond the scope of this report, but the following
guidelines may be of value in defining appropriate indicators for any given assessment:
= Policy context. The importance of developing biodiversity indicators for summarising
complex information in a way that can support policy development and implementation is
recognised by many policy processes, which have devoted a great deal of effort to indicator
development. For example, the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)
in 1992 recognised the importance of indicators for enabling countries to make informed
decisions regarding sustainable development, including biodiversity. The Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) provides a more explicit policy context for indicators of
biodiversity. CBD (2001) provides an overview of how the issue of biodiversity indicators
has been dealt with by the Convention. Proposals have also been made for a ‘core set’ of
biodiversity indicators suitable for use by Parties in compiling their national reports, and to
enable the effectiveness of measures taken to be evaluated (CBD 1997a). Many biodiversity
indicators have also been developed by the various regional and national processes focusing
on evaluating sustainable forest management.
=" Frameworks. The frameworks discussed earlier, such as P-S-R and DPSIR, provide a
framework for indicator development. For examples, indicators can be developed separately
for each of the different elements of the framework (e.g. for pressures, state and response,
62
ie % se sides,
ef aba gine yet,
' i‘ 4 é colin Spain tt ra a ihe toe
ey re ileus ru di
oe iz iyi. a or
wi ae piece al) ai
Oy eT dina ani. iy gery gage
’ rf: sorte Tae alga ds. ah ela) .
: i 4 Liga? auth ; Gas «(elie & = re i ey
pion Lee) ee heh 7 oe, ae + i
; wrt eal Lalas 7 mciTbI La ” me ihe ai
iby pions ie ia gail if inp Cale
Paighive Hic nec Wiep api - Se 7 4 nt Minions
wk es vel:
hen RAY Kel
te pa
etc.). Such frameworks are often referred to explicitly by policy development processes, in
the context of indicator development.
Consultation. Those involved in policy development and implementation often find it
difficult to identify and articulate their needs for biodiversity-related information. This
problem is exacerbated by their lack of awareness of what is feasible. There may therefore be
a need to work with groups of such stakeholders to help them identify the most important
biodiversity-related questions to which they need answers. These questions will in turn help
direct the development of appropriate indicators to help provide answers. The biodiversity-
related questions of interest to most stakeholders address the status of key resources, the
factors that influence their status and the impacts of resource exploitation. Therefore, most
key questions at the national level will derive from national and sub-national policies
governing resource management and use, and the commitments, goals and targets within
them. It is important, therefore, to involve in the consultations decision-makers from as many
of these sectors as possible, as well as representatives of resource users themselves, including
the poor, and of organisations devoted to influencing resource use and policy (e.g. NGOs).
Characteristics of appropriate indicators. Indicators should supply the maximum amount of
information with the minimum amount of work. To be effective, indicators must be readily
quantifiable, easily assessed in the field, repeatable and subject to minimal observer bias, cost
effective, and ecologically meaningful.
Selection of indicator species. Species, or species groups, may be selected as indicators. Such
indicator groups should be (after Noss 1990):
= Taxonomically well-known so that populations can be reliably identified and named
= Biologically well-understood
= 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
= Representative (as far as is known) of distribution and abundance patterns in other related
and unrelated taxa
= Actually or potentially of economic importance
Further information on the development and application of biodiversity indicators is available on
the website of UNEP WCMC (http:/Awww.unep-weme.org/). A number of other relevant
resources, including case studies involving monitoring and evaluation of conservation projects, is
provided by the Foundations of Success website (http://www.fosonline.org/fos/default.asp).
Developing a measurement programme
Once the variables or indicators to be included in the assessment programme have been
identified, there may be a need to undertake a programme of data collection, to supplement or
augment the available data. Data gathering may occur only once, as a one-off assessment, or may
be repeated at regular intervals if some form of monitoring is required. A field survey or
63
sible; nae he fhe,
a UE at ea
| ; ahs
ah Ace ice
ae ie tad
inventory will need to be designed according to an appropriate sampling protocol. In addition,
appropriate methods for measuring the variables of interest will also need to be identified.
If a biodiversity survey or inventory is undertaken, the following elements may form part of the
planning and design process (Parker et a/. 1993, Burley and Gauld 1995, Stohlgren et al. 1997,
Wright et al. 1998):
Assemble existing information and perform an information needs assessment
Define and justify what is to be monitored
Develop or update vegetation maps. Divide the landscape into ecosystem types based upon
enduring physical features such as soil texture and landform.
Use remote sensing to detect, map and monitor ecosystem boundary and structural changes
plus GIS to portray all levels of biodiversity currently known.
Select areas to sample, using the GIS as a basis for stratification. Use unbiased site selection
based upon remotely sensed information
Use multi-scale field techniques to assess plant diversity
Use molecular sampling methods to determine intra-specific variation of focal groups: this
will require resolution of the debate over the 'best' method.
Select optimal quadrat size, number of samples, and number of sampling sites for obtaining
accurate estimates of plant species diversity
Establish "plots" and collect the data.
Involve local human populations and indigenous knowledge in recording species occurrence,
distribution and use (see Chapter 6)
Progressively increase sampling proportion among permanent sample plots until acceptable
accuracy is achieved.
Use mathematical models (eg species-area curves) to estimate the number of species in large
areas corrected for within-type heterogeneity
Use mathematical techniques to estimate total species richness and patterns of plant diversity
in a landscape.
Manage the data for analysis and long- term security
The following guidelines relating to collection of biodiversity data have been modified from the
UNEP Guidelines for Country Studies on Biological Diversity (see also Box 2):
Data-gathering is a tool for decision-making and not an end in itself - the agenda for data
acquisition must be constituent-driven and issue-based. It must be appreciated that the
gathering of data can be an endless process unless clear boundaries are specified and linked
to unambiguous objectives. One of the most common errors in conservation planning is to
allow researchers and data managers to set the parameters for data acquisition independent of
the interests of the information users. In determining what data to collect, the question must
always be asked, "How does this information contribute to the biodiversity planning
process?" An information management strategy should be developed as part of the action
planning process and, as part of this, the information needs of the users should be determined
through a continuing dialogue that identifies or prioritizes the types of data to be gathered.
It is essential to set priorities as not all data are of equal value to the planning process. With
limited resources available, the setting of priorities for the types of data to collect is critical.
64
rieede cee
cf
Pa
a aes
hes si phase
peponeeiy :
Ree
; “es § ages pad eat
Deore yy el ee
rad 7 *
Bap evs
i ae hn a oa
eal ‘so ae ian le
“an diy ai ior aa
Enon Tea ear cna
a ae Be
bias he ere tan i fi
ee ee eee
UT SRA he ee 2 reel ella
bid) Hem ies
we tear yd int
These will vary according to the planning needs and requirements of the country. A generic
list of possible priorities for data gathering is presented in Box 2, although this will need
refining in the context of the circumstances of each individual situation
Information about the data should be collected. Whenever possible, the following attributes
should be provided for data included in the study:
* source - who collected the data or where did it come from?
= method - what method was used for its collection?
= date - when was it collected?
= scale - for mapped data, at what scale was the data collected?
* reliability - what is the quality/reliability of the data? It is suggested that a simple four
category reliability classification should be adopted, based mainly on the method of
derivation:
" Category A - high reliability: data derived from systematic scientific survey or
sampling
* Category B - medium reliability: data derived from extrapolation, approximation or
other imprecise methods
= Category C - low reliability: anecdotal data or guestimates
= Category X - unknown reliability: derivation of the data unknown
Data-gathering should focus on the interaction of social factors, economic sectors and
biological systems. Biodiversity planning aims to influence the interface between human and
biological systems. Assessments should therefore demonstrate how the biological data relate
to, and are affected by, such socioeconomic factors as human population demography, land
use and resource ownership. For instance, how does agricultural price intervention affect land
use and thus biological diversity, or what effect will a change in the rights of access by local
people to biological resources have upon patterns of consumption and thus the loss of
biological diversity? These socioeconomic parameters provide the framework within which
to interpret the biological data. It is often the dynamic relationship between the different
systems that generates the changes critical to an understanding of the factors that influence
biological diversity.
The biodiversity data should incorporate human uses of biological resources and the
functional benefits of biological diversity. As well as focusing on the planning interface
between human and biological systems, the data-gathering should concentrate on the
utilization of biological resources, and the functional uses of biodiversity to human society. It
must be recognised that these values will vary at different levels - internationally-traded
commodities, resources for local communities, and the needs of individual farmers for
sustainability. Resource utilization, whether at the national, local or individual level, must be
a key criterion for selecting biodiversity data.
Data on processes or activities that are likely to have an adverse impact on biological
diversity should be compiled. The identification of threats should be a key consideration in
biological diversity strategies with recommendations for their reversal included in action
plans. Threats may arise from natural hazards; from the indirect consequences of human
processes, or externalities such as changes in agricultural commodity prices or the servicing
65
| HRN ites AROS,
Ca MY Ate Age © Ts
if tt A wae
Ny a} \,
ie lick “iti TO cae ’
abet) eh! AY a8? ee "
d veil vedi
ot ges
Hrukt ee
i
fy
hin on nes
> ay aes pes = eA ay
m
‘ ie lesa eh i af tag a "
ei i Lamar Selo hes bea on
Mn hv Wiking ima denn od
Wiawlign sei i pes ti Papen .
rb Kad 7h NPE oe :
nA ey 7h “pili is
‘dace ang
fu: tee eed
of international debt; and from direct human activities such as shifting agriculture, logging,
poaching or pollution. The initial focus should be on the direct human-induced threats that
can be most readily monitored and reversed, for example by the enforcement of existing
national legislation. It must be recognized that most threats are created by a potential
beneficiary, normally the causal agent of the threat, and that actions for threat relief therefore
involve an economic trade-off.
Priorities for filling gaps in the data coverage should be based on the needs of decision
makers to improve their management of biological diversity. Analyses of data holdings will
assist the identification of data gaps. Priorities for filling these gaps should be based on the
principle of asking managers what additional information they need. The tendency of
scientists and data managers to gather data for the sake of the completeness of the coverage
should be resisted.
The biodiversity data gathering should not be confined to national parks and protected areas
but should cover the whole landscape: data on protected areas should seek to emphasize their
relationship with other components of the landscape. To many politicians, biodiversity
conservation is viewed in the narrow context of managing protected areas. The data gathering
exercise should be multi-sectoral, including the agricultural, forestry and fisheries sectors. As
reservoirs of biological diversity, protected areas will obviously form a key component, but
data relating to surrounding areas should also be compiled to ensure the fullest integration
with the entire rural development process.
The undertaking of a biodiversity assessment should not become an over-onerous task
because of the excessive demands for data-gathering. For many countries, most species have
yet to be identified, habitats are inadequately mapped, and genetic resources have been
barely inventoried and understood except for those in current economic use. The purpose of
an assessment may therefore be to collate what little is known and to identify the gaps in the
knowledge, but not necessarily to seek to fill those gaps. The need for comprehensive data
coverage must be balanced against the resources and time needed to compile such data. Each
country or organisation will need to identify this balance in the light of its own
circumstances, and set its own priorities for data-gathering in the context of the resources
available.
Box 2 General priorities for types of data to be compiled in national biodiversity assessments
Decisions relating to the types of data to be included in the assessment must be made in the
context of the planning needs of each country and the resources available, but in general the
following kinds of data are likely to be priorities:
* data that will provide a practical baseline for monitoring the effectiveness of action
* data identified by biodiversity managers as being important for decision-making
* species of actual or potential economic value
* plant and animal genetic resources, including medicinal plants, land races and wild ancestors of
domestic breeds and cultivars
66
needs nett
‘ Th ve
ogee Bit eae!
We Gale a,
opt ite te
i | ed j ;
ut Sri ah bart vo 1!
chance
1a 4 (a areas ‘ of
. gh oe ul
* species that could serve as indicators of ecosystem health, particularly predators at the top of
the food-chain or invasive colonizing species that may indicate, ecosystem disturbance
* "flagship" species, the conservation of which will also protect a diversity of other species and
habitats
* alien or exotic species, the spread of which could threaten indigenous biological diversity
* species threatened at the national and regional level
* species already protected within conservation areas
* data on threats to species and habitats
* time-interval data on rates of loss or endangerment of species and habitats
* geographical information, particularly data that can be mapped, on species and habitat
distributions
* data on biodiversity function and benefits, particularly the service functions of ecosystems and
protected areas
* data on species and sites of special significance for the conservation of biological diversity
outside existing protected areas
* status and distribution of protected areas, including the species and habitats they contain
* data on the socio-economic values of protected areas
* policy, conservation programmes, legislative and institution-related information
> End of box
A detailed discussion of sampling protocols and ecological methods is beyond the scope of this
report. An overview of different survey methods, in relation to different monitoring questions, is
provided on Figure 1. The following section provides some general guidance regarding the
design of a biodiversity survey or inventory programme.
67
4) & wi
Pie Spl
~ '
ydyiee", el
i
~ 4 : 7
Fiat’ Rae hihi)
ate :-
; ;
% ra athe = saison) ne sie ree a: weed = es
piney Sa hi, i Pee el ins Tht
cant Ai +9 eS
. aecredas
: me. aie
7 ¢ ie
oF nu 7
Monitoring 08 Mamtor
4. ands ~ landscape diversity — &
C Hernate
&. Trends oo habitat availability and
Hom toung methods
eistidutior
ecas
Dversity indines
© cf spaces ih Coremunty ———A Funclicnal group and
tS. Lave of Stolechan of areas vath high A Aapid a
feecies ochness Es ar
‘ Gan analysis
prceeshatiins rc A. Seacipe-gopuiahon tends ea mp ae
4
ue dive
pepulation-spec
3. Genebe diversity anvony po:
2s Of management acts te 0 rE | yariaton
habial faeneniaton on sper
Figure 1: Examples of monitoring questions and methods for each level of ecological
organization (Source: Gaines, et al. 1999).
68
indi
a ;
hieiferdes Pete val vin afi) chet Geer Sena
: I 1 ri
: mae?!
y a ea ik - : ~]
Principles of survey design
Two forms of survey or inventory may be required: extensive and intensive. Extensive
inventories are generally conducted rapidly on a national basis to supply information necessary
for the selection of conservation areas and other types of land-use planning. Speed is critical in
this approach, so generally the focus of inventory should be well known and easily recognized
organisms, such as mammals, birds, trees and butterflies. Surrogates, such as higher taxon
richness (e.g., family-richness), can potentially be used as a substitute for species richness.
Various types of remote sensing also have a prominent role to play in extensive inventorying
(see later).
Intensive inventories are undertaken at relatively small scales, and generally focus on species or
habitat characteristics. Sampling approaches may include plots (either temporary or permanent)
or transects, or plot-less approaches such as wildlife counts or point sampling. Some commonly
used sampling approaches are listed on Table 9.
Table 9- Direct and indirect methods of gathering field data (Correll et al. 1997)
Direct methods include Indirect sampling includes
Mark-recapture (banding/tagging) Visual observation (counts of wildlife)
Quadrat plots (circular, rectangular, etc.) | Fixed-point/ground based photography
Point sampling (horizontal and vertical) Aerial photography and videography
Transect/traverse sampling Satellite imagery
Laser profiling
Volume/content/flow sampling (air and water) | Radio telemetry
Radar/sonar and other remote sensing
systems
Conant et al.(1983) describe inventory methods for developing baseline information. Guidance is
available on how to sample for wildlife (Cooperider et a/.1983), vegetation (Francis 1982),
rangeland (National Research Council 1994), forests (Paivinen ef a/.1994), and agroforestry
(Kohli et al.1996 and Leakey et al.1996).
There two general types of sampling options - purposive and statistical. Table 16 provides a
comparison of the two alternatives.
