UNU-IAS Cities and Bio E-Ver

8/3/2019 UNU-IAS Cities and Bio E-Ver

1/62

UNU-IAS Policy Report

Cities, Biodiversity and Governance:Perspectives and Challenges of theImplementation of the Convention on

Biological Diversity at the City Level


2/62

The United Nations University Institute o Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS) is a global thinktank whose mission is to advance knowledge and promote learning or policy-makingto meet the challenges o sustainable development. UNU-IAS undertakes research andpostgraduate education to identiy and address strategic issues o concern or all humankind,or governments, decision-makers, and particularly, or developing countries.

Established in 1996, the Institute convenes expertise rom disciplines such as economics,law, social and natural sciences to better understand and contribute creative solutions topressing global concerns, with research and programmatic activities related to current

debates on sustainable development:

Biodiplomacy Initiative Ecosystem Services Assessment Satoyama Initiative Sustainable Development Governance Education or Sustainable Development Marine Governance Traditional Knowledge Initiative Science and Technology or Sustainable Societies Sustainable Urban Futures

UNU-IAS, based in Yokohama, Japan, has two International Operating Units: the OperatingUnit Ishikawa/Kanazawa (OUIK) in Japan, and the Traditional Knowledge Initiative (TKI) inAustralia.


3/62

UNU-IAS Policy Report

Cities, Biodiversity and Governance:

Perspectives and Challenges of theImplementation of the Convention onBiological Diversity at the City Level

Jose Antonio Puppim de Oliveira

Osman Balaban

Christopher Doll

Raquel Moreno-Penaranda

Alexandros Gasparatos

Deljana Iossiova

Aki Suwa


4/62

2

Copyright United Nations University, 2010

The views expressed in this publication are those o the author and do not necessarily relect the views o theUnited Nations University or the Institute o Advanced Studies.

United Nations University Institute o Advanced Studies6F, International Organizations CenterPaciico-Yokohama 1-1-1 Minato MiraiNishi-ku, Yokohama, 220-8502 JapanTel: +81-45-221-2300 Fax: +81-45-221-2302Email: [email protected] http://www.ias.unu.edu/

ISBN 978-92-808-4516-7 (pb)ISBN 978-92-808-4517-4 (eb)UNU-IAS/2010/No. 3

Cover Photo Credit: iStockphoto.com/Alija, Central ParkDesign and Layout: Xpress Print Pte LtdCopy Editing: Yoshie A. OyaPrinted by Xpress Print Pte Ltd in Singapore

Printed on Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certied paper using soy-based ink


5/62

3

Foreword .................................................................................................................... 5

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... 6

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 7

1. Introduction: How are cities related to biodiversity, particularly withregards to the implementation of CBD? ................................................................. 9

2. Processes of Urbanisation and Biodiversity ........................................................... 12

2.1 A brie history o cities in the environment ........................................................... 12

2.1.1 Past ............................................................................................................ 122.1.2 Present ....................................................................................................... 13

2.1.3 Future ......................................................................................................... 13

2.2 Converging views in the movements or biological conservationand urban planning ............................................................................................. 14

3. Linking Cities and Biodiversity ............................................................................... 17

3.1 Biodiversity and urban well-being: provision o ecosystem services ....................... 17

3.2 Major drivers o biodiversity loss and its links to urban activity .............................. 18

3.2.1 Habitat destruction ..................................................................................... 18

3.2.2 Pollution ..................................................................................................... 18

3.2.3 Introduction o alien species ....................................................................... 18

3.2.4 Overexploitation ......................................................................................... 19

3.2.5 Climate change .......................................................................................... 20

3.3 Linking biodiversity loss to urban processes .......................................................... 20

3.3.1 Urban development .................................................................................... 21

3.3.2 Production and consumption in cities .......................................................... 23

3.3.3 Trade and transportation ............................................................................ 24

3.3.4 Heat stress related to the urban heat island eect ....................................... 25

4. Instruments for Improving the Contribution of Cities to the CBD ....................... 27

4.1 Development and implementation o proper housing and inrastructure policies .. 27

4.2 Provision o a good network o urban green spaces and unctionalaquatic habitats ................................................................................................... 29

4.3 Local sustainable production methods or biodiversity in urban areas ................... 31

4.4 Improvements in public transportation and more compact cities .......................... 35

Contents


6/62

4

4.5 Increasing awareness among urban dwellers and decision-makers ....................... 36

4.6 Stronger links with national and international networks ....................................... 37

5. Cities, the CBD and Governance Challenges ......................................................... 395.1 Obstacles to improve the governance o the CBD................................................. 40

5.1.1 Cities are not in the core discussions o CBD ............................................... 40

5.1.2 CBD implementation by national governments is limited ............................. 40

5.1.3 CBD is still not mainstreamed in the cities agenda ...................................... 41

5.1.4 Conceptual clarications are needed to move the biodiversity agenda ........ 41

5.1.5 Citizens lack awareness o the importance o biodiversity andecosystem services ...................................................................................... 41

5.1.6 There is a lack o proper instruments to deal with biodiversity atthe city level ............................................................................................... 41

5.1.7 Lack o coordination among dierent levels o government andamong local governments or joint action ................................................... 42

5.1.8 Dierences in the challenges among cities .................................................. 42

5.1.9 Political resistance or change at various levels ............................................ 43

5.2 Opportunities to move the CBD agenda orward .................................................. 43

5.2.1 Cities as an ecient body to protect biodiversity ......................................... 435.2.2 Cities involvement to tackle global programs and

development o new instruments ............................................................... 43

5.2.3 Urban dwellers tend to be more educated and environmentally sensitive .... 45

5.2.4 Policies can be more eective at the city level because o the scale ............. 45

5.2.5 Opportunities or win-win situations between biodiversity conservationand other benets ...................................................................................... 45

5.2.6 Convergence o the movements on biological diversity

and urban planning .................................................................................... 47

6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 48

References .................................................................................................................. 50


7/62

Foreword

5

The world is on the brink o a conounding crisis, which is brought about by a cumulating

cascade o actors such as rapid changes in our natural climatic conditions, environmentaldegradation brought about by unsustainable production and consumption practices,depletion o environmental and biological resources, and a sharp decline in variousindicators o well-being. While noting that it is our actions and, oten times, inactionsthat have precipitated these impending crises, it is imperative that we the citizens o ourplanet should quickly come up with eective measures to mitigate the consequencesand adapt to the changes in our natural ecosystems. This would require us to pay moreattention to the enhancement and maintenance o natural resources and processes as well-unctioning ecosystems with the diversity o resources contained therein so as to enablesustainable production, consumption, and related livelihood activities. Obviously, this wouldrequire inputs rom various scientic, technological, and allied academic elds in terms o

innovations and radically new ideas; rom business communities by ostering best practicesin the use and disposal o resources and transactions with others in the supply chain; romcivil society in ostering responsible stewardship o natural resources and social concerns;and, rom governments in terms o development and implementation o appropriate policiesthat are sensitive to the needs o the diverse sections o the society they govern. And theimplications o actions by the various stakeholders need to be analysed in a timely, and,oten, anticipatory manner, in order to draw attention to benets and concerns related todecisions made at dierent levels.

In this context, I am pleased to state that the United Nations University Institute o AdvancedStudies (UNU-IAS) has been actively contributing to advancing awareness o various concerns

related to biodiversity and ecosystems among a variety o stakeholders. Our research hasstraddled areas in the interace between the natural world, human aspirations, and well-being consequences. We have ocused especially on the notion o ostering equitabletransactions between dierent stakeholders over the years.

This year, we are launching several new publications that are o particular relevance tothe Conerence o Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Thepublications examine a diverse set o topics that include, among others, the eectivenesso implementation o national biodiversity strategies by dierent countries; the governanceand management o bio-cultural landscapes such assatoyama andsatoumi; the status obiodiversity in the South East Asian region; the impact o emerging biouel technologies to

the provision o ecosystems services; scoping the role o urban centres in green development;and underscoring the need or bridging epistemological divides between modern andtraditional world views in securing development goals and conservation priorities all owhich are topics that are o keen import to the CBDs objectives as well as to the broadersustainable development agenda. I expect each o these publications will provide a basis toinorm discussions and acilitate designing o implementable policies in their related areas.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank our partners and collaborators or their supportin our research and capacity development activities. There are several expectations rom theoutcomes o this COP, and we hope to continue our work in the uture inorming andproviding relevant inputs to policy-makers, academics, and practitioners alike.

