UNEP/CBD/AHTEG-SP-Ind/INF/4

/ / CBD

/…

Page 1

/ Distr.
GENERAL
UNEP/CBD/AHTEG-SP-Ind/1/INF/4
20 May 2011
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

AD HOC TECHNICAL EXPERT GROUP MEETING ON INDICATORS FOR THE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR BIODIVERSITY 2011-2020

High Wycombe, United Kingdom,20-24June 2011

MONITORING BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN CITIES WITH THE SINGAPORE INDEX ON CITIES’ BIODIVERSITY

Information note by the Executive Secretary

The Executive Secretary is pleased to circulate herewith, for the information of participants in the meeting of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Indicators for the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, an information document entitled “Monitoring biodiversity conservation in cities with the Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity” submitted by the National Parks Board of Singapore.
The document is being circulated in the form and language in which it was provided to the Secretariat.

/…

UNEP/CBD/AHTEG-SP-Ind/INF/4

Page 1

MONITORING BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN CITIES WITH THE SINGAPORE INDEX ON CITIES’ BIODIVERSITY

Introduction

1.In 2008, for the first in humankind’s history, more than half of the world’s population live in urban areas. It is projected that by 2050, 70% will live in cities. It is not likely that the rate of urbanization will decrease. On the contrary, the effects of urbanization will be further exacerbated by another phenomenon of cities getting larger as indicated by the projection that by 2025 there will be at least 29 megacities. Hence, if biodiversity conservation were to be implemented effectively, urban dwellers will have to play a dominant role.

The need for a city biodiversity index

2.Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 concluded that the 2010 target of significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss could not be met. It is generally assumed that cities and biodiversity cannot co-exist. However, interestingly, rich biodiversity has been recorded in cities like Brussels, Curitiba, Edmonton, Montreal, Singapore, etc. We cannot resolve such seemingly contradictory observations if we do not have quantitative data. When a search was carried for biodiversity indices, it was found that there were several environmental indices, e.g., the 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index (Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy et al., 2005), the 2008 Environmental Performance Index (Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy et al., 2008), but they ranked countries of a certain size and not cities and they included very few biodiversity indicators. While the Living Planet Report 2008 (WWF International et al., 2008) focussed on some biodiversity indicators, its analyses were based on a larger scale, i.e., at the biogeographical level. A search for indices for cities led to indicators that focussed on economic competitiveness like Cities of Opportunities (PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP & The Partnership for New York City, Inc., 2008). As biodiversity conservation efforts would necessarily need to engage and be implemented at levels like subnational governments, cities and other local authorities as acknowledged at the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP9) in Bonn, Germany, it became apparent that it was necessary to develop an evaluation tool for biodiversity conservation efforts at the city level.

Development of the City Biodiversity Index

3.It was in this light that Mr Mah Bow Tan, Minister for National Development of Singapore, proposed at the high level segment of COP9 on 27 May 2008, the establishment of an index which would be a self-assessment tool to measure biodiversity in cities. Two expert workshops were held in Singapore on the development of the City Biodiversity Index (CBI), the first from 10 to 12 February 2009 and the second from 1 to 3 July 2010.

4.At the first workshop, seventeen technical experts on biodiversity indicators as well as city executives and city representatives responsible for implementation and/or management of biodiversity and urban projects and programmes attended the first workshop. It was agreed that the framework of the index should comprise that following components, that is, (i) Native biodiversity in the city; (ii) ecosystem services provided by biodiversity in the city; and (iii) Good governance and management of native biodiversity in the city. As this Index is developed as a self-assessment tool, it has to be easy, user-friendly, objective, fair, and in particular, scientifically sound. Twenty-five indicators were selected after much deliberation. Each indicator was scored on a 4-point system, A technical task force, comprising Dr Nancy Holman (London School of Economics), Mr Peter Werner (Institute of Housing and Environment, Darmstadt, Germany), Professor Thomas Elmqvist (Stockholm Resilience Centre), Mr Andre Mader (ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability LAB Initiative), Ms Elisa Calcaterra (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources), Mr Oliver Hillel (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity), and Dr Lena Chan (National Parks Board of Singapore), was set up and delegated to prepare the User’s Manual for the City Biodiversity Index. The 21 November 2009 version of the User’s Manual for the CBI (Chan et al., 2009) was posted on the CBD website and 15 cities test-bedded the indicators.

5.The Second Expert Workshop on the Development of the CBI was attended by 32 participants, including the SCBD, the Technical Task Force, representatives from ASEAN Working Group on Environmentally Sustainable Cities, Brussels Capital Region, Curitiba, Edmonton, Montpelier (USA), Montreal, Nagoya, Waitakere City, Singapore, resource experts, representatives from Aichi-Nagoya COP10 CBD promotion Committee and international organisations. The 2nd workshop was organised to review comments by cities that have test-bedded the Index, to refine and improve on the indicators based on feedback but retained the essence of the components as agreed at the 1st meeting, and to finalise the User’s Manual for the CBI. The deliberations of the workshop discussions were documented in the 27 September 2010 version of the User’s Manual (Chan et al., 2010) (Annex 1).

