1.cities biodiversity index

7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index

1/41

1

Proposals for Improvement of

Cities B iodiversity Index(Tentative)

Session 7

Valuation and Monitoring of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Cities

URBIO2010

20thMay 2010, Nagoya, Japan

Masashi Kato

City of Nagoya

Aichi-Nagoya COP10 CBD Promotion Committee

Diversity of cities 2Diverse cities, diverse challenges 3

CBI as tools for assessment & communication 4

Points of proposals 5

0. Indicators onCharacteristics of the City 7

A. Indicators onBiodiversity in the City 11

B. Indicators onEcosystem Services in the City 21

C. Indicators onPressure on Ecosystems within the City 25

D. Indicators onDependence on Ecosystems outside the City 29

E. Indicators on Local Action 33


2/41

2

City area

Population density

thousand/

2

3

2

30

200 2000500 5000

High density(City = Urban)

Urban area +vast Rural area

Cairo

Paris

Osaka

MumbaiMetro Manila

Tokyo

NYSao Paulo

Bangkok, LDN

Shanghai

Moskva

Beijing

Chongqin

Aichi pref.

Nagoya

X Japan

Asia

Oceania

Europe

Africa

N. America

L. America

Diversity of cities

City area & population density

0.1

1

10

100

10 100 1000 10000 100000

Average temperature & annual rainfall

Nagoya

BeijingCaracas

Brussels

Edmonton

Montreal

Kolkata

Dacar

Cairo

RomeLDN

Moskva

Seoul

Sapporo

NYMiami

Sao Paulo

La Paz

Madrid

Karachi

Manila

Bangkok

LA

Hanoi

Istanbur

Tokyo

Abidjan

Vladivostok

Sydney

Buenos Aires

Jakarta

Hyderabad

DubayyLima

Cape TownBerlin

Ulaan Baatar

Nairobi

ShizuokaNaha

Mexico

3000

2000

1000

10

20 30

0

0

Paris

Tehran

Shanghai

Manaus

Singapore

Mumbai


3/41

3

Diverse cities, diverse challenges

Potential of

urban ecosystems

State/Impact

Biodiversity Ecosystem services

Characteristics of the city

Historical/Social Climatic/Geographical

Driver/Pressure

Pressure on

Ecosystems within the city

Land-use/Habitat change

Pollution/Nutrient load

Over-exploitation

Invasive species

Climate change

Dependence on

ecosystems outside the city

Ecological footprint

Problem-solving capability

of the city

Response

City planning & management

Participation & partnership

Sustainability of the urban environment

Citizens well-being

supported by ecosystem services

Sustainability of the global environment


4/41

4

CBI as tools for assessment & communication

Action

Partnership

Planning

Participation

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. Servicesof 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. Pressureon ecosystems within the city

Dependenceon ecosystems outside the city

4. Problem-solving capability of the city

Mandates on biodiversity related services

Influence on production, distribution and consumption

Citizens consensus

Information-sharing Information-sharing

(Results) (States)


5/41

5

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 ExperienceTowards 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


6/41

6


7/41

7

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 orfew 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 moreeasily 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.


8/41

8

Singapore IndexProvisional Common Indicators

Revisions

0. Characterist ics of the city

Climate/geographical conditions

[0-1] Average temperature

[0-2] Annual rainfall

[0-3] Undulation (vertical interval)

Urbanization

[0-4] City area

[0-5] Proportion of urban area

[0-6] Population density of urban area

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

0 100 300 1000 >1000

100 65 35 10 0%

20 10 5 000person

/km2

+20% +5% 0% decrease

6 12 20 >20

A

0 500 1000 1800 >1800mm

0 200 500 1000 >1000km2


9/41

9

Addi tional Indicators for Development by Each City

Reference:Overall conditions of metropolitan areas in Japan

Difference

in altitude

within city

City area

DID Green cover

% DensityEntire

city

Urban

area

Shizuoka

HamamatsuSendai

Sapporo

Fukuoka

Hiroshima

m

3,189

2,2961,500

1,486

1,053

1,050

km2

1,389

1,511788

1,100

341

905

%

7

616

20

44

15

Person/ ha

61

5670

79

90

74

%

78

76

59

75

%

25

21

25

23

Kyoto

Kobe

Kita-kyushu

962

931

900

828

553

488

17

27

32

99

95

57

78

65

24

29

Sakai

Nagoya

Yokohama

Kawasaki

Chiba

260

200

159

148

105

150

326

435

144

272

70

84

80

92

43

76

79

100

100

70

25

29

49

21

20

17

Tokyo (23 wards)

Osaka

Saitama

57

40

23

622

222

217

100

100

53

137

118

93

30

6

29

6


10/41

10


11/41

11

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 theirpopulations 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.


