Biological Diversity Loss Indicators and the Convention on Biological Diversity
(January 1, 2003)


Toward new action plans relating to forests under the Convention on Biological Diversity (11 May 2002)

Biological Diversity Convention, Decision on Forests


At the sixth conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, held in Hague April 2002, a decision on forest biodiversity was adopted, and a new program of work on forest diversity was agreed on (see related documents).

These are important documents for Japan, as they cover the issue of illegal logging and proposals for a framework to tackle sustainable forest management in timber-exporting countries, as well as re reaffirmation of the importance of forests as a global common asset.

Despite this, many concrete initiatives have been left as issues for future discussion.

Shortcomings of the Convention on Biological Diversity

One obvious reason that activities do not become more concrete under the Convention on Biological Diversity is that compared to the other international conventions, this Convention does not have specific indicators of achievement (Note 1), a shortcoming that has been pointed out by some observers.

Other conventions contain agreed reduction targets and timelines for achievement of objectives. For example, amounts of carbon dioxide emissions are clearly stated in the Framework Convention on Climate Change, and amounts of CFC production and consumption are clearly stated in the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.

Though agriculture is not treated as a global environmental issue, in the agricultural negotiations under the Uruguay Round, tariffication was proposed in which countries would replace and negotiate measures other than tariffs (such as limitation on imports and import surcharge) with tariffs.

These examples show that in international negotiations, rife with complex and differing interests, the most effective approach is to use comprehensive indicators that are straightforward and justifiable.

Is it possible to find any comprehensive indicators of biological diversity that meet these conditions?

Biodiversity-loss indicators

When I became aware of these issues, by chance I heard about an approach using “biodiversity-loss indicatorsEfrom Prof. Junko Nakanishi of Yokohama National University, and imagined the possibilities.

These concepts appear to be still under development as indicators for evaluating the impacts of development projects on biodiversity, but below are the results of my study of this issue.

If a certain development project is implemented, it is possible to calculate the increase in the likelihood of extinction of different species, as a relation to the reduction of habitat of a given threatened species in the area concerned.

Theoretically, it is also possible to calculate the likelihood of extinction of not just threatened species but of all species (see biological risk-benefit analysis by Hiroyuki Matsuda).

It is possible to give a weight for each species related to the degree of impact in the case a species goes extinct. By multiplying these two, it is possible to evaluate the degree of biodiversity loss. (See Toshihiro Oka: “Biological risk assessment and risk-benefit analysis using an index of expected diversity loss.E

National biodiversity-loss indicators

It is my idea that if such an approach were possible, it would be possible to evaluate the degree to which various activities have boosted biodiversity-loss indicators nationwide each year, and it would be possible to present the target values for these indicators in a protocol of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Of course, it would become necessary to ascertain similar parameters efficiently using satellite data or other means, but I think that for this purpose it would be possible to use information relating to forests, which are an important storehouse of terrestrial diversity.

After excluding certain manmade forests that are managed as agricultural land or manmade forests of introduced tree species, it should be sufficiently possible to determine from satellite data the status of distribution of a given category of forest.

This would become possible if a model could be developed to determine the extent of biodiversity loss per unit of area from land-use changes—from agriculture to forest, forest to urban, or natural to manmade forest, etc.

Whatever the case, this is based on the premise that the effectiveness of the concept of biodiversity-loss indicators becomes more widespread, accompanied by a growing body of case studies.

Note 1. Gareth Porter et al. Introduction to Global Environment Politics, p. 191.

 
like btn