ALGAE CONCENTRATION IN COASTAL WATERS

ALGAE CONCENTRATION IN COASTAL WATERS
Environmental	Ocean, Seas and Coasts	Coastal Zone

1. INDICATOR

(a) Name: Algae Concentration in Coastal Waters.

(b) Brief Definition: This indicator will use the concentration of algae growing in coastal waters to represent the health of the coastal zone ecosystem, and the effectiveness of measures aimed at reducing nutrient inputs from run-off and discharge.

(c) Unit of Measurement: mg of chlorophyll per meter cubed, or a production rate in grammes of carbon per meter squared per year.

(d) Placement in the CSD Indicator Set: Environmental/Ocean, Seas and Coasts/Coastal Zone.

2. POLICY RELEVANCE

(a) Purpose: This indicator has the potential to illustrate the effectiveness of measures designed to reduce nutrient inputs in accordance with the goals of the Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans.

(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development (theme/sub-theme): Coastal ecosystems provide important economic benefits, such as fisheries, tourism and recreation. They are also important for biodiversity, which is recognised by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as having its own intrinsic value as well as importance for human life and sustainable development. High algal concentrations in coastal waters reflect high nutrient inputs, which can represent serious threats to coastal ecosystem health. A large concentration of algae restricts the available light, reduces dissolved oxygen levels and may increase sedimentation, which smothers other organisms. Increasing concentrations of algae can also indicate threats to human and animal health by toxic algal blooms.

(c) International Conventions and Agreements: This indicator is especially relevant to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982), the non-binding Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities, and the Washington Declaration (1995), implemented by the United Nations Environment Programme.

In addition, each of the Regional Seas has its own convention or action plan; details of these can be found at: http://www.gpa.unep.org/.

The conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components are among the primary objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity. This indicator is of particular relevance to several articles of the CBD, e.g., Article 6 - General measures for conservation and sustainable use; Article 7 - Identification and monitoring.

Related regional agreements include: the Arusha Resolution on ICZM; Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic; Protocol on Protection of the Black Sea Marine Environment Against Pollution from Land Based Sources; Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region; Convention for the Protection, Management and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Eastern African Region; Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region; Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and Coastal Area of the South-East Pacific.

(d) International Targets/Recommended Standards: The proposed target is to reduce nutrient inputs into areas where they are causing or likely to cause pollution and to reduce the number of marine areas where eutrophication is evident. By the year 1995 , in industrialised countries, and by the year 2005, in developing countries, at least 50 per cent of all sewage, waste water and solid wastes need to be treated and disposed of in conformity with national and international environmental and health quality guidelines.

(e) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator can be linked to many of the CSD core environmental indicators, especially those relating to fisheries, biodiversity, fresh water quality and fertiliser use. Economic indicators that are linked include those on waste management. It also has significant implications for human and animal health and may be directly related to human population growth.

3. METHODOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION

(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: Algae, both phytoplankton (or microalgae) and macroalgae, along with cyanobacteria are the primary producers of the sea as they convert sunlight and dissolved nutrients into energy-rich compounds. Inputs of nutrients from point sources such as sewage outputs and non-point or diffuse sources like the fertiliser run-off from agricultural practices cause increases in growth of algae. Proliferations of microalgae in marine or brackish waters can cause massive fish kills, contaminate seafood with toxins, and alter ecosystems. A survey of affected regions and of economic losses and human poisonings throughout the world demonstrates very well that there has been a dramatic increase in the impacts of these harmful algal blooms over the last few decades.

The impact of harmful microalgae is particularly evident when marine food resources, e.g., aquacultures, are affected. Shellfish and in some cases finfish are often not visibly affected by the algae, but accumulate the toxins in their organs. The toxins may subsequently be transmitted to humans and, through consumption of contaminated seafood, seriously threaten health.

(b) Measurement Methods: Guidelines have been produced by the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP), set up by the United Nations (UN) in 1969, in an effort to standardise the methods used for algae measurements. Publications are: Guidelines for Marine Environmental Assessments, 1994, Report No. 54 and Biological indicators and their use in the measurement of the condition of the marine environment, 1995, Report No. 55, both found at: http://gesamp.imo.org/publicat.htm.

Measurements of chlorophyll concentration using spectrophotometric and flourometric techniques are often used as an indirect method of assessing algal biomass. Ratios of the different chlorophylls give an indication of major divisions of algae present. Ratios of chlorophylls to their degradation products (phaeophytins) give an indication of the health of the phytoplankton community. These measures of algal biomass can be used indirectly to determine the levels of nutrients entering the coastal zone, taking into account the many variables such as size and carrying capacity of the marine environment. The spatial distribution of sampling points and the methods for combining data from them require careful consideration and further development of appropriate methods.

(c) Limitations of the Indicator: The major constraints to the use of this indicator will be the availability of appropriate data and the consistency of sampling and measurement methods over time as well as adequate data synthesis methods. The measurement of algae concentrations in the coastal zone does not take into account levels of nutrients that enter the marine environment naturally. The effects of algae build-up will also depend upon the assimilative capacity of the water body. This indicator does not allow for the assessment of proportional contribution of nutrients to the coastal environment from point and non-point sources. It is also difficult to determine what role atmospheric nutrients play in the accumulation of algae.

(d) Status of the Methodology: Guidelines have been drawn up in an attempt to standardise the various methodologies used by United Nations Regional Seas Programmes to measure algae concentrations. For more information, consult the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) and the reports 54 and 55 listed in 3(b).

(e) Alternative Definitions/Indicators: Direct measurement of nutrient inputs to coastal zones from both point and non-point sources could provide an alternative indicator, but would be costly and subject to a number of problems.

4. ASSESSMENT OF DATA

(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Standardised quantitative data on chlorophyll concentrations or the population and biomass of algae from an appropriately distributed network of sampling stations.

(b) National and International Data Availability and Sources: Limited data are available at the national level under the Regional Seas Programme of the UN. Until recently these data were not collected in standardised format, but with the introduction of guidelines, it is hoped that the results of future studies can be compared globally. The Environmental Assessment subprogramme of the UN is tasked with collecting data through a series of global databases and the information being used for effective decision-making.

(c) Data References: Data at the regional level contact Regional Seas Programme of United Nations, web site: http://www.unep.ch/seas/rshome.html. Data at the international level contact the United Nations Environmental Assessment subprogramme to access their database, web site for the UN: http://www.unep.org.

5. AGENCIES INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDICATOR

(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/GPA Coordination Office. The contact point is the GPA Coordination Office, tel. no. (+31 70) 311.4467 , fax no. (+31 70) 345.6648 and email gpa@unep.nl.

(b) Other Contributing Organisations: Other organisations interested in the further development of this indicator would include: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), Global Environment Facility (GEF), International Maritime Organisation (IMO), United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO), World Bank, World Health Organisation (WHO) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP), the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), the Global Investigation of Pollution in the Marine Environment (GIPME).

6. REFERENCES

(a) Readings:

IMO, 1994. Guidelines for Marine Environmental Assessments, Report No. 54.

UNEP, 1995. Biological indicators and their use in the measurement of the condition of the marine environment, Report No. 55.

(b) Internet sites:

http://www.gpa.unep.org/

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/agenda21.htm

http://www.unep.ch/seas/main/hglomon.html

http://www.ioc.unesco.org/iocweb/activities/ocean_sciences/marpol.htm

http://www.fao.org/sd/epdirect/epre0018.htm

http://gesamp.imo.org/

http://ioc.unesco.org/hab/intro.htm

http://www.gpa.unep.org/documents/technical/rseas_reports/

http://www.dominet.com.tr/blacksea/

http://www.cep.unep.org/

http://www.unepmap.org/

http://www.ospar.org/

PERCENT OF TOTAL POPULATION LIVING IN COASTAL AREAS
Environmental	Oceans, Seas and Coasts	Coastal Zone

1. INDICATOR

(a) Name: Percent of Total Population Living in Coastal Areas.