12/41

12


(Revisions)

1. Native Biodiversity in the City A. Biodiversi ty in the City

(2) Number of natural ecosystems found in the

city

Richness and diversity of

ecosystems/habitats

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

Revise (2): must be devised by each city

using the following as reference

A B C D

a) Broadleaf evergreen forest

Broadleaf deciduous forest

Needleleaf evergreen forest

Needleleaf diciduous forest

Mixed forest

Shrub

Savanna

b) Herbaceous

Lawn

c) Wetland

Tideland

Mangrove

d) River

Pond / Reservoir

Ocean

Inner bay with abundant nature

Artificial inner bay

e) CroplandPaddy 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 partcan have multiple answers

0 1 4 7 10& more

B C

S

Nagoya

B Brussels

C Curitiba

S Singapore


13/41

13

Additional Ind icators 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 citys 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)

.

1Brussels presentation (ICLEI World Congress, Edmonton, Jun. 2009)

2) Montpelliers presentation (2ndCuritiba 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.


14/41

14


(Revisions)

(1) % of natural/semi-natural areas

(10) % of protected areas

(3) Fragmentation measures

(mean patch size of natural/semi-natural

ecosystems)

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

farmland a-d of the previous page, makes

no distinction between natural and artificial

revised

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

above (areas where conservation of the

current situation are officially securedareas

of conservation/regulation parks with

abundant naturerevised

[-04] Mean patch size of protected areas and

parks revised

[-05] % of farmland new addition

0 1-6 7 14 21% & more

B C S

0


15/41

15


* 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 citys 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 citys biodiversity.

Reference: Green space and water surface of Nagoyapercentage to the citys overall area

Urban

area

Rural

area

Whole

city

Forest/Grove (park)

Herbaceous/Lawn (park)

2%

2%

Forest/Grove 11% 10% 11% Roadside trees 0.5%

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%

Total 21% 69% 25% Herbaceous/Lawn (building estate) 1%


16/41

16


(Revisions)

4 Native biodiversity in built-up area

bird species

(5) Number of native species (plants)

(6) Number of native species (birds)

(7) Number of native species (butterflies)

(8) Number of native species (any taxonomic

group other than the above)

(9) Number of native species (any taxonomic

group other than the above)

Richness and diversity of species

[A-06] Total number of species

combine (4)-(9), and revise

Fill in the table below.

Select the necessary taxonomical groups in

accordance with the condition of the city.

1000 500 250 100 50 25 10 0

Vascular plants A B C D 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

Butterflies A B C D E

0 1-3 4-5 6-7 8 & more

B C S

0 1-99 100 500 1000 & more

B C S

0 1- 50 100 150 151 & more

B C S

0 1- 50 100 150 151 & more

B C S


17/41

17


* 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.


18/41

18


(Revisions)

(11) Proportion of invasive alien species(no. of invasive species / no. of native species)

Danger facing species

[A-07] Proportion of invasive alien speciesSelect the necessary taxonomical groups in

accordance with the actual condit ion.

0 3 10 20 30%-


Mammals A B C D E

Birds A B C D E

Reptiles A B C D E

Amphibians A B C D EFish A B C D E

A B C D E

[A-08] Proportion of threatened species

(threatened species / native species)

New category

0 3 10 25 50%-


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

>31 30-21 20-11 10-1 0%


19/41

19


[A-11] Increase or decrease of threatened species

Based on the citys condition, compile when revising the Red List.

The following is Nagoyas example

decrease 1 5 20 species and more


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 25% or more 50% or more

Vascular plants 91% 8% 1%

Mammals 3% 58% 37% 2%

Birds 53% 44% 3%

Reptiles 55% 40% 5%

Amphibians 41% 14% 25% 10% 7%

Fish 18% 42% 36% 1% 4%


20/41

20


21/41

21

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 natures 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.


