Review of the Defra Biodiversity Research Programme 1995-2008
28 and 29 September 2009 Innovation Centre, Reading VENUE AND HOTEL LOCATION DETAILS
Royal County Hotel
Review Meeting Venue: INNOVATION CENTRE, READING 5th Floor, Northgate House, 21 - 23 Valpy Street, Reading, RG1 1AR, Tel: 0118 955 7800
There are a limited number of parking spaces available at the Innovation Centre. If you need to reserve a car parking space please phone 0118 955 7800 or e-mail [email protected]
If you are traveling by car you may wish to use Reading’s Park & Ride facilities http://www.parkandride.net/reading/reading_frameset.html
Information for other Reading car parks can be found at http://www.city- visitor.com/reading/carparks.html
• Directions from Reading Railway Station (5 minutes walk from Innovation Centre) • Exit the platforms via the main barriers. If you arrive on platforms 5-9, you will need to go over the bridge and down the escalator. The Railair exit is closest to the Centre. • Railair exit (by station M&S) go down the stairs and cross over the Railair pick up and then cross at the traffic lights. Turn left towards roundabout then right into Blagrave Street. Immediately cross over the road towards Aldwych House. Continue up Blagrave Street taking the first left into Valpy Street. The Innovation Centre at North Gate House is the last building on left hand side.
i • Main exit (by station WHSmiths) – If you leave the station here (no stairs), you will exit onto Station Hill. Turn left and skirt the outside of the Station, you will pass the Railair pick up, then see instructions above. • Caversham Exit – Please do not take this exit.
Dinner and overnight accommodation venue: Royal County Hotel, 4-8 Duke Street, Reading, RG1 4RY, Tel: 0118 958 3455
Leave M4 at Junction 10, follow A329 to Reading leaving at last exit “A4 Reading Town Centre”. Stay in right hand lane, passing pub on right, Royal Berkshire Hospital on left. Turn right to town centre just after petrol station on your right. At traffic lights, turn right and stay in left lane. Bear left at next traffic lights, over bridge and filter left at traffic lights. Turn left at next lights [just past Blackwells] opposite Jacksons department store into Duke Street and the Royal County Hotel and Fusion Brasserie is on your right. Car park/set down point is down cobbled road just past hotel entrance.
Limited free on-site parking 5 minute walk to the Innovation Centre
Air: London Heathrow (28.5 miles) Gatwick Airport (57.5 miles)
ii
Biodiversity R&D Programme Review.
Innovation Centre, Reading Monday 28th September 2009
AGENDA Day 1 Time Project Title Contractor Presenter Duration of Presentation (minutes)
10:00 Registration & coffee 10:30 Chairman's welcome and introductions Peter Costigan, 10 Defra 10:40 The Biodiversity research programme: policy Sarah Webster, 10 requirements in the context of other Defra Defra programmes Theme 1: Threats to biodiversity 10:50 Overview & context – threats to biodiversity Helen Pontier, 5 Defra Block 1 0302 Climate change and migratory species. BTO Rob Robinson, 10 Indicator species and protocols for data British Trust for collection Ornithology 0266 Extensions to Accelerates: climate change, University of Oxford TBC 10 impacts and responses in the UK 0308 Modelling natural resource response to English Nature James Paterson, 10 climate change (The Monarch 3 Project) ECI, University of Oxford 0327 and Towards adaptation to climate change CEH Centre for Ecology and 15 (England Biodiversity Strategy) Hydrology 0326 Conservation of biodiversity in a changing climate 0389 Habitat connectivity – the ecological basis Forest Research Kevin Watts 10 for landscape permeability, facilitating Forest Research adaptive response of species to climate
11:50 DISCUSSION 15
Block 2 0289 Nitrogen atmospheric CEH Simon Smart, 10 pollution impacts on biodiversity Centre for Ecology and Hydrology 0295 Potential impacts of future energy policy ADAS Robert Edwards, 10 on UK biodiversity ADAS UK Ltd 0430 Wind turbines: determining the risk to bat University of Bristol Gareth Jones, 10 populations – phase 1 University of Bristol 12:35 DISCUSSION 10
Block 3 0281 Provision of bag statistics for huntable CSL Dave Parrott, 10 birds The Food and Environment Research Agency 0357 Assessment of the level of compliance ADAS Sam Beechener 10 with the Environmental Protection ADAS UK Ltd restriction on the use of lead shot) (England) Regulations 1999 (as amended) 13:05 DISCUSSION 10
