Reporting on Rates of Biodiversity Loss

Walter ReidDirector, Millennium Ecosystem AssessmentGuest Scientist, WorldFish Center, MalaysiaProject Manager, UNEP, Nairobi

reid@millenniumassessment.org

Outline

Reporting Basics

What to Report? Indicators viewed through lens of the audience

How to Report?

Guidelines for Effective Reporting Mechanisms

Possible Mechanisms and Frameworks

Effective assessments and reporting

Credible Must be of the high scientific credibility

Legitimate What we report and the process by which it is reported

must be seen by stakeholders to be politically legitimate Typically this means the stakeholders must have some

level of ‘ownership’ of the process

Useful Must meet policy and decision-maker needs

Feedback from Assessment and Reporting to Research and Monitoring

Assessment

Monitoring Research

Stakeholders Governments Private Sector Civil Society

Reporting

Action

Outline

Reporting Basics

What to Report? Indicators viewed through the lens of the audience

How to Report?

Guidelines for Effective Reporting Mechanisms

Possible Mechanisms and Frameworks

What to Report?

Many possible indicators Choice must be based on both

Science Needs and concerns of users

Users at different scales from local to global will have different needs and concerns

Intrinsic & Non-Use Values

Ecosystem Service & Use Values

Intrinsic

Service

Global Perspective

Intrinsic

Service

Local Perspective

Biodiversity

Most relevant global concerns may not be most relevant local concerns

Ecosystem

Service & Use Values

Ecosystems

Species Genes

Biodiversity goal (Reduce rate of loss of biodiversity)

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

Reduce hunger

Reduce poverty

Combat disease

Access to clean water

Restore fisheries

What we report should emphasize relevance to multiple WSSD Goals, not just biodiversity

Report indicators that are:

Directly derived from the goal or central components of the goal

Grounded in science Viewed as legitimate by decision-makers Relevant to decision-makers at global,

national, and local scales

Outline

Reporting Basics

What to Report? Indicators viewed through lens of audience

How to Report?

Guidelines for Effective Reporting Mechanisms

Possible Mechanisms and Frameworks

Overarching Goal: Reduce rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010

Report aggregated ‘index’? Pro: provides focus for users, ‘catchy’ Con: adds significant subjective element

into weightings; weakens scientific credibility

Report by components of biodiversity? (e.g., species, ecosystems, genes) Pro: strong scientific foundation Con: adds complexity to interpretation

But no different from, say, economic reporting on multiple components: GNP, unemployment, trade balance, etc

What to report for species component of goal?

Species extinction? Problems:

Inertia and lag time

• 1000 to 1861, N. Hemisphere, proxy data; • 1861 to 2000 Global, Instrumental;• 2000 to 2100, SRES projections

Climate Change ‘Inertia’ Halting climate change or even reducing rate of climate change by 2010 is unrealistic

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

100 87.5 75 62.5 50 37.5 25 12.5 0

Percent Habitat Remaining

Per

cen

t S

pec

ies

Rem

ain

ing

Z=0.35

Z=0.15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

100 87.5 75 62.5 50 37.5 25 12.5 0

Percent Habitat Remaining

Lose 2/3 of habitat

Species Extinction “Inertia”

Species committed to extinction

Habitat Loss commits species to extinctionbut the extinction will take place over decades or

centuries

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

100 87.5 75 62.5 50 37.5 25 12.5 0Time

Per

cen

t o

f S

pec

ies

Even if habitat loss were halted today extinction would continue for decades

Extinction rates would eventually decline with time

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

100 87.5 75 62.5 50 37.5 25 12.5 0Time

Per

cen

t o

f S

pec

ies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

100 87.5 75 62.5 50 37.5 25 12.5 0

Percent Habitat Remaining

Lose 66% of habitat

Lose 95 % of habitat

Per

cen

t o

f S

pec

ies

If habitat loss continues over the next 10 years, the rate of species extinction will increase

100 87.5 75 62.5 50 37.5 25 12.5 0Time (or Decreasing Habitat Area)

Rat

e o

f S

pec

ies

Lo

ss(E

xtin

ctio

ns

per

yea

r)

Current Species Extinction Rate

Expected rate in 10 yrs

Achieving an absolute reduction in the rate of extinction is unlikely under plausible scenarios A reduction in the rate of increase may be more realistic

Reduction in rate of increase

Reduction in rate – CBD Target

What to report for species component of goal?