22/41

22


(Revisions)

2. Ecosystem Services in the City B. Ecosystem Services in the City

(12) Fresh water services

(cost of cleaning the water in the city)

(13) Carbon storage (total number of trees)

Revision needed

The amount of greenery in the city shall be used

not as an indicator for carbon storage but as an

indicator for other services, such as

countermeasure for the heat island phenomenon.

Recreation & educational services

(14) No. of visits to parks & nature reserves

/person/year

(15) Area of parks & protected area/person

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

reserves/child under 16 years/year

Regulating/Supporting services

[B-01] Fresh water services revised

Ratio of raw water/water purification cost

in the waterworks budget

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

the water purification facility,

(2) water purification, and

(3) transporting water from water purification

facility to the users.

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

indicator that assesses the Ability to secure clean

water in the community.

When buying water from another area, the purchase

cost equals to (1) + (2).

Cultural services

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

Revised the scoring category

>10 10-8 7-5 4-2 1% or less

C


23/41

23


Self-assess major ecosystem services in accordance with prior ities 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.

Increase or decrease in ten years

[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 2of urban area).

* Conduct self-assessment on the ease of daily access to local nature.

[B-15]

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

E

+10 +3 -3 -10%

/km2


24/41

24


25/41

25

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 citys 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 inaccordance with the condition of each city.


26/41

26


(Revisions)

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)

[C-02] Rate of increase or decrease in forests

ten-year period

[C-03] Rate of increase or decrease in farmland

ten-year period

Pollutant emission

[C-04] River water quality BOD

[C-05]Air quality SO2

[C-06]Air quality NOX

+ 0 -5% -10% -20%

0 25 50 75 90 100%

+ 0 -5% -10% -20%

0 2 5 10 20 /

0 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.3 ppm

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.1 ppm


27/41

27


Consider adding indicators in accordance with the citys situation

Reference: Reference:

% of green space and water surface in Nagoya Changes in Nagoyas green space and water surface

(2005) 95-05

Whole

city

Urban

area

Rural

area

Whole

city

Urban

area

Rural

area

Forest/grove

Herbaceous/lawn

Cropland

Water bodies

11%

6%

4%

3%

11%

5%

3%

2%

10%

21%

22%

17%

Forest/grove

Herbaceous/lawn

Cropland

Water bodies

- 5%

- 9%

- 26%

+ 1%

- 5%

- 12%

- 35%

- 2%

+ 0%

+ 1%

- 8%

+ 5%

Total 25% 21% 69% Total -10% -12% - 3%

Reference:Status of water and air pollutions in Nagoya

2008 1998 Percentage

changeBest Worst

Water quality RiversBOD

DO

3.3

7.8

1.2

14

10.0

2.1

5.4

6.9

- 31%

+13%

PondsBOD

COD

DO

4.0

8.0

10.0

1.0

5.2

13

9.0

12

8.7

Nagoya PortCOD

DO

3.2

6.9

2.6

7.8

4.4

5.6

3.9

6.7

- 18%

+ 3%

Air quality Air SO2

NOX

0.003

0.034

0.002

0.021

0.004

0.088

0.005

0.057

- 60%

- 40%

Average value of multiple sites. Units: mg/for water quality and ppm for air quality


28/41

28


29/41

29

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 worlds

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 andrestore the ecosystems within the city. This is because city population has surpassed

half of the worlds 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 worlds ecosystem services.

Indicators on Dependence on Ecosystems outside the Cityare 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.


30/41

30


(Revisions)

D. Dependence on Ecosystems

outside the City

Reference: Ecological footprint of countries in the world

(% of countries by the scale of footprint, 2005

Ecological footprint

[D-01] Carbon footprint

World average: 1.41

[D-02] Bio footprint World average: 1.23

[D-03] Water footprint of consumption

World average: 1,243

Dependence on sources outside the city

[D-04] Dependence on water from outside

sources

Carbon footprint 53% 20% 11% 13% 3%

Bio footprint 11% 54% 26% 5% 4%

Forest 16% 31% 19% 24% 9%

Cropland,Grazing land &Fishing ground

13% 43% 26% 13% 5%

Water footprint ofconsumption

25% 14% 29% 21% 10%

Living Planet Report 2008 (by WWF)

0 0.7 1.5 2.5 4 gha/person

C B S

0 0.7 1.5 2.5 4 gha/person

S C B

0 1000 1200 1500 20003/person

/yr.

C B

C

0 25 50 75 90 100%


31/41

31


Conduct self-assessment in accordance with the citys condition.

