Post on 21-Apr-2020
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
STREAMLINING EUROPEAN BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS (SEBI 2010)
DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT (April 2007)
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
[ToC to be inserted structure is now as follows]
PART 1. The 2010 target, SEBI 2010 and discussion of the set of European biodiversity indicators
1. Introduction - about this report
2. Biodiversity in Europe and in the rest of the world
2.1. What is biodiversity and why is it important?
2.2. Biodiversity in Europe
2.3. Biodiversity in the rest of the world
2.4. Global and European responses to biodiversity loss
3. SEBI 2010 – Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators for 2010
3.1. Indicators to monitor and help achieve progress to 2010
3.2 The origins of SEBI 2010
3.3. SEBI 2010: organisation and process
3.4. Outcomes: the first set
4. Discussion of the First Set of European Headline Indicators
4.1. Coverage
4.2. Summary discussion of the set per focal area
4.3. Issues and opportunities – using the set
PART 2. Specification sheets of the individual indicators
References
Annexes
List of countries in Pan-Europe, in EU-27 and as members of EEA.
SEBI 2010 Coordination Team and expert groups
Glossary
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
3
1
2
3
PART 1. The 2010 target, SEBI 2010 and discussion of the set of European biodiversity indicators
Summary To completed once the format and content are agreed and finalised 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
1. Introduction - about this report
There is growing concern across Europe and the globe in relation to the decline of biodiversity and
the impact of this decline on our environment, people, and the economy. This trend can be traced
back many years but came to the fore politically at the global level in 2002 with the decision taken at
COP6 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in The Hague and later that year at the
Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development to significantly reduce the rate of loss of
biodiversity by 2010 at the global, regional and national levels.. Before then in 2001, the European
Union and its Member States had gone further and agreed an ambitious target to halt biodiversity loss
by 2010, recognising the seriousness of the threat to the planet's ecological resources and our well-
being. In 2003 the EU ambition was repeated at pan-European level through the Kyiv Resolution on
Biodiversity1 as part of the ‘Environment for Europe’ ministerial process.
The visibility of the biodiversity issue has been increased substantially more recently with the
publication of the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005, which put at the centre of the
political and scientific debates that maintaining healthy ecosystems as sources of economic and
social benefit is one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century. The EU Commission in turn
published a Communication on Halting the Loss of Biodiversity to 2010 and Beyond2 in 2006 which
puts at its core the maintenance of biodiversity and the delivery by healthy ecosystems, of the
services that humans benefit from, often for free. The Communication also presents an EU Action
Plan to 2010 and Beyond3. These documents together provide a comprehensive policy framework for
EU biodiversity policy for the period 2007-2013.
Alongside all these initiatives, the EU Environment Council in June 2004 adopted the set of
biodiversity indicators referred to in the 'Message from Malahide', produced under the Irish Presidency
of the EU that year, and based on the first set of indicators adopted globally earlier in 2004 at COP 7
of the CBD in Kuala Lumpur . The Council also urged the European Commission to develop, test and
finalise the EU set having regard to its evolving nature. The same framework of 16 headline indicators
was also adopted by the PEBLDS (Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy)
Council in 2005. Subsequently the Streamlining European 2010 Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010)
project was set up to oversee implementation of the adopted framework on the EU and Pan-European
level.
1 ECE/CEP/108
2 COM(2006)216 final
3 SEC(2006)621 final
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
This report documents the achievements of the first phase (2005-2007) of the SEBI 2010 initiative. It
documents progress with the development of the SEBI 2010 indicator framework and has two main
parts. Part 1, a cover chapter, discusses why biodiversity and its loss are important not just for the
environment but also for our social and economic well-being; how Europe and the world is responding
to the challenge of biodiversity loss through policy initiatives (namely the targets to reduce/halt loss
by 2010); how the SEBI 2010 process has evolved in the first phase towards an agreed set of
indicators; and, a summary of the challenges to be addressed in future phases to make the indicators
proposed within SEBI 2010 a high quality, operational set in the coming years.
Part 2 provides detailed, technical specifications of the 26 proposed indicators following a consistent
template so that the reader can more easily follow the overall logic of the process, get an idea of
where each indicator is on its development curve and as importantly get a sense of how the indicators
are maturing as a set.
The report thus not only reinforces the importance of conserving biodiversity and of measuring
progress towards achieving the 2010 target, but it also proposes a set of indicators which are
available today and which provide a reliable tool to measure progress and help achieve progress
towards the 2010 target. It will be followed in 2008 by a broader indicator-based assessment that will
be both a comprehensive analysis of the progress towards the 2010 target, and provide, where
feasible, concrete recommendations for the actions needed to ensure Europe stays on course to meet
its 2010 target. Further SEBI 2010 reports are foreseen in 2010 and 2012, the latter date being when
first data for 2010 are likely be available across Europe and so provide a basis for final assessment of
progress towards the target and provide a baseline for future assessments.
2. Biodiversity in Europe and in the rest of the world 2.1. What is biodiversity and why is it important? In simple terms, biodiversity is the variety of life on Earth. It covers everything from polar bears to old
apple varieties, green algae to the tundra. The protection and careful use of the world’s finite
resources is central to the idea of sustainable development. Biodiversity is a part of those limited
resources and, perhaps more than any other aspect, can inspire and motivate people to act for the
environment.
A technical definition can be found in the 1992 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity,
which in its Article 2 defines 'Biological diversity' or biodiversity as “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.” .
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Five major biodiversity extinction events have been recorded in the Earth’s history , each of them
leading to profound shifts in the life forms on earth. Science suggests we might now be close to a
sixth biodiversity crisis as a result of human activities (Thomas et al., 2004, American Museum of
Natural History, 2005). Species are going extinct perhaps a thousand times more rapidly than the
estimated 'natural rate' of 1 out of 1 million species per year.
The loss of biodiversity we are facing in modern times is the - unintentional - result of increasing
human activities all over the world. The process of biodiversity loss is generally characterised by the
decrease in abundance of many original species and the increase in abundance of a few other
species (favoured by humans), as a result of human activities. Extinction is the last step in a long
degradation process. Countless local extinctions (‘extirpation’) precede the potentially final global
extinction. Often the “species richness” increases initially due to new invading species. Because this
limited group of human-favoured species are becoming more and more dominant, ecosystems lose
their regional specifics and become more and more alike, the so-called homogenisation process
(Pauly et al, 1998, Ten Brink, 2000, 2007; Lockwood and McKinney, 2001; Meyers and Worm, 2003;
Scholes and Biggs, 2005; MA, 2005). Decreasing populations are as much a signal of biodiversity
loss as high increasing species, which can even become plagues in terms of invasions and
infestations.
Once lost, species can never be replaced and fragile habitats may take decades to re-establish.