Govindan Parayil,Director, UNU-IAS and Vice-Rector, UNUOctober 2010

Foreword


8/62

Acknowledgements

6

We would like to thank some members o the Global Partnership on Cities and Biodiversity,

particularly Oliver Hillel, Andr Mader, and Peter Werner or the comments they made onthe early drats o this document.

Acknowledgements


9/62

Executive Summary

7

City governments can contribute more to implementing the Convention on Biological

Diversity (CBD), as the 2010 target to reduce the rate o biodiversity loss set by governmentsduring the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 is not being achieved. Thenecessity or city governance to tackle the challenges o biodiversity loss has increased asurban populations have grown enormously in the last decades, particularly in developingcountries. The way cities are designed, planned, and governed infuence the amount otheir direct and indirect impacts on biodiversity.

However, the process o interaction between cities and biodiversity is still not well understood,both in theory and in practice. This gap needs to be closed i we want to make progresson the implementation o CBD since more than hal o the worlds population lives in citiestoday. As cities are the consumption centres o world resources, and this proportion willgrow in the uture, there is no time to lose.

This report analyses the general relationships among cities, local governance, and biodiversity.Initially, it will examine the relationships between cities and biodiversity by looking at themajor infuences cities can have on biodiversity loss or on conservation within and outsidethe city boundaries, as well as the benets o biodiversity conservation or cities, suchas the provision o ecosystem services. The report then moves to understand the maininstruments and governance mechanisms that exist, allowing cities to eectively implementthe directives o CBD.

Cities are some o the biggest beneciaries o biodiversity and ecosystem services, ascitizens and economic activities depend on those services. However, their involvement inthe CBD process is still limited as compared to their potential contribution and amounto benets they could gain rom biodiversity. There are many conceptual underpinningsand governance obstacles to overcome, and we need to create new and adapt existingconservation strategies, as well as city planning and management instruments to deal withbiodiversity properly.

Nevertheless, the interest o cities in the biodiversity agenda is moving ast, and there are alot o opportunities to bring cities to be eective actors in the implementation o CBD. This

requires a large eort or collective action to create better governance mechanisms. Goodgovernance at the city level, which indeed can deliver an eective implementation o CBD,depends on governmental and non-governmental actors, not only rom one city but romother levels o governments, including international organisations, and o course the citiesthemselves. The key point in the governance structure is not only the capacity o individualorganisations but the strength o coordination among them.

Urbanisation creates new challenges or biodiversity conservation. As a large part o theworlds population gradually moves rom rural to urban areas, there are changes in the linkbetween human activities and biodiversity, and consequently in the way we should thinkabout biodiversity conservation policies. Scarce attention has been given to understanding

how to make cities more biodiversity-riendly, not only within, but particularly in the arawayplaces.

Executive Summary


10/62

Executive Summary

8

Understanding how cities can create better governance mechanisms to eectively supportthe preservation o biodiversity within and beyond city boundaries is the key to implementthe directives o the CBD. The actors, instruments, and processes that should be in place arestill not completely understood enough to move the city and biodiversity agenda orward.This report argues the need to study the conceptual underpinnings o the relationshipsamong city, governance, and biodiversity to create the basis or policies at the global,national, and local level, as well as provide some practical insights on the way to move thebiodiversity agenda in cities orward.


11/62

Section 1 Introduction

9

1. Introduction: How are cities related to biodiversity, particularlywith regards to the implementation o CBD?

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was agreed by world leaders in the EarthSummit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. It has three broad (and ambitious) objectives:the conservation o biological diversity,1 the sustainable use o its components, and theair and equitable sharing o the benets rom the use o its genetic resources. The maincomponent or preservation o biodiversity is the habitats where the species live. As such,the progressive degradation o ecosystems is the main threat to biodiversity. The 2010target to reduce the rate o biodiversity loss set by governments during the World Summiton Sustainable Development in 2002 is not being achieved (SCBD, 2010).1

The way cities2 develop denitively infuences biodiversity conservation and the distribution

o its benets among dierent groups in society. The discussions at the on CBD evenrecognised the importance o involving cities and local governments in its implementationat COP 9 in Bonn, held in 2008. However, the process o interaction between cities andbiodiversity is not well understood, both in theory and in practice. This conceptual gapneeds to be closed i we want to make progress on the implementation o CBD sincemore than hal o the worlds population lives in cities today. As cities are the consumptioncentres o world resources, and the number and proportion o urban dwellers will grow inthe uture, there is no time to lose. Moreover, key decision-makers, whose decisions aectbiodiversity, live in cities. Many decisions made by city inhabitants directly aect biodiversity,both in the city and beyond. The lack o a conceptual understanding o the city-biodiversity

interaction hinders the development o eective governance mechanisms to manage theimpacts o the cities on biodiversity and vice-versa. To start this discussion, we pose severalundamental questions to be addressed in this report.

Firstly: How do cities infuence biodiversity? There are three levels o interaction betweencities and biodiversity. Cities and biodiversity interact within the urban abric. There is avariety o species living within city boundaries, the so called urban biodiversity, includesthose species well-adapted to the urban lie, such as rats or pigeons. Urban biodiversity caninfuence the orm o a city as well as its inhabitants. The development o a city also directlyimpacts urban biodiversity and how it is distributed among the dierent groups within thepopulation. Urban biodiversity seems to be the most researched area so ar.

Cities can also have a huge impact on the biodiversity in their nearby surroundings, whatwe call here regional biodiversity inuence. City activities generate sewage, solid waste andair pollution, which generally impact the biodiversity in the nearby areas, such as rivers andmarine or terrestrial hinterlands. The expansion o cities, both spatially and economically,also has tremendous impacts on the surrounding areas. Moreover, a lot o resources neededin a city come rom its surroundings (materials, water, ood, etc).

1 Target: to achieve by 2010 a signicant reduction o the current rate o biodiversity loss at the global, regional,and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benet o all lie on Earth (SCBD, 2010,p.9).

2 There are many denitions or cities. In this report, we will use a broad denition o a city as a geographicallylimited area dominated by a mostly urban landscape, which can include a part o, one or various administrativeunits. In certain contexts in the report, the word city is also used to represent its inhabitants or governments. Wewill assume in most o the cases that cities are sub-national governments, as there are a limited number o citystates, but most o the text can be applied to city states as well.


12/62


10

Additionally, cities consume large amounts o resources coming rom araway places,infuencing the biodiversity o those places, what we call hereglobal biodiversity inuence(related to the green agenda o cities). For example, some o the unregulated timberconsumed in cities around the world comes rom trees o distant orests such as the Amazonor Borneo. The high demand or marine species, such as blue n tuna in some Asian cities,poses a threat to those species. These varying levels o infuence enabled by globalisationin many markets means it can be hard to precisely identiy the impact o a given city indierent regions across the world.

Secondly, we consider the inverse question to that above. Namely, how does biodiversityinfuence cities and city dwellers? Biodiversity provides a series o benets (commonly termedecosystem services) to cities ranging rom the more directly perceived such as water suppliesand recreation acilities (parks) to less directly tangible eects o large biodiverse areas such

as plants which may help cure diseases or help with long term climate stability. The servicesbiodiversity provide to cities are important to city planning both in terms o design, as wellas convincing citizens and policy-makers in cities about the importance o implementing theCBD. However, those services, and the costs to maintain them, are not distributed evenlyamong dierent groups o citizens within the same city, among cities, among urban andrural citizens, and among countries. Understanding conceptually the main benets broughtby biodiversity to cities can help direct policies.

Thirdly: Which biodiversity should we preserve? Cities are ound in all natural environmentsand as such, they are subject to and exert dierent levels o infuence on biodiversity.

Urban biodiversity may not accommodate the native biodiversity o the surroundings asthis may not be compatible with the urban environment or the demands o city dwellers.For example, Manaus in Brazil is surrounded by the Amazon jungle, but its citizens do notexpect to share their daily lie environment with local auna, such as boas or piranhas. Somenative trees may not be suitable or the urban environment because o natural limitations(e.g., need or space, clean air, water or certain species) or due to management constraints(e.g., requent need o trimming or cleaning beyond a citys reasonable capacity). Indeed,the removal o some species rom cities, like mosquitoes, can add a better quality o lie orurban citizens. Thereore, the role o cities to oster biodiversity will vary according to itsindividual context. For one city, the urban biodiversity may comport with the surroundingbiodiversity and the city can leave a corridor or this biodiversity. In this case, the urban

abric would be intertwined with the local habitats. For another city (like Manaus), this maynot be possible, or at least not in regards to some species.

