In search towards suitable biodiversity indicators

In search towards suitable biodiversity indicators

A schematic picture of biodiversity loss Species abundance Species abundance Species abundance Range in intact ecosystem Range in intact ecosystem Range in intact ecosystem MSA abc def gh original species of ecosystem xyz abc def gh original species of ecosystem xyz a bc def gh Red List original species of ecosystem xyz Time

A landscape view 100% Pristine Lightly used Secundary 50% Plantation Degraded 0% MSA

2. Three complementary state indicators Threatened Red List Index RLI Species abundance Species abundance Natural range in intact ecoystem Species abundance Natural range in intact ecoystem 100% MSA MSA species abundance ecosystem quality 0% undisturbed disturbed highly disturbed Mean species abundance relative to baseline MSA STI Ecosystem extent Habitat loss

Ecosystem extent (major ecosystem types) Agriculture area Forest area Built up area Inland water area Grassland area Heath & tundra area Polar area Bare area country s surface Marine area

Indicators may be presented in many ways A few examples

Fishing down the foodweb (Pauly) We also log, plough, burn, convert, burn, pollute and hunt down ecosystems

Example: Change in abundance of selected set of species

Example: Change in abundance of selected set of species

Quality per major ecosystem type Netherlands Norway, South Africa, Kenya, Belgium, Living Planet Index,

Change 1900 -> 2000 Netherlands

Modelling extent & MSA by cause-effect relationships -> If no monitoring is available Threats Agriculture (HNV -> intensive) Forestry (light use -> plantation) Fisheries (capture -> aquaculture) Built-up area Infrastructure Invasives Pollution N dep [N+P] Climate change Fragmentation Fragmentation rivers Fire Hunting Water use State indicators Ecosystem extent Species abundance Threatened Breed variety

Modelling MSA South East Asia 1970 -> If no monitoring is available

Modelling MSA South East Asia 2000 -> If no monitoring is available

Modelling MSA South East Asia 2030 -> If no monitoring is available Desperate for verification with real data

Linking biodiversity loss with economic sectors 60 Ben ten Brink SEBI CT 30-11-2010

Change in natural ecosystem extent

4. Pros & cons 1. Universally applicable 2. Easy to understand 3. Fair comparison within & between countries 4. Gradually implementable (cheap -> exp) 5. Linkable with economic sectors 6. Coherent with CBD and global assessments 7. Establishing baselines 8. Monitoring requires expertise & budget (methods available)

2. Why it happens? We parcelate the world Swap services for goods Fight for the photons Natural ecosystem crops Water basin Shrimp farm National Park golf timber plantation cattle road Energy crop city 1natural Climate regulation 2 extensive Climate regulation Climate regulation Food Food Energy Food Energy Energy - Soil protection Freshwater Soil protection Freshwater Soil protection Freshwater 3 intensive Food: 40 80 kg/ha 400 800 kg/ha 4000 8000 kg/ha

3. Why is it important? 5 Trophic level Goods & services beauty, recreation, education cultural identity 4 3 2 agri- disease regulation fish, meat, pollination 1-1 -2-3 -4 food, fiber, fuelwood, freshwater C-seq, soil formation, flood control Soil fertility, C-seq, water purification, nutrient recycling

beauty, recreation, education cultural identity agri- disease regulation fish, meat, pollination original deteriorated Intensive use food, fiber, fuelwood, freshwater C-seq, soil formation, flood control Soil fertility, water purification, nutrient recycling

Productivity of goods Tr Local species richness Transforming landscapes over millennia value Naturalness Original Hunting & gathering Extensive agriculture Intensive agriculture Current ecosystem First strike: Large animals lost Second strike: Habitat loss Third strike: intensification Counter move: Protected areas Decreasing biodiversity in natural ecosystems ( MSA) time Decreasing biodiversity in agri-ecosystems ( MSA) Settlement Protected area

Human population in Antropocene Klein Goldwijk et al., 2008

land use in the past 3000 BC Grazing rop & cropland

rop Grazing & cropland 0 AD

rop Grazing & cropland 1000 AD

rop Grazing & cropland 1700 AD

rop Grazing & cropland 1800 AD

rop Grazing & cropland 1950 AD

rop Grazing & cropland 2000 AD

Baseline: 10% loss MSA 2000-2050 Species-rich ecosystems Ben ten Brink SEBI CT 30-11-2010 Target not Similar met to loss Loss 1.5 = 1.5 entire x USA USA

Zooming in on Europe: loss not halted

High biodiversity footprint Zooming in on the Netherlands Infrastructure Biodiversity impact Dutch consumption ca. 3.5 x terrestrial area Netherlands Climate Wood Agriculture