Biodiversity also underpins the delivery by healthy ecosystems of ecosystem services, the benefits
human obtain from nature. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (MA 2003) classified such
services in the following categories, recognising that some of the categories overlap:
• provisioning services
• regulating services
• cultural services
• supporting services
Figure 1 illustrates the links between these ecosystem services and human well-being. Concrete
examples of ecosystem services are the following:
• Biological diversity is fundamental to agriculture and food production. A rich variety of
cultivated plants and domesticated animals serve as the foundation for agricultural
biodiversity. Yet people depend on just 14 mammal and bird species for 90 % of their food
supply from animals, and on just four species — wheat, maize, rice and potato — from plants.
But when food producers abandon diversity, species, varieties and breeds may die out —
along with their specialised traits.
• Biodiversity provides the oxygen we breathe, provides food and clothing, building materials
and fuel, and produces life saving drugs.
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
6
• Natural systems such as wetlands absorb and neutralise pollution, flood plain grasslands and
woodlands reduce the risk of flooding to towns and cities by alleviating the threat of extreme
weather events.
• Wildlife provides spiritual support in the form of a beautiful environment and provides one of
the most stimulating and important educational resources that we have. Wildlife also provides
economic benefits and employment. Across Europe wildlife tourism is worth millions of Euros
but its potential is still hugely under-exploited.
• Pleasant landscapes can increase the feeling of health and wellbeing among the people that
live and work in them and visit them.
11 12 Figure 1. [change title]
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
We take these services for granted, but all of them are ultimately dependent on the proper functioning
of ecosystems in the natural world. Human actions are fundamentally, and to a significant extent
irreversibly, changing the diversity of life on Earth. Over the past few hundred years, humans have
increased species extinction rates by as much as 1,000 times more than background rates that were
typical over Earth’s history.
Ecosystems are being transformed with unprecedented magnitude, the distribution of species on
Earth is becoming more homogeneous and genetic diversity has declined globally. In the last 50
years, humans have used ecosystems more intensively than in any comparable period of time in
human history. As a result, most ecosystems and the biodiversity within them have become exposed
to multiple pressures, such as habitat destruction, overexploitation and climate change. They are now
on the point of failing, or have already ceased, to provide the services we have come to expect from
them.
Changes in species or habitat diversity affect the ability of ecosystems to supply services and recover
from disturbances. In many cases it is the roles played by the species that are important, rather than
their individual characteristics. Both the diversity and the identity of the various species have a
fundamental influence on the magnitude and the stability of ecological processes that occur at the
ecosystem level.
As a key element in the delivery of sustainable development, biodiversity therefore has a central role
to play. Biodiversity management can also contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation not
only for its own sake, and for the specific benefits it provides to society, but also as a vehicle for wider
delivery of economic and social benefits. In this way it has an almost unique position as a tool for
policy delivery.
2.2. Biodiversity in Europe The countries of the pan-European region are home to a wide range of biomes (the basis for
ecosystem services) that host more than 1 000 species of vertebrate animals, more than 10 000 plant
species and more than 100 000 different invertebrates, not including marine species. [check figures 31
for Pan-Europe] These are significant levels of species diversity, and yet, in comparison to many
other parts of the world, the numbers are relatively small. This richness of European biodiversity and
ecosystems is essential when considering present and future ecosystem services, in particular, in
relation to potential adaptations to climate change. Maintaining the variety of ecosystems in terms of
their abundance, health and connectivity is not a stand-alone target of nature conservation but a main
challenge for society. Across Europe, most large ecosystems exhibit worrying signs of rapid changes.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
The richness of biodiversity is mostly a reflection of the geological history of Europe. Repeatedly over
the past 2 million years, great ice sheets have spread across northern and central Europe, removing
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
soil and vegetation and sanitising the land. Every time, life has had to start again, colonised from
warmer areas to the south. The last of these glaciations only ended around 10 000 years ago. While
the glaciations stripped Europe of many of its species, the continent has nonetheless developed a
variety of ecosystems. Extending from the Arctic Circle to the Mediterranean and from the Caucasus
to the Canary Islands, it is home to permafrost and deserts, dry forests and alpine mountains, semi-
tropical lagoons and Arctic fjords, steppe and peat bog. This variety in itself is an important resource
and a buffer against climate change, geological disturbances and human disruption of the landscape.
There is also a substantial variety of habitats for different species in Europe. Some habitats harbour
endemic species, that is, species that can be found nowhere else on Earth. Some mountain regions
of southern Europe, in particular, as well as islands under the macaronesian bio-geographic region
(Azores, Madeira and Canary Islands), are rich in endemic plants. Amid the natural conifer forests of
the Baetic and sub-Baetic Mountains in southern Spain, for instance, there are more than 3 000 plant
species — one of the richest troves in Europe. In parts of the mountains, 80 % of the plants are
unique to the area. Almost as rich are the Gudar and Javalambre mountains near Valencia.
Other biodiversity rich spots with more than 1 000 plant species, many of them endemic, include the
Pyrenees and the Alps. The highest number of plant and animal species in Europe is hosted in the
Mediterranean basin, which has been identified by Conservation International as one of the world's
34 biodiversity hot spots. Particularly rich are the mountains of the Balkans and southern Greece, as
well as 5 000 or so Mediterranean islands. These last include the Greek island of Crete, and Cyprus
where the Troodos Mountains are particularly rich, with 62 unique species of plants. At a smaller
scale, a large number of areas have been identified in Europe as of special importance for particular
groups of species such as birds, butterflies and plants.
Europe is unique in global terms because the diversity of its species is to a large extent dependent
upon landscapes created by human influence. More than on any other continent, Europe's biodiversity
has been shaped by agriculture since the last glaciations. Remarkably few areas of even the highest
conservation value are truly natural. A continuation of traditional methods of land management is
essential to species survival in these areas.
Europe has some of the oldest and most enduring agricultural landscapes, from the woodlands and
olive groves of the south to the reindeer pastures of Scandinavia. Areas defined by ecologists as
'seminatural' farmland, forest and grassland habitats are home to many of Europe's most valued
species. Most of Europe's land surface has been used for centuries to produce food and timber or
provide space for living. Less than a fifth can be regarded as not directly managed at present. Much
of that is under pressure. Much of today’s biodiversity in Europe is to a large extent dependent on
continued extensive and small-scale agricultural land use.
While uncertainties remain about the capacity of ecosystems to resist, accommodate or possibly even
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
benefit from it, climate change will affect almost every aspect of Europe's biological life. Growing
seasons and flowering times will alter; so will migration times and destinations. Species unable to
move will decline or die out; others will take advantage of the climatic space that opens up. Pests will
change their domains. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will fertilise some plants, while drought or
floods will undermine others.
The ambitious target to halt biodiversity loss by 2010, recognises the seriousness of the threat to the
planet's ecological resources and our well-being. Progress, albeit slow, is being made on several
fronts, and awareness is being raised among key stakeholders. This is despite the complexities
surrounding biodiversity and our limited understanding of the interplay between genes, species,
habitats, ecosystems, biomes and landscapes.
2.3. Biodiversity in the rest of the world
Biodiversity loss is one facet of the degradation of the ecosystem services assessed in the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005). The MA revealed that approximately 60 % of the ecosystem
services that support life on Earth — such as fresh water, capture fisheries, air and water regulation,
and the regulation of regional climate, natural hazards and pests — are being degraded or used
unsustainably.
