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
1
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum
Contents
1
Background and Forum Objectives ...................................................................................................... 4
2
Forum Format ...................................................................................................................................... 5
3
Key Discussion Points and Recommendations from Working Groups ................................................. 6
3.1
Habitat Connectivity Indicator ...................................................................................................... 6
3.1.1
Key Discussion Points and Comments .................................................................................. 7
3.1.2
Summary and Recommendations ......................................................................................... 8
3.2
Climate Change Adaptation Indicator ........................................................................................... 8
3.2.1
Key Discussion Points and Comments .................................................................................. 9
3.2.2
Summary and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 10
3.3
Threatened Species Indicator ..................................................................................................... 11
3.3.1
3.4
Plant Genetic Resources Indicator .............................................................................................. 14
3.4.1
Key Discussion Points .......................................................................................................... 14
3.4.2
Summary and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 17
3.5
Ecosystem Services Indicator ...................................................................................................... 17
3.5.1
Key Discussion Points .......................................................................................................... 18
3.5.2
Summary and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 19
3.6
Global Impacts Indicator ............................................................................................................. 22
3.6.1
Key Discussion Points and Comments ................................................................................ 22
3.6.2
Summary and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 24
3.7
National Reporting ...................................................................................................................... 24
3.7.1
4
Key Discussion Points, Comments and Recommendations ................................................ 12
Key Discussion Points, Comments and Recommendations ................................................ 25
Annexes .............................................................................................................................................. 26
4.1
Participant List ............................................................................................................................ 26
4.2
Forum Agenda ............................................................................................................................. 28
2
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum
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
3
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum
1 Background and Forum Objectives
The new Strategic Plan for biodiversity 2011 to 20201 includes 20 headline targets for 20202, 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) website3, 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.
1
http://www.cbd.int/sp/
http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/
3 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/biyp
2
4
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum
This report serves as a summary of the key discussion points and recommendations that arose at the
Forum meeting.
2 Forum 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 indicators4
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 group sessions 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 points being recorded. Each group presented a summary of the key
discussion points and recommendations during plenary, with further questions and comments invited
from all Forum participants.
4
It was felt it would be beneficial to seek comments and suggestions from all Forum participants on this topic, and
so working group sessions were conducted on both days of the Forum.
5
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum
3 Key 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.
3.1 Habitat 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 55 and 116 of the CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 20112020. 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
1. Is there any scope to reduce the timescales and/or costs of the speciesindicator of habitat
based methods that have been identified?
connectivity
2. Are there any other realistic methods for species-based indicators that have
been overlooked?
Option B: Indicator of
1. Is the National Forest Inventory (NFI) fit-for-purpose for this indicator?
structural connectivity
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
1. Does this option adequately address concerns about the existing UK
functional connectivity
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?
5
Target 5: By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, is at least halved and where feasible
brought close to zero, and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced.
6
Target 11: By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine
areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through
effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas and
other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes.
6
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum
3.1.1 Key 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 indicator area 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) are available and updated
annually.
7
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum
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 land
cover 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 operation until after 2014.
 Despite some clarification on the term ‘Mean Connectivity Value’ being required, the overall
view was that this indicator is well developed and justified.
3.1.2 Summary 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.
3.2 Climate 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 107 (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
7
Target 10: By 2015, the multiple anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs, and other vulnerable ecosystems
impacted by climate change or ocean acidification are minimized, so as to maintain their integrity and functioning.
8
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum
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:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Wildfire incidence
Gains and losses in coastal habitats
Water availability for biodiversity
The use of a Carbon-based indicator to reflect and integrate adaptation and mitigation measures
The use of an indicator reflecting buffer zones around high quality habitats.
3.2.1 Key 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 processindicator 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.
8
Note, during preliminary discussions amongst the working group, it was felt that this question should be added to
the list of pre-conceived questions to help clarify the objective of the indicator with regards to whether it should
reflect outcomes or processes.
9
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum

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.
3.2.2 Summary 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.
10
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum
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
 Not favoured.
reflect and integrate adaptation and
 Felt it would be more applicable to better to explore this as an
mitigation measures
indicator of ecosystem services.
The use of an indicator reflecting buffer
 Not favoured.
zones around high quality habitats.
 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.
3.3 Threatened Species Indicator
Paper Author: Fiona Burns (RSPB) and Nick Isaac (CEH)
Working Group Chair: Deborah Proctor (JNCC)
Working Group Members: see Annex 1.
In order to assess progress towards national and international biodiversity targets, and to improve
species’ conservation prospects, a robust system of monitoring, analysis and reporting for species in the
UK is needed.
The aim of this indicator(s) is to measure the changing status of threatened species in the UK and its
constituent countries for reporting progress against Aichi Target 129.
The Species Indicator Initiative, which has input from both statutory and non-statutory organisations10,
has been tasked with developing options for this indicator. To date the Initiative has created a species
9
Target 12: By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status,
particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained.
