Refining the UK Biodiversity Indicators James Williams Joint Nature Conservation Committee Monkstone House, City Road, Peterborough, PE1 1JY. United Kingdom. +44 (0)

UK Biodiversity Indicators – governance & implementation Four Countries Group Four Countries Group Defra, Devolved Administrations, JNCC UK Biodiversity Indicators SG Advice Decisions Defra, Devolved Administrations, Country Agencies, JNCC, NGOs Project Group Advice Decisions Defra, JNCC Biodiversity Indicators Forum Biodiversity Indicators Forum Review Statutory and Non Governmental Organisations, Academia

UK biodiversity indicators Focus on biodiversity outcomes Mapped to CBD and EU frameworks Link with sub-national indicators – e.g. England, Scotland Use existing data sources (avoid new burdens) Published annually since 2007 ‘Traffic Light’ assessment of trend Communication tool

Traffic light assessments Two assessment periods: Long-term – assessment of change since the earliest date for which data are available. If data do not precede 1996 a long term assessment is not made. Short-term - assessment of change since 2000 Improving Little or no overall change Deteriorating Insufficient or no comparable data

As published May 2011 UK Biodiversity Indicators

Review Revise & refresh to take account of Aichi Targets EU Biodiversity Strategy Preliminary analysis to identify issues A.Data quality assessment – is the data source robust, reliable? Can we be certain of the trends? B.Gap analysis – how well do existing indicators cover new reporting commitments?

Data quality assessment 1. Panel assessment 2. Assessment criteria Precision Time series availability; Data security; Data transparency; Transparency and soundness of methodology; Data verification; Frequency of updates; Geographic coverage; Capacity for disaggregation Each criterion scored Consultation and moderation

Data quality assessment - results Most indicators based on high quality data sets Six indicators where there are significant issues with data quality that may need to be addressed –UK Priority species –UK Priority habitats –Genetic diversity –Invasive species –Habitat connectivity –Conservation volunteering Reasons for low scores: –Data security: genetic diversity, priority species/habitats and those indicators based on Countryside Survey. –Data quality: modelled data; category data; estimates

Gap Analysis Mapped each of the existing indicators to the new 2020 ‘Aichi’ targets agreed at CBD CoP in October 2010 Added information on emerging EU Biodiversity Targets and the SEBI indicators Added information on country biodiversity indicators Identified strength of match – tentative Moderated through UK Biodiversity Indicators Forum

All of the existing biodiversity indicators can be mapped to one or more of the Aichi targets Gaps (of various sizes) have been identified in the following areas: –links with national accounting systems (target 2) –ecological footprint (target 4) –climate change (target 10, target 15) –ecosystem services (target 14) –access and benefits sharing (target 16) –traditional knowledge linked to sustainable use (target 18) Gap Analysis - results

Mapping to Strategic Goals - preliminary analysis A mainstreaming Targets on: awareness, values/accounting, incentives, sustainable consumption and production Bpressures Targets on: habitat loss, fisheries, sustainable land use, pollution, invasive alien species, climate change impacts Cstatus Targets on: protected areas, threatened species, genetic diversity of domesticated species and wild relatives D benefits Targets on: ecosystem services, restoration, access to genetic resources E implementation Targets on: NBSAPs, traditional knowledge and local communities, science base, resources

Development Areas / refinements Awareness, understanding and support for biodiversity conservation (Aichi Target 1); Status of ecosystem services and/or habitats and species supporting ecosystem services (Aichi Targets 14 &15); Habitat connectivity – options for updating existing indicators and/or alternative options (Aichi Target 5); Plant genetic resources (Aichi Target 13), Climate Change Adaptation and impacts (Aichi Targets 8 & 9) Widespread species and habitats Habitat connectivity Water quality Invasive species Genetic diversity

Framework from AHTEG What do we do about biodiversity loss? What are the implications of biodiversity loss? Why are we losing biodiversity? How is the status of biodiversity changing?

