You are on page 1of 41

Proposals for Improvement of

Cities’ Biodiversity Index
(Tentative)

CBI as tools for assessment & communication

… 2
… 3
… 4

Points of proposals

… 5

Diversity of cities
Diverse cities, diverse challenges

0.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

Indicators on Characteristics of the City
… 7
Indicators on Biodiversity in the City
… 11
Indicators on Ecosystem Services in the City
… 21
Indicators on Pressure on Ecosystems within the City
… 25
Indicators on Dependence on Ecosystems outside the City … 29
Indicators on Local Action
… 33

Session 7
Valuation and Monitoring of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Cities

URBIO2010
20 May 2010, Nagoya, Japan
th

Masashi Kato
City of Nagoya
Aichi-Nagoya COP10 CBD Promotion Committee
1

Diversity of cities
City area & population density
Population density
thousand/㎞ 2
100

High density
(City = Urban)

30

Cairo

Mumbai
Metro Manila

Paris

Tokyo
NY

Osaka

10

X Japan
Asia
Oceania
Europe
Africa
N. America
L. America

Moskva
Sao Paulo

Nagoya

Bangkok, LDN
Shanghai

3

Aichi pref.
Beijing

1
10

100

200

500

1000

2000

㎞2

5000 10000

100000

Chongqin

Urban area +
vast Rural area
0.1

City area

Average temperature & annual rainfall
3000 ㎜

Naha

Shizuoka

×

×

2000 ㎜

Mumbai
Manaus
Singapore
Abidjan

Nagoya

×

Seoul
NY
Vladivostok
Moskva
Ulaan Baatar

Paris

Sydney
Buenos Aires
Shanghai

×

Mexico

Sapporo

La Paz

Sao Paulo

Tokyo

×

Montreal

1000 ㎜

Hanoi

Brussels
Nairobi
Istanbur
LDN
Rome

Berlin

Beijing

Edmonton

Madrid

LA
Tehran
Lima

10℃

20℃

2

Bangkok
Miami

Hyderabad

Cape Town

0㎜
0℃

Jakarta
Kolkata
Manila

Caracas
Dacar
Cairo

Karachi
Dubayy

30℃

Diverse cities, diverse challenges
Characteristics of the city
Historical/Social

Climatic/Geographical

Potential of
urban ecosystems

Driver/Pressure

State/Impact

Pressure on
Ecosystems within the city

Biodiversity

Ecosystem services

Land-use/Habitat change
Pollution/Nutrient load

Over-exploitation
Invasive species

Problem-solving capability
of the city

Climate change

Dependence on
ecosystems outside the city

Response

Ecological footprint

City planning & management
Participation & partnership

Sustainability of the urban environment
Citizen’s well-being
supported by ecosystem services
Sustainability of the global environment

3

CBI as tools for assessment & communication
Self assessment
1.

“Potential of urban ecosystems” in the city
Basic conditions (climate, topography, geological features, water
systems, etc.)
A wide range of high to low quality biotopes

2.

“Services of urban ecosystems” in the city
Urban ecosystems as environmental infrastructure
(water cycling, nutrient cycling, soil formation & retention,
water purification, pest regulation, climate regulation,
natural hazard protection, cultural services, etc.)

3.

“Pressure on ecosystems” within the city
“Dependence on ecosystems” outside the city

4.

“Problem-solving capability” of the city
Mandates on biodiversity related services
Influence on production, distribution and consumption

Citizen’s consensus
Information-sharing
(Results)

Information-sharing
(States)

Action

Planning

Partnership

Participation

4

Points of proposals
1. Provisional Common Indicators
・ Establish common indicators for basic elements.
・ For the time being, leave them as “provisional,” due to the diverse conditions of
the cities.

2. Common Indicators, Different Weights
・ Use scores as a yardstick for cities to understand their conditions.
・ Each city determines the weighting of elements necessary for its overall
assessment.
・ The total scores among cities will not be compared because independent
weighting of elements makes this meaningless.

3. Additional Indicators for Development by Each City
・ Each city shall add or develop indicators according to their respective
conditions so as to complement the common indicators.