10
Statutory organisations involved: Defra, Welsh Government, JNCC, Natural England, Countryside Council for
Wales, Scottish Natural Heritage, Northern Ireland Environment Agency.
11
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum
list from all four UK country biodiversity lists, investigated what type of quantitative species data is
available, how trends may be combined and how the indicator(s) may be disaggregated. They have
proposed that a ‘tiered’ approach, based on data availability, is taken to assess the changing status of
threatened species – i.e. Tier 1 – robust, quantitative abundance data (available for many species); Tier
2 – distribution data (available for >1,000 species from about 10 groups); Tier 3 – semi-qualitative data
from assessments of a limited number of species in a variety of forms.
To assist in taking the work of the Initiative forward, the following questions were presented to the
species working group for discussion:
1) Should a threatened species indicator(s) combine quantitative and qualitative data? And if so
how could that be done?
2) Should the existing wider countryside species indicators (birds, butterflies, bats, plants) be
retained or incorporated within the new indicator? Why?
3) How can species data be represented in a clear, transparent, scientifically credible, and
statistically robust manner?
3.3.1 Key Discussion Points, Comments and Recommendations
An open discussion was led by the chair, guided by the questions above. Key points arising from these
discussions are summarized below.
It was noted that: it was difficult to see the level of change in species with the previously used UK
Biodiversity Action Plan indicator; that it is known that there are more threatened species than
previously; and that Tier 1 abundance data is skewed towards birds, bats and butterflies. Together with
making suggestions on how to bring data together to create a meaningful, robust indicator, working
group members were asked to keep these points in mind during discussions.
Should a threatened species indicator(s) combine quantitative and qualitative data? And if so how
can this be done?
 It was the general consensus of the working group that quantitative and qualitative data not be
combined in a single metric (but see further point below).
 In order to get better taxonomic coverage it was suggested that three types of data be used:
o Abundance (Birds, Bats and Butterflies) ‘Tier 1’;
o Range (insects and plants with a better spread of information) ‘Tier 2’; and
o Status (always rare species with more sophisticated methods of analysis used) ‘Tier 3’.
Non-Governmental Organisations involved: Amphibian & Reptile Conservation, Association of British Fungus
Groups, Bat Conservation Trust, Biological Records Centre, British Bryological Society, British Dragonfly Society,
British Lichen Society, Botanical Society of the British Isles, British Trust for Ornithology, Buglife, Bumblebee
Conservation Trust, Butterfly Conservation, The Conchological Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Hymettus Ltd,
Mammal Society, National Biodiversity Network, People's Trust for Endangered Species, Plantlife, Pond
Conservation, Rothamsted Research, The Wildlife Trusts. Other groups may be added to this list.
The initiative is jointly chaired by RSPB and JNCC.
12
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum



This would require the use of three different metrics, leading to better storytelling to
communicate the message of the indicator.
There was confidence shown in this ‘cascade’ model of moving from the Abundance tier,
feeding through to the Range tier, with the Status tier being the broadest and most
representative.
Another view was also expressed, and which might be worthy of consideration, is that both
quantitative and qualitative data could be used to generate indices, which could be easily
collated into a single ‘species indicator’. The distinction to make here, would be between the
data and indices that are generated from them.
Should the existing wider countryside species (WCS) indicators (birds, butterflies, bats, plants) be
retained or incorporated within the new indicator? Why?
 Questions of the definition of a WCS were raised with a suggestion that the current WCS
requires a ‘tightening up’ of criteria in order to redefine which species are so classified, as this is
what will inform the indicator.
 The working group agreed that widespread species, which can be associated with an attribute
(e.g. habitat, or north/south), are required.
 It was also agreed that there is a need to use a consistent approach to data presentation, for
example, using a combination of data across taxonomic groups.
 The working group was keen to highlight that this would not mean just ‘trashing’ the current
indicators, but using a series of steps to replace them over time.
 A key point raised during the discussions was that species information should be offered to
other indicator working groups in the development of a WCS indicator.
How can species data be represented in a clear, transparent, scientifically credible, and statistically
robust manner?
 It was suggested that there needs to be a cascade of information within the tiers and the
underlying data to aid transparency.
 Previously used indicators were seen as poor in terms of representation and therefore lengthy
discussions may be required to address this.
 Preliminary ideas surrounding the use of supporting information displayed in layers to aid
interpretation and to show the data trail were deliberated, with the possibility of applying red
list data in a series of stacked charts suggested. However further work to gather the relevant
information is required.
13
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum
3.4 Plant Genetic Resources Indicator
Paper Author: Jane Kloda (UNEP-WCMC)
Working Group Chair: Mark Stevenson (Defra)
Working Group Members: see Annex 1.
