JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum

Summary report of the key discussion points and recommendations of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicator Forum

A report prepared for the UK Biodiversity Indicators Steering Group by:

Megan Tierney, Nadine Bowles-Newark, Lucy Wilson & Kerstin Brauneder

The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre

Contents

1Background and Forum Objectives

2Forum Format

3Key Discussion Points and Recommendations from Working Groups

3.1Habitat Connectivity Indicator

3.1.1Key Discussion Points and Comments

3.1.2Summary and Recommendations

3.2Climate Change Adaptation Indicator

3.2.1Key Discussion Points and Comments

3.2.2Summary and Recommendations

3.3Threatened Species Indicator

3.3.1Key Discussion Points, Comments and Recommendations

3.4Plant Genetic Resources Indicator

3.4.1Key Discussion Points

3.4.2Summary and Recommendations

3.5Ecosystem Services Indicator

3.5.1Key Discussion Points

3.5.2Summary and Recommendations

3.6Global Impacts Indicator

3.6.1Key Discussion Points and Comments

3.6.2Summary and Recommendations

3.7National Reporting

3.7.1Key Discussion Points, Comments and Recommendations

4Annexes

4.1Participant List

4.2Forum Agenda

Abbreviations/Acronyms

BISG / Biodiversity Indicator Steering Group
CBD / Convention on Biological Diversity
CEH / Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
CWR / Crop wild relatives
EBSCCA / England Biodiversity Strategy for Climate Change Adaptation
JNCC / Joint Nature Conservation Committee
MENE / Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment
NFI / National Forest Inventory
NGO / Non-governmental organisation
SWOT / Strength, weakness, opportunities, threats
RSPB / Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
UNEP-WCMC / United Nations Environment Programme – World Conservation Monitoring Centre
WCS / Wider countryside species

1Background and Forum Objectives

The new Strategic Plan for biodiversity 2011 to 2020[1] includes 20 headline targets for 2020[2], and Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are urged to develop national and regional targets using the Strategic Plan as a flexible framework. Indicators are required to track progress towards these targets.

In response to this significant change to the policy framework, a review of the UK biodiversity indicators was undertaken to ensure that they remain relevant and based on the most robust and reliable data. Based on the outcomes of the review, the UK Biodiversity Indicator Steering Group (BISG) proposed an interim set of 24 indicators for reporting against global and European frameworks. These were first published in May 2012 on the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) website[3], and will be updated in May 2013.

A number of the proposed indicators need refinement and/or development. The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) is currently developing options for six thematic areas under a Defra led contract (contract number: WC1031). These thematic areas are: Awareness of Biodiversity Conservation, Status of Species and Habitats Supporting Ecosystem Services, Habitat Connectivity, Plant Genetic Resources, Climate Change Adaptation, and Integrating Biodiversity into Business Activities. Separately, JNCC is developing indicator options for the following areas: Threatened Species, and the UK’s Global Impact. JNCC is also reviewing how national indicators can be used to assess and report progress on international commitments.

For each indicator topic an options paper will be written for consideration by the BISG, after which a codified methodology will be written for the implementation of each selected option.

The first options and/or discussion papers on Habitat connectivity, Plant Genetic Resources, Climate Change Adaptation, Ecosystem Services, Threatened Species and Global Impacts have been prepared.

In order to ensure validity and scientific robustness of the options, it was decided that the sixth meeting of the UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum (hereafter referred to as the Forum) should be used as vehicle to provide quality assurance and peer review of these papers before decisions on which options to take forward are taken by the BISG in early 2013.

The specific objectives of the Forum were to:

  • Explore options for addressing gaps in the current UK biodiversity indicator set.
  • Seek feedback from the scientific and data recording communities on relevance and robustness of different options to inform final decisions about which options to take forward.
  • Provide feedback on how indicators (and other information) could be used to assess progress with international commitments in the UK’s 5th CBD National Report.

This report serves as a summary of the key discussion pointsand recommendations that arose at the Forum meeting.

2Forum Format

Experts experienced in the range of topics addressed by each of the options/discussion papers, as well as in indicator development and use, were invited to participate in the Forum. Experts included national policy makers, scientists, academics and representatives from NGOs. A full participant list is presented in Annex 1.

The Forum was convened over two days as an interactive workshop, with seven individual working groups (Table 1). The Forum agenda is provided in Annex 2.

Table 1.Forum working groups.

Day 1 (5 December 2012) / Day 2 (6 December 2012)
  • Habitat connectivity
  • Climate change adaptation
  • Threatened species
  • Presentation and reporting of indicators[4]
/
  • Plant genetic resources
  • Ecosystem services
  • Global impacts
  • Presentation and reporting of indicators1

The options/discussion papers, plus other relevant material, were provided as background documents to participants for review prior to the meeting. All working groupsessions commenced with a presentation to introduce the thematic area and highlight the specific objectives of the working group. The nominated Chair then led the working group through a series of pre-identified questions, exercises or open dialogue, with all pertinent pointsbeingrecorded. Each group presented a summary of the key discussion points and recommendations during plenary, with further questions and comments invited from all Forum participants.

