Convention on biological diversity

Box 9. Threats to Great Apes

Great apes are the closest living relatives of humans. The great ape group comprises the chimpanzee Pan troglodytes, the bonobo or pygmy chimpanzee, Pan paniscus, the gorilla Gorilla gorilla, and the orangutan, Pongo pygmaeus. All of these species may be keystone species in local forests as they are predominantly fruit eaters and play an important role in seed dispersal. All the great ape species are classified as “endangered” on the 2000 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2000), and certain subspecies, notably the mountain gorilla (Gorilla gorilla beringei) are critically endangered. The Red List notes that under a strict interpretation of IUCN categories, the common chimpanzee may, though, be classified as vulnerable.

Florida panthers (Felis concolor coryi) provide an example of the genetic effects that occur as a result of small population size. Fewer than 50 breeding Florida panthers exist in southern Florida, USA (Maehr 1992). Low population has resulted in a high rate of random gene fixation, causing poor sperm viability, low sperm motility, probably low juvenile survivorship and an apparently elevated susceptibility to disease (Hedrick 1995). Despite protection of its remaining habitat (representing only a small portion of its former range), the panther population has continued to decline. The underlying causes of decline of this subspecies are anthropogenic influences on habitat availability (logging, agriculture, settlement) and the direct cause of problems for recovery of the panther is the loss of genetic diversity. In this case, the population has declined well below the genetically effective breeding level.

The number of endangered species in a region is correlated to the area of habitat available, habitat quality and the history of land use (Pimm et al. 1995). However, extinction of a species may be time-delayed. The number of species that is expected to eventually go extinct due to past adverse environmental changes is called the ‘extinction debt’ (Tilman et al., 1994; Hanski 1999a). In NW European boreal forest there is a gradient in the intensity and continuation of forest use from Fennoscandia, with an historically high intensity of forest use, to north-western Russia where the forests have exploited over a shorter time and at a lower intensity (Martikainen et al., 1996; Martikainen, 2000). This gradient is also reflected in the number of forest species in the Red List. In Finland, Norway and Sweden, forest-dwelling species form 37-51 % of all threatened species (WWF, 2001). However, many species endangered in Fennoscandia still have viable populations in Russia. For example, most local extinctions of threatened saproxylic beetles, which are habitat specialists and good indicators of old-growth forests, have happened in southern areas with the longest history of forest use and smallest proportions of recent old-growth forests (Hanski, 2000) Intensive forestry has moved from south to north, and consequently time-delayed extinctions would also be expected to spread from south to north.

Genetic diversity is needed to ensure the adaptability of a species to changing environmental conditions, as well as its continued evolution (e.g., FAO, 1993). With very few exceptions, long-term conservation of a particular species is synonymous with maintaining genetically variable populations, comprising gene complexes co-adapted to particular environmental conditions. The primary objective of gene conservation is to create conditions that will enable and enhance future evolution of the species, with a subordinate goal being to capture genes at frequencies >0.01 and to capture existing adaptations that may occur in different populations (Eriksson et al., 1995). This will involve maintenance of a dynamic system in which the species may continue to evolve in response to changes in its environment. At the same time, management for conservation implies the avoidance of any rapid erosion of genetic variability. Eriksson et al. (1995) suggested that alleles at frequencies <0.01 have little effect on additive genetic variance and hence are of little immediate effect on adaptability. Therefore, it is not necessary to save all alleles at all loci, and because evolution over the next several generations is not dependent on rare alleles, while conserving them is desirable, it is not an immediate concern.

