UK Biodiversity Indicator Forum
Friday 5th July 2013
Summary Report
Introduction
A one day Biodiversity Indicators Forum was held on Friday 5th July to provide a constructive review
of three sets of draft indicators – ecosystem services, awareness, business and biodiversity –
developed under an existing Defra R&D contract WC1031: ‘Developing UK indicators for the
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-20’.
The workshop evaluated the appropriateness of the indicator options for their intended purpose,
but focused more specifically on the issues relating to their implementation. The workshop aimed to
answer the following questions for each of the indicator options, returning to these questions in the
final session of the day:




Does the indicator need more research before it can be implemented?
Could an indicator be published in October 2013 or in October 2014?
What data constraints exist (including access permissions that might need to be
negotiated)?
Can the indicator, if implemented, be updated within the next 3-5 years?
Contents
Page
Public Awareness
Summary
Detailed Comments
Ecosystem Services
Summary
Detailed Comments
Business
Summary
Detailed Comments
Workshop Participants
Forum Agenda
2
6
3
12
4
20
25
26
1
Summary of findings
Public Awareness
A. Awareness – the proportion of people who are aware of the term biodiversity and its meaning
B. Connection – the proportion of people who feel connected to the biodiversity within their
environment
C. Behaviour / Response – the proportion of people that are taking action to support and protect
nature. This could be measured by one of five sub-options:
C1. Wildlife gardening
C2. Eco-schools
C3. Citizen science (Biological Recording)
C4. Membership of conservation organisations
C5. Behaviour / Response options bundle
-
-
-
-
-
To truly address Aichi target 1, there needs to be a combined ‘multi-metric’ approach to the
indicators, rather than using them in isolation.
Concerns were raised about using data that is available rather that what is relevant i.e. making
the data fit into an indicator.
With regards to indicator C, some of the proposed data is socio-economic specific and would
only give a picture of the people in that sector rather than of the wider UK population. There is
a need for a more universal approach. In addition, a change in the economy or funding could
change results, rather than being an indication of the willingness of people to act. E.g.
membership of RSPB is arguably biased towards a particular demographic and an economic
recession may affect ability to buy membership which is not a reflection of awareness levels.
It was felt that there are problems in the semantics of the indicators. E.g. For Indicator A, do we
want to know whether people know the word biodiversity or whether they understand the
meaning and concepts associated with it? E.g. For Indicator B, is the indicator identifying
‘connection’ or ‘concern’? Further work is needed on how the indicator questions are framed.
The group recommended that, in order to avoid bias, a peer review process with a social science
team is needed to help crystallise the questions and ensure that the data sample is
representative of the UK population.
The group thought that the indicators could be published in 2013, but there could be a process
of evolution to try and get the indicators in a more relevant position.
There was no consensus on which indicator the participants would pick, although Indicators C
and B were more favoured than Indicator A.
Suggested improvements included: Splitting Indicator A into two to show who understands a)
the term and its meaning and b) who is aware of what biodiversity issues are; replacing B with
an indicator relating to concern/support; and adjusting C to deal with positive engagement.
The group agreed that if there were no money or time constraints it would be advantageous to
move towards a model similar to that identified in a multi-metric Defra tiering project1. This
study tiers respondents’ answers to show how their awareness, connection and action are
linked and can be mapped. Defra already has the model, and further investigation is
recommended to assess whether this can be repeated to produce an indicator. This could be
1
Simon Christmas Ltd (2013) Biodiversity segmentation scoping study – Defra WC1056 [online] available at:
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=18411&Fro
mSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=WC1056&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Descripti
on
2
-
done every 3-5 years and – in spite of the timeframe – would give a better picture than
manipulating existing data to work on an annual basis. It was suggested that the method could
entail (a) structured questioning, coupled with (b) easily complied stats that relate to individual
steps, to provide cross-validation between a and b; and also that it should relate directly to
what is actually being measured to highlight the UK’s/various governments’ performance.
Other suggestions relating to indicator credibility included: 1) setting ‘target levels’ for
indicators and 2) ensuring indicators are linked directly to a reporting-response-review cycle
thus allowing for better targeting of action and resources, rather than adopting ‘pseudomonitoring’ of more easily obtained statistics that do not trigger any action response (in relation
to this, monitoring at a county level – where possible – would be useful).
Ecosystem Services
A. Extent of land cover classified as urban
B. Community analysis of wild pollinators
B1: Bumblebee abundance
B2: Species richness of hoverflies and wild bees, based on presence/absence data for
hoverflies and solitary/social bees
C. Carbon stock of forests in Great Britain
- Despite not scoring as high on the data and method criteria, the B1 and B2 indicators (wild
pollinators) were higher on indicator characteristic scores. This was thought to represent the
general consensus of the group.
- Regardless of any criteria scoring, the B indicators were considered to be the most sound and
together they complement each other well. Nectar producing plants would be an additional
complementary data set and another suggestion would be to record flower-rich areas
- For Indicator B, it was cautioned that some professional abundance sampling may be required and
that there may be a lack of expertise to identify all wild pollinators in a meaningful way.
- Indicators A and C are very important measures but they weren’t considered to be fully developed.
A lot more research is recommended especially regarding data set selection and interpretation of
the indicator and its appropriateness for measuring the target.
- Indicator A was considered to be the least credible of the options presented. It was suggested that
using ratio of greenspace as a crude measure of urban ES supply would be closer to the original
intention of the indicator than the extent of urban land cover as an indicator for the loss of ES. The
lack of a clear causal relationship between biodiversity and different land use changes was also
cautioned.