The options paper prepared for Plant Genetic Resources indicator presents five options relevant to the
UK’s obligation to report on Aichi Target 1311 of the CBDs Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Crop wild relatives (CWR) distribution in the UK
Level of ex situ conservation of target plants in the UK
The genetic diversity of selected plants
The implementation of conservation strategies affecting target species
Diversity of horticultural plants
Three pre-conceived questions were used to help guide discussions:
1) Which of the options outlined above should be taken forward to the next stage?
2) Is the presentation of the potential indicators appropriate? How could they be improved?
3) Are there any other ‘easy-to-do’ options which have been missed?
To maximise feedback and exchange of ideas with regard to these questions and the options presented,
working group members were asked to undertake a SWOT12 analysis and to vote for their preferred
option.
3.4.1 Key Discussion Points
The results of the SWOT analysis and the voting exercise are presented in Table 4, and a summary of the
key points/recommendations raised in relation to each indicator option are summarized below.
Option A: Crop wild relatives (CWR) distribution in the UK.
 In addition to the general preference for an indicator based on species information, the
availability of historical data and potential in situ dimension made this option a popular choice
among the group members.
11
Target 13: By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and of wild
relatives, including other socio-economically as well as culturally valuable species, is maintained, and strategies
have been developed and implemented for minimizing genetic erosion and safeguarding their genetic diversity.
12
SWOT: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats. A structured method of identifying factors which are
favourable or unhelpful in achieving an objective. In this case, the objective is to provide a tool for reporting back
on Aichi Target 13 - i.e. to indicate how effectively the UK can maintain and safeguard plant genetic resources, as
well as implement strategies to minimise genetic erosion. Strengths are factors which are inherent to the option
which make it stand out as particularly strong in achieving the objective, weaknesses are internal factors which
weaken the ability to achieve the objective. Opportunities are external chances to improve the chance of meeting
the objective, threats are external which may weaken it.
14
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum


The most significant drawback to this option was noted as the costs associated with firstly
identifying the species list and then undertaking the analysis.
It was noted, that at present there is no nationally adopted list of CWR for conservation.
Option B: Level of ex situ conservation of target plants in the UK.
 This option is presented as number of accessions within a group of target plants and argued to
be relevant to policy commitments if intrinsically confined to accessions in UK Government
funded ex situ collections.
 When discussing issues of viability, it was noted that it is better to recollect than regenerate
existing collections, as a loss of genetic diversity occurs.
 Due to the inherent flexibility of this option, CWRs and landraces could also be integrated.
 Issues regarding the presentation of this indicator were raised, as the graphic may be difficult to
understand. Therefore the addition of supplementary information to the indicator would be
advised.
Option C: The genetic diversity of selected plants.
 This option was regarded as the most ‘resource-hungry’ option, with data inconsistencies due to
the fast-moving nature of the field.
 It was agreed that, in order to implement this option successfully, it would be necessary to wait
at least 5 years for the basic technology required.
 Therefore it was recommended that this option be discounted at this time. However the group
recommended that this option be revisited in the future as it may be the most appealing from a
scientific perspective.
Option D: The implementation of conservation strategies affecting target species.
 The danger of this indicator driving policy, combined with the information already being
available in the Agri-environmental schemes indicator led to the overall agreement by the group
to discount this option.
Option E: Diversity of horticultural plants.
 The diversity of horticultural plants does not currently feature in any biodiversity strategies,
primarily because this is not considered a biodiversity issue and, hence there are no specific
policy commitments.
 The working group felt that it would be beneficial to discuss this further with relevant policy
leads in Defra to better understand the degree of commitment to conserving the biodiversity of
horticultural species.
 There is a large amount of available data for this option, and the measures are simple to
understand. This could mean this is a real opportunity which is potentially secure into the future
due to the currently profitable generation of data by the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS).
 It was noted that this is an area in which the UK is a world leader, and therefore one in which
the UK could show leadership.
15
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum
Table 4. Outcome of SWOT analysis and voting exercise conducted on the five plant genetic resources indicator options presented at the 6th UK
Biodiversity Indicators Forum.
Option
A. Crop wild
relative distribution
in the UK - 5 VOTES
Strengths
 Historical data available.
 Includes in situ populations.
Weaknesses
 Reliant on Countryside
Survey (CS) habitat and
quadrant data: habitat
extent is a distant proxy.
 Cost.
 Ill defined and immature
data.
 No data for Northern
Ireland.
Opportunities
 The scope of taxon
listing/publication for crop
wild relatives (CWR) is
important.
 Find a published acceptable
definition of listing of taxa to
act as proxy with a realistic
representative level of
inclusion.
 CWR is an emerging policy.
B. The level of ex
situ conservation of
target plants in UK 6 VOTES
 Relevant to policy
commitments if confined to
accessions in UK
Government-funded
collections
 None identified
 Subset of taxa may be too
small to be representative.
 Could bring in CWRs,
landraces etc.
