James Williams, JNCC, and Mark Stevenson, Defra.
Background
Decision VII/30 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) established a framework for biodiversity indicators to measure progress towards the 2010 biodiversity target. The current set of UK biodiversity Indicators were identified through review of existing country level indicators in a meeting facilitated by Defra, broader discussion through the UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum , and work to develop new indicators (e.g. genetic diversity, marine ecosystem integrity) where there were no existing possibilities.
The 10 th Conference of Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (in Nagoya,
October 2010), adopted a new strategic plan for the convention, and a set of 20 targets which will help focus activity towards its long term mission. In parallel to the global processes, a new European target was adopted at the Environment Council in
Brussels on 15 th March 2010. A new EU Biodiversity Strategy is being prepared, incorporating a set of six sub-targets.
Against this shifting international framework, the UK Biodiversity Partnership
Standing Committee agreed to undertake a health check to ensure that the indicators:
1. Continued to be based on robust and reliable data; and
2. Remained relevant to the new international and European goals and targets.
Two preliminary analyses have been carried out simply to identify issues that need to be addressed as part of this health check: a data quality assessment and a gap analysis. The purpose of these analyses was to identify issues to be addressed by this Forum and subsequently by the UK Biodiversity Indicators Steering Group.
Data Quality Assessment
To identify data quality issues, a small panel was convened to assess each indicator against standard criteria. The panel had Defra and JNCC scientists and statisticians plus two independent scientists (from CEH and CEFAS). The assessment criteria are set out on the accompanying spreadsheet, and included data security, time series availability and capacity for disaggregation to Country level. The agreed panel scores were subsequently circulated to data providers to ensure that there was a broader consensus on the key issues. Scores were moderated after consultation where necessary.
Key results:

As expected, the majority of the indicators were based on high quality data sets from which reliable trends could be extracted.

Six indicators were identified as generally scoring poorly: priority species status, priority habitat status, conservation volunteering, genetic resources, invasive species and habitat connectivity.

The reason for the poor scores varies from indicator to indicator, but the following issues need to be addressed:
1

o Data security . This is the most significant issue, as if data sources disappear, the indicator is no longer viable. This is a key issue for genetic diversity, priority species and priority habitat indicators and for indicators based on countryside survey data: habitat connectivity, invasive species (and species diversity). o Data quality.
This an issue for indicators based on modelled data (e.g. habitat connectivity, genetic diversity) or data categories (e.g. site condition, priority species and habitats, invasive species).

The panel also identified a number of indicators that may be difficult for the non-specialist to understand. The y would benefit from a review by a ‘lay’ panel.
Gap analysis
Existing UK biodiversity indicators were matched to the 2020 (Aichi) targets. The existing country indicators have subsequently been added, together with current knowledge on the European Biodiversity Strategy sub-targets 1 and the European
(SEBI) biodiversity indicators. The document is very much a work in progress, and may well change over the coming months as existing country biodiversity strategies and environment frameworks are updated.
Key results:

All of the existing biodiversity indicators can be mapped to one or more of the
Aichi targets.

The review document colour codes the strength of the match of the existing indicators to the targets; this is tentative and is there to stimulate debate. As we move forwards it will be necessary to take a view on the existing indicators, whether they need to be tweaked, or whether new indicators are needed.

Gaps (of various sizes) have been identified in the following areas: o links with national accounting systems (target 2), o ecological footprint (target 4), o climate change (target 10, target 15), o ecosystem services (target 14), o access and benefits sharing (target 16), o traditional knowledge linked to sustainable use (target 18).

The targets are in many cases very broad, and it is likely that they will need to be interpreted according to national strategies and circumstances. A balance between increasing the number of indicators in the set to reflect the elements of the targets, and keeping the whole set small and focussed will need to be struck.
1 Note that the EU Biodiversity Strategy is expected to be published in May 2011, so this is only a tentative mapping at present.
2

Looking Forwards
The results of the discussions at the 5 th UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum will be reported to the UK Biodiversity Indicators Steering Group (next meeting 5 April).
That will lead to a plan for refining the indicator set over the next two years. Possible ways forward include workshops focussed on particular topics, contracts (depending on resources), and another UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum meeting in the autumn or next year.
At a European scale the publication of the new EU Biodiversity Strategy will offer an opportunity to see how country, UK and European work is aligned. The CBD
Secretariat are organising a Ad-Hoc Technical Expert Group meeting on the global indicators
– probably in June 2011. The results of that will be fed into the mapping exercise over the summer.
Questions for Discussion
1. Are there any objections to the categorisation of the indicators against the 2020 targets?
2. Have the key gaps and issues been identified?

If not what else should we look at?

Is this a shared view?
3. For those targets for which we do have existing indicators, are there nonetheless, new datasets or approaches that could be used to improve:

relevance

robustness

synthesis/aggregation

spatial disaggregation

ease of communication

international comparability
4. For those existing indicators where there are data quality issues, are there:

Alternative data sources?

Possible refinements to the methodology?
5. In the interest of efficiency and ease of communication is there any redundancy?

Can we identify a minimum set of essential indicators?
3