Cities also aect other aspects o biodiversity mentioned in the CBD. Cities can be a threat tobiosaety, as many genetic experiments or exotic species exist in cities, or more importantly,cities can be an easy route to the introduction o those species in the wild environment.The uncontrolled spill o some o those could cause problems to the urban biodiversity orbiodiversity as a whole.


13/62


11

Thus, the governance o cities - the way they are designed, planned, and managed - isimportant to determine the outcomes o their infuences on the biodiversity at the dierentlevels. Understanding how cities can create better governance mechanisms to eectivelyhelp in the preservation o biodiversity is the key to implement the directives o the CBD. Theactors, instruments, and processes that should be in place are still not completely understood.This report aims to shed light on the conceptual underpinnings o the relationships betweencity, governance and biodiversity to create the basis or policies at the global, national, andlocal level, as well as provide some practical insights on the way to move the biodiversityagenda in cities orward.

We do this by attempting to understand the relationship between cities and biodiversityand by looking at conceptual and practical aspects o this interaction. The report begins bydiscussing urbanisation and city planning in the context o the environment and indirectly,biodiversity in section 2. Section 3 then moves to understand how cities benet rom and

is aected by biodiversity and ecosystem services. Section 4 examines the main instrumentsor making cities and biodiversity conservation compatible. The nal section in ve analysesthe governance o biodiversity and the role o cities in the implementation o the CBD,looking at the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.


14/62

Section 2 Processes of Urbanisation and Biodiversity

12

2. Processes o Urbanisation and Biodiversity

Urbanisation creates new challenges or biodiversity conservation. As a large part o the

worlds population moves rom rural to urban areas, there are changes in the link betweenhuman activities and biodiversity, and consequently in the way we should think aboutbiodiversity conservation policies. For example, human activities in rural areas tend to posemore direct threats to ecosystems by imposing land-use changes to permit the expansiono agricultural land. Urbanisation poses a relatively small scale impact in terms o directland use or urban inrastructure; however, cities depend a lot on outside resources or itsactivities and needs, posing indirect threats to the worlds ecosystems. This is exacerbatedby the easy fow o goods and services, oten without proper account o the environmentalexternalities. Thus, in an urbanised world, understanding and controlling the indirectimpacts o cities is one o the major challenges.

2.1 A brief history of cities in the environment

2.1.1 Past

Since the Neolithic revolution and the emergence o the earliest cities in Mesopotamiaaround 4000-3500 BC, the clustering o human beings in settlements o increasing size,density, and complexity has been perhaps the central organising eature that characteriseshuman civilization. The reasons as to why mankind adopted this mode o organisation aredisputed but many scholars point to the development o sedentary agriculture as a actor,which acilitated settlement and urbanisation to begin. Hence, it may be said that romthe very outset, the history o human civilization may be characterised as one o managingecosystems to provide a surplus as some areas may not be able to access all resourcesnecessary within its boundaries. Whilst cities have grown to encompass an ever growingarray o human endeavours, which prima acie appear to be testimony to the primacy ohumans, one inescapable act is that their existence is based on appropriating ecologicalgoods and services rom outside o its boundaries.

The industrial revolution began the process o accelerating urbanisation that has touchedalmost every part o the world, and has been responsible or the pre-eminent societaltransormation o the last 200 years. Industrialisation also increased enormously the scale

and speed cities aect biodiversity. However, when set in the context o the history ohuman societies, the magnitude o this change is quite astounding, not just in scale but inspeed. Although cities are a large and highly visible expression o human activity across theplanet, it is worth noting that given the large number o people and economic activities theyaccommodate, it is arguably the most ecient means o spatial organisation yet devised.As such cities, given their history, nd themselves in the paradoxical position o consumerso vast amounts o ecological resources but also playing a key role in their sustainablemanagement given their central reliance on these resources (Rees and Wackernagel,2008).


15/62


13

2.1.2 Present

Cities are human-dominated ecosystems, which have become dense nodes o energy/material consumption and residuals production; urban population depends on fowsand services provided by nature more than ever, and the patterns o consumption in high-income urbanised countries cannot be sustained or a global population (Rees, 1997).However, the impacts o cities on biodiversity are both direct and indirect and can vary overa wide spatial scale. As with biodiversity, the distribution o people across the Earths suraceis not an equal one. People preerentially live at lower elevations (and by association nearercoasts) than at higher altitude and preer temperate to tropical zones (Cohen and Small,1998). The distribution o human population is shown in the top panel o Figure 1 (in theinside back cover, p.59), with its urban expression in the orm o satellite observed night-time lights in the lower panel. The worlds most endangered regions are overlaid on bothmaps to show the proximity o these areas to both major urban areas and zones o high

population. We see that many biodiversity hotspots occur in developing countries which arecurrently experiencing high levels o urbanisation. Distances between protected areas andcities tend to decrease over time and most o the protected areas aected by urbanisationare located in medium and low income countries (Mcdonald, et al., 2008).

Split by region, Arica and Asia remain predominantly rural with urbanisation levels o 39and 41% respectively. As such, these two regions have the greatest potential or growth inurban population and by 2050, 63% o the worlds urban population is estimated to be inAsia and one-quarter in Arica. However, in a world where urbanisation grows apace, it istempting to make the alse assumption that all cities are growing and this it is a one-way

process. Growth rates dier markedly not just by region but also by city size. The UN-HABITATreports that the urban population o the developing world grows at a rate o ve millionpeople per month (UN-HABITAT, 2008). This is ten times the rate o the developed worldurban expansion. Much o the urban growth in developing country happens inormally.Although the percentage o population o developing regions living in slums conditionsell rom 47% to 37% between 1990 and 2005, the rapid urbanisation may change thistrend (UNO, 2007). On the other hand, cities in the developed world will expand primarilythrough in-migration rather than natural increase. The population o 46 countries includingmany major economies (Japan, Germany, and Italy) is expected to be smaller in 2050 thanthey are now. This will inevitably be refected at the city-level. Whilst urban growth attractsmost attention in the urban literature due to the enormous pressures o urbanisation on

the developing world, there is the counter phenomenon o shrinking cities, mainly in thedeveloped world, which also has a bearing on biodiversity, as this could be an opportunityto rethink biodiversity in the city landscape.

2.1.3 Future

The regional levels o urbanisation reerred to above bring to light another more importanttrend in contemporary urbanisation; that o the rise o the city region. Although conurbationsand megacities (cities > 10 million people) exist in many countries, the development odense and ecient transportation links not just within but between cities has acilitated

the rise o whole city regions, which are vast urban corridors, home to tens o millions opeople. Several o these exist not just in Europe and North America, but are also emergingthroughout Asia along with Brazil linking several cross national borders (Florida, et al., 2008).The largest, Hong Kong-Shenhzen-Guangzhou in China, is a conurbation o about 120


16/62


14

million people (UN-HABITAT, 2010). Such regions concentrate economic and intellectualresources and in time, may even compete economically and politically with nation states.The act that more than 50% o people live in cities is signicant in the sense that humanitycan be said to now share an urban experience. More people know what it is like to live ina city than those who do not. Whilst this poses a challenge in terms o consumption, thedense concentration o people nonetheless acilitates the production and dissemination oideas and social interaction, which is crucial to moving orward on tackling issues related togovernance o the commons.

As such, the merging o cities into larger more pervasive urban landscapes poses both threatsand opportunities. (Bio)diversity is seen as a precondition or the resilience o ecosystems(Elmqvist, et al., 2003), including urban agglomerations. Urban health, or instance, as muchas ecological health, reers to the capacity o a system to recover and sel-renew; adaptationreers to the ability o an organism to change the state or structure o the system, the

environment, or both (Sontag and Bubolz, 1996). Because land use change is a main causeor the decrease o biodiversity, massive land consuming (sprawling) urbanisation requiresthe concomitant designation o preservation areas. Currently 293 out o 825 eco-regionsare more than 1/3 urbanised (Mcdonald, et al., 2008). Seen purely rom the perspective ospatial expansion; o the 779 rare species with only one known population, 24 are expectedto be aected by the growth in urban areas by 2030.

