Annex A: PROJECT SPECIFICATION
Project title
Spatial framework for assessing evidence needs for operational Ecosystem
Approaches
Competition Code:
Date for return of tenders:
Address for tender submission:
(the Competition Code must be shown
on the email title and the tender,
otherwise your tender may not be
accepted)
Number of copies required:
Contact for information relating to this
project specification:
Proposed ownership of Intellectual
Property:
Proposed start-date (if known):
Proposed end-date (if known):
Thursday 16th February 2012 at
16.00hrs
Please send bids in electronic format, to
this email address:
TenderResponse@jncc.gov.uk
Large files should be zipped.
Electronic format only.
Name: Linda Birkin or Helen Baker
Tel no: 01733-866871 or 866820
e-mail: linda.birkin@jncc.gov.uk;
Helen.baker@jncc.gov.uk
JNCC
February 2012
May 2012
Project Specification
1. Research aims and objectives
To aid the practical quantification and valuation of ecosystem services for a range of decision
making processes at local, landscape and country levels and in doing so inform ongoing
development of UK-level biodiversity data collection surveys and schemes and data access
provision.
To achieve this, develop a spatial framework approach, based on an initial JNCC concept,
which identifies the biodiversity-related information that is needed to undertake ecosystem
service quantification at different scales. The framework will link measurable habitat
attributes to service provision.
2. Background
2.1.
General background
The environment and biodiversity strategies of each of the countries of the UK have been or
are currently under revision in response to global and EU biodiversity policy change, in
particular the CBD Strategic Goals 2010-2020 and associated Aichi targets. The EU
Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 establishes actions related to ecosystem mapping and
assessment of the state of ecosystems and their services to enable maintenance and
restoration. The country strategy reviews reflect a key policy change: identification of the
ecosystem approach and in particular ecosystem services as a way to help inform land,
water and sea management.
The UK National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA)1 published in June 2011 was the first
independent assessment of the state and trends in the UK’s ecosystems and the benefits
they provide to society and the economy. The NEA provides a substantial evidence base of
the services that nature provides (ecosystem services or ES), how these have changed over
the past decades, prospects for the future and the benefits of these to society.
The ‘ES cascade’ shown below illustrates the provision of benefits to society by natural
systems. Ecosystems can be described in terms of their biophysical attributes (the biotic and
physical characteristics of the system, such as pH, slope, soil porosity). These attributes
determine what ecosystem processes occur in that system (e.g. throughflow of water). The
processes of an ecosystem influence the functions of that system (e.g. water quantity
regulation), and the ecosystem services and goods from that system potentially usable by
humans (e.g. flood risk reduction).
ES cascade – examples from peatland ecosystems
 Biophysical attributes (biotic and physical characteristics of the ecosystem)
 Biophysical or ecosystem processes (e.g. primary productivity)
 Function (e.g. Carbon cycling in biomass)
 Ecosystem service (e.g. Carbon sequestration)
 Benefits or Goods (e.g. reduction in atmospheric C)
 Value (e.g. marketable carbon credit)
There are some fairly robust conceptual models now available to link ecosystem services
and their valuation to biodiversity. The next step therefore appears to be to link these
models to practical ways of quantifying biodiversity and its functional contribution to services.
There is a significant amount of work underway in this area: ongoing pilots and case studies
by various stakeholders, including the country agencies; development of operational markets
or systems for paying for ecosystem services, deployed for example by water companies;
and various research projects. It is timely to explore how existing and new evidence could
be used in development of operational ecosystem approaches, especially relating to
ecosystem services and their valuation.
2.2.
Evidence background
Critical to the implementation of the ecosystem approach is evidence on the ecosystems
goods and services produced and how these respond to drivers of change. Such evidence
includes data from monitoring and surveillance of biodiversity alongside other data and
knowledge of ecosystem processes and functioning from research.
In response to the NEA, research funders like Defra, Scottish Government and NERC have
established a number of initiatives to further develop evidence and models to support an
ecosystem approach, including characterisation and valuation of ecosystem services. The
research landscape can be summarised as in Figure 1 (Defra):
1
http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/
FIGURE 1
Within the UK, the research being undertaken by Defra and Scottish Government and
through the NERC BESS programme and Valuing Nature Network research calls will not only
improve understanding of ecosystem processes and functions, but should also provide
valuable data for assessing the status of ecosystems and service flows. At a European level,
the EU project BiodivERsA has also funded seven pan-European research projects on EA
that could also make an important contribution to the evidence base.
One of the key constraints in producing the NEA was the availability of biodiversity data to
describe ecosystems, assess their condition and change, and characterise the goods and
services originating from them. Alongside the research activities currently underway through
the initiatives shown in Figure 1, there is a need to take stock of the basic currency for
making ecosystem approaches operational and monitoring their benefits and impacts, that is,
data on biodiversity.
There are benefits from assessing the kinds of evidence that will be required for
assessments of ecosystem services and their valuation in each country of the UK. This
should include a review of where information can be used in a general way to provide
evidence for ecosystem service valuation at a range of spatial scales, i.e. transferability, and
what data requirements are common across the range of operational tools under
development. This will allow suppliers of biodiversity data to better understand likely needs
and develop options for meeting those needs, and for users to access more complete
information to support decision-making.
JNCC’s goal is to aid the practical quantification and valuation of ecosystem services in a
range of decision making processes at local, landscape and country levels and in doing so
inform ongoing development of UK level biodiversity data collection surveys and schemes
and data access provision. To do this we have developed a framework concept to identify
the biodiversity-related information that is needed to undertake ecosystem service
quantification at different scales. The framework idea has been based around the concepts
(and examples) of ecosystem services and habitat types defined in the NEA. A summary of
this framework concept and an example of the data gathering approach it could stimulate are
included in the attachments to this specification; the key concepts are:




Use of digital polygon-based datasets to assess biophysical attributes of habitat
polygons, utilising existing datasets;
Determination of the ecosystem processes occurring in these polygons as indicated
by their biophysical attributes and the effects of connected polygons;
Identification of the provision of ecosystem services by the processes operating within
the polygons;
Thus linking measurable habitat attributes to service provision.
The framework approach to be developed through this project will use information from pilots
and case studies, markets, and ecological research. Its form will be driven by the practical
needs of service quantification at different scales. The project is not designed to create an
inventory of attributes: its value is in setting out a logical process that would aid the
identification and appropriate use of biodiversity data in ecosystem services quantifications
and valuation.
3. Detailed requirements
Given the range of ecosystem services identified in the NEA and the surrounding literature,
and thus the need for a holistic approach, the objectives of this project will require integration
of physical, ecological and societal knowledge.
As this is a very broad task, the project may choose to focus the development of the
framework by either:
 Considering a small number of major habitat types2 (e.g. grassland, woodland,
freshwaters), but taking into account the full NEA framework of services, or;
 Considering the major services in terms of predicted value and currently available
data (i.e. carbon sequestration, water quality, water quantity regulation, agricultural
goods, forestry goods, cultural and recreation services) for a larger range of habitats.
Objective 1: - Development of the framework concept
To develop the spatial framework approach by integration of physical, biological and social
data sets and models to quantify ecosystem services. This objective will cover the
refinement of JNCC’s original framework concept, and also determine how attributes should
be defined, quantified and used throughout the project. Key tasks would include:



2
To refine the conceptual model behind the framework approach;
To determine the usefulness of habitat-classified polygons in providing generic
baseline attribute values for a polygon or grid cell, taking into consideration
connectivity with adjacent polygons or grid cells;
To determine how best to account for variation in attributes due to habitat condition
and bio-geographical location;
An upland heathland or a peatland example should not be chosen as there are already well
developed projects on these habitats.


Based on current knowledge, to determine a method to identify which biophysical
attributes have the most significant effect on the provision of ecosystem services at a
polygon or grid (1km2 or finer) scale;
To establish through practical testing the way in which real habitat information could
fit with and alter the practical models used to quantify services operationally (e.g.
carbon sequestration, water quality regulation).
Objective 2: - Practical application of the framework, and its use at differing spatial
scales
To determine how the framework approach could work at different spatial scales and types of
application and what level of regionalisation may be needed, as it is anticipated that
consideration of separate of bio-geographical zones is likely to be required.
The assessment should identify commonality and divergence in approaches, particularly with
regard to way in which habitats and biophysical data are used spatially, the attributes used,
and the data requirements for application of an ecosystem services approach to decisionmaking in the countries of the UK.
The assessment should examine the use of evidence, hence the potential role of the
framework, at different scales of applications. The quality and quantity (as appropriate) of
stocks and flows of various ecosystem services should be assessed for one or more areas
(taken to be a mosaic of connected habitat polygons). Various applications of an ecosystem
services approach should be explored, such as identification of best place to fit management
for a specific policy action, best way to derive a specific service outcome or best way to
improve the general level of services provided (see summary document for more
information).
Objective 3: - Understanding the use of biodiversity data for ecosystem service
valuation using the spatial framework approach
This objective will elucidate the ways in which biodiversity data have been used in ecosystem
service approaches and help identify gaps in data provision, based on the possible use of the
refined framework approach. Drawing from country pilot studies, other case studies
(including ecologically relevant EU studies), research, current tools and other sources of
information a review should establish where practical application of ecosystem system
service quantification and valuation is currently constrained by inadequate information, and
to determine priorities for developing biological recording to better meet this need. The
following elements should be considered:



A general assessment of the ways in which studies have used biological data,
including to both directly and indirectly quantify services;
Methods used to account for bio-geographical variation, including checks of
representativeness of data and transferability;
An assessment of the sources of biodiversity data used in the studies, for example
whether local data were used, sourced from published papers, sourced via the
National Biodiversity Network, or from UK surveys and schemes (a description of
some of the data sources for biodiversity is available at
http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-3713).
4. Timetable
The tender should outline its proposed timetable for taking forward the research outlined,
including the key milestones. The agreed project will commence in mid to late February
2012 to be completed by the end of May 2012.
Suggested milestones include:
 Initial start up steering group meeting (mid to late February)
 Interim report and 2nd steering group meeting (early April)
 Draft final report and 3rd steering group meeting (early May)
 Final report (end May 2012)
5. Outputs and publication
Key outputs include an interim report and a final report, which should be written in plain
English. The final report should be in Word to allow editing and contain a non-technical
executive summary of not more than two pages containing headline results and key
messages that can be widely disseminated. The refined framework concept and worked
examples should be provided in an Excel spreadsheet, with explanatory notes included.
Associated GIS outputs should be provided in file types that are compatible with ESRI
software. Additional technical annexes can be provided if necessary. Either the final report
or the technical annexes should contain clear references to all research that provides data
enabling the functions or processes, and their impact on services, to be quantified.
It is JNCC policy to publish all final project reports and seek opportunities to publish and
disseminate project findings amongst key stakeholders; this is typically done via electronic
media.
6. Programme of Work
Bidders are invited to propose a programme of work designed to meet the project objectives,
output requirements and timetable. Anticipated difficulties or constraints in meeting the
deliverables outlined should be detailed along with proposed solutions for overcoming these.
7. Project Team
Bidders need to demonstrate that the project team have the appropriate skills and expertise
to successfully carry-out the project. The proposal should include details of the:
 track record in managing and successfully completing research of the type proposed,
including references;
 key members of the proposed team for delivering the programme of work; and their
respective roles and relevant experience (short CVs for those undertaking the work
should be supplied).
Any sub-suppliers or associates who may be employed to undertake any sections of the
research should be separately identified, along with their respective roles and how they will
be managed. The main supplier will be responsible for the delivery of any sub-suppliers.
8. Management
Bidders should identify individuals who will manage the research and to nominate a
representative for day-to-day contact with the JNCC project team. In addition to the specific
outputs requested above, the tender should highlight how it is intended to keep the JNCC
project team informed of progress as the project progresses.
9. Price, Fee schedule and Payments
The tender needs to provide an all-inclusive price for the contract. Bidders are requested to
provide information on daily rates, overheads and other related costs for carrying out the
work. Costs of tendering should not be counted as project costs. Payments are expected to
be made according to key milestones linked to interim and final reporting (proposals can be
made in the tender and, once a tender is successful, will be agreed with the JNCC project
officer).
10. Quality
Tenders must display a good understanding of the issues involved. They should also have the
ability to edit and present written material in a clear, concise and informative style. Tenders will
provide a quality assurance plan that demonstrates how the quality of inputs and outputs will
be ensured. Views on the main risks and obstacles to the successful completion of the
project should be set out and the steps to address them outlined.
11. Tender Evaluation Criteria
The successful tender will be that considered the most economically advantageous (best value
for money); the following criteria will be used to assess all tenders (figures in parentheses
indicate evaluation weightings):
The Criteria are:
Quality of proposal (40%)



Understanding of requirements and relevance
Clear deliverables and work plan
Likelihood of success in delivering research outputs
Details of contractor (20%)



Expertise, experience and balance of team
Project planning and management, identification and management of problems/risks
Past experience with contractor, including reliability (quality and delivery)
Cost (30%)

Reasonable & competitive costs
Communication (10%)

Plans for reporting and dissemination of results, including production of summary
reports for different audiences (these audience should be identified)
JNCC Support Co.
The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) is the statutory adviser to the UK
Government and devolved administrations on UK and international nature conservation. Its
work contributes to maintaining and enriching biological diversity, conserving geological
features and sustaining natural systems.
JNCC delivers the UK and international responsibilities of the Council for Nature
Conservation and the Countryside (CNCC), the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW),
Natural England, and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). The functions that arise from these
responsibilities are principally to:




advise Government on the development and implementation of policies for, or
affecting, nature conservation in the UK and internationally;
provide advice and disseminate knowledge on nature conservation issues affecting
the UK and internationally;
establish common standards throughout the UK for nature conservation, including
monitoring, research, and the analysis of results;
commission or support research which it deems relevant to these functions.
The Committee comprises 14 members: a Chairman and five independent members
appointed by the Secretary of State; the Chairman of CNCC; the Chairmen or deputy
Chairmen of CCW, Natural England and SNH; and one other member from each of these
bodies.
JNCC, originally established under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, was reconstituted
by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Support is provided to the
JNCC by a company limited by guarantee (JNCC Support Co) that the Committee
established in 2005.