Species extinction? Problems:

Inertia and lag time Grain size of extinction too large to

realistically monitor on annual (decadal?) time scales

Known extinctions may be poor proxy for actual extinctions. (But are good measure of loss of species many people care about.)

What to report for species component of goal?

Species extinction? Population sizes?

Waterbird population trends

Wetlands International

What to report for species component of goal?

Species extinction? Population sizes?

Problem of representative sample

Indirect measures (proxies) Habitat loss Rate of alien invasive species

introductions

High relevance to users

High relevance to users

What to report for ecosystem component of goal?

Reduce rate of loss of ecosystems by 2010? Problem: what, if anything, does this mean?

Better to set goal in light of CBD objectives (conserve and sustainably use…): Reduce loss and fragmentation of unmodified

habitats (conservation goal)

Reduce loss of ecosystem services from modified and unmodified habitats (sustainable use goal)

Ecosystem Services: The benefits people obtain from ecosystems

RegulatingBenefits obtained from regulation of

ecosystem processes

• climate regulation• disease regulation

• flood regulation

• detoxification

ProvisioningGoods produced or

provided by ecosystems

• food • fresh water• fuel wood

• fiber• biochemicals

• genetic resources

CulturalNon-material

benefits obtained from ecosystems

• spiritual • recreational

• aesthetic• inspirational• educational • communal• symbolic

SupportingServices necessary for production of other ecosystem services.

• Soil formation• Nutrient cycling

• Primary production

What to report for ecosystem component of goal?

Reduce rate of loss of ecosystems by 2010? Problem: what, if anything, does this mean?

Better to set goal in light of CBD objectives (conserve and sustainably use…): Reduce loss and fragmentation of unmodified

habitats (conservation goal)

Reduce loss of ecosystem services from modified and unmodified habitats (sustainable use goal)

High relevance to users

High relevance to users, particularly at national and local scales

What to report for genetic component of goal?

Loss of genetic diversity in production systems (crops, livestock, forestry)

Indirect measures

E.g., spread of elite varieties

High relevance to users

Indicator Direct (2pt) Proxy (1pt)

Relevance to Users

Score Measur-able?

Species

Extinction X X 3 No

Population trends X X 3 ?

Habitat loss X ? 1.5 X

Invasive Sp X ? 1.5 ?

Ecosystems

Loss and Fragmentation of Habitat X X 3 X

Ecosystem Services X X 3 X

Genes

Ag genetic diversity X X 3 ?

Spread of HYVs X ? 1.5 X

What to report?(Through the lens of the audience)

Indicator Direct (2pt) Proxy (1pt)

Relevance to Users

Score Measur-able?

Species

Extinction X X 3 No

Population trends X X 3 ?

Habitat loss X ? 1.5 X

Invasive Sp X ? 1.5 ?

Ecosystems

Loss and Fragmentation of Habitat X X 3 X

Ecosystem Services X X 3 X

Genes

Ag genetic diversity X X 3 ?

Spread of HYVs X ? 1.5 X

What to report?(Through the lens of the audience)

Outline

Reporting Basics

What to Report? Indicators viewed through lens of the audience

How to Report?

Guidelines for Effective Reporting Mechanisms

Possible Mechanisms and Frameworks

How to Report? Basic Considerations:

Large number of existing national reporting obligations

Mechanism must add more value than it adds burden at national scale Mechanism should be designed to build

capacity needed to address national and local priorities

Mechanism must balance political legitimacy and scientific credibility

Essential to report uncertainty surrounding estimates

What scale for reporting?

Global Yes, without question

National If we don’t, the goal won’t be taken seriously by

countries or by the ‘global’ audience Ecosystem/System/Biome

Would add significant value in interpreting the results

Reporting Assets: National

International obligations Convention Reports (CBD, CCD, Ramsar,

CMS, CITES, etc.) UNEP-WCMC project on harmonization of reporting

Reports on ecosystem services to FAO (food, fiber), WHO (disease incidence) and other agencies

Reports to other intergovernmental forums (e.g, CSD)

National and regional mechanisms State of Environment Reports; Sustainable

Development reports; National Human Development Reports, State of Ecosystems, Regional Environmental Assessments, etc.

