4.4 Biodiversity Intactness Index (BII

4.0 OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL CHANGE IN BIODIVERSITY

The review of the Southeast landscape highlights a rich heritage of biodiversity. The region enjoys high level of species endemism but habitat loss through human activity has placed many species under threat. The Aichi targets, and more recently the 30 by 30 targets are mechanisms put in place by the global community to counter biodiversity loss through increasing the amount of protected areas. In principle, at least, protected areas are safe havens for ecosystems and species to thrive.

4.1 Terrestrial and Marine Protected Areas (MPA) of Southeast Asia

The current pattern of protected terrestrial and marine areas among Southeast Asia can be seen in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. There is considerable variation in the percentage of protected areas among countries. Strikingly, the level of terrestrial protection is high in countries such as Brunei and Cambodia which stand at 47% and 40% respectively in contrast to countries such as Myanmar (7%) and Indonesia (12%). This may suggest a positive picture for Southeast Asia but unfortunately Brunei and Cambodia have small land areas in comparison to the immensely larger land areas of Indonesia and Myanmar. As such, the higher percentage of protected areas of the smaller countries is unable to offset the lower percentage of protection afforded by larger countries. An examination of the marine protected areas in Southeast Asia yields a worrying picture as there are very few protected areas within the region. Among Southeast Asian countries, (excluding those that are landlocked), Malaysia at 5% has the highest percentage of marine protected areas, Thailand 4%, Indonesia 3%, Philippines 2%, and Cambodia and Vietnam 1%, and the remaining ones, none.

Figure 4.1: Terrestrial protected area: total land area (km2) and terrestrial protected area (%) in Southeast Asia countries in 2021

Source: UN Environment Program World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC, 2019)

Figure 4.2: Marine protected area: total marine area (km2) and marine protected area (%) in Southeast Asia countries in 2021

Source: UN Environment Program World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC, 2019)

Consideration of longer-term comparative patterns of protected areas between ASEAN and other regional blocs presents a more holistic view of conservation efforts (see Figures 4.3 and 4.4). Historically, Southeast Asia from the 1950s to mid-80s registered an increase of PA from a low stable base position of around 5%. During this time Southeast Asia performed better than OECD and Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) blocs. From the mid-80’s onwards, both LAC and OECD countries took significant steps and increased the number of terrestrial protected areas. By late 80s, LAC had overtaken ASEAN and by late 90s OECD also surpassed ASEAN in terms of percentage of protected areas. This pattern continued, with both LAC and OECD pulling further ahead. Middle East and North Africa (MENA) in contrast made very slow relative progress in their initiatives and efforts at conservation through protected areas. The overall trajectory for ASEAN shows that the rate of increase in protected areas was not at the pace observed in the LCA bloc. However, ASEAN was not far behind growth levels observed in the OECD bloc. Considering that ASEAN comprises mainly developing and emerging countries whilst OECD of developed countries, the ASEAN conservation efforts remain significant. Nonetheless, further action needs to be taken to ensure ASEAN keeps pace with OECD and puts in place strategies to meet the aspirational 30% targets.

In contrast to terrestrial protection, the long-term trajectory for ASEAN marine protected areas is relatively flat and much weaker than the benchmark blocs of LAC and OECD. The slow progress in addressing the marine biodiversity in the region is attributed to a number of factors, which are discussed in later sections of the report. Considerable effort must be made to improve upon this languishing status so as to meet the expectations of the 30×30 initiative.

Benchmarking ASEAN’s performance vis-à-vis other regional blocs.

Figure 4.3: Percentage of terrestrial protected area of selected regions and unions between 1950 and 2020

Source: OECD Stat, 2021

Figure 4.4: Percentage of marine protected area of selected regions and unions between 2011 and 2021

Source: OECD Stat, 2021

Case Study 4.1: Ecotourism Conserves Nature and Brings Economic Benefits

Southeast Asia with its rich biodiversity has successfully shown through its ecotourism efforts that nature and socioeconomic benefits can coexist while generating numerous job opportunities and enhancing the livelihood of neighbouring communities. A recent report on Kuala Tahan National Park, which occupies 54% of the Taman Negara National Park, in Pahang, Malaysia, describes how ecotourism (tourism industry within protected areas) has brought about income generation and poverty reduction (Mukrimah, 2015).

