Paper 02 for the 6 th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
There is a need to identify options for developing indicators for climate change adaptation, so that the UK
(and devolved administrations) can meet national and international commitments to monitoring progress towards biodiversity targets – in particular, Aichi Target 10 of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020:
“...By 2015, the multiple anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs, and other vulnerable ecosystems impacted by climate change or ocean acidification are minimised, so as to
maintain their integrity and functioning...”
Development of an indicator of wildfire incidence is being progressed as an option but in order to be able to put forward alternatives, it would be helpful to have views from the climate change adaptation working group at the 6 th Biodiversity Indicators Forum meeting on the following points:
1.
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 (see Annex 1)?
2.
Would it be appropriate to present the basket of existing and proposed UK Biodiversity Indicators that already address EBSCCA principles (Annex 3) as one option for monitoring progress against
Aichi Target 10, and if so, how should this be presented?
3.
Which of the gaps in the UK biodiversity indicator set, highlighted by revisiting the EBSCCA
Principles (Annex 3), should be considered for development of potential indicator options?
4.
Are there other options? If so what data could support them?
The UK Government is committed to reporting against global, regional and national frameworks which aim to address biodiversity loss. There is a need to identify options for monitoring progress against Aichi Target 10 of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 (By 2015, the multiple anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs, and other vulnerable ecosystems impacted by climate change or ocean acidification are minimised, so as to
maintain their integrity and functioning).
In practice, this means identifying potential indicators of climate change adaptation, which the IPCC’s Fourth
Assessment Report defines as 'adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected
climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities’.
The breadth of issues that indicators need to cover are highlighted by the England Biodiversity Strategy
Climate Change Adaptation (EBSCCA) Principles (Smithers et al. 2008), which are aimed at people responsible for planning and delivering actions across a wide range of sectors. There are five main principles:

Take practical action now;

Maintain and increase ecological resilience;

Accommodate change;
1

Paper 02 for the 6 th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.

Integrate action across all sectors;

Develop knowledge and plan strategically.
Notably, the EBSCCA principles include many elements that are neither new nor specific to climate change adaptation; they underpin existing policy and practice in nature conservation. However, climate change creates a new imperative to understand and work with the dynamics of natural systems and manage the complex interactions between people and their natural environment.
In order to avoid unnecessary proliferation of indicators, the EBSCCA Principles have been identified as a useful potential means of identifying all existing UK biodiversity indicators that already address facets of climate change adaptation and determining if there are priority issues where additional indicators would be advantageous. An initial review broadly matched the principles with existing UK biodiversity indicators. An online survey sought information on other appropriate existing indicators and reliable and robust data that might aid development of indicators for those principles for which no suitable indicators exist or better ones might be developed. A subsequent workshop in June 2012, attended by leading experts on climate change adaptation from government agencies and NGOs, did not systematically refine matching of the principles with existing UK biodiversity indicators but agreed that there was a need to:

Focus on planned rather than autonomous adaptation, as it was perceived that the latter is already addressed by many of the existing UK biodiversity indicators;

Identify outcome-based indicators in preference to process-based indicators; and

Concentrate on and develop indicators around two of the main principles: o Maintain and increase ecological resilience; and o Accommodate change.
The output of the workshop was a perception that indicators of “preparedness for climate change adaptation” could be considered in relation to:

Water availability for biodiversity;

Wildfire incidence;

Change in silvicultural systems;

Gains and losses in coastal habitats;
 Integration of climate change adaptation into Protected Areas and landscape-scale projects; and

