Rapid Assessment Report to Support Development of a Methodology for the Assessment of Priorities for International Species Conservation (Mapisco)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Rapid Assessment Report to support development of a Methodology for the Assessment of Priorities for International Species Conservation (MAPISCo) Synthesis of lessons learned regarding targeted conservation actions Prepared for the MAPSICo Project by the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre March, 2012 UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre PREPARED FOR 219 Huntingdon Road Cambridge CB3 0DL DISCLAIMER United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 1223 277314 The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect Fax: +44 (0) 1223 277136 the views or policies of UNEP or contributory Email: [email protected] organisations. The designations employed and the Website: www.unep-wcmc.org presentations do not imply the expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP or ABOUT UNEP-WORLD CONSERVATION contributory organisations concerning the legal MONITORING CENTRE status of any country, territory, city or area or its The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre authority, or concerning the delimitation of its (UNEP-WCMC), based in Cambridge, UK, is the frontiers or boundaries. specialist biodiversity information and assessment centre of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), run cooperatively with WCMC, a UK charity. The Centre's mission is to evaluate and highlight the many values of biodiversity and put authoritative biodiversity knowledge at the centre of decision-making. Through the analysis and synthesis of global biodiversity knowledge the Centre provides authoritative, strategic and timely information for conventions, countries and organisations to use in the development and implementation of their policies and decisions. The UNEP-WCMC provides objective and scientifically rigorous procedures and services. These include ecosystem assessments, support for the implementation of environmental agreements, global and regional biodiversity information, research on threats and impacts, and the development of future scenarios. CITATION UNEP-WCMC. 2012. Rapid Assessment Report to support development of a Methodology for the Assessment of Priorities for International Species Conservation (MAPISCo): Synthesis of lessons learned regarding targeted conservation actions. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4 Lessons learned ...................................................................................................................... 4 UK National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) ..................................................................... 5 National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans ......................................................... 8 Marine Assessments ............................................................................................................ 13 Species – focussed Multi-lateral Environmental Agreements- lessons from CITES and CMS ................................................................................................................................ 16 References.............................................................................................................................. 21 ANNEX ................................................................................................................................... 22 Annex 1. Annex 1 Information extracted and summarised from the UK NEA, Chapter 4- Biodiversity in the context of ecosystem services:..................................... 22 Annex 2. A list of indicators which address Aichi Target 12 and the number of countries that have developed each indicator from Fourth National Reports ......... 26 Annex 3 Species mentioned in a sample of 20 Fourth National Reports on NBSAP implementation, and actions described. .......................................................................... 27 Annex 4 2010 BIP Indicators .............................................................................................. 44 Annex 5 Species Case studies ............................................................................................ 45 Introduction Defra is seeking to maximise returns on investment for international species conservation by developing a methodology to prioritise species of conservation concern which also provide consequential or wider benefits to biodiversity and human well being (MAPISCo project). Development of this methodology is being undertaken by the University of Newcastle with support from other organisations. UNEP-WCMC has undertaken a rapid assessment to draw-out lessons learned regarding targeted actions from experience of: the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UK NEA); National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans of the Convention on Biological Diversity (NBSAPs); the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (BIP); marine assessments; and Multi-lateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs); The major consequential benefits drawn from specific CBD Aichi targets to consider in prioritising species for international conservation support include: species that have a clear link to ecosystem services (Target 14, incorporating Target 15, specifically on the sequestration of carbon); species whose conservation minimises habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation and promotes management and protection of sensitive areas (Targets 5, 7 and 11, with greater emphasis on 5 and 7 relating to forests and agriculture/aquaculture than on Target 11 relating to marine and freshwater habitats); sustainable use of species, especially fisheries, invertebrates and aquatic plants (Target 6); species which provide important genetic resources for cultivation, domestication, cultural and other soci-economic purposes (Target 13). Ecosystem services are defined here according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) which categorises services as: provisioning or production services (i.e. products such as food and fuel), regulating services (ecosystem processes such as air, climate and water regulation, pollination), cultural services (non-material benefits such as aesthetic values, recreation and tourism) and supporting services which ensure continuity of other ecosystem services (i.e. photosynthsis, nutrient cycling and primary production) (MA, 2005). It is intended that this paper will provide some insight to support discussions that aim to determine how to make links between particular species/species groups and a variety of consequential or wider benefits in prioritising species conservation. Lessons learned In the context of prioritising species for international conservation efforts which may also have consequential benefits, the following lessons/questions may be of interest. 4 UK National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) The UK NEA analyses the UK‟s natural environment in terms of the benefits it provides to society. It considers past, present and future trends in ecosystem services and their values. This section summarises key findings and some of the approaches used in the UK NEA, which may be of relevance to prioritising species for international conservation. Key findings from the UK NEA (2011) were: Biodiversity underpins all ecosystem services by playing a wide range of functional roles within terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems. Ecosystem functions are more stable over time in experimental ecosystems where biodiversity levels are relatively high1 and there are comparable effects in natural ecosystems. This evidence taken together show sthat the level and stability of ecosystem services tend to improve with increasing biosdiversity; Microorganisms, fungi and plants play important roles in provisioning and regulating services (e.g. nutrient cycling and biomass production); vertebrate groups contribute to cultural services but only play a role in underpinning 30% of provisioning and regulating services; The number of biodiversity groups playing an important ecosystem role varies between ecosystem services. For example, of 17 identified biodiversity groups, 3 were important for water quality, 11 were important for crops, livestock and fish and all 17 were important for wild species diversity; Biodiversity monitoring data in the UK (status and trends) is related to cultural importance of biodiversity groups. Well established data for culturally important species exists (such as birds), but limited data are available for several groups (such as microorganisms and fungi) precluding assessments of status and trends over time; Management will need to consider a wide range of biodiversity groups to provide multiple services and associated values; In the UK there is a cultural divide among biodiversity groups and associated ecosystem services; whilst status and trend data may exist on culturally important groups (e.g. birds), data on associated cultural services, such as the values and benefits derived from birds, are lacking. Quantifying the impact of biodiversity change on cultural services is difficult. For provisioning and regulating services, data on changes in the services are often available yet status and trend information on the biodiversity is lacking. Rather than focus on individual species, the UK NEA considered biodiversity groups and assessed their importance in underpinning ecosystem services (A summary of the sources of evidence used by the NEA was extracted from Chapter 4 of the NEA and is presented in Annex 1). Whilst it was recognised that it was broadly known which biodiversity groups play important