For ecological footprint , substitu te country-level values (by Living Planet Report).

Examples:

[D-11] Forest footprint

*World average: 0.23

[D-12] Cropland, Grazing land,Fishing ground footprint *World average: 0.99

[D-13] Water footprint * The countrys water use (except for the production of exported goods)

Internal

*World average: 1,043

[D-14] Water footprint * Indirect water use for the consumption of imported goods

External

*World average: 199

[D-15] Stress on * Quantity of water intake/quantity of renewable freshwater resources

blue water resources

[D-16] Dependence on land outside of the city for carbon uptake

Proposal 1 Carbon footprint per person/Citys 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 Nagoyas natural resources

Within Nagoya 2006 Within Japan (2008)

Food Cal 1% 41%

Lumber 0% 24%

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 gha/person

S

C

B

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.5 gha/person

S C B

0 500 1000 1500 2000 m3/person/year

B C

0 100 200 500 1000 m3/person/year

C B

0 5 20 40 100 >100%

C B


32/41

32


33/41

33

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 citys

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.


34/41

34


(Revisions)

3. Governance and Management of

BiodiversityE. Local Action

(17) Budget allocated to biodiversity projects

(18) Number of biodiversity projects &

programmes organized by the city annually

(19) Rules, Regulations & Policy

(Local Biodiversity Strategy & Action Plan)

0No LBSAP

B 1 LBSAP not aligned with NBSAP

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

Integrating biodiversity into city planning

& management

[E-1] Budget allocated to biodiversity projects and

biodiversity related services revised

[E-2] Local Biodiversity Strategy & Action Plan

revised as the table below

AWith strategy (collaboration with NBSAP/CBD initiatives, other governmental sectors, citizens,

and businesses is spelled out in specific action plans)B With strategy (action plans are being formulated or the collaboration framework is still fragile)

C

Without strategy (considerations for biodiversity have been incorporated into the plans of

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)

0 1% 2% 3% more than3%

B S C

0 1-10 11-20 21-30 more than30

B C S

5% 3% 2% 1% 0%

EDCBA


35/41

35



36/41

36


(Revisions)

Institutional Capacity

(20) No. of institutions [E-3] Institutions covering essential biodiversity-

related functions


Institution/Function

Area

Geological

historyAnimal Plant

Aqua

lifeInsect 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

[E-4 Coordination with relevant agencies


Related government fieldClose

collaboration

Partial

collaboration

No

collaboration

Not

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 educationPublic procurement

0 1 2 3 4

B C S

0 2 3 4 at least5

B C S


37/41

37


* 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.


38/41

38


(Revisions)

Participation & Partnership

(22) Existence of a consultation process

Participation & Partnership

[E-5] Existence of a consultation process


Basic plan

formulation phase

Individual project

planning phase

Individual project

implementation phase

Formal consultation process

Informal consultation process

(23) Existence of partnerships [E-6] Status of partnership


Formulation

of strategy,

etc.

Planning of

individual

project

Implementation

of individual

project

Awareness-

enhancing

activity

Academic institution/

research institution

Educational institution

NGO/NPO

Local resident organization

Business/trade organization

Others

A. Collaboration with many organizations B. Collaboration with multiple organizations

C. Collaboration exists.

None being being in the exists

considered planned process

B C S

0 1 2 3 at least 4

B C S


39/41

39


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

its condition.


40/41

40


(Revisions)

Education & Awareness raising

(24) Incorporation of biodiversity into the school

curriculum

Education & Awareness raising

[E-7] Incorporation of biodiversity into the school

curriculum


Implement

ed at most

schools

Implemented at

about half of the

schools

Implemented at

some schools

Implemented during academic studies

Implemented as special studies

Implemented as extracurricular activities

(25) No. of outreach programmes/public

awareness events per year

[E-8] Participatory-type activities


Planning/implementation body

GovernmentEducational

organization

NGO/

NPO

Resident

organizationBusiness Others

Cleaning and conservation

of green space, etc.

Survey, monitoring

Field experience,

observation

Study group, lecture

Festival-type awareness

enhancing event

Others

AActivity on a continuous basis A Many activities on a continuous basis

B Single event B Many single events

not being being in the included

covered considered planned process

B C S

0 1-20 21-50 51-100 >100

B C S


41/41


* 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.

1.cities biodiversity index

Documents