Refining the UK Biodiversity Indicators James Williams Joint Nature Conservation Committee

1. Refining the UK Biodiversity Indicators James Williams Joint Nature Conservation Committee Monkstone House, City Road, Peterborough, PE1 1JY. United Kingdom. James.Williams@jncc.gov.uk +44 (0)1733 86 68 68 www.jncc.gov.uk/biyp

2. UK Biodiversity Indicators – governance & implementation Statutory and Non Governmental Organisations, Academia Biodiversity Indicators Forum Four Countries Group Decisions Review Defra, Devolved Administrations, JNCC UK Biodiversity Indicators SG Advice Defra, Devolved Administrations, Country Agencies, JNCC, NGOs Advice Project Group Decisions Defra, JNCC

3. UK biodiversity indicators • Focus on biodiversity outcomes • Mapped to CBD and EU frameworks • Link with sub-national indicators – e.g. England, Scotland • Use existing data sources (avoid new burdens) • Published annually since 2007 • ‘Traffic Light’ assessment of trend • Communication tool • www.jncc.defra.gov.uk/biyp

4. Traffic light assessments • Two assessment periods: • Long-term – assessment of change since the earliest date for which data are available. • If data do not precede 1996 a long term assessment is not made. • Short-term - assessment of change since 2000

5. As published May 2011 UK Biodiversity Indicators 2011 www.jncc.defra.gov.uk/biyp

6. Review Revise & refresh to take account of • Aichi Targets • EU Biodiversity Strategy Preliminary analysis to identify issues • Data quality assessment – is the data source robust, reliable? Can we be certain of the trends? • Gap analysis – how well do existing indicators cover new reporting commitments?

7. Data quality assessment • Panel assessment • Assessment criteria PrecisionTime series availability; Data security;Data transparency; Transparency and soundness of methodology;Data verification;Frequency of updates;Geographic coverage;Capacity for disaggregation Each criterion scored 1-3 • Consultation and moderation

8. Data quality assessment - results Most indicators based on high quality data sets Six indicators where there are significant issues with data quality that may need to be addressed • UK Priority species • UK Priority habitats • Genetic diversity • Invasive species • Habitat connectivity • Conservation volunteering Reasons for low scores: • Data security: genetic diversity, priority species/habitats and those indicators based on Countryside Survey. • Data quality: modelled data; category data; estimates

9. Gap Analysis • Mapped each of the existing indicators to the new 2020 ‘Aichi’ targets agreed at CBD CoP in October 2010 • Added information on emerging EU Biodiversity Targets and the SEBI indicators • Added information on country biodiversity indicators • Identified strength of match – tentative • Moderated through UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum

10. Gap Analysis - results • All of the existing biodiversity indicators can be mapped to one or more of the Aichi targets • Gaps (of various sizes) have been identified in the following areas: • links with national accounting systems (target 2) • ecological footprint (target 4) • climate change (target 10, target 15) • ecosystem services (target 14) • access and benefits sharing (target 16) • traditional knowledge linked to sustainable use (target 18)

11. Amainstreaming Targets on: awareness, values/accounting, incentives, sustainable consumption and production Bpressures Targets on: habitat loss, fisheries, sustainable land use, pollution, invasive alien species, climate change impacts Cstatus Targets on: protected areas, threatened species,genetic diversity of domesticated species and wild relatives Dbenefits Targets on: ecosystem services, restoration, access to genetic resources Eimplementation Targets on: NBSAPs, traditional knowledge and local communities, science base, resources http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ Mapping to Strategic Goals- preliminary analysis

12. DevelopmentAreas /refinements • Awareness, understanding and support for biodiversity conservation (Aichi Target 1); • Status of ecosystem services and/or habitats and species supporting ecosystem services (Aichi Targets 14 &15); • Habitat connectivity – options for updating existing indicators and/or alternative options (Aichi Target 5); • Plant genetic resources (Aichi Target 13), • Climate Change Adaptation and impacts (Aichi Targets 8 & 9) • Widespread species and habitats • Habitat connectivity • Water quality • Invasive species • Genetic diversity

13. Why are we losing biodiversity? What do we do about biodiversity loss? Framework from AHTEG How is the status of biodiversity changing? What are the implications of biodiversity loss?

