6 th UK Biodiversity Indicator Forum: Ecosystem Service Indicators Megan tierney

1. 6th UK Biodiversity Indicator Forum: Ecosystem Service Indicators Megan tierney Ecosystem Assessment Programme UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre Ecosystem Service Indicators, 6th UK BIF, UNEP-WCMC: December 2012

2. Biodiversity Indicators – Reporting Gaps • UK government committed to reporting against global, regional and national frameworks to address biodiversity loss • One method for doing this is through the use of indicators • Gap identified in UK indicator set was ability to report on benefits humans receive from the environment – i.e. ecosystem services (ESS) • Indicator D2 in UK set (see p32 of BIYP 2012) Ecosystem Service Indicators, 6th UK BIF, UNEP-WCMC: December 2012

3. CBD Aichi Targets • Aichi Target with most relevance to ESS is Target 14: • “...By 2020, ecosystems that provide essential services, including services related to water, and contribute to health, livelihoods and well-being are restored and safeguarded, taking into account the needs of women, indigenous and local communities, and the poor and vulnerable...” Ecosystem Service Indicators, 6th UK BIF, UNEP-WCMC: December 2012

4. Developing a UK Ecosystem Service Indicator • Task: develop an indicator(s) of the status of ecosystems that provide essential services in a UK context Ecosystem Service Indicators, 6th UK BIF, UNEP-WCMC: December 2012

5. Developing a UK Ecosystem Service Indicator • Progress to date: • Identifying potential ESS indicators and datasets: • Review of UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UK NEA) • Online survey • Other ESS indicator initiatives/reviews Ecosystem Service Indicators, 6th UK BIF, UNEP-WCMC: December 2012

6. Developing a UK Ecosystem Service Indicator • Progress to date: • Workshop: • Aim – explore possibilities of developing indicators of ESS for the UK and use specific selection criteria to prioritise 3-5 indicators to present as options to the UK Biodiversity Indicator Steering Group Ecosystem Service Indicators, 6th UK BIF, UNEP-WCMC: December 2012

7. Developing a UK Ecosystem Service Indicator • Sticking points: • How do you identify essential services? • Develop indicators around habitats or services? • Relationship between ecosystem services and biodiversity? • Reflection of biodiversity that has an ecosystem service component? • Indicator of ecosystem services that has a biodiversity component? • Indicator that shows the role of biodiversity in ecosystem services? • Which part of the service do we measure - stock, flow, benefit? Trends in natural capital? • What policy questions could an indicator of ESS address? • No indicator options agreed Ecosystem Service Indicators, 6th UK BIF, UNEP-WCMC: December 2012

8. Developing a UK Ecosystem Service Indicator • Aichi Target with most relevance to ESS is Target 14: • “...By 2020, ecosystems that provide essential services, including services related to water, and contribute to health, livelihoods and well-being are restored and safeguarded, taking into account the needs of women, indigenous and local communities, and the poor and vulnerable...” Ecosystem Service Indicators, 6th UK BIF, UNEP-WCMC: December 2012

9. Developing a UK Ecosystem Service Indicator • Identification of key ESS and the ecosystems (habitats) that deliver them in the UK:

10. Discussion Points • 1. Essential services and habitats • Does the list of services identified adequately cover the services of key importance to the UK? • Are there other ecosystem services that are essential in the UK context? • What ecosystems deliver these services? • Are there other ecosystem services identified in the country biodiversity strategies that should be developed? Ecosystem Service Indicators, 6th UK BIF, UNEP-WCMC: December 2012

11. Discussion Points • 2. Prioritisation • The number of indicators needs to be limited to a reasonable operational number. • How should these services be prioritised for indicator development? Ecosystem Service Indicators, 6th UK BIF, UNEP-WCMC: December 2012

12. Discussion Points • 3. Strength of evidence • What is the strength of evidence linking trends in habitat extent and condition, or species abundance, distribution and diversity with delivery of the ecosystem service? • What data is currently available to demonstrate this relationship? • Can the relationship be quantified? How easy is it to do this? • Could an indicator reflecting this relationship be developed? Ecosystem Service Indicators, 6th UK BIF, UNEP-WCMC: December 2012

13. Exercises • Exercise 1 – Prioritisation: • Place coloured dot next to the services that have been identified which you feel is of highest priority • Can place all 5 dots on one service or spread them amongst the services • Add additional services (and the habitats that provide them) to blank sheets. • Include justification for why important and evidence to support this. Ecosystem Service Indicators, 6th UK BIF, UNEP-WCMC: December 2012

14. Exercises • Exercise 2 – Strength of Evidence: • For the prioritised list of services, use post-it notes to provide information on: • Data available to demonstrate relationship between service delivery and trends in habitat extent/condition, or species abundance, distribution, diversity. • Could relationship be quantified? • What might an indicator look like? Ecosystem Service Indicators, 6th UK BIF, UNEP-WCMC: December 2012

16. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Indicators, Natural England: September 2012

17. Ecosystem Service Indicators • ESIs are relevant to a range of the new CBD targets • Most explicit ref is Strategic Goal ‘D’ (Enhancing benefits) and Target 14 in particular (by 2020, ecosystems that provide services are restored and safe-guarded) • Will also play large role in IPBES • A number of indicators have been identified as ready for implementation, but many need development. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Indicators, Natural England: September 2012