Reporting Assets: International

Reporting Mechanisms Clearinghouse Mechanisms Assessment Mechanisms Bilateral Assessment Mechanisms

Reporting Assets: International

Reporting mechanisms Global Environmental Outlook (UNEP) Global Biodiversity Outlook (CBD) UNEP-WCMC Biodiversity reports World Resources Report (UNEP, UNDP, World

Bank, WRI) and EarthTrends (WRI) Human Development Report (UNDP) World Development Report (World Bank) IUCN Red Data Books IUCN Species Survival Commission Reports Living Planet Index (WWF, WCMC)

Reporting Assets: International

Clearinghouse Mechanisms Global Biodiversity Information Facility CBD Clearing House Mechanism IISD Compendium of Sustainable Development

Indicator initiatives

Reporting Assets: International

Assessment Mechanisms IPCC Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Mountain Assessment Land Degradation Assessment World Water Assessment Global International Waters Assessment Global Marine Assessment FAO Plant Genetic Resource Assessment

Bilateral development assistance assessment mechanisms

Reporting Assets: NGO and Academia

Biodiversity surveys and databases Extensive international datasets of CI, TNC,

WWF, Birdlife International, Wetlands International, etc.

Reporting Assets: Monitoring

Monitoring and Research networks gathering long-term biodiversity information, including GTOS National programs (e.g., LTER in the US) ILTER sites; Smithsonian/UNESCO-MAB Biosphere

Biodiversity Programme (forest biodiversity) CI long-term research sites Proposed “Global Life Observatory”

Audience Must consider audiences at multiple scales Must consider both the formal audience and

the informal audience Public outreach is essential

Audience

Key intergovernmental audiences: CBD WSSD follow-up, in particular CSD Biodiversity and Ecosystem related conventions

(CCD, Ramsar, CMS, CITES, WHC, etc.) UN Agency Governing Councils: UNEP, UNDP,

FAO, WHO, UNESCO At national and sub-national scales:

Relevant ministries (more than just Envt.) Other stakeholders from private sector and civil

society

Frequency of reporting

1-2 years? Many of the datasets available are too ‘noisy’ to

be of value over 1-2 year time frames

10 years? Miss enormous opportunity to stimulate and

guide action if report only at 10 year intervals

Most realistic time frame: 3-4 years?

Outline

Reporting Basics

What to Report? Indicators viewed through lens of the audience

How to Report?

Guidelines for Effective Reporting Mechanisms

Possible Mechanisms and Frameworks

Guidelines for designing an effective reporting mechanism

1. Engage Users. Intended users must be engaged in the selection of what to report and must view the reporting mechanism to be ‘legitimate’ Insufficient to simply report numbers through existing

mechanisms; a single intergovernmental forum could provide the

entire institutional setting given multiple audiences and stakeholders and the

opportunity for the reporting to influence actions in relation to multiple WSSD goals, consider a multi-institutional governance arrangement or establish an advisory committee of other relevant intergovernmental institutions (other conventions, UN agencies, CSD etc.)

Guidelines for designing an effective reporting mechanism

2. Reporting Responsibility Subsidiarity Report from lowest scale where there is value added for

information or capacity-building International comparative advantage:

Remote sensing for monitoring habitat change and fragmentation.

Governments could agree to provide resources for a complete assessment of habitat change in 2005 and 2010 against 2000 baseline.

FAO PGR assessments should be the basis for reporting on genetic diversity changes

National comparative advantage Status and trends in ecosystem services Population and extinction trends

Guidelines for designing an effective reporting mechanism

3. Clearly state uncertainty surrounding measurements

4. Don’t report only what can be measured If a critical policy-relevant indicator is needed and

data are unavailable (but could be available) make that an explicit element of the report

5. Ensure scientific credibility Scientific ‘validation’ of the information is critical The first reporting exercises will be more like

assessments than standard reporting processes An independent review mechanism should be in

place to review the final report and statistics

Outline

Reporting Basics

What to Report? Indicators viewed through lens of the audience

How to Report?

Guidelines for Effective Reporting Mechanisms

Possible Mechanisms and Frameworks

Possible mechanisms and frameworks

GBO process GEO process Structure modeled on Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment

Multi-convention oversight

CMS CCD CBD Ramsar FCCC

Millennium Ecosystem AssessmentMillennium Ecosystem Assessment

UNESCO UNDP UNEP FAO WHO

CGIAR ICSU IUCN GEF UNF

Possible mechanisms and frameworks

GBO process GEO process Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

structure New mechanism