Table 16 - Key to some alternative sampling designs showing selected criteria and some
possible consequences (Vanclay 1998)
Steps and Criteria Inventory alternatives and possible consequences
Critical |
Unknown/diverse |
Unreliable |
Sufficient |
Nature of the estimate is >
Vegetation characteristics are —
Representative selection is >
Time and resources are —
Unimportant/personal |
Familiar or uniform |
Reliable |
Very limited |
Then > Go to Step 2 Use subjective sampling
Bias will be > Absent Unavoidable
69
ee
ne - “~ — — ae ~ oo some - a - s “ - ~
; , aioe - fs teeeea)
r nw
‘ 7 o>
pee xe guts Zr
iis ; ‘. 7 ahh eee A ‘ ni 4i-
ee See a Sel ce pee my fer
4 — ee wee
ree
; : A
a ebaee ood CoN ahtat =
Saye met Se
a NG yf
te otis Ap ae: ss
at .. i de Tal
:
Wm ee eee hh
‘
-
bs r Jaa oes pitts ’
a \ oe een nts
— ar
i? sae es
ey fun’
here ie
beer Ge — nea
is
we ag (uot np oe Oeelapei. ean a
¥ reat =! Beirne if
7 = =
a Pe ee wg ‘i es ea
‘ 2 fat = i ans ie ‘ : ™) 3
|
Table 16 - Key to some alternative sampling designs showing selected criteria and some
possible consequences (Vanclay 1998)
Steps and Criteria Inventory alternatives and possible consequences
Precision can be — Estimated Unknown
alias
Step 2 - If:
Possible/unknown | Unlikely or known | He
Interpolation is > Not required | Necessary |
Estimate of precision is > Required | Unimportant | af
Then use > Random sampling and | Systematic sampling
go to Step 3
Sampling error estimate will be —_| Correct Probably inflated
Periodic bias will be Unlikely Possible
Step 3 - If:
Pattern in population is > : Clear or likely | Absent or unlikely |
Sampling intensity will be > Relatively low | High |
Then use—> Stratified sampling Unrestricted sampling
and go to Step 4
Inherent risks will be | Misjudged pattern Sample clustering
Step 4 - If:
Pattern in population is — Obscure or unknown Visible or well known |
Then use > Geometrical blocks Statistical blocking
Calculations will be > Simple Possibly complicated
Purposive sampling is generally used when time or financial resources are lacking. The
advantages are that it is quick, cheap and focuses on areas of immediate need. The
disadvantages are that one may miss important areas, the approach is not very useful for
extrapolation and expansion, and is not statistically reliable. Lund and Thomas (1989) provide
illustrations of various statistical designs, which although statistically robust, tend to be more
demanding in terms of time and resources.
Most biodiversity inventory designs employ some form of stratification, the process of dividing
an inventory unit into relatively homogeneous areas, usually based on what can be interpreted
from imagery or maps. If stratification is done before sample selection (pre-stratification), it
will reduce the number of field plots that are needed. If stratification is done after sample
selection and establishment (post-stratification), it will reduce the sampling error compared to
that achieved had stratification not been used (Lund and Wigton 1996). For statistical
sampling, samples should be replicated within stratified levels, with sufficient plots to
characterize the variance in characteristics of the habitat type being sampled.
Pre-stratification requires that strata be formed before sample selection. Thus some type of
classification and often mapping system has to be developed in the early stages of the inventory.
Pre-stratification may preferred in the following instances:
= Ifthe classes or strata show extreme differences, such as croplands versus forestland, and for
which different information is needed.
70
a : 2 3 .
rT 2 i
Igy i ' td ‘ rf
FY t '
‘ igfltncns ree abe 4*,) 98 " ”
“| styrene eet &
eas A
doughs
es be ice Tis
be tehinemayl2 ipo aw hteartesny es
Vit eee held mips 41) ig! & sar i
7 pita? nar .
7 ru ‘
} Jet La os ee
t
haat are “gated beget a ey —~ inane 4 "
% S DS , iv i Tis
1 eve iy ‘4 or am .,
: y a id ve
} ‘ 3 rsivitg Woes, , ce ipa aid m4 od ;
sof) Sah eae oe
‘ Whines Pert We Latest Ak Ae + DO
fiend i in ahi Mg a FPS +5 . ae : mie
Airint etna | a xt ene =t
; a
a ae
ea)
aN. D> We arnt a a,
cas — |
[ale al}
Pk
a) ae %
> ala my
nik es Shea) % 1 Wat =
j piranha vn =», iy golaaieh
a ot abt, igs SictiMa teeta,
= oe ~ ay <2 Wt iark “Gn
aah sanesiicn inane Gh
ae ~eaiit dwebr it Aety Solon ater J
weet dh} ° ie We Aina ave oq,
"
en, rt ay rn feitty 6 Trt)
yt
= If the classes, strata, or mapped polygons are fairly large so that distinction between the
classes both on the ground and in imagery is relatively easy (i.e., the strata are not intermixed
giving a mottled appearance).
= If the field sampling or data collection process in several of the strata are considerably
different than what would be collected in other strata (again vegetation data collected on crop
lands intuitively is different from that collected on forest lands).
"If the objectives of the inventory are clearly set, and the need for reshuffling of field plot
information across strata is not expected.
= If data are needed for every strata.
When using pre-stratification, one has the choice of proportional allocation versus optimum
allocation for the distribution of field plots. With proportional allocation, the strata having the
largest area will receive the most plots and the stratum having the smallest will receive the least.
The advantage of proportional allocation is that the field plots have nearly the same weight. The
impact of errors or changes in classifications will not be so great as through optimum allocation.
Under optimum allocation, the most field plots are assigned to the stratum in which the variances
of items of interest are expected to be the highest. Thus strata that are relatively small but very
heterogeneous internally could require the most plots. Here, errors or changes in the
classification of field plots could have large impacts on the results of the inventory. On the
positive side, optimum allocation will result in the least amount of field plots for a given cost.
Post-stratification is generally used following a systematic sample of some sort. A systematic
sample with post-stratification 1s generally used:
= If mapping or imagery is not available in time for the inventory.
= Ifthe mapping is so interspersed that developing a stratified sampling frame is cumbersome
to impossible.
= Ifthe strata or questions are apt to change over time.
= If it is more important to have data on all lands than to have information on specific classes
of land.
Systematic sampling with post-stratification is also used for long-term monitoring. This is
generally because boundaries of vegetation types can change over time that can raise havoc with
plot weights if pre-stratification and especially if optimum allocation were used. A systematic
sample with post-stratification will also yield a sampling of strata proportional to size.
A disadvantage of the systematic sample with post-stratification, is the possibility that a certain
stratum may not be sampled. This often occurs when there are very small strata or when the
distributions of the polygons are such as they fall between the systematic samples.
In summary, pre-stratification is more efficient for a set of specific goals. If the inventory
objectives become moving targets, a systematic sample of permanent plots with post-
stratification may be the best design over the long term. The sample should be linked to
vegetation mapping.
al
= 4
® § i 7
A i r “ ‘ vailirice we
na - 4 elt Slat
Mie iy) f , i?
»
as fips ’ i .
whe ALi i! hal ’ 1?
cf i by ‘ . } i!
b nd yi
; : <\ : i
eee | = Sade Th ae (oh z
be ER a seria in a
RASA mmciiaig « . eatery, ;
Rigor? ¢, 33 i a
( ‘ i Me Sth =
ix j . 4
zane | Hy \ - ; . a :
ih ats kes res AM) r
isnt sey A seedy, NRE =" :
enue
“ athe }
bod es Agni. Ait} iy the a cit
as baaie im ue uly a
a with sore als belgie sf ' i ae
ere ites ea +e oH
ne i or? hae 4 & :
vibe 2 ah Sit
4 a pai ae rg Ks ?
a dolls ay ‘ a) 4 Hiv he eas apy ae
Ni ike Sah sivas tan
ive
Se a yi a eae a
) ih jad id ty pyre : oe ear 9 4 whine ia
| re a 2 09S RO Reimsei lig Fite bh rhe ise
Hin. wii rar " * eat JP OAH) ow gered 95
vein evra =r 43 hegoouriell yr we pd Gil
> ab
’ Ps = 7 Te fe Me eg He ahi WEE SHO Vor
goa: aninitt rw@-« oats ay @ bre ge
3 jee Blige 4p thew iad
Sie ies oy by pions pe
skye Wie tebe eee eens
patene iq oy;
Sample intensity
Specifying a set of general rules for sampling intensity for biological diversity inventories is
difficult. Much depends on the inventory goals, the nature of the habitat being inventoried, the
size and skill of the crews, access, the amount of time and funding available to do the inventory,
and allowable sampling error.
Of the above, probably the allowable sampling error has the least influence as inventories are
often more constrained by time, funding, and person-power. Sampling intensity is more often
dictated by those three factors than by anything else. Sampling intensity, coupled with terrain,
vegetation, and size of crews may dictate the plot configuration.
Plot design
There are two ways of gathering field data to consider. One involves a plotless method and the
other employs plots. Plotless methods are generally based upon some measurement of search
time. Plots may be classified as either transects or quadrats. Transects are strip or linear samples.
If they cross more than one ecotone, they are called gradients. Table 18 compares various
sample units commonly used in biological diversity surveys.
Table 18 - A comparison of various sample units used in biological diversity surveys
Sample unit Description Advantage Disadvantage
Plotless The plotless method is | Quick. Provides a list | As the location of
based on time. The of species present. observed plants is not
crew records species recorded, the use of
for two hours in the the technique for
area of interest. The monitoring change
plotless samples are may be limited.
defined by parts of the
landscape where all
plant species were
collected or recorded
when met. These
samples covered
hilltops, slopes,
swamps, riversides,
flat grounds, valley
bottoms, skid trails
and occasionally
quick samples along a
roadside. The
sampling ends when,
after some time
(usually two hours),
the discovery of
unrecorded species is
one in two minutes.
(Musah 1997). See
—
j
aes Seemed alii petierend he x ae.
> . a 2 ‘? ~ 4 ‘
ete . prem i pA ah at 5 = - : =
A 76 Pa
E Pr rep aha {OHH i 4 ood sila \ ; = ’
' ‘ 3 ee |
i eit > 9 = :
ray ait? iis =) ’ z - +
peaeitties 9 tS ag es as eer fe } eel Bo aa Sie A
7 , 1 i an
; . 1 = a ¢
* = 4
se
. ' By; . A a 4 i
‘ a Fi rere Broa
‘ v7 ee ee re Wy ezegtae & nik IA Wie ay + iin Tegseonet aa
phage winkeye ee « SeR Ee SY
: saree ue eels Leyeelt
ams 3 getaway: en ing ee cen coer! “te Set eae
: iis! "hae ED wlfhinas | ha ry pty vans Si =
: uals ras seni: BN nee | yy. ie ses ib -
& ov Pity MMI « Pe er elk Vay: ies. ee oes po Meee Or;
ae
| | Te Sin OE at ail git - of yh Li i Ste | = Se 4)
Fs oe |e ' ae | r . = Pay ae = ot
>
hay toa, tees 4
malt AE ms ee 9 PS ee ares jes mo
as .
yore
Fig CMs G FTE Vv iprihes ot Hgredsyi. LAB Ed “Rebel 4, 08! «'¢7)h Naess |
re re sucker eapeet
ee" Renton Haniel? Pyles ane HRS GTi
. Wane ae coud hanaeeie A sue’ Agr at ef hoe eae A arth ie e oes
Hee je in
nike SP a iihapya[ ad a 3 i
6 eat neil ba alugan’ iG TES a pr ¥'% eS rege
ee me, ere ARS. Biatores ——
hit, ig : ies, = ae
a qui ote acer ip BE ty mites ) if, Siem iat ra iar
na HinGat a) een eer Oe ee a Pri
rie “ oi a le Liehies re -acrcoas 04 eins. WReneewga Sollee
sam ast Mian ka Pray i tit SVealivahe we thn a he Rd ads. ;
. eer
" vod hekereie’ os
0
pu
Repiee bhp i tats ends bes Vl a Frans
(iar, me OA Dare BO gs iN vue i af W bin em 6
‘ wera » Swatihes Sq Gun Dealer es a
(ly ey ee Ste er aerly ai et
7 »
a ie
a) ne
specie suihngy
wel én cues ate Af id ,
in " st ’ se 7 " cits
Often nested fixed area plots are used for tallying multiple resource data - a large area plot for
tallying big trees, a mid-size plot for saplings and poles, and a very small one for tallying
seedlings and lesser vegetation. A nested plot may be particularly useful in the moist tropics
where there are large numbers of plant species.
Stohlgren et al. (1996) tested 4 plot designs - Modified-Whittaker multi scale vegetation plot,
etc. and found that the Parker, large quadrat and Daubenmre transects significantly
underestimated the total species richness and number of native species in prairie types. All four
methods capture most of the dominant species at each site and produce similar results for total
foliar cover and soil cover. The multi-scale sampling enhanced the detection and measurement of
exotic plants. To evaluate the status and trends of common, rare, and exotic species innovative
multi-scale methods must replace commonly used transect methods.
The field observation unit may be further classed as to whether it is permanent or temporary.
Permanent plots are those established in such a manner so they can be relocated exactly and
vegetation remeasured within their boundaries at a later time. A temporary sample unit is quick
to establish but has limited value for monitoring change. Permanent sample units, on the other
hand, have defined and monumented start and end points in the case of transects or boundaries in
the case of quadrats. Monumentation means marking and recording the location of the plot center
or plot boundaries and measured trees that the plot and trees can be remeasured as a later time.
Replication of measurements and observations are relatively easy making permanent plots very
useful for measuring or detecting changes. Of course, monumentation takes time, so permanent
plots are more costly to establish than temporary plots. Establishing permanent plots is essential
if the inventory is to be used as a base for monitoring.
With the increased use of remote sensing data, ground-truthing is essential to interpret the data.
Permanent monitoring plots that collect reliable data can act as standard reference points for
the interpretation of changes observed by satellite and other remote sensing platforms. In
effect, the plots become permanent ground-truthing stations (Lund et al. 1998 and Roberts-
Pichette and Gillespie 1999). Whenever there is the possibility that a sampling area may again
be visited for further study, the plots should be marked permanently, as surprisingly
worthwhile results may be obtained by restudying identical areas over a period of years. Such
results are often disproportionately valuable for the effort required, especially when compared
to the initial study (Roberts-Pichette and Gillespie 1999).
Tools for data analysis and presentation
The final phase of any biodiversity assessment will focus on analysis of the data, and
presentation in a suitable form for use by its intended audience. IUCN (2000) and Leslie et al.
(1996) provide excellent guidance in assessing biological diversity once inventories are
complete. A number of analytical tools are now widely used to support these activities (see Table
20); some of the most important examples are described briefly below.
Geographical Information Systems (GIS)
75
PRON Ge EBL 4)
Src hy Oe ETT
i Divs Ae ni
pine vs Hn Falke icc Sha eI? i
r f Hares - = ini bill bry 7 ie 5
ts a ie ae sk oS
| ‘ Phe edie? aie get cry iv
fi f diese el ; ie ted ae ae aa TRV Kui hee Ta igh h Hs nt
a Hpi iE 6 yap) mM, ye 2 me t ar ay, sels herr “48 intl? da bie! Uwsasty me
vi aed adie Panga penta: i HP Hees Gaia canna mi
ren an Laacan idle HG
fast ital
nhs *
Meme si yereste. hs eatlaai pe
; 4. =r ellis pa Fis Keg Cal)
= / e-
dt seniiee se i ib Sa mae ie
: bia a vo wih ae, aie Anat} aaeit: «
; Susu 3 :
: Se ie a seas ape ee ae ie ;
" Fito al 1, oe Sei e sh
x ier teen EN ake ahd cd ihe 9
yy $2 letival Ob a /Foajacy” "e fouguanttc a
Te sale: - abihute. (asuilrsqomp ite
i Vi bs a ae “Cnet bo PD
It is impossible in practice to inventory every site. However, knowledge of a 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 for this purpose. A GIS is a spatially referenced database that allows multiple
levels of data, in any desired combination, to be displayed as maps on either a workstation or a
personal computer. It is the ability to overlay datasets that gives GIS a unique role in exploratory
analysis. The distribution of a species can be overlaid onto maps of land cover, soil type, climate
variables, drainage, the distribution of other species, or whatever data are available.
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 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.
