Biodiversity and Conservation 7, 945±965 (1998)

National biodiversity risk assessment:

a composite multivariate and index approach
BELINDA REYERS*, ALBERTS S. VAN JAARSVELD and
MELODIE A. McGEOCH
Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa

ALEXANDER N. JAMES
Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, 19 Silver Street, Cambridge CB3 9EP, UK

Received 18 April 1997; Revised and accepted 19 December 1997

Due to the shortage of ®nancial resources for international conservation assistance, the setting of
priorities for this assistance is an important issue. A national biodiversity risk assessment index
(NABRAI) is constructed to quantify national conservation performances and identify nation states
of critical conservation concern. The index, which contains measures of biodiversity stock, ¯ow and
response measures, attempts to overcome several weaknesses present in other models used to pri-
oritize nations for conservation assistance. Multivariate analyses of the index as well as economic
and biodiversity resources reveal signi®cant positive correlations between the NABRAI values and
population density as well as land area exposed to high disturbance intensity. The combination of
the multivariate analyses and the interpretation of NABRAI values allows for prioritization of
biodiversity risk among the global community and can thus serve as an indicator of current priorities
for policy makers. The present study also suggests two methods to incorporate a better under-
standing of biodiversity risk in models of conservation priorities; by including a wider range of
variables and by developing a theoretical foundation for the relationship between the categories of
variables used in the model.

Keywords: biodiversity; risk assessment; national; index; multivariate.

Introduction
The setting of priorities for international conservation assistance is an increasingly
important issue as ®nancial resources for biodiversity conservation continue to fall short
of actual requirements. While the Global Biodiversity Strategy, for example, states that
®nancial needs for global biodiversity conservation are $17 billion annually, evidence
suggests that actual expenditures are far lower (WRI, IUCN and UNEP, 1992). At the
global level, international assistance for conservation totals about $2 billion per year, and
may have declined since 1992 (Lake, 1996; UNEP, 1996). At national level, resources for
biodiversity conservation are also scarce, as evidenced by extremely low investment in
parks and protected areas in many developing countries (James et al., in press).
As a result of the large funding shortfall, the ®nancial resources that are available for
biodiversity conservation should be rationed carefully. This requires the setting of priorities
for international conservation assistance. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.