In the uture, changing environmental conditions will aect millions o people worldwideand can lead to massive orced migration (e.g., Cernea, 2000; Cernea and Guggenheim,1993; Courtland Robinson, 2003; McGranahan, et al., 2007). With rapid urban development

and undamental land policy reorm during the past three decades, issues o climate changeand biodiversity have not received the necessary attention by many governments. Forexample, in China, temperatures have risen more than the global average over the last100 years and the country has already suered billions in economic loss with increasingrequency o extreme weather events, such as droughts and foods (or recent examples, seeBranigan, 2009; Qian, 2009; Xinhua News Agency, 2009a, 2009b). By 2020, it is estimated,the urban population might comprise 60% o the total population in China (Yusu andNabeshima, 2008). Many o Chinas growing cities are located in low elevation coastalzones, hence particularly threatened by climate change related issues, like e.g., sea level rise(McGranahan, et al., 2007). Biodiversity enhancing initiatives could help to build resiliencein vulnerable areas, such as on riparian or coastal areas, as well as mitigate the eects o

climate change.

2.2 Converging views in the movements for biological conservation andurban planning

Urbanisation processesper se have been politicised in the past, and the views on whatconstitutes sustainable urban orms dier. The various denitions o urban infuencesthe patterns o urbanisation, which in turn aect ecological processes (McIntyre, et al.,2000). Urbanisation can be dened as an ecological and social phenomenon similar to adisturbance comparable to res or foods. However, with the shit in ecology toward

3 Home to 213 endemic terrestrial vertebrate species.


17/62


15

a non-equilibrium paradigm recognising system openness, disturbance as part o systemdynamics, and succession and adaptation as highly unpredictable, urban ecosystems havereceived renewed attention (Pickett, et al., 2004).

Historically, the modern ideas and movements o urban planning and biological conservationcame rom very dierent intellectual traditions and have had very dierent practicalapplications over time. This has made it dicult to think about both concurrently. However,as movements and concepts change over time, both movements may now be convergingwith some common grounds and principles, as we can also see rom the growing numbero urban ecologists and green urbanists, which could help to make both movementscompatible in the near uture, both in theory and practice.

The modern policies or biological conservation have evolved rom promoting a completeseparation between humans and nature to a larger integration o humans and human

activities as part o the nature and conservation process. Even though initiatives orbiological conservation, such as the creation o protected areas, have been carried outor centuries (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996), the concept o promoting biological conservationhas a landmark in the idea o modern natural parks, starting with the establishment oYellowstone National Park in the USA in 1872. The idea o the park, separating humansrom nature, is expressed by the word o early modern American conservationist John Muir:Our wild mountains should be saved rom all sorts o commercialism and marks o manswork (Nash, 1978).

For over a century, the spirit motivating Yellowstone has inspired the creation o protected

areas or recreational, scenic, and economic values throughout the United States and manyother countries. The establishment o those areas is still necessary to preserve most o ourbiodiversity. However, when the conservation movement expanded to developing countries,many protected areas were created regardless o the needs o local people. Oten thesepeople had inhabited the region or generations, sometimes beore ormal states wereestablished. Lines or conservation areas were drawn without considering the act thatpeople lived in those areas or used them or cultural, religious, or subsistence activities, suchas hunting, shing, and collecting ruits and rewood (Diegues, 1994; Rawat, 1997). In thelast our decades, as many developing countries have expanded their protected areas, suchmoves have provoked local conficts (Tisdell, 1995; Fiallo and Jacobson, 1995). Thus, policy-makers, conservation advocates, and academics have realised that local people should be

part o any conservation strategy, and are undamental to their design and implementationo conservation actions, so conservation should take into account local peoples cultural andsocial values and economic interests (MacKinnon, et al., 1986; McNeely, 1992; Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996; Albers and Grinspoon, 1997). As the urban population has growndramatically, there is an increasing need to understand how to integrate the needs o urbancitizens into conservation strategies, as they should be a part o, not apart rom nature.

On the other hand, the city planning movement, moved rom separating the dierentunctions in dierent spaces to a more diverse land use in the same space, including morebio-diverse landscapes. The modern concept o urban planning started with the creation o

the Garden Cities (Howard, 1902) in the UK at the end o the 19th

century. The idea was todesign well planned urban environments to move people away rom the increasing pollutedand congested industrial cities and bring them closer to the rural environment and nature.The unctions o the cities would be divided to allow a clear distinction among the dierent


18/62


16

activities o the cities. Residential, industrial, and commercial uses had to be separated. Asthe city planning eld evolved in the 20th century, this idea o unctional division (industrial,residential, etc.) o the cities was crystallised by planners like Le Corbusier and Lucio Costain cities such as Brasilia. Biological conservation was addressed only by the introduction ogreen areas, mostly urban parks or green belts, having their main unction as providingrecreation to urban citizens. However, this planning tradition was challenged both romthose that criticise the unctional division o the city and those that advocate or a moreprocess oriented, bottom-up input in the planning process (Davido, 1965).

As urban planning moved to the 21st century, plans and planners have indeed becomemore process oriented and have increasingly become aware o the sustainability challenges.The idea o having cities divided by unctions created problems, like urban sprawl andcar-dependent and climate-unriendly cities, and has lost ground recently to a more multi-unctional urban areas, multi-use land use, compact cities, such as those in thesmart growth

(Bullard, 2007) and new urbanism movement (CNU, 1996), which are argued to be moreenvironmentally and people-riendly4. New uses that are not traditionally rom cities, suchas urban agriculture, has gained attention recently as well as a way to provide green spaces,ood security, jobs, and climate mitigation rom the transport o agricultural products. Theinclusion o biodiversity concerns in city planning is still in the early stages o conceptualisation,as or a long time green areas and biodiversity conservation were interchangeable concepts.However, there is today an intellectual space to include biodiversity issues when thinkingabout urban landscapes and multi-uses and should denitively be introduced in discussionsand planning processes.

Thus, as biological conservation has moved to become more people-riendly, urbanplanning has become more biodiversity riendly. The two movements which seemed arapart in the past, now include some ideas that have allowed them to come closer to eachother. Even though those movements still have to evolve to ully incorporate each othersideas, this convergence now allows us to discuss both concepts together. Furthermore,this could help to nd a combination that moves the city and biodiversity agenda orwardon both sides (urban planning and biological conservation) and to make cities a majorimplementation agent o the CBD.

4 urban places should be ramed by architecture and landscape design that celebrate local history, climate,ecology, and building practice. (Charter o New Urbanism, CNU, 1996)


19/62

Section 3 Linking Cities and Biodiversity

17

3. Linking Cities and Biodiversity

Biodiversity is considered an underpinning element o ecosystems and as such the key

determinant o ecosystem unctioning. Several o the services provided by ecosystems5

which contribute signicantly to human well-being are direct products o biodiversity;thereore, biodiversity loss can, in one way or another, aect almost all services provided byecosystems (MA, 2005).

3.1 Biodiversity and urban well-being: provision of ecosystem services

Urban residents benet directly or indirectly rom a multitude o ecosystems services thatrange rom provisioning services (e.g. ood, uel, water) to regulating (e.g. climate andair pollution regulation, waste assimilation, food and re regulation) and cultural services(MA, 2005; TEEB, 2010). Indeed, urban systems are net consumers o ecosystem servicesconsidering the act that there is a much higher net infow o ecosystem services to cities.City dwellers are usually more aware o ecosystem services that are located within citiessuch as recreation and cultural services rom parks or potable water rom rivers and lakes.Stockholms residents benet tremendously rom ecosystem services provided by the parksand water bodies situated within the city (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999). Such servicesinclude air pollution regulation, micro-climate regulation, noise reduction, rainwaterdrainage, sewage treatment, and numerous recreational and cultural services (Ibid). In thesame manner, ood and other ecosystem services (e.g. sanitation, nutrient recycling) canbe provided through urban agricultural activities particularly in cities situated in developingnations (e.g. Pearson, et al., 2010; Eaton and Hilhorst, 2003).

However, the act remains that the contribution o ecosystems to the well-being o urbanresidents is much higher i the services provided by ecosystems adjacent to cities or verydistant to the city itsel are considered.

For example, ecosystem services such as ood, medicine, and other non-timber orestproducts can be provided by ecosystems that are adjacent to cities (e.g. FAO, 2008;Mwampamba, 2007; Tacoli, 2006; Dietmar, 2005; Midmore and Jansen, 2003). Additionally,most major cities are located within the catchments o major rivers and lakes that canprovide ecosystem services such as potable water, water purication, ood and energy (rom

upstream or downstream hydro-electrical acilities). It is no wonder that coastal and inlandwater ecosystems are on average more urbanised than the other systems assessed in theMillennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005).