(b) Brief Definition: Percent of total population living within 100 kilometers of the coastline. A country might also consider measuring the % of population living within 100 kilometers of the coastline including major rivers that empty into the ocean.

(d) Placement in the CSD Indicator Set: Environmental/Ocean, Seas and Coasts/Coastal Zone. Because of the economic dimension of this indicator, its placement in the CSD Indicator framework might also be related to: Economic/Economic Structure/Trade.

2. POLICY RELEVANCE

(a) Purpose: This indicator represents the impact population and population growth in the coastal zone has on economic development as well as on the degradation of coastal ecosystems. It also represents relative access of populations to the ocean which is important for trade and economic development.

(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development (theme/sub-theme): Coastal ecosystems provide important economic benefits, such as fisheries, tourism and recreation. They are also important for biodiversity, which is recognised by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as having its own intrinsic value as well as importance for human life and sustainable development. A high concentration of population within the 100 kilometer coastal zone can dramatically affect the coastal ecosystem through habitat alteration or loss and increased pollutant loads. Either of these processes -- the degradation of the coastal ecosystem through conversion or modification of habitat or through increased pollution -- can lead to loss of biodiversity, influx of invasive species, coral reef bleaching, new diseases among organisms, hypoxia, harmful algal blooms, siltation, reduced water quality, and a threat to human health through toxins in fish and shellfish and pathogens such as cholera and hepatitis A residing in polluted water.

High population densities affect the coastal region's ecosystem. At the same time, a higher proportion of population in coastal areas with good access to internal, regional, and international trade appears to be favourable for economic development. This may reflect increasing returns to scale in infrastructure networks or the enhanced division of labour in settings with high population densities. On the other hand, high population densities far from the coast seem to hinder development. In the absence of liberal trade arrangements, landlocked countries are particularly disadvantaged by their lack of access to coastal-based trade and development.

Fishing, tourism, and recreation are some of the important economic benefits coastal ecosystems provide. However, exploitation of the coastal ecosystem like overfishing puts future economic uses of the resource at risk.

Access to the sea is important for international trade, success in manufactured exports, and long-run economic growth. Countries with lower shipping costs have experienced faster manufactured export growth and overall economic growth during the past thirty years than countries with higher shipping costs. Significant coastal populations represent the ability of a country to participate competitively in international trade as well as expand from traditional sectors like agriculture or natural resource extraction to development strategies based on the advantages of reduced transport costs.

(c) International Conventions and Agreements: The indicator is relevant to the United Nations non-binding Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities which is implemented by the United Nations Environment Programme.

The conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components are among the primary objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity. This indicator is of particular relevance to several articles of the CBD, e.g.: Article 6 - General measures for conservation and sustainable use; Article 7 - Identification and monitoring.

(d) International Targets/Recommended Standards: None.

(e) Linkages to Other Indicators: Many of the CSD core environmental indicators can be linked to this one, particularly those relating to urbanization, biodiversity, agriculture, fisheries, algae concentration, and fresh water quality. A social indicator directly linked is the population growth rate. It also has significant implications for economic performance and GDP per capita.

3. METHODOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION

(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The coastal zone provides numerous ecological and economic benefits (from tsunamis to invasive species brought in ballast water, it also provides numerous hazards.). The primary ecological services coastal ecosystems provide are biodiversity both on land and underwater and pollutant filtering. Coastal wetlands, mangroves, sea grasses, and peat swamps could be considered the lungs of the oceans for their ability to filter pollutants. Loss of this habitat not only decreases biodiversity but also the ability of a coastal ecosystem to soak up pollutants from human activities, such as farming, aquaculture, urban runoff, sewage effluent, and oil spills. For example, excessive nutrient runoff from intensive agricultural practices can increase underwater plant growth. Decomposition of the excessive plant matter reduces the available oxygen in the water. This oxygen depletion condition known as hypoxia puts marine organisms and human health at risk. Some of the most populated coastal regions of the world also contain some of the world's worst hypoxic zones.

(b) Measurement Methods: A Geographic Information System (GIS) should be used to measure this indicator. Generally, GIS is software used to perform spatial analyses. Many different types of free and proprietary GIS packages exist.

The first step is to calculate a 100 kilometer buffer from the coastline. Due to the curvature of the earth, the 100 kilometer buffer should be created in an equidistant map projection appropriate to each country. The map projection used to create the 100 kilometer buffer for Iceland won't create an accurate 100 kilometer buffer for India. Subsequently, the buffer should be converted into the same map projection as the population data (which is the generic Geographic non-projection). To correct for undercounting errors where the coastline and population data aren't exactly matched, one can also include in the 100 kilometer buffer a thin band extending from the coastline into the "ocean".

(c) Limitations of the Indicator: The indicator may under-represent population pressure on coastal ecosystems by not taking into account population within 100 kilometers of major waterways flowing to the coast. Similarly, the indicator may under-represent the proportion of population available for coastal economic development by not counting population within 100 kilometers of a sea-navigable waterway. The width of the 100 kilometer band may be too wide to capture within country variance of population pressure on coastal ecosystems (Cuba, United Kingdom, Japan, small island nations, etc). The spatial resolution of the population data may not be detailed enough to capture within country variance.

(d) Status of the Methodology: No guidelines yet exist on how to measure the proportion of a country's population living within 100 kilometers of a coast.

(e) Alternative Definitions/Indicators: To better gauge the impact of population on coastal ecosystems, measuring population within 100 kilometers of major waterways flowing to the coast might be more appropriate. To better gauge access to international and regional trade, measuring population within 100 kilometers of a coast and all waterways navigable to the sea by ocean-going vessels might be more appropriate.

4. ASSESSMENT OF DATA

(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: The two pieces of digital geographic data needed to measure this indicator are a coastline and a model of the distribution of population. The freely available digital database of global population distribution in 1990 and 1995 was developed jointly by the Socio-economic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC) and by the Center for International Earth Science Information Network at Columbia University (CIESIN). The coastline of the population data closely matches the widely available coastline from the Digital Chart of the World.

(b) National and International Data Availability and Sources: The primary source for the digital model of population distribution at the global, continental and country level is the Socio-economic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC).

(c) Data References: The web site for SEDAC is: http://sedac.ciesin.org/. The Digital Chart of the World coastline can either be acquired on an individual country basis from the Pennsylvania State University Map Library web site, http://www.maproom.psu.edu/dcw/, or by purchasing the entire CD-ROM from ESRI (http://www.esri.com).

5. AGENCIES INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDICATOR

(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the Center for International Development at Harvard University, Boston, Mass., USA. The focal point is Mr. Andrew Mellinger.

(b) Other Contributing Organisations: the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/GPA Coordination Office. The contact point is the GPA Coordination Office, tel. no. (+31 70) 311.4467 , fax no. (+31 70) 345.6648 and e-mail gpa@unep.nl.

6. REFERENCES

(a) Readings:

UNDP, UNEP, World Bank, World Resources Institute, 2000. World Resources 2000-2001: People and Ecosystems: The Fraying Web of Life. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. http://www.wri.org/wr2000/

Gallup, John L., Jeffrey D. Sachs, and Andrew D. Mellinger. 1998. Geography and Economic Development. In Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics 1998, eds. Boris Pleskovic and Joseph E. Stiglitz . The World Bank, Washington, DC.

(b) Internet sites:

http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidglobal/economic.htm

http://www.gpa.unep.org/

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/agenda21.htm

http://www.ioc.unesco.org/iocweb/activities/ocean_sciences/marpol.htm

http://www.fao.org/sd/epdirect/epre0018.htm

http://ioc.unesco.org/hab/intro.htm

http://www.gpa.unep.org/documents/technical/rseas_reports/

http://www.cep.unep.org/

http://www.unepmap.org/

http://www.ospar.org/

ANNUAL CATCH BY MAJOR SPECIES
Environmental	Oceans, Seas and Coasts	Fisheries

1. INDICATOR

(a) Name: Annual Withdrawals of Ground and Surface Water as a Percent of Total Renewable Water.