E-mail: breyers@scientia.up.ac.za
0960-3115 Ó 1998 Chapman & Hall
946 Reyers et al.
includes an obligation for developed countries to assist developing countries with the
incremental costs associated with the implementation of national biodiversity strategies.
However, the CBD's framework for identifying priorities for international funding is ex-
tremely broad, because it was established through a political process that incorporated the
views of all of the Parties to the Convention. Currently, Parties to the CBD are attempting
to further de®ne the criteria for prioritizing international conservation assistance.
Therefore, there is considerable scope for the development of objective methods for
ranking developing countries to prioritize international conservation assistance. Any such
exercise, however, is subject to several weaknesses. Perhaps most importantly, the com-
plexity of global biological diversity distribution patterns ensures that all countries contain
biological resources worthy of high conservation priority. Secondly, the distribution of
international funds for biodiversity conservation is inherently a political process: The
`priorities derived from the various methodologies depend ultimately on the objectives
established, and setting objectives is usually a political process' (McNeely, 1996). By
identifying and discussing the criteria and methods within a system for ranking priorities,
the political objectives can be made increasingly transparent.
The available data used to rank the status of national biological diversity can be
categorized into stock, pressure and response variables (Stork and Samways, 1995). A
stock variable refers to an indicator of a country's biological richness or endemism, the
extent of undisturbed habitat, or other measure of genes, species or ecosystems. Stock
variables have both a quantitative and a qualitative aspect. For example, as a measure of
uniqueness or rarity, endemism can be considered a qualitative measure of biodiversity
stocks, whereas species richness measures the quantity of species known to exist in a given
country. A pressure variable refers to an indicator of threats to biodiversity, or the ¯ow of
biological resources out of a given stock. Examples would include a deforestation rate,
annual ®sh catch, population density and other economic or demographic factors that
imply a rate of consumption of biological resources. A response variable refers to an
indicator of conservation e€ort. This includes national and international e€orts to con-
serve or sustainably use the components of biological diversity. Examples of response
variables include national protected areas, investment in conservation, rati®cation of
international conventions on the conservation of biological resources, or taxonomic
collections and research e€ort.
National level data on stock, pressure and response variables for biodiversity tend to
vary considerably in quality, both in terms of reliability and number of countries covered.
However, these data sets do provide indicators of the status of biological diversity at the
national level, and are generally suitable for incorporation into models of international
conservation priorities. Several studies have incorporated di€erent combinations of stock,
pressure and response variables into models designed to identify international conserva-
tion priorities.
Mittermeier's (1988) work on `megadiversity' countries represents an attempt to id-
entify conservation priorities based on the stock measures of species richness and ende-
mism. Based on species lists of vertebrates, higher plants and swallowtail butter¯ies, this
study identi®ed 12 countries that contain about 70% of the world's biodiversity. In a
similar study, WCMC compiled all the existing cross country data on species distribution
to develop a national biodiversity index, which ranked each country on the basis of total
species richness (WCMC, 1994a). WCMC's index of biodiversity richness was broadly
consistent with the ®ndings of the megadiversity approach.
National biodiversity risk assessment 947
The biodiversity `hotspot' approach of Myers (1988, 1990) takes into consideration
both stocks of biodiversity and pressure variables. Myers identi®ed 18 hotspots in tropical
and temperate forests (a regionally based approach) that are characterized by high levels
of endemic plant species and `exceptional threats of destruction' (Myers, 1990). Taken
together, the 18 hotspot areas contain 20% of the earth's plant species in 0.5% of the land
area. In Myers' analysis the stock variables are quantitative, drawing upon known dis-
tributions of plants, but the pressure variables are incorporated in an entirely subjective
manner. The analysis is driven by the identi®cation of areas of high biodiversity stocks,
with an ex post, non-quantitative discussion of the existing threats in each of the areas.
Sisk et al. (1994) used indices of biodiversity stocks and threats to compile a list of
countries that quali®ed as `areas of critical concern'. The identi®cation of these areas was
based on a ranking of each country by species richness and endemism, annual increase in
population density, and annual deforestation. Countries that scored in the top quartile for
either of the stock variables (species richness or endemism) and for either of the threat
variables (population density or deforestation) were identi®ed as areas of critical concern.
Dinerstein and Wikramanayake (1993) identi®ed conservation priorities in the Indo-
Paci®c region based on biodiversity stocks (which they called conservation potential) and
conservation responses. Each country in the region was evaluated on the basis of forest
cover expected to be remaining in ten years (a stock variable) and the percentage of forest
cover already under protected status (a response variable). A country was considered a
priority if the stock variable equalled less than 20% of the land surface in forests, and the
response variable equalled less than 4% protection of those forests.
The ICBP (1992) developed a method to establish conservation priorities based on areas
of concentrated endemism of bird species. This study di€ers from all those mentioned
previously as it incorporates all three categories of stock, pressure and response into the
analysis of priority areas. The study identi®ed 221 endemic bird areas (EBAs) which
contained 26% of all birds in 4.5% of the earth's land surface. The 221 EBAs were pri-
oritized into categories based on a quantitative analysis of the threats and responses to bird
conservation in each of the areas. Each of the EBAs was placed into one of three categories
based on the number of threatened or endangered birds, and on the basis of percentage of
the EBA covered in a protected area. EBAs with a high ratio of endangered birds and low
protected area coverage were categorized as critical areas for global conservation.
McNeely (1996) argues that a fourth variable should be incorporated into the estab-
lishment of priority conservation areas: economic value. Since the reason for biodiversity
conservation is to create human utility, resources should be allocated to conservation
projects that have the highest economic value. He also notes that too great a reliance on
threat as an indicator of conservation priorities ignores the fact that where threat is
highest, conservation opportunities are often lowest. Thus, a conservation priority area
might also be identi®ed based on the chance of success and the value of the resources
protected. But since economic values for biodiversity are elusive, this variable will not be
brought into the analysis here.
A review of the literature suggests that methods for incorporating the three types of
biodiversity variables into a model to prioritize conservation assistance are not well de-
veloped in three important respects. First, most models omit one or two of the classes of
biodiversity status variables. Given that biodiversity priorities should be based on risk to
the resources, a priority system that leaves out national responses to the problem of
biodiversity loss, or leaves out an indicator of the pressure on the resources, is de®cient.
948 Reyers et al.
Second, most of the studies rely on one or two data series, when many more data sets on
biodiversity are available. For example, within the pressure category of biodiversity
variables, there are national level data sets now available on land disturbance, defores-
tation, agricultural land conversion, percentage of threatened and endangered species, the
quantity of species in trade, human population density and other demographic and eco-
nomic variables. Third, the relationship between the stock, pressure and response variables
has not been discussed in great detail in any of the studies, leaving the available models of
biodiversity risk unsupported by theoretical research.
The present study aims to overcome these shortcomings in the development and
analysis of a national biodiversity risk assessment index (NABRAI) in order to rank
nations for priority in receipt of international conservation assistance.