The appropriation o ecosystem services rom distant ecosystems is mainly associated withurban production and consumption processes and trade (MA, 2005) (also reer to Sections3.3.2 and 3.3.3). Generally speaking, the richer a city is, the higher its appropriation onatural capital and particularly the appropriation o ecosystem services rom arawayecosystems tends to be (e.g. Folke, et al., 1997). For example, urban residents are benetingtremendously rom climate regulation services oered by distant ecosystems, e.g. throughthe removal o CO

2

rom the atmosphere.

5 Ecosystem services are dened as those ...benets people obtain rom ecosystems (MA, 2005: 27).


20/62


18

3.2 Major drivers of biodiversity loss and its links to urban activity

Urbanisation can contribute signicantly to biodiversity loss and degradation (McKinney,2002; Sukopp, 2004; Whitord, et al., 2001). In addition to the impacts within the city, widerimpacts at regional and global scales are also likely. According to the CBD (2007), most othe undamental threats to biodiversity loss are related to public services and instruments,o which city governments are directly responsible.

Considering the importance o ecosystem services on the well-being o urban residents6 andthe act that biodiversity directly and indirectly provides numerous ecosystem services, it isimportant to understand how urban activity can aect biodiversity at various spatial scales.According to the MA, the major human drivers o biodiversity loss are habitat destruction,pollution, the introduction o alien species, overexploitation, and climate change. All othese drivers can in one way or another be linked to urban activity. The remainder o this

section unravels how urban activity can infuence the main drivers o biodiversity loss.

3.2.1 Habitat destruction

There is signicant evidence in the academic literature regarding the impact o habitatdestruction and land use change on biodiversity inside urban centres and along urban-ruralgradients (Alberti, 2005; McKinney, 2002). At the same time, consumption activities withincities have been blamed or habitat destruction in peri-urban areas and distant ecosystems,including land clearing or the production o ood and an array o consumer goods such asurniture.

3.2.2 Pollution

Pollution can aect biodiversity in and around cities. There is signicant evidence whichlinks air pollution to the loss o biodiversity. For example, more than 1,300 species werethreatened in Europe alone due to acid deposition in 1990s (Tickle, et al., 1995). Waterpollution can also signicantly aect biodiversity in coastal and inland water ecosystemsthrough toxicity and eutrophication among other processes (MA, 2005; SCBD, 2010). It isinteresting to note that the main water pollutants can be either directly emitted by urbanareas (e.g. sewage, industrial activity) or indirectly (e.g. run-o rom agricultural and miningactivities, ship discharges due to increased trade) and aect extended areas and aquaticecosystems.

3.2.3 Introduction o alien species

There seems to be a greater prevalence o introduced species across a rural-urban gradienttowards the city centre (McKinney, 2002). This implies the existence o disturbed habitatsthat provide opportunities or non-native species to nd niches and compete with nativespecies and potentially turn into invasive species, in the city and beyond, making the city ahub or the introduction o alien species in a region or ecosystems. For example, ornamentalplants can use dierent characteristics o the urban system to disperse within it and outside

6 Biodiversity is increasingly considered to have an intrinsic value. As a result, more voices are currently articulatingthat biodiversity should be conserved irrespective o its contribution to human well-being (i.e. irrespective o theecosystem services it provides).


21/62


19

o it (Sumel and Kowarik, 2010; Gulezian and Nyberg, in press). In South Arica, more than300 plant invasive species cause diverse kinds o problems (Bromilow, 2001). In certain cases,these non-native species have become invasive ater their planned or uplanned introductioninto cities. Two amous cases are those o the European starling and o the water hyacinth.

European starlings were introduced in America in the 1890s. From an initial population o40 pairs in New Yorks Central Park, it currently numbers around 200 million individualsacross the US and is competing with native bird species (MA, 2005). The water hyacinthwas introduced as a water purication mechanism and as a pond ornamental plant but ithas taken over whole reshwater ecosystems and is competing with local fora and auna oroxygen oten, causing asphyxiation and massive population die-os (MA, 2005).

3.2.4 Overexploitation

An example o biodiversity overexploitation is the case o bushmeat overconsumption in

urban poor and rural households in Arica. Bushmeat is a signicant component o thehuman diet around the Congo Basin with its demand having grown signicantly due tothe increasing urban consumers and even illegal exports (Kinver, 2010). This demand isresulting in a deaunation ring around population centres (in peri-urban areas), and may bedriving unsustainable levels o hunting in more distant areas (Wilkie and Carpenter, 1999).A second example o the overexploitation o biodiversity is the trade, in most cases illegal, owild animals and plants or pet, ood, ornamental, medicinal, and other purposes. In severalcases, the illegally traded animals and plants can be endemic (Flores-Palacios and Valencia-Diaz, 2007) or threatening7. It has been suggested that it is urban demand associated withthe generally higher incomes o urban residents (and not local demand), which is drivingthis wildlie trade in several parts o Asia (World Bank, 2008) and possibly around the world.

Box 1: Food consumption and long-range eects on biodiversity

Whilst much attention is devoted to the capacity o cities to preserve and enhance biodiversitywithin their borders, it must also be realized that a cities appropriate resources rom outside theirborders in the process o catering to the needs and desires o its citizens. One o the most obviousexurban biodiversity eects o urban development and rising afuence is in the domain o ood.Cities in both developed and developing countries exert this pressure.

In general, this can be conceived o as the increase in meat products. This has lead to wide scaledeorestation to make way or ranches and soya plantations which provide eed or increasing

numbers o cattle. The eciency o commercial shing has the potential to decimate sh stocksand several have been declining or many years. The increased consumption in species like tunais raising ears o collapse o the bluen tuna in the northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea(MacKenzie, et al., 2008)

Rare and endangered species are also at risk through the bushmeat trade. In Vietnam or instance,rising afuence o a growing middle class in urban areas is increasing demand or domesticwild animal products. This new market has shited the consumption o wild species rom whatwas previously a subsistence activity to an almost entirely a commercial one (Drury, 2009). Theconsumption o wild species is also nding a wider market in many European and Asian cities orboth ood and traditional medicinal uses. A recent study estimates 5 tons o bushmeat per weekis smuggled into Paris-CDG airport. The species discovered include CITES-listed species includingprimates and crocodiles. Some o these meat products can etching 20 times the price between

Arica and Europe (Chaber, et al., 2010).

7 Reer to Appendix I o the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species o Wild Flora and Fauna(CITES) which lists approximately 800 such species


22/62


20

Currently the illegal transit o wild species is a low priority with customs agencies since most areocused on, and incentivized to intercept drugs. Improved methods o detection and procedures toeasily identiy species which are seized are also required; the use o genetic barcodes is a promisingdevelopment in this area (Science Daily, 2009). Ultimately education and cultural change are themechanisms by which the demand or rare species will wane. The evidence rom Vietnam showsthat there is a strong connection to status in consuming wild species since it is perceived as rare,precious and o high quality. Substitution to armed equivalents o wild species is unacceptable ormay even intensiy demand or bona de wild species (Drury, 2009).

Sources:Chaber, A-L. et al., 2010. The scale o illegal meat importation rom Arica to Europe via Paris. ConservationLetters, [Published Online] doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00121.x.

Drury, R., 2009. Reducing urban demand or wild animals in Vietnam: examining the potential o wildlie armingas a conservation tool. Conservation Letters, 2(6), pp.263-270. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00078.x.

MacKenzie, B.R., Mosegaard, H., and Rosenberg, A.A., 2009. Impending collapse o bluen tuna in the northeastAtlantic and Mediterranean. Conservation Letters, 2(1), pp.26-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00039.x.

Science Daily, 2009. First DNA Barcodes o Commonly Traded Bushmeat: New Tool or TrackingGlobal Trade in Wildlie. September 8th 2009. [online] Available at: [Accessed 12 July 2010].

3.2.5 Climate change

Climate change is considered to be an emerging threat to biodiversity (Thomas, et al., 2004,IPCC, 2007b). Urban activity is directly and indirectly driving changes in the global and local

climate through the emission o GHGs, the direct and indirect land use change and otherprocesses (IPCC, 2007c). The urban heat island (UHI) eect is one phenomenon that showshow urban activity can aect the local climate. Studies have revealed the mechanisms oUHI and have suggested that the impacts o global climate change can be exacerbatedin areas that experience UHI eects (Rosenzweig, et al., 2005). Aspects related to urbanbiodiversity such as prolongation o vegetation time, early fowering o plants, or increasedrequencies o bird broods have been connected to the UHI phenomenon. For example,foristic maps o cities have shown a close connection between species distribution andwarmer cities (Wittig, 2004). Likewise, several authors have pointed out the importance owinter roost o birds in northern cities (Sukopp and Werner, 1982).