 Incorporates a viability
strategy
 Field is moving fast, so
current data may differ from
future data.
 Inconsistent format of data.
 Resource hungry.
 Distant proxy/tenuous link.
 Agri-Environment scheme
does not have an objective
on plant genetic resources.
 Danger of indicator driving
policy.
 No specific policy
commitments in biodiversity
strategies.
 Wait five years for
easier/cheaper technology.
 None identified
 None identified
 Information already
available in AgriEnvironment indicator.
 Uncertain financial future.
 None identified
 No policy commitment.
 Changing horticultural
fashions.
C. The genetic
diversity of selected
plants - 0 VOTES
D. The
implementation of
conservation
strategies affecting
target species –
0 VOTES
E. The diversity of
horticultural plants 4 VOTES
 Data already collected (UK
indicator B1).
 Could bring CWR into higher
status within schemes.
 Lots of data available.
 Simple to understand the
measures and what species
covered.
 Future funding agreed.
16
Threats
 Proposed list of CWRs is in a
research publication, not
adopted by UK Government.
 Species are on the list if they
are threatened – may
introduce a policy objective
without due process.
 CS is infrequent and may no
longer be collected.
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum
3.4.2 Summary and Recommendations
Key recommendations regarding each option can be summarized by the following:





Option A was considered to be the most effective way of monitoring the genetic diversity of in
situ crop wild relatives, covering a wide geographical scale and having an already wellestablished time series.
Option B was considered to be a good indicator for ex situ conservation, covering a wide range
of plant types and uses.
Option C was considered to be the most direct measure of genetic diversity, however it was
considered the technology required to make this a feasible low-cost solution was not yet ready,
though emerging technologies may make this an option for the near future.
Option D was considered to be an indirect measure of conservation strategies which might
affect plant genetic resources and was already covered by the UK indicator on Agri-Environment
schemes.
Option E was considered to be the most effective measure of genetic diversity of horticultural
plants, was simple to understand, data were already available and future funding has been
agreed for the key data source.
Overall, indicators A, B and E were recommended as the strongest indicators of the status of UK plant
genetic resources, although further examination of potential weaknesses and data sources needs to be
undertaken. It is also advised that progress towards the technology required to implement option C be
tracked in order to revisit this option in the future.
3.5 Ecosystem Services Indicator
Paper Author: Megan Tierney (UNEP-WCMC)
Working Group Chair: Diana Mortimer (JNCC)
Working Group Members: see Annex 1.
There is a need to identify options for developing indicators of the status of ecosystems that provide
essential services so that the UK (and devolved administrations) can meet national and international
commitments to monitoring progress towards biodiversity targets – in particular, Aichi Target 1413 of the
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020.
Initial work on identifying options for developing indicators of the status of ecosystems that
provide essential services and which could be used to monitor progress towards Aichi Target 14
(in addition to others) raised a number of challenges. These were synthesized in a discussion
paper and presented to the working group on ecosystem services at the Forum for review and
suggestions on how to move forward in terms of developing relevant indicator options.
13
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.
17
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum
Prior to the Forum, the UK National Ecosystem Assessment14 and the UK country biodiversity strategies15
were examined. This, plus consultations with specialists on related projects, lead to the identification of
a preliminary list of biodiversity related ecosystem services considered to be of key importance to the
UK, and the ecosystems (or habitats) that deliver them (Table 5).
Table 5. Ecosystem services, and the ecosystems that deliver them, considered to be of key importance to the UK.
Ecosystem Service
Primary ecosystem(s) that delivers service
Soil formation
Uplands, Woodlands
Carbon sequestration
Woodlands, Peatlands
(Local) climate regulation
Urban
Pollination
Agricultural, Urban
Pest and disease regulation
Agricultural, Woodlands
Water quality and quantity
Multiple
Wild fish
Freshwaters, Marine
Wild species diversity (biodiversity)
Multiple
Open access recreation
Woodlands, Uplands
These were used as a basis for guiding discussions at the Forum. Specific questions posed to the
ecosystem working group included:



Are there other ecosystem services that are essential in the UK context?
o What ecosystems deliver these services?
o Are there other ecosystem services identified in the country biodiversity strategies that
should be developed?
The number of indicators needs to be limited to a reasonable operational number. Therefore,
how should these services be prioritised for indicator development?
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?
o What data is currently available to demonstrate this relationship?
o Can the relationship be quantified? How easy is it to do this?
o Could an indicator reflecting this relationship be developed?
3.5.1 Key Discussion Points
General remarks:

14
15
As Aichi Target 14 concentrates on health and well-being, some participants felt that there is a
need to identify the contribution of ecosystem services to these elements of the target.
However, it must also be recognized that the target is focussed on ensuring the habitats/species
http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Home/tabid/38/Default.aspx
http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5701
18
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum


providing essential services that contribute to human health and well-being are restored and
maintained.