The main findings of the MA are (MA 2005):[include more findings] 21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
• Humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively in the past 50 years than in
any other period. This was done mainly to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh
water, timber, fibre and fuel. These changes have resulted in a substantial and largely
irreversible loss in diversity of life on Earth, with some 10 to 30 % of mammalian, bird and
amphibian species currently threatened with extinction.
• Ecosystem changes that have contributed to substantial net gains in human well-being and
economic development have been achieved at growing costs in the form of degradation of
other services.
• The degradation of ecosystem services could grow significantly worse during the first half of
this century. This is a barrier to achieving the UN Millennium Development Goals which aim at
the eradication of poverty and hunger, improvements in education, combating global
epidemics such as HIV/AIDS, and ensuring environmental sustainability.
Europe's high rates of consumption and waste production impact biodiversity far beyond its own
borders and shores. We use materials from across the global to feed, clothe, house and transport
ourselves. Our waste, too, is spread around the world — on the winds and via ocean currents. In
1961, the EU�25's global footprint was around three hectares per person, which was virtually the
same as the continent's biocapacity. By 2001, Europe's footprint had risen to more than twice its
internal biocapacity. The EU share of the world's footprint is more than twice its share of the global
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
population (Figure 8.9). Such calculations are inevitably crude, and not without controversy.
Nonetheless, they can act as a warning about how we manage and share the planetary resources
and ecological services on which we all depend. Some countries, because they have low population
densities, can reasonably claim that, while they consume more than their share of the planet's
resources, they also contribute more. Not so for Europe, however. The continent is running up a large
ecological deficit with the rest of the world.
2.4. Global and European responses to biodiversity loss With the signature of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992, concerns for
biodiversity and the many factors that may affect its multiple dimensions were raised to a high political
profile. Based on the widespread recognition of biodiversity loss and its significance to society, the
international community has committed to addressing biodiversity loss.
In 1995 a pan-European response to the CBD was provided through the endorsement of the Pan-
European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy by the 50-odd countries that are part of the
region covered by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Being embedded in the
ministerial ‘Environment for Europe’ process, this Strategy provides the only platform for pan-
European cooperation to tackle biodiversity loss.
In the European Union, the EC Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (ECBS) was adopted in 1998, and
provides a comprehensive response to the many requirements of the CBD. The four biodiversity
action plans (BAPs for natural resources, agriculture, fisheries and development), adopted in 2001,
lay out in detail what actions should be taken to implement the strategy. A review of the
implementation of ECBS was initiated in 2004 and led, via the ‘Message from Malahide’, to the EC
Communication on halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 (2006).
The objective of 'managing natural resources more responsibly: to protect and restore habitats and
natural systems and halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010' was first adopted by the EU in its EU
Strategy for Sustainable Development (2001). Following on this, the conservation of biodiversity is
one of the four main issues to be tackled, together with climate change, environment and health and
quality of life, and natural resources and waste, within the 6th environmental action programme 'Our
future, our choice', adopted in 2002.
The target of halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 was therefore an EU initiative. Subsequently the
CBD (2002) and the Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable Development (2002) largely endorsed this
at the global level, agreeing on a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss by 2010
and the pan-European heads of state in 2003 agreed to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010 in the
Kyiv Resolution on Biodiversity. The purpose is to effectively halt the loss of biodiversity so as to
secure the continuity of its beneficial uses through the conservation and sustainable use of its
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
components and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.
When this report refers to “the 2010 target”, it refers to the EU and pan-European target to halt the
loss of biodiversity by 2010.
Table 1 provides an overview of international events and commitments related to the 2010 target. At
the national level, several countries have included the '2010 target' as part of their national
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
biodiversity strategies [Can we give examples or statistics on this?].
This political agreement on the 2010 target has been accompanied by a growing consensus on the
need for structured global and European coordination of biodiversity monitoring, indicators,
assessment and reporting efforts, with a long-term perspective and sound funding basis. In essence,
having set a target to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010 it became essential to be able to examine
progress and report on it. To make this process meaningful to a range of audiences, it was necessary
to derive a set of indicators. These would provide a quick and easy reference point for progress that
would be understood by a technical and non-technical audience alike – and that would be
underpinned by sound scientific knowledge and analysis.
Table 1. The 2010 target at the global and European level
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
12
At the global level
6th conference of the parties to
the Convention on Biological
Diversity (the Hague 7–19 April
2002)
Adoption of a Strategic Plan for the Convention on Biological Diversity
(Decision VI/26) including the 2010 target 'to achieve a significant
reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional
and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the
benefit of all life on earth'.
World Summit on Sustainable
Development (Johannesburg, 26
August–4 September 2002)
Endorsement of the target for 'achievement by 2010 of a significant
reduction in the current rate of loss of biological diversity' and
recognition of the critical role played by biodiversity in sustainable
development and poverty eradication.
Adoption of a framework (Decision VII/30):
— to facilitate the assessment of progress towards the 2010 target
and communication of this assessment,
7th conference of the parties to
the Convention on Biological
Diversity in Kuala-Lumpur, 9–27
February 2004
— to promote coherence among the programmes of work of the
Convention,
— to provide a flexible framework within which national and regional
targets may be set, and indicators identified.
At the pan-European level
Adoption of the EU Strategy for Sustainable Development, which has
as a headline objective 'managing natural resources more responsibly’
and agrees that biodiversity decline should be halted with the aim of
reaching this objective by 2010..
European Council (Gothenburg,
15–16 June 2001)
Endorsement of a resolution to 'halt the loss of biological diversity at all
levels by the year 2010', according to seven key targets in the areas
of: forests and biodiversity; agriculture and biodiversity; a pan-
European ecological network; invasive alien species; financing
biodiversity; biodiversity monitoring and indicators; public participation
and awareness.
5th 'Environment for Europe'
Ministerial Conference (Kiev, 21–
23 May 2003
Third Intergovernmental
Conference 'Biodiversity in
Europe' (Madrid, 19–21 January
2004)
European Union — pan-European partnership to implement actions
towards halting biodiversity loss, in line with global concerns.
Conference 'Sustaining
Livelihoods and Biodiversity:
Attaining the 2010 Target in the
European Biodiversity Strategy'
(Malahide, 25–27 May 2004)
A large stakeholder consultation was organised within the process for
review of the EC Biodiversity Strategy and Biodiversity Action Plans
which resulted in the 'Message from Malahide' identifying the need for
further action under crosscutting themes and major sectors influencing
European biodiversity to halt its loss by 2010.
The Malahide Conference also endorsed a first set of EU headline
biodiversity indicators to assess progress towards the 2010 target.
European Council (Brussels 28
June 2004) Conclusions on 'Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010'.
European Commission 2006 Communication on Halting the Loss of Biodiversity to 2010 and
Beyond.
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3. SEBI 2010 – Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators for 2010 SEBI 2010 was established in 2005 as a process to select and streamline a set of biodiversity
indicators to monitor progress towards the 2010 target of halting biodiversity loss, and to help achieve
progress towards the target.