4. Continuous Fine-tuning through Sharing of Experience
Towards COP10
・ Prepare Provisional Common Indicators based on the trial results of the
Singapore Index tested in multiple cities
・ At the City Biodiversity Summit to be held as an associated event to the COP10,
appeal to the cities of the world for the use of Provisional Common Indicators
and the development of Additional Indicators that reflect the actual conditions
of each city.
Towards COP11
・ Exchange experiences (in the use of common indicators and the development
of additional indicators) among various cities based on the appeal made above.
・ Fine-tune the Common Indicators based on the experiences exchanged.
・ Provide information that will assist cities in developing their Additional
Indicators

5

6

0.

Indicators on Characteristics
of the City

The cities in the world are diverse. They have diverse natural environments
and different social conditions.
Urban ecosystems are impacted considerably by human activities. They are
also affected to a great extent by climate, topography, geological condition, water
system, etc. Simply deliberating upon whether the numbers of species are many or
few is meaningless. It is important to discern what a sound ecosystem means to that
area.
Urbanization condition, population growth rate, and the like are policy
variables for a city. In reality, however, they have become the given conditions and
constraints to many cities.
The characteristics of the natural and social conditions of cities are more
easily elucidated by comparing them among cities. Development of Indicators on
the Characteristics of the City is proposed in order for cities to be able to assess
their own biodiversity.

7

Provisional Common Indicators
(Revisions)

Singapore Index

0. Characteristics of the city
Climate/geographical conditions
[0-1] Average temperature
6

12

A

20 >20℃

[0-2] Annual rainfall
0

500

1000

1800 >1800mm

[0-3] Undulation (vertical interval)
0

100

300

1000 >1000m

500

1000

Urbanization
[0-4] City area
0

200

>1000 km2

[0-5] Proportion of urban area
100

65

35

10

0%

[0-6] Population density of urban area
20

10

5

000person
/km2

[0-7] Population increase (latest 10 years)
+20%

8

+5%

0% decrease

Additional Indicators for Development by Each City

Reference: Overall conditions of metropolitan areas in Japan
DID

Difference
in altitude

City area

within city

%

Green cover

Density

m

km2

%

Person/ ha

Shizuoka

3,189

1,389

7

61

Hamamatsu

2,296

1,511

6

56

Sendai

1,500

788

16

Sapporo

1,486

1,100

Fukuoka

1,053

Hiroshima

Entire

Urban

city

area
%

%

70

78

25

20

79

76

21

341

44

90

59

25

1,050

905

15

74

75

23

Kyoto

962

828

17

99

78

24

Kobe

931

553

27

95

Kita-kyushu

900

488

32

57

65

29

Sakai

260

150

70

76

Nagoya

200

326

84

79

25

21

Yokohama

159

435

80

100

29

20

Kawasaki

148

144

92

100

Chiba

105

272

43

70

49

17

Tokyo (23 wards)

57

622

100

137

30

29

Osaka

40

222

100

118

6

6

Saitama

23

217

53

93

9

10

A. Indicators on Biodiversity
in the City
Human activities have a strong influence on the urban ecosystems. However,
city residents have many more neighbors than they realize that are making habitats
and breeding in the cities, that is, wildlife.
Among the wildlife that lives in cities, some can adapt to the artificial
environments and some cannot. Those that cannot adapt are on the brink of local
extinction. It is not only that the numbers of species that inhabit and breed and their
populations are in decline, but the original balance of the ecosystems has collapsed.
However, urban ecosystems are not only declining. Improvements are also
found: the improved river quality has restored fish species and along with that, birds
have returned.
What efforts are effective in restoring sound balance to the ecosystems in
accordance with the condition of each city? Indicators on Biodiversity in the City
are the starting point of the search for an answer.
There is a wide array of habitats in the city. Which part of these habitats
should have priority for conservation and which part should have priority for
restoration? The answers vary depending on the condition of the city. Some cities
may need not only indicators that evaluate the city in general but also indicators that
evaluate the city in smaller units.
While common indicators can serve as a start, it is hoped that every city will
develop their own original indicators that can reflect the conditions of their own city.

