CBBIA-IAIA Guidance Document

The term ‘environment’ broadly covers our surroundings and the characteristics of those surroundings that influence our health and wellbeing. That is, the environment includes all living organisms (plants, animals and other life), the physical environment (land, water and air), as well as social, economic and cultural conditions. Sometimes we speak of ‘the natural environment’ and ‘the built environment’, to differentiate between natural and man-made systems.

A.2 What are natural resources, biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services?

§ Ecosystems include living (e.g. plants, animals) and non-living (e.g. minerals, soil, water) components, which can be defined in terms of distinguishing characteristics (e.g. a wetland ecosystem, a freshwater ecosystem, a terrestrial ecosystem, a forest ecosystem, etc.). Figure A-1 shows the inter-relationships between living and non-living natural resources.

§ Ecosystem services are a wide range of services[4] provided predictably, reliably and regularly for people by the natural environment (Figure A-2).

§ Natural resources include living and non-living materials that can be exploited or used by people. Natural resources form part of ecosystems, and our living natural resources contribute to biodiversity. Some people use ‘natural resources’ to mean the same thing as biodiversity or ecosystem services.

Figure A-1: Natural resources, biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services

§ Biodiversity is defined[5] as ‘the variability among living organisms from all sources and the ecological complexes of which they are part'.

o It covers the pattern and process of living organisms and ecosystems (Box A-1).

o It covers the genetic diversity within a species (within populations or strains of the same species), the diversity of different species (plant and animal species, micro-organisms), and the diversity of ecosystems (e.g. different ecosystems on land, freshwater ecosystems, marine ecosystems).

o It can focus on a spectrum of spatial scales, from localised small sites in an urban environment, to catchments, regional landscapes, to global level.

o The diversity of life in an ecosystem helps that ecosystem to cope with, and recover after disturbance. As a general rule, biodiversity gives resilience to ecosystems.

o Box A-2 gives the various terms that are used to describe the status of species and ecosystems.

§ Natural capital comprises natural resources and, together with human capital and human-made capital, provides all of the capital that we use and transform for development.

o A ‘threatened’ species or ecosystem is one that is at risk of going extinct in its natural range. It may be ‘critically endangered’ at extremely high risk, ‘endangered’ at very high risk, or ‘vulnerable’ at high risk. Species or ecosystems at low or no risk are not ‘threatened’, and fall into the ‘near threatened’ or ‘least concern’ categories[6] (see Figure A-3).

o An endemic or range-restricted species or ecosystem is one whose distribution is confined to a particular and often very limited geographical region.

o A protected species or ecosystem is one that is protected by law from particular activities and land uses.

o A ‘Red Data Book’ or ‘Red List’ provides information on threatened species.

o An ecologically sensitive ecosystem is one where relatively minor disturbances may result in substantial and significant changes.

o A dynamic ecosystem is one which is highly mobile (e.g. driftsands or dunefields) or prone to change (e.g. mouth of an estuary, floodplains, areas of subsidence).

o A resilient ecosystem is one that can absorb disturbance and reorganize fairly rapidly after change, to restore its pre-disturbance structure, composition and function. Its converse is a vulnerable ecosystem, that takes a long time to recover – if it can recover at all.

Africa south of the equator has a disproportionately high fraction of global biodiversity:

§ We have six international biodiversity ‘hotspots’: These hotspots are:

§ There are numerous registered (natural) World Heritage Sites in southern Africa (e.g. five sites in the Democratic Republic of Congo, one in Malawi, one each in Madagascar and Mozambique, two in the Seychelles, three in South Africa, four in Tanzania, three in Zimbabwe and one trans-boundary site in Zambia/Zimbabwe).

§ Most southern African countries have designated more than one Ramsar site, and Botswana has the world’s largest Ramsar wetland site (Okavango).

§ A large proportion of the population is fully or partially dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods, subsistence and survival.

§ Nature-based tourism, or ‘ecotourism’, is one of the fastest growing sectors and comprises a major part of the economy in many countries e.g. Botswana, Namibia, Seychelles, Mauritius, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania and Zambia.

Development: The World Commission on Environment and Development defines development as any kind of “development that aims to promote harmony among human beings, and between humanity and nature”. That is, development isn’t necessarily economic development or growth orientated development, it can be qualitative forms of development.

§ “Development that meets the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and aspirations” – the definition of the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987).

§ “Improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems” – the definition given in a publication called “Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living” by the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Wide Fund for Nature (1991).