3Key Discussion Points and Recommendations from Working Groups

Each sub-section below provides a brief introduction to the rationale and/or challenges faced in developing options for each of the indicators. Following this, the questions presented to each working group for consideration are listed, together with a summary of the key points and/or recommendations that arose during discussions.

3.1Habitat Connectivity Indicator

Paper Author: Richard Smithers (Ricardo-AEA)

Working Group Chair: James Williams (JNCC)

Working Group Members: see Annex 1.

The options paper prepared for the habitat connectivity indicator presents three options relevant to the UK’s obligation to report on Aichi Targets 5[5] and 11[6] of the CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. The three options, plus the specific questions that were discussed by Habitat Connectivity working group are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Proposed Habitat Connectivity indicator options and specific questions discussed by the Habitat Connectivity working group.

Indicator Option / Questions for discussion
Option A: Species-based indicator of habitat connectivity /
  1. Is there any scope to reduce the timescales and/or costs of the species-based methods that have been identified?
  2. Are there any other realistic methods for species-based indicators that have been overlooked?

Option B: Indicator of structural connectivity /
  1. Is the National Forest Inventory (NFI) fit-for-purpose for this indicator?
  2. Does the basket of simple metrics identified capture all key elements of habitat connectivity relating to area, isolation and edges or are there other metrics that should also be included?
  3. Should the evaluation scores for the two methods be the same for all criteria?

Option C: Indicator of functional connectivity /
  1. Does this option adequately address concerns about the existing UK Biodiversity Indicator of habitat connectivity being too constrained in its application to 1km squares, too reliant on expert judgement and too complex?
  2. Is development of an indicator-specific spatial land-cover dataset realistic?
  3. Are there other ways in which its costs might be further reduced?

3.1.1Key Discussion Points and Comments

An open discussion was led on each indicator option, guided by the questions posed as well as on other points of concerns raised by working group members. A summary of these discussions are presented below. It was noted that habitat connectivity as an indicator is very context specific, and therefore finding a generic option is a challenging task.

Option A: Species-based indicator of habitat connectivity

  • At the present time there is a lack of relevant data to produce this indicator, although a 3-5 year horizon may not be unrealistic given current research.Therefore this option was noted as an opportunity for the future, if species can be identified which can demonstrate a definitive link between distribution and habitat connectivity.
  • The question of how to present data from thousands of species in one indicator was raised, and it was found that the complexity of communicating such information also significantly constrains the potential use of this option.
  • An approach which looks for common species (e.g. generalist birds) within the most isolated patches was suggested as a possible method, with the opportunity of extrapolating data from studies in the future. However, until there is more clarity on the modelling methods to be used, this was not seen as a viable alternative.
  • There may also be the option to use dispersal parameters (as in Options B and C) from particular species whose dispersal characteristics have been well-studied. For example, the Netherlands use a handful of named species in the design of their ecological networks. This may allow for this option to be implemented in the near future, subject to further examination.

Option B: Indicator of structural connectivity

  • Option B was deemed to be superficially attractive as a basic indicator of how land use changes on an annual basis.
  • However there was some concern raised that it only covers a single habitat, and if this became the sole measure of habitat connectivity. Other disadvantages include that it does not take into account associated habitat quality or the intervening matrix.
  • So while it could be considered as an interim ‘quick-fix’ solution, it was felt that consideration would need to be given to how the indicator could be taken forward into the future and/or that supplementary indicators would need to be developed.
  • It was agreed that when considering the use of this indicatorarea and core area should be focussed on, rather than patch number.
  • It was recommended that simple metrics be used.
  • One significant advantage is that the data required for this indicator (percentage of forest sustainably managed and data from the National Forest Inventory) areavailable and updated annually.

Option C: Indicator of functional connectivity

  • An indicator of functional connectivity was identified as best practice and was noted as addressing concerns about the existing habitat connectivity indicator’s application to 1km squares, reliance on expert judgement and complexity.
  • However this option is data-hungry and there is a need to resolve the issue of getting a useable data set on a more frequent time scale. The implementation of the indicator may be expensive, but broader use of this data through other applications (e.g. a policy framework which requires good land use data) would provide better value for money overall.
  • If a data set for this option existed, other existing biodiversity indicators could also be reviewed and improved. For example this work could potentially link to corresponding work underway by Prof. Ian Bateman (University of East Anglia) on land use as well as current ongoing work at Scottish Natural Heritage.
  • An ‘off the shelf’ classification of habitat type, which may contain some errors, would be cheaper than a customised classification. As long as the method is repeatable, signals of landcover change over time would still be detected which would fulfil the basic function of the indicator. One option for obtaining this type of data is that from the European satellite which will supply annual data at little or no cost – however this will not be operationuntil after 2014.
  • Despite some clarification on the term ‘Mean Connectivity Value’ being required, the overall view was that thisindicator is well developed and justified.

3.1.2Summary and Recommendations

The general consensus of the working group was that:

  • Option C is the most suitable choice to take forward at this stage
  • Option B was considered to be more of a short-term solution; and
  • Option A requires further research to determine future possibilities.

The cost implications of combining all three options, together with the potential problems in keeping the data recent, meant this was not seen as a viable alternative.