Materials and methods

Data were collated from IMF (1996), OECD (1995), UNDP (1994), UNEP (1995),
WCMC (1994b), WRI (1994) and James et al. (in press). The variables used in the analysis
were divided into biodiversity stock, pressure and response categories (Appendix 1).
Additional data on national economic resources were also incorporated into the database.
To correct for distortions caused by di€erences in land area, population size and species
richness between nation states, data were expressed either as per 1000 km2 , per capita
or per total species where appropriate. The conservation budget values were expressed as
a percentage of the nation's per capita gross national product (GNP). The nations in-
cluded in the study are provided in Appendix 2.
A national biodiversity risk assessment index (NABRAI) was constructed using the
following equation:
NABRAI ˆ PR=…RE  ST † …1†
where: PR ˆ pressure value; composed of the sum of percentage land area exposed to
high disturbance levels, percentage threatened species and population density. RE ˆ
response value; composed of the sum of conservation budget, percentage land area pro-
tected and the number of genetic resource collections, reference collections and conven-
tions. ST ˆ stock value; composed of the sum of percentage endemic species and species
density, which is then multiplied by percentage land area exposed to low disturbance
levels.
Myers (1990) and Sisk et al. (1994) identify priority areas for conservation using both
anthropogenic threats as well as species density and endemicity. Thus a priority area
would be one with a high endemic species concentration and a high level of threat. In this
study, however, we identify high risk areas as areas facing large anthropogenic distur-
bances as well as areas with few `safe' biodiversity resources, i.e. regions where there is
little relatively undisturbed land remaining for species; continued existence. Thus the
biodiversity stock value (ST) is the proportion of species and endemic species exposed to
low disturbance levels, i.e. an indication of `safe' biodiversity resources. The countries in
the database were then ranked from 0 to 1, with 0 representing nations with a low bio-
diversity risk, i.e. a combination of low pressure values, high response and `safe' biodi-
versity stock values.
Many nations did not have data available on national conservation budgets, thus these
nations had to be excluded from the calculation of the NABRAI values. A second adjusted
National biodiversity risk assessment 949
biodiversity risk assessment index was constructed for this extended data set of nations.
This index was constructed for all countries without including available data on national
conservation budgets.
Adjusted NABRAI ˆ PR=…RE  ST † …2†
where: PR and ST represent pressure value and stock value, respectively. RE* ˆ adjusted
response value; composed of the sum of percentage land area protected and the number of
genetic resource collections, reference collections and conventions.
The development of highly aggregated indices is controversial. Although they do
simplify the interpretation of multivariate databases and allow for communication with
the public and policy makers, they are an inadequate framework within which to prioritize
political action. An evaluation of disaggregated data by multivariate analysis provides a
more appropriate framework within which policy action should be prioritized. The two
methods are not mutually exclusive, however, and by using the analysis of disaggregated
data in tandem with the development of aggregated indices, a useful framework for
evaluating and assessing national biodiversity risk patterns can be provided.
Thus, this study combines the construction and interpretation of the NABRAI values
with the use of multivariate analyses of Spearman's correlation analysis and principal
component analysis (PCA), as well as the construction of scatterplots. Correlation
analysis was used to identify and quantify broad relationships between the index and the
other variables included in the data set without inferring any cause±e€ect relationship.
This enabled investigation of interactions between the index, available economic and
biodiversity resources and conservation performance. Scatter plots of the NABRAI values
and ranks against GNP per capita and Human Development Index (HDI) were con-
structed to identify the relationship between the index and these measures of resources
availability for any particular country as well as where speci®c countries lie in relation to
one another.
Principal component analysis (PCA) was employed to identify complex patterns in the
data set (Primer, 1994). One of the main assumptions underlying a PCA is that all the
variables included in the analysis are normally distributed. However in these data sets
there were a few variables that could not be rendered normal. These variables were es-
sential to the questions being posed and were therefore not excluded, but were trans-
formed to be as near normal as possible. The results obtained from this section of the
analysis should therefore be interpreted conservatively. These analyses enabled the id-
enti®cation of unexpected interactions and covariances between variables not always
apparent from the correlation analysis. The principal contributions in each category (i.e.
the variables explaining the most variation) could be identi®ed. Preferred regions on the
PCA plots are suggested, i.e. an area on each plot was selected where a nation should
ideally lie when all principal contributions emanating from the study are taken into
consideration. Plots of the results of the PCAs enabled the identi®cation of outlying
nations as well as nations lying closest to the preferred regions.

Results
Construction of NABRAI and adjusted NABRAI values
Table 1 presents the nations ranked from highest (1) to lowest (0) according to their
NABRAI values. Portugal and Burundi are nations with a high biodiversity risk, due to a
950 Reyers et al.
Table 1. NABRAI values and ranks

NABRAI NABRAI Global

Nations values rank rank

Portugal 2.2108 1.0000 1

Burundi 1.9416 0.9836 2
Sierra Leone 1.7501 0.9672 3
Bangladesh 1.3235 0.9508 4
Korea, Republic 1.1241 0.9344 5
Denmark 0.6563 0.9180 6
Togo 0.6520 0.9016 7
Sri Lanka 0.3774 0.8852 8
Greece 0.3219 0.8689 9
Netherlands 0.2262 0.8525 10
Austria 0.2249 0.8361 11
Morocco 0.1930 0.8197 12
Jamaica 0.1800 0.8033 13
Senegal 0.1304 0.7869 14
Israel 0.1165 0.7705 15
Lao PDR 0.1104 0.7541 16
Cambodia 0.0852 0.7377 17
Nigeria 0.0484 0.7213 18
Ghana 0.0475 0.7049 19
France 0.0319 0.6885 20
Ethiopia 0.0204 0.6721 21
Malawi 0.0196 0.6557 22
UK 0.0157 0.6393 23
Cote d'Ivoire 0.0069 0.6230 24
Pakistan 0.0067 0.6066 25
Turkey 0.0056 0.5902 26
Central African Republic 0.0046 0.5738 27
Cameroon 0.0041 0.5574 28
New Zealand 0.0039 0.5410 29
Thailand 0.0039 0.5246 30
Chad 0.0036 0.5082 31
Tunisia 0.0035 0.4918 32
Dominican Republic 0.0030 0.4754 33
Algeria 0.0030 0.4590 34
Zaire 0.0026 0.4426 35
Honduras 0.0024 0.4262 36
Canada 0.0019 0.4098 37
Botswana 0.0019 0.3934 38
Guatemala 0.0016 0.3770 39
Sweden 0.0015 0.3607 40
Chile 0.0014 0.3443 41
Mexico 0.0013 0.3279 42
Finland 0.0013 0.3115 43
Tanzania UR 0.0011 0.2951 44
Niger 0.0010 0.2787 45
Namibia 0.0009 0.2623 46
National biodiversity risk assessment 951
Table 1. (Continued)