- Indicator C would need to be extended to all landscape types and not restricted to forest and,
whilst the forest/carbon link is strong, the link with biodiversity is not fully understood thus despite
data availability it is not the preferred indicator.
- Another suggestion was that the proportion of land given over to different habitat and land use
types (including marine) would be important to gain an understanding of natural capital and
ecosystem services (e.g. carbon storage in peat, water filtration), with the state of waterbodies
(information for which collected in relation to the Water Framework Directive) an indicator for
consideration regarding wetland ecosystem services. A potential data source could be the
Countryside Survey.
3
Business
A. Expenditure on protecting biodiversity
B. Policy awareness
C. Supply chain management
D. Biodiversity inclusion in Environmental Management Systems
- The group agreed with the option paper summary that identifying meaningful indicators and
datasets is difficult for the business category, noting in particular that: awareness does not equal
action; business size and sector requires consideration and reflection in indicator design; and that
semantics and use of the word ‘biodiversity’ as part of question/survey design requires further
thought in order to avoid communication issues and the capturing of misleading data. A proxy for
‘biodiversity’ and its relevance may be a necessary compromise and data ideally should
disaggregate by industry sector: this would require further research to contextualise the
indicator(s)2.
- There was general consensus that the indicators as currently presented with dataset options are
not viable; however the group felt that it would be advantageous to combine aspects of the
proposed indicators and data sets for more effective indicator options, which could be achieved
with research and tweaks to indicator wording and existing data sets.
- One indicator could capture ‘awareness’ (i.e. D or B) and the other ‘action’ on that awareness (i.e.
D or C), and it may be possible to use more than one dataset per indicator and/or for crosspurposes to collate this data e.g. a survey backed-up by records of certification.
- Whilst Indicator A was rejected in its current format, the dataset could be tweaked for use under
another indicator header. Data already collated for the Government Survey of Environmental
Protection Expenditure (GSEPE) could be used if trend data is required, but in order to be
meaningful and useful it would need to be tweaked for future iterations, with the group
acknowledging that this could have repercussions for trend data.
- Whilst the principle of ‘policy awareness’ would be a useful indicator to capture, Indicator B was
not favoured in its proposed format: the wording of ‘policy’ should be reconsidered (particularly in
relation to small businesses), and doubts were expressed as to the meaningfulness and viability of
the proposed datasets. It was suggested that Indicator B could be combined with Indicator D
(EMS) through an expansion on the use of the term ‘policy’.
- Indicator C on supply chains – particularly sourcing – was considered to be a useful, although
imperfect, proxy of ‘action’. This could be collated in both a survey such as GSEPE, but also – with
further research – as an independent dataset by creating a typology of fixed certification schemes
e.g. EMS (procurement), FSC, MSC etc, which would collate more data. Caution was noted that
certification can be misleading (e.g. certified companies aren’t necessarily taking action and shifts
in certification membership can occur due to numerous factors unrelated to biodiversity ‘action’),
but it is one of the better options available and more than one data set could strengthen the
quality of such an indicator.
- It was therefore also proposed that a reworded version of Indicator D with better questions and
data sets than currently proposed could incorporate elements of Indicator C and supply chains
and/or present two complementary indicators on awareness and action.
- It was suggested that a tweaked GSEPE survey would provide a good dataset for the purpose of
querying both awareness and action; it would provide some trend data but to be meaningful would
2
BSI offered to provide advice on data sets and question framing for a business audience
4
need alterations to be made and researched as soon as possible before it is next released.
- IOD and GRI datasets were largely dismissed by the group. Whilst these could potentially be a
better source of data than GSEPE, more research is needed to establish whether this is the case
and it is proposed that GSEPE is used in the interim.
- BSI BS4 2020, UKAS, the Natural Value Initiative and K-Matrix were suggested as other data sources
worth researching. There was concern that some potentially useful data sources had been
dismissed too quickly with limited explanation as to why; for example, the exclusion of an Indicator
on Legal Non-Compliance using a dataset from the Environment Agency was queried and noted for
its relevance to Aichi Target 4 in reflecting whether businesses are staying “within safe ecological
limits”.
5
Public Awareness
Comments on Indicator A: Awareness – the proportion of people who are aware of the term
biodiversity and its meaning
-
-
-
-
-
-
This indicator is covering two things: both awareness and understanding. Clarification is needed
as to whether it is the word “biodiversity” or the concepts/issues of biodiversity that people
need to be aware about
As it stands, A relates to intellectual understanding. People either know what the term
biodiversity means, they don’t, think they do but don’t, have some approximate but not wholly
accurate picture of it in their mind etc. One issue is that there are various definitions of what
biodiversity is, with function and interplay poorly emphasised.
With regards to further research; there is a need to select the questions for Indicator A
carefully. Need to think about the term “biodiversity” and should move away from a direct
question about knowledge of the word biodiversity. Instead, ask questions framed on the
concepts of awareness of biodiversity (but prevent the question from being intellectually
exclusive)
Once the questions have been established, it was agreed that an indicator could be published as
early as October 2013
For data constraints, there is a need to take in to account the Data Protection Act with regards
to personal identifiable data, and to ensure that the results may be disaggregated at County
level
It was felt that the indicator can be implemented and updated in the next 3-5 years
Important to be able to get the actions taken and the level of involvement in to context. Ideally
need to show 1. Awareness 2. Understanding 3. Concern/comment 4. Engagement 5.