3.2Climate Change Adaptation Indicator

Paper Author: Richard Smithers (Ricardo-AEA)

Working Group Chair: Mark Stevenson(Defra)

Working Group Members: see Annex 1.

Initial work on identifying options for developing indicators for climate change adaptation that could be used to monitor progress towards Aichi Target 10[7] (in addition to others) raised a number of challenges. These were synthesised in a discussion paper and presented to the working group on climate change adaptation at the Forum for review, and suggestions invited on how to take the proposed indicator options forward. The specific questions used to guide the working group discussions included:

  1. What are we trying to indicate?[8]
  2. Are there further sources of suitable data that have not been considered that would address those issues in relation to “preparedness for climate change adaptation” that were identified by the workshop?
  3. Would it be appropriate to present the basket of existing and proposed UK Biodiversity Indicators that already address England Biodiversity Strategy Climate Change Adaptation (EBSCCA) principles as one option for monitoring progress against Aichi Target 10, and if so, how should this be presented?
  4. Which of the gaps in the UK biodiversity indicator set, highlighted by revisiting the EBSCCA Principles, should be considered for development of potential indicator options?
  5. Are there other options? If so what data could support them?

The five options proposed included developing an indicator of:

  1. Wildfire incidence
  2. Gains and losses in coastal habitats
  3. Water availability for biodiversity
  4. The use of a Carbon-based indicator to reflect and integrate adaptation and mitigation measures
  5. The use of an indicator reflecting buffer zones around high quality habitats.

3.2.1Key Discussion Points and Comments

Working group members were asked to provide answers/opinions/suggestions to each of the proposed questions on post-it notes. These were then collated and discussed amongst the group. Key points are summarised below.

What are we trying to indicate?

  • To achieve some clarity on this question, Aichi Target 10 was deconstructed by the working group. It was concluded that the main objective of Target 10 is to maintain integrity and functioning of vulnerable habitats, plus minimising anthropogenic pressures on these habitats. It was felt that most of this information is available in the existing indicator set and that a process-indicator might be more informative and immediate than an outcome-indicator. Policies need to be developed and implemented proactively in relation to climate change adaptation and confounding variables and lags in response times may challenge the development of meaningful outcome-indicators.
  • In regards to policy interventions, it was felt that most interventions are not specific to climate change adaptation – i.e. the focus of the intervention is on other elements, e.g. improving connectivity between habitats. However there are some, such as managed realignment and risk management (e.g. for wildfires or protected site condition). If additional adaptation indicators are to be developed, it was felt these should focus on specific actions to maintain ‘integrity and function’.

Further sources of additional data.

Additional sources of data identified that might be suitable for a climate change adaptation indicator included:

  • Protected Area management plans
  • Landscape scale schemes
  • As biodiversity will respond to changes in land-use that may be a result of climate change, data on change in cropping patterns or types of crops grown could be useful
  • Area/rate of re(creation) of key habitats – e.g. hedgerows, ponds, such as that collected by Natural England.

Is it possible to draw on existing or proposed indicators that address the EBSCCA principles?

The five EBSCCA principles include:

  • Take practical action now
  • Maintain resilience and increase ecological resilience
  • Accommodate change
  • Integrate action across all sectors
  • Develop knowledge and plan strategically

It was proposed that a narrative on climate change adaptation could be derived from the existing indicators, although until there is a better understanding of the knowledge base in regards to ‘preparedness’ it will difficult to attribute climate change to any observed trends.

It was also noted that information could also be drawn from national adaptation plans.

What are the options? Where are the gaps?

A summary of the working groups’ evaluation generated during discussion on the five indicators that had been proposed as potential indicators of climate change adaptation are presented in Table 3.

3.2.2Summary and Recommendations

The working group favoured an approach by narrative based on existing indicators coupled with information about adaptation actions, supplemented with one of the favoured options outlined above.

Table 3.Evaluation of proposed climate change adaptation indicators.

Indicator / Evaluation
Wildfire incidence /
  • Not favoured.
  • Although it was felt this indicator could be linked to policy intervention, there was disagreement amongst the group on how useful it could be and there was concern over how it would be interpreted (e.g. if wildfire incidents decrease, how can they be directly related to increased action on climate change adaptation).

Gains and losses in coastal habitats /
  • Favoured (generally).
  • Was felt that this indicator would be policy relevant; however some concern about its narrow scope and availability of suitable data.

Water availability for biodiversity /
  • Strongly favoured.
  • Seen as favourable because data is available, and it would be easily understood.
  • (Note,this indicator was interpreted as the condition of protected areas affected by water availability).

The use of a Carbon-based indicator to reflect and integrate adaptation and mitigation measures /
  • Not favoured.
  • Felt it would be more applicable to better to explore this as an indicator of ecosystem services.

The use of an indicator reflecting buffer zones around high quality habitats. /
  • Not favoured.
  • Discounted due to the requirement of good quality data to allow a sophisticated analysis of habitat creation, but if such analysis could be designed then it was felt that this had promise.

3.3Threatened Species Indicator

Paper Author: Fiona Burns (RSPB) and Nick Isaac (CEH)