There is a need for innovative indicators that make connections between existing indicators; but
need to now consider how these indicators take ecosystem services into account.
Likely that there will be a need to adapt the indicator over time as our understanding of
ecosystem services improves, or as new issues come to light.
Are there are other ecosystem services that are essential in the UK context?



There was general acceptance that the ecosystem services listed in Table 5 included the highest
priority essential services for the UK.
However, it was felt that the following caveat needed to be added: there are many other
important ecosystem services that don’t currently have indicators; it may be necessary to review
these in the future.
It should be also be noted that ‘provisioning’ ecosystem services were not considered; this is not
because they are not seen as important, but because it is felt these are adequately monitored
by other indicators (biodiversity and other).
Prioritisation of services for indicator development



As it will be important to limit the number of indicators to a reasonable operational number,
working group members were asked to prioritise the list of services in Table 5. This was achieved
through a voting exercise, followed by discussion. When voting, working group members were
asked to keep in mind whether data would be available to develop an indicator for this service.
Table 6 shows how the services were prioritised. Discussions following the prioritisation exercise
covered: what an indicator for this service would include; whether the name of the service
needed to be revised; and justification for the votes cast. The main points raised in discussion
around these issues are also presented in Table 6.
Note, the working group felt it was premature at this stage to try and identify the primary
ecosystems (habitats) that provide these services – this will be dependent on the focus of the
indicator and available data.
3.5.2 Summary and Recommendations
In order to take this work forward it is proposed that a second workshop be held to refine the indicator
options, including identification of potential data sources and how metrics might be best portrayed,
based on the outcomes and recommendations from the Forum ecosystem services working group.
19
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum
Table 6. Prioritisation of ecosystem services.
Priority
Original Ecosystem
Suggested Ecosystem
Service Name
Service name
1
Carbon Sequestration Carbon sequestration
& storage
1
Water quality and
quantity
Likely that name needs
to be revised – based
on what service is
actually monitored
1
Pollination
Pollination
2
Open access
regulation
Access and use of
natural environment
3
Soil formation
Soil formation, sealing
& erosion
Comments
 Indicator should cover the potential of a habitat to sequester and/or store carbon.
 Management of the resource is important.
 The actual service, and which species/habitats that provide this service, still need to be
defined; but was seen as high priority.
 Likely that aspects of service will be covered by Good Ecological Status (GES) for the Water
Framework Directive. What else, beyond measures of GES, would be needed?
 Two clear issues – flooding and drought. Both are likely to be important under climate
change and should be captured.
 This service could be linked directly to a specific species so could use abundance and
diversity of pollinators as proxies.
 However, is there sufficient knowledge between abundance and service delivery? Will
need to be precautionary as there are unclear thresholds.
 Could this be linked to pest & disease regulation?
 There will be a need to make a distinction between use and access – i.e. should the
indicator be “Engagement with the natural environment” or “accessibility of the natural
environment” plus “use of the natural environment”.
 General agreement that it should be about access, especially to more and less
disadvantaged sectors of society.
 The MENE (Monitor the Engagement with the Natural Environment) survey, conducted by
Natural England could be a good source of data; however it is currently focused on adult
respondents – expand to include children?
 There is also a number of existing national well-being indicators that could be used.
 Indicator would need to consider formation, erosion, compaction and sealing.
 It may be that the indicator should consider soil stability
 In terms of soil sustainability – there are a number of existing negative indicators of soil
health/sustainability that could be considered– e.g. erosion, acidity, nutrient enrichment
 Measuring whether soil is in good condition or not will be dependent on what it is
expected to support – i.e. maintenance of desired purpose; e.g. acidic soils are considered
good in some cases; poor in others.
 There was some debate over whether it is possible to measure soil stocks.
20
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum
Priority
Original Ecosystem
Service Name
(Local) Climate
Change
Suggested Ecosystem
Service name
Urban Space
-
Pest & disease
regulation
Pest & disease
regulation
Did not receive any votes – not because this is not seen as important, but the general
consensus was that the causal link to biodiversity would be difficult to make and measure.
-
Wild fish
Wild fish
Did not receive any votes – not because this is not seen as important, but the general
consensus was that this is likely to be covered elsewhere.
Also questions over whether you would measure extraction (a value of the Ecosystem
Services) or the population (Ecosystem Services potential). The question would remain as
to whether one would be measuring wild fish as a provisioning or cultural service. There
were also questions about why wild fish were singled out – if other species were included,
it may move up the priority list.
-
Wild species diversity
Wild species diversity
Did not receive any votes – not because this is not seen as important, but the general
consensus was that this is likely to be covered elsewhere.
4
Comments
 Ideally, indicator should focus on local climate, air quality and human health; possibly
urban space indicator, where structural variety in urban green space can be linked to
health benefits, air quality, particulate removal, shading, temperature regulation.