Leadership
To be more useful A could potentially be split into two to show a) who understands what the
term means (per the dictionary definition) and b) who is aware of what biodiversity issues are
Comments on Indicator B: Connection – the proportion of people who feel connected to the
biodiversity within their environment
-
-
Is this indicator looking at ‘connection’ or ‘concern’? These are two different things and this
needs to be clarified i.e. B is a continuum from “not at all” to “completely” (possibly on a
logarithmic scale). It probably reflects, but is not the same as, how people are connected with
biodiversity. For example, a city dweller who has little opportunity for direct personal
connection might be hugely concerned about declines in UK wildlife. Conversely, a farm worker
might not be at concerned about the diversity of wildlife so has no emotional connection even
though they have (the potential for) a direct +ve/-ve impact every day
If the indicator is looking at ‘concern’, it would imply a stepped continuum which – whether for
an individual or organisation - runs through ignorance - awareness – understanding –
concern/support – positive engagement and then advocacy/leadership (seeking to help move
others from ignorance/lack of awareness through the continuum)
6
-
-
-
-
The narrative in the background options paper is varied: “the proportion of people who feel
connected to biodiversity within their environment”, then the graph on P10 calls it “proportion of
people that feel biodiversity is relevant to them personally” and then it talks about the “benefits
that people take from nature in the form of ecosystem services”. This indicator is bogged down
in semantics
The responses from any question on connection have some huge variables attached to them –
personal, spatial, contextual
This indicator is all about value – and the group felt “value” is important, but can come in all
sorts of different guises – economic, cultural, aesthetic
The question needs to be constructed carefully to ensure that there isn’t confusion and
misrepresentation in the responses
With regards to further research:
o There needs to be clarification on the basis of the indicator
o The indicator doesn’t stand up by itself and needs to be made tighter
o There is a huge difference between connection and concern
o Need to check how the questions are framed and questions need a social scientist input
to make sure they have rigor, and measure what is relevant
There are data available for the indicator to be published in October 2013, but this doesn’t
mean that it is relevant. There could be an evolution of the indicator questions towards 2020 if
transparency is put in as part of the process
The group was unsure as to whether data constraints exist
The indicator could be implemented and updated in the next 3-5 years
Strongly advised that a social scientist is involved to peer review the question to ensure the
indicator is measuring what it is intended to measure
Comments on Indicator C: Behaviour / Response – the proportion of people that are taking action to
support and protect nature
-
-
The group challenged the relevance of the Indicator with regards to the following:
o Are the actors realistically available?
o Is it a linear scale between awareness – connection/concern – action? There are
different motivations behind each stage
o What have most people got as an opportunity to change behaviour? How can we
quantify direct action?
o Is action a good enough proxy for value and awareness?
o Is it the impact or the action on biodiversity or is it the engagement that is important?
o Does the indicator only measure what is economically available to a certain sector of
the population? There needs to be an indicator that is not class specific
With regards to whether more research is required:
o It was felt that at present a “basket of actions” is being proposed and there is a need to
ascertain what should be included.
o Ideally there needs to be more work done on what data is included in C
o It was queried as to whether we are sufficiently confident that the actions reflect
concern
o This might be ok provided any fluctuations can be explained – are they likely to be as a
result of economy/funding changes or the willingness of people to take action?
o Main concern – not a representative sample
7
-
-
-
Current suggestions under C are considered to be proxies for: positive engagement (C1);
awareness (C2), positive engagement (C3), concern/support (C4). Problems were identified
with each data set. E.g. schools do not have to include biodiversity as one of their themes to be
an eco-school (C2), whereas the extent to which biodiversity is integrated within teaching as
part of the national curriculum could be a more direct and useful indicator. E.g. C3 is not clear
for which citizen science projects, whereas e.g. the number of Spring/Autumn Watch viewers
and visitors to different website pages might be a useful/better measure. E.g. Membership of
some organisations, such as the National Trust, isn't specifically related to biodiversity interests;
and falling membership for others, such as the RSPB, does not necessarily reflect less interest in
birds or biodiversity and could instead be a reflection of what is affordable at the time.
Data constraints include details on what to include: more information on wildlife gardening is
needed and cost issues need to be investigated
Indicator C5 may have to wait until 2014 before publishing, because the methodology is not
defined; but C1-4 could be ready for 2013
It should be possible to update the indicator within the next 3-5 years
Other general thoughts included:
o Need clarity on the issue of what data to include
o Need demographics of data to see if unbiased
o Members vs membership needs to be noted ( family, groups etc)
o Could phrase the question so that is more about “ would you” rather than “ do you”
(given the capability)
Another suggestion is for C to instead deal with positive engagement, noting a distinction
between engagement (e.g. taking part in a biodiversity activity such as a ‘bioblitz’) and making a
difference (verifying impact). A measurement of advocacy/leadership could be useful and
should increase the likelihood of it being encouraged, with the benefits rippling down the
continuum mentioned in notes for Indicators A and B.
8
Criterion
1. Transparency and
auditability
Public Awareness – Assessment against evaluation criteria
Indicator A
Indicator B
Provided that there are no
confidentiality issues/ check data
protection
Data Issues
2. Verification
3. Frequency of updates
4. Security
5. Spatial coverage
Disagreed with the options paper and
instead felt that some of the data are
not as freely available as assumed
More information and evidence is
needed as to what checks are in place
Disagreed with the option paper and
instead stated that data wouldn’t
necessarily have to be done every year
at the national level and instead every
3-5 years
It is necessary to establish for how long
the data collection is secure
Disagreed with the options paper and
instead the group felt that future data
collection was fairly likely but not
secure, and dependent on economy
There needs to be a check; the data sets
suggest England is under represented.