Policy and resourcing for ecosystem-based adaptation.
Subsequent research, involving workshop participants and liaison with others across relevant government organisations, failed to locate sources of data suitable for developing indicators with regard to the issues above with the exception of wildfire incidence (see Annex 1) and possibly gains and losses of coastal habitats.
Following further consideration of wildfire data with Rob Gazzard, Forestry Commission’s Wildfire Subject
Matter Adviser, it appears that it will be possible to present an option for a wildfire indicator that considers number, area and cause of wildfire occurrences on protected sites with potential to gain some traction on habitats involved through protected site citations and wildfire reports.
In regards to gains and losses of coastal habitats, a relevant dataset (‘Form E’) maintained for England and
Wales by Steve Peters at the Environment Agency (EA) has been identified as potentially suitable for developing an indicator option. It is used to record conservation projects, including priority habitat creation
2

Paper 02 for the 6 th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
(e.g. coastal and floodplain grazing marsh) where the EA has spent more than £1,000. Relevant contacts in
Northern Ireland and Scotland are being followed up to determine if comparable data is available.
It has also been suggested by Steve Peters that SSSI condition assessment reports may highlight where water availability for biodiversity is impacting on condition. EA has previously reviewed comments from condition assessments in relation to SACs and SPAs under the Habitats Regulations. This will be further discussed with data mangers in the country conservation agencies.
An evaluation of the wildfire data is provided in Annex 2, along with an initial review of Form E data with regard to gains and losses of coastal habitats.
As limited options have been provisionally identified, the EBSCCA Principles have been revisited to see if they can be used more thoroughly to identify gaps in the current suite of existing UK biodiversity indicators with regard to climate change adaptation, and for which there are no current proposals for indicator development.
The results of this process suggest that those gaps that might most readily be filled by outcome-based indicators relate to the following principles (Annex 3):

Create buffer zones around high quality habitats – Martin Ruddy, Natural England (NE) has confirmed that NE can provide point and area data from agri-environment schemes ; contacts with data managers in the other countries are being pursued via Elizabeth Finch in Defra’s Analysis and Evidence
Observatory

Understand change is inevitable – through use of data on changes in phenology and species abundance and distributions, in discussion with David Roy at the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology

Integrate adaptation & mitigation measures – through use of a carbon-based indicator, which requires further investigation.
Development of an indicator of wildfire incidence is being progressed as an option but in order to assist with putting forward additional, alternative options, it would be helpful to have views on the following points:
1.
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 (see Annex 1)?
2.
Would it be appropriate to present the basket of existing and proposed UK Biodiversity Indicators that already address EBSCCA principles (Annex 3) as one option for monitoring progress against Aichi
Target 10, and if so, how should this be presented?
3.
Which of the gaps in the UK biodiversity indicator set, highlighted by revisiting the EBSCCA Principles
(Annex 3), should be considered for development of potential indicator options?
4.
Are there other options? If so what data could support them?
 Harley, M. and Hodgson, N. (2008) Review of existing international and national guidance on adaptation to climate change: with a focus on biodiversity issues. AEA report to Bern Convention Group of Experts on
Biodiversity and Climate Change, Council of Europe. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/nature/bern/ClimateChange/default_en.asp
 Harley, M. & van Minnen, J. (2010) Adaptation indicators for biodiversity. European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change Technical Paper 2010/15, European Environment Agency. http://acm.eionet.europa.eu/reports/docs//ETCACC_TP_2010_15_Adap_Ind_Biodiv.pdf
3

Paper 02 for the 6 th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.

Hopkins, J.J.; Allison, H.M.; Walmsley, C.A.; Gaywood, M.; Thurgate, G. (2007) Conserving biodiversity in a changing climate: guidance on building capacity to adapt. Defra, London. 32pp. http://www.ukcip.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/PDFs/CBCCGuidance.pdf

Mitchell, R.J.; Morecroft, M.D.; Acreman, M.; Crick, H.Q. P.; Frost, M.; Harley, M.; Maclean, I.D.M.;
Mountford, O.; Piper, J.; Pontier, H.; Rehfisch, M.M.; Ross, L.C.; Smithers, R.J.; Stott, A.; Walmsley, C.A.;
Watts, O. and Wilson, E. (2007) England Biodiversity Strategy: Towards adaptation to climate change.
Defra, London. 194pp. http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/915/1/Mitchelletalebs-climate-change.pdf

Smithers, R.J.; Cowan C.; Harley, M.; Hopkins, J.J.; Pontier, H. and Watts, O. (2008) England Biodiversity
Strategy: Climate Change Adaptation Principles. Conserving biodiversity in a changing climate. Defra,
London. http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13168-ebs-ccap-081203.pdf
4

Paper 02 for the 6 th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
A search was undertaken for suitable data with which to develop indicators in relation to each of the issues identified by the workshop.