11

Provisional Common Indicators
(Revisions)

Singapore Index

1. Native Biodiversity in the City

A. Biodiversity in the City
Richness and diversity of
ecosystems/habitats

(2) Number of natural ecosystems found in the
city

0

1

4

7


BC

[A-1] Ecosystems/habitats found within the city

10& more

《Revise (2): must be devised by each city

using the following as reference》

A

S

a)

B

C

D

Broadleaf evergreen forest
Broadleaf deciduous forest
Needleleaf evergreen forest

Nagoya

Needleleaf diciduous forest

B

Brussels

Mixed forest

C

Curitiba

Shrub

S

Singapore

Savanna
b)


Herbaceous
Lawn

c)


Wetland
Tideland
Mangrove

d)


River
Pond / Reservoir
Ocean
Inner bay with abundant nature

Artificial inner bay
e)


Cropland
Paddy field

f)

Bare area (sand)
Bare area (gravel, rock)

g)

Others
A: Exist in large patches
B: Fragmented medium-sized patches
C: Dispersed and isolated in urban area
D: Exist only in part
(can have multiple answers)

12

Additional Indicators for Development by Each City

* Biodiversity in a city is dependent not just on the area of natural and semi-natural land but also on the
topography, geological condition, water system, and the diversity of the city’s ecosystems/habitats sustained
by such natural conditions..
“A wide range of high to low quality biotopes1)” is the special attribute of a city.
They are an invaluable natural asset to the city and are the starting point for “cultivating biodiversity2)”.
1)

Brussels’ presentation (ICLEI World Congress, Edmonton, Jun. 2009)

2)

Montpellier’s presentation (2nd Curitiba Meeting on city and biodiversity, Jan. 2010)

Therefore, it is hoped that self-assessment (reevaluation of natural assets) will focus on the distribution of the
ecosystems/habitats, irrespective of their sizes, and be carried out based on the actual conditions of the city.

13

Provisional Common Indicators
(Revisions)

Singapore Index

(1) % of natural/semi-natural areas
0

1-6 7

0

14

[A-02] % of green and water surface besides
farmland

21% & more

(a-d of the previous page, makes

no distinction between natural and artificial)

B

CS

《revised》
100

75

50

25

10

0%

[A-03] % of protected areas and parks among the

(10) % of protected areas

above

5% & more

(areas where conservation of the

0

1-2

3

4

current situation are officially secured=areas

S

BC

of

conservation/regulation + parks

with

abundant nature)《revised》
50

ecosystems)

100
2.5

BC

S

10

0%

parks 《revised》

(mean patch size of natural/semi-natural
1

20

[A-04] Mean patch size of protected areas and

(3) Fragmentation measures

<1

30

2

5

15km & more

50

20

10

0ha

[A-05] % of farmland 《new addition》
100

75

14

50

25

10

0%

Additional Indicators for Development by Each City

* Anthropogenic green space, such as parks and gardens, accounts for a large percentage of vegetation in
cities.
It is important to not view such green space as having less ecological value than the natural and
semi-natural areas but rather to try to bring the anthropogenic green space to a sound and sustainable
condition as much as possible.
Some cities may need to look at smaller units, such as distinction between urban areas and non-urban areas,
to understand the actual situation.
* The definition of protected area is not the same for all cities.
The protection/regulation levels vary, ranging from protected areas that are required to maintain the current
state to protected areas that allow certain usages.
The variety of such flexible protection/regulation approaches is expected to increase in the future.
Therefore, it is expected that cities devise their own indicators for areas “officially secured for
environmental conservation” based on each city’s condition while using the left as reference.
* Because land use in a city is segmented into small units, it is not easy to calculate the average patch size for
the natural and semi-natural areas.
For this reason, only the average patch size of the protected areas/parks, etc. is considered here.
There are cities that make efforts to reconnect fragmented habitats using corridors.
It is expected that an indicator that can validate the outcomes of activities carried out by a city will be
developed, rather than the one that considers only the average patch size.
* Farmland is a precious habitat for a city and for the suburban areas of a city.
The increase or decrease in the area of farmland and the quality of the farmland ecosystem are an important
concern to a city’s biodiversity.