 Data on trees in the urban environment (and their role in climate regulation) could be
used.
 Green space network mapping data could also be used, as well as data on green roofs.
21
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum
3.6 Global Impacts Indicator
Paper Author: Chris West (York University)
Working Group Chair: Ana Delgado (Defra)
Working Group Members: see Annex 1.
The UK is becoming increasingly reliant on imported goods and services to satisfy consumer demand.
This growing demand, combined with recent and continued liberalisation of global trade, has resulted in
a complex network of supply chains that cause pressure on biodiversity and ecosystems (beyond the
UK’s borders). It has therefore been proposed that there is a need to produce a methodology for linking
imports to geographically-defined impacts on biodiversity in order to provide an indicator for the impact
of consumption on overseas biodiversity.
The discussion paper prepared for the Global Impacts working group detailed the methodology that has
been explored for developing a global impacts biodiversity indicator. Three exercises were undertaken
by the working group:
1. Open discussion on the assumptions and limitations of proposed model.
2. Open discussion on utility of model as a biodiversity indicator
3. Voting exercise to identify which of the Aichi Targets this indicator would be most relevant to.
3.6.1 Key Discussion Points and Comments
The main points raised in discussion following the three exercises are summarised below.
Limitations and Assumptions
Three main points in regards to the assumptions and limitations of the model were discussed:
i) Quality/Robustness (model assumptions):
o Model assumptions were found to be inevitable, due to the current data available, but
there is a clear objective to make the best possible assumptions to maintain
transparency (i.e. methodology should not be a black box).
o The point was made that, where no direct measurement is possible, it is better to have a
good proxy than no indicator at all.
o The methodology is transferable, and so datasets can be refined over the long term to
improve confidence.
o As the database is currently updated every four years, such refinements are possible,
and could be enhanced with evolving technological capacity.
ii) Reliability (time lags):
o It is a function of the model that it will show what the effect of UK policies were four
years previously.
o The lag might not include major shifts in the trends of commodities, a change in market
drivers or the effects of a recession.
22
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum
o
There may be a means of compensating for this whereby annual updates can be made
and the model recalibrated once the data has been published (latest data is for 2007).
o Model is dependent on the reliability other data sets – will therefore have to work
closely with data providers.
iii) Communication (single or aggregate indicators):
o From a product perspective, the use of single or aggregate indicators principally
depends on user requirements and on what scale the indicator will be used (e.g. country
level, regional level etc).
o It will be possible to highlight high level patterns of impacts on biodiversity by location
and sector, and subsequently use further analysis to assist policy making.
o Aggregate indicators can hide variation or conflicting issues – therefore if an aggregate
indicator is used, consideration will need to be given to how different measures are
weighted; however if a multiple measure is considered more appropriate, this should be
investigated – i.e. the global indicator does not have to be a single measure.
o The trade-off between making the indicator useful to policy and aggregating too many
elements to make it meaningful will need to be considered.
o More work is needed to determine what a cumulative indicator would look like –
maintaining transparency is important, and when reporting, it will be important to not
only use headline figures but also show what the underlying trends are.
Utility of model as a biodiversity indicator
 This is the first model to link financial flow to product data, and then link this to impacts on
biodiversity
 It may also be possible to use different indicator sets for different audiences/sectors
 If a global indicator of the UK using one or several headline indicators, keeping sectors separate,
is developed, case studies could be used look at impacts on biodiversity at a finer scale.
 Additional work is required to determine what suite of biodiversity impact indicators would be
suitable/available for each sector.
Relevance of indicator to Aichi Targets
 The Aichi Targets that received the most votes; asides from target 4, in regards to which ones a
global impacts indicator would be most relevant to Target 216 and Target 517.
16
Target 2: By 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values have been integrated into national and local development
and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and are being incorporated into national accounting, as
appropriate, and reporting systems.
17 Target 5: By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, is at least halved and where feasible
brought close to zero, and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced.
23
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum
3.6.2 Summary and Recommendations




Further work is needed to determine what a cumulative indicator would look like
Further work is also required to identify a suite of biodiversity impact indicators for each sector
which can inform an overall indicator backed up by case study examples.
It would be useful to investigate what are the key products of concern to the UK, and analyse
some of this data to assess what the biggest impacts on biodiversity are, and what the rate of
change is.
Note-worthy future applications of this model may include employing it as a basis for scenario
work towards future policy proofing.
3.7 National Reporting
CBD 5th National Reports are due to be submitted by the end of March 2014, and will include a section
on progress towards the 2020 Aichi Targets and contributions to the relevant 2015 Targets of the
Millennium Development Goals. There will be a need to analyse progress towards each Aichi Target, and
for each Strategic Goal (A-E). To that end, the UK Biodiversity Indicators are anticipated to form a major
part of the UK’s 5th CBD National Report.