There appears to be no direct relationship between the diversity of species or genes in an ecosystem and its biomass, productivity or role in the biogeochemical cycle (Holdgate, 1996). Relatively low-diversity systems, e.g. native forests dominated by a few tree species and various monocultural tree plantations, may be stable over many decades. Nevertheless, the likely impact of loss of biodiversity for ecosystem function, in terms of species and within-species variation, has recently been summarized (Anon., 2000: Who is this anon.?) as follows: "The prevailing view in ecology is that diverse ecosystems consisting of viable components are more resilient than ecosystems with few species. Large numbers of species in an ecosystem provide alternative trophic webs and ways of providing ecosystem services. The loss of a few key species in a low-diversity system may lead to the collapse of the system because of the lack of alternative trophic or nutrient pathways to support higher trophic species. Maintaining high levels of genetic diversity within species, and high levels of diversity among species, is the best first approximation to maintaining ecosystem health". Biodiversity and the presence of greater numbers of species in key functional groups may build some redundancy into the system, but because we do not know the full potential of functional groups or species it is wise not to make assumptions about redundancy. Further, species redundancy is but one of the theories explaining biological diversity. For example, other theories suggest that no such redundancies exist and that all species relate to forest function (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981). Species richness and genetic information may provide a buffer for certain forest types and enable healthy ecosystems to be reconstituted under a wide variety of conditions (Holdgate, 1996), and/or increase reliability of their functioning (Naaem, 1998), especially in any rapidly changing environment, as may be the case with global climate change.
Table 11. : Consequences of forest biodiversity loss from the perspectives of different segments of society. (From CIFOR, 2000)

Societal Group		Implications of Continuing FBD loss
Forest-dwelling indigenous communities	    	Loss of spiritual values. Disruption of traditional structures and communities, breakdown of family values, and social hardship. Loss of traditional knowledge of use and protection of forests in sustainable ways. Reduced prospects for preservation of forest environmental and aesthetic functions of interest and potential benefit to society as a whole. Loss of forest products providing food, medicine, fuel and building materials.
Forest farmers and shifting cultivators	      	For shifting cultivators, an immediate opportunity to survive. Forest degradation and declining soil fertility. Loss of access to forest land and the possibility of food crop production and reduced possibilities for harvesting forest products, both for subsistence and income generation. Prospects of malnutrition or starvation. Disruption of family structures and considerable social hardship.
Poor and landless local communities living outside forests	  	Decreased availability of essential fruits, fuelwood, fodder and other forest products. Reduced agricultural productivity, through loss of the soil and water protection potential of remnant woodlands and on-farm trees and loss of shelterbelt influence leading to reduced crop yield. Reduced income generation and possibilities to escape poverty
Urban dwellers	  	In developing-country situations, reduced availability (and/or overpriced) of essential forest products such as fuelwood, charcoal, fruits, building materials and medicinal products. Loss of the amenity and recreational values of urban forests and parks and those afforded by national forest parks and wilderness areas. Reduced prospects for assured supplies of clean drinking water and clean air.
Commercial forest Industries and forest worker communities	   	Immediate large profits. In the long-term, loss of company business and forced closure of forest operations. Loss of jobs for forest-dependent communities, social disruption and hardship. Loss of income and possible negative social implications of reduced income of shareholders with significant savings invested in forest industrial company stocks
Mining, oil exploration and other industrial interests	  	Improved access to potentially profitable mineral, oil or other commercially valuable products located under forests. Increased profitability of company operations and returns to company shareholders. Politically negative impact on company operations of criticism by environmentally concerned groups.
Environmental Advocacy groups and conservation agencies	   	Loss of the essential environmental functions of forests, including biodiversity, climate regulation, preservation of water catchments and fishery values, that these groups are concerned with preserving. Loss of cultural values and social hardship for the underprivileged communities whose welfare these groups are committed to protect. Increased problems of environmental pollution. Loss of those forest values that could be of vital importance and/or interest to the survival and welfare of future generations.
The global Community	  	Prospects that continued forest destruction will accelerate global warming with potentially negative consequences for human welfare and survival. Continuing biotic impoverishment of the planet, loss of genetic resources, and all that implies for sustainable food production and loss of potentially valuable medicinal and other products. Increasing pollution and toxicity of forest soils, contributing to declining forest health.
National government planners and decision makers	   	Immediate escape from political pressures when impoverished populations migrate to frontier forest areas. Loss of a potential source of development revenues with consequences of reduced employment and opportunities, sustainable trade and economic development. Loss of the wide range of environmental functions that forests provide in contributing to societal needs and an habitable earth. Loss of political support in situations where forestry loss and degradation adversely affect the welfare of many citizens.