Reference: Green space and water surface of Nagoya(percentage to the city’s overall area)

Forest/Grove

Urban

Rural

Whole

area

area

city

Forest/Grove (park)

2%

Herbaceous/Lawn (park)

2%

11%

10%

11%

Herbaceous/Lawn

5%

21%

6%

Forest/Grove (private)

4%

Cropland

3%

22%

4%

Herbaceous/Lawn (private)

3%

Water bodies

2%

17%

3%

Grove (building estate)

5%

21%

69%

25%

Herbaceous/Lawn (building estate)

1%

Total

15

Roadside trees

0.5%

Provisional Common Indicators
(Revisions)

Singapore Index

Richness and diversity of species
[A-06] Total number of species

(4) Native biodiversity in built-up area
(bird species)
0
1-3

《combine (4)-(9), and revise》
4-5

6-7

8 & more

* Fill in the table below.

Select the necessary taxonomical groups in

BCS

accordance with the condition of the city.

(5) Number of native species (plants)
0 1-99 100 500 1000 & more


B


CS

(6) Number of native species (birds)
0

1- 50

100

150 151 & more

B


CS

(7) Number of native species (butterflies)
0 1- 50
100 150 151 & more

B


CS

(8) Number of native species (any taxonomic
group other than the above)
(9) Number of native species (any taxonomic
group other than the above)

1000

Vascular plants

A

500

B

250

100

C

50

25

D

10

0

E

Birds

A

B

C

D

E

Birds (in built-up areas)

A

B

C

D

E

Mammals

A

B

C

D

E

Reptiles/Amphibians

A

B

C

D

E

Fish

A

B

C

D

E

C

D

Butterflies

A

16

B

E

Additional Indicators for Development by Each City

* It may be beneficial for some cities to use smaller units to enable a better understanding of the situation and
to identify the increase or decrease in the populations at hot spots, rather than measuring the city as a whole.
This is because the

“total number of species in the city” does not change within a short time.

It is more meaningful to think of the “total number of species in the city” as an indicator that reflects the
climate, geographical conditions, and other characteristics of the city rather than as an indicator of
environmental changes.
* Should the focus be on the “number of native species” or “the number of total species”?
It is recommended that all the species (not distinguishing the good and the bad) be first identified, including
the introduced species, escaped species, and then the conditions of the native species, alien species, invasive
alien species, threatened species, and so on be analyzed.

17

Provisional Common Indicators
(Revisions)

Singapore Index

Danger facing species
[A-07] Proportion of invasive alien species

(11) Proportion of invasive alien species
(no. of invasive species / no. of native species)
>31 30-21 20-11 10-1

0%

*Select the necessary taxonomical groups in
accordance with the actual condition.
0

3

10

20

30%-

Vascular plants

A

B

C

D

E

Mammals

A

B

C

D

E

Birds

A

B

C

D

E

Reptiles

A

B

C

D

E

Amphibians

A

B

C

D

E

Fish

A

B

C

D

E

A

B

C

D

E

[A-08] Proportion of threatened species
(threatened species / native species)

《New category》
0

18

3

10

25

50%-

Vascular plants

A

B

C

D

E

Mammals

A

B

C

D

E

Birds

A

B

C

D

E

Reptiles

A

B

C

D

E

Amphibians

A

B

C

D

E

Fish

A

B

C

D

E

A

B

C

D

E

Additional Indicators for Development by Each City

[A-11] Increase or decrease of threatened species
* Based on the city’s condition, compile when revising the Red List.

(The following is Nagoya’s example)
decrease

+1

+5

+20 species and more

Vascular plants

A

B

C

D

E

Mammals

A

B

C

D

E

Insects

A

B

C

D

E

Shellfish

A

B

C

D

E

* The survey of shellfish was expanded to include the subtidal zone.
This increased the number of threatened species substantially.