Measuring progress may take the form of aggregating information from the evaluation of progress
towards the targets; will likely need to integrate messages from different indictors; and may also need
to draw on other data sources and information.
Given the anticipated lead-in time required to prepare the 5th National Report, it was considered
imperative that consideration be given now as to how best the indicators might be presented and used
to assess progress against these international commitments.
Two methods were put forward as suggestions for how indicators could be reported (see presentations
on JNCC website). Through a series of brainstorming exercises, SWOT analyses and open dialogue, all
Forum participants were asked to consider the two proposed methods and in particular consider the
following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Are there other suggestions of how to assess progress against each target?
Could the data be displayed better in another way?
How should we identify the gaps within targets that we are not able to assess?
Should we identify a ‘value’ of how much of the target we are able to assess, and how much of a
gap is left?
5. Should equal weight be given to each measure, or should equal weight be given to each
indicator?
6. Should equal weight be given to the primary indicators?
7. Which method is most appropriate for assessing the goal?
24
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum
3.7.1 Key Discussion Points, Comments and Recommendations







There was a clear push for simplicity when reporting on the targets, and a cautionary assertion
to purely allow the facts to ‘speak for themselves’ without over-analysis or interpretation.
The suggestion that a ‘dashboard’ approach, rather than complex graphics, could be used to
identify relevant indicators to target appeared to have traction amongst the Forum participants.
These could then be ranked by relevance to target and presented as individual graphs with
assessment and high level summary statements included.
The main criticisms to methods 1 and 2 were:
o These methods do not allow differentiated reporting on targets and trends; and
o These methods are implicitly based on an equal weighting assumption of positive and
negative trends.
Therefore the participants favoured a narrative-based and qualitative approach to assess the
progress of indicators with respect to targets.
Participants also emphasized the need for transparency in the weighting of indicators, as well as
some level of peer-review in the assessment process.
It was suggested that a reverse approach could be taken by mapping the discrepancies between
the available data, and ideal indicators that would perfectly meet reporting on Aichi targets. This
would highlight where additional evidence was needed.
It was recommended to involve an expert panel to assess the progress to target, identify the
strength of the evidence, list the assumptions and uncertainties, and identify additional sources
of data that have been used in the assessment.
25
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum
4 Annexes
4.1 Participant List
Name
Organisation
Working Group
Email Address
David Allen
Countryside Council
for Wales
Habitat Connectivity
d.allen@ccw.gov.uk
Phil Baarda
Scottish Natural
Heritage
Habitat Connectivity
Phil.Baarda@snh.gov.uk
Jenny Hogson
University of York
Habitat Connectivity
jh69@york.ac.uk
Rob McCall
Countryside Council
for Wales
Habitat Connectivity
r.mccall@ccw.gov.uk
Vicky Morgan
JNCC
Habitat Connectivity
Vicky.Morgan@jncc.gov.uk
Megan Tierney
UNEP-WCMC
Habitat Connectivity
Megan.Tierney@unep-wcmc.org
Kevin Watts
Forest Research
Habitat Connectivity
kevin.watts@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
James Williams
JNCC
Habitat Connectivity (Chair)
James.Williams@jncc.gov.uk
Pam Berry
Oxford University
Climate Change Adaptation
pam.berry@eci.ox.ac.uk
Mark Broadmeadow
Forestry Commission
Climate Change Adaptation
mark.broadmeadow@forestry.gsi.go
v.uk
Sue Marrs
Scottish Natural
Heritage
Climate Change Adaptation
Sue.Marrs@snh.gov.uk
James Pearce-Higgins
Centre for Ecology
and Hydrology
Climate Change Adaptation
james.pearce-higgins@bto.org
Richard Smithers
Ricardo-AEA
Climate Change Adaptation
Richard.Smithers@aeat.co.uk
Mark Stevenson
Defra
Climate Change Adaptation
(Chair)
Mark.Stevenson@defra.gsi.gov.uk
Jonathan Storkey
Rothamsted
Research