The GIS can be used to derive landscape measures that are needed to act as dependent variables
within ecological models. GIS packages contain a variety of spatial analysis procedures to
calculate areas, perimeters, distances, percentage covers and other measures, but the answers
may be very dependent upon the scale of the data and the algorithms used; for example, a coarse
data set might group together two woodlands which a finer resolution map treats as separate
(Firbank et al. 1997).
GIS is particularly valuable for modeling at the landscape level. The modeling process
typically involves exploratory data analysis, followed by correlative modeling, and, where
possible, process-based modeling. Models may be required to support scenario analysis (eg to
assess potential future impacts of environmental change or vulnerability of different areas to
specific threats). While conventional correlation or regression techniques work equally well in
mathematical terms, the ability of GIS to communicate information is much greater because
spatial data are presented in a spatial way (Firbank et al. 1997).
Finally, the GIS can be used as a means of visualizing the results of landscape ecological models.
For rule-based models, this is easily achieved; for example, supposing that a particular species
lives in all woodlands greater than 5 ha, and nowhere else, then the supplied functions of the GIS
can be used to display all woodlands of the relevant area - thus giving a distribution map of the
species. More complex models require more complex manipulations, which can take place either
inside the GIS or by modeling routines in a high level language, which generate results that can
be fed back into the GIS for presentation (Firbank et al. 1997). Steps involved in generating such
an information set include clarification of objectives, derivation of indicators related to the
objectives, formulation of a linear program, construction of a stand projection model, generation
of alternatives, and repeated generation of solutions using the linear program (Carlsson 1999),
76
{ kK ON i “it ved hay ? Spi
\ ; ‘ KTS oui) : ij
ir rie im i E ,
ri i one yt ee ports Ps
“a radia iS He ed wed,
aT rig ee ti fgiys A ee od ate ink meee
hi Sas) eRe 5 2: E St th ateee Ia huge RS |
Ribbon eae be 72 a Sopa eli ai i italy
q ao ef} “ine ra’
4 ah ee a a
j ws bry Pin aad tein ity cecal a Rete tit ash is
: gl EVN he ti iM eiprary ait | ab ac es ry 19)
i a “buy PUP, sdb th Nig ay ame pre tah 1 Wale Mize ees to) tet AHA oe eal
i tga lay sip ili “ENE Aire 2 Hi ae ab ade. saat n wiatte a |
SU > ara ace a Mer gh. ALLA bete ito class We airy: RE Bich sgtrag an
axe <— " ee tees ris) ie iyi pie re Cheater Latics ‘xy wi ta
ar | ot “se ¥.. cs RARE Sag hs 17 eee feed ae Te ol
2 ne ne Del ia, ~*~ Fal A 7 1s . > : ros
hit Mitta ; a ie
aon sat .
bh
Naty tt Bom
s
wong. ail Ra abate eikt valves Rep aes etal re ibe
aes aly oa, Lom i
yet
psi
j ons ge tte dias shiner si banat
2 iy sah met} ON. cena 5 We
=F pares rm egy ere = tia Micaarin plete ;
ne Mara RO erOT ATs «NNR. eos i
4 Pt sles Ne Aint yay “7 on ae:
AS iar wet
fi ' { il peek pA SleySs ERS Beh teat,
ne | 7
ok
—~
* ee en Se
~ a 7 =
= as
"SJoSe}ep [LIIBO]OIq soinsvoul
a81R] WO sowoLd uoeAIosuOS pue AjLIeI Ajtiejuouiay duos
‘AVISIOAIP UI SuIo}ed [eorydeis0e3 SuLiojdxo pue A}ISIOAIp
JOJ oIVMYOS 9SN-0}-Ased SI FVINGTYUOM dewipp.10 A sulepnoyea
Somsiye4s
‘OJ9 ‘SUOTINGLYSIP souepunge pure soinseoul
‘uoljejuosoidal eyep [eorydess ‘spoyjoul poyejor | — [J] SSouyory pue AVISIOAIP
AVISIOAIP BJOQ puL vYd[e JO 9sULI OPIM B SIOIJO | AysioAIq satoads sunepnoyed
uyy oyur/dewipypiom/deut
pyt0m/sjoofoid/asoustos/yN'ow Wy MMM //:dY
[WY UONOVUIXOPUL/WIO9 UOTBAIASUOS
-soosid' mm ai//:dq 4
“WIY}LIOS]e (UOTjONpoIg
JOS-o]NY JO} UNYYLIOS TY ONAUaDH) dYWO
dy} JO UOISIOA do}ysap v SI puL ,SUOTNGLYSIp
satoads pyim osdyeur pur jorpoid 0} Josn oy}
SMO][E IVY} YOABASO. [POISOTODO pur A}ISIOAIPOIg suOT|NqLysIp
/diesdoyysop/3.10 1oddewray1y'e39q//:d})y4 Joy aseyord oreMyyos bv si dieydojyysoq duvo SUTJOIPAg
‘IS SIU] UOJ IOI]
PosOJJO SI pue ‘yURI[NSUOD [BdISOTOIS URITRSNY SISATRUY
uv ‘prempog jaeyoy Aq poyiduros usaq SUOISTOO|
juny epos/epo sey Weisold oy, ,Sevo1e pd}o9}0Id 10 S9AIOSOI pue suondO
9/plRMpaquI~/NeUWLOd [IBUINZO'saqudUt//:dyYy | o1nyeU JO SYIOMJOU JO USISOP UY} UL S}SISSB,, YOM
asvyord o1vMYOS UOTVAIOSUOD dINJeU B SI WOOO
woneAIOsUu0D S¥IOMJOU
>VdQ) | oeAlasol Suruuey
“Sulpdures JoyyLANy 10F
svaie Apes day 0} as~) ‘sjods joy AjISIOAIPOIqG
jo sdeut ynd-jsi1J donpold 07 as~) “A}ISIOATPOIQ
IO} 9JLSOLINS DAT}OOJJO-JSO9 ‘[nJasn AIOA
B SI JO}. PRPISIOAIG oy} ‘AoUdH “AJISIOAIPOIQ
YSIY YIM d}VIO.L109 svoie osoyL, ‘AjoUuasOIN}0Y
YSIY JO svaie ayvoIpul 0} se AVM B YONS | (866 AXS[OPOd)
UI HI SIO}[ fF pue ATOSVUI YLILD SULSS PRPISIOAIG PePISIOAIG sIsA]eue ose]
‘AVISIOAIP [ROISO]OIG SuIZATeUL PUL “BULIO}IUOUT “SULINSLOUT IOJ [NJasN s[OoO} sIVMIJOS DUIOS QZ AGU
WY AODAIP/AYs,opod~jou'}}eouroy//:dyyY
OUTS JOU} UT
die # : GL RLY TIE SA GR vie Rsied Pir
fl i ie, ‘ i ne ap a Ae: <—* ate bien! re Ane oediarsye Ope a,
eed atl et a 4
Brom! »
——Tt res
a
pe ae
od |
Remote sensing
To conduct biological diversity inventories, as a minimum there will be a need to
produce a relatively current map of existing vegetation. The more detailed the map,
the more useful it will be for stratification and further sampling and modeling.
Remote sensing data may be used to develop such maps. The technique of remote
sensing, using spectral data from reflected sun radiation and back-scattered radar data,
also provides surrogate measures for biodiversity, such as diversity of terrain, habitat
and vegetation. Thus spectral data (LANDSAT TM, ENVISAT MERIS) can provide
chemical-physical information, while backscattered radar data (ERS SAR, JERS
SAR, ENVISAT ASAR) can provide morphological information. The two types of
remotely sensed data can be processed synergistically to provide significant
information (such as vegetation indices and habitat patches) of use in the generation
of map layers (Fabbro 2000).
In general, remote sensing can provide:
= land cover/vegetation and condition information
= information on common land units and water units
= an interface between smaller scale imagery and ground data
* abase for collection of ground data
= an information base for public evaluation of ecological mapping concepts
According to Hunsaker et a/. (1998), the following vegetation attributes may be
measured or interpreted from remote sensing imagery for various geographic extents,
including the within patch (plot), patch, and landscape mosaic:
=" Canopy cover (e.g., percent cover, leaf area index, contagion).
= Physiognomic or life form diversity (e.g., conifer with very little shrub understory
vs. conifer with high shrub understory).
= Large tree density (e.g., trees per hectare > 76 cm diameter at breast height
(DBH)).
= Tree size (e.g., dominant and/or average size, distribution or diversity of sizes).
= Vertical diversity (e.g., canopy layers, foliage height diversity).
= Biomass or phytomass.
= Crown volume or bulk density
= Height to live crown (height from ground to live foliage).
= Surface dead material (e.g., snags or mortality, downed logs, litter depth and
volume/mass).
= Moisture content (soil, foliar, and dead).
There are numerous kinds and sources of imagery available including panchromatic
and multispectral imagery from airborne platforms and satellites. Every year the list
of sources grows.
Remote-sensing images from orbiting satellites can play an important role in the
collection of baseline vegetation data and in monitoring their status. Coarse-resolution
data such as 1-km (0.62-mi) Advanced Very Hign Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR)
imagery offer a means to view landscapes with daily frequency, thereby allowing the
monitoring of vegetation condition both within a growing period and between years.
Over a long period, AVHRR may provide a means for monitoring the subtle changes
in the vegetation that may relate to such events as long-term drought. However
80
‘ y Riedy ee Ries ae eae j co
— . 4 were OF OS PTY CAPERS REY 3 Bet ete >
a0 vee: £ (
PERM ata) el dh Lat tgog Pde
(4
ail
Ave aa a ie
F bal bist) ata e amas a aa
ewes Xia) Siig eatin em
, 7 ae ted cea baa at 4) nie
‘ ; z te 38, i ty Hee
. th “tig
baits
“.° A '
i,
i ar Wing iehle |
: Pog © : f a ei
a ee, ee ek = esi ade Grane
: i . oe De ik iT TORRE) urivas eels 4)
‘be ee ; baw ifecla why PY NOR a NTA ee pay ees ye ipa
Woy d a ~. 5
a ; ; ‘ Oe , Wy ¢ we —
= | ad ¢ on _
rN ’ - : ivi mio, wifGd foal te
! i 7 ; 4 ss ;
; : qth Peale § , wait Ras haa ets mir tas “a aah
< a if - y :
; "
peeweh oxi Ly a Taye Se HO rage
AVHRR data are not adequate for assessing the effects of more local changes.
Landscape changes at the local level will be better understood with higher resolution
imagery such as that provided by Landsat systems (Loveland and Hutchenson 1996).
Obtaining sufficient geographically unbiased verification and validation data on
vegetative communities is one of the greatest challenges in developing base
vegetation maps. These data are essential for classifying the Landsat Thematic
Mapper (TM) imagery used in many assessments, and for assessing the accuracy of
vegetation maps developed. Airborne video data systems that tag each frame with
geographic coordinates from a global positioning system (GPS), in combination with
interpretation and ground-truthing procedures, provide a cost- and time-effective
method for obtaining data on vegetative communities over large geographic areas
(Slaymaker et al. 1996).
Imagery not only varies in source and scale, but also varies in quality and suitability.
Imagery interpretability rating scales are tools for making quantitative judgments
about the potential interpretability of an image. The U.S. Government has recently
developed two such tools - The National Imagery Interpretability Rating Scale
(NURS) for panchromatic imagery (IRARS 1996) and Multispectral Imagery
Interpretability Rating Scale (MSIIRS) for multispectral imagery (IRARS 1995).
Both scales apply to imagery acquired from airborne and satellite imaging systems.
The most common use of remote sensing imagery is for delineating or mapping
common vegetation or land cover units (Lund et al. 1997). This is generally done by
delineating polygons or stands by physiognomic class, dominant species, canopy
cover, size, crown condition, and vertical and horizontal diversity. Stands are areas of
existing vegetation that are distinguishable from adjacent vegetation (usually in
species, size, or density) and which are useful to management for physical, biological,
or organizational reasons. On the whole, the stand is the largest piece of land having
boundaries related (except coincidentally) to a resource. In all cases stand boundaries
should:
= reflect actual vegetation differences or other differences which may affect
administration or management, and
= be locatable on the ground and on imagery.
Eventually, the delineated stands should be transferred to a base map or stored in a
geographic information system (GIS) for use in sampling and further analysis. The
transfer of polygons into electronic format for use in a GIS can be done with various
electronic tools such as analytical stereoplotters and other methods.
When utilizing imagery for ecological and biological diversity mapping, one needs to
be cognizant of other parameters such as soils, landform, and hydrology, since
ecological units incorporate all these and other parameters. If soil and land type
boundaries are congruent with actual vegetation boundaries, then soil type and land
type automatically contribute to stand boundaries. If they are not congruent, any
union or intersection of actual vegetation with soil or land type that may be desired in
a particular case can be obtained by manipulation of the map layers with a GIS
system. This avoids contaminating the vegetation layer based on what can actually be
seen, with other information that cannot be so easily identified on the imagery.
81
pra wot ie ey, binge hu apte this L Aidt : at. eae
4 a ee
> - W ne Ae ne ~ 4 eer ' wo
ov itt 4s ; 4 Reet AY el Ay * Tee Ay, Oy
' ' 2 : “i +.
0 =
p) ile e
oh » - ur
*y)
1 ’
“ae
| ar ety yn
n Mi 4
it vy Tt
z ae wef qh ae j ¥ yy y A
Sues es, Tea ial’ ssi lh
¥ “ " a * : 4 r
pe ibs tr) ie aes “4 tre reer! ibe i ee
ahi er wheats aL
vest gm ial ptioure ar
cee ate ae i rae Oates
peal Fe hghl th Gee cure ona
% “ sagt ih Aa may: 5 Hy
we can
ices ere
} a
; ae aie i re a
Ra hiutens )
+4 2a ie, Hae ul ee wit De. 5408] Rae Ahad Bs
cag pone ‘ pa ae: we ames what
mh bei pesimy nna
an (yeah, Babel? se
os Pie SF a am 5 ie oe ha nes AL tri
; = a riate call i rohit Me
ie me i a oa ec pes “Ladi
ri, *
ae) all
ona A Sipe . Ris aria nagiv tne ‘ :
en Shy Pants ad hse te ie
i
4 c a rw mes iia 2 ait tite
at
One of the primary uses of mapping ecological polygons is not only for location
information but also for sampling to gather species information. The accuracy of
remotely sensed data is highly dependent on the designed sampling scheme used for
the collection of ground data. The most important steps when designing a sampling
scheme for collecting ground data can be summarized as follows:
= A stratified random sampling scheme is suggested as the best choice in most
situations.
= The number of samples within each category of interest ought to be at least 50 if
no prior probabilities are available. Confidence intervals for the accuracy
assessment should be presented along with error matrices.
= The area of each sample site should be governed by the pixel size of the sensor
and the geometric accuracy of the satellite image.
» When using a subplot assessment a pilot study should be used to give the number
of plots to be sampled in order to achieve a given accuracy. The size of the
subplot should be based on the homogeneity of the studied parameter and the
applied sampling technique.
Examples of biodiversity assessment approaches
In recent years, a number of approaches have been developed for the assessment of
biodiversity. Examples of some of these approaches are summarised here, to illustrate
how biodiversity assessments may be implemented in practice. These examples
include assessments that have been applied at both national and sub-national levels,
often 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. The 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 generally synthesised to
provide an overall view of the known state of biodiversity, 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 often an explicit and integral part of the data compilation process. The
collection of new data may be conducted on the ground, or remotely via satellite or
aerial survey.
The examples given here differ in terms of scope and precise objectives, as well as
depth of coverage, ranging from the intensive All Taxon Biological Inventory to more
rapid assessments such as RBA and RAP.