E. Forests conserved in protected areas

Illegal logging operations are responsible for removing valuable tree species and causing overall impoverishment of the ecology of many protected areas (Bruner et al., 2001; WWF 2000). WWF has reported evidence of illegal logging in over 70 countries, including many operations in protected areas, which often appear to be particularly targeted (Carey et al., 2000). Besides these problems, recreation and tourism tend to concentrate on protected areas resulting in various forms of disturbance to these ecosystems. Serious degradation to PAs is occurring in many key forested countries, such as Peru, Indonesia and the Russian Federation. The threats are not evenly distributed around the world – Africa appears to be the worst affected region. However, damage to PAs is not confined to the poorest countries, and a recent report pointed out that only one of Canada’s 39 national parks is free from ecological damage (WWF, 2000). Even isolated PAs are not immune from global threats such as climate change and tourism (WWF, July 2000).

Many of the protected areas marked on maps have never actually been implemented: a phenomenon known as “paper parks” and have been subjected to considerable extractive uses (WWF, 2000). Others have been put in place but continue to be degraded and, in some cases, destroyed, either because they have not been provided with adequate staff and resources or because they face threats beyond the capacity or the range of individual managers (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996). Others still have failed because protected area managers, or their employers, have failed to consider human needs and aspirations and the role of human communities living in and around protected areas, or else the involvement of local communities in the designating process of these areas has been deficient (e.g. Richards, 1996)..

At the same time, conservation planning has not always been systematic with the result that many PAs are poorly sited, resource-starved or badly managed, and some new reserves do not contribute to the representation of biodiversity or take into account the concerns of indigenous peoples (E.g. Horowitz 1998). As a result, the pattern of protection is still largely uneven. In particular, some forest types remain highly under-represented in Pas (ter Steege, 1998), and too many PAs still exist as isolated islands rather than integral parts of properly designed reserve networks or managed landscapes e.g. Barnard et al. 1998).

F. Climate change

To forecast the precise impacts of climate change on FBD is difficult, because they are overshadowed by the confounding effects of human-induced modifications, especially those of dominating land use patterns (Sala et al., 2000). Despite varying opinions about the nature and extent of the impact of climate change on biological diversity, there is a general agreement that biological diversity will decline worldwide under most models of climate change scenarios (e.g. Bazzaz 1998, Easterling et al., 2000). Forest fragmentation is likely to increase with global warming due to increasing seasonality, desiccation and higher incidence of forest fires (Thompson et al. 1998).

Climate modelling suggests that a warming trend will lead to large changes in many areas of the earth but especially in the northern latitudes. A warmer climate will produce changes in the boreal forest biome, where the primary productivity will increase in the north but not necessarily in the south (Beuker et al. 1996), but also result in an invasion of southern species, increasing impacts of pathogens, altered fire regimes and various natural disasters caused by episodic storm events (Shugart et al., 1992, Monserud et al., 1996). The probable destruction of permafrost accompanying climate change (Dyke and Brooks, 2001) and human land use will cause major landscape degradation and loss of biological diversity over large areas (Sala et al. 2000). Areas of northern taiga and treed tundra are predicted to be replaced by more productive boreal forests as climate warming occurs, while some drier southern boreal areas may become savannahs (Solomon 1993, Suffling, 1995; Thompson et al., 1998).

The capacity of forest associations and individual component species/populations to adapt to changed climatic conditions has been greatly diminished by fragmentation, with reduced gene flow and migration options (Thompson et al. 1998). Climate change in combination with increasing fragmentation of forests is likely to cause extinction of certain species, especially among arthropods and plants (Reid, 1992; Botkin and Nisbet, 1992; Kirschbaum et al., 1996), More mobile, widespread, genetically variable species with short generation times will be best able to adapt and survive accelerated climate change. Forest tree species with restricted ranges, especially slow-growing late successional species or those with restricted seed dispersal, are especially vulnerable to climate change (Kirschbaum et al., 1996). Forests that are rich in restricted-range endemic species are likely to be particularly adversely affected (Lovett et al. 2000). Further, changes brought on by climate warming must be viewed in the context of already disturbed landscapes, making comparisons with historical post-glacial migrations problematic (Kuuluvainen et al., 1996).

Natural fires are a crucial element for the succession of many forests, especially in boreal areas. Prescribed burning, mimicking wildfires, should be used to a greater extent in restoration of forests in conservation areas and also in some managed forests. In the changing climate, however, natural and human-caused fires can have deleterious impacts on FBD; for instance, after the predicted prolonged periods of drought (see in more detail UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/7/7). These fires have destroyed many important fire refugia on which many forest species intolerant to fire are dependent. Both the unusual frequency and new regional occurrence of fires may be attributed to climate change.