Reference: Percentage of endangered species in countries of the world
Number of countries by % of endangered species
(composition ratio)
3% or less

3% or more

10% or more

Vascular plants

91%

8%

1%

Mammals

3%

58%

37%

Birds

53%

44%

3%

Reptiles

55%

40%

5%

Amphibians

41%

14%

25%

10%

7%

Fish

18%

42%

36%

1%

4%

19

25% or more

50% or more

2%

20

B. Indicators on Ecosystem Services
in the City
Cities of the twentieth century pursued “freedom from nature.” However, new
problems have emerged to plague the cities. A decrease in the cities’ greenery has
given rise to the heat island phenomenon and flooding problems specific to cities.
Artificial bank protection has reduced the self-purification capacity of rivers. Climate
change has continued to intensify natural disasters so much as to dwarf the
infrastructure built to conquer nature.
As the daily life of city residents becomes increasingly detached from nature,
there are fewer opportunities to pass the wisdom of how to interact with nature (the
wisdom of how to utilize the power of nature and how to avoid natural disasters) to
our children. For the adults as well, the common space in the neighborhood for
relaxation and the space that is the spiritual and cultural center of the community are
decreasing.
Against this backdrop, cities all over the world have begun to reevaluate the
role of a great infrastructure called “ecosystem” and to pursue urban development
that can effectively utilize its functions. This pursuit also helps to contain the
financial burden of building artificial infrastructure.
The Indicators on Ecosystem Services in the City are a means for city
residents to gain a new recognition and to deepen understanding of nature’s blessings.
Which ecosystem service shall have priority varies from city to city. It is desirable
that each city develop indicators that can match its actual conditions.

21

Provisional Common Indicators
(Revisions)

Singapore Index

2. Ecosystem Services in the City

B. Ecosystem Services in the City
Regulating/Supporting services
[B-01] Fresh water services

(12) Fresh water services

(Ratio of raw water/water purification cost

(cost of cleaning the water in the city)
>10

10-8 7-5

4-2

1% or less

in the waterworks budget)

40

(13) Carbon storage (total number of trees)

20

C

<100 100-

250- 500- 1,000thousands
& more



B

《revised》

10

5

0%

* Water service is classified into three phases:
(1) gathering of raw water and transporting it to
the water purification facility,

CS

(2) water purification, and
(3) transporting water from water purification

《Revision needed》

facility to the users.

The amount of greenery in the city shall be used
not as an indicator for carbon storage but as an

Among them, the total costs for (1) and (2) become the

indicator

indicator that assesses the “Ability to secure clean

for

other

services,

such

as

countermeasure for the heat island phenomenon.

water in the community.”
When buying water from another area, the purchase
cost equals to (1) + (2).

Recreation & educational services

Cultural services

(14) No. of visits to parks & nature reserves
/person/year
0

1-10 11-50 51- 100/yr & more

C

B

S

(15) Area of parks & protected area/person
0

0.1-

0.4- 0.7-

BC

[B-02] Area of parks & protected area/person

《Revised the scoring category》

1ha/person

& more

40

S

(16) No. of educational visits to parks or nature

SC

reserves/child under 16 years/year
0

1

2

3


S

B

4visits/yr
& more

C

22

20


B

10

5

㎡/person

Additional Indicators for Development by Each City

* Self-assess major ecosystem services in accordance with priorities and concerns of each city
Examples:
[B-11] Reducing the effects of the heat island phenomenon
Evapotranspiration: 1 for forest area and 0 for built-up/paved space.
Weighted average after multiplying a coefficient determined by conditions with the area
of land coverage.
1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

Increase or decrease in ten years
+10
+3

Dク
-3

0.2 0

E
-10%

[B-12] Reducing flooding and adjusting the amount of river flow

[B-13] Park usage
* Conduct self-assessment using quantifiable method in accordance with the condition of each city.
[B-14] Number of local parks, plazas, public gardens in the urban area
(number of open areas per 1 ㎞ 2 of urban area).
* Conduct self-assessment on the ease of daily access to local nature.
/km2

[B-15]

23

24

C. Indicators on Pressure
on Ecosystems within the City
Land-use changes, pollutant emissions, and other city activities put direct
pressure on the living and breeding environments of living things.
However, it is possible to improve these environments by making appropriate
city designs and controlling emissions. For cities hard-pressed by population growth,
it is necessary to distinguish between areas that need to maintain or increase capacity
for accommodating the population and areas that need to limit changes to land use.
What is the tipping point of the city’s ecosystem? What will be effective in
bringing out the potentials of urban ecosystems and securing the sustainability of
ecosystem services? Indicators on Pressure on Ecosystems within the City are a
means for finding an answer to these questions.
The severity of the burdens and the key areas for improvement differ
depending on the city. It is desirable to creatively develop original indicators in
accordance with the condition of each city.

