Data Issues: Biodiversity related data in ecosystem accounting perspective

Data Issues: Biodiversity related data in ecosystem accounting perspective

Grégoire Loïs ETC-BD

Expert Meeting on Land Use and Ecosystem Accounting

May 18-19 2006, EEA Copenhagen

Biodiversity Data sets within EEA/ETC-BD context

EUNISEUropean Nature

Information System

•reservoir of information related to biodiversity,

•EEA product

Species related information:taxonomic referential, geo distribution (incl. atlases), conservation and legal statuses, trends and population size, relation with habitats

Habitats related information:Hierarchical classification, bridge between 21 other classifications or habitat lists (33 versions in total, incl. CLC) Sites (designated areas) related information:

# Designated Areas of legal concern: 1) National level (CDDA National: EEA Priority Data flow + WDPA extract for associated countries), 2) EU and CoE level (N2K + European Diploma + Biogenetic Reserves + EMERALD) 3) International level (Conventions)

# Identified Areas of conservation concern: CORINE Biotopes

Land Use & Ecosystem Accounting, May 2006, EEA. Data Issues: Species, Designated Areas and Habitats. G. Loïs, ETC-BD.

Biodiversity Data use in EEA/ETC-BD context


Production of and contribution to assessments

e.g. Core Set Indicator 7 & 8 as main data source (respectively EUNIS species & N2K db and CDDA National), SoE 2005 EU Directives assessments figures (N2K db), CSI 9 EUNIS Habitat Classification in relation with LEAC CLC changes.

-6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8%

Marine

Coastal

Inland surface water

Inland unvegetated/ sparsely vegetated

Constructed, industrial, artificial

Mire, bog and fen

Heathland, scrub and tundra

Grassland

Cultivated,agriculture, horticulture

Woodland and forest

IncreaseDecrease

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Belg

ium

Neth

erlands

Denm

ark

Gre

ece

Italy

Luxem

bourg

Spain

United K

ingdom

Sw

eden

Austr

ia

Irela

nd

Port

ugal

Fra

nce

Fin

land

Germ

any

% Sufficiency

Notes: Bars show the degree to which Member States have proposed sites that are considered sufficient to protect the habitats and species mentioned in Habitats Directive Annex I and II (situation September 2004) (marine species and habitats are not considered).

Source: EEA-ETC/Nature protection and biodiversity: Natura 2000 database.

Amphibians (15 species)

10; 66%

1; 7%

4; 27%

Reptiles (13 species)

1; 8%

12; 92%

Mammals (35 species excl. Annex IV marine species)

7; 20%

2; 6%

4; 11%

22; 63%

Invertebrates (310 species excl. Annex IV species)

37; 12%17; 5%

253; 82%

3; 1%

Fish (63 species)

27; 42% 13;

21%

23; 37%

Plants (570 species)

109; 19%

58; 10%

394; 69%

9; 2%

Biodiversity Data use in EEA/ETC-BD context


Specificity : Production of and contribution to assessments at INTERNATIONAL SCALE (smallest being former EU subparts: former EU 15 or EU 10 2004 comers for DG Env, largest being for KIEV report in 2003: 51 countries).

Imposes some constraints on data harmonisation:

data collection must be done using comparable or better, similar standards and methodologies.

For instance, no one would even think of using CLC straight if it would have been done at National levels. Countries deciding on accuracy, categories, methodology for category attribution as n countries would imply n distinct layers with difficulties for correspondence.This would imply a considerable work and major assumptiuns and limitations before use.

2 exceptions: CDDA National and National Red Lists BUT with special efforts at data collection level for harmonisation with use of correspondance categories in both cases

Current Biodiversity Data Collection


Speciesad hoc data collection from recognised data providers filling the specific requirements of harmonisation and scope:

•NGO’s and scientific initiatives data

•Monitoring (e.g. Butterfly Conservation), Distribution & atlases (e.g. Fauna Europaea), Trends and populations (e.g BirdLife), Taxonomic referentials (e.g. ITIS), Conservation statuses (e.g. IUCN)

•Official bodies

•Legal status (e.g. DG Env)

•Distribution (e.g. Reference Lists)

FUTURE: Establishment of agreements within EEA in a wider context (Data

Centre)Collection of available National atlases data if solutions found for

harmonisation



Species databaseComplex data schema of true relational database (centralised, integrity rules & versionning allowing data trace back)

Content account:

•286 000 taxa incl. Synonyms and upper taxonomy (+ 32 800 vernacular names)

•Distribution 1 400 000 species/area records (status) + 130 000 species/grid records

•Trends 20 700 species/area/trend/period

•Population sizes 17 800 species/area/pop size (status)

•Conservation and legal statuses 12 500 species/area/cons. Status & 7 100 species/area/legal status

•Species relations to habitats 9 500 species/habitats

Biodiversity Data


Species: potential contribution to ecosystem accounting

Distribution of Globally Threatened mammals in Europe. EUNIS / IUCN 2003 & Mitchell-Jones 1999

Some attempts already based on crossing distribution and status to create layers of average vulnerability of tetrapod vertebrates in terms of conservationEntirely data driven approach.