Gap Analysis
Gap Analysis, originally 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
82
TD ese ek firs
iv,
“5 hte
es Fee Del arr ne ase
ba eer
es ue ; } nt byl
TRA RV ae Wet? Sees 4
ay re,
ao
hmbvig te
. teh
ie To -
r £
h,
mar a a ane = my fhe 7
Tei, : “i ‘-_ re fur F rw ex4 co
ton <——
rice th an apes it ncaa isa mt
rales oe ih ait as iig Ab Fan
Pe) Nia acca)” tor
. : bi MAS
ee" ap Liberreide a (ibewt
van > wiped 4 peal vy swiiap dy oe
, a af if ae aoe ai) we
tesa heseah oy" vain oh 05
Pe aa 4 gals ee? ribeiey sit pra | ene vii ais joivall
Diao Poise: apr! r ‘ips ® ied ‘cideee the seta ad a 7
ie fully engi i, Pyar) ra re doe ened ah au worry thes Hh. uid
h- iT ea IE Cube iets cates" Sacer) fete ial
eres U, bites
eat ‘eens ieee ae UA Ma nats. oF ahs wien lla
ae iy beiyen 8 Dh TTT oui ai nt tee ora oh cen
ie - | cy : ay nie Lo - Win Ne Lise! oy): i — ty) ee airy hod whi
ro 7 2 7 :
Bee = Wy
ners Sige tio th nitinol rete
Apia eg ie ra pet att ai Anajetty Avenks saber
bib aon be daw
in 5
iS ur bid Py cite fhe ion ike %
tive ikea weir Jee igtiow vienhi ae
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.
Methods for assessing Europe’s biodiversity
http://nature.eionet.eu.int/publications/ECNC_NINA.pdf
A method for assessing European biodiversity has been developed by the European
Topic Centre on Nature Conservation, which is comprised of four elements:
« Analysis of existing biophysical data at the European scale to identify the profiles of
ecological regions, potential centres of biodiversity with regard to habitats and
species, and baseline data on vegetation changes
¢ Standardised description of the ecological and land management profiles for priority
species and habitats as a reference base that allows a qualitative assessment of their
current status and conservation needs
e Update and validation of existing atlas inventories on species, habitats, land cover
and human activity to improve future ‘coarse filter’ analysis
¢ Monitoring programmes at the site, ecosystem and landscape levels to build upon
and contribute to the successive improvement of the elements described above.
BioRAP: for Rapid Assessment of Biological Diversity
http://www.amonline.net.au/systematics/faith5 htm#introduction
The BioRap Toolbox consists of a set of coordinated analytical tools that can be used
to identify, with high spatial resolution, and within a period of one year, priority areas
for the conservation and sustainable management of biodiversity. These tools were
developed by the Australian Museum, CSIRO and other partners, for initial
application in Papua New Guinea (PNG). The principal components of the BioRap
Toolbox are spatial modeling tools and classification and biodiversity-priority setting
tools. These tools support high spatial resolution biodiversity assessments that are
readily integrated with existing spatially distributed planning information, as was
available for PNG in the form of PNGRIS, the Papua New Guinea Resource
Information System. Further, the BioRap approach departs from conventional
planning approaches in explicitly treating "opportunity costs" for conservation, not
just for land-use allocations, but also for the use of economic instruments such as
environmental levies and carbon offsets. BioRap introduces socio-economic factors
along with biodiversity at the earliest stage of analysis.
World Bank Toolkit
This document summarizes best practice in treatment of biodiversity within an
environmental assessment, with a particular focus on determining the potential impacts
of development projects
http://Inweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/essdext.nsf/48 DocByUnid/9F6DD9IC2455B038A 85256
B8F0054CFF4/$FILE/ToolkitFullEnglish.pdf
83
—_—
i
: Uy ’
aE as ih Whe, ih Pmt ilar be reetite OP WET TCAPS. (Pietra iy) de ib \ediiaber sy. Int
’ weapnuir ris Wp LAP ahrine yy Pia a ; f Tope tee digit ;
i f eo OL nea NN
2 we Labs. mR: cL lai Re wal ety
re Tia ise 34 Sr Tn rina ‘
a haa PT. , ie ' vr) rte
a grr tyeg ett z2 Fi aT iii
; i RMD RARER Hd on iad
- / uel ? an a- L
i pase Gye ey ri UL Or Yten sa Eg cSt tcp eyes
nn: ; att Ai aldi'* hihi ih WMaad) a5e an SSWiiipee a o age eye
7 ie Rae aie HA cligtent tees sie Gig) AA ii ILO cgy alte igi ace NAR
7 aa met rier Pa ee ee) ee ld oe vad, LOR
ib) a fag er j iUer 2
’ ; ~ =
iy ;
uf iw Y dieyies - fae
Nias WALT b's) iy ui moray Fatah
p fy airy nina
= : i a ° y \
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, 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
(http://www. biodiversityscience.org/xp/CABS/research/rap/methods/rapmethods.xml)
Conservation International (CI) created the Rapid Assessment Program (RAP) in 1989
to fill the gaps in regional knowledge of the world's biodiversity ‘hotspots'. The RAP
84
3 ae 4 “2 wr hus eee z, San
oN 7 ii “(ieee STi
* Si dale ie gt ai bablinik Garret
nie ee ee as hr
ah Sane Se ac al ee eS
7 a ; . are ‘ C= 6 peer a rie i Sacer 3" arty tbat
i ; + ¥, ase! 2 vet , ae a ans ee hy, Pe “oe bagentien dnaval
Sn a) ‘ Meaty nies 9} init Fan? 6) Palak & ASS To coal
A gfe ae awe ie iy idk: A Sng 1
alee Ace uti p alt
\ sean
process assembles teams of experts 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), special
habitat types, threatened species, degree of habitat degradation, and the presence of
introduced species. RAP teams use standardized methods to survey the diversity of
plants, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and selected insect groups. The RAP
methodology is not a substitute for more in-depth inventories or monitoring, but it is
designed to provide critical scientific information quickly.
85
a, ‘ Dare Oe a ei Se , Saiieet
ji ocean i Mer Se wi ’ § Tal] if { eRe ek te
oF - (HON pat ji! Fa ces se i TEP be Vera we. id pe wy eit
\ ait P -
i +) 1's ‘e . i crt} fo pyle?
: E id a
es if Pig, ahaa bi
Mans Cp eobr ui oe eye wh
6. HOW SHOULD A PARTICIPATORY BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT BE
CONDUCTED?
What is a participatory approach?
Participatory assessment, monitoring and evaluation of biodiversity (PAMEB)
involves non-scientists in observing, measuring or assessing biodiversity or its
components. ‘Participatory’ is a word that has gained much currency in the last 15
years, so much so that it can mean all things to all people. It is often understood to
mean assessment by rural communities, but can also involve other stakeholders such
as students, policy makers, conservationists or volunteers. It can refer to scientists and
local people working together to assess biodiversity, so that they understand each
other’s perspectives better; so that local people contribute to national biodiversity
monitoring processes; or so that scientists support local people in managing
biodiversity. Participatory monitoring is a powerful approach that can improve
effectiveness of information gathering, transparency of decision-making and
implementation of policy, as well as achieve some human development objectives. It
is an approach that is increasingly being used to support biodiversity conservation and
management. This chapter draws on shared experience from an internet conference
(Lawrence 2002) and published case studies. It is a new field, and much of the
experience is from developing countries, where a participatory approach is
particularly appropriate, but the processes would be similar in other contexts.
Participation ranges from passive participation, where people are only told what is
going to happen and their responses are not taken into account, to self-mobilisation,
where people take initiatives independent of external institutions (Pretty 1994). To
date, most examples of participatory biodiversity assessment and monitoring reach
only the halfway point in this range: people participate by providing labour so that
data can be gathered more quickly and cheaply. Interactive participation where people
contribute to decisions in biodiversity management or self-mobilisation where they
have the full rights and responsibilities in biodiversity management are still very rare.
This chapter highlights the possible steps in participatory biodiversity monitoring at
this interactive part of the spectrum, where we take local communities, protected area
(PA) staff and policy makers to be the main stakeholders and hence participants.
Despite its popularity, participation is not an end in itself, but a route to either more
efficient biodiversity monitoring, or empowerment of local communities — or both. To
choose the approach it is important to decide on the objectives, and to negotiate those
objectives with the participants before proceeding. Practitioners of participatory
approaches talk about the importance of process and product. Without due attention
to process (how the work is conducted), the product (what is achieved) will be
meaningless because it will have been produced by people without understanding or
motivation to contribute. This is a particular challenge in participatory approaches,
not only because different stakeholders have different livelihood goals and education
levels, but also because of different knowledge systems, culture, worldviews, values
and beliefs.
Both process and product combine to improve resource management because
decisions are made by stakeholders who are both :
a) better motivated (through the participatory process)
86
] =
iF rae ES RET ES A it RY a Fo SAA
yee ~ ie ah vo Olea PAE has Ba Sk FEE ee Tb I es
ey Iwantina: yey —— 34
iPaaes Singh es eit Was ee
ae ek, ie Paes ba i : mabe ul
ene ie rat gerd rer oan
Dest es isc
x8 Ra vats
Crane SoiMaci, Heed wl
t a vy ti ria f fied 3
7 - me pee i Ht . wr lin | at ‘- 3
CH Bevteg sacs peng ae Seth te ct a iW ies
7 eee a Sesto tip
“RR wiper rail
us es
iy. ; Pat cm Guy
pee site ae aes
erga wari
a ieee
re Bent. (i noel
pes). fo rh ae 75 iene & sera!
of a Pies ictanire unt anante
fi = lhe eae ans erie “ane ih
ies mers La A gto Ps fue lier ah pret
: pasha Wr ¥ ih amlee a ae 1 =o =
tie Si Fr tf in, ah
btu i fh hte
fam
ae ak
b) better informed (by more relevant and meaningful data).
Therefore, the process approach becomes more important towards the active end of
the participation scale, i.e. in interactive participation and self-mobilisation.
Why conduct a participatory biodiversity assessment?
Local people are valuable actors in assessing and monitoring biodiversity, because:
1. They may have knowledge about wildlife, plants and resources derived from
generations of use.
oh Most monitoring systems within, and many outside, protected areas (PAs)
focus on protected species of wildlife and plants. Monitoring local resource
use is a neglected but crucial dimension in planning sustainable harvesting
by local people.
3. It is internationally acknowledged that involving local people in the planning
and management of biodiversity and resources can increase their awareness
and motivation for conservation. It can enhance an exchange of local and
outside perceptions on the relationship between biodiversity and use
patterns, leading to feedback on how to change unsustainable resource use
practices.
4. Decisions on biodiversity management, especially in protected areas, are
often non-transparent for local communities depending on those resources.
The involvement of local people in the gathering and analysis of biodiversity
data will enhance the transparency of management decision-making.
5). Communication among stakeholders is often limited, as is the recognition by
management staff that local people can be valuable partners in such
management activities. Interactive participation by various partners,
including nearby communities and PA staff can to improve relations
(Fabricius and Burger 1997; Van Rijsoort and Zhang 2002), and resolve
conflict (Bliss et al. 2001).
6. Particularly in developing countries, resources for biodiversity assessment
are limited - human capacity, money and time are all scarce (Danielsen et al.
2000). A monitoring and management system for biodiversity and resources
should be based on locally available capacity and resources to be
sustainable.
Finally, local perspectives can be an invaluable contribution to the scarce evidence for
or against success of Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs)
(Kremen et al. 1994; Salafsky and Margoluis 1999).
An interesting illustration of the role of PAMEB in conflict management is provided
by Steinmetz (2000). Officials in Southern Laos declared an area to be a core zone,
because of the presence of mineral licks, an important source of salt for protected
wildlife like elephant and gaur. Through a PAMEB, the local people showed that the
large mammals concentrate their use of the salt licks in the rainy season, thereby
resolving questions of resource conflict with intensive human use of the area, which is
mainly in the dry season. Establishment of an all-year round core zone would have
ignored the seasonal movements of the protected wildlife.
Steps in the process
87
isierett
‘iat n ty Hh
4 oly
oth Eis ¥ ” Mee *¢. iA: a Loss s
Y % tip
. gavin i ; A gh & wee
boat te : re date Re na a Peis Aled
dal halle ‘ i 4 i :
ree foe ‘ ney
= } roy
‘hay ei it Ps! Pa
4 ji 5:3 er Te
re, Wein, wh “ahs
L , inne dion’ si ix) is
tay Pap ahh
“ane Eas fy
he et gear
herd i
ey wi: Ae TG he Wy)
welt io Mca iN itt fiat Ri raeon
ne Pe nN Aves. “ort fea
2, mite ae" tae i! tin Silene: Swi iselhay abe rai
at ¥ + ¢ 7 ay
Pein! - a oe a ane shat §
yea ft AU erat As sie easier
a i) 4 ane aS
ty : e. ¢
cao 7 ee Pac hig aul wh it
itd
aoe ‘ ray
7
<6 e ; ic 2 re Mi ary pH Bini (eae ns
i ak: Se gl Lan, Bi ae eer me apa: ini Fad
: | . Z | % Pee ’ BiAiyil | wa arilaeh & aly. iil wih, ae
‘_ ratte aes . bide a a fie Hie
f oan win wy
i add I. i" Die
ie agi wy
ee
One important difference from conventional procedures for biodiversity assessment,
is the diversity of stakeholders, objectives and information needs that form the
starting point for the process. Another is that these stakeholders are also involved in
the selection of targets, developing methodology, and data analysis. The steps of the
process are as follows (see also figure 1):
1 Who are the stakeholders?
2 What are their objectives?
3}. Therefore what are the information needs of each stakeholder?
4 Are the information needs of different stakeholder groups compatible?
5 Which representatives of each stakeholder group will take part in the
monitoring?
6 What is the available budget?
We What are the benefits of and obstacles to participation in monitoring?
8 Which variables should be monitored?
9. Which indicators and methods to use?
10. How to analyse, validate and use the results?
ihe How to document and disseminate the results?
1, How to use experiences to improve the participatory system?
13. Is all of this feasible within the budget? If not, revise steps 7 to 12.
Before starting
As with any biodiversity assessment, the process should begin with a compilation of
secondary information — maps, reports, aerial photographs etc. which will help in
planning and stakeholder selection. Successful case studies also point to the need to
recognise any existing monitoring systems (which may be informal and not named as
such) in order to build on established practice (Danielsen et al. 2000; Van Rijsoort
and Zhang 2002).
Facilitating a participatory process
The time needed to facilitate a participatory process in biodiversity monitoring must
not be underestimated. The process may take much longer than a non-participatory
approach, but this is essential for mutual understanding and therefore useful data and /
or local empowerment. It is also important that the facilitator recognises his or her
privileged position as a stakeholder who, despite striving to leave bias and
subjectivity on one side, will nevertheless have personal objectives and motives for
becoming involved. This will help the facilitator to be more self-aware and protect
against undue bias.
Before entering into a participatory process of biodiversity monitoring, an enabling
environment is needed — 1.e., favourable policy and institutional factors. In cases
where PAs are strictly protected, the possibilities for interactive participation by
surrounding communities may be limited, since the benefits perceived by these
communities may not be high. In cases where the rules and regulations of the PA
enable sustainable use of resources and even joint management of (parts of) the PA,
incentives for local communities to participate in biodiversity and resources
monitoring will be higher. Furthermore, in most developing countries, the forestry
sector has a history of top-down management. When there is no room or even positive
88
} abt J r Ae
!
Kare Pay Shh
q one ‘
2 - APtAls & b
P 4 ce | 1
u
ts
. ’
0 ‘ ie ' —a
Nees, ise ’ :
i fi t ad 4 >t ~ rh iets oe
? ytae su rT 7 j
< ¢ - a
ay." haldir ‘or eu men jie See stash rr 3 4 yale a3
as uy aa Iailiiee
oe “- «
Asics (alike igs Cia > ee
3h
¥ ;
Vay mai Nes
vee rai y oe Wet F, ; Lary | =i
7 Sere be ; : [2 H aes 4 in Mit mr) mwah Os fee: Me ay |
per
ese oral
See ced sl
ay fabio Sty aa *.. ean
ae MTA ener cea t+ es ay
7 ee ne pi
susan sno ab se canbe i. sel ith shen wit)
if SE Les, Ewen (ante alt Ga» oniseaamgesth iN
‘a Ria doy speci anieeae sy, mie Lainie 9 a
is vis Aastnoody Pe oad Se eee
rats unleyrghe ‘ ta S| ‘inte 4
“braat. Wh ; hk
attitude towards decentralised management and involvement of local communities,
PAMEB in the most participatory sense will be difficult. This move from a teaching
to a learning style, where the focus is less on what we learn, and more on how we
learn and with whom, has profound implications for conservation institutions (Pimbert
and Pretty 1995).