Sustainable development places value on:

a) The integrity of the natural environment and social equity alongside economic development,

b) Future, as well as current generations, and

c) The poor as well as the rich.

For development to be sustainable, we need to avoid loss of natural capital where at all possible. Where only a proportion of natural capital is conserved, such as essential life-support services or ‘critical natural capital’, sustainability is described as ‘weak’.

Figure A-5 shows how the natural system supports our social and economic systems, all of which are influenced by the political system and governance. Figure A-6 shows how these different and interacting systems need to work together to promote movement towards the vision of sustainable development.

Important to note:

In terms of the international Convention on Biological Diversity, conservation of biodiversity supports sustainable development in general, and safeguarding the integrity of the natural environment and social equity specifically, by giving an obligation to member countries to:

1. Protect species and ecosystems that warrant national or local protection, including:

(a) ecosystems that are threatened, important for maintaining key ecological or evolutionary processes and/or functions (i.e. ecosystem services), ecosystems that contain rich biodiversity or large numbers of threatened or endemic species, with social, economic, cultural or scientific value;

(b) species and communities of species that are threatened, related to domesticated or cultivated species, and/or have medicinal, agricultural or other economic, social, cultural or scientific significance;

(c) genotypes with social, scientific or economic significance.

2. Use indigenous biological resources sustainably; and

3. Share the benefits of biodiversity fairly and equitably.

Figure A-6: Working towards the ideal of sustainable development in the SADC countries (shaded)[8]

An example of biodiversity conservation and ecotourism-based tourism supporting socio-economic growth and contributing to sustainable development is given in Box A-4 below.

The Eastern Cape, South Africa, has high levels of poverty and a threatened resource base. In changing from commercial livestock farming to game-based ecotourism, ten privately owned farms in the Eastern Cape showed the following results[9]:

o An increase of 450% in employment. Since each employee supports on average 3.5 dependents, this increase is highly significant.

o A 480% increase in the average annual salary of full-time employees.

o Opportunities to provide a spectrum of skills training in various fields, linked to the hospitality and ecotourism industries, to local communities.

o Gross revenues and revenues per hectare have increased over the past 4 years, and continue to rise.

o Protection of an average of 11,661 ha per farm, representing 6 of South Africa’s 8 biomes and an immense diversity of plants and animals.

Human wellbeing is related to security, having the basic material for a good life, health, good social relations, and freedom of choice and action[10].

Ecosystem services influence many of these factors, playing a key role in providing materials for a good life, health, secure access to resources and security from disasters (Figure A-7).

Biodiversity matters to everyone. Its loss impoverishes the environment and reduces its capacity to support people now and in the future.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was a world-wide study (2001-2005) that assessed the consequences of change in our global ecosystems for human wellbeing, and determined what needs to be done to ensure the sustained contribution of those ecosystems to our wellbeing. The main findings of this study, that highlight the dependence of people on ecosystems, are given in Box A-5.

The main findings are:

o Over the past 50 years we have changed ecosystems faster than ever before in human history. About 60% of ecosystem services are being degraded or used unsustainably. This has led to major and irreversible loss in the diversity of life on Earth.

o These changes have meant large gains in economic development and human wellbeing, but also degradation in many ecosystem services and the worsening of poverty for some. In many cases, our activities have shifted the burden of degrading ecosystem services from one group of people to another, more vulnerable group, or to future generations. Also, indications are that our actions are increasing the chances of non-linear, abrupt, and potentially catastrophic changes that have huge consequences for human wellbeing (e.g. shifts in regional climate, collapse of fisheries, and alteration or disruption of ocean currents).

o The continued deterioration of ecosystems could grow significantly worse in the next 50 years, and is a barrier to achieving the Millennium Development Goals. The harmful effects of degrading ecosystem services are being borne disproportionately by the poor, increasing poverty and social conflict. Particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, the condition and management of ecosystem services is a major factor influencing prospects for reducing poverty.

o The challenge to stop degrading our ecosystems can be met but will need major changes to the way we currently operate. It will mean changes to policies, institutions and practices.

Box A-6 presents the findings of the southern African component of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment[12].

o There is a high correlation between environmental sustainability and human wellbeing.

Human health depends on clean water and air.

Water resources are unevenly distributed in southern Africa.

Poor water quality is linked to diseases.

Air pollution causes health problems.

The ability to fight infection is linked to nutrition and the environment.