Elements of the CBI

6.The CBI comprises three parts to ensure a comprehensive coverage: a) firstly, the profile of the city like the geographical location, climate, size, population, economic and physical features, biodiversity features, etc., to give a holistic picture of the city; b) secondly, the twenty three indicators evaluated by the city; and c) thirdly, the calculation of the index. The method of scoring is quantitative. Some of the indicators are scored based on statistical normalisation of data provided by at least 20 cities. Since a maximum score of four has been allocated to each indicator, and with the current count of 23 indicators, the maximum score of the CBI is 92 points.

7.The rationale for selecting the indicators, how to calculate the indicators, where to get data for the calculations, and the basis for scoring, are listed in Part II. To facilitate the link between city officials who need the data for the better management of the biodiversity under their jurisdiction and the scientist who collect biodiversity data, an article was published in Nature, to articulate the vision and objectives of the CBI (Chan & Djoghlaf, 2009). Ten indicators selected to measure native biodiversity in the city included the proportion of natural areas in a city, how well connected are the natural ecosystems, are the biodiversity in plant, bird, butterfly and other biodiversity species improving in cities, etc. Attempts to measure ecosystem services in the city were also made for the regulation of quantity of water, carbon storage, cooling effect of vegetation, and recreation and educational services of biodiversity. Nine good governance and management indicators cover a broad spectrum, ranging from budget allocated by cities to biodiversity management, number of biodiversity projects by the city, existence of a local biodiversity strategy and action plan, presence of supporting institutional set-ups like a biodiversity centre, herbarium, zoological museum, etc. The scores of the 23 indicators are totalled to form a single score, i.e., the Index. The Index will be calculated every two years for comparison purposes and for the basis of further rational actions.

Future directions of the CBI

8.The Plan of Action on Subnational Governments, Cities and Other Local Authorities for Biodiversity was endorsed as Decision X/22 at the 10th Meeting of the Conference of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD. In its mission statement, it targets by 2020, as stated in paragraph 3d of the Annex, “...... to set benchmarks for local biodiversity management in line with the 2011-2020 indicator framework ...... using tools such as the Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity” (SI). Several of the indicators of the SI mirror the targets of CBD’s Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, i.e., the “Aichi Biodiversity Targets” as indicated in Annex 2.

9.Since the release of the SI in public domain, several other potential applications of the SI have been suggested and by cities. Some of the potential applications include a) its use in the master-planning of new towns, b) assisting in the decision-making process on budget allocation, c) its application as guidelines on how to improve native biodiversity in cities, and d) the biodiversity component of environmental indices.

10.The SI is a dynamic process, which emphasises positive actions that can be taken by cities to improve on its native biodiversity. It has provided a platform for cities to share their success stories. The experience of applying the SI has built capacity, has improved the biodiversity data available for cities, and increased the networking of the government, the non-governmental organisations, the public and the private sector. The indicators in the SI have highlighted mechanisms on how biodiversity can be mainstreamed.

REFERENCES

Chan, L., Calcaterra, E., Elmqvist, T., Hillel, O., Holman, N., Mader, A., & Werner, P. (2009). User’s Manual for the City Biodiversity Index. 21 November 2009 version posted on the website of the Convention on Biological Diversity,

Chan, L., Calcaterra, E., Elmqvist, T., Hillel, O., Holman, N., Mader, A., & Werner, P. (2010). User’s Manual for the City Biodiversity Index. 27 September 2010 version posted on the website of the Convention on Biological Diversity,

Chan, L. & Djoghlaf, A. (2009) Invitation to help compile an index of biodiversity in cities. Nature, 460: 33.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP & The Partnership for New York City, Inc. (2008) Cities of Opportunity.

WWF International, Zoological Society of London & Global Footprint Network (2008) Living Planet Report 2008.

Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy (Yale University) & Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN, Columbia University), World Economic Forum & Joint Research Centre (JRC, European Commission) (2005) 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index: Benchmarking National Environmental Stewardship.

Prepared by the National Parks Board of Singapore

5 April 2011

USER’S MANUAL FOR THE CITY BIODIVERSITY INDEX

______

BACKGROUND

1.The ninth meeting of the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP9) in Bonn, Germany, recognised the role of cities and local authorities and the fact that the implementation of national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) requires the close collaboration with sub-national levels of government. In light of the above, the Minister for National Development of Singapore, Mr. Mah Bow Tan, proposed the establishment of an index to measure biodiversity in cities, at the high level segment of COP9, on 27 May 2008. Following up on his proposal, the First Expert Workshop on the Development of the City Biodiversity Index (CBI) took place from 10 to 12 February 2009 at the Singapore Botanic Gardens, at the invitation of the National Parks Board Singapore (NParks), the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD) and the Global Partnership on Cities and Biodiversity (GPCB).

FIRST EXPERT WORKSHOP ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CBI, 10 TO 12 FEBRUARY 2009

2.The workshop was organised in close consultation with the members of the GPCB. The key objectives of the workshop were to develop the City Biodiversity Index (CBI), as a self-assessment tool, to:

(i)assist national governments and local authorities in benchmarking biodiversity conservation efforts in the urban context; and

(ii)help evaluate progress in reducing the rate of biodiversity loss in urban ecosystems.

