International conference Millennium Assessment: Bridging scales and epistemologies

Cross-scale Assessment of Biodiversity;

Opportunities and Limitations of the GLOBIO3 modeland the Natural Capital Index (NCI) framework

International conference Millennium Assessment: Bridging scales and epistemologies

2

Cross-scale Assessment of Biodiversity|

Tonnie Tekelenburg, Malki Saenz and Rob Alkemade

New Challenges

• Millennium development Goals• Johannesburg 2010 target• CBD biodiversity indicators • Applications in the MA• National (BINU) and regional EU /

OECD applications

3



Outline presentation

Previous work GEO3 and PEEPland use change

agricultural intensityclimate change

GLOBIO 3 applied to Latin AmericaBiodiversity Assessment Ecuador

Upscaling national to globalDownscaling global to national

2010 targetGlobal interactive research

4



Key questions to be addressed by GLOBIO 3

• What is changing:– biodiversity (ecosystems, species and their abundance)– natural areas– expected trends (scenario’s)– geographically explicit– most vulnerable areas

• Why is it changing– different pressures – relative importance of pressures

• What can we do about it– effects of response options (e.g. to reach policy targets)

5



Comparison pressure indices:Global (GEO3) and Regional EU (Peep)Pressure specifications for the European and world biodiversity assessment

(summarised from ten brink 2000; UNEP 2002 and UNEP 2003)

Type ofpressure

Pressure specifications Europe World

1 Disturbance Population density: 10-150 persons per km² X x2 Pollution

(general)Primary energy use: 0,05 – 1000 Peta joule / km²

x

3 Pollution(general)

Consumption and production:GDP: 0-6,000,000 $US / km²

X

4 Pollutionspecific

Acidification: deposition 1-5 x critical loadX

5 Pollutionspecific

Eutrophication: 1-5 x critical loadX

6 Pollutionspecific

Exposure to high ozone concentration: AOT40: 1-5 xcritical load

X

7 Climatechange

Rate of temperature change: 0,2-2,0º Celsius in 20-yearperiod

X

8 Rate of temperature change: 0,1-1,0º Celsius in last 10-year period of assessment year (20030)

x

9 Isolationnature

Fragmentation: 64%-1% natural area within 10 kmX

10 Natureregeneration

Effects of time past after clear-cutting of forest orabandoning agricultural practice: min-max range 0-100years of regeneration (with positive memory effect))

x

11

6



Contrasting trends of biodiversity impact: forest in EU

100%

50%

0% 50% 100%

Ecosystem Quantity as percentageof area of Europe

Eco

syst

em Q

ualit

y

2859

47

Natural Capital Index trends ofEuropean forest ecosystems

34

= Sustainability

First 2010

= GEO 3 2000

= PEEP 1990

= SustainabilityFrist 2030

= Market First 2010

= Market First 2030

1545

7



Suggestions for improvements

Methodology for construction of pressure indicesConsidering agricultural landscapes (agroecosystems)

dose-respons relationships from species abundance literatureUpscaling local information

Downscaling global information

8



B = LU * Agr* For * C * N * F

B = Biodiversity of a regionLC = biodiversity value for land cover typeAgr = biodiversity reduction due to agricultureFor = biodiversity reduction due to forestryC = biodiversity loss due to climate changeN = biodiversity loss due to Nitrogen pollutionF = biodviversity loss due to Fragmentation