NABRAI NABRAI Global

Nations values rank rank

Saudi Arabia 0.0009 0.2459 47

Gabon 0.0008 0.2295 48
South Africa 0.0008 0.2131 49
USA 0.0008 0.1967 50
Malaysia 0.0007 0.1803 51
Nepal 0.0007 0.1639 52
Kenya 0.0006 0.1475 53
Norway 0.0006 0.1311 54
Australia 0.0003 0.1148 55
Bhutan 0.0003 0.0984 56
Papua New Guinea 0.0002 0.0820 57
Trinidad & Tobago 0.0002 0.0656 58
Brazil 0.0002 0.0492 59
Peru 0.0002 0.0328 60
Colombia 0.0001 0.0164 61
Panama 0.0001 0.0000 62

combination of a high pressure values, low conservation capacities and few `safe' bio-
logical resources. Colombia and Panama lie at the opposite end of the scale with a low
biodiversity risk. The global rank order of nations according to their adjusted NABRAI
values is similar to the order according to their NABRAI values (Table 2). Burundi and
Swaziland are top ranking nations, with a combination of high threat, low conservation
investment and low `safe' biodiversity resource values, while Guyana and the USA are low
ranking nations.
Table 3 provides the adjusted NABRAI ranks for some of the priority countries
identi®ed in three of the other major studies reviewed previously. The megadiversity and
hotspots studies identify the South American nations as high priority nations for con-
servation, while the Sisk et al. (1994) model of areas of critical concern and the present
study identify the Central American nations as high risk, high priority nations. Addi-
tionally, the two developed nations of the USA and Australia are identi®ed as high
priority nations using the megadiversity and hotspots approaches, but have a low biodi-
versity risk according to their adjusted NABRAI values.

Spearman's correlation analysis

The results of the correlation analyses are presented in Table 4. NABRAI values showed
signi®cant positive correlations (P < 0.05 and rs > 0.4) with population density and per-
centage land area exposed to high disturbance intensities, as well as signi®cant negative
correlations (P < 0.05 and rs < )0.4) with land area and percentage land area exposed to
low disturbance intensities.

Scatter plot construction

The scatter plots between NABRAI values, and GNP per capita and HDI are presented in
Fig. 1a and b. There appears to be an apparent threshold at a GNP per capita value of
952 Reyers et al.
Table 2. Adjusted NABRAI values and ranks

Adjusted Adjusted Global

Nations values rank rank

Burundi 0.2425 1 1
Swaziland 0.1867 0.9902 2
Rwanda 0.1637 0.9805 3
Lao PDR 0.1045 0.9708 4
El Salvador 0.0987 0.9611 5
Haiti 0.0858 0.9514 6
Sierra Leone 0.0699 0.9417 7
Cambodia 0.0649 0.9320 8
Jamaica 0.0607 0.9223 9
Bangladesh 0.0603 0.9126 10
Lesotho 0.0527 0.9029 11
Madagascar 0.0458 0.8932 12
Korea, Republic 0.0383 0.8834 13
Malawi 0.0360 0.8737 14
Togo 0.0354 0.8640 15
Denmark 0.0302 0.8543 16
Dominican Republic 0.0237 0.8446 17
Sri Lanka 0.0235 0.8349 18
Honduras 0.0201 0.8252 19
Cote d'Ivoire 0.0195 0.8155 20
Ireland 0.0192 0.8058 21
Senegal 0.0192 0.7961 22
Philippines 0.0192 0.7864 23
Ghana 0.0192 0.7766 24
Morocco 0.0184 0.7669 25
Nicaragua 0.0175 0.7572 26
Belgium 0.0171 0.7475 27
Guatemala 0.0170 0.7378 28
Israel 0.0166 0.7281 29
Greece 0.0139 0.7184 30
Portugal 0.0138 0.7087 31
Costa Rica 0.0133 0.6990 32
Zimbabwe 0.0124 0.6893 33
Mozambique 0.0123 0.6796 34
Netherlands 0.0117 0.6699 35
Cameroon 0.0112 0.6601 36
New Zealand 0.0111 0.6504 37
Benin 0.0111 0.6407 38
Central African Republic 0.0103 0.6310 39
Syrian Arab Republic 0.0099 0.6213 40
Belize 0.0099 0.6116 41
Austria 0.0098 0.6019 42
Nigeria 0.0097 0.5922 43
Tunisia 0.0097 0.5825 44
Malaysia 0.0092 0.5728 45
Uruguay 0.0092 0.5631 46
National biodiversity risk assessment 953
Table 2. (Continued)