3.3 Linking biodiversity loss to urban processes

The previous section introduced the major human drivers o biodiversity loss. In the ollowingsections, we provide a detailed discussion o how dierent urban processes aect thesedrivers directly and indirectly. It should be noted that this discussion is not exhaustive due tothe complexity o these processes and their impacts.


23/62


21

3.3.1 Urban development

Perhaps the most visually straightorward infuence o urban activity on the drivers obiodiversity loss is land use and land cover change. Population and economic growthgenerally results in greater demand or housing and basic inrastructure such as roads,public spaces, drinking water, sanitation, and community development. To meet thesedemands, natural land is transormed into human-made landscapes, most o which createimpermeable and vegetation-ree suraces. For example, out o the total area urbanised inConcepcion (Chile), ...55% corresponded to wetlands and 45% to agriculture, orest, andshrub land cover types (Pauchard, et al., 2006).

Such urban development is argued to bring signicant conservation challenges (McKinney,2002) and directly aects three o the main drivers o biodiversity loss, namely habitatdestruction, overexploitation, and the introduction o invasive species.

Urban development can also induce the extinction o native species and the replacement onative species with alien (non-native) species (McKinney, 2002). Urban-rural gradient studiesin dierent cities reveal that the level o native species decreases in central parts o cities,where the ratio o built spaces to green spaces and the proportion o impervious suracesare high (Zerbe, et al. 2003; McKinney, 2002; Sukopp, 2004).Pauchard, et al. (2006) on theother hand nd a correlation between road density and the number o alien species, whichis concentrated along roadsides and disturbed grounds.

Most o the above mentioned underlying eects o urban development on the drivers o

biodiversity loss can be linked to urban planning in various ways. Residential developmentsin cities mostly put stress over the surrounding ecology but can also stress ecosystemsaraway. Generally speaking, housing expansion in developed countries aects biodiversitydue to its large consumption o resources (e.g. timber) and land (e.g., suburbanisation).On the other hand, housing needs in most developing nations are largely satised throughinormal and uncontrolled ways. In some cases, the lack o urban planning as a mechanismto control urban development contributes to environmental deterioration. In many Turkishcities, a signicant part o illegal and unauthorised residential developments took placewithin orests and agricultural lands in urban ringes. In the Beykoz District in Istanbul,unplanned urban development reduced orest and agricultural land rom 76% to 60%and rom 15% to 10% respectively between 1984 and 2001 (Musaoglu et al., 2005).

They also noted that most o this conversion took place within Elmali Reservoir Watershed,which can aect water supply. Similarly, in many other cases, the expansion o residentialdevelopments, especially inormal settlements, takes place in an unplanned manner inareas which are not targeted by the ormal sector. These areas are sometimes located in oradjacent to highly biodiverse ecosystems such as orest and mangroves. For instance, Rio deJaneiro lost a large part o its orests and mangroves due to the expansion o avelas (slums).It is estimated that 9% o the sandbank mangroves were lost in the last three years alone(O Globo, 2010).

However, it should be claried that on certain occasions, urban planning does not

necessarily mitigate the causes o environmental deterioration in general, and o biodiversityloss in particular. Hal o the US population lives in suburban housing within sprawlingdevelopments, which is accepted as a major threat to peri-urban ecosystems (Pauchard etal., 2006). Most, i not all, o these suburban residential developments are planned and


24/62


22

authorised. Thus, what prevents urban planning to make a positive change is the lack o anecological understanding and thinking in our current planning approaches. Perhaps, the lacko such urban planning approaches that have integrated sound ecological understandingcan be perceived as an underlying cause o biodiversity loss within and around cities.

Box 2: Conict between biodiversity preservation and unauthorizedhousing in Mumbai

The Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP), which covers an area o 103 square kilometers in thenorth o Mumbai, is one o the largest parks in the world in a metropolitan area. The park is knownto include a rich and diverse ecosystem along with numerous historical assets. A dense orest withsubstantial fora and auna diversity and two main lakes as important sources o water or Mumbaiare ound in the park area. Needless to say, the park also unctions as a major carbon sink withinthe dense and congested city o Mumbai.

SGNP was exposed to illegal urban development, which was accelerated greatly ater 1990,both in terms o squatters o urban poor and the large bungalows o the wealthier sections osociety. Between mid-1995 and mid-1996 there occurred the loss o 27 ha orest land by suchurban development1. Environmentalists led in large part by the middle class citizens led a PublicInterest Litigation case against the local government to ensure the protection o the park. Shortlyater, the court case turned against the poor groups, who were regarded as the main threat toenvironmental sustainability. Squatter settlements became the mere ocus o the court case, whichlasted rom 1995 to late 2003. The court ruled in avour the relocation o 33,000 people (thosewith proos o residence) to a village ar away rom their present location and work places, and theimmediate eviction o 24,000 people (those without proos o residence), who were consideredas illegal settlers.

Resistance by the individuals and resident associations ollowed the nal judgment o the court.Numerous challenging petitions were led in the court, yet all o them were dismissed. However,no signicant progress has taken place since the nal judgment o the court. Most o the poorinhabitants o the park area reused to move, and those, who moved, went to some other illegalsettlements nearby, in order not to lose their close connection to the city. Such attitudes by theinhabitants o park area are regarded as a logical response, as the judges neglected the rights othe urban poor as citizens o Mumbai. The Judges decision implied that the right to the city isnot applicable to low-income and poor groups.

The case o Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP) in Mumbai shows how the lack o proper housingpolicies and unauthorized urban development could aect green spaces, which contain criticalecosystem and habitats. However it also highlights that conservation and preservation eorts shouldbe carried out in a way to consider the urban poor and to bring pro-poor solutions. Prevalence othe explicit conficts between conservation and sheltering could inevitably marginalize the poor,and hence relocate the problems rather than solving them.

Source:Zerah, M.H., 2007. Confict between green space preservation and housing needs: The case o the SanjayGandhi National Park in Mumbai. Cities, 24(2), pp. 122-132.

1 Econet, (1997), A comprehensive environmental assessment o SGNP (Borivili National Park), Mumbai, VijayParanjpye and Econet, Study Commissioned by the Maharashtra State Division o the WWF, Mumbai


25/62


23

3.3.2 Production and consumption in cities

Cities are centres o production o consumer goods, with natural resources being massivelyprocessed and transormed into commodities in or around urban areas. At the sametime, urbanisation has brought signicant changes in human liestyles, such as the rise oconsumerism (Davis, 2000), which complements production. In act, while cities occupy onlyaround 2% o the Earth surace, they consume an estimated 75% o its utilised resources(UNEP and UN-HABITAT, 2005). With urbanisation, comes rising afuence and changesin taste. Higher incomes and higher levels o disposable incomes allow new consumersto express their demand or tastes previously unattainable. Production and consumptionactivities within cities can aect directly and indirectly several drivers o biodiversity loss suchas overexploitation, habitat change, pollution, and climate change.

The UN Human Development Report o 1998 (UNO, 1998) has already discussed the impacts

o the huge growth in consumption during the 20th century. Larger consumption is a signo growing living standards and several parts o the world now benets rom the comorto individual local transport, hot water, electricity, larger houses, abundance o ood, andaccess to air transportation. However, the report also highlights the skewed distribution othese benets and the consequences o uncontrolled consumption, particularly by the richurban centres, on the environment. Urbanites around the world increasingly demand moreood, timber, minerals, oil, electricity and other commodities to satisy their growing needsuelled by their increasing incomes. The urban residents appetite or dierent kinds oproducts drives most o the habitat destruction and overexploitation o biodiversity in peri-urban areas and distant ecosystems and thereby global environmental change. For example,

the rising standards o living, particularly in urban centres o the developed and rapidlydeveloping world have been associated with shits in diets and particularly with increasesin meat consumption (e.g. FAO, 2006). Livestock production has been blamed as perhapsthe single largest threat to biodiversity given that it currently appropriates almost a third othe planets ice-ree land, and it is the major driver o deorestation and a signicant emittero greenhouse gases (GHGs), among other relevant environmental impacts. It is estimatedthat o the 35 identied biodiversity hotspots worldwide, 23 are aected signicantly romlivestock production (FAO, 2006).

