1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 streamlining european biodiversity indicators (sebi … · 2008-10-30 ·...

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)


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


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


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.” .


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.


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]


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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;


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.


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


24


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


25


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


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


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


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


29



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


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


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


30



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


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


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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 streamlining european biodiversity indicators (sebi … · 2008-10-30 ·...

Documents