BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity Project – Phase II 

2. Implementation Plan for Activity 1
Activity 1A Improved spatial characterization of the focus area at the pantropic scale 

i Assemble more detailed information on biodiversity-rich tropical habitats (IFPRI lead initiative)

            Task 1 Determine the extent of the pantropics based on ecosystem/biome boundaries   
                Task 2  Operationalize a definition of biodiversity for Activity 1
ii Integrate improved data on human population distribution
iii Measure historic change in land cover and develop scenarios for areas of rapid change in land cover

iv Undertake synoptic modeling of hydrological impacts of land use change
Activity 1B Pantropic assessment of the potential threat posed by hydrological disturbance and impact
Sub-activity

1Ai. Task 2 Operationalize a definition of biodiversity for Activity 1
Lead IFPRI
Collaborator UNH
Description This project focuses on the nexus between hydrology, biodiversity and populations.  In order to better understand these relationships it is imperative that we clearly define what we mean by biodiversity.  There are a number of different biodiversity schemes and defining paradigms (e.g. WWF, CI, TNC etc…).  

Based on analyses undertaken in phase I, IFPRI proposes the use of the WWF delineation of the worlds 800+ ecosystems and the accompanying ratings of the ecosystems’ biological distinctiveness index (BDI) and conservation status to define biodiversity.  To more comprehensively justify this choice we are undertaking a ‘due diligence’ review of this and competing schemes.  We anticipate that this review  will validate our prior assessment that the WWF schema is the most appropriate for this study, and are thus continuing our biodiversity analysis in parallel using this data source.  

Status  Literature review and comparative assessment are still in progress based on a series of documents obtained from a variety of sources (e.g, WWF, CI and TNC).  We are in continued dialogue with Taylor Ricketts, WWF-US, Director of Research, and others at WWF and are visiting with WWF, CI, and TNC to discuss our interpretation of their various approaches to defining biodiversity and developing ecosystem boundaries. We have also reviewed the MA chapter/outlines on biodiversity.
Scope   Global
Scale (Resolution) Various
Methods   Literature review, expert consultation, and write up of different approaches to defining biodiversity to be reviewed by the BNPP/ASB team members for comment/approval
Inputs  sources described above
Output

  • Review of available ecosystem classification and related biodiversity assessment data sources

  • Specific assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the WWF ecoregions and biodiversity measures used in the FVOB project

  •  Working definitions of biodiversity & biodiversity threats.

  • Tabular databases of the status of biodiversity within each ecoregion, regional summaries of biome and ecoregion extents.

  • Decision on mapping indicators of conversion threat: the team will seek to generate our own threat index, rather than relying on other sources [updated from Prague meeting 10-12 October 2003]
Linkages to policy-briefs and other deliverables Outputs will help describe both the geographic extent and spatial variability of various types of tropical forest ecosystems and the nature of the biodiversity that each contains. This lays the basis for linking biodiversity “value” to the loss of hydrological function avoided if the remaining intact areas of such ecosystems are conserved. Thus, these results directly feed into the analysis that underpins the discussion papers/policy briefs
Milestones 
  • White paper on biodiversity concept outlining different approaches and describing the specific pros and cons of using WWF ecoregions as a basis for the type of policy analyses being undertaken by the FVOB project. This paper will be distributed for comment/discussion via email to the ASB-BNPP distribution list. 

  • Closure on biodiversity concepts and characterization measures for use in FVOB

  • Written biodiversity component of manuscripts and policy briefs 
Date Expected 8 October 2003

General notes, 

Comments 

 Current understanding of WWF versus other (e.g. CI) maps of biodiversity rich areas is that the WWF is the best dataset for use in the FVOB project since it is broad in scope (global), offers continuous coverage, & does not consider the influence of humans in defining the ecoregions.   

The two indicators available for each ecoregion that are of potential value to the FVOB project are the biodiversity distinctiveness index (BDI) and the conservation status.  The BDI is a scale-dependent attribute of biological richness that was determined based on 5 criteria: species richness; endemism; complexity of species distributions; uniqueness & rarity; geographic uniqueness.  It is important to note that the BDI was derived independent of threat and is thus a ‘pure’ (ie. no human element) indicator of biodiversity.  

The conservation status is determined at the landscape level and is based on: loss of original habitat; number and size of habitat blocks; fragmentation/ degradation; conversion rate & degree of protection with habitat loss carrying the most weight.  There is a 'snapshot' conservation status (c.s.) and a 'final' c.s. with the 'final' adjusting the snapshot c.s. to account for threat (The value if the 'final' c.s. to this project depends on what WWF see as threats versus what we see as threats?)
References
  • Olson et al. (2001) 'Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth'; region specific assessments (e.g. Dinerstein et al. 'A Conservation Assessment of the Terrestrial Ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean')
  • Bailey, RG. (1998) Ecoregions: The Ecosystem Geography of Oceans and Continents'  
  • Dassman, R.F. (1973) - IUCN. Holdridge (1967) Life Zone Ecology.
  • Schultz. J. (1995) The Ecozones of the World …'
  • Udvardy (1975); Conservation International 'Biodiversity Hotspots & Wilderness Regions'; TNC 'Conservation by Design' program (limited to Asia-Pacific & LAC).
  • Ricketts & Wood (2002). White Paper on Geographic Units of Analysis. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 

                                                                                                                                               back to top

 

Global Partnership Amazon Congo Basin Southeast Asia
Climate Change Biodiversity Sustainability Poverty, Policy and Deforestation
Partners Publications Policy Briefs Gallery Funding Priorities Get Involved
e-mail: asb@cgiar.org   Home Page

 

Last updated: 26 November, 2003     ©2003 ASB. All rights reserved.