There is also a need to check with a
social scientist about the number of
respondents, and if that will give you a
true representation of the population
9
Indicator C
Agreed with the options paper that for
C2,3,4 the data are available, but
disagreed for C1 where the group felt the
data are limited and for C5 whether it is
unavailable without collation of
publications
Agreed with the options paper that
detailed verification is in place and
documented for C3 and C4; but disagreed
for C1 where the data are felt to be
unverified, for C2 where limited
verification checks are in place, and for
C5 the group is unsure
Agreed with the options paper that
annual or biennial data could be collated,
but felt that for C1 the data are only
available sporadically
Agreed with the options paper that
future data collection is secure for C3 and
C4, but felt that for C1 and C2 it was less
certain and for C5 less secure as sections
could fail
Criterion
Public Awareness – Assessment against evaluation criteria
Indicator A
Indicator B
Indicator Characteristics
Methodology
6. Temporal coverage
There are different starting points for the
bundle, and that this would pose some
issues for collating
7. Capacity for
disaggregation
There was a suggestion that the
indicator could/should be scaled down
to County level, but this was not
uniformly agreed
8. Transparency and
soundness
The peer evidence needs to be made
available when the indicator is finalised
9. Precision
Indicator C
Agreed that the data can be
disaggregated but not as easily as
implied by the options paper; that there
are major issues to be resolved before
proceeding
Agreed with the options paper, but
cautioned that the UKBIF is towards a
peer review process, and need to look
at the difference between consultation
and peer review process
There could be data quality issues and it
was queried what is available for C1
Agreed with the options paper that for
C2-4 the methodology is available but not
peer reviewed, but disagreed for C1 and
C5 where it was felt that the
methodology is not available. For C5 this
would present the issue of peer review of
aggregation of data
Agreed in part with the options paper,
but suggested a degree of caution that
it depends on the frequency of data
collection
10. Policy relevance:
progress towards
Biodiversity 2020 targets
(CBD, EU, UK, country)
11. Biodiversity relevant
disagreed with the option paper that it
directly addresses biodiversity and
instead stated that this is dependent on
the framing of the question to get a
genuine proxy for biodiversity
10
agreed with the options paper but argued
that it depends strongly on what the
question is that you are asking for A and
B
Public Awareness – Assessment against evaluation criteria
Indicator A
Indicator B
Criterion
12. Cause-effect
relationship
you can be aware, but do nothing – this
relationship is not exactly understood
but considered to exist
13. Sensitive to change
depends on the data being collected
14. Human-induced vs
natural changes
Not applicable
15. Communication
disagreed with the option paper ranking
and instead felt that the indicator is
complex, difficult to communicate and
not accepted by all major stakeholders
Indicator C
the group was not aware of an accepted
theory thus disagreed with the option
paper
this is data dependant. Bundle of C5 is
better than just the individual 1-5;
whereas agreed with the options paper
that for C5 the indicator detects changes
in systems within timeframes and spatial
scales that are relevant to decisionmaking; disagreed for C1-4 and argued
that these only detect changes in systems
only within timeframes or only on spatial
scales that are relevant to decisionmaking
it was felt as though the stakeholders
had not been adequately defined hence
disagreed with the options paper’s
assessment that the indicator is simple,
easy to communicate and accepted by
all major stakeholders
11
as per the other indicators (A and B), it is
necessary to first clarify who are the
stakeholders, thus disagree with the
options paper assessment
Ecosystem Services
Comments on Indicator A: Extent of land cover classified as urban
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
It was considered to be the least credible of the options presented for ecosystem services.
General agreement with the key findings from the options paper, although It was suggested that
the original intention for an urban space indicator discussed at the December 2012 workshop
was to reflect ES supply in urban areas (i.e. where most of the population live and experience
ecosystem services)
Therefore - whilst there was clear understanding of the proposed data set - it is considered to
be measuring the lack of an ecosystem service and not the service itself, and a ratio of
greenspace as a crude measure of urban ES supply would be more relevant than the extent of
urban land cover as an indicator for the loss of ES
In addition to this, without knowing the land use change there is a lack of a clear causal
relationship, for example it might be worse (for biodiversity / ES) to build on a contaminated
green space in an urban area that is possibly more biodiversity rich than agricultural area
Also missing key aspects in order to be able to reliably measure progress towards this target
It was felt that the indicator does need more research before it can be implemented:
o Need particular development of interpretation and other datasets to support it
o Missing key aspects - green spaces and fragmentation of urban space. Quality of habitat
needs to be taken into account - green/brown ratio
o Green spaces combined with human population density within urban areas might be a
better alternative
o Data sources for green spaces - unsure but possibly local authorities, Google Earth, OS,
Landis
o Could take in to account rural land cover e.g. Countryside Survey data
With regards to whether an indicator could be published in October 2013 or in October 2014,
this depends on the resource base available to do the above. The data are there but it seems
meaningless in its current state - too crude a measure. Including the green space aspect could
be done for 2014 depending on resources available to do this
Data constraints are largely unknown – the data are freely available but there could be quite a
substantial cost - information on this is not available to hand but suggested from other people's
use of similar OS data. It would be very important to clarify this before indicator adoption. A
potential opportunity could be to share the licence if required for other applications and thus
reduce the costs of obtaining data
The indicator could be updated within the next 3-5 years, resource permitting. It's not useful to
update it annually so every 3-5 years would be suitable
Comments on Indicator B1: Community analysis of wild pollinators: Bumblebee abundance
-
-
The two indicators B1 and B2 are important together: Pollinators provide crop services
(plantations); responsible for maintaining vegetation structure and composition; can track
changes in land use by showing changes in species richness among pollinator communities
Around 30 species will soon be identified as important for crop pollination (published next year)
so these indicators could track changes in these key species for pollination
The indicator is not considered to need more research before it can be implemented and no
data constraints were identified
12
-
An intro and short summary could be published for October 2013; but as a baseline as it only
starts from 2010