(b) Brief Definition: The total annual volume of ground and surface water abstracted for water uses as a percentage of the total annually renewable volume of freshwater.

(d) Placement in the CSD Indicator Set: Environmental/Freshwater/Water Quantity.

2. POLICY RELEVANCE

(a) Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to show the degree to which total renewable water resources are being exploited to meet the country's water demands. It is an important measure of a country's vulnerability to water shortages.

(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development (theme/sub-theme): The indicator can show to what extent freshwater resources are already used, and the need for adjusted supply and demand management policy. When the indicator is calculated by sector, it can reflect the extent of water resource scarcity with increasing competition and conflict between different water uses and users. Scarce water could have negative effects on sustainability constraining economic and regional development, and leading to loss of biodiversity. Sustainability assessment of changes in the indicator is linked to total renewable water resources. The indicator's variation between countries as well as in time is a function of climate, population, and economic development, as well as the economic and institutional capacity to manage water resources and demand.

(c) International Conventions and Agreements: For international water law, see reference in section 6(a) below. International water sharing agreements also exist between many countries.

(d) International Targets/Recommended Standards: No international target exists other than those set by international treaties between countries.

(e) Linkages to Other Indicators: The indicator's interpretation would benefit from linkage with established water vulnerability indicators, such as freshwater resources per capita, measures of the country's economy, such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (by industry), and poverty incidence as an indicator of equity of access. The indicator also needs to be matched with population, social and economic indicators, irrigation as a percentage of arable land, and drought frequency. Interpretation will benefit from linking this indicator with groundwater reserves and unused buffer water resources.

3. METHODOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION

(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The total renewable water resources are defined as the sum of internal renewable water resources and incoming flow originating outside the country, taking into consideration the quantity of flows reserved to upstream and downstream countries through formal or informal agreements or treaties and reduction of flow due to upstream withdrawal. This gives the maximum theoretical amount of water actually available for the country. The in this definition mentioned internal renewable water resources is defined as the average annual flow of rivers and recharge of groundwater generated from endogenous precipitation. For total renewable water resources, no differentiation has been made between surface water and groundwater. This approach brings a number of limitations which are described below.

(b) Measurement Methods: The indicator measures total water abstractions divided by total renewable water resources.

(c) Limitations of the Indicator: This indicator has several important limitations, most of them related to the computation of total renewable water resources:

· Accurate and complete data are scarce.

· Local sub-national variation of water resources and water use abstractions could be considerable, and this indicator does not reflect the local or individual watershed situation.

· Seasonal variation in water resources is not reflected. There is no consideration of distribution among uses and policy options for mitigating scarcity, for example, re-allocation from agricultural to other uses

· Total renewable water resources do not consider water quality and its suitability for use.

(d) Status of the Methodology: Not available.

(e) Alternative Definitions/Indicators: The indicator could consider withdrawals and water resources at the basis of a watershed. It could also take into account the efficiency of use and economic and environmental water costs and values. The data for such calculations, however, are not readily available. For some countries, calculation of the indicator at sub-national levels would be more appropriate. The indicator could be disaggregated to show total renewable water resources, withdrawals for different users, and efficiencies for these different users.

4. ASSESSMENT OF DATA

(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Annual water withdrawals divided by total renewable water resources. Current water uses need to be known.

(b) National and International Data Availability and Sources: Data is available for most countries, at the national level. Data consistency is a problem in AQUASTAT (see 4(c) below) as the data are estimated by country level at various periods, they are sometimes interpolated and national data on withdrawals are sometimes biased and could be intentionally over- or underestimated.

(c) Data References: Recent data are available at the country level and recorded at the international level by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations in AQUASTAT (1994/1995).

5. AGENCIES INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDICATOR

(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The contact point is the Assistant Director-General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO; fax no. (39 06) 5225-3152.

(b) Other Organizations: Not available.

6. REFERENCES

(a) Readings:

Barberis, J.A. 1986. International groundwater resources law. In: FAO Legislative Study (FAO), no. 40 / Rome (Italy), FAO, 1986, 74 pp.

Caponera, D.A. 1992. Principles of water law and administration: national and international. Rotterdam (Netherlands), Balkema, 260 pp.

FAO. 1998. Sources of international water law. In: FAO Legislative Study (FAO), no. 65 / FAO, Rome (Italy). Legal Office, 346 pp.

Shiklomanov, I.A. 1990. Global water resources. In: Nature and Resources (UNESCO), v. 26(3) p. 34-43.

UN. 1977. Water development and management; proceedings of the United Nations Water Conference, Mar del Plata, Argentina, 1977 - pt. 1-4 In: Water Development, Supply and Management, v. 1(pt.1-4); United Nations Water Conf., Mar del Plata (Argentina), 14-25 Mar 1977 / United Nations, New York, N.Y. (USA), 1978, 1 v. in 4.

WMO. 1990. International Conference on Water and the Environment: Development Issues for the 21st Century, Dublin (Ireland), 26-31 Jan 1992 / WMO, Geneva (Switzerland), 55 pp.

Mar del Plata 1977, Dublin ICDE 1992. International Water Law. Helsinki Rules on Use of Waters of International Rivers 1966 and Seoul Rules, International Groundwaters 1986.

Shiklomanov. Global Water Resources. 1990.

(b) Internet site:

FAO AQUASTAT. http://www.fao.org/ag/AGL/AGLW/aquastat/aquastat.htm

BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND IN WATER BODIES
Environmental	Fresh Water	Water Quality

1. INDICATOR

(a) Name: Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in water bodies.

(b) Brief Definition: BOD measures the amount of oxygen required or consumed for the microbiological decomposition (oxidation) of organic material in water.

(d) Placement in the CSD Indicator Set: Environmental/Fresh water/Water quality.

2. POLICY RELEVANCE

(a) Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to assess the quality of water available to consumers in localities or communities for basic and commercial needs. It is also one of a group of indicators of ecosystem health.

(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development (theme/sub-theme): Sustainable development is heavily dependant on suitable water availability for a variety of uses ranging from domestic to industrial supplies. Strict water quality standards have been established to protect users from health and other adverse consequences of poor water quality. The presence of high BOD may indicate faecal contamination or increases in particulate and dissolved organic carbon from non-human and animal sources that can restrict water use and development, necessitate expensive treatment and impair ecosystem health. Human ill health due to water quality problems can reduce work capability and affect children's growth and education. Increased concentrations of dissolved organic carbon can create problems in the production of safe drinking water if chlorination is used, as disinfection by products, such as trihalomethanes and other compounds toxic to humans, may be produced. Increased oxygen consumption poses a potential threat to a variety of aquatic organisms, including fish. It is, therefore, important to monitor organic pollution to identify areas posing a threat to health, to identify sources of contamination, to ensure adequate treatment, and provide information for decision making to enhance water sustainability.

(c) International Conventions and Agreements: The Resolution II and Plan of the United Nations Water Conference recommended governments reaffirm the commitment made at Habitat to "adopt programmes with realistic standards for quality and quantity to provide water for rural and urban areas". The goal of universal safe water coverage was reiterated at the World Summit for Children in 1990.

(d) International Targets/Recommended Standards: Not available.

(e) Linkages to Other Indicators: Several indicators are directly linked to the concentration of organic material in freshwater. These measures include annual withdrawals of ground and surface water, domestic consumption of water per capita, concentration of faecal coliforms in freshwater, percent of population with adequate excreta disposal facilities, access to safe water, infant mortality rate, nutritional status of children, environmental protection expenditures as a percent of Gross Domestic Product, and expenditure on waste collection and treatment, and ecosystem health.

3. METHODOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION

(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is an empirical test to provide a measure of the level of degradable organic material in a body of water. The test involves the incubation of a diluted sample for a period of five days at a constant temperature of 20°C. The sample is diluted to bring it within the operational parameters of the test procedure. The test represents a standard laboratory procedure usually referred to as the BOD5 test.

The procedure is used to estimate the relative oxygen requirements of wastewaters, effluents, and other polluted waters. Microorganisms (mainly bacteria although other microorganisms, algae, plants and animals can also make significant contributions in some aquatic systems) use the oxygen in the water for oxidation of polluting organic matter and organic carbon produced by algae, plants and animals.

(b) Measurement Methods: The method used consists of filling to overflowing an airtight bottle of specified size with the water sample to be tested. It is then incubated at a constant temperature for five days. Dissolved oxygen is measured initially and after incubation. The BOD5 is then computed from the difference between the initial and final readings of dissolved oxygen.

(c) Limitations of the Indicator: The main limitation of the indicator is that it provides empirical and not absolute results. It gives a good comparison among samples, but does not give an exact measure of the concentration of any particular contaminant. Further, the BOD can increase due to an increase in nutrient (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus) loads to a water body (eutrophication) without a concomitant increase in external organic carbon loading. The increase in nutrients stimulates the growth of algae and aquatic plants (primary production), which causes an increase in biological (usually mainly bacterial) oxygen consumption. It is important to follow laboratory procedures precisely to obtain consistent results. The five-day time frame to obtain results represents the main operational drawback of the indicator.

(d) Status of the Methodology: Operational.

(e) Alternative Definitions/Indicators: Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) is an alternative measure of the oxygen equivalent of the organic matter content of a sample that is susceptible to oxidation by a strong chemical exigent. COD can be empirically related to BOD5. After this correlation is determined for a specific source, it is a useful measure obtained from an instantaneous chemical test.

4. ASSESSMENT OF DATA

(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: BOD5 results from laboratories.

(b) National and International Data Availability and Sources: Data are normally available on a routine basis from municipal wastewater treatment and discharge facilities, the laboratories of water or public health authorities, water research institutes, and universities. At the national level, the data sources include national water authorities, water supply utilities, ministries of health or environment, and research institutions.

5. AGENCIES INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDICATOR

(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The contact point at UNEP is the Director, Division of Environmental Information, Assessment and Early Warning, fax no. (254-2) 62- 4274.

(b) Other Contributing Organizations: Other agencies assisting in the development of this indicator include the World Health Organization (WHO), the UNEP Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS/Water) Collaborating Centre, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF); United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat); and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

6. REFERENCES

(a) Readings:

American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th Edition. 1999.

International Standards Organization. Water Quality--Determination of Biochemical Oxygen Demand after Five Days (BOD5). ISO 5815. 1989.

International Standards Organization. Water Quality--Determination of the Chemical Oxygen Demand. ISO 6060. 1989.

(b) Internet site:

UNEP/GEMS Collaborating Centre for Freshwater Quality Monitoring and Assessment at the National Water Research Institute of Environment Canada: http://www.cciw.ca/gems/intro.html

CONCENTRATION OF FAECAL COLIFORM IN FRESHWATER
Environmental	Fresh Water	Water Quality

1. INDICATOR

(a) Name: Concentration of Faecal Coliforms in Freshwater.

(b) Brief Definition: The proportion of freshwater resources destined for potable supply containing concentrations of faecal coliforms which exceed the levels recommended in the World Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality.

(d) Placement in the CSD Indicator Set: Environmental/Fresh Water/Water Quality.

2. POLICY RELEVANCE

(a) Purpose: The indicator assesses the quality of water available to communities for basic needs. It identifies communities where contamination of water with human and animal excreta at source or in the supply is posing a threat to health.

(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsuitable Development (theme/sub-theme): The concentration of faecal coliforms in freshwater bodies is an indirect indicator of contamination with human and animal excreta. Water contaminated with human and animal excreta poses a serious health risk and is therefore unsuitable for potable supply unless it has been suitably treated. Faecal indicator bacteria remain the preferred way of assessing the hygienic quality of water. Escherichia coli (E. coli), the thermotolerant and other coliform bacteria, the faecal streptococci and spores of sulphite-reducing clostridia, are common indicators of this type used. This measure indicates situations where treatment is required or has to be improved to guarantee safety of supply. As population density increases and/or more people are provided from a supply, the more critical the supply of safe, potable water becomes.

Diarrhoeal diseases, largely the consequence of faecal contamination of drinking-water supply, are variously estimated to be responsible for 80% of morbidity/mortality, or more, in developing countries. A prerequisite for development is a healthy community. Ill health not only reduces the work capability of community members but frequent diarrhoeal episodes disrupt children’s development and education, which, in the longer term, can have serious consequences for sustainable development.

(c) International Conventions and Agreements: The United Nations Water Conference recommended that governments reaffirm the commitment made at ‘Habitat’ to adopt programmes with realistic standards for water-quality to provide sanitation for urban and rural areas. The goal of universal coverage was reiterated at the World Summit for Children, in 1990.

(d) International Targets/Recommended Standards: The standards are available in the WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. These have been adopted by most countries.

(e) Linkages to Other Indicators: The indicator is closely linked with several others in the environmental and socio-economic (health) categories, including annual water withdrawals, domestic consumption of water per capita, biochemical oxygen demand in water bodies, wastewater treatment coverage, and percent of population with adequate excreta disposal facilities.

3. METHODOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION

(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: Ideal faecal indicator characteristics are difficult to find in any one organism. However, many useful characteristics are found in E. coli and, to a lesser extent, in the thermotolerant coliform bacteria. For this reason, E. coli tends to be the preferred/recommended faecal contamination indicator. Faecal streptococci satisfy some of the criteria and tend to be used as supplementary indicators of faecal pollution indicating both human and animal faeces.

(b) Measurement Methods: For the purposes of this indicator, the term “faecal coliforms” encompasses Escherichia coli and thermotolerant coliforms.

Microbiological examination provides the most sensitive, although not the most rapid, indication of pollution by faecal matter. Because the growth medium and the conditions of incubation, as well as the nature and age of the water sample, can influence microbiological analysis, accuracy of results may be variable. This means that the standardization of methods and laboratory procedures are extremely important. Established standard methods are available through the International Organization of Standardization (ISO), American Public Health Association (APHA), the UK Department of Health (DHSS), and the Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality (WHO).

Determination of sample size is the first important step in the examination. The source of the sample will determine, in the first instance, the concentration of organisms. Under normal conditions, the volume of sample for a lake or reservoir sample would be 100 ml, while in the case of raw municipal sewage, only 0.001 ml would be required. Larger samples would result in too large a number of organisms to make counting possible. Time-of-travel may often be of relevance, and changes in the bacterial characteristics of samples can be reduced to a minimum by ensuring the samples are not exposed to light and are kept between 4 and 10°C for the shortest feasible time – preferably analysed within six hours. Such precautions are particularly important in tropical climates where ambient temperatures are high and sunlight (ultra-violet radiation) is brightest.

(c) Limitations of the Indicator: Concentration of E. coli or thermotolerant or faecal coliforms in a water sample provides only one part of the picture with regard to water-quality. To assess the overall status of water at source and supplied for potable and other uses, it is necessary to combine the information of this indicator with complementary data on physical and chemical quality. E. coli is predominantly an indicator but, under certain circumstances, can itself be a pathogen.

(d) Status of the Methodology: Not Available.

(e) Alternative Definitions/Indicators: The indicator could be shown as the proportion of the population using water source for domestic water supply that do not meet the standards. The microbiological quality of water in relation to faecal contamination can be currently defined in terms of E. coli, thermotolerant coliform bacteria, total coliform organisms, faecal streptococci, sulphite-reducing clostridia, bifidobacteria and coliphages.