Individual indicators can contribute to assessment of multiple targets / goals Target 1Target 2Target 3 Regional targets National targets Goal

Provisional list of UK Indicators Goals A & B

Next Steps Continue to publish existing indicators annually Modify existing indicators as needed - some work to be done by JNCC and country conservation agencies Develop new indicators – 3 year programme of work under contract –Develop option papers –Agree preferred option through UK Steering Group –Develop protocols Map indicators against Framework Questions & Headline Indicators from AHTEG Forward look for presentation of information against new framework for next CBD report

5 th & 6 th National reports to CBD Indicators core to UK 4 th National report to CBD Anticipate using again for 5 th report (March 2014) and 6 th report (2018/9?) Present indicators by Target, and by Strategic Goals (A – E) Need to integrate messages from different indicators

Thank You Questions? Discussion

Provisional list of UK Indicators Goal C

Provisional list of UK Indicators Goals D and E

CBD Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on Indicators COP10 requested the CBD Secretariat to convene an AHTEG to: Identify indicators to measure progress against the Aichi targets Provide a framework for reporting Provide guidance for national indicator development Building from previous indicators / framework Held in the UK in June 2011, together with a supporting International Expert Workshop Will report through SBSTTA 15 to CoP11 in Flexible framework of indicators as basis for 5 th & 6 th National Reports Report and recommendations in SBSTTA 15 papers INF/6, 15/2 and 15/3

AHTEG results 12 Headline Indicators – each covers several sub-topics Operational indicators needed under each headline – may be relevant to more than one headline Three ‘grades’ –A: Priority indicators that are ready for use globally, and, where appropriate, sub-globally (22 indicators) –B: Priority indicators to be developed at global and sub-global levels (51 indicators) –C: Additional indicators for consideration at sub-global level Main development needs for strategic goals –A (mainstreaming) –D (benefits) –E (implementation)

1Indicator framework and conceptual model sufficient 2Parties to apply framework flexibly to implement NBSAPs 3Parties to prioritise a few simple indicators, if limited capacity 4Parties encouraged to establish a national (indicator) facilitator 5Encourage long-term monitoring and Communities of Practice 6Provide technical guidance 7Provide guidance on interpreting Aichi targets 8CBD 5th National Reports – Indicator based 9Encourage national to global data flows 10Circulate AHTEG report widely for review 11Encourage CBD to collaborate with other MEAs 12Keep indicator framework under review 13Review indicator development progress in 2015 AHTEG Recommendations UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/15/INF/6

Choosing Indicators Each indicator should have the following characteristics: Policy relevant and meaningful Biodiversity relevant Scientifically sound and methodologically well founded Show progress towards the 2020 targets Easy to understand Based on affordable monitoring, available and routinely collected data Amenable to modelling of cause-effect relationships Good spatial and temporal coverage of data Applicable at a national scale Aggregation possible at a range of scales Sensitive to change The set as a whole should be: Representative Limited in number

Choosing Indicators (1) 1.Policy relevant and meaningful: Each indicator should be policy relevant. It should send a clear message at a level appropriate for policy and management decision making. It should be meaningful on a regional level. 2.Biodiversity relevant: Each indicator should be relevant for biodiversity. 3.Scientifically sound and methodologically well founded: A clear description of the methodology used should be available as the indicator may be used in other indicator initiatives also. 4.Progress towards target: Each indicator should show progress towards the 2020 targets. 5.Broad acceptance and understandability: Each indicator should be easy to understand and to document.

Choosing Indicators (2) 6.Affordable monitoring, available and routinely collected data: Each indicator should be able to be updated regularly. 7.Affordable modelling: Information on cause-effect relationships should be achievable and quantifiable. 8.Spatial and temporal coverage of data: the data should be consistent in space and cover all or most of [select spatial resolution]. The temporal coverage of data should be as long as possible, and relevant to the timescale for policy making. 9.National scale and representativeness of data: Each indicator should apply to the national and relevant supra-national. 10.Sensitive: Each indicator should be able to detect changes in systems in timeframes and on the scales that are relevant to policy decisions, but also be robust so that measuring errors do not affect their interpretation.