Download 1 DIGITAL BIODIVERSITY DATA FOR FAST TRACKING IMPACT

1
DIGITAL BIODIVERSITY DATA FOR FAST TRACKING IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Geodatabases for impact assessment in a mid-income country
Introduction
Biodiversity data requirements for Environmental Assessment depend on the national statutory
context. Legislation may protect (1) listed species in situ, (2) occupied or unoccupied species
habitats, (3) listed habitats, (4) proclaimed areas (National Parks; Reserves; Ramsar sites;
corridors/networks), (5) areas with a high number of red-listed species (e.g. endangered or rare)
and, lately, (6) areas or species that provide ecosystem services. Obviously, these categories of
protection overlap. Further, legislation may prescribe elimination of invasive alien species to protect,
among others, biodiversity. In Namibia, maintenance of ecosystems and biodiversity is stipulated in
the Constitution; however, most of the above protection categories are not satisfactorily legislated
or regulated; only protected and huntable game is explicitly protected by law. However, the
Constitution provides for international agreements to be the law of the land in the absence of
national legislation. Therefore, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the African Convention
on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and the Ramsar Convention are in effect
national law. Article 14 of the CBD requires carrying out EIA for a project that is likely to have
significant adverse effect of biological diversity. The African Convention prescribes to “…undertake
inventories of species of fauna and flora and prepare maps of their distribution and abundance”.
Digital spatial data are provided in two fundamentally different formats, i.e. raster (synonyms: grid;
pixel) or vector (polygon, polyline and point). As vector format is standard in design of construction
projects subject to EIA, compatibility and efficiency requires the biodiversity data to match the
format and scale/spatial resolution of proposed projects. A further compatibility issue arises when
physical and anthropogenic geodata layers are used together with the biodiversity data.
Site-specific data of plant and animal species are often systematically recorded over long periods by
national or regional government institutions and/or civic organisations. Among the latter are
associations of birders, botanists, and herpetologist. The raw data records are often in vector
format (XY point coordinates), but also species inventories in raster format are known (five km2;
Netherlands). In addition to purposive biodiversity sampling, species records become available as bycatch of various statutory activities, for example coastal guard patrols or marine fisheries inspections
(e.g. seals; dolphins), prosecution of poachers, hunting permit administration, HWC conflict
compensation records (e.g. carnivore versus livestock; elephant versus crop; bear versus beehives or
orchards or veterinary records (rabies; FMD). However, privacy issues and record formats may
prevent fast access as required for EA assessment by practitioners.
We identify the suitability of the current geodatabases for timely provision of biodiversity data for
EA in a mid-income country. The income level implies a reasonable ICT infrastructure and a critical
mass of large investment projects requiring EA to make geodatabases relevant. Based on our
findings on suitability, we recommended the way forward for better customized geodatabases.
Methods
An inventory was made during January/February 2015 of geodatabases containing biodiversity data.
The following database features were tabulated: biodiversity category, spatial format (vector versus
raster), output format, spatial resolution, coordinate system, completeness of data, ownership
(institution) and reference (website; articles). The geodatabases features are matched with input
data requirements of EAs, both EIA and SEA. Mismatches have been identified and discussed, and a
way forward recommended.
2
Results
The table shows that none of the geodatabases contains all the features required for fast tracking of
biodiversity data in EA. The Tree and Bird Atlases appear to be the most suitable as their species
inventory is comprehensive and their digital output format suitable. However, their coordinate
system is unsuitable, especially for EIA. Data with geographical coordinates (latitude/longitude in
degrees) cannot be directly overlaid in a GIS over topographic or other projected maps; neither can
distances nor surface areas be calculated without transformation of coordinates. The carnivore,
herbivores and red-list plant geodatabases are all incomplete, in unsuitable output formats, coarse
resolutions and with unsuitable coordinate systems for EA. The incomplete species inventories
would need to be spatially modelled before becoming useful in EIA (Silva Angelieri & Pereira de
Souza, 2012; Gils et al. 2014).The remaining geodatabases represent selected, aggregated
information of unknown provenance that are therefore currently unsuitable for EA on account of
several tabulated features.
Table 1. Biodiversity in Namibian at online geodatabases
Biodiversity
Spatial
Output format
Scale or
Coordin
Complete
Institution*
category
format
Resolution
ate
Tree
raster
shp/csv/kmz
QDS**
degree
yes
NBRI
Bird
raster
csv
Pentad***
degree
yes
ADU/SANBI/BirdLife
Carnivore
raster
analogue
QDS
degree
no
EIS
Mammal
raster
analogue
QDS
degree
no
EIS
Red-list plant
point
analogue
2DS
degree
partial
NBRI
Plant diversity
polygon
shp
1 : 106
none
no
Köln University
Important plant poly/point shp
1 : 106
none
demo
Köln University
Gemsbok km-2
polygon
shp
1 : 106
none
demo
Köln University
*see Table 2; **QDS=Quarter Degree Square=15 minutes lat/long; ***Pentad=5 minutes lat/long.