The activities addressed by SEBI 2010 are explicitly linked to three policy contexts:
1. European Union: SEBI 2010 responds to the Message from Malahide and the EU Council
Conclusions of 28 June 2004 (10997/04) by developing, testing and finalising a first set of EU
headline biodiversity indicators. It will also underpin, and ensure consistent biodiversity
indicators and information required under the Lisbon Agenda, the sustainable development
strategy, the EU Habitats and Birds directives and the biodiversity strategy;
8
9
10
11
12
2. Pan-European: SEBI 2010 is consistent with the action plan developed as a follow-up to the
Kyiv Resolution on Biodiversity and hence responds to requirements under the UNECE
Environment for Europe process and the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity
Strategy (PEBLDS);
13
14
15
16
3. Global: the EU biodiversity headline indicators are derived from the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) indicators, adopted as part of CBD decision VII/30 in February 2004, and
customized to European needs and data availability. SEBI 2010 remains in close contact with
the 2010 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (2010BIP), to ensure consistency with the work
on indicator development at the global level.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
The envisaged outputs of SEBI 2010 are :
Completed outputs:
• to provide an initial set of tested indicators at EU and Pan-European levels, the subject of this
report;
Ongoing:
• to provide a coherent European programme for the progressive development of biodiversity
indicators;
• to provide proposals and guidance on the development, production and delivery of agreed
indicators;
• to provide proposals, guidance, recommendations and information for presentation to the
appropriate European governance groups developing biodiversity policy for formal adoption;
• to provide information to the CBD secretariat, advisory and governance processes on the
results of the work being undertaken.
Future work:
• to provide a recommendation for an approach to using the agreed indicators to measure the
progress of national governments, the EU and the pan-European community towards
achieving the 2010 target;
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
• to provide advice on how to relate the change in biodiversity at EU and pan-European level to
policy measures adopted at these levels, so as to provide information to enable the EU and
countries to adjust or strengthen the measures concerned;
This section now discusses the importance of indicators as a tool, before describing the origins and
organisation of SEBI 2010 in detail.
3.1. Indicators to monitor and help achieve progress to 2010
Indicators serve four basic functions: simplification, quantification, standardization and
communication. They summarize complex and often disparate sets of data and thereby simplify
information. They should be based on comparable scientific observations or statistical measures.
They should provide a clear message that can be communicated to, and used by, decision makers
and the general public. Indicators differ from raw data and statistics in that they relate the past,
current or future state with a reference or baseline value. Reference values can be threshold values, a
historical year, a target, or a particular ideal or maximum state. Reference or baseline values give
meaning to data as such (CBD/SBSTTA/9/inf/7). Within the context of the CBD and the 2010 target,
indicators are required to show status and trends of biodiversity, progress on the implementation of
the Convention and the effectiveness of the measures taken.
Information has to be able to be communicated rapidly, in a simple and understandable form. An
indicator should therefore be like a temperature gauge on the dashboard of a car, which shows the
driver that the engine is performing effectively with no need to understand anything about the complex
functioning of the motor itself. It is quick, simple to understand and communicate and allows for
immediate action to be taken. The indicator set as a whole in the dashboard, or cockpit, is not just a
random set but is carefully designed and selected to provide the driver with information which allows
him to drive safely. Speed, distance to the target, fuel level, fuel consumption, and direction are not
very informative per se, but need to interpreted as complementary elements of information. This also
applies to the indicators in this set.
Indicators link monitoring, research and evidence-based policy making. Scientists and policy makers
select a set of relevant indicators, which reflects both scientific and societal perspectives.
Subsequently, policy makers set targets and measures, while scientists identify specific parameters
and establish corresponding monitoring programmes, baseline values and cause-effect relationships.
The current state is determined from monitoring, while models of cause-effect relationships provide
information on the effectiveness of measures and point towards responses needed.
Indicators and monitoring should thus be designed to detect changes in time frames and on the
spatial scales that are relevant to policy objectives and decisions.
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
BOX 1: DPSIR A number of approaches have been used in developing and structuring indicators. One of the
commonly used causal frameworks for describing the interactions between society and the
environment is the driver, pressure, state, impact and response (DPSIR) model, based on the PSR
framework model proposed by OECD in 1993. The DPSIR indicator categories are defined as follows
(see EEA, 1999) :
Driving forces are the social, demographic and economic developments in societies and the corresponding changes in life styles, overall levels of consumption and production patterns.
Primary driving forces are population growth and developments in the needs and activities of
individuals. These primary driving forces provoke changes in the overall levels of production
and consumption. Through these changes in production and consumption, the driving forces
exert pressure on the environment.
Pressure indicators describe developments in release of substances (emissions), physical and biological agents, the use of resources and the use of land. The pressures exerted by
society are transported and transformed in a variety of natural processes to manifest
themselves in changes in environmental conditions.
State is the abiotic state of soil, air and water, as well as the biotic state (biodiversity) at ecosystem/habitat, species/community and genetic level. State includes ecosystem goods
and services, the direct benefits of biodiversity.
Impacts result from pressures, and relate to the social and economic functions of the environment, such as the provision of adequate conditions for health, and the provision of
ecosystem services.
Responses are the measures taken to change the state, pressure or impact. They include measures to protect and conserve biodiversity in situ and ex situ. They include, for example,
measures to promote the equitable sharing of the monetary or non-monetary gains arising
from the utilization of genetic resources. Responses also include steps taken to understand
the causal chain and to develop data, knowledge, technologies, models, monitoring, human
resources, institutions, legislation and budgets required to achieve the target.
The specification sheet for each of the indicators contains a classification of the indicator in one of the
DPSIR categories.
END BOX
BOX 2: Biodiversity indicators, some issues and challenges Spatial and temporal scales Indicators always apply to a particular unit of area. For the EU biodiversity Headline indicators the
following spatial scales are proposed as standard:
European scale
Major ecosystem types (e.g. forest, grassland, inland water, marine, tundra, urban,
agriculture)
Bio-geographical regions (boreal, atlantic, continental, Mediterranean, Alpine, polar)
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
National
Single and composite indicators, zooming- in and out for different audiences Single indicators are indicators which deal with one dimension, e.g. the population trend of a species.
Composite indicators combine various single indicators into one aggregated indicator, for reasons of
communication and overview. Depending on the target-audience the indicators can be produced as
singles or as composites (policy makers may be interested in zooming out, while scientists may want
to zoom in).
Baselines Baselines are integral part of indicators. A number of 1000 seals in the Wadden Sea as such has no
meaning. It gets a meaning when the figure is compared to a baseline of for example 500 seal as
minimum vital population, 100 seals as the threshold for the category critically endangered, a number
of 2000 seals in 1995, or 6000 seals in a low impacted intact ecosystems. The meaning of the
indicator changes with the baseline.
Baselines make the difference between indicators and data & statistics. Although the role of baselines
is well-understood in the socio-economic field, public health, education and climate change, this is not
always the case in the field of biodiversity. Although the indicators are developed, some baselines
have not yet been established.