Adjusted Adjusted Global

Nations values rank rank

Uganda 0.0086 0.5533 47

Thailand 0.0085 0.5436 48
Turkey 0.0082 0.5339 49
Switzerland 0.0079 0.5242 50
Japan 0.0065 0.5145 51
Nepal 0.0064 0.5048 52
Indonesia 0.0062 0.4951 53
Ecuador 0.0061 0.4854 54
Zaire 0.0060 0.4757 55
Jordan 0.0060 0.4660 56
Chile 0.0059 0.4563 57
Gabon 0.0056 0.4466 58
Venezuela 0.0055 0.4368 59
Tanzania UR 0.0053 0.4271 60
Spain 0.0049 0.4174 61
Sweden 0.0045 0.4077 62
Mexico 0.0044 0.3980 63
South Africa 0.0041 0.3883 64
Congo 0.0040 0.3786 65
Zambia 0.0038 0.3689 66
Algeria 0.0038 0.3592 67
Bhutan 0.0037 0.3495 68
Germany 0.0037 0.3398 69
Italy 0.0036 0.3300 70
Kenya 0.0035 0.3203 71
Papua New Guinea 0.0035 0.3106 72
Finland 0.0033 0.3009 73
Chad 0.0033 0.2912 74
France 0.0030 0.2815 75
Ethiopia 0.0028 0.2718 76
Namibia 0.0027 0.2621 77
India 0.0027 0.2524 78
Norway 0.0026 0.2427 79
Pakistan 0.0026 0.2330 80
Yemen 0.0025 0.2233 81
Trinidad & Tobago 0.0025 0.2135 82
UAE 0.0024 0.2038 83
Egypt 0.0024 0.1941 84
Colombia 0.0021 0.1844 85
Iran, Islamic Republic 0.0021 0.1747 86
Surinam 0.0017 0.1650 87
Botswana 0.0016 0.1553 88
Sudan 0.0016 0.1456 89
Bolivia 0.0015 0.1359 90
Argentina 0.0014 0.1262 91
UK 0.0014 0.1165 92
954 Reyers et al.
Table 2. (Continued)

Adjusted Adjusted Global

Nations values rank rank

Paraguay 0.0014 0.1067 93

Peru 0.0012 0.0970 94
Australia 0.0011 0.0873 95
Niger 0.0009 0.0776 96
Oman 0.0009 0.0679 97
Saudi Arabia 0.0008 0.0582 98
Canada 0.0008 0.0485 99
China 0.0008 0.0388 100
Brazil 0.0007 0.0291 101
Panama 0.0005 0.0194 102
Guyana 0.0005 0.0097 103
USA 0.0004 0 104

US$ 8000 above which the nations all have a low NABRAI value. Burundi and Portugal
are extreme outliers with a large NABRAI value (Fig. 1a and b). These two nations have
low economic resources, but they show a large discrepancy in HDI values. Burundi is a
poorly developed nation, whereas Portugal is well developed. Sweden and the USA lie at
the other end of the scale in terms of economic resources, and both have high HDI values
and low NABRAI values.

Principal component analysis

PC-1 (Table 5) is dominated by the covarying variables of conservation-directed scienti®c
capacity (genetic resource collections, reference collections and conventions) as well as the
economic variables of GNP per capita, HDI and Ocial Development Aid (ODA) do-
nated. PC-2 consists predominantly of the covarying variables of high disturbance in-
tensity and species density contrasting with the variables of low disturbance intensity and
land area. Figure 2 reveals the pattern of wealthy, developed nations (e.g. the USA,
Canada and Australia) with a large scienti®c base, separating along PC-1 from the poorer,
less developed nations of Sierra Leone and Bhutan. PC-2 separates the small, densely
populated, outlying nations of Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago, which have a high
species density and a high disturbance intensity, from the larger nations at the other end of
the scale (e.g. Algeria). The UK and USA fall closest to the preferred region of low
conservation priority with a high scienti®c capacity and a compromise between high en-
vironmental impact and a high species density.

Discussion
Prioritization of biodiversity risk
A combination of the multivariate analyses and interpretation of NABRAI values will
allow national conservation agencies to address a high biodiversity risk within a nation. A
high NABRAI value, indicating a high risk, can be approached by assessing the nation's
position on the PCA plots relative to the preferred region. This will enable the identi®-
National biodiversity risk assessment 955
Table 3. Comparison of priority areas

Megadiversity
(Mittermeier, Hot spots Critical concern NABRAI rank
Region/Country 1998) (Myers 1998, 1990) (Sisk et al., 1994) (This study)

Sub Saharan Africa

Angola X na
Cote d'Ivoire X X 20
Ghana X 24
Kenya X 71
Madagascar X X 12
Nigeria X 43
South Africa X 64
Tanzania X X 60
Uganda 47
Zaire X 55
South/Southeast Asia
India X X X 78
Indonesia X X 53
Malaysia X X 45
Philippines X X 23
Sri Lanka X X 18
Thailand X 48
East Asia
China X X X 100
Taiwan X na
Oceania
New Caledonia X na
Australia X X 95
North America
United States of America X 104
Mexico X 63
Central America
Costa Rica X 32
Guatemala X 28
Honduras X 19
Nicaragua X 26
South America
Brazil X X 101
Chile X 57
Colombia X X X 85
Ecuador X X X 54
Peru X X 94

cation of the most important components contributing to the high NABRAI value. These
components can then be addressed or prioritized in an e€ort to bring the nation closer to
the preferred region and thus lower the NABRAI value. The assumption of the hypo-
thetically preferred region being the best region must be questioned. These preferred
regions represent nations with large conservation responses, high economic and safe
 956
Reyers et al.
Figure 1. Scatterplot of NABRAI values against (a) GNP per capita values and (b) HDI values. Particular outlier nations are highlighted as
examples.
National biodiversity risk assessment 957