The facilitator will also need to be aware of any obstacles perceived by stakeholders
before entering into the process, in order to address misunderstandings or justified
fears. For example, in Yunnan, China, villagers were initially reluctant to join in,
fearing that the monitoring process would lead to further restrictions in their resource
use. This fear appeared to be justified during the analysis phase, when most of the
proposed solutions involved banning resource use. More constructive solutions that
provided benefits for all stakeholders had to be thought of, including sustainable
resource use and enrichment planting (Van Rijsoort and Zhang 2002).
Stakeholders
A whole range of people is involved in PAMEB. In the context of protected areas,
these are likely to include: local communities, protected area staff, government staff
as policy makers, NGO staff, and biologists. A useful participatory process cannot
begin until the stakeholders understand and respect each others’ objectives and values.
Usually a facilitator will be needed to help begin this process.
Objectives
Each of these stakeholders has a distinctive perception of whether and why the area
should be managed. For some, maintenance of livelihood will be most important, for
others, protection of culturally or spiritually important places, while others are
motivated by a concern to protect rare species for all humanity. As indicated above,
the purpose of participatory monitoring may involve:
Conservation of biodiversity
Protection of cultural/spiritual places
Sustainable use of resources
Capacity building among stakeholders in conducting monitoring and
analysing reasons of change
e. Planning for local resource management and monitoring its success
f. Awareness building towards conservation and sustainable use
g. Empowerment / mobilisation of local communities through taking
h
aegp
management decisions
Enhanced communication / mutual understanding between
stakeholders
Enhanced efficiency and sustainability of monitoring by using local
capacity
j. Assessing and monitoring national biodiversity (CBD reporting)
k. Other objectives to be defined with stakeholders
It is important that all stakeholders remain aware about each others’ monitoring and
management goals, and that they are given feedback and adjusted if necessary
throughout the PAMEB process.
-.
Information needs
89
an Jssnadihw
bites ;
- ”
i: angi
i, - p
mn ay
+
- , rie by edb
i M = te
ca ¥ ey iy a
7 Ti a0 if
7 \ = ; -
2 ee Aen oe ‘Di reomaebie
4 a bre un hale) als (pera ;
a § nM? Pie Deel, ae" perdu ed Ppa - a
a - Z , : : : ae Fille Pe a at opr die .
4 } 7 = 4
¥ | . i : i DoLe eae 1“ ae ine
= we sy) ae rae. f
vir intaanend.
se
ioe Lena, ins %
Each stakeholder works with a set of assumptions, or values, about what is important,
and it is these that influence both decisions about what to monitor and evaluations of
whether management has been successful or not. Different value-laden needs can also
exist within stakeholder groups, including conservationists (Callicott et al. 1999) and
local communities (Salim et al. 2001). Facilitators need to recognise what is
important to each stakeholder, to help them define their information needs. Ways in
which information needs can vary are:
a. Content: species, subspecies, habitats, land use, wildlife damage
Quantity: population sizes, abundance, stock volume, basal area, uses
Quality: importance, trends in uses, trends in abundance
Location: distribution; relationship between place and cultural value
Value: economic, conservation, aesthetic ete.
De CONS
If information needs of different stakeholder groups are compatible, stakeholders can
work as a multi-disciplinary team. It they are not, it is advisable to either:
- Develop parallel systems, and share findings, or
- Encourage those stakeholders who need the information to pay other
stakeholders who are able to obtain the information.
One approach to resolving these differences in objectives and information needs, and
at the same time creating opportunities for stakeholders to learn from each other, is
illustrated by Van Rijsoort and Zhang (2002). Working with staff of a nature reserve,
and neighbouring communities in Yunnan, China, they supported the development of
three parallel monitoring systems. The scientists conducted a detailed biological
inventory and used permanent sample plots to explore changes in the ecosystem; park
wardens recorded observations of priority wildlife on their routine patrolling routes
through the park, and communities monitored land use, wildlife damaging their crops
and selected resources through indicators such as ‘effort required to collect them’.
The project facilitates exchange of results between the different monitoring systems.
Different groups of stakeholders changed their own perceptions of resource
abundance and ecological health as a result. This also prompted park staff to seek
further training in ecology, in order to be able to answer community members’
questions.
Selection of partners
Even within each stakeholder group, biodiversity is valued differently. For example,
within a local community different people have different interests in and knowledge
about resources and biodiversity. Ideally, such heterogeneity should be understood
before selecting a team of appropriate monitoring partners.
Resource user groups may be taken as a basis for selecting partners (for example,
farmers, herbalists and hunters may form different stakeholder groups); alternatively
more natural groups may form according to age, gender and income. The team should
include representatives of the selected groups, as well as recognised local experts in
plant or animal identification, any relevant local officials such as forest guards, and
perhaps someone who is good at motivating the rest of the village.
Drafting a preliminary budget
90
i4\) i ne i
it ™ ria ‘ ¥ { ae :
cM j ; pe A 7 a : \
} ~ 3 ‘ ‘ Lf
|
¢ -
i I SS } ' ’ hee ‘= iy ie a
t ro, as
. +m bay.
Nitere Coe) ot ee
Bit Ke
i ix: '
ar wiv ;
i
‘ 4 ' —tt5 ¥
H
Siler thy Ae Lies
. 8) bi eS igh Honeats
Oe rath ae a | PN he
ihe + ist Kegs 4
i
ae
ih ; te Sy Fe
~ «7 eee Seah, natal >
i ee ee Ab 4 Mest Tabi pai ere it 2) Ruy as 3 ee ey thus
| a oe ki mi ‘ = a 7
- amie, dex Ae
Se hig! i joe. Saks ta
aoe bee, sbasryltnigdy a eS
a i eater Vy a bengtyae-: eran iE3e i % ee ae er ,
ot tah spe ens WD Rae 5 AG pate anetagind un Aaron RE
te nese uric Pit aly Nii ahs incre day 45k | aetna tathernes
aoe 7 iS gtrgete’ « eRe, gal: WOAH: tent anna pce Cn ee dw tate
ce ae ; velo vk f-- Nasihs’ Haters Al. a ip dE we. eareaed ee
4s ne ena AMAT ae Neds (fh = SA judi # oe’ Seg
a ar a: a. be IIR Wide inet gpa ih Rey iy al
ian = te ae bitin bales Revco Pitaked feyeili
lore 7 7 ahah hr agen eta ara? a Ata
* en ar a _ : “J
; pie = = :
Y af, engenay pen yi a i %, aos psi i Shia ii fae ag
3 Beale Vie ir v1 eine ae see Seas =the? Me + lik es ibe (Hao
- : Alyy ‘ } sy inte hak rad A ane elutes ri roe pig) th bia i
7 bag - >. si sara) | a9 ni oatiany er is ea ‘
‘e J q : FY =
i ee iifaog
Miran Tempra ol wea if! os shun ae
Bie /0 jy Mi, gaye ged soveregall Lov, BAR
Fagg) tl des We ory
cS oe ry oo ie tof
rans agian ty Lule
= PP is) Le ia
a wae ay it NTL tte
=! ¢ iy On, ACs tee iE
Be ting Be soil
(ee ae odie a.
PAMEB cannot be done without financial support. Although participatory
biodiversity monitoring can be cheaper than more conventional scientific monitoring,
this is not always so, and in any case funds should be carefully defined and secured. A
preliminary budget should be defined at this stage of the process since there is no
point in involving people in a complicated process without the funds to implement it.
The items of the budget should at least include costs for organising discussion and
analysis meetings, transportation costs, stationery, and other operational costs. Funds
for publicity and dissemination are important as well. Training may be needed in
specimen preparation and storage, data analysis and photography by villagers,
depending on which methods are defined.
The budget may need to include payment to participating stakeholders, particularly
villagers. For local communities, especially in the case of poor farmers, being
involved in biodiversity monitoring is extra work which takes time and money. It is
fair to offer a fee to take account of these costs borne by local people, keeping in mind
that this will be temporary.
After developing the rest of the methodology, i.e. after determining how many targets
to monitor, which methods to use, and how to document and disseminate, the budget
should be finalised.
Monitoring targets
It is impossible to assess the whole of biodiversity, and decisions must be made about
which components are to be measured and what they tell us about the whole (or the
part that we are interested in). Different stakeholders will have different views on and
monitoring targets should be selected on the basis of stakeholders’ interests. For
example, scientists might be most interested in (globally) rare and endangered species
or habitats, PA staff in protected species and vegetation, and local communities in
resources for trade or domestic use. Additionally, in Yunnan, villagers chose to
monitor wildlife damaging their crops, wild animals they consider as having an
important function in the ecosystem, and some land uses.
Choosing indicators
Variables are often measured using indicators. The use of indicators is a concept that
has been introduced from project management frameworks, and one which is not
always easily grasped by local communities (Lawrence et al. 2003). The purpose of
each indicator must be very clear to all participants, and linked to the targets already
defined. Ideally, indicators of trends in biodiversity and resource use should be
(Danielsen et al. 2000):
- Easy and cost-effective to collect, analyse and report
- Meaningful to local people
- Indicate as directly as possible changes in biodiversity and resource use
- Provide a continuous assessment over a wide range of stress (threats)
- Differentiate between natural cycles or trends (weather, climate etc.)
- Relate to human-induced stress
- Relatively independent of sample size
- Sufficiently sensitive to provide an early warning of change
91
—~
}
3
Yad
see
A Fd
et. Hh
q 3 He 4| it
i
i t!
- wey
f i is 8 2 ive wie
ene Os: gate Oh. : > ; J
4 uk > = ~ z
, 3 _ >.
ie Ae : > - ow Maw fy
vy }
ar 5 crs ew a ge om) beni ey ;
~) Wee ee hy ae igh Wy daw tbo 2 he r
yee oe re) ia | PN: aia sl fe ast :
a. ‘or cto
Die ar A. aT ith ie ths ‘ry howe >. x,
al ee ie ; has ony® ool tralia ae
i) cee BLS aS ane seit ya a ae eper, Tue so tei th
5 A
" LY Oe ge “AK cali nm ae he Mi :
Ty, ee a bite a HONS wen quent gisrattet aol im \e.
em oe aN, ibe a i ; fe Lutein oni es peg
aur Srivi' warily “tv igs
at nad fal gs “
| ,
= N ae~ an
eee aa
7 f" + Pies > } i an
- ‘a “ f = i cs ; 3 "
-~ = A : ey y ¥ y > = :
by ‘ bi : i 5
ee = i 4
2 ee i ors : : ae
- Applicable over a range of ecosystems.
For species indicators it is often important to determine the scientific name in order to
ensure all stakeholders are referring to the same species. This may require training
and preparation of identification guides.
Choosing methods
For many practitioners, the big question is whether to use quantitative or qualitative
methods (Fuller 1998; Lawrence et al. 2000; Sheil et al. 2002). Because both have
their strengths, they can often be fruitfully combined. On the one hand, quantitative
measures of change are often more meaningful at the wider scale, and for planning.
Biologists can contribute rigour to monitoring by introducing concepts of sampling
and establishing plots. This does not preclude participation: scientific methods also
have a role in participatory approaches, and we should not underestimate the abilities
of local people to record detailed and complex data but note that analysis and
generation of useful results can require much external support. | However, the
sustainability of highly technical methods based on detailed measurements of all
species within quadrats is highly doubtful. Simplified methods may be more
appropriate, such as the triangular plots used by the indigenous hunters of Finland,
who regularly record observations of game along the three sides of triangular plots,
enabling data to be linked to habitat (Linden et al., 1996). Other simple quantitative
methods were used in the Yunnan case, for monitoring resource use, wildlife damage
and land use. Market surveys and interviews with co-villagers are used to assess the
amount of resources collected and marketed, and the market price. For timber, the
number of houses built per year is used as well, and for fuel wood the number of
households using alternative energy systems (Van Rijsoort and Zhang 2002).
Qualitative methods may however be sufficiently useful in those protected area
management contexts where time, resources and capacities are limited and threats to
biodiversity are high. Instead of spending the scarce resources on detailing exactly
what is changing, in these contexts it may be sufficient to know the trends of change,
why biodiversity is changing and what are the local perceptions of change in order to
formulate management decisions. Moreover, in those areas where participatory
monitoring is a new concept and involvement of villagers is based on their interests
and capacities, it may be wise to start simple and grow slowly. In Yunnan where poor
farmers and (hunter/)gatherers are the main monitoring partners, qualitative methods
use forest walks and interviews with co-villagers to assess simple indicators such as
‘easy or hard to see’, ‘quality’ (of e.g. habitat, fruits or plantation condition).
Maps are a valuable start to combining species and landscape values, linking
knowledge with place and quantitative data with qualitative information. There is
often a strong correlation between detail on locally made maps and scientific data —
even in distant sites visited infrequently by local informants (Obura 2001; Sheil et al.
2002; Stockdale and Ambrose 1996).
Data analysis, validation and use of results
Collection and analysis of the data is related to the objectives of the participants; these
objectives also define the users of the results. So analysis and presentation of results
92
<—
j ‘ i. 4 ee am M pi Ht
nih a Sih
4 - Ls / J if ~ | “ei Sth ‘ andy ma : ' is 4
rar AE TE ak} ete be MEL te yu i a ‘4
SSE COE: EB ae FO Owe, eS aR. PMIT |p } se ory | thet Sal Pas,
Bo Mh ek. A a aii eC ae ee ie ea
: er he ate J a 7 ' 5 “) aed
batt.” ponte i in 07 [A 1 Gat Se Ee
, co ;
i 7) alive
i we od init
' Ee URS ADEE
c Bs Pre Coos es s
; pe : : :
ea =e | 4 te ips
) : pe a ie
‘ al st
: ic fe heel
a, a , oe
: “
4 Sy Gay
ay Tiel,
a ¥ i Cay
a) a Site
: ap
" vt 4i8a ; i eared
a ni i vy 7) /
i a oe oni) ‘ f ¥ b, eet , } b
eR Tati \s 2 reath ve ea gh (es J AT, pt
AT la Bie maar, Pests ht Pa An foe ae fw, hyena
: Whig, 02h melt edie Ala d ; ' ” eg = fs vier ome
7 mi Fs Aaah ae n\e via Ute yee ‘ by wre vif 4] a. fin) 7* hain
typ ton 41 ale as Ae ol 7 ye ieee ey, avraie Wee §
- : i Lilaves, ? Hie Hee % “Hi iD ease) oot ‘ay Paty i rp’ f ee f th
%
| ¢ ge’ m iyi urd a’ aol ie
sir i phabsi re rape lhiogie ri KAR PLAY: iin POM iy
Cate Ae Sud Poiana]: Wistuly Gitlidy SO) HOw Pputregid gin
ia were |) oS ae: ey paeeeey Seely ivi PN = swale
n het re fit a) Dyan ve “lg
‘ if iid oar) ey ; iw
t e- | pbatuits ss aaah
off! ier, shared ic ae ie
im
gout Pare bibeyss
a i? in meant ‘sige aa
= ro a << I
a : R —- ys 5 * [ i
_"" 4 a i
Ape Fe 5 di
a i a lions ri
- Sea - “ = + ere :
must be considered with these end-users in mind. Ideally, in a participatory process,
the results are to be used by those who provided and analysed the data.
Local people, if given the opportunity to discuss findings, often provide
interpretations and insights that otherwise may have been missed if the results had
been interpreted solely by staff and advisors (Steinmetz 2000). Moreover, the drafted
solutions emerging from participatory data analysis will be more practical and
adjusted to the local conditions.
The results can be validated through feedback from more scientific monitoring
systems, or even through a kind of triangulation with two complementary systems as
in the Yunnan case. Biologists and conservationists are often concerned about the
reliability and generality of local environmental assessments. They wonder how
objective or rigorous data gathered by villagers are. The question however is not the
extent to which participatory monitoring can fit into scientifically based (and
therefore assumed reliable) formats, but, again, what the objectives and intended
application of the assessment are (see above) (Abbot and Guijt 1998).