A common European baseline for the indicators has four functions: i) they allow aggregation to
composite indicators; ii) make figures within and between countries comparable; iii) allow aggregation
of composite indicators towards the regional and European scales; iv) and in case of species
abundance (ecosystem quality) well chosen baseline allows a fair and common denominator for all
countries, being in different stages of economic development (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/inf/7).
Especially for species abundance the baseline selection requires discussion and careful
consideration. If a baseline would be set in the year 1980 or 2000, the biodiversity of all countries
would be set at 100% at that time. But this would mean that highly industrialised and intensively used
countries such as The Netherlands would have the same quality as low industrialised and extensively
used countries in Eastern Europe. While the biodiversity in The Netherlands is at its - practically -
lowest point, the indicator would show now losses and even increases above 100% in the near future.
This will be perceived as an unfair and misleading indicator by many. This phenomenon has been
called ‘the shifting baseline syndrome’, referring to the globally depleted fish stocks (Pauly 1995).
END BOX The CBD agreed upon a fist indicator list in 2004, grouped in seven focal areas (decision VII/30). This
list was adapted to the European context and presented in the “Message from Malahide” (2004) as
the first set of European headline biodiversity indicators.. Table 2 shows the first set of European 40
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
headline biodiversity indicators Fifteen (generic) biodiversity indicators were listed in the set in the
“Message from Malahide”. The tenth meeting of SBSTTA held in early 2005 recommended (SBSTTA
recommendation X/5) that ‘Ecological footprint’ should be added to the CBD set and the EU
Biodiversity Expert Group at its meeting in November 2005 endorsed the inclusion of this indicator in
the Pan European headline set. A similar list of indicators derived from the CBD set was also adopted
within the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy in 2005 (STRA-CO (2005) 12).
9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 18 19
20
21
22
23
24
Table 2. [change title]
Figure 2 below shows the interlinkages between the 16 headline indicators, and how they can be
grouped in the main four CBD focal areas.
This list consisted of 16 global, generic biodiversity indicators. They needed further elaboration into a
detailed technical indicator design to be actually produced and implemented in Europe: specific
indicators needed to be selected for each headline..
For some of the headline indicators, specific indicators are relatively well-developed, for others it will
take some time to source data and produce. Work within SEBI 2010 was focused initially on eight of
the indicators in six expert groups (these eight indicators are highlighted in italics in the diagram
below). The SEBI 2010 coordination team itself reviewed requirements for the other eight headline
indicators. Section 3.3 discusses in more detail the organisational structure of SEBI 2010.
25 Figure 2
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
18
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
ECOSYSTEM INTEGRITY, GOODS AND SERVICES
• Marine trophic index • Connectivity/fragmentation of
ecosystems • Water quality in aquatic ecosystems • •
SUSTAINABLE USE
• Area of ecosystems under sustainable management
Forest Agriculture Fishery Aquaculture
• Ecological footprint •
3.2 The origins of SEBI 2010
In April 2004 the European Environment Agency (EEA) and the European Centre for Nature
Conservation (ECNC), with the Regional Office for Europe of the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP/ROE) and the Council of Europe, organised a joint meeting of the European
Environmental Information and Observation Network (EIONET), the International Working Group on
Biodiversity Monitoring and Indicators (IWG-BioMIN) and the Pan-European Biological and
Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS).
Some 100-120 representatives from 30 countries (13 EU Member States, 5EU acceding countries, 8
additional EEA member/participating countries and 4 EECCA countries), European Environment
Agency (including its ETC on nature protection and biodiversity), European Commission (DG
Environment and Joint Research Centre), Council of Europe, UNEP, ECNC, UNECE/FAO, IUCN,
several research programmes and non-governmental organisations participated in the joint meeting
held in the offices of the EEA.
SEBI 2010 builds on previous work under PEBLDS to develop a European Biodiversity Monitoring
and Indicator Framework (EBMI-F). Initiated in 2001, this framework was integrated in the target
STATUS AND TRENDS OF COMPONENTS OF BIOVERSITY
• Trends in extent of selected biomes, ecosystems, habitats
• Coverage of protected areas • Trends in abundance and
distribution of selected species • Change in status of threatened
and/or protected species • Trends in genetic diversity of
domesticated animals, cultivated plants, fish species of major socioeconomic importance
THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY
• Nitrogen deposition • Numbers and costs of invasive
alien species • Impact of climate change • •
+ Funding to biodiversity + Public awareness & participation + Patent applications
Formatted: Font: 8pt
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
within the Kyiv Resolution on Biodiversity that deals with indicators and monitoring. The 2004 joint
meeting referred to above brought together the various efforts into a true pan-European effort.
The aim of the meeting was to lay the foundation for a plan, organisation and guidelines for
developing and using biodiversity indicators to monitor progress in, and support the achievement of,
the 2010 target for biodiversity in Europe. There it was agreed to establish the activity ‘Streamlining
European 2010 Biodiversity Indicators’ (SEBI 2010).
The SEBI 2010 kick-off meeting was held in Copenhagen in January 2005 and considered a draft
workplan and objectives for the period 2005-2010. The workplan was then finalised
(http://biodiversity-11
chm.eea.europa.eu/information/indicator/F1090245995/F1109571466/1109571594) with the following
objectives to monitor progress towards, and help achieve, the 2010 target:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
• to consolidate, test, refine, document and help produce streamlined sets of policy-relevant
biodiversity indicators meaningful in the context of the 2010 target;
• to help ensure adequate funding for the development and production of indicators and
assessments, and related monitoring activities, to support implementation and achievement of
the policy decisions and targets;
• to improve coordination, exchange of information, collaboration and international streamlining
on biodiversity-related indicators and monitoring activities building on current activities and
good practice;
• to consider the wider use of the indicators, and their applicability within other relevant
indicator frameworks and assessment processes.
SEBI 2010 has been set up to be operational from 2004 until at least 2010.
3.3. SEBI 2010: organisation and process
All SEBI 2010 documents have been made available on the EU Clearing House Mechanism at
http://biodiversity-chm.eea.europa.eu/information/indicator/F1090245995. 30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Work within SEBI 2010 happens in four phases. The publication of this report constitutes one of the
final outputs from Phase 1.
− Phase 1 (2005 to mid 2007): development, documentation and adoption of the first set
(selection of the indicators, not yet the actual production). Results include the adoption of the
first set, the publication of the technical report documenting the set, inclusion of the set in the
EEA's Indicator Management System and the publication of a SEBI 2010 progress to target
assessment in an EEA briefing.
http://biodiversity-chm.eea.europa.eu/information/indicator/F1090245995/F1109571466/1109571594http://biodiversity-chm.eea.europa.eu/information/indicator/F1090245995/F1109571466/1109571594http://biodiversity-chm.eea.europa.eu/information/indicator/F1090245995
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
− Phase 2 (mid-2007 to end 2008): update of data in the agreed SEBI set, and further progress
on integrated assessment of progress to target. A key output of this phase will be an
indicator-based assessment report, the first assessment based on the set.