G. The need to develop monitoring programmes

Scientifically based general indicators for measuring biodiversity are not yet available for all forest types or countries, although many countries have begun reporting on various indicators. Loss of (natural) forest cover is sometimes used as a coarse indicator (see Chapter I) at the global or regional level. Species or species groups can be used as indicators at the national, landscape or ecosystem levels, but very often information on species is limited and difficult to obtain. Nonetheless, species or groups of species are likely to be used for many reasons as national or local indicators (Noss and Cooperrider 1991). As an alternative, structural characteristics (tree species composition, tree age, standing dead wood) can be important parameters on landscape or ecosystem scales and might make suitable local indicators (Spies and Franklin, 1991).

The use of advanced technology has become routine among developed countries in forest management programs, but lack of such technologies may affect the capacity to protect biodiversity, Forest types, ecosystem types and landscape structures can be monitored to determine changes in tree cover, (main) tree species composition, tree age-classes and availability of successional stages by using various remote sensing methods linked to computer imaging programs, and geographic information systems. Various sophisticated modelling tools exist to predict changes in forest ages and types based on known and expected rates of logging, autecological rules and expected silviculture applications. Modelling, based on sample data and expert opinion, has become increasingly important in forest management planning to predict large-scale changes.

Monitoring to examine the effects of forest clearing and forest management is a difficult task because of our incomplete knowledge of species in many countries, difficulties in selecting aspects to monitor, lack of classifications of local ecosystems, logistical and cost considerations, and lack of required technologies. At the species level, rare, threatened and endangered species must be monitored to track populations and indicate effects of management programmes and protection schemes. However, other species can also be used to track broader changes in forest condition. Many techniques exist for monitoring species and communities of plants and animals. Regardless of method, an important aspect is that the methods should be consistent among surveys and observers to enable comparisons among years and locations. Surveys must also be designed to allow proper data analysis, which gives valid results. Monitoring should also be conducted to test hypotheses that relate to changes (possibly specific changes) in forest capability to support biological diversity (Walters and Holling 1992).

In Canada, McLaren et al. (1998) suggested that a series of criteria should be applied to the selection of vertebrate indicator species based on three main categories: biological factors, available methods for censuses, and political considerations (see Annex II.). While the criteria of McLaren et al. (1998) were established for vertebrates, they apply equally to plants and invertebrate species. Noss (1999) has suggested a series of groups from which indicator species might be selected. These include: area-limited species which require the largest minimum dynamic areas to maintain populations; dispersal-limited species which have only limited capacity to move among patches of habitat; resource-limited species that require a resource(s) that is in short supply; process-limited species which are sensitive to certain ecological process which are infrequent or at low levels; keystone species; and species with limited geographical ranges.

Several models exist that can be used to predict total species based on the number of species detected in a survey. Rarefaction models (e.g., Krebs, 1989) have been employed for many years to suggest upper limits to species richness. Soberon and Llorente (1993) reviewed three species accumulation curves where sampling time was the independent variable: Clench equation, exponential, and logarithmic models. This approach has not received wide attention from conservation biologists, but the results from Soberon and Llorente suggest that the approach has merit in certain situations: for example, when comparing species presence among landscapes where temporal restrictions apply. Such modelling of communities offers an additional approach to ‘indicate’ and predict change in forest function.

The difficulties and shortcomings with basing biological diversity conservation efforts solely on individual species management plans have been well documented (Simberloff, 1998; Maddock and Du Plessis, 1999). Nevertheless, both individual and aggregated species data, such as the ‘hotspot’ or ‘centres of diversity’ and ‘centres of endemism’ approach (UNEP, 1995) will likely continue to play a role in conservation of forest biological diversity. Priority forested areas for conservation have sometimes been identified by comparing “biological diversity hot spot” data with forest cover data. Hot spot data sets include those developed for endemic bird species, WMCM/IUCN ‘centres of plant diversity’, WWF-US Global 2000 eco-regions, and Conservation International’s hotspots [give references for these concepts]. WWF and IUCN have identified 234 priority centres of plant diversity or endemism, each with at least 1000 vascular plant species, of which 100 or more are endemic. As mentioned previously, one of the main problems with this approach is that ‘hotspots’ vary among different taxonomic groups. Furthermore, species distribution data are very incomplete, e.g., data are only available for about 3 percent of described species (WCMC, 1990). However, ‘hotspots’ may reflect our degree of knowledge of richness in particular groups of more obvious taxa, in particular, and better-sampled areas, as much as representing real concentration of species diversity. However, if a high degree of endemism exists within a hotspot, the relative importance of the area is increased (UNEP 1995).