Follow up
Continuing support in analysis and decision-making is important. If PAMEBs are
funded as a one-off event by a particular project, they are of little use in management
unless they become integrated into regular decision-making activities.
The impact of PAMEB is greater if the result and methods are documented and
disseminated. There are various ways to do this; the choice again depends on the
objectives. Appropriate methods to disseminate at village level are through schools,
village meetings, festivals, market days, local radio programs, etc. The media can also
be valuable at national level: the People’s Biodiversity Registers in India have gained
attention in the national press (Gadgil 1998), and raised awareness of the existence,
but erosion, of practical ecological knowledge.
Finally, in product as well as process approaches, the monitoring and evaluation of
the process and the results are very important. PAMEB is often a new concept, which
needs continuous feedback to optimise and adjust the methodology to local
conditions. Increased attention to documenting the impact of PAMEB will help
scientist and decision-makers to see the possibilities, and particularly to see where
they can contribute and benefit from such an approach.
Figure x. Schematic diagram illustrating the process of undertaking a participatory
biodiversity assessment or monitoring programme.
93
\
~~ 7 z= = , 7 A 7
. i ; dari lee kin Set Be
x f P seesier ae iy! ‘ tee el
+ a ' +, r J ; .#
ia) any ‘
: = 4 5 bee's vid meee MO’) t
P , me i ven Wy a a om . i Vain cr eaids
Hep ov? E j - CON aeair ibn tb Pie Qe ity hapa
- ¥ i fu a Ws
om Sei ¥ wit et ky bs liir
= ati wf By as its ie
fe ol bitte Wyre HG (uit
ny Pa iE ze e480 Oe “WT
= Adi iy r 7; i) ii ' pi + “hy 4 5 hy = ry ia | TH) 2¥
a o : va 3
aia") eeaty. SAC igiam. ear Sis Faw
ean f fo FEA ls A ; < = al
COM liek sah ely cate pas ay hed ne, Shea . [rik taal u
«ry ee Lapin. | aii ene eld te: pega ey ah wif 34) 17 JhOF i
; he. a
ox — . Jd cp - = co
Pe = BRYA a S : 7 ee rn ~ 7
«= _ : ‘ A , - oe aM \ fi ot.
7 o oh a Soni Ty \anihuls @| Senay ani: ein iagy Mii re, om ot Mi
ea ; Ri uasaleisedh Wie ai: ths i hw? LN ails “ye ba ae iV a
j - a 2 a Tae plait’ ‘ le | Ran ee ‘ i ‘ty ims Poke
7 : . 7 ‘Vallameaih' “lg, * re i i Ny teary pre} 5: seine ’ efi ts
HF Pep 8 SY wile etl ee whe Ersoy oe SE |
Ss - ay phar fl eke Dalles Peasy, St ee ly Pee mie Tuae, api ‘Bitig, Dene
be i lad a proae be"
iis aint suns “its iy ‘edd ee inl ‘2
wy Get, ga 3 Rae. ican Petpet ting
Te an gpk One pia dis Cele id
a ; foie |) held la vial “2a, ee is
cree * ie an ion) guia on
= ate i “i 2
suolsn]
aqepye A
a)
a>
ouo0o uonedionied
HS unsuq
SIOWOIPUL PIOIOI
pure ainseay\
SIOJLOIPUI JOS
ABojopoyjout
dojaaaq
syoaie) AjUap]
saapjoyeis
JO sajoeisqo pur s}yauaq
Jo suondasiad Aquey 5
uaaMyaq Ss
pjoyayeys wea}
JUAWIADITe 10
vied dojaaap
Ayeulfdiosip-yynuu se YOM
é a}quedwios
spaau
UONRUOJUI
oly
ON
OMB LS JO} spaau as0jasoy_ |
Uk HS JO} spaau asojody_ |,
UR HS JOJ Sp9ou DoJos9y |
PayNUap! HS OJ saanoalqo,
paynuapl HS Joy saayoalqo,
PayNuap! HS Jo} saanoalqo
jospng
(quatussasse Gq
ul aqyedionuied |yiM
OYA suappoyayeis
Jo jasqns)
sdaujied yo uonsajag
saatjoalqo prog ysiqeisy
uoneULOJUT diseg ayidwo>)
WUIWUOIIAUA Sulpqeug
(GAIN Vd) Allssaaiporg Jo uoNeNyRAa
Pure SuouOW ‘ULUssasse A10}RdI9O1V.Ieg
7. WHICH IS THE BEST APPROACH?
Biodiversity assessment and decision-making
The approaches to biodiversity assessment described here each have strengths and weaknesses.
Scientific methods have mainly been applied to conservation priority setting, even though they
have much potential for broader applications. Local assessments capture what matters locally
but are difficult to link — as may be required for local or national policy — to higher-level
processes. Partly for this reason, assessments driven by national and international agendas, as
well as those emerging in the private sector, almost invariably emphasise global biodiversity
values over national or local values. The outstanding problem, then, is exchange among the
different approaches to biodiversity assessment.
Biodiversity assessments need to provide information that is useful to those involved in policy
implementation, as well as development. The most direct management decisions are made at
local levels, and in this sense the most useful biodiversity assessments are those based locally.
However, there are also a number of other levels at which decision-making affects biodiversity
and livelihoods connected with it. National and local governments, land-owners and
development or conservation organisations are some examples of others whose policies and
activities are influential, and many of these agencies implement biodiversity assessments of their
own. At both local and non-local levels, evaluation of biodiversity is part of broader cycles of
land-use and natural resource management, either purposively or not (Figure 3).
Currently, most biodiversity assessments are poorly coordinated among different groups of
decision-makers. This is only one component of a broader uncoupling among their respective
management cycles — in short, a natural resource governance challenge that needs to be tackled
on all fronts. Biodiversity assessment might be a relatively tractable part of this challenge, and
offer a tool for broader progress towards pluralist decision-making, for example by providing
empirical information that serves as a basis for dialogue, negotiation or cooperation among
different groups.
By adopting the principles of the Ecosystem Approach as the primary framework for
operationalising the Convention on Biological Diversity, a large number of governments have
committed to locally driven biodiversity management. Although international statements do not
of course guarantee national or local change, the Ecosystem Approach nonetheless provides a
framework for natural resource management in which, while other interest groups have their say,
local roles, values, priorities, knowledge and decision-making may take a lead. The CBD is an
example of a broader trend of decision-makers in government, NGOs and the private sector
recognising the utility of decentralised and democratic natural resource management, for reasons
of efficiency if not equity. Trade-offs and synergies between global and local biodiversity values
are increasingly on policy agendas at local, national and international levels. Conservation
discourse is also putting more emphasis on conservation of biodiversity outside reserves, with
integration rather than segregation of global biodiversity and local livelihoods (Vane-Wright
1996; Prendergast et al. 1999).
96
\ “— 4 i —
iT Erte 3 way ; i (aGey
inal & fray at rae feps¥ Sexe lh Sp: ’ ie «f, ’ sll feptaty i
’ i y) ; Ls - ¥ a é 7 7 = ‘3 S
rere ic) bap nil ee tire oe Po oe (Se wt OF ee
sag ae Py 4
erei9 ee > & = ~
a Bey as
ve P mie art at
J 12 fe —
iki
eA: Jie e , << Fas) rh
= oe ee eT folk Giang
a . rit faink . hens plieys if
ethic emit Whitin 8 IE Pin rigchs epi Mae eae
» ig aah eet peaks Ae We As paula
ites eal , mae ' Let i By yi iad “eu aut ib ari.
+" 4 ee iY fg sees dg, ri ooo ne oe ie ei
: ne nee 7 a F — fe i
aie = a4 ayer np? ay hs ean i eR | RT %
ine cael | ion silt. ah Vs
a Mae 2 mies igs al in 1 ae? et
RET sis: © Bites
hi) ole 3 aqieagtiyt At
a a,
Lae - ee
: Oe el Paves : ree ¥
* ned Aponte morte flutes “(quia ot lige ry ais
5 vagal re pale
Laie he dpsaheralie's wit
a lS TB tin ee ictal wf) sh yo
lite RiLtL oe ca Mirch aibenah a
sh cies, tlncgwres Fite Utara (a 20 ERRNO
Aypeney hye v7 Aur ae “a Hi Preck TA eae SOP 4 hap
a 2 ve ie
main =n a Sager Haas
i ii og Loan ual bigtheeh aig
a A nelly Hii SaDBR
prey y: a) dB nee
er ers
ur ie Hee i Te rn nplttty ns
rai ie ninhy ab «ie Fie a i, ORT yrerg 4
a acai e4y cea mT aa =
. . i) Yr’ ed i)
LAND USE
NR MGMT
PLANNING CYCLE
Figure 3. How biodiversity assessment
fits as a sub -component of land use
IDENTIFY NEED
FOR BIODIVERSITY
ASSESSMENT
and natural resource management
planning cycles
APPRAISE +
MODIFY PLANS
DESIGN AND
IMPLEMENT
ASSESSMENT
Devolved, pluralist and adaptive management of biodiversity has obvious implications for
assessment. Fundamentally, all the details of choosing, planning, conducting and learning from
biodiversity assessments (Figure 3) need to be decided locally, shared and flexible. In response
to this, one of the most promising directions internationally is the growing interest in, and
practice of, participatory biodiversity assessment (Lawrence and Ambrose-Oji 2001; Rodriguez
and van der Hammen 2002). These kinds of approach take up the challenge of finding a broad
middle ground between local and wider biodiversity values, not only through communication of
local values to global audiences and vice versa, but by sharing ownership of both the
responsibilities (e.g. planning, fieldwork) and the benfits (e.g. access to information, financial
rewards) of biodiversity assessment.
Not all biodiversity assessments need to be joint activities. Often stakeholders see no benefit in
mutual evaluations or understandings of biodiversity. Local users all over the world rely on
independent appraisals. Sometimes biodiversity may not be an issue at all, even among a broad
range of interest groups. Biodiversity assessments can be expensive, or even risky. There can be
serious disadvantages to local people, especially disempowered or indigenous groups, in
97
~ - =
¥ Fs “a — o-
+ t 5 sa, “
4 H =
Pi ae ou A -
ry, t m " Mat F
; yA ; Hota
; : phn F an
@
f f
ear 1 ,
¥ tad ‘ i Upie ‘ / 4 u
aah es PO Tee a
| i. : ;
Ee | ss F i z
+ am v ‘ J
ts
we je OB 4 J ne a
é
{ ’ }
'
i ;
L ‘ =) 555
ar yi i rvert i Py Pet iv i ra]
; ic j
k : awit > .
Cae een at 14) vies Y fe! UR
4 he N
= y } shee he aii ‘ j i Pa]
We ; P F e 1
: j f; : ‘ f
Wine: dal H aah We ¥ i A |
‘ i’ S =
= ai i " ft b — > TT ha
Perr, a} >] mu wes tel ae i dees {
i Hees), ie & i “1% Wf) ‘LS ”_ Law ”
a Wie ho ahow Dart . ete ny i y li
td in MP GicyiAGy! mater MM ai ie! i owed a heres. aff
ir te a i | ~~ in ‘i
aLfitinOet A lily, itl Gaga ae: Le he
Te an) Uber, *r84/ y af spt. : paz fired! + Niles } ig
hee lad goer e ARTA May! Fem HAL eae ive
ey) bevel yrsed hae pragatt: Seeks dese
94] wu iT 4 mt ’ mew) r
é Si f
becoming involved in biodiversity assessment: not only the obvious transaction and opportunity
costs, but also the potentially negative impacts of sharing information with outsiders, such as
biopiracy (Shiva 1997). Much is made in international circles of the need to mainstream
biodiversity issues into the full spectrum of national and regional planning processes. Perhaps
instead the emphasis should be on mainstreaming — at a decentralised level — the option of
collaborative biodiversity assessment and management.
Improved governance and better information go hand-in-hand. The remainder of this section
identifies some strategies and tactics for ensuring that the outputs of biodiversity assessments
serve broader goals of integrated evaluation and decision-making among different stakeholders.
Lessons learned: some guidelines for biodiversity assessment
One of the most important messages for decision-makers at all levels is to approach biodiversity
assessment with pragmatism and scepticism. Formal biodiversity assessment is expensive,
sometimes to a degree that it detracts from management (Sheil 2001). The jargon of scientific
assessments can hide a great deal of uncertainty, resulting in land management decisions based
on spurious conclusions about local biodiversity (e.g. Homewood and Brockington 1999).
Decision-makers require evaluations of biodiversity that answer specific questions as effectively
as possible within the time and other resources available. Naturally, good assessment results are
contingent on good processes, and decision-makers need to be aware, and take advantage, of the
political and other contexts surrounding and implicit in biodiversity measurement (Box 22).
Researchers have an associated role to play in developing assessment approaches that are
relevant to the decision-makers who use the information generated.
Box 22. Putting biodiversity assessment into context
What decision-makers can do
= Rationalise biodiversity assessment — only assess biodiversity when there is good
reason to do so, be explicit about the goals of assessment and base the methods
used on these goals
= Be aware of the limitations of existing methods, and put more resources into
developing integrated methods
= Identify relevant indicators rather than relying on internationally sanctioned
conventional indicators (e.g. numbers of endangered species)
= Implement the CBD — ensure at an international level that a broad range of
interests are reflected, especially those of local resource users and less wealthy
countries, and nationally take advantage of the loose guidelines to set up a
pragmatic and nationally specific programme of assessment
= Simplify requirements for biodiversity assessment in audits (e.g. forest
certification and environmental impact assessments)
What researchers can do
= Provide more user-friendly evidence of the causal links between biodiversity and
its ascribed indirect use values — e.g. Does biodiversity really offer
environmental services such as watershed protection? Under what
98
roll wont Riple
oi nese ath
- : i 4 re
aa alee. a ayy eid PA) Ais SEV) SRE EM SE ge! EM a Rene
tos ul oe i if ity ws sR RE a aT —
x ay Bea beaut ie ee a as
1:
Azhar 5 } | ‘¥2 7 pe vce i ¥
AS 7 , a .
: j 7) a a Bd dion Carat
‘ ;
i) ite f 2
; ae ‘ j a dt
. “fi Tad os ive ¢ » et I } ot ne . : ,
at a oe “es mig)? A ee pala
= breire fi ripe Ura a ey a iil, Asteipces D eee
i tue sSern S oe ey, ia ~~. a Tee amt inno
: ‘lie eA ‘ j 4 oe aL il hee ath Ap ALHO KR, “Y atts et ob iene gait
‘f eon ee ; Me tes: sta? as ¥ paiglit? ite ian) ipl he) py
ai Suet VWs ‘ot ti Purr Mil A Wie An ae hate fi
j a ay ai ua ta Mey wa nt
1 Wir, Ve cit uel We Rr uth,
i de OL t 1 GBpiegwrt) 9 ee ive
}
Mim! i y
a |G Lae
{
a | A
ne =
a dl — i
iy fa Lo s ne
: a _ ia
Pee — : vi -
icuan = =) — 5 See
circumstances?
Work together (natural scientists, economists and social scientists) to design
methods for measuring biodiversity in terms of the value that people derive from
it — including measures of accessibility, substitutability, and the added value of
variety and variability (capacity to change) over the sum of biological resource
values
Look into how the knowledge and equipment needed for specific scientific
assessment methods can be transferred and used without significant cost to less
wealthy contexts
Act as “go-betweens” to link local managers of biodiversity to higher-level
policy-makers
Examples from both researchers and decision-makers suggest some general guidelines for
designing biodiversity assessments:
Start planning any biodiversity assessment by disaggregating values. For practical purposes,
biodiversity is not a feature of living organisms, but rather a catch-all term for all the types of
variety that might be useful to people (e.g. the range of decomposers in the soil) or might not
(e.g. the range of deadly viral diseases). Treating biodiversity as one composite property,
then, is not helpful. An especially useful way of disaggregating biodiversity is in terms of
the values we attach to it: the relevant direct, indirect and non-use values. These can be
further broken down according to the relative values to different beneficiaries — the
differences between local and global values have been stressed here, but other distinctions
among stakeholders may be more relevant in other contexts. Considering biodiversity in
terms of what people derive from it, rather than as an end in itself, helps us phrase much
clearer questions and objectives for assessment.