3.A total of seventeen technical experts on biodiversity indicators as well as city executives and city representatives responsible for implementation and/or management of biodiversity and urban projects and programmes attended the workshop. These included four cities (Curitiba, Montreal, Nagoya, and Singapore), experts from the London School of Economics, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Institute of Housing and Environment (Germany), National University of Singapore, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability’s Local Action for Biodiversity (LAB) Initiative and the East Asian Seas Partnership Council. From the SCBD, Mr. Oliver Hillel, Programme Officer for Sustainable Use, Tourism and Island Biodiversity, attended the workshop.

4.Over the three-day workshop, the experts deliberated on the format of the index and agreed that it should comprise three components, that is:

(i)native biodiversity in the city,

(ii)ecosystem services provided by native biodiversity in the city, and

(iii)governance and management of native biodiversity in the city.

The first component focuses on different aspects of native biodiversity, in particular what native biodiversity are found in the city, how they are conserved, what are the threats to native biodiversity, etc. The second component concentrates on the ecosystem services provided by native biodiversity in the city, including those pertaining to regulation of water, carbon storage, and recreational and educational services. The third component is concerned with the governance and management of biodiversity, encompassing budget allocation, institutional set-ups, number of biodiversity-related projects, public awareness programmes, administrative procedures, etc.

The experts, divided into three groups, discussed in depth each of the components and decided on 26 indicators[*].

5.A technical task force, comprising Dr. Nancy Holman (London School of Economics), Mr. Peter Werner (Institute of Housing and Environment, Darmstadt, Germany), Professor Thomas Elmqvist (Stockholm Resilience Centre), Mr. Andre Mader (ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability LAB Initiative), Ms. Elisa Calcaterra (IUCN), Mr. Oliver Hillel (SCBD) and Dr. Lena Chan (NParks), was delegated to prepare the User’s Manual for the CBI.

6.In recognition of Singapore’s innovative contribution and leadership, the SCBD has informally named the CBI, “The Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity”. In short, it may be called “The Singapore Index”.

SECOND EXPERT WORKSHOP ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CBI, 1 TO 3 JULY 2010

7.The Second Expert Workshop on the Development of the City Biodiversity Index was held from 1 July to 3 July 2010 at the Singapore Botanic Gardens, Singapore. The objectives of the workshop were to:

(i)Review comments by cities which have test-bedded the Index;

(ii)Refine and improve the indicators of the CBI based on the essence of the components that was agreed at the First Expert Workshop (paragraph 4); and

(iii)Finalise the User’s Manual for the CBI.

8.Thirty-two participants, including the SCBD, the Technical Task Force, representatives from ASEAN Working Group on Environmentally Sustainable Cities, Brussels Capital Region, Curitiba, Edmonton, Montpelier, Montreal, Nagoya, Waitakere City, and Singapore, resource experts, representatives from Aichi-Nagoya COP10 CBD Promotion Committee and international organisations attended the workshop.

9.The deliberations of the workshop were recorded in the Report of the Second Expert Workshop on the Development of the City Biodiversity Index, UNEP/CBD/EW.DCBI/2/3 [†]. The participants examined the general approach to the selection of the indicators, crafting of the measurement of the indicators, and scoring of the indicators. Special attention was paid to ensure that the selection and scoring of the indicators were unbiased. Written feedback given was shared at the workshop and any concerns that were brought to our attention were addressed at the workshop. The decisions made during the workshop on the amendment of the indicators have been incorporated into the revised indicators attached in parts 1 and 2 of the attached City Biodiversity Index, dated 6 September 2010.

10.The following issues pertaining to the general approach to the formulation of the CBI were discussed extensively:

(i)Issue:

It was recognised that cities in the temperate region have inherently a lower diversity than cities in the tropical region. The age of the cities, human intervention and other processes of succession could also be factors affecting the biodiversity richness of cities. The size of the cities too is an important factor in determining the biodiversity richness of the city.

Discussion and Conclusion:

To ensure fairness and reduce bias, a number of amendments were made. First, it was agreed that the total number of ecosystems and total number of specific species be listed in the Profile of the City. The net change in species over time, where 2010 is set as the baseline year, has been identified as an indicator to replace the total number of species. Secondly, statistical analysis based on the data from cities would be carried out. For the statistical analysis to be reliable, data input would be required from at least 20 cities. For a 4-point score, the mean from data given by the cites will be calculated and be used as the reference for the ‘2-point’ score.

As the CBI is developed primarily as a self-assessment tool, the actual score of the indicators is secondary to the change in the score over time. Hence, the differences in the scores by cities in different ecological biomes, hence, should not be a cause for concern as cities are comparing how well they did in relation to their own past scores over a time period. The comparison among cities arose due to the availability of the data but is not the reason for the development of the CBI.

(ii)Issue:

The validity of a single score based on the summation of the scores of a diverse range of indicators was questioned. Another system, segregating different characteristics of the indicators into 5 sectors, i.e., A, B, C, D and E, and summing up scores of the different elements separately was counter-proposed.