25

Provisional Common Indicators
(Revisions)

Singapore Index

C. Pressure on ecosystems
Within the City
Land-use change/Habitat change
[C-01] % of built-up and paved areas in the city
(% besides green space, wetland,
farmland, water surface, and barren
land)
0

25

50

75

90

100%

[C-02] Rate of increase or decrease in forests
(ten-year period)
+

0

-5%

-10% -20%

[C-03] Rate of increase or decrease in farmland
(ten-year period)
+

0

-5%

-10% -20%

Pollutant emission
[C-04] River water quality (BOD)
0

2

5

10

20

㎎/ℓ

[C-05] Air quality (SO2)
0

0.01

0.05 0.1

0.3 ppm

[C-06] Air quality (NOX)
0

0.02

26

0.04 0.06

0.1 ppm

Additional Indicators for Development by Each City

* Consider adding indicators in accordance with the city’s situation

Reference:

Reference:

% of green space and water surface in Nagoya

Changes in Nagoya’s green space and water surface
(95-05)

(2005)

Forest/grove

Whole

Urban

Rural

Whole

Urban

Rural

city

area

area

city

area

area

11%

11%

10%

Forest/grove

- 5%

- 5%

+ 0%

Herbaceous/lawn

6%

5%

21%

Herbaceous/lawn

- 9%

- 12%

+ 1%

Cropland

4%

3%

22%

Cropland

- 26%

- 35%

- 8%

Water bodies

3%

2%

17%

Water bodies

+ 1%

- 2%

+ 5%

25%

21%

69%

Total

-10%

-12%

- 3%

Total

Reference: Status of water and air pollutions in Nagoya
2008
Water quality

Rivers(BOD)

3.3

(DO)

7.8

Ponds(BOD)

4.0

1.0

8.0

5.2

(COD)

1.2
14

Worst

1998

Percentage
change

10.0

5.4

- 31%

2.1

6.9

+13%

9.0
12

(DO)

10.0

Nagoya Port(COD)

3.2

2.6

4.4

3.9

- 18%

6.9

7.8

5.6

6.7

+ 3%

(SO2)

0.003

0.002

0.004

0.005

- 60%

(NOX)

0.034

0.021

0.088

0.057

- 40%

(DO)
Air quality

Best

Air

Average value of multiple sites.
27

13

8.7

Units: mg/ℓ for water quality and ppm for air quality

28

D. Indicators on Dependence
on Ecosystems outside the City
A city depends on the ecosystem services of other cities and other countries
for its food and other necessities. However, the sustainability of the world’s
ecosystem services that the cities depend on is called into serious doubt, as pointed
out by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the Global Biodiversity Outlook.
To ensure the sustainability of the city, it is not sufficient to just conserve and
restore the ecosystems within the city. This is because city population has surpassed
half of the world’s population and will increase to over 60% by 2030.
The cities’ impact on production, distribution, and consumption, and their
problem-solving capability supported by collaboration with the government, citizens,
and businesses are a tremendous force to be reckoned with. It is necessary to utilize
these attributes to help secure sustainability of the world’s ecosystem services.
Indicators on Dependence on Ecosystems outside the City are the starting
point of such activities. However, such an assessment method is still in development.
It is desirable to have many cities using their creativity in facilitating this
development.

29

Provisional Common Indicators
(Revisions)

Singapore Index

D. Dependence on Ecosystems
outside the City
Ecological footprint
[D-01] Carbon footprint
*World average: 1.41
0

Reference: Ecological footprint of countries in the world

0.7

1.5

(% of countries by the scale of footprint, 2005)

2.5

4 gha/person

C

Carbon footprint

53%

20%

11%

13%

3%

Bio footprint

11%

54%

26%

5%

4%

Forest

16%

31%

19%

24%

9%

Cropland,
Grazing land & 13% 43% 26% 13%
5%
Fishing ground
Water footprint of 25% 14% 29% 21% 10%
consumption
Living Planet Report 2008 (by WWF)

BS

[D-02] Bio footprint
0

0.7

*World average: 1.23
1.5

2.5

S

4 gha/person


C


B

[D-03] Water footprint of consumption
*World average: 1,243
0

1000 1200 1500

C

2000m3/person

C

/yr.