Climate Change Adaptation
Jonathan.storkey@rothamsted.ac.uk
Olly Watts
RSPB
Climate Change Adaptation
oliver.watts@rspb.org.uk
Clare Winton
Defra
Climate Change Adaptation
Clare.Winton@defra.gsi.gov.uk
Tom Brereton
Butterfly
Conservation
Species
tbrereton@butterflyconservation.org
Fiona Burns
RSPB
Species
fiona.burns@rspb.org.uk
Sophie Conde
ETC/BD
Species
conde@mnhn.fr
Mark Eaton
RSPB
Species
mark.eaton@rspb.org.uk
Nick Isaac
CEH
Species
njbi@ceh.ac.uk
David Noble
BTO
Species
david.noble@bto.org
Deborah Proctor
JNCC
Species (Chair)
Deborah.Procter@jncc.gov.uk
Cherry-Ann Vickery
JNCC
Species
Cherry-ann.vickery@jncc.gov.uk
Mike Ambrose
John Innes Centre
Plant Genetic Resources
mike.ambrose@bbsrc.ac.uk
John Dickie
KEW
Plant Genetic Resources
j.dickie@kew.org
Emma Durham
JNCC
Plant Genetic Resources
Emma.durham@jncc.gov.uk
Jane Kloda
UNEP-WCMC
Plant Genetic Resources
Jane.Kloda@unep-wcmc.org
26
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum
Name
Organisation
Working Group
Email Address
Mercy Morris
Plant Heritage
Plant Genetic Resources
mercym@nccpg.org.uk
Mark Stevenson
Defra
Plant Genetic Resources
(Chair)
Mark.Stevenson@defra.gsi.gov.uk
Dafydd Crabtree
Wales Environment
Research Hub
Ecosystem Services
dafydd_egryn@hotmail.com
Sophie Conde
ETC/BD
Ecosystem services
conde@mnhn.fr
James Davidson
SEPA
Ecosystem Services
James.Davidson@sepa.org.uk
Antonia Eastwood
Hutton Institute
Ecosystem Services
Antonia.eastwood@hutton.ac.uk
Pippa Gibson
Defra
Ecosystem Services
Pippa.Gibson@defra.gsi.gov.uk
Edward Maltby
University of
Liverpool
Ecosystem Services
e.maltby@liv.ac.uk
Sue Marrs
Scottish Natural
Heritage
Ecosystem Services
Sue.Marrs@snh.gov.uk
Davy McCracken
Scottish Agricultural
College
Ecosystem Services
Davy.McCracken@sac.ac.uk
Alistair McVittie
TEEB
Ecosystem Services
alistair.mcvittie@sruc.ac.uk
Gavin Measures
Natural England
Ecosystem Services
Gavin.Measures@naturalengland.org
.uk
Diana Mortimer
JNCC
Ecosystem Services (Chair)
diana.mortimer@jncc.gov.uk
Megan Tierney
UNEP-WCMC
Ecosystem Services
Megan.Tierney@unep-wcmc.org
Ana Delgado
Defra
Global Impact (Chair)
Ana.Delgado@defra.gsi.gov.uk
Stephen Grady
JNCC
Global Impact
stephen.grady@jncc.gov.uk
Cecile Smith
Scottish Natural
Heritage
Global Impact
cecile.smith@snh.gov.uk
Chris West
University of York
Global Impact
chris.west@york.ac.uk
James Williams
JNCC
Global Impact
James.Williams@jncc.gov.uk
James Williams
JNCC
Facilitator
James.Williams@jncc.gov.uk
Mark Stevenson
Defra
Facilitator
Mark.Stevenson@defra.gsi.gov.uk
Kerstin Brauneder
UNEP-WCMC
Rapporteur
Kerstin.Brauneder@interns.unepwcmc.org
Nadine Bowles-Newark
UNEP-WCMC
Rapporteur
Nadine.Bowles-Newark@unepwcmc.org
Lucy Wilson
UNEP-WCMC
Rapporteur
Lucy.wilson@unep-wcmc.org
27
JNCC Contract: C12-0230-0595. Report of the 6th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum
4.2 Forum Agenda
Day 1: 5 December
Time
10:00
11:00
11:15
13:00
14:00
15:00
15:20
16:20
16:45
17:00
Session
Welcome, Scene Setting, Objectives
Tea/Coffee
3 working groups in parallel (each to start with a short presentation to set
the scene, and with questions to address in discussion)
 Habitat connectivity indicators
 Climate change indicators
 Species indicators
Lunch
Report back (20 minutes for each workshop; 5 minutes feedback & 15
minutes plenary discussion)
Presentation on using the indicators in the CBD 5 th National Report
Discussion in 2 parallel working groups
 Tea/Coffee to be taken as and when required during session
Format
Plenary
Report back (5 minutes from each breakout, and then general discussion)
Wrap up and next steps
Close
Plenary
Plenary
Break-out
Plenary
Plenary
Break-out
Day 2: 6 December
Time
10:00
11:00
11:15
13:00
14:00
15:00
15:20
16:20
16:45
17:00
Session
Welcome, Scene Setting, Objectives
Tea/Coffee
3 working groups in parallel (each to start with a short presentation to set the
scene, and with questions to address in discussion)
 Plant genetic resources
 Ecosystem services
 Global impacts
Lunch
Report back (20 minutes for each workshop; 5 minutes feedback & 15 minutes
plenary discussion)
Presentation on using the indicators in the CBD 5th National Report
Discussion in 2 parallel working groups
 Tea/Coffee to be taken as and when required during break-out
session
Format
Plenary
Report back (5 minutes from each breakout, and then general discussion)
Wrap up and next steps
Close
Plenary
Plenary
28
Break-out
Plenary
Plenary
Break-out