In a similar manner, Tokyos residents have not only have increased their seaood consumptionover time, but they are increasingly consuming more species, or eating down the ood

chain than ever beore (Gadda and Marcotullio, 2007). Certain sh species prevalent in thehuman diet are not only overshed but are also threatened by shery collapse8. Althougha direct connection between increasing afuence and another acet o over-exploitation(the number o endangered species) can be dicult to demonstrate (Chambers, et al.2008) in regions like East and South East Asia, rapid economic development brings thecompetition o globalisation to traditional medicine and other cultural consumption. TheAsian tiger, shark ns, and rhino horn are today desirable commodities, which can ndan expression in the urban markets. Whilst their habitats may not be directly threatenedby urban encroachment, poachers supplying an urban demand could still render a speciesextinct.

8 Such an example is the case o the Atlantic blue n tuna that is now considered critically endangered by the IUCN.


26/62


24

Production activities, on the other hand, have shited geographically in the last twodecades. Industrial production is now a major unction in many cities in the developingworld and is generally located within or just outside the cities and in close proximity tosurrounding natural resources and labour. In a nutshell, industrial production processesgenerate sewage and solid waste, which can impact biodiversity in adjacent areas andaraway areas. Soil pollution, water pollution, and air pollution such as GHG emissionsby industrial activities are also major threats to biodiversity at dierent spatial scales. Theneed exists or a reormulation o urban development objectives, particularly or a moveaway rom purely economic growth targets and towards the inclusion o environmentalsustainability, ecient urban orms, and liveable communities(Ingram, 2009; see alsoYusu and Nabeshima, 2008).

Box 3: Linking consumption and its impacts Garstang and 100% air trade

One o the biggest challenges to address biodiversity issues in cities is to nd a way to control theimpacts o consumption, sometimes in ar away places, without restricting individual reedomor hurting economic possibilities or trade. The air trade movement could be the beginningo a solution, even though its main objectives are to improve the lives o armers in developingcountries. Dierent kinds o certications and denitions try to include impacts on biodiversity asone o the main points to consider a product as a air trade product, such as making sure areaso conservation are identied and preserved by producers, harvest o natural species are donesustainably and endangered species are not collected or hurt.

The town o Garstang in Lancashire, North West England, is considered the rst Fairtrade Town,a network o more than 800 towns in 19 countries. Fair trade towns are recognised by the Fairtrade

Foundation, which ollow a series o criteria to assess whether communities give ull support to airtrade initiatives, such as having the town councils enacting a resolution to ully support air trade,engage communities in awareness raising, and make air trade products available in the retailmarket and at public places like schools and colleges when it is possible.

In April 2000, the people o Garstang voted almost unanimously to make the city the rst airtrade place in the world. The town was a pioneer in a global initiative to make air trade moremainstream, what could also be a seed to a global initiative to make consumption more accountableto its impacts on people and biodiversity.

Source:Fairtrade Towns, 2010. International airtrade town movement. [online] Available at: [Accessed 12 July 2010].

3.3.3 Trade and transportation

The increasing need or roads and parking lots in and between cities are a clear directimpact o transportation on ecosystems, as well as the eects o the local pollutants causedby vehicles. Moreover, the expansion and growth o urban areas is also considered animportant actor or the increase o trade and the circulation o commodities. As a result,trade and transport is indirectly linked to biodiversity loss drivers such as GHG-inducedclimate change and the introduction o invasive species.

The global transport systems currently account or almost 25% o the worlds carbon dioxideemissions (World Energy Council, 2007), and this is increasing at a aster rate than anyother energy using sector (IPCC, 2007a). Levels o emissions rom transportation are higher


27/62


25

than the worlds average in many developed nations. Cities shares in transportation-relatedemissions can also be signicant. In So Paulo , 48.6% o GHG emissions are due to landtransportation related emissions (Puppim de Oliveira 2009). In the United States, almost40% o carbon dioxide emissions come rom cars and residencies (EIA, 2009).

Increasing trade as a result o urban appetite or global commodities might also have directimpacts on biodiversity. For instance, ship discharges along trade routes can be an avenueor the introduction o invasive species. Such an example is the case o the European zebramussel which was introduced in the Great Lakes o North America through the shipsballast water. The European zebra mussel has a signicant impact on the biodiversity o theecosystems it invaded (MA, 2005).

3.3.4 Heat stress related to the urban heat island eect

Climate change is a growing concern with extensive implications or lie on Earth. Ecosystemand biodiversity, on which human existence depends, are increasingly acing multipleanthropogenic stresses, caused by macro and micro climate change. Cities, as aggregates ohuman activities, require energy in a variety o orms. Much o the primary energy sourcestransormed to be available to most o the cities around the world are still ossil-based,resulting in global climate change. In addition to this, cities are encountering particularproblems related to urban climatology.

There is a growing accumulation o research work on the urban climatology issue, especiallyin the US, Japan, and Europe. Recent studies are increasingly consolidated with urban

actors that potentially alter the main elements o the urban climate, where temperature isthe most highly aected variable and the one most characterising urban climate (Gomez, etal., 1998). The Urban Heat Island Eect (UHI), which represents the temperature dierencesbetween cities and their surrounding areas, is increasingly recognised as creating biophysicalhazards most typical to cities (Landsberg, 1981). Heat stress and concentration o secondaryair pollutants are the examples o such hazards (Solecki, et al., 2005). There are manycauses or UHI eects, including reduced vegetation cover, impervious surace area, andmorphology o buildings in cityscapes that lower evaporative cooling, store heat, and warmthe surace air (Bonan, 2002).

Heightened air and surace temperature in urban areas relative to surrounding areas creates

habitat modication in urban ecosystems. Although ew works have explicitly consideredheat island eects on the urban ecology and related issues (Bradley, 2006), a strongcorrelation is generally recognised between urban climate change and its eects on thebiological distribution and composition in urban areas. One survey, or example, observedearlier cherry blossom distribution in metropolitan centres than in its suburbs (Omotoand Aono, 1990). When the habitat modication intensied, dierent trophic biophysicalelements may appear in urban areas, becoming the threats to the indigenous ecosystem inthe cities. It can even change patterns o transmission o inectious diseases (Foley, 2005).

Several vector-borne diseases may respond to temperature change related to urbanisation

(Schochat, 2006). Reduced seasonality in urban areas could urther aect the persistence oparasites (Louis, 2005). Also, it can increase population growth rates o some wildlie hostsby extending their breeding period, observed in the case o dark-eyed juncos inhabiting anurban site in Caliornia (Altizer, et al., 2006). Conversely, reduced seasonality has a chance to


28/62


26

lower the inectious disease risks on the individual level, due to better nutritious conditionsthrough ood availability, or example. The eedback loop associated with urban climatechange is, thereore, highly complex and needs careul examination (Bradley, 2006).


29/62

Section 4 Instruments for Improving the Contribution of Cities to the CBD

27

4. Instruments or Improving the Contribution o Cities to the CBD

4.1 Development and implementation of proper housing and

infrastructure policies

Proper housing policies involve several aspects o the promotion, control, and provision oresidential spaces. Developed and developing countries ace dierent challenges to havemore environmentally or biodiversity riendly housing policies. While habitat and biodiversityis threatened by ormal expansion in developed countries, developing countries lack thecapacity to provide proper housing or its urbanising population, leading to the occupationo sensitive areas by inormal settlements. Moreover, more sustainable use o material,particularly concerning biodiversity sensitive materials, is still incipient.

Addressing residential issues is vital or controlling cities ecological ootprint in developednations. Those nations suer rom high consumptions o resources and land due to urbanexpansion. Although they are planned and controlled, residential developments extendover a large area in developed nations. Urban sprawl and suburbanisation are in largepart caused by the demand or suburban liestyles by middle- and high-income groups.McKinney (2002) mentions that due to the spread o suburban housing in the US, thegrowth rate o urban land use surpassed that o lands preserved as parks or conservationareas. By means o inll developments and urban regeneration projects, the need and thedemand or peripheral development and suburbanisation could be diminished by planningguidelines and economic incentives. Policies avouring and acilitating the development ocompact urban orms by better utilisation o inner-city lands could reduce the ecological

ootprints o cities, as well as voluntary or mandated green procurement or constructionmaterials.

Some middle-income developing countries ace the same suburbanisation process odeveloped countries, as the higher income population moves to certain suburbs or newtowns. However, cities in most developing countries lack the capacity o providing adequatehousing and inrastructure to their growing urban population, which ends up in inormalsettlements in biodiversity sensitive areas. There is a need o strong housing policies thatcould provide low-cost, environmentally sustainable, and adequate housing or the lowincome population, but at the same time controlling illegal settlements in areas not proper

or housing to avoid disasters and loss o biodiversity.