Water availability for biodiversity. The Environment Agency purportedly has a macro-invertebrate monitoring programme at all Water Framework Directive surveillance sites, which aims to identify climate-driven changes in species composition and distribution, as a baseline for monitoring the success of adaptation measures. However, efforts by Rachel Lenane (EA) to track down this dataset drew a blank. It was also not possible to establish if similar surveillance is ongoing in other countries.

Wildfire incidence. Comparable, annual point and area data on wildfire incidence and cause are available for the UK and by country from the Incident Reporting System (IRS), managed by the
Department for Communities and Local Government, for England, Scotland and Wales and to a lesser degree from a longer-running system in Northern Ireland (Annex 2). The habitat classification for these data is very broad.

Change in silvicultural systems. Availability of suitable data is problematic. This indicator was included in Forest Enterprise (FE) England’s climate change action plan. However, John Weir (FE) and
Mark Broadmeadow (Forestry Commission England) have advised that whilst data could be drawn every five years from the future forest scenarios within FE’s Forrester database, a lot of stands classed as continuous cover forestry are in fact broadleaf crops where active decisions have not been made.
FE statistics would also relate to less than 18% of the woodland in England. These limitations are also likely to be relevant to other countries.
 Gains and losses in coastal habitat. Possible sources of data are associated with Integrated Coastal
Zone Management (ICZM), Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) and inventories of coastal habitats.
Disparities between administrations in interpretation and implementation could prevent synthesis of a suitable robust dataset.
 Integration of climate change adaptation into Protected Areas and landscape-scale projects. While there is significant activity with regard to Protected Areas (e.g. vulnerability/risk assessment, and planning and implementation of adaptation actions), no UK-wide data is available. For example, Clive
Walmsley, Countryside Council for Wales (CCW), has advised that CCW does not hold such data on its special sites. Details of large-scale conservation initiatives are being collated by the conservation agencies across the UK, including their spatial extent and whether adaptation actions are being implemented. NE’s project is due to be completed by the end of the financial year. Nick Macgregor
(NE) has advised that the definition of ‘landscape-scale initiatives’ has been hard to pin down, as has their extent. The NE database would not provide historical data and there are no plans for it to be systematically updated.

Policy and resourcing for ecosystem-based adaptation. There appear to be no data (UK or otherwise) from which a climate change adaptation indicator could be developed.
5

Paper 02 for the 6 th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
Criteria Levels
1. Transparency and auditability
1. Data unavailable to public
2. Limited summary data available
3. Full raw/primary data set and metadata available
2. Verification 1. Unverified data
2. Limited verification checks in place
3. Detailed verification in place and documented
3. Frequency of updates 1. Sporadic
4. Security
2. Every 3-5 years
3. Annual or biennial
1. Future data collection discontinued
2. Future data collection uncertain
5. Spatial coverage
3. Future data collection secure
1. Partial UK coverage
2. UK coverage, some bias
3. Full UK coverage, including adjacent marine areas, if and where appropriate
6. Temporal coverage
7. Capacity for disaggregation
1. Insufficient data for assessment (<5 years)
2. Sufficient data to assess progress (5-10 years)
3. Long (10+ years) and short-term trends can be assessed
1. Cannot be disaggregated
2. Can be disaggregated but data quality and assessment issues arise
3. Can be disaggregated to Country level and assessed x x 3 x x x 2 x x 1 x x x x x x x
1 The Department for Communities and Local Government is aiming to make the full raw/primary data set and metadata publicly available via an academic institute’s website at a future unspecified date
2 Northern Ireland currently operates a longer-running system, which although comparable, provides less information about each incident
3 The Incident Reporting System started in England, Scotland and Wales in 2009. The system operating in
Northern Ireland has been running for at least 15 years.
6