− Phase 3 (2009 to end 2010): continued update of agreed SEBI set and revision of the
finalised first set where appropriate. In phase 3, the main output will be the use of a
biodiversity integrated assessment based on the set of indicators in the EEA’s SOER2010.
− Phase 4 (end 2010 to end 2012): continued update of the agreed SEBI set. In Phase 4, the
indicators will contribute to a briefing on the achievement of the 2010 target and the policy
assessment for a planned Ecosystem Assessment for Europe.
The operational structure of SEBI 2010 was built around a small coordination team and six expert
groups to consider specific groups of indicators. A full list of members of the coordination team and
expert groups as of May 2007 is included in Annex 2. 13
14
15
16
Criteria were derived from were the CBD to evaluate the suitability and feasibility of the developed
according to which candidate indicators would be evaluated final indicator set
(UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/10) (see Box 3). 17
18
19
BOX 3. Criteria for evaluation of the proposed indicators
Criteria for selecting the individual SEBI 2010 indicators 20 1. Policy relevant and meaningful 21 Indicators should send a clear message and provide information at a level appropriate for policy and 22
management decision making by assessing changes in the status of biodiversity (or pressures, 23
responses, use or capacity), related to baselines and agreed policy targets if possible. 24
2. Biodiversity relevant 25 Indicators should address key properties of biodiversity or related issues as pressures, state, impacts, 26
responses. 27
3. Progress towards 2010 28 Indicators should show clear progress towards the 2010 target. 29
4. Methodology well founded 30 The methodology should be clear, well defined and relatively simple. Indicators should be measurable 31
in an accurate and affordable way and part of a sustainable monitoring system. Data should be 32
collected using standard methods with known accuracy and precision, using determinable baselines 33
and targets for the assessment of improvements and declines;. 34
5. Acceptance and understandability 35 The power of an indicator depends on its broad acceptance. Involvement of policy makers, and major 36
stakeholders and experts in the development of an indicator is crucial. 37
6. Routinely collected data 38 Indicators must be based on routinely collected, clearly defined, verifiable and scientifically acceptable 39
data. 40
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
21
7. Cause-effect relationship 1 Information on cause-effect relationships should be achievable and quantifiable, in order to link 2
pressures, state and response indicators. These relation models enable scenario analyses and are 3
the basis of the ecosystem approach. 4
8. Spatial coverage 5 Indicators should ideally be pan-European and include adjacent marine areas if and where 6
appropriate. 7
9. Temporal trend 8 Indicators should be sensitive to show temporal trends. 9 10. Country comparison 10 As far as possible it should be possible to make valid comparisons between countries using the 11
indicators selected. 12
11. Sensitivity towards change 13 Indicators should be sensitive to show trends and, where possible, permit distinction between human-14
induced and natural changes. Indicators should thus be able to detect changes in systems in time 15
frames and on the scales that are relevant to the decisions, but also be robust so that measuring 16
errors do not affect the interpretation. 17
18
In addition, the following criteria were used to evaluate the set as a whole: 19
− Representative. The set of indicators provides a representative picture of the DPSIR chain. 20
− Small number: The smaller the total number of indicators, the more communicable they are to 21
policy makers and the public and the lower the cost. 22
− Aggregation and flexibility: Aggregation should be facilitated at a range of scales. 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
END BOX
The SEBI 2010 coordination team is led by the European Environment Agency with representatives of ECNC, UNEP-WCMC, DG Environment, PEBLDS Joint Secretariat and Czech Republic (as lead
country for Kiev Resolution action plan on biodiversity indicators) plus the chairs and coordinators of
the six expert group, with support from the European topic centre on biological diversity (ETC/BD)..
The coordination team’s mandate was established in the PEBLDS action plan for biodiversity
monitoring and indicators (STRA-CO (2004) 3f revised) adopted by the PEBLDS Bureau in May 2004
[add ref] and in the Message from Malahide and the Malahide main paper on Indicators
(Malahide/MP/Indicators). Additional details were also provided in the paper presented to the EU
35
36
Biodiversity Expert Group Meeting on 28 April 2004 [add ref]. 37
38
39
40
The expert groups were established with a specific mandate and timetable for their work, relating to one (or more) of the indicators. They consisted of a small number of relevant experts invited from all
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
countries of the pan-European region and from international NGOs and IGOs. Each group provided a
balanced range of technical expertise and geographical coverage, to ensure that current practice was
fully considered, that national, international and specific technical requirements and limitations were
fully taken into account, and that the development and implementation of indicators was streamlined
as far as possible across national, EU, Pan-European and global level.
Over 120 experts were nominated by EEA National Focal Points. Most participate directly in the
meetings of the six expert groups, others participate indirectly by commenting on the proposals and
results.
Thus data and indicator producers and users are all involved in the review, development and
documentation of proposals for specific indicators and hence can support the recognition and
adoption of the proposals from SEBI 2010 by the appropriate EU and Pan-European bodies.
Each of the six expert groups met 3-5 times to discuss the proposals for the CBD set, availability of
suitable data within Europe, and options for indicators for use at the EU to Pan-European scales.
Annex 2 provides an overview of the six expert groups and the headline indicators they are covering.
The coordination team has met eight times during the period up to present to develop guidance for
the expert groups on evaluating and documenting candidate indicators, review progress, discuss how
to frame the first indicators as an inter-connected set, and plan next steps. Members of the
coordination team participated in a range of relevant stakeholder meetings, making presentations on
progress and initial results and raising issues for discussion in these meetings.
The SEBI 2010 activities have been funded as far as possible through the European Environment
Agency’s core and additional budgets for work with EEA member and other participating countries
(EU-27 member states, Turkey, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Croatia, FYR of Macedonia, and Serbia & Montenegro). Further funding - through EEA, UNEP,
Council of Europe and other donors - was used to extend support to EECCA countries (Eastern
Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia). The Coordination Team prioritised the use of the available
funds to ensure a good balance of expertise and geographical coverage.
3.4. Outcomes: the first set The Coordination Team met in October 2006 to decide which of the more than 70 indicators under
development would be ready by the end of 2006 and hence could be proposed for inclusion into a first
set.
About 50 indicators were deemed sufficiently developed to be discussed at a workshop held in
Copenhagen in November 2006.
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
The SEBI 2010 workshop convened biodiversity experts and policy makers to:
• develop and discuss the communication and presentation of the first set of headline Biodiversity
indicators, including interconnections and possible stories across the indicators
• start discussing the next phase of work of SEBI 2010, including the endorsement of the set,
making available and using the indicators.
The indicators were considered individually and as sets in terms of whether the indicator or indicator
set:
• monitors progress towards achieving the 2010 target,
• can help achieve the 2010 target, and
• has a clear message.
Whilst in some cases it was possible to select a single indicator to reflect the EU headline indicator, in
most cases the EU headline cannot be reduced to one indicator and, to have meaning, has to be
represented by a small set of indicators or sub-indicators.