Figure 1. (Continued)
 958
Table 4. Results of Spearman's correlation analysis. Signi®cant correlations: r > 0.4 or r < )0.4; P < 0.05

N aN cb pr gr c rc la sp en HDI GNP do re pd th ld hd

NABRAI (N) ± + ± +
Adjusted NABRAI (aN)
Conservation budget (cb) + +
% Land area protected (pr)
Genetic resources (gr) + + + + + ±
Conventions (c) + + + + ±
Reference collections (rc) + + + ±
Land area (la) ± ± + ±
Species density (sp) + ± +
% Endemic species (en) +
HDI + + ±
GNP per capita (GNP) + ±
ODA donated per capita (do) ±
ODA received per capita (re)
Population density (pd) ± +
% Threatened species (th)
Low disturbance intensity (ld) ±
High disturbance intensity (hd)

Reyers et al.
National biodiversity risk assessment 959
Table 5. Eigenvectors and eigen values for PCA. The contribution of each component is provided
and principal contributions are indicated in bold

Eigenvector

Variables PC-1 PC-2 PC-3 PC-4 PC-5

Conservation budget 0.10 0.13 0.11 )0.46 )0.05

% Land area protected 0.08 0.03 0.36 )0.48 )0.07
Genetic resource collections 0.30 0.13 )0.38 )0.14 0.23
Reference collections 0.38 0.05 )0.12 )0.08 0.14
Conventions 0.30 0.07 )0.12 0.21 0.05
Land area 0.13 0.50 )0.08 )0.02 )0.00
Species density )0.13 )0.44 )0.00 0.12 )0.01
% Endemic species 0.15 0.04 )0.29 )0.00 )0.63
HDI 0.39 )0.12 0.04 0.18 )0.08
GNP per capita 0.40 )0.08 0.13 0.15 0.05
ODA received per capita )0.27 0.14 0.00 )0.12 )0.27
ODA donated per capita 0.36 )0.06 0.19 )0.09 0.17
Labour force 0.18 )0.19 0.33 )0.31 )0.05
Population density 0.03 )0.17 0.08 )0.27 )0.17
% Threatened species 0.18 )0.03 )0.28 )0.13 )0.51
High disturbance intensity 0.06 )0.48 )0.18 )0.06 )0.01
Medium disturbance intensity )0.16 0.18 )0.37 )0.35 0.29
Low disturbance intensity 0.04 0.38 0.42 0.30 )0.20
Eigenvalues 4.97 3.00 1.77 1.43 1.28
Contribution to total variation (%) 27.63 16.68 9.81 7.96 7.12
Cumulative contribution (%) 27.63 44.31 54.12 62.08 69.20

biodiversity resources and low pressures on biodiversity. But whether these large national
economic resources, used to support the high conservation investment in protected areas
and biodiversity scienti®c capacity, can be sustained without resource inputs from outside
the nation is debatable (van Jaarsveld, 1996). However, the NABRAI value of a nation
state can serve as a global barometer for national biodiversity risk. Together with bio-
diversity monitoring mechanisms it can be used to identify emergent synergies and eval-
uate the relative conservation performance of a nation state.
The methodological di€erences in the various models for prioritization of conservation
appear to explain the lack of agreement between the NABRAI ranks and the hotspots
(Myers, 1988, 1990) and megadiversity countries (Mittermeier, 1988), and the slightly
better correspondence between the NABRAI and the areas of critical concern (Sisk et al.,
1994). The hotspots study and the megadiversity study emphasize biodiversity stock
variables, while the areas of critical concern places equal weight on pressure and stock
variables to determine priorities. This variance is best illustrated in the cases of South and
Central America.
The South American countries identi®ed by the megadiversity and hotspots analyses
are centres of global biodiversity, but generally have low population densities and large
areas of unconverted land. As a result these nations appear as high priorities on the
biodiversity stock based indices, but lower on the indices that take pressures into con-
sideration. In contrast, the Central American nations tend to be geographically small with
 960
Reyers et al.
Figure 2. Representation of the spread of nations along the ®rst two principal components derived from a PCA performed on all
variables. Asterisk represents the preferred region. Particular outlier nations are highlighted as examples.
National biodiversity risk assessment 961
high populaion densities and extensive land fragmentation though without extremely high
biodiversity. These nations would thus be identi®ed by the pressure based indices of Sisk
et al. (1994) and the present study, but not by the stock-based index of Mittermeier (1988),
or by the hotspots approach of Myers (1988, 1990). Although Myers' approach does have
a pressure component, this component is incorporated in an entirely non-quantitative and
subjective manner.
The two developed countries of Australia and the USA, identi®ed as conservation
priorities in Table 3, have low biodiversity risk according to the NABRAI rankings. These
countries bene®t from large stocks of relatively undisturbed habitat and, perhaps most
importantly, high conservation e€ort. This ®nding suggests that the often presumed re-
lationship (e.g. Sisk et al., 1994) of economic development and biodiversity may not be
uniformly negative, as conservation investments can feed back positively. This ®nding is
also supported by the correlation analyses and the scatterplot construction, which ®nd no
support for any relationship between biodiversity and economic resources. On the other
hand, the bimodal relationship between the NABRAI and HDI values suggests that both
underdeveloped communities and developed communities could negatively impact on
biodiversity resources. Thus, the nature of development also appears to be important
(Arrow et al., 1995).