Overall Biodiversity

9



Data flow in the Global Biodiversity Model

Geographicalunits

Relief

Soil type

Pollution

Climate andclimate change

Land useand naturalremnants

Road fragmentation

Naturemanagement

Exploita tion

Waterextraction

Production management

Protection of natural

ecosystems

Human conflicts

Natural haza rds

Diseases,invasive species

Fire

Rule based model

Riskassessment

Abiotic productionconditions

Externalpressures

Internalcomposition landscape

Measures toimprovebiodiversity

Measures thataffectbiodiversity

Disturbances

10



Biodiversity impact from land use change

Urb

an, b

uilt

up

Cul

tivat

ed

For

est p

lant

atio

n

Pas

ture

Deg

rade

d

Ligh

t use

Prim

ary

-0,5

0

0,5

1

Bio

div

ers

ity

va

lue

11



Examples from literatureAmazonian forestBrasilPlants

Prim. Forest: 235Cropped: 70Fallow: 90Pasture: 20

Fujisaka et al.1998

Tropical LowlandIndonesiaTermites

Prim. Forest 100%Sel. logged: 68%Plantation: 32%Grassland: 6%

Jones et al.2003

RainforestMadagascarreptiles

Intact forest: 100%Sec. Forest: 54%Plantations: 46%Rice: 12%

Vallan, Dennis,2003

12



Code IMAGE Biomes Bro

adle

aved

eve

rgre

en fo

rest

Clo

sed

bro

adle

ave

d de

cidu

ous

fore

st

Ope

n br

oadl

eave

d d

ecid

ious

fore

st

Eve

rgre

en n

eedl

e-le

ave

d fo

rest

Dec

iduo

us n

eedl

e-le

aved

fore

st

Mix

ed fo

rest

Sw

amp

fore

stM

ang

rove

Mos

aic:

fore

st /

othe

r n

atur

al v

ege

tatio

n

Bur

nt fo

rest

Eve

rgre

en s

hrub

Dec

iduo

us s

hrub

Gra

ssla

ndS

pars

e sh

rub

and

gras

sla

nd

Flo

oded

gra

ssla

nd a

nd s

hrub

Cul

tivat

ed a

nd m

ana

ged

area

s

Mos

aic:

cro

pla

nd /

fore

st

Mos

aic:

cro

pla

nd /

othe

r na

tura

l veg

etat

ion

Bar

e ar

eas

Wat

er b

odie

sS

now

and

Ice

Art

ifici

al s

urfa

ces

No

data

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 236 Ice 1 1 07 Tundra 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 1 1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 1 1 08 Wooded Tundra 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 0.8 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0 1 09 Boreal forest 1 0.6 1 1 1 1 1 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 0 1 0

10 Cool coniferous forest 1 0.6 1 1 1 1 1 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 0 1 011 Temperate mixed forest 1 1 0.6 1 1 1 1 1 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 0 1 012 Temperate deciduous forest 1 1 0.6 1 1 1 1 1 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 0 1 013 Warm mixed forest 1 1 0.6 1 1 1 1 1 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 0 1 014 Grassland and steppe 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0 1 015 Hot desert 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.2 0.4 0.4 1 1 016 Scrubland 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0 1 017 Savanna 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0 1 018 Tropical woodland 1 1 0.8 1 1 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 0 1 019 Tropical forest 1 1 0.6 1 1 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0 1 0

Biodiversity effects of Land cover change

13



Biodiversity impact from agricultural intensity

Biovalue Production systems80% Forest based production systems

50% Agroforestry and Shifting cult ivation

40% Tree planting in forest area

25% Traditional farming, Extensive farmingOrganic farming in developing countries

20% Intensive grassland management (reseeding) in forest area

13% Organic farming in developed countries (where conventional agricu lture isbased on long term soil and water investments)

10% Intensive agriculture and High external input agricultureConventional agriculture

5% Irrigation based, drainage based agriculture and long term soil levellingRegional specialisation

14



Comparison organic and conventional Farming

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

Plants

Inse

ctsBird

s

Mam

mals

Earth

worm

s

Avera

ge

species groups

Inc

rea

se

(ti

me

s)

Abundance

15



Biodiversity loss due to of landuse change

16



Expected ecosytem quality in agroecosystems based on average production intensity (per Farming System)

Farming Systems in Latin America ecosystem qualityIrrigated 5Forest base 37.5Coastal plantation & mixed 9.35Intensive mixed 9.6Cereal livestock (campos) 9.5moist temperate mixed forest 10Maize-beans (meso-america) 17Intensive highland mixed North Andes 9Extensive mixed (Cerrados & Llanos) 13Temperate mixed (Pampas) 10Dryland mixed 24.5Extensive dryland mixed (Gran Chaco) 25High Altitude mixed (Central Andes) 18.4Average based on production intensity 20.5

Average based on land use change only 30%

17



Biodiversity loss per farming systemGLOBIO3 pressure approach (2000)

b io d iv e rs ity lo s s p e r fa rmin g s ys te m

0 %2 0 %4 0 %6 0 %8 0 %

1 0 0 %

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5

fa rm in g s y s te m s

% o

f orig

inal

bi

odiv

ersi

ty

b uilt up

nitro g e n

c lim ate

fo re s try

live s to c k

ag ric ulture

re m aining

F igu re 1 . B iod iversity 2000 p er farm in g systemRemaining biodiversity?