4. ASSESSMENT OF DATA

(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Records of water authorities laboratories, hydro-geological institutes, universities, municipal public health laboratories, research institutes, and special studies, which show the level of E. coli, or thermotolerant coliform bacteria.

(b) National and International Data Availability and Sources: Data are normally available from municipal water supply authorities on a routine basis. Ministries of Health in many countries often check on the bacterial quality of new sources when they are being considered for supply purposes. The data are available from national water authorities and water supply utilities, Ministries of Health, and research institutes.

5. AGENCIES INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDICATOR

(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the World Health Organization (WHO). The contact point is the Coordinator, Water, Sanitation and Health, Department of Protection of Human Health, WHO; fax no. (41 22) 791 4159.

(b) Other Contributing Organizations: Other organizations contributing to the development of this indicator include: the Water and Environmental Sanitation Section, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF); United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT); and the Land and Water Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

6. REFERENCES

(a) Readings:

WHO. Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. Second Edition, Volume 1 Recommendations, WHO, Geneva, 1993, and Volume 3: Surveillance and Control of Comments Supplies, WHO, Geneva, 1996.

American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 17^th Edition, 1989.

International Organization for Standardization. Water Quality: Detection and Enumeration of the Spores of Sulphite-reducing Anaerobes (clostridia). Part 1: Method by Enrichment in a Liquid Medium. ISO 646171.

International Organization for Standardization. Water Quality: Enumeration of Viable Microorganisms—Colony Count by Inoculation in or on a Nutrient Agar Culture Medium. ISO 6222.

International Organization for Standardization. Water Quality: Detection and Enumeration of Coliform Organisms, Thermotolerant Coliform Organisms and Presumptive Escherichia coli, ISO 9308-2; Part 1 Membrane Filtration Method, Part 2 Multiple Tube. ISO 9308-1.

International Organization for Standardization. Water Quality: Detection and Enumeration of Faecal Streptococci; Part 1 Method by Enrichment in a Liquid Medium, Part 2 Method by Membrane Filtration. ISO 7899/2.

(b) Internet site: World Health Organization. http://www.who.org

AREA OF SELECTED KEY ECOSYSTEMS
Environmental	Biodiversity	Ecosystems

1. INDICATOR

(a) Name: Area of Selected Key Ecosystems.

(b) Brief Description: This indicator will use trends in the extant area of identified key ecosystems to assess the relative effectiveness of measures for conserving biodiversity at ecosystem level and as a tool to estimate the need for specific conservation measures to maintain the biological diversity in a country or region.

(d) Placement in the CSD Indicator Set: Environmental/ Biodiversity/Ecosystems.

2. POLICY RELEVANCE

(a) Purpose: The indicator has the potential to illustrate the effectiveness of national measures designed to conserve biological diversity and ensure its use is sustainable, including the measures implemented in fulfilment of obligations accepted under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development (theme/sub-theme): The CBD recognises that biodiversity has its own intrinsic value and that biodiversity maintenance is essential for human life and sustainable development. Many biological resources, at gene, species and ecosystem level, are currently at risk of modification, damage or loss.

(c) International Conventions and Agreements: The conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components are among the primary objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity. This indicator is of particular relevance to several articles of the CBD, e.g., Article 6 - General measures for conservation and sustainable use; Article 7 - Identification and monitoring; Article 8 - In-situ Conservation; and Article 10 - Sustainable use of components of biological diversity. The Convention has, in several COP decisions explicitly recognised the need for an ecosystem approach, and further formalised this position in Decision V/6 made at the fifth COP held in Nairobi in May 2000.

This indicator is relevant to many other global agreements for which the maintenance of biological diversity is important, including: Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn); Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES); United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOSS); Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar); Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention).

Related regional conventions and agreements include: Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Berne); Program for the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF); Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR); Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention).

(d) International Targets/Recommended Standards: Although there are no quantified international targets, there is a widely accepted need to avoid further loss of biological diversity. This could variously involve measures designed to maintain current levels of biodiversity, or to reverse current declining trends (e.g., in natural forest cover). Article 8 (In-situ Conservation) of the CBD, states that contracting parties shall, as far as possible and as appropriate, promote the protection of ecosystems, natural habitats and the maintenance of viable populations of species in natural surroundings.

The general objectives of the CBD provide targets for Parties to the Convention; these objectives could be used as a guide for non-Party states.

(e) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator has links to other environmental indicators relating to agriculture, forests, desertification, urbanisation, the coastal zone, fisheries water quality and species. Its trends are also linked to those in population and in economic indicators.

3. METHODOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION

(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: Few of the concepts and definitions are as yet clearly and consistently applied. Some important points are noted below.

‘Ecosystem’ refers to the plants, animals, micro-organisms and physical environment of any given place, and the complex relationships linking them into a functional system. Individual ecosystem types may be defined either according to composition in terms of life forms and species, or with respect to ecological processes such as nutrient cycling or carbon sequestration. The former is generally more straightforward for the purposes of area assessment. There is no standard classification of ecosystems.

‘Key ecosystems’ are at present not clearly defined. It is possible to suggest general criteria for selecting key ecosystems, but it will be the responsibility of countries to undertake this selection. This should be done in a consultative way that ensures that regional and global interests are evaluated in addition to national priorities. The choice will also be constrained by the level of detail in the data available. Among the criteria for selecting the key ecosystems are:

· Ecosystems containing rare or locally endemic or threatened species (see abundance of key species indicator), and especially those with concentrations of these species;

· Ecosystems of particularly high species richness;

· Ecosystems that represent rare or unusual habitat types;

· Ecosystems severely reduced in area relative to their potential original extent;

· Ecosystems under a high degree of threat.

Additional criteria might include the ease with which the ecosystem can be mapped (e.g., from remotely sensed data) and it actual or potential economic importance.

‘Area’ refers to the spatial extent of the ecosystem. This requires the definition of limits or boundaries to the ecosystem, which is difficult where similar or related ecosystems are adjacent. This is especially true if the condition or status of the ecosystem is also of concern. For example, forest area may remain relatively constant despite removal of a substantial proportion of the trees and attendant change in ecological processes.

(b) Measurement Methods: Ecosystem area will normally be derived from mapped data on land cover. This is most efficiently done using data in electronic form and Geographic Information System (GIS) software. Increasingly, land cover maps are derived from remotely sensed data, these will be combined with biological and other ancillary information to produce ecosystem maps. In some cases, retrospective information may be obtained from historical data sets to provide context and longer-term trends. The greatest difficulty is in arriving at an agreed ecosystem classification that is compatible with the available data. It is also fundamental to ensure consistency of the classification and the method of measurement, including considerations of spatial scale and resolution, over time.

How and whether data on different ecosystems should be combined into a single indicator has yet to be determined. It is possible that trends in ecosystem area may be combined in ways that are analogous to the approaches used for species population trends.

Ecosystem diversity distribution has not been mapped at an appropriate scale for many areas of high biological diversity. A structured monitoring framework using standardised classification procedures would provide one solution to this problem, but might well not meet the full range of needs for this type of data.

The indicator fails to account for variation in ecosystem status other than extent. Perturbations that do not affect total area will not be recognised through monitoring this indicator, nor will it be possible to anticipate likely future trends in ecosystem status through this indicator alone. Measures of ecosystem condition and protection status are needed to answer this deficiency.

(d) Status of the Methodology: No single universally accepted methodology currently exists. Assessments of land cover and of forest area have been carried out in a number of contexts, including the Forest Resources Assessment 2000 conducted by FAO, but the evaluation of specific forest types is more problematic. There has been little area assessment of other ecosystem types, although global and other land cover data sets do provide some relevant data. It is possible that trends in the areas of many ecosystems can be standardised and combined into a single index using an approach similar to that developed by WCMC and WWF (Loh et al. (1998, 1999, 2000) for use with species population data (see abundance of key species). In this method, an index value for each period is derived by normalising the geometric mean change over the period in the sample of species populations. Using ecosystem area in place of population size, a line graph of these index values would provide an indicator of change in the area of key ecosystems. The numbers and types of ecosystems included would be decided according to the types of criteria outlined above.