Conclusion
The assessment of biodiversity risk and priorities for international conservation assistance
remains an issue that requires further research. There remains considerable disagreement
among the various studies as to which countries merit prioritization for international
assistance. For example, Table 3 identi®es over 30 countries as priorities for international
assistance using a suite of three methods; a number that would be expanded considerably
by the addition of the top quartile of the NABRAI risk priorities. As a result, a more
sophisticated understanding of biodiversity risk is needed before international conserva-
tion assistance priorities can be ascertained with some degree of con®dence.
The present study suggests two ways to incorporate a better understanding of bio-
diversity risk into the models of conservation priorities. The ®rst is the inclusion of a wider
range of variables into the analysis, both in terms of variable categories and the number of
data series. Perhaps the most important step is to include response category variables into
the model of biodiversity risk. A country with high stocks and even high threats to
biodiversity may not be an international conservation priority if domestic conservation
activities are successful. Australia and the United States are prime examples of this pos-
sibility and it is reasonable to think that, in time, some developing countries may follow
suit.
The second challenge is to develop a theoretical foundation for the relationships be-
tween the categories of variables in models for biodiversity risk assessment. Multivariate
techniques play a large role in promoting a greater understanding of the factors that a€ect
biodiversity risks. For example, the multivariate analyses in this study found no un-
equivocal support for the assumption that economic growth drives threats to biodiversity.
While it is certainly true that economic development has a negative impact on biodiversity
stocks (e.g. through the conversion of natural land for commercial or subsistence pur-
poses), it is also true that economic growth can change the type and intensity of pressure
on biological resources and can in¯uence the response to regional biodiversity losses.
962 Reyers et al.
Thus, the relationship of stock, pressure and response variables to each other might be
better speci®ed with a theoretical understanding about the driving forces behind bio-
diversity losses and conservation actions.

References
Arrow, K., Bolin, B., Costanza, R., Dasgupta, P., Folke, C., Holling, C.S., Jannson, B., Levin, S.,
Maler, K., Perrings, C. and Pimental, D. (1995) Economic growth, carrying capacity and the
environment. Ecol. Appl. 6, 13±16.
Dinerstein, E. and Wikramanayake, E. (1993) Beyond Hotspots: How to prioritize investments to
conserve biodiversity in the Indo-Paci®c region. Conserv. Biol. 7(1), 53±65.
ICBP (1992) Putting Biodiversity on the Map. Priority Areas for Global Conservation. Cambridge,
UK: International Council for Bird Preservation.
IMF (1996) International Financial Statisticcs. Washington, DC: IMF.
James, A.N., Green, M.J.B. and Paine, J.R. (in press) Financial Indicators for Biological Diversity
Conservation: A Global Analysis of Protected Area Investment. Cambridge, UK: World Con-
servation Monitoring Centre.
Lake, R. (1996) New and Additional?: Financial Resources for Biodiversity Conservation in Developing
Countries 1987±1994. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International.
McNeely, J.A. (1996) Assessing Methods for Setting Conservation Priorities. Paper presented at
OECD International Conference on Incentive Measures for Biodiversity Conservation and
Sustainable Use, Cairns, Australia, 25±28 March 1996.
Mittermeier, R.A. (1988) Primate diversity and the tropical forest: case studies from Brazil and
Madagascar and the importance of megadiversity countries. In Biodiversity (E.O. Wilson, ed.).
Washington: National Academy Press.
Myers, N. (1988) Threatened biotas: hotspots in tropical forests. Environmentalist 8(3), 187±208.
Myers, N. (1990) The biodiversity challenge: expanded hotspots analysis. Environmentalist 10(4),
243±56.
OECD (1995) External Debt Statistics. Paris: OECD.
Primer (1994) Plymouth Marine Laboratories. Plymouth: NERC, UK.
Sisk, T.D., Launer, A.E., Switky, K.R. and Ehrlich P.R. (1994) Identifying extinction threats.
BioScience 44(9), 592±604.
Stork, N.E. and Samways, M.J. (1995) Inventorying and monitoring of biodiversity. In Global
Biodiversity Assessment (V.H. Heywood, ed.) pp. 453±544. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
UNDP (1994) Human Development Report 1994. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
UNEP (1995) Global Biodiversity Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
UNEP (1996) The Availability of Financial Resources. Note by the Executive Secretary for the
Third Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Buenos Aires,
Argentina, November 4±19, 1996 (Document UNEP/CBD/COP/3/37). Montreal: Secretariat of
the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Van Jaarsveld, A.S. (1996) Towards a co-evolutionary framework for implementing sustainable
development. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 3, 15±37.
WCMC (1994a) Development of a National Biodiversity Index. A WCMC Discussion Paper
(Mimeo).
WCMC (1994b) Biodiversity Data Sourcebook. WCMC Biodiversity Series No. 1. Cambridge, UK:
World Conservation Monitoring Centre.
WRI (1994) World Resources 1994±1995. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
WRI, IUCN and UNEP (1992) Global Biodiversity Strategy. Washington, DC: WRI.
National biodiversity risk assessment 963
Appendix 1. Variables used in the analyses