Paper 02 for the 6 th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
Key
Gap in current suite of existing UK biodiversity indicators
Gap that might be readily filled by outcome-based indicators
Current development of indicators may prove relevant
England Biodiversity Strategy Climate Change Adaptation Principles
Take practical action now
Maintain & increase
ecological resilience
Maintain & increase
ecological resilience
Accommodate change
Accommodate change
Integrate action across
partners & sectors
Conserve existing biodiversity
Conserve protected areas & all other high quality habitats
Reduce sources of harm not linked to climate
Use existing biodiversity legislation & international agreements
Conserve range & ecological variability of habitats & species
Maintain existing ecological networks
Create buffer zones around high quality habitats
Take prompt action to control spread of invasive species
Understand change is inevitable
Make space for natural development of rivers & coasts
Establish ecological networks through habitat restoration & creation
Aid gene flow
Consider the role of species translocation & ex-situ conservation
Develop the capacity of institutions & administrative arrangements to cope with change & learn from experience
Respond to changing conservation priorities
Integrate adaptation & mitigation measures
Integrate policy & practice across relevant economic sectors
Build & strengthen partnerships
Raise awareness of benefits of natural environment to society
UK biodiversity indicators
C5. Birds of the wider countryside & at sea
C6. Insects of the wider countryside (butterflies)
C8. Mammals of the wider countryside (bats)
C7. Plants of the wider countryside
C4. Status of threatened species
C3. Status of threatened habitats
C9. Genetic resources for food & agriculture
C1. Protected sites
C3. Status of threatened habitats
B5. Pressure from pollution
B6. Pressure from invasive species
B7. Water quality
B1. Agricultural & forest area under environmental management schemes
C1. Protected sites
C2. Habitat connectivity
B6. Pressure from invasive species
C2. Habitat connectivity
C2. Habitat connectivity
A1. Awareness, understanding & support for biodiversity conservation
A3. Value of biodiversity integrated into decision making
A3. Value of biodiversity integrated into decision making
A4. Global biodiversity impacts of UK economic activity/sustainable consumption
B3. Integration of biodiversity considerations into business activity
A1. Awareness, understanding & support for biodiversity conservation
A3. Value of biodiversity integrated into decision making
E2. Expenditure on domestic & international biodiversity
A1. Awareness, understanding & support for biodiversity conservation
A3. Value of biodiversity integrated into decision making
C9. Genetic resources for food & agriculture
7

Paper 02 for the 6 th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum Meeting. 5-6 Dec., 2012.
England Biodiversity Strategy Climate Change Adaptation Principles
Develop knowledge &
plan strategically
Undertake vulnerability assessments of biodiversity
& associated ecosystem goods & services without delay
Undertake scenario planning & implement no regrets actions
Pilot new approaches & monitor
Identify potential win-win solutions & ensure crosssectoral knowledge transfer
Develop knowledge &
plan strategically
Monitor actual impacts & research likely future impacts
Improve understanding of role of biodiversity in ecosystem services
Research knowledge gaps with stakeholder participation
UK biodiversity indicators
A3. Value of biodiversity integrated into decision making
A3. Value of biodiversity integrated into decision making
A4. Global biodiversity impacts of UK economic activity/sustainable consumption
B3. Integration of biodiversity considerations into business activity
A3. Value of biodiversity integrated into decision making
A4. Global biodiversity impacts of UK economic activity/sustainable consumption
B3. Integration of biodiversity considerations into business activity
D2. Biodiversity & ecosystem services
8