B

Dependence on sources outside the city
[D-04] Dependence on water from outside
sources
0

25

30

50

75

90

100%

Additional Indicators for Development by Each City

* Conduct self-assessment in accordance with the city’s condition.
For ecological footprint, substitute country-level values (by Living Planet Report).
Examples:
0

[D-11] Forest footprint

0.1

[D-12] Cropland, Grazing land, 0
Fishing ground footprint

0.2

0.5

0.3

S

C

B

1.0

1.5

0

1000

2000 m3/person/year

1500

B

* Indirect water use for the consumption of imported goods
0

100

200

1000 m3/person/year

500

C

blue water resources

*World average: 1,043

C


[D-15] Stress on

*World average: 0.99

C B

500

(External)

* The country’s water use (except for the production of exported goods)

(Internal)

[D-14] Water footprint

*World average: 0.23

2.5 gha/person

S

[D-13] Water footprint

0.5 gha/person

*World average: 199

B

* Quantity of water intake/quantity of renewable freshwater resources
0

5

20

C

40

100 >100%

B

[D-16] Dependence on land outside of the city for carbon uptake
(Proposal 1) Carbon footprint per person/City’s forest area per person
*In the case of Nagoya: 2,244 times
(Proposal 2) Carbon footprint per person/Urban area per person
*In the case of Nagoya: 254 times
[D-17]

Reference: Self-sufficient rate of Nagoya’s natural resources
Within Nagoya (2006)

Within Japan (2008)

Food (Cal)

1%

41%

Lumber

0%

24%

31

32

E. Indicators on Local Action
In order to incorporate considerations for biodiversity into various policy
areas and the daily activities of different social sectors, many countries have put in
place a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.
In recent years, local governments have also started to formulate Local
Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans. Many cities have been introducing a
biodiversity viewpoint into their green space management, river management, or
other plans even if they have not previously had any biodiversity strategy or action
plan.
In this section, indicators to evaluate such local action are proposed.
The indicators mentioned here are merely starting points to be used for
evaluating the process. They may fall short from the perspective of tackling city’s
specific priorities and concerns. It will be necessary to evaluate not only activities
undertaken by government agencies but also self-initiatives carried out by citizens
and businesses in the future.
It is desirable that each city takes the above into consideration and develops
indicators that are more practical and apt.

33

Provisional Common Indicators
(Revisions)

Singapore Index

3. Governance and Management of
E. Local Action
Biodiversity
Integrating biodiversity into city planning
& management
(17) Budget allocated to biodiversity projects
0
1%
2%
3% more than3%

B

S

[E-1] Budget allocated to biodiversity projects and
biodiversity related services 《revised》
5% 3%
2%
1%
0%
A

C

B

C

D

E

(18) Number of biodiversity projects &
programmes organized by the city annually
0
1-10
11-20 21-30 more than30

BC

S

(19) Rules, Regulations & Policy

[E-2] Local Biodiversity Strategy & Action Plan

(Local Biodiversity Strategy & Action Plan)

《revised as the table below》

0: No LBSAP
1: LBSAP not aligned with NBSAP

B

2: LBSAP aligned with NBSAP
but does not include any CBD initiatives
3: LBSAP aligned with NBSAP
which include at least 2 CBD initiatives
CS 4: LBSAP aligned with NBSAP

which include more than 2 CBD initiatives

A
B

With strategy (collaboration with NBSAP/CBD initiatives, other governmental sectors, citizens,
and businesses is spelled out in specific action plans)
With strategy (action plans are being formulated or the collaboration framework is still fragile)
Without strategy (considerations for biodiversity have been incorporated into the plans of

C

related fields, such as promotion of greenery, conservation of waterfront
environment, etc.)