Protein nutrition is particularly serious in the region.

o Climate change projections for southern Africa point to a far drier region, with mean annual temperatures 2-5°C warmer in 2050 than in 1990 (Figure A-8). The changing conditions will have major impacts on natural vegetation, water, agriculture, fisheries and forestry.

o Forests and woodlands are being cleared at a rate exceeding re-growth.

o Overstocking and overfishing are major problems in the region.

o The greatest potential for limiting biodiversity loss is through preventing degradation of semi-natural ecosystems used outside of protected areas.

o At least 4 of the 8 Millennium Development Goals will not be met in the region unless attention is given to stabilizing ecosystem services. These Goals are: reducing hunger; reducing child mortality; combating diseases; and ensuring environmental sustainability.

o Livelihoods are often linked directly or indirectly to ecosystem services:

Water is central to livelihood security;

Fisheries (both freshwater and marine) are a main source of income and protein;

Game meat and wild plants provide medicine and food;

Natural vegetation provides grazing for livestock;

Wood provides fuel and building materials;

Nature-based tourism generates income;

Soils underpin agriculture;

Seas, coastlines and coastal ecosystems provide food and protect the shoreline.

o Biodiversity has direct economic and wellbeing value through the provision of medicines.

o Maintaining ecosystem services requires effective institutions and governance.

o Nature-based tourism, dependent on unspoiled landscapes, is growing three times faster than agriculture or forestry and forms a significant part of the regional economy.

We all depend fundamentally on ecosystems and the natural goods and services they provide.

Important to note:

Whether we are relatively wealthy or poor, live in urban or rural areas, access natural resources directly (e.g. through subsistence or commercial exploitation of these resources) or indirectly (e.g. through supermarkets and services provision by government), we rely heavily on ecosystem services for our wellbeing. People who live in urban areas rely on ecosystems beyond those urban areas for the food, water and energy, and to treat and dispose of their wastes; their so-called ‘ecological footprint’[14]. The global average ecological footprint per person is 2.2ha, but, there are only 1.8ha of productive area available per person on the planet; i.e. our demands on the planet are exceeding the earth’s capacity to deliver, resulting in deterioration in these services (see Figure A-9).

§ For their direct use (e.g. food, materials, medicines, fuel, fibre, commercial goods)

§ For their indirect use (pollination services for crops, water purification services, grazing for livestock, coastal protection)

§ For the options that they provide (future use), and for their ability to evolve and adapt to changing conditions, thus giving us some ‘insurance’ against changing climate.

The examples of the ‘Rivet Poppers’ (Box A-7) and the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ (Box A-8) portray the links between people and ecosystem services in a different but interesting way.

Suppose you are about to board an aircraft, and you notice a man on a ladder busily popping rivets out of the wing. Curious, you approach him and ask what he's doing.

"I'm taking these rivets out of the wing," he replies.

"Why?"

"Growthmania Airlines, which own the plane, sells them for US$1.00 each and I get US$0.50 from them for each one I pop."

"Are you crazy? The wing will be weakened and sooner or later it'll fall off!"

"Don't worry, I've popped out a lot of rivets, and nothing has happened yet."

The impact that we are having on Earth's ecosystems is in many ways the same as popping the rivets out of an aircraft's wing. The precise role of each species or population in an ecosystem is usually unknown, just as is the precise role of each rivet in an aircraft's wing. Equally, the results of popping a single rivet or deleting a single population cannot be easily predicted, especially since future stresses on the system are unpredictable. But what is known with certainty is that the end result of popping all the rivets or destroying natural habitat will inevitably be a failure - of the aircraft’s wing in the first case; of the ecosystem in the second.

Conversion and fragmentation of natural habitat is the main threat to biodiversity and ecosystems. Shrinking habitat causes a decrease in the populations and numbers of species. At some point, declining populations reach a ‘threshold’ beyond which they ‘crash’ and become extinct (Figure A-10). This threshold varies from about 20%-70% of habitat remaining[18], and depends on the particular organism, the landscape, and the ability to link up with other populations of the same species.

Figure A-10: Non-linear behaviour of populations in response to habitat loss

It can be seen from Figure A-10 that the behaviour of populations is non linear in response to impacts. Extinction of populations or species can result in major changes in the resilience of the ecosystem and in the services they can provide. In many cases it is extremely difficult to predict these extinction thresholds, and thus to predict the behaviour of ecosystems in response to impacts. So, ecosystems on which we depend may collapse without much warning if the impacts on them exceed an often poorly-defined threshold.