(e) Alternative Definitions/Indicators: Area may not be the best indicator of ecosystem status for biodiversity preservation. Many alternatives are area-related and include measures of fragmentation and of naturalness or exposure to the impacts of human activities (WCMC-UNEP 2000), and analysis of the protection status of ecosystems (Lysenko & Henry 2000; Lysenko et. al 1995), particularly in areas of high conservation priority.

4. ASSESSMENT OF DATA

(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: The principal data needed for this indicator are land cover data to which an agreed ecosystem classification has been applied. Agreement on the classification will depend upon consensus on key ecosystem types and on the type and quality of raw remotely sensed or other primary data. Supplementary data on distribution of key species, priority areas for biodiversity conservation, distribution of human population and infrastructure as well as protected areas could also be useful.

(b) National and International Data Availability and Sources: Land cover data are available at the global scale from the EROS Data Centre and also at regional (e.g., CORINE) and national scales for many countries. The challenge is in agreeing an appropriate classification that can be applied to the existing data. A further limitation is the frequency with which most such data sets are updated – the most current global data set relies on satellite data from 1992-93. Mapped data on global priority areas for biodiversity conservation, such as Centres of Plant Diversity, Endemic Bird Areas (EBAs), Important Bird Areas (IBAs), and Ramsar sites are held at WCMC-UNEP. Data on protected areas worldwide are held by WCMC-UNEP and updated frequently. Useful regional and national data sets are held by WWF-US, UNEP-GRID centres, national conservation and academic institutions.

(c) Data References: Selected references only are mentioned as a general guide to the kinds of data that are available for this type of work. UNEP-WCMC holds data on priority areas for biodiversity conservation and on coverage of some types of ecosystems (see http://www.unep-wcmc.org). Land cover data are available from Eros Data Centre (see http://edcdaac.usgs.gov/glcc/glcc.html) and from the CORINE programme (see http://www.satellus.se).

5. AGENCIES INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDICATOR

(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is World Conservation Monitoring Centre/UNEP (WCMC/UNEP).

(b) Other Contributing Organizations: The number of other organisations and individuals with the potential to contribute data or advice, or otherwise interested in further development of this indicator is very large. At global level, they would include inter alia: the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), IUCN – The World Conservation Union. Other concerned organisations include the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) in The Netherlands, and a very large number of governmental and non-governmental organisations, mainly in developed countries.

6. REFERENCES

(a) Readings:

Groombridge, B. and Jenkins, M. D. 1994. Assessing Biodiversity Status and Sustainability. WCMC Biodiversity Series No. 5. World Conservation Press, Cambridge, UK.

Loh, J., Randers, J., MacGillivray, A., Kapos, V., Jenkins, M., Groombridge, B., Cox, N. and Warren, B. 1999. Living Planet Report 1999. WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, Switzerland.

Loh, J., Randers, J., MacGillivray, A., Kapos, V., Jenkins, M., Groombridge, B. and Cox, N. 1998. Living Planet Report 1998. WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, Switzerland.

Loh, J. (Ed). 2000. Living Planet Report 2000. WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, Switzerland.

Lysenko I., Henry D. 2000. GAP Analysis in Support of CPAN: The Russian Arctic. CAFF Habitat Conservation Report No 9; CAFF International Secretariat, 2000.

Lysenko I.,Barinova S., Belikoff S., Bronnikova V., Dezhkin. 1995. GAP-Analysis. -Biodiversity Conservation Program for the Russian Federation. Global Environment Facility.

Mittermeier, R.A., N. Myers, J.B. Thomsen, G.A.B. da Fonseca, and S. Olivieri. 1998. Biodiversity hotspots and major tropical wilderness areas: Approaches to setting conservation priorities. Conservation Biology 12(3):516-520.

Stattersfield, A.J., Crosby, M.J., Long, A.J. and D.L.Wege. 1998. Endemic Bird Areas of the World: Priorities for their conservation. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 7. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK. 846pp.

UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 2000. European Forests and Protected Areas Gap Analysis: Technical Report. Cambridge, UK. 27pp.

UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 2000. Assessing forest integrity and naturalness in relation to biodiversity. Cambridge, UK. 75 pp.

(b) Internet sites:

http://www.biodiv.org/

http://www.unesco.org/whc/welcome.htm

http://www.ramsar.org

http://www.wetlands.agro.nl

http://www.ecnc.nl/doc/europe/legislat/bernconv.html

http://edcdaac.usgs.gov/glcc/glcc.html

http://www.satellus.se

Environmental Treaties and Resource Indicators (ENTRI)

http://www.fao.org/forestry

http://www.conservation.org/Hotspots/default.htm

http://www.gsf.de/UNEP/corine.html

PROTECTED AREA AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL AREA
Environmental	Biodiversity	Ecosystems

1. INDICATOR

(a) Name: Protected Area as a Percent of Total Area.

(b) Brief Definition: This indicator measures the area of protected land ecosystems, inland water ecosystems, and marine ecosystems expressed as a percentage of the total area of land ecosystems, inland water ecosystems and marine ecosystems respectively.

(d) Placement in the CSD Indicator Set: Environmental/Biodiversity/Ecosystems.

2. POLICY RELEVANCE

(a) Purpose: The indicator represents the extent to which areas important for conserving biodiversity, cultural heritage, scientific research (including baseline monitoring), recreation, natural resource maintenance, and other values, are protected from incompatible uses. It shows how much of each major ecosystem is dedicated to maintaining its diversity and integrity.

(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development (theme/sub-theme): Sustainable development depends on a sound environment, which in turn depends on ecosystem diversity. Protected areas are essential for maintaining ecosystem diversity, in conjunction with management of human impacts on the environment.

(c) International Conventions and Agreements: This indicator shows implementation of Article 8(a) of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

(d) International Targets/Recommended Standards: Recommendation 16 of the Fourth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas (Caracas, 1992) establishes a target of 10% protected area of each biome (major ecosystem type) by the year 2000 (McNeely 1993).

(e) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is linked to other indicators which have implications for land and resource use. These would include; Forest Area as a % of Land Area, Wood Harvesting Intensity, Area of Selected Key Ecosystems, Ratification of Global Agreements, etc.

This indicator is most meaningful when accompanied by indicators of the status of ecosystem diversity, particularly of ecosystem modification and conversion. Thus, the indicator of ecosystem protection would show how much of each major ecosystem is protected; and the indicator of ecosystem modification and conversion would show how much of each major ecosystem has been lost or excessively fragmented. This indicator is also linked to indicators of species diversity and environmental quality.

3. METHODOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION

(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The World Conservation Union defines six management categories of protected area in two groups. Totally protected areas are maintained in a natural state and are closed to extractive uses. They comprise Category I, Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area; Category II, National Park; and Category III, National Monument. Partially protected areas are managed for specific uses (e.g., recreation) or to provide optimum conditions for certain species or communities. They comprise Category IV, Habitat/Species Management Area; Category V, Protected Landscape/Seascape; and Category VI, Managed Resource Protected Area (IUCN 1994).

Totally protected areas are necessary to protect as wide a range as possible of intact communities and the species that depend on them. For such communities to persist and evolve “naturally”, buffered as far as possible against human activities, the areas need to be large.