The indicator could be updated within the next 3-5 years; but it's still a small dataset and needs
to expand
Other suggested indicators to complement this option and to include pressure and response
indicators: Area of semi-natural grassland (state); level of pesticide use (pressure); number of
agri-environment schemes (response)
Comments on Indicator B2: Community analysis of wild pollinators: Species richness of hoverflies and
wild bees, based on presence/absence data for hoverflies and solitary/social bees
-
-
-
-
Use in conjunction with B1 – they complement one another
The indicator needs more research before it can be implemented with regards to a peer review
of the method, but this is already in progress
Optimistic that an indicator be published in October 2013 depending on the outcome of the
peer review
Uncertainty regarding data constraints; there is a need to check the information available,
particularly for hoverfly data. They are available in Northern Ireland - data which have been
publicly funded are being made available on a central database (will be linked to NBN) so will be
more easily available in the future. Need to check GB availability from other organisations. Can
get data from NBN but will need to go direct to recording schemes to check if data are available
for hoverflies (they are available for wild bees)
The indicator could be updated within the next 3-5 years; but it would be a 5 year update
Other suggested indicators to complement this option and to include pressure and response
indicators: Area of semi-natural grassland (state); level of pesticide use (pressure); number of
agri-environment schemes (response)
It was suggested that some professional abundance sampling is probably required; that whilst
relative abundances and timed counts can be an effective means of gauging numbers, it is
unlikely that there is sufficient coverage of expertise to be able to identify all wild pollinators in
a meaningful way, even within hoverflies. Some sample-based, cross taxon recording of
pollinators in which professional and amateur effort could be combined.
There may also be merit in recording flower-rich areas although pesticide impacts would add
noise to the signal.
Comments on Indicator C: Carbon stock of forests in Great Britain
-
-
-
There was some debate on whether this indicator represents the link between forest and
biodiversity (and the services it provides) or between forest and carbon storage. However, the
link to carbon storage was the link discussed when assessing the indicator
Agreement with key findings from the options paper
Notes that important aspects are missing such as carbon storage of peat lands and grasslands,
and also the understory trees and soil. The indicator should be extended to all landscape types
and not restricted to forests
An additional data set that could be used on soil: available from the Urban Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services and Sustainability (BESS) project (Cranfield University)
More than one measure of carbon storage would be more appropriate
13
-
-
An indicator could possibly be published in October 2013 or in October 2014, but the link with
biodiversity is not clear and it depends on the resources of the National Forest Inventory (NFI)
o Suggestion to split native and conifers - for different biodiversity benefits
o No data for Northern Ireland
o Timeframe - complete cycle not published until 2015 as project is 4 years in so 2013
possible (but not with more recent data) but up to date indicator available for 2014
No data constraints identified, data are available on a 5 year cycle and – whilst this is considered
appropriate – it would depend on where the data collection is within that cycle
Forest/carbon link is strong but the link with biodiversity is not fully understood. This was seen
as the biggest issue with this indicator.
14
Criterion
1. Transparency
and auditability
Ecosystem Services – Assessment against evaluation criteria
Indicator A
Indicator B1
Indicator B2
Some doubts about availability
and cost from past experience
of using this type of data so
clarification would be needed
Indicator C
Data are not available for Northern
Ireland
2. Verification
Data Issues
3. Frequency of
updates
Disagreed with the options
paper and felt that, whilst it
could be done annually or
biennially as proposed in the
options paper, this depends on
frequency of OS updates, and
could be every 3-5 years
4. Security
5. Spatial coverage
If funding can be secured for
the projects then data
collection can be considered
as secure
Data are available in Northern
Ireland but are in a different
gridded format so clarification
would be needed if data from
NI and GB were to be combined
Disagreed with the option
paper, stating that there is
UK coverage with some bias
(as opposed to partial UK
coverage), that data are
available in Northern Ireland
for bumblebees and there
will always be bias in the
data (from where the
recordings are made)
15
Data are Government funded and
not necessarily secure in the long
term – it is currently funded for 5
years
Disagreed with the option
paper, stating that there is
UK coverage with some
bias (as opposed to full UK
coverage). There will
always be bias in the data
Northern Ireland information could
be obtained from Richard Schaible
Criterion
Ecosystem Services – Assessment against evaluation criteria
Indicator A
Indicator B1
Indicator B2
6. Temporal
coverage
Data are not sufficient to
generate one year
assessments but more data
will become available and at
high resolution
Data are only available
every 10 years and at a
lower resolution than B1
Disagreed with the options
paper that the methodology
published and peer
reviewed; a peer review is in
progress but this has not
been published
Disagreed with the options
paper and states that there
are data available which
has been published in the
peer-reviewed literature
Indicator is an indirect
measure of the service but
directly measures the target
delivered by the service
Indicator is an indirect
measure of the service but
directly measures the
target delivered by the
service
Indicator C
Indicator Characteristics
Methodology
7. Capacity for
disaggregation
8. Transparency
and soundness
9. Precision
10. Policy
relevance: progress
towards
Biodiversity 2020
targets (CBD, EU,
UK, country)
Disagreed with the options
paper that it relates directly to
progress towards 2020 targets,
and felt instead that there is no
relationship unless green spaces
are taken into account in which
case there would be an indirect
relationship
16
Disagreed with the option paper,
stating there is an indirect, rather
than a direct, relationship to
progress towards 2020 targets. Adds
that there is a lack of knowledge as
to how much carbon is sequestered
by different types of forests – native
vs conifers or mixed vs monocultures
for example; and that generally the
more forest the better but the
relationship needs to be fully
understood
Criterion
11. Biodiversity
relevant
12. Cause-effect
relationship
Ecosystem Services – Assessment against evaluation criteria
Indicator A
Indicator B1
Indicator B2
Agreed with the options paper
that the indicator is low scoring,
and stressed that the indicator
is “a proxy of a proxy” and a
very indirect measure. This
could be improved to directly
address biodiversity and relate
indirectly to state, pressures,
benefits and/or responses
Disagreed with the options
paper that there is an accepted
theory of relationship between
indicator and issue of concern,
unless improvements are made.
