Download (PDF, 6.71MB) - TEEB
Download (PDF, 6.71MB) - TEEB
Download (PDF, 6.71MB) - TEEB
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
STRENGTHENING INDICATORS AND ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS FOR NATURAL CAPITAL<br />
For reasons of necessity and practicality, the CBD<br />
indicators tend to rely on existing datasets rather than<br />
identifying future needs and devising appropriate<br />
monitoring programmes. This approach of adopting,<br />
adapting and supplementing existing data brings<br />
inevitable compromises (Balmford et al. 2005; Dobson<br />
2005; Mace and Baillie 2007). As a result of these data<br />
constraints, and in the interests of balance, most<br />
indicators identified in the CBD process relate to<br />
pressures rather than to the actual status of biodiversity.<br />
In July 2009, an International Expert Workshop on the<br />
2010 Biodiversity Indicators and Post-2010 Indicator<br />
Development 2 concluded that “the current indicator set<br />
Focal area<br />
Status and trends of<br />
the components of<br />
biological diversity<br />
Sustainable use<br />
Threats to biodiversity<br />
is incomplete in a number of areas; e.g. wild genetic resources,<br />
ecosystem quality, ecosystem services, sustainable<br />
use, human well-being, access and benefit<br />
sharing and indigenous local knowledge, and both threats<br />
and responses more broadly” (UNEP-WCMC 2009).<br />
Similar conclusions were reached in a review of the EU<br />
biodiversity indicator set (Mace and Baillie 2007).<br />
From a <strong>TEEB</strong> perspective, the gaps relating to genetic<br />
diversity, the quality of ecosystems (i.e. their<br />
ecological condition) and ecosystem services are of<br />
particular concern (see also <strong>TEEB</strong> D0 Chapter 3). We<br />
outline requirements for the first two below and consider<br />
ecosystem service indicators in more detail in section 3.2.4.<br />
Table 3.2: Indicators for assessing progress towards the 2010 biodiversity target<br />
Ecosystem integrity and<br />
ecosystem goods and<br />
services<br />
Status of traditional<br />
knowledge, innovations<br />
and Practices<br />
Status of access and<br />
benefit-sharing<br />
Status of resource<br />
transfers<br />
Indicators considered ready for immediate testing use are bold;<br />
indicators confirmed as requiring more work are in italic and placed in parentheses.<br />
Indicator<br />
Trends in extent of selected biomes, ecosystems, and habitats<br />
Trends in abundance and distribution of selected species<br />
Coverage of protected areas<br />
Change in status of threatened species<br />
Trends in genetic diversity of domesticated animals, cultivated plants<br />
and fish species of major socio-economic importance<br />
Area of forest, agricultural and aquaculture ecosystems under sustainable management<br />
(Proportion of products derived from sustainable sources)<br />
(Ecological footprint and related concepts)<br />
Nitrogen deposition<br />
Trends in invasive alien species<br />
Marine Trophic Index<br />
Water quality of freshwater ecosystems<br />
(Trophic integrity of other ecosystems)<br />
Connectivity/fragmentation of ecosystems<br />
(Incidence of human-induced ecosystem failure)<br />
(Health and well-being of communities who depend directly on local ecosystem<br />
goods and services)<br />
(Biodiversity for food and medicine)<br />
Status and trends of linguistic diversity and numbers of speakers of indigenous languages<br />
(Other indicators of status of indigenous and traditional knowledge)<br />
(Indicator of access and benefit-sharing)<br />
Official development assistance provided in support of the Convention<br />
(Indicator of technology transfer)<br />
<strong>TEEB</strong> FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 3: PAGE 10<br />
Source: CBD 2009