Many of our natural resources such as air, water, the sea, rivers and biodiversity are not owned by any one party. Rather, they are ‘common property’ goods that benefit society as a whole. Where access to and use of these goods is not managed or controlled, it ‘pays’ the individual user to extract as much benefit from the resource as possible, regardless of the negative effect on that resource. Quite simply, whatever benefit is obtained goes to the individual, while the costs of over-exploitation are distributed amongst all of the users of that resource. So, the net effect is that common property goods tend to be degraded or ultimately doomed.

The depletion of our biodiversity and deterioration of many natural systems can be seen as a ‘tragedy of the commons’.

Very often the use of public goods over which there is no control leads to a deterioration in their availability and quality. On the other hand, where use of the commons is strictly regulated according to the dictates of a market economy, prices often rise and the people most dependent on those common property goods for their livelihoods tend to be excluded, increasing their vulnerability. The main challenge is to ensure that these common property goods are equitably allocated and managed for the benefit of the common good.

A.5.2 The economics of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and their value

Economics is the study of how the forces of supply and demand allocate scarce resources. Unfortunately, some of these forces – particularly those associated with ‘free’ ecosystem services - are not adequately recognised or reflected in conventional economics. That means that the allocation of scarce, and often irreplaceable, natural resources is not always optimal.

Given that biodiversity and ecosystem services are likely to become increasingly scarce and stressed in future, their value can only increase. If thresholds are passed for irreplaceable ecosystem services, their value may quickly jump to infinity[20].

Important to note:

o Ecosystem management, democratic governance and poverty reduction are essential to economic growth in southern Africa.

o The most important factors underlying changes in ecosystem services in the southern African region are population growth, the economy and political governance[21].

o Productive ecosystems are the basis of a sustainable income from nature. Income is derived from ecosystem goods and services, both as ‘wild income’ from unspoiled natural systems or as ‘agricultural income’ from agricultural lands[22].

o The absence of market prices does not mean that ecosystem services have no value to people[23].

o It is difficult to find perfect artificial alternatives for ecosystem services[24].

o Investing in ecosystem services can be an excellent strategy to reduce costs and increase returns[25].

§ Conventional economic indicators don’t show depletion of ecosystems or ecosystem services as loss of a capital asset. The indirect values of conserving biodiversity are often not taken into account; often the value of a lost ecosystem is greater than the benefits of a converted ecosystem (e.g. the benefits of conserving wetlands and mangroves generally exceed the benefits obtained through their conversion to other use[26]; converting primary forest to anything other than high value timber extraction or agro-forestry is likely to fail a cost-benefit test).

§ Common property resources provide ‘free’ goods and services to local communities and society. However, if these resources are destroyed the costs of providing substitutes are often high. That is, there is an opportunity cost associated with activities that destroy or degrade ecosystem services. An ‘opportunity cost’ is defined by economists as the net benefit to society that could be obtained by the ‘next best’ development alternative.

EXAMPLE: OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF INTRODUCING NILE PERCH INTO LAKE VICTORIA

The Nile perch, a large predatory fish, was introduced into Lake Victoria in the 1960s to boost the fishing industry. Little if any consideration was given to the effects of introducing this fish on the ecosystem of the lake, or to linkages between changes in that ecosystem and the broader socioeconomic environment.

The effects of introducing the Nile perch have been:

Societal benefits:

o An increase in the lake fishery to four times that in the 1960s and 1970s.

o Development of a commercial industry for the Nile perch that has created 2400 jobs.

o Export of about 400 tonnes of fresh fish weekly to Europe and Asia earned almost US$5 billion in taxes in 2000/1.

Societal costs:

o The extinction of about 200-300 indigenous and endemic fish species, many of which were the basis for local fisheries. The loss of species is irreversible and constitutes the loss of an irreplaceable resource.

o Displacement of about 15,000 jobs, including thousands of women who were previously engaged in fish processing.

o Overfishing and degradation of the natural environment now threatens the Nile perch industry: there has been a severe shortage of Nile perch since 2001 when the catch dropped by 75%; a dozen commercial fish processing plants are threatened with closure.

o Some 32,000 fishermen and another 3 million people in Tanzania who depend on fishing-related industry are negatively affected by the demise of the Nile perch industry.

It appears that the opportunity costs of introducing the Nile perch were substantial. Had the potential effects of the proposed activity been thoroughly investigated using an ecosystem approach, it is possible that a precautionary approach would have been taken and the Nile perch would not have been introduced to Lake Victoria.

§ Many ecosystem services don’t flow directly through markets, lack markets altogether, or aren’t priced according to their full economic value. That means that the importance of ecosystems is not recognised until they are degraded or lost. Also, there is no incentive to use these services wisely or efficiently. For example, over 30% of the world's food crops rely on insect pollinators, and another 10% on other animal pollinators[28]. No pollination means no seeds or fruit; the consequences are serious. Yet the value of pollinators is not widely recognised.