Acknowledge trade-offs between biodiversity and other benefits, among different aspects of
biodiversity, and among the values attached to biodiversity. Biodiversity assessment could
and should be a powerful tool for making difficult decisions about what aspects of
conservation and management of biological resources to prioritise. As a start, separating
biodiversity values from general biological resource values would overcome a lot of
confusion (e.g. “biodiversity” is said to provide watershed protection, but it may be found
that a monoculture does just as well). Other key trade-offs exist among direct use, indirect
use and non-use values of biodiversity (e.g. maximising genetic variety in economic species
versus maximising existence of unused species for future option values), between local and
global values (e.g. conservation of all local bird species or concentrating on the one species
that is rare globally), and among ecosystem, taxonomic and genetic levels of biodiversity
(e.g. whether to maintain many different families of flowering plants versus many examples
of a family deemed especially important).
In deciding what to measure, begin with a wide view of biodiversity and narrow down from
there. Measuring the wide array of different facets of biodiversity is a daunting proposition,
and in practical terms an inefficient use of valuable expertise, time and finances. On the
other hand, it is difficult to have a standard means of prioritising what should be measured
99
int PS ne
ue \ ee - a ' itt yen eee
ij BP BAN ay sre eet Gh et ee , Sepa ts A cisay: Vex ey Pie tasting
*)
»
1
1 ts oe iA
he Te cd Nee Roe ey i til ne gy san
wii Me
: F ie
'
q fi) “ny rd ee
| ry ene ff eal = heiae iy ah ie
; pes, 1g ne
i f=
- i UY SaweeTulee fri geet? cali, pee TAD
q oe
¥
poy reyih os io, Sas ent hind “i
Spree ee tut ioe rw oie tal
ee a \ ric ne im glow semper eget hay rk ae see
aby’ ‘. ipa my aig ep pawl fee oie AD io Se
1 ; fh wigs Nid Pritt 4d Gene 4 4 me ih thin sj Mapp ic eb ie aS pa a
wire settee (© ond Pu esas: eT: . anion *Aieaaieditet) Sa. (Fino (Apt ale Aga Siar
e Ry on Were icf} wAeipbarty’ rr lt oe iy Oe reir wast 4Nii44 Drie hs seaihehh
m a me t Agi GP ay tre MALS Ei se Mi bar ith tal 2 sain Mi =
ac whaaaliiatts Herts Pa ee ee
Ghai: et gyi beobgpabe ¢ nicl ontuase be Sav vay, Soi ines (igh
wat CA age tadiay rr? POH ve ir unenvas Sad am res:
PTR, av oy penta we pa OF Sete? wie Th oral aleneey ith
fee , ea. Cees erent Pare + Wires le a
cee wie) v3 ere
ee aos MN TAS MY ae :
ame Te eo slabs beth
mills angi [Winauee [=e wuien| ny
site shine an len “shear
tigi Olds RR been ae
ie ai perk re eet cu [20 na lage oe
Brat cone ye
al rae: sr lato
Me ae
ah te an ip. apes
il Wie . : i
for all circumstances. Noss (1990) recommends starting with a coarse-scale, wide-reaching
characterisation of a site, under the themes of composition, structure and function
(alternatively other typologies such as structure/process/impact, state/pressure/response or
ecosystem/taxa could be used), from which the key facets to measure are identified by
comparing against data on “stress levels” (once again alternative criteria such as utility to
local livelihoods, access, or rate of environmental change could be substituted). The
underlying idea is to start by considering biodiversity in its broadest sense and then to use
criteria to discard possible aspects to measure until a manageable set, based on the objectives
and questions at hand, is reached. Even if the original characterisation of the site and the
criteria are based on patchy evidence, a comprehensive checklist of possible factors is a very
low-cost means of helping decision-makers to consider biodiversity more widely.
Measure the desired good or service rather than the associated biodiversity. Links between
biodiversity and provision of goods and services are poorly understood. Therefore it makes
sense to assess the desired good or service rather than measuring biodiversity — evaluate
seasonal availability of food, reduction in crop diseases, or landscape beauty, rather than the
biodiversity that is considered to be providing it. Direct assessments of biodiversity are valid
mainly for answering questions about non-use (option) values or questions of scientific
interest, such as to provide baselines of genetic variation and variability in crop species, or to
find out how many species there are in the world. Vanclay (1998) provides several other
examples of where biodiversity is used as a surrogate and where biodiversity surveys are
justified.
Design indices and indicators for specific land-use decisions and management_processes.
There will never be a universal index of biodiversity that is generally accepted. The growing
plethora of approaches and formats to express biodiversity is an encouraging rather than
dismaying sign. Assessment techniques, indicators and indices need to be tailored to
particular land-use or management decisions. For example, the certification audit for Stora-
Ludvika recommended a “Rio index” of conservation value, based on a set of parameters that
are available and relevant at the intended site, but would need to be adapted at other sites.
What is transferable is the basic tool, in this case a composite index.
Accept imperfection — and be open to change. Biodiversity assessments simply cannot be
comprehensive. To carry out even a rough charaterisation of the biodiversity in a particular
place is an expensive exercise if primary data collection is involved. Each stage of a
biodiversity assessment — choosing values, choosing which facets of biodiversity reflect these
values, designing and implementing field inventories, analysing data, relating data to land
management options — involves compromises. No one approach is perfect, and the
usefulness and relevance of techniques changes over time. Well established approaches to
assessing biodiversity, such as the IUCN Red Data lists, accept (and, where possible,
estimate) uncertainty, as well as updating the ranking system to reflect changes in, or
refinements of, knowledge and values. The estimation and communication of the uncertainty
associated with biodiversity assessments is currently one of the most significant scientific
challenges facing the conservation research community.
100
;
— = 7
ieee ’ AeA } Aa pa BE Seed yA, Sener ja Be
al aly é HAS
: RP, See PLA art ety { Dal? ‘Miz 1 i —' OE obeiee ata
; ; : foe tod
% es) 4 : t = f
ip ee ‘ ‘edo
vy eceh lors ‘ ao i -
pu ; t i U j ‘ . My ad} tyra: r= ot eee
Me Lo: pratense
; : ot
' vi
i ' aie gl i) Spices
— (ip
Geaeatee a
eS mene hin y eee , y ‘ 1 7
wabhanes we nb in reg WA Sool thy es
et i Sade OU ree iad depo orb)» VAS
oS qmeenmediey | WL at Lm wnidict
rit ae ned erate *. a MT4h¢) Seite it i
eh este. Deir th hike ni HE are ie ‘Res 1 Rite Yi. soa?
ig is a dep 8! aa an sul Wile! wae reas
; pomine neal NPIS ag boat The? fi Bai Hi: an eae
asters, bt es eiebegh inne = oy st ig
mi List dk iL Ro |
ad i hie tie ie 5. Tt LAM
a aw rae At sigs ‘a atl 4ifiy, ante
ci Wy ait ips i) TK rk ; - Stat
‘ igi Mt (ie idee ms
Atte
fi vole y
as ci) vs Fi 2 ti Might
ie) ee bee. Lr SDR hasten a
id Pi Micis no Lae ue wap Vy Jay
uh os hoa use As
rae aes WE LM
anh i Laie Ne, vi sid " (tiga
ny ie io AT ce = wai ad ag
wer OF "ft ip a witin ©. ay
7”) agus Yo dh ol
; men pay e\ in’ ‘ a
ti enn) fw iit oe
rtiahy Me ae Lae jai Wall Pints
= ul ae ee reer eae Vii
Se eri msl
" Be aware of multiple perspectives and the political context of biodiversity assessment.
Practitioners have become so accustomed to indices and descriptions of biodiversity as a
valuable end in itself that it is easy to forget that these portrayals of biodiversity are based on
a view that the worth of biodiversity is in its non-use values (conservation for option, bequest
and intrinsic benefits) to the whole of humanity. Criteria such as those used in selecting
some protected areas appear to be based on some sort of global consensus over what is and
what is not of “universal natural value”. In reality, the global consensus is that of wealthy
countries, and the most energetically promoted means of assessing biodiversity are those of
wealthy conservation lobbies. This is not to say that poorer people would decline, given the
opportunity, the opportunity to support biodiversity conservation based on non-use values —
simply that practitioners should be aware that the views and values of less powerful groups
are generally absent from prevailing national and international approaches to biodiversity
assessment and management.
Sheil (2001) has provided a particularly valuable critique of biodiversity monitoring in tropical
countries. He points out that monitoring activities can actually hinder, rather than improve
conservation action, as limited resources are diverted away from practical management activities.
Sheil makes the following recommendations, which should be considered whenever assessments
are being planned:
" Monitoring and assessment activities must be allocated with sensitivity to local priorities and
limitations, especially when local resources are involved
" Researchers should ensure that they are familiar with local management issues before they
become general advisors on local conservation needs
= Care must be exercised whenever monitoring activities are promoted at the possible expense
of important conservation actions
" Managers should only be required to collect data that are useful to them in ways that they
understand
" High level monitoring is vital: information is needed on threats to biodiversity, and
conservation priorities should be continually refined in the light of such information.
However, the costs and responsibilities for generating such information must be allocated
with care.
« Interventions should boister, and not undermine, the attainment of conservation goals; case-
by-case assessment is needed.
Combining multiple values into single indicators
Real life trade-offs in the management and assessment of biodiversity will be solved via political
processes rather than through derivation of “objective” indicators that combine different sets of
biodiversity values. Nonetheless, policy-makers at national and international levels need
biodiversity assessments that assist planning and priority setting. If policy decisions are to
depend on local as well as national or global biodiversity values, reliable and generalisable
methods that contrast or combine different measures are required. Researchers have already
designed several methods for integrating multiple measures:
101
a
Heat Atey Rha
r ‘ 1
< (j
‘ am ter iT
a
’ a ~~!
me
‘- { 7
Ub i, - 4 ,
f
is
; >
ave ES NENT Re
$14 Th5
aul j
i eA i
F g aie
Ne! Vive ale Piss
i La
Tr) ©) Re AC of '
and HOLE ary eget hie a
pb waits, ee
>: Tar 4
Oia ely age '
bea ody» "arn \
ie
» FO
Latte 6
= Category method. Different sites are placed in different categories according to clear criteria.
Multiple biodiversity values can be included by a hierarchical system of classification or by
categories having more than one criterion each. For example, the categorisation of
biodiversity ‘hotspots’ combines parallel criteria for endemism and threat. A local value, for
instance contribution to food security, could be substituted or added. The category method is
applicable to both qualitative and quantitative data. It is perhaps the most commonly used
system for combining multiple global conservation values, but has not been widely applied as
a means of co-assessing local and global biodiversity values.
= Equation method. Multiple values are combined into a single index using an algebraic
equation. Each term can be used to represent one facet or value of biodiversity. The
different terms can be weighted according to their importance by using different factors of
multiplication. For example, a formula developed for calculating biodiversity credits has
weighting terms for abundance, uniqueness and vulnerability, the relative importance of
which can be adjusted by increasing or decreasing their relative weightings. Any one of
these terms could be substituted by a term expressing local value, which could be weighted
according to perceived (or negotiated) relative importance. For example, an obvious
substitute for “uniqueness” would be “substitutability”, a measure of how many replacements
people have for a species used for a specified purpose.
= Graphical method. Rather than lumping very different biodiversity values together, the graph
method plots out different indices on opposite axes, to give a visual representation of
difference. For example, a prioritisation of Canada’s bird species plotted a measure of threat
of extinction on one axis and the degree to which a species is concentrated in Canada (and
therefore the responsibility of the Canadian government) on the other. Graphical means of
combining more than one factor do not conflate factors that vary in different ways, without
correlation, and therefore are more transparent than the category or equation methods.
Each of these three methods has associated strengths and weaknesses. To date, these methods
have been applied mainly to integrating multiple conservation aims (e.g. endemism and threat of
extinction). They could be just as easily used to combine multiple biodiversity values, such as
direct, indirect and non-use values, or global and local values. Indeed, some planning processes
have already integrated multiple values in this way.
More complex methods for integrating multiple values are also possible. Presentation of results
of participatory biodiversity assessments, for example, often entail what might be called
“scientification” of local knowledge, such as the application of formal statistical techniques,
especially nonparametric rank-based tests, to information about local practice and perceptions
(Hoft et al. 1999; Sheil et al. 2002). More broadly than biodiversity management, modern
approaches to integrated natural resource management have begun to tackle how best to combine
multiple values attached to natural resources, values based on different and sometimes
conflicting stakeholder perspectives. Techniques include multivariate statistical methods such as
principle components analysis, radar diagrams and canonical correlations (Campbell et al. 2001).
Integrated measures calculated in the above ways could be described as indices of “bioquality”
(sensu Hawthorne 1996) rather than “biodiversity”, in that sites that have the highest diversity of
102
~
Pr oh 4 bush ’ i" '
a tate : ; ’ = t WEL)
sala ; Pires th
i ' —-
Biaensatanee NCE ido )
et RE ea TP ei 7
wee } qe
biegs Want : iniey ha
nar’ ‘at i eS ae Via
sates a Lote: Ati scrbiuyse’ bg a J
Ants eS ine wail ‘1
fee Greetings. on hens ii avd ihe
4 _ oy aautiae me a Pr Pitt
peo g bithes ee iy es htt Tr ay? a
os hcl 4! ip, wap ae UI ft arate rae ’
i. ahh Mey bute hat Vlpiesisesiiy ite sr frie oe
2) mie ie ish fe 52 sri Latin bald
. we é ie Past Fee 5 “i
| Jophy centers ah mn whe Ve ree sp ile Bri
Py Watnadeta ph Es We ie sang asia ole
us wur's eon ai
ay ott eas w
afi (Peon) Li
AES Site ae) suas
; eI aD IX: “ins 1h EM hs at bea 1a yet Ore Ph AF Teo crtiy asteese sings
ol! oth 7 : =<
yi ue iy evel ft ia chy ok ot Saal lige ys This Ie ee eee sy fal
aa wml)’ ‘wild heat yh Cer hla iiytins "ll Hy, hipter Ol Wr onal 4 vinnie
j . wv ny onl Hee Ae Am Da te co cilpngigt Mf a cat | st Pee a tk me walbrre see it
| ent
abel ge Anovemnggonie
co (ah
aati 6 gedpn seater ielnbibiaescels
eis j Me A . Ma EAM
” i Mey thy em ue ere ito 1 coheed,
re sete 1 hirnyity iain
-
oh Galt Oey |
‘wie me pec nen ner lites He Ws “apical Aa “inet TP Si at ine am
= , ithe gil id sit ata, uae wi sit ee Pay SAL Crab aki vtyrbiet me ’
ST MTV rite Sein Met oth. eee he F rata Sinoul 3 ea,
aE tay Un: Kad je tay ile nD A iis heads cofearng ee
GG Mig ah, enh Nath ng) ot a RM th, 40 Pd pay
igil) pee wee ¥ i tae ts) shq WARN ES SYP wh i swing tok P cs :
x aalhit = bAK a hah Lets Ae iY oo tidbit ‘Bole
sale diin.bte, Ga ie Bs) a ee iar ;
| | el eT
; ( ‘sinc i ry Pwr Mea a! if Te Jen ai: al Brit
1 Mghiieaapitth ad phage et: et hae iptv
enim walter cite gail a i vy ened Next rok Art
beneficial taxa, biological processes or potential impacts might be different from the sites that
have the highest overall diversity of taxa, biological processes or potential impacts. The
usefulness of a term such as bioquality is that it places emphasis on the values that people derive
from biodiversity.