Partially protected areas are useful when certain human activities are actually required to protect particular species or communities. They are also necessary to protect landscapes and seascapes as valued expressions of human relationships with nature. The size of the area is usually less important. Therefore, it is desirable to distinguish:

(i (i) the total percentage of the ecosystem area that is covered by totally protected areas;

(ii) the percentages of the ecosystem area covered by totally protected areas in different size classes (e.g., < 1 000 ha, ³ 1 000 ha, ³ 10 000 ha, ³ 100 000 ha, ³ 1 000 000 ha [larger size classes are possible only in large countries]);

(iii) the total percentage of the ecosystem area that is covered by partially protected areas.

For the purpose of this indicator, ecosystems are usually defined as ecoregional units. The minimum size of the units varies depending on the classification system and the size of the country (or other territory) being assessed.

(b) Measurement Methods: The usefulness of this indicator depends on clearly distinguishing totally protected areas and partially protected areas, since they have different, although complimentary, functions. Each requires a separate expression of the indicator as follows: Calculate the combined area of totally protected areas of 1000 ha. or more. Calculate the combined area of partially protected area regardless of size. Calculate the percentage of the total area occupied by each group.

The indicator can be mapped in two layers and linked to a database. One layer maps the ecosystems, the other the protected areas. The mapping software will usually calculate the sizes of the ecosystems and protected areas. Smaller protected areas may be mapped as points, in which case their size should be recorded in the database separately. The category of protected area should also be entered in the database, to distinguish totally protected and partially protected areas.

(c) Limitations of the Indicator: The indicator represents de jure not de facto protection. It does not indicate the quality of management or whether the areas are in fact protected from incompatible uses. It also gives a rather coarse picture of ecosystem protection. Additional detail would be needed to show the extent of disturbance of the ecosystem within each protected area, and coverage of rare or key ecological communities and habitats.

(d) Status of the Methodology: The methodology is increasingly used for land ecosystems, less so for marine ecosystems, and least for inland water ecosystems. Inland waters are usually lumped with the land in a terrestrial classification.

The methodology for this indicator has not been standardized.

(e) Alternative Definitions/Indicators: If a suitable ecosystem classification is not available, alternative indicators are terrestrial protected area (land and inland water) as a percentage of the total terrestrial area, and marine protected area as a percentage of the total marine area.

4. ASSESSMENT OF DATA

(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: A map of the ecosystems (ecoregions or equivalent) of the country or territory, preferably using a classification that is internationally compatible and valid for other countries and territories in the region. A map of the protected areas of the country or territory. A geo-referenced list of the protected areas, giving their sizes (area in hectares) and locations, and classifying them by protection category comparable to The World Conservation Union’s six management categories of protected area, see 3(a).

(b) National and International Data Availability and Sources: Major ecosystem classifications have been mapped for most regions and many countries. However, national classifications may not be compatible with other countries in their region, and few regional classifications are sufficiently detailed or accepted for nation use. Global classifications are generally too coarse. Most countries keep statistics on protected areas, but their protected area systems may not be accurately mapped.

In cooperation with the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas compiles the United Nations List of Protected Areas, which provides the name, IUCN category, location, size, and year of establishment of all protected areas of 1,000 hectares or more (plus smaller areas occupying entire islands) for all countries. WCMC maintains a copy of the UN list, compiles data on smaller protected areas, and has mapped most large areas and many smaller ones.

(c) Data references: United Nations List of Protected Areas (1997). Other data, including a prototype nationally designated protected areas database and a protected areas virtual library from WCMC.

5. AGENCIES INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDICATOR

(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and PADATA. The contact point is a member, International Assessment Team, fax no. (250) 474-6976.

(b) Other Contributing Organizations: World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC).

6. REFERENCES

(a) Readings:

Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories, McNeely, Jeffrey (ed.). 1993.

Parks for Life: report of the IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas. IUCN - The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland. Dinerstein, Eric, David M. Olson, et al. 1995.

A conservation assessment of the terrestrial ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean. The World Bank, Washington, DC. Ricketts, Taylor, Eric Dinerstein, et al. 1999.

A conservation assessment of the terrestrial ecoregions of North America. Volume I—the United States and Canada. Island Press, Washington, DC.

(b) Internet sites:

www.wcmc.org.uk/parks/index.htm

www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/index.html

United Nations List of Protected Areas 1997.

www.wcmc.org.uk/protected_areas/data/un_97_list.html

www.wcmc.org.uk/parks/index.htm

ABUNDANCE OF SELECTED KEY SPECIES
Environmental	Biodiversity	Species

(b) Brief Definition: This indicator uses estimates of population trends in selected species to represent changes in biodiversity, and the relative effectiveness of measures to maintain biodiversity.

(c) Unit of Measurement: Number of mature individuals or other relevant indicator of abundance within a given area or population.

(d) Placement in the CSD Indicator Set: Environmental/ Biodiversity/Species.

This indicator is relevant to many other global agreements for which the maintenance of biological diversity is important, including: Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn); Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES); United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOSS); Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar); International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

Related regional conventions and agreements include: Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats (Berne); Program for the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF); Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR); Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA).

(d) International Targets/Recommended Standards: Although there are no quantified international targets, there is a widely accepted need to avoid further loss of biological diversity. This could variously involve measures designed to maintain current levels of biodiversity, or to reverse current declining trends (e.g., in threatened species) or to reverse current increasing trends (e.g., in problematic alien species). The general objectives of the CBD provide targets for Parties to the Convention; these objectives could be used as a guide for non-Party states.

(e) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator can be linked to the majority of the CSD Environmental Core Indicators, eg. annual fisheries catch by major species. There may also be indirect links to social indicators, such as changes in human population.

(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: Few of the concepts and definitions are as yet clearly and consistently applied. Some important points are noted below.

‘Abundance’ - This may be defined as the number of mature individuals within the population or area under study. Where it is difficult or inappropriate to survey individuals, comparable surrogate units of measurement, such as number of nests (marine turtles) or spawning stock biomass (fishes), may be acceptable.

‘Key species’ - It is possible to suggest general criteria for selecting key species, but it will be the responsibility of nations to undertake this selection. This should be done in a consultative way that ensures that regional and global interests are evaluated in addition to national priorities. No single organism or related group of organisms can be expected to reflect comprehensively the patterns of distribution and abundance of all other taxa, and effective biodiversity indicators are likely in most cases to be based on an indicator group composed of several appropriate species. The following categories of species might be considered as ‘key species’ when developing a biodiversity monitoring programme:

· Keystone species: A taxon whose impact on the ecosystem or community studied is disproportionately large relative to its abundance (Caro and O’Doherty, 1998). The loss of these species will significantly impact upon the population sizes of other species in the ecosystem, potentially leading to further species loss (‘cascade effect’).

· Rare or locally endemic species: Any area contributes to global biodiversity by the overall number of different species within it (and the different higher taxa that are represented), and by the proportion of those that do not occur anywhere else (species endemic to the area). Conservation of endemic species, particularly those sharing a discrete geographic area, can be a cost-effective way to maintain global biodiversity levels.

· Threatened species: By definition, a threatened species represents actual or potential decline in biodiversity, and recovery of threatened species following management intervention is strongly indicative of successful conservation measures.

Any candidate ‘key species’ selected from the above categories, or whatever other categories may be deemed appropriate, can be further selected on the basis of other more general biological and logistic criteria. The following are among the characteristics that effective indicator species are likely to possess (e.g., Noss, 1990; Pearson, 1994):

· taxonomically well known, so that populations can be reliably identified, usually in the field,

· widely distributed at higher taxonomic levels (e.g., order, family, tribe, genus) across a large geographic and habitat range,

· diverse and include many specialist taxa at lower taxonomic levels (e.g., species or species populations) which would be sensitive to habitat change,

· representative to some extent of distribution and abundance patterns in other related and unrelated taxa,

(b) Measurement Methods: Information on species abundance should be collected through the consistent, long-term, application of an appropriate survey technique that is widely accepted by the scientific community. Examples of publications with details of field study methodologies for certain groups are given below. Retrospective population information may be obtained through review of published literature, including previous field study reports, seeking material that is appropriate for comparison with the ongoing methodologies adopted.