18. Ecosystem Service Indicators What we know Issues and Challenges www.cbd.int/ts Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Indicators, Natural England: September 2012

19. Which metrics are being used? • All four services are being measured in various assessments • Most common and well-developed indicators are for PROVISIONING services • Primarily for food, water, fuel Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Indicators, Natural England: September 2012

20. Which services are being assessed • Relatively few underlying metrics • Majority related to: • Extent/condition/stock of habitat or ecosystem - e.g. extent of forest, amount of carbon stored • Supply or use (output) of the service – e.g. tonnes of wheat harvested, number of visitors to protected area Ecosystem Services and Decision-Making, Prague: April 2012

21. Which metrics are being used? • Pattern reflects what is measurable and what is available to measure • Many cases, major gaps in data availability • Habitats and biodiversity often used as proxies for ecosystem services Ecosystem Services and Decision-Making, Prague: April 2012

22. Which metrics are being used? • Few measures of ecosystem functioning • Most metrics are of composition and structure as this is easier to measure • This is o.k. if structural/compositional attributes reflect functional attributes • But generally relationship between ecosystem function and services poorly understood • Measures of ecosystem structure and composition may be poor indicators of ecosystem service Ecosystem Services and Decision-Making, Prague: April 2012

23. Roll of modelling and mapping • Some metrics can be modelled rather than measured directly • e.g. carbon storage can be modelled from total forest extent (using production function) • Does need good understanding of link between condition of the system and provision of service • Models can be used to map ecosystem services Ecosystem Services and Decision-Making, Prague: April 2012

24. Roll of modelling and mapping Carbon storage in Little Karoo, South Africa Service mapped, based on research and expert opinion of carbon storage values of different habitat types Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Indicators, Natural England: September 2012

25. Roll of modelling and mapping • Maps of ecosystem services are useful and becoming more common • BUT – very data intensive and difficult to represent uncertainty • Many currently based on crude estimates and require model verification Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Indicators, Natural England: September 2012

26. What scale are services measured at? Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Indicators, Natural England: September 2012

27. What scale are services measured at? • Global indicators could have limited use at local scales – coarse resolution or limited data • Alternative methods and metrics may be needed for local decision making Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Indicators, Natural England: September 2012

28. Key Issues & Challenges • Key challenges identified: • Logistical constraints (time and money) associated with long- and short-term monitoring programmes • Technical issues: • Prioritisation • What to measure • Bundling • Scale • Communication Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Indicators, Natural England: September 2012

29. Prioritising Indicators • Indicators are used to track progress towards targets and form basis of socio-economic decisions • BUT policy contexts change over time (and space) Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Indicators, Natural England: September 2012

30. Prioritising Indicators • Therefore indicator selection should be based on case-by-case basis • Aim to meet overall objectives of assessment and needs of decision of makers • Will need to consider how to best use available resources to develop/use indicators • Aim to address key elements and information gaps Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Indicators, Natural England: September 2012

31. Should we assess single or multiple ESS • Assessing services with a single indicator generally not sufficient for most assessments • Trade-offs • Assessing a single service also not sufficient • Have to go beyond provisioning! • How many? • Will be linked to assessment objectives and data availability Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Indicators, Natural England: September 2012

32. Choosing metrics • Do we need to have indicators of function? • Not always, but could help design condition/stock or benefit/impact indicators • e.g. understanding the function of water flux (e.g. through rainfall and runoff) may help management and mitigation of impacts on hydrological services Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Indicators, Natural England: September 2012

33. Data availability and proxies • Need to consider what data is available to meet objectives • Can baseline data be incorporated into existing indicators? • Should there be investment in new data collection and indicator development? • Can/should proxies be used? • Proxies only useful if any change in these metrics accurately indicates change in service of focus Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Indicators, Natural England: September 2012

34. Communication • Major challenge to communication • Finding a common language • Mainstreaming also difficult • Need to involve policy makers and stakeholders from the beginning Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Indicators, Natural England: September 2012

35. Biodiversity • Important that ecosystem services considered alongside biodiversity – not as an alternative. • Should it be considered as underpinning all ecosystem services, a service itself or a good that can be valued? • Mace et al. (2012) argue for biodiversity having a role at all levels Mace et al. (2012) TREE. 27: 19-26

36. Biodiversity • Biodiversity is still declining globally • Many benefits to HWB are dependent on the condition/extent of ecosystems which can be measured by species and their interactions • Could biodiversity indicators act as proxies for ecosystem service flow? Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Indicators, Natural England: September 2012

37. Ongoing & Future Work Intersessional Support: catalogue of assessments IPBES programme of work Assessment tools and methods Capacity building Indicator development Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Indicators, Natural England: September 2012

38. Challenges/Questions • Challenges to ensuring development of successful indicators • Access to resources (funding, expertise, data) • Sufficient stakeholder/audience consultation • Project-based data collection and/or management • Data utilised not sensitive to change • An after-thought to a wider process of strategy development and target setting Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Indicators, Natural England: September 2012

39. Challenges/Questions • Challenges to developing ecosystem service indicators • How to prioritise indicators • Do you assess single or multiple indicators? (bundles?) • How do you move beyond provisioning? • What data can be used? Collect new? • What is the best way of communicating indicators? • How is biodiversity incorporated /considered in ecosystem service context? Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Indicators, Natural England: September 2012