13:15 LUNCH 45 Paper review: Threats to biodiversity
0213 Integrated climate change Cranfield University
iii 0223 Climate change UK ADAS 0245 Investigation of the causes of the decline BTO of House Sparrow and Starling in Great Britain 0293 Standard methodology to assess the risk CSL from non-native species considered possible problems to the environment 0371 Do bats avoid radar? University of Aberdeen 0415 Ad hoc technical expert group workshop UNEP-WCMC on climate change and biodiversity 14:00 DISCUSSION OF PAPERS 10
Theme 2: Economics and ecosystems
14:10 Overview and context – economics and ecosystems Helen Pontier 5 0394 Mapping of business tools and Scott Wilson Ltd Liz Clarke 15 and methodologies for managing biodiversity And 0384 Benefits of global biodiversity assets to Steve Smith, UK citizens: a literature review Scott Wilson Ltd 0419 The economics of ecosystems and UNEP-WCMC TBC 10 biodiversity (TEEB) phase 2 part 1. Development of valuation framework 0391 An evaluation of economic and non- Institute of Rural Mike Christie, 10 economic techniques for assessing the Sciences IBERS Aberystwyth importance of biodiversity to people in University developing countries 14:50 DISCUSSION 15
Paper review: Economics and ecosystems 0319 Human health and wellbeing through Forestry Commission countryside recreation 15:05 DISCUSSION OF PAPERS 5
15:10 TEA 20
Theme 3: International biodiversity 15:30 Overview and context: international Mark Stevenson, 5 biodiversity Defra Block 1 0406 A global assessment of 100 questions of Dept of Zoology, Andy Swash, 10 greatest importance to conservation University of Defra policy makers and practitioners Cambridge 0290 Chinese plants for the horticultural trade KEW Noel McGough, 15 0258 and Scientific advice on plant trade policy Royal Botanic Gardens, 0256 CITES capacity building Kew 0340 CITES scientific authority support: trade Fauna & Flora Vin Fleming, 10 in raptors from Guinea International Joint Nature Conservation Committee 0350 Wildbirds trade: impact on livelihoods UNEP-WCMC UNEP 10 and illegal trade 16:20 DISCUSSION 10
Block 2 0345 Imported bushmeat – species Wildlife DNA Services Helen Pontier, 10 identification using DNA profiling Defra 0300 DNA profiling of birds of prey – Wildlife DNA Services fluorescent multiplexing 0202 and Feathers as a source of DNA University of Nottingham 0207 DNA testing using tiger bone Forensic Science Service 16:40 DISCUSSION 5
Block 3 0407 Review of zoos’ contribution and ADAS Sam Beechener, 10 education contribution ADAS UK Ltd 0282 Secretary of State's zoo inspectors' International Zoo Andrew Greenwood, 10 performance Veterinary Group International Zoo Veterinary Group
iv 17:05 DISCUSSION 5
Paper review: international
0209 Wolf dogs International Zoo Veterinary Group 0243 Bushmeat trade in Central and Natural Resources West Africa (bushmeat) Institute 0249 Plant substances as alternatives for University of Middlesex animal products in traditional medicines 0260 An investigation into the trade in TRAFFIC tortoises in Great Britain 0312 The husbandry of elephants in University of Bristol UK zoos
0333 CITES licences – assessment of recent Overseas Development bushmeat research and recommendations to Institute her majesty’s government 0397 CITES licences – an assessment Eftec of the impact 17:10 DISCUSSION OF PAPERS 10
17:20 Instructions for dinner, Day 2
19:30 Conference meal with guest speaker
v
Biodiversity R&D Programme Review. Innovation Centre, Reading Tuesday 29th September 2009
AGENDA Day 2 Time Project Title Contractor Presenter Duration of Presentation (minutes)
08:45 Registration & coffee
09:00 Chairman's introduction Peter Costigan 15 Overview and context – habitats and species Mark Stevenson Theme 4: Habitats and species
Block 1 0150 Barn owls phase 2 BTO Mark Rehfisch, 15 0373 and BTO birds projects British Trust for 0219 AEWA – introduced waterbirds Ornithology n/a Further research on ruddy duck CSL Iain Henderson, 10 The Food and Environment Research Agency 0287 Japanese Knotweed CABI Sean Murphy, 10 CABI 09:50 DISCUSSION 10 Block 2 Paper review: Species
0222 Ruddy duck cull CSL 0237 A review of current wildlife species LGC genetic research: Identification of a priority list of wildlife species in trade, where DNA research would assist law enforcement 0253 Musk deer WWF 0259 Analysis of non-native species legislation Ecoscope 10:00 DISCUSSION OF PAPERS 10