Added that biodiversity can be
higher in urban areas
Indicator C
Indicator measures the state
but doesn’t capture any of
the pressures on this service
Indicator measures the
state but doesn’t capture
any of the pressures on this
service
Indicator relates only indirectly to
biodiversity targets
Data are likely to improve in
2014 but the information has
not been published yet.
Some of the groups will have
a quantifiable relationship
between the species group
and the ecosystem service
they provide
Data are likely to improve
in 2014 but the
information has not been
published yet. Some of the
groups will have a
quantifiable relationship
between the species group
and the ecosystem service
they provide
Carbon - forest link is strong but the
relationship with biodiversity not
clear, and that the benefits of
different forest types are not well
understood
17
Criterion
13. Sensitive to
change
14. Human-induced
vs natural changes
Ecosystem Services – Assessment against evaluation criteria
Indicator A
Indicator B1
Indicator B2
Indicator C
Disagreed with the options
paper and instead felt that the
Indicator does not detect
changes in systems within
timeframes and spatial scales
that are relevant to decisionmaking. Whilst the indicator
would be sensitive to change, it
is a poor indicator because of a
lack of cause-effect relationship,
therefore changes are not
relevant to the questions and
not appropriate for decisionmaking
Indicator could potentially
discriminate between
human-induced and natural
changes with further
analysis. Possibly needs
more research – more
analysis on the links
18
Indicator could potentially
discriminate between
human-induced and
natural changes with
further analysis. Possibly
needs more research –
more analysis on the links
Disagreed with the options paper
that the indicator cannot
discriminate between humaninduced and natural changes. It was
felt that it is possible to distinguish
changes in dieback and reforestation
(i.e. changes in either direction),
thus for the indicator to potentially
discriminate
Criterion
15. Communication
Ecosystem Services – Assessment against evaluation criteria
Indicator A
Indicator B1
Indicator B2
Disagreed with the options
paper and instead felt that the
indicator is complex, difficult to
communicate and not accepted
by all major stakeholders. Most
people would accept that there
is a link (i.e. urban area
increasing is a bad thing) and
the measure is important but it
was agreed that the link is
actually very tenuous (because
of importance of fragmentation
and amount of green space
which is currently left out) and
therefore would be difficult to
communicate
Indicator C
Queried whether the indicator is
simple, easy to communicate and
accepted by all major stakeholders.
There was some debate in the group
about what the indicator is actually
measuring and some confusion in
the interpretation
19
Business
Note: Indicators A and D share the same dataset
Note: It was considered that the Indicators may be more appropriately merged and/or datasets
shared, hence discussion of data sets (criteria 1-9: data issues and methodology) took place as part
of a group discussion of all the indicators
Comments on Indicator A: Expenditure on protecting biodiversity
-
-
-
-
-
Indicator A in its current format was rejected as not being meaningful enough. It was proposed
that the data source is useful under another Indicator header, but tweaking the data source
would be required and – whilst this is possible and would make the data more meaningful – it
could have an impact on trend data
With regards to the data source (Government Survey of Environmental Protection Expenditure
by Industry, GSEPE), issues include:
o Although the data are already available, the text in the Business Indicator Options paper
is not entirely accurate
o The sectors listed are not all surveyed every year, some are only surveyed every four
years – data are still published for these sectors but in the form of estimates
o Whilst data on landscaping could be used a proxy for biodiversity, no specific categories
that cover ‘biodiversity’ directly, and a lot of interpretation is required
o Redesign of the survey would be possible but it would need to be done quickly prior to
the next release
o Current response rates aren’t particularly high, which suggests this data set alone is not
enough and needs to be backed up by a second dataset
It was felt that further research is needed before this indicator could be used, including: a
‘grouping’ of the sectors in the data source; the consideration of other datasets; and the
categories of expenditure
Publishing an indicator in 2014, though theoretically possible, would be meaningless without
more research and would be complex and expensive. How repeatable the data are after 3-5
years is an associated issue, particularly if the questions asked are tweaked
Another dataset: K-Matrix, was suggested as a possibility. It has been used to estimate the size
of the Green Economy in the UK – worthwhile contacting Katherine Bremner at ONS about this
Comments on Indicator B: Policy awareness
-
-
There was some confusion as to the listing of B1 and B2 in part of the evaluation table; it was
taken to mean a difference between IOD and GRI used as a dataset, but should not impact on
overall feedback given on this indicator and the other indicators for business
Indicator B could be viable but with a tweak to the wording of the indicator and potentially
using another data source, such as the GSEPE proposed under Indicators A and D
Of the two proposed data sources:
o It was felt that there was not enough information available about the Institute of
Directors Survey (IoD), although it could also be tweaked as per the GSEPE to collate
similar data being proposed. It was largely dismissed by the group owing to a current
lack of information on the Survey e.g. return rate and business sectors covered, a
20
-
-
concern about the cost, the data security, and the legality of potential information
requests
o The Global Reporting Initiative Benchmarking Tool (GRI) was largely dismissed by the
group, for reasons including that it is too targeted at big businesses and ‘spread’ is not
well captured; further research is warranted, but better datasets are more immediately
apparent
There is also a lack of certainty over the whether partial or full UK coverage could be achieved.