14. Individual indicators can contribute to assessment of multiple targets / goals Goal Target 1 Target 2 Target 3 Regional targets National targets

15. Provisional list of UK IndicatorsGoals A & B

16. Next Steps • Continue to publish existing indicators annually • Modify existing indicators as needed - some work to be done by JNCC and country conservation agencies • Develop new indicators – 3 year programme of work under contract • Develop option papers • Agree preferred option through UK Steering Group • Develop protocols • Map indicators against Framework Questions & Headline Indicators from AHTEG • Forward look for presentation of information against new framework for next CBD report

17. 5th & 6th National reports to CBD • Indicators core to UK 4th National report to CBD • Anticipate using again for 5th report (March 2014) and 6th report (2018/9?) • Present indicators by Target, and by Strategic Goals (A – E) • Need to integrate messages from different indicators 2007 2011

19. Thank You Questions? Discussion

20. Provisional list of UK IndicatorsGoal C

21. Provisional list of UK IndicatorsGoals D and E

22. CBD Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on Indicators • COP10 requested the CBD Secretariat to convene an AHTEG to: • Identify indicators to measure progress against the Aichi targets • Provide a framework for reporting • Provide guidance for national indicator development • Building from previous indicators / framework • Held in the UK in June 2011, together with a supporting International Expert Workshop • Will report through SBSTTA 15 to CoP11 in 2012. • Flexible framework of indicators as basis for 5th & 6th National Reports • Report and recommendations in SBSTTA 15 papers INF/6, 15/2 and 15/3http://www.cbd.int/doc/?meeting=sbstta-15

23. AHTEG results • 12 Headline Indicators – each covers several sub-topics • Operational indicators needed under each headline – may be relevant to more than one headline • Three ‘grades’ • A: Priority indicators that are ready for use globally, and, where appropriate, sub-globally (22 indicators) • B: Priority indicators to be developed at global and sub-global levels (51 indicators) • C: Additional indicators for consideration at sub-global level • Main development needs for strategic goals • A (mainstreaming) • D (benefits) • E (implementation)

24. AHTEG Recommendations • Indicator framework and conceptual model sufficient • Parties to apply framework flexibly to implement NBSAPs • Parties to prioritise a few simple indicators, if limited capacity • Parties encouraged to establish a national (indicator) facilitator • Encourage long-term monitoring and Communities of Practice • Provide technical guidance • Provide guidance on interpreting Aichi targets • CBD 5th National Reports – Indicator based • Encourage national to global data flows • Circulate AHTEG report widely for review • Encourage CBD to collaborate with other MEAs • Keep indicator framework under review • Review indicator development progress in 2015 UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/15/INF/6

25. Choosing Indicators Each indicator should have the following characteristics: • Policy relevant and meaningful • Biodiversity relevant • Scientifically sound and methodologically well founded • Show progress towards the 2020 targets • Easy to understand • Based on affordable monitoring, available and routinely collected data • Amenable to modelling of cause-effect relationships • Good spatial and temporal coverage of data • Applicable at a national scale • Aggregation possible at a range of scales • Sensitive to change The set as a whole should be: • Representative • Limited in number

26. Choosing Indicators (1) • Policy relevant and meaningful: Each indicator should be policy relevant. It should send a clear message at a level appropriate for policy and management decision making. It should be meaningful on a regional level. • Biodiversity relevant: Each indicator should be relevant for biodiversity. • Scientifically sound and methodologically well founded: A clear description of the methodology used should be available as the indicator may be used in other indicator initiatives also. • Progress towards target: Each indicator should show progress towards the 2020 targets. • Broad acceptance and understandability: Each indicator should be easy to understand and to document.

27. Choosing Indicators (2) • Affordable monitoring, available and routinely collected data: Each indicator should be able to be updated regularly. • Affordable modelling: Information on cause-effect relationships should be achievable and quantifiable. • Spatial and temporal coverage of data: the data should be consistent in space and cover all or most of [select spatial resolution]. The temporal coverage of data should be as long as possible, and relevant to the timescale for policy making. • National scale and representativeness of data: Each indicator should apply to the national and relevant supra-national. • Sensitive: Each indicator should be able to detect changes in systems in timeframes and on the scales that are relevant to policy decisions, but also be robust so that measuring errors do not affect their interpretation.