Following the workshop the expert groups and coordination team continued to prepare documentation
forms describing each candidate indicator, its data requirements, methodology, strengths and
weaknesses, and presentation. The SEBI 2010 Expert Groups and Coordination Team scored the
individual indicators against the criteria listed in Box 3 (scores from 0-3). This preliminary internal
evaluation is represented in a “spider diagramme” in the specification sheet for each indicator in Part
2 of this report. No minimum score was established for an indicator to be proposed for adoption.
Rather, the evaluation was used to provide a quick overview of strengths and weaknesses of
individual indicators.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
The coordination team then met in January 2007 to review the messages from the November
workshop and the draft documentation forms and drew` up a list of 26 indicators to put forward
through EU and PEBLDS for adoption within Europe (minutes of the Coordination Team meeting can
be found at http://biodiversity-
chm.eea.europa.eu/information/indicator/F1090245995/F1101800700/fol341646).
Table:3. A summary of the indicator set grouped according to CBD focal area, PEBLDS headline
indicators European Headline Indicators and sub indicators
Focal area EU and PEBLDS Headline
Proposed Indicators
Status and
trends of
the
Trends in the abundance and distribution of
selected species
1. Abundance and distribution of
selected species:
a) Common birds b) European
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
24
Focal area EU and PEBLDS Headline
Proposed Indicators
2. Red List Index for European
species Change in status of threatened and/or
protected species 3. Species of European interest
4. Ecosystem coverage Trends in extent of selected biomes,
ecosystems and habitats 5. Habitats of European interest
Trends in genetic diversity of domesticated
animals, cultivated plants, and fish species of
major socioeconomic importance
6. Livestock genetic diversity
7. Nationally designated protected
areas
components
of biological
diversity
Coverage of protected areas 8. Sites designated under the EU
Habitats and Birds Directives
Nitrogen deposition 9. Critical load exceedance for
nitrogen
Number and costs of invasive alien species 10. Invasive alien species in Europe Threats to
biodiversity
Impact of climate change on biodiversity 11. Occurrence of temperature-
sensitive plant species
Marine trophic index 12. Marine trophic index of
European seas
13. Fragmentation of natural and
semi natural areas Connectivity/ fragmentation of ecosystems
14. Fragmentation of river systems
15. Nutrients in transitional, coastal
and marine waters
Ecosystem
integrity and
ecosystem
goods and
services Water quality in aquatic ecosystems
16. Water quality in freshwater
17. Forest: Growing stock,
increment and fellings
18. Forest: Deadwood
19. Agriculture: N-balance
20. Agriculture: Area under
potentially sustainable management
21. Fisheries: European commercial
fish stocks
Sustainable
use
Area of forest, agricultural, fishery and
aquaculture ecosystems under sustainable
management
22. Aquaculture: Effluent water
quality from finfish farms
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
25
Focal area EU and PEBLDS Headline
Proposed Indicators
Ecological Footprint of European countries 23. Ecological Footprint of European
countries
Status of
access and
benefits
sharing
Percentage of European patent applications for
inventions based on genetic resources
24. Percentage of European patent
applications for inventions based on
genetic resources
Status of
resource
transfers
and use
Funding to biodiversity (note, PEBLDS also
added “PEBLDS public
and private sources)
25. Financing Biodiversity
Management
Public
opinion Public awareness and participation
26. Public awareness (title to be
confirmed)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
4. Discussion of the First Set of European Headline Indicators 4.1. Coverage
The 26 indicators are a first proposed set of European biodiversity indicators. They have been
selected on the basis of the criteria discussed earlier, and are currently the best available for the
purpose of tracking progress towards, and helping to halt biodiversity loss by 2010.
Biodiversity indicators must complement other sets of indicators designed to assess progress in other
policy sectors, for example agriculture, forestry, poverty reduction, health, trade and sustainable
development as well as those describing the abiotic environment. Various sets of indicators have
already been developed at national levels for these sectors. In order to avoid duplication of effort,
linkages should be made at national levels between these various initiatives. Likewise biodiversity
indicators should be included in sets of indicators within other sectors.
The set of European biodiversity indicators gives an overall picture on progress towards the 2010
target. For some headline indicators, specific measurements are available (e.g. the common birds
indicator within the headline “Trends in the abundance and distribution of selected species”). For
other headlines, a specific aspect is reflected in the indicator as a proxy for the full picture (e.g.
growing stock, increment and fellings as a proxy for sustainbly managed forests). In 2008, a first
assessment report based on this indicator set will be produced. This report will analyse and interpret
the different messages of the individual indicators.
Relations between the messages from the different indicators are naturally complex, but a careful
assessment will give policy makers insight in where to concentrate efforts or change existing policies.
The information in the set of indicators should give a coherent picture of progress towards the 2010
target in Europe, bearing in mind the following points.
1. The 26 indicators do not directly address drivers of change but cover all the other elements in
the DPSIR model, with the caveats below. Driving forces, belong to the socioeconomic
domain and it was felt they do not need to be included in this specific set of biodiversity
headline indicators.
31
32
33
34
35
One important pressure for which further development is required is climate change (see
below).
36
37
38
The state of components of biodiversity at the levels of genes, species, and ecosystems is
covered. As decided by CBD COP, the indicator on genetic diversity only relates to species of
39
40
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
economic importance. The current selected indicator only captures a part of the domesticated
genetic diversity (livestock) and should be completed with indicators on crops, trees and fish
genetic diversity. At the species level, more taxonomic groups may need to be included.
Ecosystem coverage is good, through a land cover indicator, complemented by indicators on
sustainable management with detailed information on productive sectors dependent on
ecosystems (agriculture, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture).
The CBD or European Headline indicators do not include a separate “responses” focal area.
Response indicators are therefore distributed across the other focal areas. Some indicators
are directly measuring a response to biodiversity loss (protected areas, financing to
biodiversity, organic farming). Other indicators are so closely linked to existing policies not
targeted at biodiversity conservation (CAP or CFP) that, even though they may be indicators
of state or pressure, they also directly reflect the impacts of current policies, where responses
may then be incorporated. Six specific indicators are included for the headline indicator on
“Area of forest, agricultural, fishery and aquaculture ecosystems under sustainable
management”. This is essential from a response point of view, given the importance of
including biodiversity concerns into productive sectors as a response.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2. Indicators cover terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystems. Most indicators aim at pan-
European coverage, but a few are directly linked to EU policies, and therefore applicable to
EU Member States only.
3. Ecosystem services, which can be measured by state and impact indicators, are not covered
in detail by the set, perhaps with the exception of fisheries. Reference is made, however, to
other indicator sets such as IRENA for agriculture, [EMMA] for marine ecosystems and 25
MCPFE for forest ecosystems for a more complete picture of these sectors. In addition, a full
picture of sustainable use and ecosystem services requires the study of indicators outside the
natural resources area, for example socio-economic indicators on income, employment and
productivity.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
4. The status of biodiversity in Europe can not be seen in isolation from the impact Europe’s
high per capita consumption and waste production has on biodiversity outside its borders.
The set includes the Ecological Footprint indicator to capture this impact.