The trend in data for this indicator could mean various things i.e. there is a high degree of
‘noise’ that affects the indicator criterion of ‘precision’. With regards to the questionable and
largely unanswered aspects of data deficiency, it was queried whether this made the indicator a
less viable option in comparison to the other options
In its current format, Indicator B requires more research to identify whether it is viable for a
2014 publication, and serious data constraints exist given that it relies on ‘novel’ questions and
data that may not be a true proxy for awareness. It would probably be cheaper than Indicator A
to collate the data, but possibly less meaningful
Comments on Indicator C: Supply chain management
-
-
-
-
The indicator is split into auditing and sourcing, with auditing more an indicator of awareness
and sourcing more an indicator of action. Both aspects are considered useful to capture,
although the dataset and methodology and dataset suggested for this purpose was challenged
and there was general consensus that this indicator could be combined with aspects of the
other indicators to reflect both ‘awareness’ and ‘action’ through the use of supply chain
evidence.
It was considered that, without defining the scope of businesses, it would be difficult to use this
indicator. For example, asking multi-nationals to distinguish their global versus their UK impacts
When looking at ‘certified’ companies, not all are certified, but some still do take the
environment into consideration, and a trend for companies to leave certification schemes and
work directly with suppliers could bias data. Similarly, caution is warranted that ‘being’ certified
does not equate to ‘buying’ certified. Hence, looking at ‘certified’ companies is not very
representative.
UKAS – and other publicly available data e.g. FSC – could possibly be used to identify ‘certified’
companies, rather than a survey, in order to capture more data or to back-up existing data sets.
This would require research, a typology of agreed certification standards and weighting by
industry, used over time for the indicator
It was felt that there was not enough information available about the Institute of Directors
Survey (IoD), although it could also be tweaked as per the GSEPE to collate similar data being
proposed. IOD was largely dismissed as a data set by the group owing to a current lack of
information on the Survey e.g. return rate and business sectors covered, a concern about the
cost, and the data security; although this could potentially be resolved with further research,
other data sets appear to be more viable at this time
Comments on Indicator D: Biodiversity inclusion in Environmental Management Systems
-
EMS alone can provide an immediate datasource for an Indicator and is collated in the GSEPE on
an annual basis, but it would be more meaningful if it were expanded upon. Moreover, it was
21
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
felt that the quality of the questions currently proposed for the dataset for Indicator D needed
more research
Using EMS as currently proposed under this Indicator would make it important to know the
spread/coverage of different sectors of the industry and it would miss important areas of retail.
This in itself would be interesting to investigate and enable us to target future companies and
sectors, whilst also looking at method consistency. In addition, EMS certification will not pick up
on uncertified businesses that also act on biodiversity. Cost, for example, could be a barrier to
certification, whereas the company could already be acting on biodiversity or have another
form of biodiversity-relevant sustainability or environmental system in place
It was considered that Indicator D was largely attempting to achieve the same goal as Indicator
B, in that it is capturing an indication of ‘awareness’. The GSEPE dataset could be modified to
better capture this, to include EMS in addition to other ‘awareness-relevant’ measures
undertaken by business.
For example, ‘certification’ itself could be expanded from just EMS to include supply chain
aspects proposed under Indicator C, which could then both be an indication of ‘awareness’ and
‘action’. The GSEPE survey could provide a means for doing so.
Potential GSEPE modifications for the purpose include:
o A first question to ask whether the company takes in to account the environment e.g.
when procuring. Have you considered the environment as part of your assessment? /
Do you (yourself and suppliers) consider <resource> when planning?
o Followed by a multiple choice of categories as to ‘how’ e.g. And have you acted upon
this? e.g. Do you use any of the following <multiple choice>: sustainable sourcing? EMS?
Policy? Sustainable procurement procedure? etc.
o Will need to differentiate between the ‘environment’ and ‘sustainability’ in the
questions
o Depending on any amendments to the survey it could be possible/useful to also request
retrospective data from CEOs/companies to overcome a barrier to available trend data
o Amanda Kiely (BSI) has offered to pass on further information in relation to framing of
questions to capture a wider business audience
Dataset issues include:
o The survey costs £40,000/annum and the cost of restructuring the dataset would need
to be assessed.