§ The benefits of ecosystem services often go unmeasured, appear as items in other sectors (e.g. the benefits of wetlands are reflected in higher profits in water-use sectors), or can be misleading (e.g. ‘successful’ fishing catch is a short-term bonus if the rates of fishing exceed natural rates of replenishment of fish stocks).

An interesting example of the economics of shrimp farming relative to that of conserving the mangrove ecosystem in its current state is given below. Without considering the value of ecosystem services, shrimp farming would seem to offer major economic rewards; when the ecosystem service value is built in, it is clear that conserving the mangroves is the best alternative:

§ With the failure of economic systems to reflect adequately the value of ecosystem services, many of our natural resources are being exploited or ‘cashed in’ for short term benefit.

§ The cost of maintaining and managing ecosystems that provide valuable services is often far less than the benefits received from that system. That is, the investment makes sound economic sense.

§ Decisions on the use of biodiversity or ecosystem services often foreclose other options for their use. In some instances, the ‘lost opportunity’ comes at a relatively high cost.

Box A-9 gives some values of ecosystem goods and services at a global scale, and in southern Africa. The costs to society if these ecosystem services were to be lost, and/or had to be substituted, would be enormous.

o In 1997 the total value of ecosystem services on earth was estimated at between US$16 trillion and US$54 trillion per year, with a central estimate of US$33 trillion[29].

o The annual values (per km) of offshore reefs is estimated at US$100,000 – 600,000 and of mangroves US$200,000 – 900,000[30]. Where destroyed, the ‘costs’ are felt both locally and many kilometres away through reduced fish catches and tourism revenue, malnutrition and loss of food security, and increased coastal erosion Investing in environmentally sustainable management and development of the coast will be more cost effective than restoring livelihoods and ecosystems after a catastrophe.

o Wetland marshes, mangroves and coral reefs protect beaches, control floods and storm damage on the Seychelles coast. The cost of providing substitutes for these ecosystem services is estimated at about 4 million rupees per year (US$0.8 million).

o In the Cape Floristic Region, a global biodiversity hotspot in South Africa, the harvest of marine resources and indigenous vegetation (fynbos) products is valued at over R1,300 million and R78 million per year respectively. The annual value of pollination services and honey production by bees is estimated at R594 million (2000 figures).

o The total annual value of ecosystem services in the Cape Floristic Region is estimated to be about R10 billion (2000 figures), equivalent to over 10% of South Africa’s Gross Geographic Product[31].

o The total annual value of ecosystem services within the city of Mhlatuze, KwaZulu-Natal province, South Africa, is estimated at R1.76 billion[32]. Ecosystem services cover water supply and regulation, flood and drought management, food production, pollination, nutrient cycling, disease and pest control, refugia for wildlife and fisheries, atmospheric regulation, and cultural/recreation (amongst others).

o The total value of ecosystem goods alone (i.e. not services) provided by the Zambezi wetlands in Zambia and the Lake Chilwa wetland in Malawi, is estimated at between US$6,700-8,800/km² per year (2002 figures)[33].

o In Namibia, the value of the eastern Caprivi wetlands is estimated at US$840,000 for crop and livestock production[34].

o The informal market value of indigenous herbal remedies in southern Africa is estimated to be between US$75-150million p.a; the formal market trade is estimated at about US$25million[35].

The concept of ‘total economic value’ best captures the many benefits of ecosystem services and is increasingly being used to inform improved decision making. A wide range of tools are available and being developed for this purpose

In this Part of the guidance document, you will find the following sections:
A.1	What is meant by 'the environment'?
A.2	What are natural resources, biodiversity, ecosystem and ecosystem services?
A.3	Why is biodiversity in southern Africa special?
A.4	What is meant by 'development' and 'sustainable development'?
A.5	What is human wellbeing and how is it dependent on biodiversity and ecosystem services?


	Illustrations of southern Africa's biomes. From top left to bottom right: forest, savanna, grassland, arid shrubland, desert, fynbos, wetlands and lakes. © B. Walmsley and P. Tarr


	Victoria Falls (left) is a World Heritage Site shared by Zambia and Zimbabwe. Southern Africa's numerous and diverse natural splendors from the basis for a rapidly growing and potentially sustainable tourism industry. Tourist accommodation ranges from campsites to up-market lodges (above). ©P. Tarr