D

Without strategy (considerations for biodiversity in the plans of related fields are inadequate)

E

Without strategy (plans of related fields have not been sufficiently formulated)

34

Additional Indicators for Development by Each City

35

Provisional Common Indicators
(Revisions)

Singapore Index

Institutional Capacity
(20) No. of institutions

[E-3] Institutions covering essential biodiversity-

0

1

2

3

4

related functions

《revised as the table below》

BCS

Area
Institution/Function

Geological

history

Animal

Aqua

Plant

life

Insect

Others

Showing of living things (zoos, etc.)
Sample exhibition (museums, etc.)
Research and studies
Awareness and outreach
Others
A

Has city-run institution

B Has non-city-run institution in the neighborhood

A+ Same as above (with collaboration)

B+ Same as above (with collaboration)

(21) No. of agency coordinate on biodiversity
matters

0

2

3

4

B

[E-4」 Coordination with relevant agencies

《revised as the table below》

at least 5


CS

Related government field

Close

Partial

No

Not

collaboration

collaboration

collaboration

targeted

Land use adjustment
Green space management
River management
Road management
Sewerage and effluent treatment
Water supply
Waste treatment measures
Anti-pollution measures
Climate change measures
Promotion of the agriculture, forestry,
and fishery industries
Promotion of commerce and industry
School education
Lifelong learning and education
Public procurement
36

Additional Indicators for Development by Each City

* It is difficult for a city to have many types of specialized institutions and functions on its own.
Therefore, it is important for a city not only to have its own specialized institutions but also to collaborate
with specialized institutions run by the national government, other local authorities, and private
organizations.
It is hoped that the city conducts self-assessment of the state of such collaboration in accordance with its own
condition.

* The related fields in which collaboration should be strengthened differ depending on the city.
It is hoped that the city conducts self-assessment of the state of collaboration in the related fields in
accordance with its own condition.

37

Provisional Common Indicators
(Revisions)

Singapore Index

Participation & Partnership

Participation & Partnership

(22) Existence of a consultation process

[E-5] Existence of a consultation process

None

being
being
in the
considered planned process

《revised as the table below》

exists


BCS

Basic plan

Individual project

Individual project

formulation phase

planning phase

implementation phase

Formal consultation process
Informal consultation process

(23) Existence of partnerships

[E-6] Status of partnership

0

1

2

3

《revised as the table below》

at least 4


BCS

Formulation

Planning of

Implementation

Awareness-

of strategy,

individual

of individual

enhancing

etc.

project

project

activity

Academic institution/
research institution
Educational institution
NGO/NPO
Local resident organization
Business/trade organization
Others
A. Collaboration with many organizations
C. Collaboration exists.

38

B. Collaboration with multiple organizations

Additional Indicators for Development by Each City

* It is hoped that the city conduct self-assessment on collaboration with various private sectors in accordance with
its condition.

39

Provisional Common Indicators
(Revisions)

Singapore Index

Education & Awareness raising

Education & Awareness raising

(24) Incorporation of biodiversity into the school

[E-7] Incorporation of biodiversity into the school

curriculum
not
covered

curriculum
being
being
in the
considered planned process

included

《revised as the table below》


BCS

Implement

Implemented at

Implemented at

ed at most

about half of the

some schools

schools

schools

Implemented during academic studies
Implemented as special studies
Implemented as extracurricular activities

[E-8] Participatory-type activities

(25) No. of outreach programmes/public
awareness events per year
0

1-20

《revised as the table below》

21-50 51-100 >100


BCS

Planning/implementation body
Government

Educational

NGO/

Resident

organization

NPO

organization

Business

Cleaning and conservation
of green space, etc.
Survey, monitoring
Field experience,
observation
Study group, lecture
Festival-type awareness
enhancing event
Others
A Activity on a continuous basis

A+ Many activities on a continuous basis

B Single event

B+ Many single events

40

Others

Additional Indicators for Development by Each City

* Not only biodiversity is diverse; school education and the methods used for enhancing the awareness of it
also vary depending on the city.
It is hoped that the city conduct self-assessment on the state of outreach and awareness-enhancement in
accordance with its own condition.

41