Variables Description and units Source

Response variables
Genetic resource World plant, animal and microbial UNEP (1995)
collections genetic resource collections
Conventions Participation in: WRI (1994)
Antarctic Treaty and Convention (1980)
Wetlands (1971)
World Heritage (1972)
CITES (1973)
Migratory Speices (1979)
Biodiversity (1992)
Ozone Layer (1985)
CFC Control (1987)
Climate Change (1992)
Biological and Toxic Weapons
Nuclear Accident Noti®cation
Nuclear Accident Assistance
Hazardous Waste Movement
Sources of Environmental and WRI (1994)
Resource Information:
Infoterra member
National State of the Environment Report
UNCED National Reports
Country Environmental Pro®le
Environmental Synopses
Biological Diversity Pro®le
National Conservation Strategy
Environmental Action Plan
Reference collections Museums and their reference collections WCMC(1994b)
including:
Natural history UNEP (1995)
Zoology
Biology
Birds
Insects
Mammals
Molluscs and shells
Botanical gardens
Zoological gardens
Aquaria
Plant and fungal reference collections
Insects and spider museums
Percentage land IUCN Categories I±IV WRI (1994)
area protected WCMC
(1994b)
964 Reyers et al.
Appendix 1. (Continued)

Variables Description and units Source

Biodiversity stock variables

Land area 1000 hectares WRI (1994)
Species density Number of mammals, birds, reptiles, WCMC (1994b)
amphibians, higher plants per 1000 hectares WRI (1994)
Percentage endemic Percentage of the total mammal, bird, reptile, WCMC (1994b)
species amphibian and higher plant species restricted WRI (1994)
to the nation
Percentage land area Percentage land area covered by natural WRI (1994)
exposed to low vegetation and/or population density under
disturbance level 10 people per square kilometre or 1 person
per square kilometre in arid, semiarid and
tundra regions
Pressure variables
Percentage threatened Percentage of total mammal, bird, reptile, WCMC (1994b)
species amphibian and higher plant species that are WRI (1994)
endangered, vulnerable, rare, indeterminate
and insuciently unknown, but excludes
introduced species or those that are known
to be extinct
Population density Mid-year estimates based on census or survey WRI (1994)
Percentage land area Percentage land area under shifting or WRI (1994)
exposed to high extensive agriculture and/or containing
disturbance levels secondary, naturally regenerating vegetation,
a lifestock density exceeding carrying capacity;
exhibiting other evidence of human disturbance
Percentage land area Percentage land area under permanent agriculture WRI (1994)
exposed to medium or urban setlement, and/or containing primary
disturbance levels vegetation removed without evidence of
regrowth; containing current vegetation di€ering
from potential vegetation; having a record of
deserti®cation or other permanent degradation
Economic variables
Human Development Composite of 3 basic components of human UNDP (1994)
Index development:
Longevity - life expectancy
Standard of living - purchasing power parity
Knowledge - adult literacy & mean years
of schooling
Gross National Product Sum of GDP and net factor income IMF (1996)
(GNP) per capita from abroad expressed per capita (US$) WRI (1994)
Ocial Development Aid Net amount of disbursed grants and OECD (1995)
(ODA) concessional loans received per capita (US$) WRI (1994)
Percentage population in Includes all people who produce economic WRI (1994)
labour goods and services
External debt per capita Long-term debt outstanding, private non- OECD (1995)
guaranteed debt outstanding, use of IMF WRI (1994)
credit and short term debt per capita (US$)
National biodiversity risk assessment 965
Appendix 2. Nations used in the analyses
a
Algeria Haiti Saudi Arabia
a
Argentina Honduras Senegal
a
Australia India Sierra Leone
a
Austria Indonesia South Africa
a a
Bangladesh Iran, Islamic Republic Spain
a a
Belgium Ireland Sri Lanka
a a
Belize Israel Sudan
a a a
Benin Italy Surinam
a
Bhutan Jamaica Swaziland
a a
Bolivia Japan Sweden
a a
Botswana Jordan Switzerland
a
Brazil Kenya Syrian Arab Republic
Burundi Korea, Republic Tanzania, United Republic
Cambodia Lao PDR Thailand
a
Cameroon Lesotho Togo
a
Canada Madagascar Trinidad & Tobago
Central Africian Republic Malawi Tunisia
Chad Malaysia Turkey
a
Chile Mexico Uganda
a a
China Morocco United Arab Emirates
a
Colombia Mozambique United Kingdom
a
Congo Namibia United States of America
a a
Costa Rica Nepal Uruguay
a
Cote d'Ivoire Netherlands Venezuela
a
Denmark New Zealand Yemen
a
Dominican Republic Nicaragua Zaire
a a
Ecuador Niger Zambia
a a
Egypt Nigeria Zimbabwe
a
El Salvador Norway
a
Ethiopia Oman
Finland Pakistan
France Panama
Gabon Papua New Guinea
a a
Germany Paraguay
Ghana Peru
a
Greece Philippines
Guatemala Portugal
a a
Guyana Rwanda
a
Nations included for the construction of adjusted NABRAI values.