The data sourced in 2012 shows an impressive household income of communities in the area (RM 4,035/month) such that it is almost as much as that within other village communities around the country (RM5,000/month). The area registered a four-fold increase in visitor arrivals from 1990. The survey revealed that an average of about 47% of the monthly household income for the village was derived from activities within the PA (harvesting rattan, bamboo and honey) or outside it (related to forestry and ecotourism, including spill-over business activities, such as from food and beverage outlets, souvenir shops and chalet operations, tour guiding, boatman activities etc.). The rest of the income was not related to forestry or ecotourism and came from salaried jobs in the private or government sector. The highest percentage of cash income was obtained from work as tourist guides. The study clearly shows that ecotourism can reduce poverty among villagers, including that of IPLC, by boosting socioeconomic activities and creating jobs, while maintaining the ecosystem and protecting biodiversity.

Similar dramatic developments have been reported for many ecotourism spots in various parts of Southeast Asia, such as Betung Kerihun National Park, the largest conservation area in West Kalimantan (Sekartjakrarini et al., 2015). To quote Reef Watch Malaysia (2019), “Research suggests that eco-tourists are often prepared to pay a premium to visit undisturbed destinations, with intact ecosystems and cultures. Perhaps this is an alternative tourism model for Malaysia to contemplate in order to protect its fragile ecosystems and ensure they are sustainable for future generations.”

If the 49 ASEAN Heritage Parks (AHP), under the purview of the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB, 2021), were to embrace the above approach to value-add on-going activities, the gains to biodiversity protection and socioeconomic development of the region would be highly significant.

4.2 The Human Footprint

Spatial and temporal changes to the environment as a result of human pressures have profound ramifications for biodiversity and human economies. Mapping human pressures to the environment is a fundamental step toward pinpointing priority areas for conservation, or restoration of natural ecosystems and for tracking progress toward policy commitments to conservation.

The human footprint map, a composite measure of anthropogenic pressure on natural ecosystems is considered the most accurate and extensive collective biodiversity threat map (McGowan, 2016). It reflects the totality of ecological footprints of the human population. Human footprint maps give quantitative information on locations where humans are exerting direct and indirect constraints on natural ecosystems, thus altering them from their natural states. Conversely, they also offer insights into where such pressures are absent, and ecosystems appear to be functioning in a more natural state. In quantifying the human footprint, the pressures selected reflect the most critical human activities that can damage local natural systems. Measures of land cover change, such as agricultural and urban land use, connections to natural areas such as by roads or waterways, infrastructures including railways and electric infrastructure, and population density are examples of pressure variables used to compute the human footprint.

Using remotely-sensed and bottom-up survey information on eight variables (including, land cover, infrastructure, and human access into natural areas) Venter et al. (2016a, 2016b) constructed a globally standardised measure of the cumulative human footprint on the environment over a 16-year period from 1993 and 2009. This allowed a picture of change in global biodiversity to emerge since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. They found the global human footprint had increased by only 9% although the global population had increased by 23%, and the world economy had grown 153%. The wealthiest nations and those with strong control of corruption showed the most pronounced decreases in environmental pressures. However, 75% of Earth’s land surface was experiencing measurable human pressures. Most worryingly, the most biologically diverse regions of the planet were the ones that were being disproportionately impacted.

The biodiversity trends taking place in Southeast Asia were captured relatively well by the study conducted by Verma and colleagues of the Sundaland region since the Rio Earth Summit (Verma et al. 2020). They assessed the human footprint of Sundaland, using the human footprint methodology described by Venter et al. (2016a) to measure pressure changes within protected areas (PA), Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) and bird ranges across Sundaland from 1993 to 2009. The World Database on Protected Areas map (WDPA Consortium, 2018) and World Database of Key Biodiversity Area maps (International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 2018a) were used to study the dynamics of human footprint exerted on PA and KBA respectively. PA are categorised into six groups by the IUCN based on the levels of protection and restriction (Munoz & Hausner, 2013). Categories I–IV are more restricted, and managed for biodiversity protection, while Categories V and VI are more flexible and allow multiple sustainable use of resources, and attempt to integrate conservation and resource extraction (Munoz & Hausner, 2013). A human footprint score of ≥ 4 indicates there has been intense human pressure in the area and that it can no longer be considered a natural environment. Species are threatened by habitat loss and at higher risk of extinction