Real consensus over measurement of biodiversity, with common vision and minimum
compromise, cannot realistically be hoped for. Without consensus among stakeholders over how
measures of biodiversity are derived (from which facets are chosen through to how they are
recorded, weighted, calculated and combined), any uni-dimensional index of biodiversity will
always be questioned. The fact remains that stakeholders with different values will always need
space for dialogue. Measures of biodiversity, and more importantly the management decisions
that are made on their basis, will continue to be determined, ultimately, by negotiation rather
than through rational exercises based on state-of-the-art techniques.
Principle-based approaches to biodiversity assessment
Biodiversity is just one of many examples of a natural resource that is valued widely but
managed locally, and therefore requires approaches that are locally adapted yet broadly
applicable. A popular, and potentially very powerful, solution to achieving both ends is an
evaluation system based on sets of principles that are agreed among a wide group of
stakeholders, but allow substantial flexibility in decisions and actions taken locally. This is
analogous to “‘loose-tight” models of business management that expect employees to work within
core principles but to take most responsibility for local decision-making.
There are many working examples of principles applied to environmental and natural resource
management. Some, such as the certification scheme overseen by the Forest Stewardship
Council, rely on compliance from applicants in order to participate, but sets of principles that
provide non-compulsory best-practice models for participants may be just as useful — the primary
utility of principles is in their role as learning tools for organisations and alliances. Principles are
usually succinct, and general enough to apply to many different types of stakeholders, which
means that they are excellent tools for negotiation and collaborative management if they are
supported by sufficient mechanisms for accountability.
A principles-based approach may be well suited to biodiversity assessment that needs to
incorporate both global and local values. One of the big challenges of biodiversity assessment is
the sheer amount of information that could potentially be gathered and evaluated. Principles
provide the fundamental questions that need to be answered by assessment — a good starting
point for choosing what to measure. Well-developed principles often include menus of potential
indicators or targets within wider guidelines for implementation, which can be selected from or
adapted to suit very different needs in different localities (e.g. in forest certification).
More importantly, principles-based approaches have a broader applicability to the process as
well as the content of assessment and management procedures. The twelve principles of the
CBD’s Ecosystem Approach (see earlier) are a good example of a set that includes both
principles for how the resource ought to be managed (e.g. Principle 6: Ecosystems must be
103
rel ree Baile has bee
ai’ Natuele | yun?
Yaa shy gt esa
Fei ie ak vit ate gar as!
tbbr:
i 3 ‘i weet - vie ;
7 ae A ah
o Fuahvetngey de
et Te a ea, Se mae
i ie " “ 3 1
+ ite pate vid wiih
* ight 8 Mire is dion ae
ve Resales ich ¢ ipsiie ma iy ni
ts [allo ays Costin fu abe re ese
ee RY aa bigs sal fen ih aN SET Tai sgeiou? rally tisha
ae days iperes nally it a Nay? ethils ; iil ey Ge Lara 29 ml 4 pesado
“eet aD) ATION TH ja Tal day ) my ae
gown be Lt miie >"
hi bisa
iipari te), [Dok ry eiies ae
'
i
" eae eros aba vs whrbae'
ih ty rf Hef a. oe ee ( vi . ie ©)
A ie lilt We anita’ iiss aly ep iyi rae aw wma ie Spree, on role ‘df
- = nen i, MALL sana sie Mihat, MPa singer pipes.
a ie Ao a aol haf af.ogerrly my ; Mee Coy {Dy sb) pe. tasied
oe Sen tne os ALIN Fe ia bitin cana
ee eee i nA Teal ii i
Ain hal ‘Tiga Hates iv aban fit od) ay Wd ty gievemyg Levees ‘ae "i
Mees we ae —— ae wll a i p UPR aM ab yg) aya oi wer Gu Romy
ae *iee oh “abe Hye at i nile 0 vibe aa elh
. it te homie " ibe De, ivhaet vio BD iartse taco ne hom dle!
A ian anatity his ves pc ath uf te ae ¥ oF y mise pga Vip ‘ '
Grd ty tae. ve : Rat CO ares ths rap 4 No n€ “ree:
RRR icra heltlint herpes OU AO
ay Pai paring Pa eo Re ) aint ier; shor
ie ae ie? Oy ate ie
> Seid RE Sei ati fi sa srrpertge 74 Uy
Maa tye RA eG! Oe eter ri re ah Ain
he pain’ ir iy ae mind 5 EL 4 oy. Y (brat Ws he 2
Fase’ eer’ iil Pi of ; Laws Sak Nh F ieee re fb pak His ig b ¥, 1
aati Th? (Baie, aa! cs + i ers eure " ri one libro vt- ly
eS f 124) hole
es sale ts wat tA tH Sopra 56 ai, sumiiets, bee TA
oan aatih i) ee ek Shay U bah a ;
i a 2 yA 4 y Yr wt ae ee j rin: vo wb os
: : = An tye Seeger a
te dedieriaanipe 2) delet LSS ye Ol ck fel. an
righ at qt Witndrisouarnn red rages ad a Papin IO 4
A ‘e dapstisuatiibé Ae epee eo! é ") dpa ' “i
ahi sti i SAAN ath " ari mies er | 6 toe
f. (URE PD emus BA
tht deitd) Nierd voi dhl |
it nie, Wb. fapretline pee
fatal A
bud ead bY
, Nahas
pastoralism in Africa: gender, culture and the myth of the patriarchal pastoralist. James
Currey and Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio, USA.
Takacs, D. 1996. Philosophies of paradise. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA.
Van Rijsoort J. and Zhang J. F. 2002. Developing of Participatory Resources Monitoring in two
Nature Reserves in Yunnan, P.R. China. Website:
http://www.etfrn.org/etfrn/workshop/biodiversity/index.html.
Vanclay, J.K.1998. Towards more rigorous assessment of biodiversity. Pp 211-232 in P.
Bachmann, M. Kohl and R. Paivinen (eds) Assessment of biodiversity for improved forest
planning. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Germany.
Vane-Wright, R.I. 1996. Identifying priorities for conservation of biodiversity: systematic
biological criteria within a socio-political framework. Pp 309-344 in Gaston, K.J. (ed.)
Biodiversity: a biology of numbers and difference. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
Wright, Robert A.; Gerry, Ann; Belcher, Joyce. 1998. Methods for surveying plant diversity in
the native grasslands of Saskatchewan. The Prairie Biodiversity Survey. Canada -
Saskatchewan Agriculture Green Plan Agreement.
4 q
Ki
aa ae ‘ sy ‘ iy Pi " 4
’ J
zi ; : ia es
ha) bl! Gi j ; f =)
, 1 :
. i 4 n ; ity to ; ham ae
* ae ee me pein, Fv aed i i |
ae say a ary
ibe yt r sib es u,* Ni
; . y c - : 7 ’ 1
: \ ay
‘8 - » f _
1 - 7 : y, a ‘ 4 ; ; ’ x = }
* a Vac Ante pa Ri ee Mia i et 45 ‘abel
eg f
F pyres ae
Ue : tite (fis. ee nt Thee ae cit ;
at 5 iar: ’
‘Shy 1a | ans = ax Wik:
‘ied ay i 25
eee roe, vey tat ma He lhe
ey, ; ad 5 Re UT ae hey, 4
AVHRR
Bern Convention
Bonn Convention
CBD
CCAMLR
CEOS
CHM
CITES
COP
CPR
CSD
CZCS
DEWA
EROS
ESRI
FAO
FFI
GEF
GLASOD
GLCCD
GOFC
GTOS
ICSU
IGBP
IGO
INPE
ITTA
IUCN
IUCN/SSC
LME
MEA
NGO
NOAA
OECD
Ramsar Convention
SBSTTA
Straddling Fish Stocks
TM
Acronyms and abbreviations
Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer
Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural
Habitats
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild
Animals
Convention on Biological Diversity
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources
Committee on Earth Observation Satellites
Clearing House Mechanism
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
Conference of the Parties
Continuous Plankton Recorders
Commission on Sustainable Development
Coastal Zone Colour Scanner
UNEP Division of Early Warning and Assessment
Earth Resources Observation Systems
Environmental Systems Research Institute
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
Fauna and Flora International
Global Environment Facility
Global Assessment of the Status of Human-induced Soil Degradation
Global Land Cover Characteristics Database
Global Observations of Forest Cover
Global Terrestrial Observing System
International Council of Scientific Unions
International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme
Inter-governmental organisation
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais
International Tropical Timber Agreement
World Conservation Union
IUCN Species Survival Commission
Large Marine Ecosystem
Multilateral environmental agreement
Non-governmental organisation
US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance
Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice
The Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10th December 1982 relating to the
Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory
Fish Stocks
Thematic Mapper
113
a
—
f 7
x
ie (ial x 2 io
Meir os egy) — {
ey maigdlin. Ste pees toh i ae
. . "Re es
by ‘ Cary ,
y A. ar he 4
5 fends si a a] ya Wks ¥ a Pine of]
‘i ; sate . : A
& ees = =n :
— | vate PL Ts ie econ
a 3
ay
e. : ile
a= - ra Cais + fF ’ : ml it by pel te uv; f
= Wir rueee av se ies i ire =a tae: Cagle ete cay ee =
os ; b : - Ce ty avy) {
4 ier : =. ofl omit Heid nea dj ea
bs se
= Le | ae > ee ihn it ‘Gal i
e ; ty Peres lee Me ‘ , :
: — Te ay ne Serre’ A ari ; Pao tee J
7 : - > ? i t
7 pent ithe nace = af i opm ands es ae Ry es ‘hs nce iB
; 0 ae a fige in bos oe ee Sie s Te
a. So ib i ie ee RI Agr a inact
agin : tein Sdriee ty
“Ky
-
dinar. wr dhe
Be via: saa ge
‘eee Heh “)
We snip +>) i fe Dp 7 ssc ES ey 5) i=
2 ype ged ay die
vitae rs Aes we Mepud ah he Luss
Hoey) penn" te Wc
St op ie ae bE ie Laven aay ; j j
peg martes Hpaissgewrnis H Shiai +e
tS s Hy eet Sp _amias “a,
i oa Si poiri tne : ise ve
+
a,
:
Diaghc:
a cy are bees =
aes op,
4
ve}
ies)
tm
n
Seg
F -
Q
Q
1S)
JNCLOS
NDP
INEP
INEP-GEMS
NEP-GRID
INEP-WCMC
hc (ie ene age,
Tropical Ecosystem Environment Observations by Satellite
nited Nations
nited Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
nited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
nited Nations Development Programme
nited Nations Environment Programme
lobal Environmental Monitoring System
NEP-Global Resource Information Database
NEP—World Conservation Monitoring Centre
nited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
nited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
United Nations Forum on Forests
World Conservation Monitoring Centre (now UNEP-WCMC)
Wildlife Conservation Society
World Health Organisation
World Resources Institute
World Wide Fund for Nature
cee cae elke etic
114
Fi
sa 4 7
MS
i
tT
‘ :
oe | Z
. = =
Poy
: 7) .
=
A} rr
bh, a9
F , f
f
i =.
= =
i
a.
¢
;
‘i e
ES,
ws
Seg
rh
ba 5
=
of
al }
a y a
eet
i
— 7 ,
-
ct \
i}
Appendix. Some internet resources relevant to biodiversity assessment and monitoring
A Bird Community Index of Biotic Integrity for the Mid-Atlantic Highlands -
http://www.cas.psu.edu/docs/CASDEPT/FOREST/wetlands/BCLhtm -
Alberta Forest Biodiversity Monitoring Program - http://www.fmf.ab.ca/bm.html British
Columbia's Resources Inventory Committee (RIC) - http://www.for.gov.be.ca/ric/-
An Interactive Tool for Exploring Diversity in Digital Earth Images (Diversidad) -
http://home.att.net/~podolsky/divcov.htm
Aquatic Environmental Effects Monitoring Requirements -
http://199.212.18.79/eem/english/eemreg.htm
Bibliography on the Conservation of Biological Diversity: Biological/Ecological, Economic, and
Policy Issues - http://osu.orst.edu/dept/ag_resrc_econ/biodiv/biblio.html -
BRD Expertise Page - http://www.nbs.gov/pubs/expert/ -
CB Forest Biological Diversity - http://www.biodiv.org/forest.html -
Chapman's Bibliography of Biodiversity Assessment Methodologies -
http://www.environment.gov.au/life/general_info/biodiv_assess_intro.html
Conservation International Rapid Assessment Program -
-http://www.conservation.org/web/fieldact/c-c_prog/science/rap.htm
Criteria and Indicators of sustainable forest management in Canada -
http://nrean.gc.ca/cfs/proj/ppiab/ci/indica_e.html -
CSEB - SCBE BioWeb - http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/cseb/b_listserve.html
Distance Sampling - http://www.ruwpa.st-and.ac.uk/distance/
Geographical ranges of species (http://www.gisbau.uniromal.it/),
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project - Terrestrial Ecology Assessment -
http://www.spiritone.com/~brucem/icbemp.htm -
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) Home Page -
http://www.icbemp.gov/-
Internet Directory for Botany: Checklists, Floras, Taxonmic Databases, Vegetation -
http://www.systbot.gu.se/mirrors/idb/botflor.html
Key Biodiversity Websites- http://www. icipe.org/environment/biolist.html
Landscape perspectives & biodiversity management of forest birds in Minnesota -
http://www.nrri.umn.edu/nrri/land_bio.html
Molecular sequence (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ and
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genbank/GenbankOverview.html), and data on
phylogenetic position (http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/phylogeny.html and
http://herbaria.harvard.edu/treebase/
Monitoring and the Man and the Biosphere Program - http://www.mp1-
pwre.usgs. gov/fgim/calendar.htm#Biosphere -
NBII electronic gateway to biological data and information -
-http://www.nbil.gov/biodiversity/index.html
Nongame Surveys and Population Monitoring -
http://www?.state.id.us/fishgame/info/nongame/ngsurvey.htm
References - Arthropod Biodiversity Assessment Technology -
http://res.agr.ca/ecorc/abat/refer.htm -
iTS)
ie if aa bes, Mai
i ive M
Nas
ae aed a are
Pea ho! Meo ey
Lp igets Ww BAR, 1 wide 4
a
a ea oieee hd
(«
; deerale ee’
j a9 on Slee ;
Nye TOR mite ti,
aarti
re ‘pam hy
ential
seit vy “i h iaiwevicttl
‘an oie rats st
RIC Standards - http://www.for.gov.be.ca/ric/standards.htm
Smithsonian Institution Monitoring & Assessment of Biodiversity Program
http://www.si.edu/organiza/museums/ripley/simab/start.htm
Species Extinctions: Causes and Consequences - http://www.wri.org/wri/biodiv/extinct.html
Species Inventory Fundamentals Standards for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity
No.1 - http://www.for.gov.be.ca/ric/Pubs/teBioDiv/sif/index.htm -
Stream Biological Monitoring Publications -
http://www.wa.gov/ecology/eils/fw_benth/fwb_pubs.html
Terrestrial Ecosystems - Biodiversity Webpage -
http://www.for.gov.be.ca/ric/Pubs/teBioDiv/index.htm -
The Forest Transect Data Set of Alwyn H. Gentry -
http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/applied_research/gentry.html
The Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad (INBio)- http://www. inbio.ac.cr
The Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium: An Innovative Partnership for
National Environmental Assessment - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/About.html -
The Nature Conservancy Home Page - http://www.tnc.org/
Use of Remote Sensing for Ecological Monitoring in Canada 1995 - http://www.cciw.ca/eman-
temp/reports/publications/remote-sens/main.html -
USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center - http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov
Vermont Forest Ecosystem Monitoring (VForEM) -
http://moose.uvm.edu/~snrdept/vme/index.html
World Resources Inst. Global Forest Watch- http://www.wri.org/gfw/-
116
o ; ie {ve liga
- y =6) ‘ppoR
ghee :
6 = v
)
f tm t
= 14 y« » ‘
’
Vas j i ” &* 7S t
; . rig 1
' '
ite ‘ ii)
fi ' is 32 wi at A ,
HE SEE Se RRR SOT i
R : ‘ ey wks tif i*
aaah ower pane obs ie
Ad, 7 ad zn
4 A . | >,
teen dhynabasi
t ;
it bn
at CLR be fe
, a ie
i
a
‘
my
a