5. Most indicators are available now, a few depend on data becoming available in the near
future.
6. In order to get a clear picture for a specific ecosystem, information from different indicators
within the set can be combined (e.g. for agriculture, the indicators on species (covers
farmland birds), together with ecosystem coverage, fragmentation and sustainable
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
28
1
2
3
4
5
management give the complete picture). Finally, as has been stated before, this set was kept
limited in size. Many of the indicators have been drawn from, or are linked from other existing
detailed sets, and one can, for example start from HNV farmland and zoom in, through the
IRENA set of indicators, to many other environmental aspects of agriculture.
Table 4 lists the main advantages and required improvements for each indicator, as well as progress
through the SEBI 2010 process.
6
7
8
Biodiversity Indicators SEBI 2010 contributions / main
strengths of the indicator Suggested improvements
1. Abundance and distribution of
selected species:
a) Common birds b) European
For butterflies: methodology
agreed.
Expand geographical coverage
Add additional ecosystems
2. Red List Index for European
species
Production of an RLI based on
European risk Expand taxonomic coverage
3. Species of European interest New indicator based on Habitats
Directive reporting
Improve guidance on monitoring
and data collection
4. Ecosystem coverage Wall to wall indicator of trends in
European ecosystems
Increase geographical coverage
Use Global Land Cover data
set?
5. Habitats of European interest New indicator based on Habitats
Directive reporting
Improve guidance on monitoring
and data collection
6. Livestock genetic diversity First step in the development of
indicators for genetic diversity
Improve definitions of and data
on native breeds, and
endangerment
7. Nationally designated protected
areas
Improve accuracy and quality of
national reporting
8. Sites designated under the EU
Habitats and Birds Directives
Combined indicator (designated
area and sufficiency) of relevance
to the key EU policy instruments
for biodiversity.
Add spatial layers and improve
data flow
9. Critical load exceedance for
nitrogen
Adoption of existing EMEP
indicator
Strengthen the link between
critical load exceedance and loss
of biodiversity and quantify CLE
impacts in protected areas in
Europe
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
29
Biodiversity Indicators SEBI 2010 contributions / main
strengths of the indicator Suggested improvements
10. Invasive alien species in Europe
Combined indicator on alien
species, and development of a
new list of worst invasives in
Europe
Add distinction between invasive
species and alien species
Increase geographical coverage
11. Occurrence of temperature-
sensitive plant species
Inventory of existing indicators and
specific proposal for development Develop specific indicator
12. Marine trophic index of European
seas
Adaptation of MTI for Europe and
agreement on methodology tbc
13. Fragmentation of natural and
semi natural areas New indicator based on CLC
Add additional CLC datapoint
Increase geographical coverage
14. Fragmentation of river systems New indicator Improving data quality
15. Nutrients in transitional, coastal
and marine waters
EEA CSI indicator adapted to a
biodiversity perspective
Improve spatial coverage and
time series
Develop methods for comparing
data from the same region over
different years
16. Water quality in freshwater
Two EEA CSI indicators combined
and adapted to a biodiversity
perspective
Improve data quality
Fill gaps related to catchment
pressures.
17. Forest: Growing stock, increment
and fellings
Adoption of MCPFE indicator with
specific biodiversity relevance
Use new proposed EEA forest
types
18. Forest: Deadwood Adoption of MCPFE indicator with
specific biodiversity relevance
Use new proposed EEA forest
types
Document relation between
biodiversity and deadwood
19. Agriculture: N-balance Adoption of IRENA indicator with
specific biodiversity relevance Calculate regional N-balances
20. Agriculture: Area under
potentially sustainable management
Combination of two indicators
(HNV and area under organic
farming).
Stratified sampling of HNV
farmland
Better data on biodiversity
supportive agri-environment
measures
21. Fisheries: European commercial
fish stocks EEA CSI indicator adopted Improve data quality
22. Aquaculture: Effluent water
quality from finfish farms New indicator Test methodology
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
30
Biodiversity Indicators SEBI 2010 contributions / main
strengths of the indicator Suggested improvements
23. Ecological Footprint of European
countries
Ecological footprint adapted to
Europe Refine methodology
24. Percentage of European patent
applications for inventions based on
genetic resources
New indicator
25. Financing Biodiversity
Management New indicator
Include national and private
spending
Refine accounting categories
Expand beyond EU
26. Public awareness (title to be
confirmed)
Inventory of potential indicators
and specific proposal for
development
Develop specific indicator
1
2
3
4
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
4.2. Summary discussion of the indicators 1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
This section contains a summary description of each indicator in the set, and explains why the 26
indicators were selected and how they fit within the different focal areas. For detailed information, as
well as suggested graphical representation and interpretation, reference is made to Part 2 of the
report.
Focal Area: Status and trends of the components of biological diversity Essentially, it is important to know what biodiversity we have and what is happening to it. This Focal
Area addresses this fundamental topic. It is intended to provide the minimum required information on
the current status and the likely change in the status for: species groups, individual threatened and
protected species, ecosystems and habitats, genetic diversity, and coverage of protected areas.
1. Headline Indicator Trends in abundance and distribution of selected species The two specific indicators selected are:
• Common Birds
• Butterflies Population trend indicators, based on aggregated data for a number of species, provide a tangible
basis for measuring progress towards the 2010 target. The sensitivity of this indicator can allow policy
makers to assess and respond to changes in the environment and to rapidly review the effectiveness
of their actions. Birds and butterflies are excellent barometers of the health of the environment. They
occur in many habitats, reflect changes in other animals and plants, and are sensitive to
environmental change. Both birds and butterflies are the focus of volunteer effort and the involvement
of communities of interest in monitoring schemes and action. More species groups may be added in
the future. The farmland bird index has already been adopted as a long list Structural Indicator and a
sustainable development indicator by the EU.
2. Headline Indicator Change in status of threatened and/or protected species
The two specific indicators selected are:
• Red List Index for European species
• Species of European interest Extinction is the most fundamental form of biodiversity loss. Indicators for threatened species
measure the effectiveness of targeted conservation action for priority species. The Red List Index
measures trends in the extinction risk for European species. This measure therefore links indirectly to
the drivers for biodiversity loss and has resonance with the public and decision makers. It has clear
Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) - DRAFT EEA TECHNICAL REPORT
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
relevance to ecological processes and ecological function, for instance, habitat degradation, invasive
species, unsustainable exploitation, pollution and climate change. The indicator on change in species
of European interest will be available in 2008 (based on reporting under article 17 of the Habitats
Directive during 2007) and will provide a measure of the success of the implementation of the
European Birds and Habitats Directives.
3. Headline Indicator Trends in extent of selected biomes, ecosystems and habitats The two specific indicators selected are:
• Ecosystem coverage
• Habitats of European interest
The land cover indicator looks at changes in the major ecosystems in pan-Europe since 1990. The
indicator gives a “wall to wall” picture of the distribution of major ecosystem types in Europe. A
particular ecosystem will support a characteristic set of species and habitats. If the ecosystem is
encroached upon and decreases in area, the species and habitats it supports are at risk and