Forest based farming system 94%Coastal plantation & mixed 73%Intensive Highland Mixed North Andes 53%

18



Biovalores (ecosistema x producción)

0,20 1,000,250,25 0,100,25vsi

0,20 1,000,250,25 0,10 vhi

1,00 0,10 ps

0,20 1,000,250,25 0,10 ph

1,00 0,10 n

1,00 0,10 0,10 0,10 m

1,00 0,250,100,300,100,250,100,10h

0,40 1,000,100,250,100,400,100,250,100,25bsoc

1,00 bsmor

0,40 1,000,100,25 0,10 bhmor

0,40 1,000,10 0,100,25bhmoc

0,40 1,000,10 0,100,400,100,250,100,25bhc

0,401,00 bhai

0,401,00 0,10 bha

forestalesPastosNaturalMaízFrutalesCamarCacaoBananoArrozA. erosiónArborSiglas

19



Ecosystem quality in Ecuador

20



Ecosystem quality for agroecosystems per ecosystem in Ecuador Ecosystem quality of agroecosystems

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

Bosque

húmedo

am

azónic

o

Bosque

húmedo

am

azónic

o in

undab

le

Bosque

húmedo

mon

tano o

rienta

l

Bosque

seco

mon

tano

orie

ntal

Bosque

húmedo

de

la co

sta

Bosque

húmedo

mon

tano o

ccide

ntal

Bosque

seco

occ

iden

tal

Humedal

Man

glar

Nieve

Páram

o húm

edo

Páram

o se

co

Vegeta

ción h

úmed

a inte

rand

ina

Vegeta

ción se

ca in

tera

ndina

ecosystems

ec

os

iste

m q

ua

lity

(%

)

ecosystem quality agroecosystems

21



Área intervenida, mosaico y natural

50-70% ecosystem quality

22



temp dec. forest

020406080

100

-1 0 1 2 3 4

image

euromove

grassland/steppe

020406080

100

-1 0 1 2 3 4

image

euromove

Shifts of Biomes (IMAGE) and species (Euromove)

Biodiversity impact from Climate Change

23



Biodiversity impact from Climate Change

Temperatureincrease

WarmMixedForest

GrasslandSteppe

Hotdesert

ScrubLand

Savannah TropicalWoodland

TropicalForest

0 100 100 100 100 100 100 1001 96 86 96 79 87 92 952 90 80 94 74 82 90 923 84 72 89 64 73 91 91

24



Downscaling from the global model

Biodiversity Situation 2000 NCILoss by land use change 27%Loss by international air pollution 0%Loss by climate change 2%Loss by agricultural intensification 5%Loss by forest explotation 1%_______________________________________Natural Capital (2000) 65%

25



Trends of biodiversity change on quality of ecosystems

biodiversity change

020406080

100120

1900 2000 2100 2200

year

ori

gin

al b

iod

ive

rsit

y

(%)

overall

forest based

Temperatemixed

26



Interaction of stakeholders with reference to the evaluation of the 2010 target

models monitoring

indicators

27



End

28



Which process to indicate?

past today tomorrow

Habitat loss

Habitatloss

Main factors: - habitat loss- loss ecosystem quality

The uniformity process of biodiversity loss: many rare species becoming more rare and few common species becoming more common (change of abundance or distribution of species)

29



The Natural Capital Index: Biodiversity =area size x ecosystem quality

Ecosystem quality = average abundance/distribution of a set of characteristic species in relation to an ideal, original or historical reference

30



Natural Capital 2001 for Ecuadorian ecosystems

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bha bhai bhc bhmoc bhmor bsmor bsoc h m n ph ps vhi vsi NAC

31



Comparison biodiversity state (NCI) of two ecosystems in Ecuador

bha = 87,23 28,20

77,05 7,35

2,83

5,1

7,1415,96

87,23

Documents

International conference Millennium Assessment: Bridging scales and epistemologies