Table 2. Institutions hosting biodiversity geodatabases on Namibia
Institution; acronym
NBRI Tree Atlas
ADU/SANBU/BirdLife
EIS
Köln University
Institution
National Botanical Research Institute
Animal Demography Unit, UCT; South Africa
Environmental Information Service, Namibia
Acacia Project DFG
Website of the geodatabase
www.nbri.org.na/projects/tree-atlas
sabap2.adu.org.za
www.the-eis.com/atlas_outputs
www.uni-koeln.de/sfb389
Results
We identified five online geodatabases containing substantive biodiversity data that are potentially
instrumental in EA (Table 1). Four geodatabases contain spatially-specific species presence data of
larger terrestrial organisms (tree, bird, carnivore and mammal species, red-listed plant species). The
Köln (Cologne) University geodatabase provides some biodiversity information derived from species
presence data of the same categories of organisms (plant diversity; gemsbok density; important
plant species). Geodatabases of marine organism seem absent, although Namibia is a marine
country both from an economic (export-oriented marine fisheries, off-shore mining and harbours)
and environmental perspective (e.g. seals, penguins, whales, dolphins).
The species-presence geodatabases (Table 1: tree, bird, carnivore and herbivore) are built by
conversion of off-line point observation records into a coarser raster (QDS; pentad) published on the
web. The underlying records and attribute table containing XY coordinates and other source data
(e.g. calendar date) would be instrumental in EA, but were not included in the online geodatabase.
3
Such raster geodata are suitable for SEA, but for EIA a finer resolution and vector data are required.
In a test case (EIS), the off-line attribute table was supplied on request within a reasonable period
for research purposes, but not fast enough for the legal deadlines applicable to EA.
The compound biodiversity categories in the Cologne/Köln university geodatabase are
undocumented. Moreover, a projection file is lacking in the shapefile (Table 1), requiring time and
cost for re-projection. Often EAPs in Namibia lack the GIS expertise and software for re-projection.
The species presence data were collected in most cases (tree, bird, carnivore and mammal in Table
1) by volunteers, known as citizen scientists, representing crowd sourcing avant la lettre. The three
Namibian geodatabases were designed, built and populated by experts sponsored by foreign donors.
The Trees Atlas is maintained by a state institution (Private-Public-Partnership), whereas the
carnivore plus mammal geodatabases are a project within EIS, a not-for-profit foundation (NGO).
The Bird Atlas of Sothern Africa, including Namibia (SABAP2, 2015) is hosted by the University of
Cape Town (UCT) and supported by SANDI and BirdLife. The set of compound geodata at the website
of the University of Cologne is a selection and edited version of geodata-layers also available from
the EIS-NNF website and originating in a foreign sponsored Atlas project (2002); originally, these
Atlas geodata were also downloadable from a ministerial website. None of the biodiversity
geodatabases is held by national line ministries or agencies such as environmental, coastal, wildlife
or park authorities, although these capture and store significant amounts of biodiversity data. We
could not locate any biodiversity database at regional or local government level in Namibia, although
this is common in some OECD countries.
None of the biodiversity geodatabases was referenced in the reviewed EA reports (Gils 2015). The
geodatabases do not match the vector format, resolution, output format and/or comprehensiveness
requirements of EA.
Conclusions
Associations of EA-practitioners (EAPAN) and companies (e.g. chamber of mines) could take the lead
by voluntarily submitting biodiversity geodata obtained in their EAs to the NGO-hosted
geodatabases. Environmental officers employed at the larger private firms in mining and parastatals
(NamPower; NamWater; NamPort) could do the same. Further, a contract clause for research
projects and EAs to submit biodiversity data in a prescribed format (vector; projection) at an
independent geodatabase at project completion is suggested. The flip side of the coin could be a
standard budget-line in EA contracts to purchase products generated from geodata by the
independent geodatabase institutions.
The online Tree and Bird geodatabases could be optimized for EA purposes by online provision of
their underlying species presence point data in suitable projection and with attribute table, probably
at a price. The carnivore, mammal and red-list may be technically and institutionally modelled on the
bird and tree example. The Köln university geodatabase lacks suitable biodiversity data for EA.
References
Curtis, B. & Mannheimer, C. 2005. Tree Atlas of Namibia; NBRI, Windhoek: Printed and Webpage;
www.nbri.org.na/projects/tree-atlas
EIS 2015 Environmental Information Service (EIS) Namibia; www.the-eis.com/atlas_outputs ; downloaded 04 Feb 2015
4
Gils, H. van, Westinga, E., Carafa, M., Antonucci, A. & Ciaschetti, G. 2014. Where the bears roam in
Majella National Park, Italy. Journal for Nature Conservation 22: 23-34
Gils, H. van 2015. Why is the backbone softening? IAIA15 Conference Proceedings, Florence
Köln University, 2015. www.uni-koeln.de/sfb389 ; downloaded 08 Feb 2015
Loots, S. 2005. Red Data Book of Namibian Plants. Sabonet 38, Pretoria & Windhoek
SABAP2 , 2015 sabap2.adu.org.za ; downloaded 06 Feb 2015
Silva Angelieri, C. C. & Pereira de Souza, M. 2012. Mammal’s database for a Brazilian planning
approach. IAIA12 Conference Proceedings, Oporto.