While it is in most cases impossible to count every individual within a population or area, a knowledge of habitat requirements and species population density in sample areas, coupled with data on climate, altitude, soil type or vegetation cover may be used to estimate population size in the area of interest. A geographic information system (GIS) is commonly used to analyse the spatial data. It is important that population size predictions are verified by fieldwork.

This indicator will be better capable of international integration if, after recording, abundance values are processed in a way that minimises or avoids the effects of different scales of change in species that are biologically very different. For example, raw abundance values derived from a large terrestrial predator and from Antarctic krill would need to be measured on scales possibly several orders of magnitude apart, making any comparison between them meaningless. This also bears on national selection of key species, whenever the goal is to derive a single integrated national indicator value for biodiversity change over time.

By definition, monitoring of indicator species will be a continuing process, but for studies within a set timeframe, species should have a life history that complements this period, i.e., there may be little benefit from attempting to monitor very long-lived species over a five-year period only. For studies within a set area it is preferable to avoid selecting taxa that are directly influenced by external events, for example species that annually migrate outside of the study area. For many purposes, it will be preferable to avoid species that show high amplitude annual or irregular variation in population number.

(c) Limitations of the Indicator: Application of this indicator is constrained by several factors, but these can mostly be overcome if resources and personnel are available. The main factor preventing the immediate and widespread application of this indicator is the scarcity of suitable time-series of population data. In practice, change in biodiversity at species and habitat level has to date very often been identified retrospectively, on an ad hoc basis, by means of largely anecdotal evidence, and using terms and units of measurement that are highly case-specific. A structured monitoring framework is preferred, with a secure project lifetime of many years. For comparative purposes, perhaps seeking to build a comprehensive continental or global picture from national data, it is important that similar parameters are measured in similar terms. Care should be taken in interpreting the results of studies based on indicator groups, since the empirical relationship between biodiversity in different groups of organisms has been little investigated.

(d) Status of the Methodology: No single practicable and universally accepted methodology currently exists. However, WCMC and WWF (Loh et al. (1998, 1999, 2000) have designed and implemented a system to generate indicators of biodiversity change over time, principally at global or continental level. Output from this system was first used in the WWF Living Planet Report 1998 and is more fully used in the year 2000 edition. This method is designed to make use of the very imperfect data that are available. The index value for each period is derived by normalising the geometric mean change over the period in the sample of populations. A line graph of these index values provides an indicator of biodiversity change. In principle, range area could be used where population counts are not available. This system is limited ultimately by the number of populations for which quantitative size (or area) estimates are available. A similar method has been used in the UK Government’s indicators programme (see http://www.environment.detr.gov.uk/sustainable/) to show population change in bird groups. Other related approaches have been used, and several other proposed biodiversity indicators remain at the design stage.

(e) Alternative Definitions/Indicators: The percentage of a country’s flora or fauna that is categorised as threatened with extinction provides a static view of the status of national biodiversity, and change over time in this proportion, or the changing membership of particular status categories, e.g., ‘Extinct in the Wild’ or ‘Critically Endangered’ could illustrate the effectiveness of measures for maintaining particular elements of biological diversity. This approach requires a stable species-level taxonomy, and a standard system for assessing conservation status. The IUCN Red List categories and criteria offer such a system. The value of this indicator is limited by the observation that in many instances change can be attributed to changes in taxonomy or in the availability of information, rather than to actual change in the conservation status of species. Permanent reduction in habitat area or quality will tend to lead to loss of some species originally present. Change in habitat area and quality (assessment of the latter is problematic) thus have the potential to indicate change in overall biodiversity.

(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: The preferred input would be sets of quantitative data on the population size of selected species within a given area, assessed at suitable time intervals using a standardised method.

(b) National and International Data Availability and Sources: In the absence of any comprehensive global programme for species monitoring, and of universal standards for national monitoring, suitable data are in relatively short supply. Several developed countries hold data that would be suitable as a basis for this indicator. These data have variously been collected by amateur field biologists or as part of official monitoring programmes. It is in some cases probable that much more information exists with individuals, groups and organisations than is generally known, and the problem is thus one of gaining access to suitable data. However, although the number of field surveys and biodiversity assessments has increased greatly in recent years, very little true monitoring has taken place in developing countries or biodiversity-rich countries in the tropics. These are the nations most likely to face difficulties in developing monitoring programmes, but also to be much in need of them. By far the greatest volume of readily available time-series data relate to stock estimates and catch levels (the latter not usually suitable for abundance estimation) in the marine fish populations targeted by industrialised fisheries of developed countries. The various management bodies are often sources of these data. The bird species that are surveyed regularly by networks of mainly amateur ornithologists in developed countries are by far the best known large terrestrial group.

(c) Data References: Selected references only are mentioned as a general guide to the kinds of work that exist in this field. Population data and analytic tools for birds and other groups can be accessed at the website of the United States Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research Centre (http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov), and see, for example, Sauer et al., 2000. Bird populations are the focus of one headline indicator in the UK Government’s strategy for sustainable development: DETR Government Statistical Service, 1999, Indicators for a Strategy of Sustainable Development for the UK: a baseline assessment (and see http://www.environment.detr.gov.uk/sustainable/). Extensive documentation on fish populations in the North Atlantic region is available at the website of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) (http://www.ices.dk). Results of the Living Planet Index methodology are presented in Loh et al., (1998, 1999, 2000), and the method itself will be submitted for publication at the end of 2000.

(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is World Conservation Monitoring Centre/UNEP (WCMC/UNEP).

(b) Other Contributing Organisations:. The number of other organisations and individuals with the potential to contribute data or advice, or otherwise interested in further development of this indicator is very large. At global level, they would include inter alia: the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), IUCN – The World Conservation Union. Other concerned organisations include the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) in The Netherlands.

Caro, T.M. and O’Doherty, G. 1998. On the use of surrogate species in conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 13(4): 805-814.

DETR Government Statistical Service. 1999. Quality of Life Counts 'Indicators for a Strategy of Sustainable Development for the UK: a baseline assessment'.

Groombridge, B. and Jenkins, M. D. 1994. Assessing Biodiversity Status and Sustainability. WCMC Biodiversity Series No 5. World Conservation Press, Cambridge, UK.

Loh, J., Randers, J., MacGillivray, A., Kapos, V., Jenkins, M., Groombridge, B., Cox, N. and Warren, B. 1999. Living Planet Report 1999. WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, Switzerland.

Loh, J., Randers, J., MacGillivray, A., Kapos, V., Jenkins, M., Groombridge, B. and Cox, N. 1998. Living Planet Report 1998. WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, Switzerland.

Loh, J. (Ed). 2000. Living Planet Report 2000. WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, Switzerland.

Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology, 4: 355-364.

Pearson, D.L. 1994. Selecting indicator taxa for the quantitative assessment of biodiversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences, 345: 75-79.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, I. Thomas, J. Fallon, and G. Gough. 2000. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 1999. Version 98.1, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

Bibby, C. J., N. D. Burgess, & D. A. Hill (1993) Bird census techniques. Academic Press, London.

Bibby, C. J., M. J. Jones, & S. J. Marsden (1998) Expedition field techniques: bird surveys. Expedition Advisory Centre, Royal Geographic Society/ BirdLife International, London.

Heyer, R. W., M. A. Donnelly, R. W. McDiarmid, L. C. Hayek, & M. S. Foster (eds.) Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Wilson, D.E., F.R. Cole, J.D. Nichols, R.Rudran, and M.S. Foster. (eds.). 1996. Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity, Standard Methods for Mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

ANNUAL WITHDRAWALS OF GROUND AND SURFACE WATER AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL RENEWABLE WATER
Environmental	Freshwater	Water Quantity