His article emphasizes the various definitions of biodiversity, highlighting two alternatives: (1) a focus on wild species and their habitat requirements (as in the USA) or (2) “the integrity and diversity of natural environments and processes” (more akin to the CBD‘s definition).

He states that for companies, the second approach is probably more useful. He doesn’t however explain why… and I would tend to think the opposite.

The integrity and diversity of environments and processes is much harder to pin-down, and hence measure, monitor and manage, than the presence, absence or abundance of a species in a given area of land.

The issue of biodiversity, in terms of impacts, responsibilities and opportunities, can only be dealt with if it can be properly managed. Some say you can only manage what you can measure…

The knowledge base for identifying and measuring species and their habitats is stronger than that of complex interacting ecological processes, let alone “integrity” which requires setting a reference (which one?).

Biodiversity offsets are mentioned as a good idea to be tested on a voluntary basis by local governments and developers. For the time being, there is thus no expansion of the mitigation hierarchy (of avoiding, reducing and offsetting impacts) beyond that required under the EU “birds” and “habitats” directives.

We will establish a new, voluntary approach to biodiversity offsets and test our approach in pilot areas

As well as testing offsets, the white paper also mentions the designation of nature improvement areas to be restored. This must be set against the goals mentioned in the recent European biodiversity strategy (also discussed here). The government also plans to set up an (ecological network.

The same debate on ecosystem valuation will take place tomorrow in Paris (France), under the auspices of the IDDRI, a think-tank. In preparation to the symposium, Emma Broughton and Romain Pirard wrote a short piece on market-based instruments for biodiversity (pdf).

Their article proposes a typology of instruments which distinguishes:

The authors discuss the pros and cons of each one of these instruments.

Their review of these concepts is relatively broad but difficult to follow. It does not offer a very satisfying conclusion, except a worthwhile attempt to synthesize how these concepts relate to each other in a box-and-arrow diagram.

The more interesting part of their review is their suggestion of 13 important issues to be considered in developing practical goals for conservation. These are the following:

Each one of these issues is discussed in the paper and although they might seem trivial to some, lack of time or expertise often means they are not appropriately accounted for in the design of conservation policies. This situation makes the paper a useful reminder! The authors conclude by listing some key research topics including the challenge of making the enormous mass of ecological knowledge relevant to on-the-ground management of ecosystems and biodiversity. That’s a hard one!

One of the key points discussed in the article is that of setting clear goals for biodiversity: “desired outcomes” that must be set at the catchment or landscape level (or whichever administrative or management unit is appropriate). Establishing such goals would be a requirement for a duty of care policy but would of course be very useful to a whole suite of existing policies (including those based on the evaluation of impacts on biodiversity).

The authors also argue that this desired outcome should probably be based on the maintenance of the ecosystem or landscape level processes that underpin biodiversity (as well as ecosystem services that are important to humans). However, they recognise that many of these are little known or hard to measure and that appropriate indicators might often rest in identifiable biodiversity components (species presence or abundance, habitat acreage…).

The framework conforms with much of the current dialogue concerning biodiversity conservation across landscapes, in seeking to articulate quantifiable and ‘‘biophysically meaningful’’ desired outcomes for biodiversity that incorporate measures of size, configuration and connectivity of habitats, as well as vegetation condition measures that collectively act as surrogates for ecological processes.

This dialogue is very much at the centre of any policy aimed at stopping biodiversity loss or improving its status, be it stewardship, duty of care, offset schemes or top-down command-and-control rules and regulations.

According to the authors, indicators can have three uses: tracking performance (for results-based management), discriminating alternative hypotheses (for scientific exploration), discriminating alternative policies or management options.

In their paper, they focus on the latter. They list ten common mistakes made in developing and using biodiversity indicators aimed at providing guidance to policy makers or forest managers who must decide on landscape or forest management policies and plans. Deciding whether or not to allow a specific project to go forward requires a different suite of indicators than assessing whether or not the project was a success.

They provide a nice example to illustrate their point:

When we go to the doctors and ask “what is my risk of heart disease”, we do not expect the answer to be framed as a percentage of the target daily donut intake”. (…) Eating fewer donuts may be part of a sensible management strategy but it does not answer the question “am I healthy?” A report of two dozen indicators may be an important part of the the analysis process, but it is also not an acceptable answer to the question (…). Doctors it seems understand the need to take a complex thing, break it down into a relatively small number of indicators, and provide a summary judgement about the status of our health or the probability of recovery associated with alternative treatments.

The 10 mistakes:

The conference produced a “Message from Liège”, in which European conservation leaders list a range of priorities and recommendations to:

A new target was suggested to “halt any further loss of species and habitats” and, by 2025, “restore degraded areas with an emphasis on links between biodiversity, ecosystem services, climate change and human well-being”.

Opening ceremony of the 5th Intergovernmental Conference on “Biodiversity in Europe” (from the official website)

The official conference website provides a wealth of links and information in the form of background reports and documents provided to participants. In fact, the selection on offer would warrant a proper analysis in itself. Meanwhile, take your pick!

TEEB at centre stage

Many reports were based on the work of the TEEB project. TEEB stands for The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. It aims to draw attention to the global economic benefits of biodiversity and the costs of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation, using similar approach as in the Stern report for climate change.

The TEEB interim report, published in May 2008, was summarized for workshop participants. It’s policy recommendations include expanding the polluter-pay principle to biodiversity loss and ecosystem service degradation (e.g. through the on-site or off-site compensation or offsetting of unavoidable impacts) and to create new markets for biodiversity and ecosystem services (e.g conservation or habitat banks) (see Chapter 4).

Both instruments require a common currency for offsetting biodiversity and ecosystem services. This requires operational as well as ecologically valid and socially acceptable methods for assessing ecological equivalence. Developing these methods is currently one of the main bottlenecks to the spread of biodiversity offsets.

Among other products, the project has prepared an interesting report on research priorities for ecosystem services (pdf here). The report lists 11 priorities, which are commented briefly below.

Did you notice how long the list is?

That’s not surprising. The IPBS – Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services – is still a recent addition to the suite of international bodies concerned with biodiversity and ecosystem services. Born of the consultative process towards an international mechanism of scientific expertise on biodiversity (IMoSEB – launched in 2005 after the Paris Conference) and the follow-up process to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, it aims to replicate the successful trajectory of the IPCC for climate change in the field of biodiversity loss and sustainable use of ecosystem services. Unlike other organizations such as the Millennium Assessment or Diversitas, the IPBS would formally involve governments in its assessment process, thereby giving greater political legitimacy to its conclusions.

A gap analysis was carried-out in preparation to the forthcoming meeting (available here) to identify the main gaps in the science-policy interface concerning biodiversity and ecosystem services. One of the findings of the analysis is that there is “(…) a lack of regular processes providing periodic, timely and policy-relevant information covering the full range of biodiversity and ecosystem service issues to the broader development community” (point #14, page 6).

The cycle of science-policy interface according to the IPBS

We will find out after the meeting how exactly the IPBS will provide the means for such close interaction between scientific knowledge and policy needs. Stay tuned!