o Only 20% return rate – it may not capture as big an audience as other datasets (e.g. IOD
or an internet survey – one of the datasets rejected at an earlier phase – but this is not
known for certain)
o ‘Response rate’ could fluctuate for various reasons and introduce ‘noise’; however,
response rate could in itself be an interesting indicator
o People filling out the survey are not going to be experts thus can’t confuse too much
with ‘biodiversity’ as a term
A variation on a question suggested included: How much UK land are you the steward for? Do
you have a Biodiversity Action Plan for this land? But this would require further research and
could be revisited as a potential dataset
BSI is bringing out a new guidance standard/ code of practice this year (BS4 2020) for planners
and constructors to adopt. This looks at biodiversity and construction. Whilst not a dataset per
se, it may have the repercussion of increasing the number of completed EMS sections next year
22
Criterion
Indicator Characteristics
10. Policy relevance:
progress towards
Biodiversity 2020
targets (CBD, EU, UK,
country)
11. Biodiversity
relevant
12. Cause-effect
relationship
Indicator A
Business – Assessment against evaluation criteria
Indicator B
Indicator C
Disagreed with the option
paper, stating there is a
relationship with the targets,
but that this is indirect. Inhouse costs are a proxy for
reducing impacts of natural
resource use
None of the criterion levels
were considered to be
applicable
Disagrees with options paper in
that there will be an accepted
theory of relationship between
indicator and issue of concern
(rather than an unknown
relationship) provided in-house
expenditure presented as a
percentage of total operating
cost
Indicator D
Audit is considered to be a good
proxy for awareness, whereas
sourcing is considered to be a
proxy for change or action
This is a proxy for awareness
but not change
With the split of audit and
sourcing, sourcing could be
seen as a proxy biodiversity
change
None of the criterion levels
were considered to be
applicable
Felt that none of the criterion
levels were applicable. That
there is a need to tweak the
wording of the indicator,
because the number of
companies with a policy won’t
change even if the business
impact does; thus either
reword ‘policy’ to capture
SMEs or restrict sampling to
large companies (noting there
is a risk that they all have a
policy that may or may not be
implemented for biodiversity)
Suggested a tweak to the
indicator by stating ‘how much’
sourcing is taking place, in order
to demonstrate a relationship. A
questionnaire could capture
three levels of information: Is
there a policy that requires an
audit? Is there a policy that
requires Sourcing? Is there
information about actual
turnover of certified goods? A
list of biodiversity-relevant
standards would need to be
compiled
Theoretically there is a
relationship, but it can’t be
quantified (unlike Indicator A),
and companies may identify an
issue but not necessarily be
acting upon it. BSI does not
have a list of certified
companies, but UKAS possibly
could
23
Criterion
Indicator A
Business – Assessment against evaluation criteria
Indicator B
Indicator C
13. Sensitive to
change
Need better definition as to
who the decision-makers are
i.e. government or businesses
14. Human-induced
vs natural changes
Criterion considered irrelevant
for business indicators
15. Communication
Disagreed with the options
paper, stating that the indicator
is complex, difficult to
communicate and not accepted
by all major stakeholders, as
opposed to simple, easy to
communicate and accepted. If
asking a CEO, it will probably be
better understood, than asking
someone to answer that works
for the business on-the-ground
or in a more junior position; this
is due to understanding and
interpretation of the meaning
of the word biodiversity, and so
the question would have to be
carefully phrased and targeted
Need better definition as to
who the decision-makers are
i.e. government or businesses.
On a temporal basis it was
agreed that change is
detected, but on a spatial
scale it depends on who is
being surveyed and the scale
of business should be defined
Criterion considered irrelevant
for the business indicators
Communicating the results
would be simple enough, but
communicating the survey to
businesses would be difficult
without careful wording. It
depends on the interpretation
and understanding of
biodiversity
24
Need better definition as to
who the decision-makers are
i.e. government or businesses.
On a temporal basis it was
agreed that change is detected,
but on a spatial scale it depends
on who is being surveyed and
the scale of business should be
defined
Criterion considered irrelevant
for the business indicators
Indicator D
Need better definition as to
who the decision-makers are
i.e. government or businesses
Criterion considered irrelevant
for the business indicators
Queried whether the indicator
is accepted by all major
stakeholders. There was some
debate in the group about what
the indicator is actually
measuring and some confusion
in the interpretation
Workshop Participants
Awareness
Sarah Thomas
Pippa Gibson
Karen Haysom
Mary Jeavans
Sue Marrs
Steve Whitbread
James Williams
ZSL (Facilitator)
Defra
Bat Conservation Trust
Defra
Scottish Natural Heritage
National Biodiversity Network
JNCC
Ecosystem Services
Louise McRae
Judith Annett
Lynn Dicks
Alistair McVittie
Diana Mortimer
Lisa Norton
Deborah Proctor
Mark Tibbett
Megan Tierney
Helen Ward
Duncan Williams
ZSL (Facilitator)
Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group
Cambridge University
Scottish Agricultural College
JNCC
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
JNCC
Cranfield University
UNEP-WCMC
Defra
Defra
Business
Liz Clarke
Zoe Balmforth
Adam Dutton
Amanda Kiely
Marta Maireles
Mark Stevenson
Matthew Wenban-Smith
Clare Winton
ZSL (Facilitator)
Fauna and Flora International
RSPB
BSI
ISEAL
Defra
OneWorldStandards
Defra
25
Agenda
Date: Friday 5th July, 10:00-15:45
Location: Zoological Society of London (ZSL), Regent’s Park.
Agenda:
09:30-10:00
Registration, tea and coffee
10:00-10:10
Welcome – Pippa Gibson (BISG Chair)
10:10-10:30
Context / process to-date – James Williams (JNCC)
10:30-10:45
Workshop format – Liz Clarke (ZSL)
10:45-12:15
Break-out session 1: Indicator appropriateness
12:15-13:00
Lunch
13:00-14:30
Break-out session 2: Indicator implementation
14:30-14:50
Refreshment break
14:50-15:20
Break-out session 3: Recap and recommendations
15:20-15:45
Next steps and closing remarks
26