Thus, addressing housing issues is vital or controlling cities ecological ootprint whilecontributing to urban resilience and social development. One example o an initiative inthis area is Eco-housing, a programme developed jointly by UNEP and UN-HABITAT, aconcept that applies sustainability principles to the entire liecycle o a housing project,considering environmentally riendly approaches to the design, site assessment and materialselection, and energy, water, and waste management at the household and communitylevels. Implementing eco-housing principles in cities o developing countries on a globalscale will certainly have positive connotations or biodiversity conservation, both in reducingootprints and in creating less polluting urban environments. Yet, according to UN-HABITAT,projects are eective only i considered within their social-economic dimension. TheExperimental Reimbursable Seeding Operations (ERSO) is an alternative social instrument


30/62


28

involving commercial loans and direct repayment elements by the householders themselves.ERSO aims at increasing the aordability o housing and providing seed-capital to communityprojects or slum upgrading and inrastructure projects through local nancial institutions.

Box 4: The planning-implementation gap in Dongtan Eco City, China

Located north o Shanghai, Chongming Island is the worlds largest alluvial island and home toprecious wetlands and migrating birds. In 2005, British engineering rm Arup was commissionedto design the master plan or Dongtana new eco city or 500,000 people occupying one third othe Island and envisioned to become a model or Chinas uture urban development.

The concept or Dongtan ocused clearly on environmental sustainability, largely neglectingpolitical, economic, and social actors. Arups master plan eatured zero-greenhouse-emissiontransportation, complete sel-suciency in water and energy, zero energy building principles,and close-to-complete waste recycling, among other innovative intentions. The plan claimed that

existing wetlands would be protected by buer zones between the city and the wetlands, and thatthe total area covered by wetlands currently would even be increased by land use conversion romagriculture. The original plan envisioned 5,000 people to live in Dongtan Eco City by 2010, in timeor the Shanghai World Expo, but the project ailed to materialise or reasons undisclosed, and itsuture remains uncertain (Sigrist, 2009).

Envisioning tourismresorts, theme parks, stadiums, and exhibition centresas the maincontributor to the economic development o Chongming Island, Shanghais municipal governmentocused on the construction o a bridge-tunnel between Shanghai and the Island as a rst steptoward to development o the Dongtan project. Indeed, the completion o the bridge-tunnelin November 2009 attracted 480,000 visitors in just ten days, and visitor trac orced localauthorities to consider charging ees or scenic spots and limiting touristic activities to designatedareas. Parking areas quickly took the place o agriculturally used land, and toilet blocks and other

inrastructure needed to sustain the visitor torrent spread quickly and subject to loose control(Shen, 2009). Land use conversion owing to the tourist boom switly orced local armers out obusiness, and many continue to wait or the local government to deliver on their promise to re-employ them in the tourism industry around the wetlands (Lu, 2009). The current tourism boomand the seemingly uncontrolled development on the Island, ar rom Arups original plans, clearlyincreases resource consumption, and urthermore, poses a growing danger to agricultural land,precious wildlie habitats, and local culture, while its justication as a source or local employmenthas not lived up to expectations to date.

Since it was rst made public, Dongtan Eco City has attracted mixed reactions, ranging rom itsappraisal as a model o urban sustainability to accusations o sociopolitical totalitarianism. Dongtan,should it ever materialise, can only be considered socially sustainable i it clearly addresses the existing

and emerging problems around its current population. I uture development, indeed, succeeds inaddressing equally all aspects o sustainability, without giving priority to economic gains, Dongtanmay become a replicable model; so ar, it has ceased to meet even basic requirements, and the gapbetween the original vision and the current, prot-oriented development, causes much concern. Inany case, building more cities on undeveloped land seems less promising than converting existingcities to meet the criteria or social, environmental, economic, and political sustainability.

Sources:Lu, S., 2009. Boom orces armer to adapt. Shanghai Daily, [online] 23 November, Available at: [Accessed 23 November 2009].

Shen, W., 2009. Visitor limits planned or Chongming. Shanghai Daily, [online] 14 November, Available at: [Accessed 15 November 2009].

Sigrist, P., 2009. Dontan Eco City: A Model o Urban Sustainability? The Urban Reinventors, 09(3), [online]Available at: [Accessed 24 June 2010].


31/62


29

4.2 Provision of a good network of urban green spaces and functionalaquatic habitats

Remnant natural vegetation and urban green areas, such as parks and urban orests are themajor sources o biodiversity in and around cities. Many rare and endangered species areound in urban near-natural remnant areas. These remaining spaces do not only exist in theurban ringe but also in the middle o megacities. Notable examples o pristine remnants,even partly located in the middle o a city, are, among others: the remnant orests o theMata Atlantica in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), the evergreen orests o the Botanical Garden inSingapore, the National Park El Avila with its rock aces in Caracas (Venezuela), variousremnants o bush land in the Australian cities o Perth, Sydney, and Brisbane, remnantso natural orests in York (Canada) and Portland (USA), and rock aces and outcrops inEdinburgh (Scotland). Thereore, provision o a network o green spaces is among themost eective instruments to preserve and enhance urban biodiversity (Niemela, 1999).

State preservation o all kinds o vegetated spaces is the most ecient way to incorporatebiodiversity in an urban environment (Roetman and Daniels, 2008). Studies and researchhave shown that more nature in cities in terms o more green and tree cover result in betterenvironmental perormances including lower temperatures, lower carbon emissions, andhigher biodiversity (Sukopp, 2004; Whitord, et al., 2001).

Yet, only allocation and designation o some open spaces as green areas are not enoughto bring more nature to cities. Green spaces should be designated and designed in relevantways to ensure biodiversity preservation. In this respect, provision o a variety o greenspaces is essential. Uniormity has to be avoided when creating new open spaces as part o

urban nature conservation strategies (Zerbe, et al., 2003). Urban planning must guaranteethe allocation and development o dierent kinds o green spaces in and around cities,particularly using native species and the maintaining and restoring remnants o naturalareas where possible. Parks at the regional, urban, and district levels, nature parks, orestsand woods, wetlands, agricultural lands, meadows, and gardens are among the relevantkinds o green spaces. Enhancing conservation in peri-urban areas also improves biodiversityin inner-parts o the city (Snep, et al., 2006).

Qualities o plant and animal species in green spaces also infuence the services that thesespaces provide. More native plantation and avoidance o planting alien species, when itis possible, are argued to be the major guideline or the design o green spaces (Zerbe, etal., 2003). Revegetation with a diversity o native plant species especially in areas whereland development is intensive is recommended as a way to increase animal biodiversity(McKinney, 2002). In addition, sizes o green spaces have to be considered while designingthese spaces. As small parks are observed to be disturbed patches o habitat, it is arguedthat they make slight contributions to preserving biodiversity in cities. In this sense, priorityneeds to be given to the provision o large parks to preserve and improve urban biodiversity,as well as connect small patches to make large connected systems (Roetman and Daniels,2008).

The use o GIS-based gradient analysis in Shanghai conrmed the hypotheses that patch

density increases while mean and variance o patch size and landscape connectivity decreasewith the degree o landscape modication (Zhang, et al., 2004; Forman and Godron, 1986;Godron and Forman, 1983). In Shanghai, the degree o human impact depended on thedistance rom the centre. Urbanisation has resulted in dramatic increases in patch density,


32/62


30

edge density, and patch and landscape shape complexity, and sharp decreases in thelargest and mean patch size, agriculture habit area, and landscape connectivity (Zhang,et al., 2004). Small urban areas spreading in ragmented habitats have limited impact onconnectivity in a study o 66 urban areas in the US, and that connectivity is threatenedwhere larger urban areas spread through previously highly connected habitats (Bierwagen,2007).

Furthermore, critically important habitats and ecosystems have to be designated asprotection or conservation zones or an exclusive protection o species. Urban developmenthas to be avoided and controlled within these areas. Protection or conservation zonesshould not be let as isolated and disconnected patches. Instead, a continuous networko these protected zones together with other urban greenery has to be established. Tothis aim, green belts surrounding cities and green corridors running through citiesare the eective strategies (Niemela, 1999). These belts and corridors not only prevent

urban sprawl but also ensure the connection between green and natural patches. Greencorridors, which link dierent habitats, allow species to nd

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	puppimdeoliveira
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

UNU-IAS Cities and Bio E-Ver

Documents