Promising as no bias in data collection in ecosystem accounting regards: contrary to presence/absence data (typical atlases data) which are problematic, we are taking into account a ratio here (assumption being that species detection does only depend on biological factors over prospected grids i.e. species itself and data collection efforts or methodology) => could then behave as a fair layer in this context.

Nevertheless frustrating as:- Resolution: European atlases are 50x50 km grid- Relevancy: Current conservation status from global assessments only and available datasets are not recent

Biodiversity Data


Species: potential contribution to ecosystem accountingPrevious kind of example clearly indicate that biodiversity data are problematic in such context and to be taken very carefully as typical parameters (Species Richness (number of species), Abundances and Abundances Variations (population sizes & trends), Biomass and NPP (no linear relation with species richness) – do not provide clear indications of biodiversity health.

It is now clear to everyone that neither Species Richness (number of species) nor Abundances (population sizes) can be easily interpreted to assess biodiversity condition.

WINTERING WETLAND BIRDS

Even Abundances Variations (population trends, overused with the common birds indices), if can be easily interpreted for steep declining trends were very problematic to understand for increasing ones: wintering wetland birds : what does mean an increasing population ?

Flag species: good for communication but poor for understanding. The Flamingo is a perfectly valid flag species’ to set up some fair characteristics of brackish marshes but what would indicate increase or decrease of flamingos: increase could be due to degradation of neighbour site and decrease to illness or bad conditions in wintering sites.

Biodiversity Data


Species: potential contribution to ecosystem accounting

A transversal approach appears to be very promising:

•An ecosystem is composed of some very efficient specialised species and of species being less efficient in terms of resource management but able to grab here and there resources: generalists (of course, in real world, there is a continous gradient between these two categories).

•When an ecosystem is disturbed, specialist species loose the context in which they were so efficient while generalist species remain able to live fairly even benefiting from specialist species stress. Such phenomena is called biotic homogenisation.

•Measuring the average specialisation of a community of species is easy as specialisation (as a characteristic) is derived from average species’ ecosystem range which is underlying in observation data (numerous, no specific methodology, started centuries ago).

Biodiversity Data


Species: potential contribution to ecosystem accounting•It is to be noted that a species does often show a variation of its specialisation across its distribution: it would suggest that resolution can be very good.

•This biotic homogenisation composite index, although still object of fundamental research, appears to be linear and to capture very efficiently biodiversity health.

•Furthermore, the result do not depend of the group chosen, from invertebrates to mammals, a high biotic homogeniosation is never a good sign while the reverse indicates a good integrity of the system.

•Data are available and could even be combined with monitoring or atlas data to build some easily scalable layers of biodiversity health.

•The concept is captured in legal instruments: species and habitats from Directives and Conventions are specialists or habitats of low biotic homogenisation.

Problems:

•Long terms dynamics not well understood yet.

•Fine methodology still under development but good hope that it comes out soon.



Habitats

As mentioned, the habitat module is a bridging system to allow dialogue between habitat records based on distinct habitat classifications (as habitats do not exist as such but on purpose, depending on choosed parameters such as living organisms considered as characteristics, scale, etc., there are as many habitats’ typology as projects –inventories from remote sensing, field studies, descriptive or conservative goals, etc.).

EUNIS Habitat module are the result of expert work, gathering information both in networks and publications. It currently covers all Europe incl. Marine habitats (Black Sea habitats being integrated currently).

In this ecosystem accounting context, EUNIS habitat tool appears then as a crucial element to enable usage of distinct habitat related data sets (incl. CLC).



Sites (designated areas)Several data sets i.e. several cases:

•N2K : data generated by EU MS and managed by ETC-BD under EEA/DG Env mandate. CORINE Biotopes data schema.

•European Diploma, Biogenetic Reserves & EMERALD: Collected and managed by CoE. CORINE Biotopes data schema.

•National level: collected within EIONET as Priority Data Flow. Harmonisation under ETC-BD/EEA’s responsibility (creation of categories).

•International level (+ national level of collaborating countries): extracted from WDPA and sent as EIONET CDDA data schema

•CORINE Biotopes: no updates. Existing as such.

In most of the cases, polygons are provided (not obvious!).

There is also an attempt to collect some associated data and relationship between sites (of distinct datasets).

A MoC has been signed between EEA and Ramsar Secretariat allowing synergy in GIS data collection and more.

HOW ? Biodiversity Data Collection


Designated areas’ contribution to ecosystem accounting

Problem encountered: albeit these areas are dedicated to concern identified components of biodiversity, they often seem to depend more on designation process itself than on biodiversity factors.

Analysis is then hard to interpret. Variance is massively explained by political factors (such as countries, for instance, regarding EU Directives).

Then, what to do with these 550 000 records in N2K database ?

Monitoring will increase value but with the same MS effect.

Evaluating biotic homogenisation inside and outside polygons ?

Future potentialities:

Usage of identified areas that do not depend on designatrion process: areas identified by expert netwroks.

3 potentially available: Important Bird Areas from BirdLife, Important Plant Areas from PlantLife, Prime Butterfly Areas from Butterfly Conservation.

Datasets from NGOs: require clear agreements for data use. Funds ?

Data Issues: Biodiversity related data in ecosystem accounting perspective

Documents

Transcript of Data Issues: Biodiversity related data in ecosystem accounting perspective