Monitoring and inventory of genetic diversity, the finest scale, may be appropriate for several purposes. First, in the case of endangered species it is often important to determine whether a particular population is indeed a separate species or subspecies to meet designation criteria. Second, it may become important to understand whether population genetic processes have reduced variability within a species to a point where it may be affecting breeding success. Inventorying genetic diversity might be used to determine the future usefulness of various potential crop plants.

H. Current positive trends in forestry and forest policies

An objective to forests as ecosystems has been widely adopted in the national forest policies, particularly in developed countries. New tools to implement sustainable forest management, such as criteria and indicators, are being introduced. Guidelines for good forest practices, including low impact logging, natural disturbance guidelines, and protection of species are being adopted as a part of the ecosystem management methods. At present, it is still too early to say what is the success may be of these various approaches in maintaining forest biological diversity. Conservation of biological diversity has also become a feature of national forest policy and planning in many countries. However, the level of integration of conservation and forestry issues varies greatly from one country to another.

Preparation of national forest programs (NFPs) in many countries resulted from the IPF/IFF process and the assistance provided by international organisations. NFPs encompass the full range of policies, institutions, plans and programmes to manage, utilise, protect and enhance forest resources within a given country. Under the Convention on Biological diversity (CBD) most countries have prepared country studies and reports on the state of biodiversity. A further step was preparation of national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBDSAPs). These provide general information on diversity of forest species and ecosystems, and their principal uses in particular countries. The strength of both IPF/IFF and CBD processes is related to the political commitment generated and the flexibility that allows each country to determine its conservation and forest programmes according to national conditions. Various coordinating bodies are also established in many countries in order to enhance collaboration between various stakeholders and to integrate biodiversity issues into sectoral policies.

The concept of the use of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management was perhaps the most comprehensive policy-related, yet practical, tool to gain popular acceptance following UNCED. This is reflected in the worldwide application of this concept, which began several years ago. Within the forest sector, the approach of identifying and developing indicators has been unique. Under regional and international processes and initiatives, the components of sustainable forest management have been characterised by criteria for which indicators are used to transform the concept into a measurable form. At present there are nine regional or international processes that have developed criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management for the specific conditions in the respective regions. The nine are: ITTO, CIFOR, ATO, Montreal-Process, Pan-European Forest Process (MCPFE), Tarapoto-process, Dry Zone Africa-process, Near East–Process and Lepaterique-Process. Some countries have already made changes to their forest laws and institutions to meet the requirements of the concept of criteria and indicators. Indeed, this concept is increasingly used in the context of national forest programmes and, more recently, it is being used at the local and forest management unit levels. In some countries and initiatives, concept using criteria and indicators has been linked to certification, which has gained increasing attention in recent years.

The role of regional initiatives in sustainable forest management has been important in implementing and operationalising international initiatives. For example, in the context of the Ministerial Conference for Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) and its follow-up process, the ministers responsible for forests in Europe adopted six criteria and endorsed the associated indicators for sustainable forest management by signing Lisbon Resolution L2 in 1998²⁹. Criterion 4 and the related seven quantitative and 26 descriptive indicators are focused exclusively on biological diversity. They relate to the maintenance, conservation and enhancement of biological diversity, including rare and vulnerable forest ecosystems, threatened species and biological diversity in production forests.

Awareness of the importance of forests to the approximately 400 million people that live in and around them and largely depend on them for their well-being and subsistence has been increased, and there is also a rise in willingness to accept issues related to rights, needs and participatory possibilities of indigenous people and local communities in the context of forest conservation and management. This positive development includes interests by donor institutions to collaborate directly with indigenous and local communities, policy revision by many actors (e.g. WWF principles; EU policy on cooperation, donor agencies, WB, UNDP, etc.), increased acceptance of traditional knowledge and collaborative participation in forest conservation and management, including participation of indigenous people in the management of protected areas However, these changes have happened largely at international level and have not yet materialized sufficiently in national policies.