Paper review: Habitats (review is by papers only)
Block 3 0216 Monitoring heathland fires in Dorset Terra 0220 Research into proposed criteria defining ADAS “important” hedgerows 0230 Biodiversity independent evaluation Entec 0261 Sites of local nature conservation Just Ecology importance 0307 Environmental benefits of domestic University of Sheffield gardens 0398 Review of evidence needs for Defra’s Scott Wilson global biodiversity sub-programme 0418 Developing a mechanism for filling JNCC knowledge gaps in UK biodiversity action plans 10:10 OVERVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF PAPERS 20
10:30 COFFEE 20
Theme 5: Countryside Survey
10:50 Overview of Countryside Survey Helen Pontier 5
vi 10:55 195 CS2000 feasibility University of Simon Smart, 15 Nottingham Centre for Ecology and 203 ECN/CS2000 Not recorded Hydrology 210 Countryside survey 2000 NERC 211 CS2000 part 2 – freshwater NERC 212 CS2000 part 3 – LCM2000 NERC 263 CS2000 module 9 local results and pilot CEH indicators 264 CS2000 FOCUS (from CS2000 follow up) CEH module 17 298 Scoping study for countryside survey 2006 ADAS 316 Preparing for CS2006 (2007) NERC phase 1 334 Countryside survey 2007 (prep phase 2) CEH 360 Countryside survey 2007 CEH
11:10 DISCUSSION 10
Theme 6: Indicators and monitoring
11:20 Overview of indicators and monitoring Mark Stevenson, 5 Defra 0251 Native woodland survey English Nature Simon Smart, 15 0236 Non-woodland tree survey Forestry Commission Centre for Ecology and 0273 Native woodland survey phase 2 CEH Hydrology and (biodiversity British woodlands) 0167 Plant atlas NERC 0322 Targeted monitoring of air pollution and CEH Nigel Critchley, 10 and climate change impacts on biodiversity ADAS UK Ltd 0386 Site based monitoring business ADAS development plan (targeted monitoring) 0402 Extending the use of butterfly recording CEH David Roy, 15 and data in the UK Centre for Ecology and 0405 UK biodiversity Indicators – invasive Hydrology non-native species 0388 Habitat connectivity - development of an Forest Research Kevin Watts, 10 indicator for the EBS, UK and CBD Forest Research reporting part 1 0363 Climate change and migratory species - BTO Stuart Newson, 10 indicator species and protocols for data British Trust for collection Ornithology
0374 UK spring indicator Woodland Trust Richard Smithers, 10 Woodland Trust 12:35 DISCUSSION 15
Paper review: Indicators and monitoring
0175 ECOFACT NERC 0186 Bat monitoring Bat Conservation Trust 0241 National Biodiversity Network NBNT 0250 MAGIC FRCA 0270 Global biodiversity information facility JNCC 0276 Biodiversity monitoring Just Ecology 0297 Local authority performance indicators Entec for biodiversity 0299 Enhancement of agriculture and Eurostat environment statistics 0404 UK biodiversity indicators – development SAC Commercial Ltd of an indicator of genetic diversity in selected farm breeds 12:50 DISCUSSION OF PAPERS 10 13:00 LUNCH 40 13:40 Lessons learned from the backward look 20
vii DAY 2 Forward Look 10
14:00 Forward Look introduction 5
14:05 Structured discussion 1hr45
15:50 Sum up 10
16:00 CLOSE
viii CONTENTS Page No. Venue i
Agenda iii
Contents ix
Section 1 Policy requirements document xiv Section 1.1 Purpose of this paper xiv Section 1.2 Objectives of the Review xiv Section 1.3 Background xiv Section 1.4 Non R&D budget xvi Section 1.5 Policy History xvi Section 1.6 Defra’s priorities and objectives xx Section 1.7 Biodiversity policy responsibilities and objectives xxi Section 1.7.1 Policy objective xxi Section 1.7.2 Policy responsibilities xxi Section 1.8 Science and policy objectives of the biodiversity xxi research programme Section 1.8.1 Domestic ROAME xxii Section 1.8.2 International Biodiversity ROAME xxiv Section 1.9 Biodiversity Research Programme xxvi Section 1.10 Funding profile and financial review xxvi Section 1.11 Key questions xxxv
Annex A Summary of key policies, legislation commitments and other xxxvi events that have influenced biodiversity up to 2008
Annex B Summary of expenditure on projects, according to themes, xlviii delivered by the Biodiversity Research Programme 1995 – 2008 lvii Annex C Evidence delivered by the Biodiversity Research Programme towards policy needs identified in the Evidence and Innovation Strategy
Section 2 Future Opportunities for Research (FOR) lix Section 2.1 Purpose of this paper lix Section 2.2 Context for Defra’s Investment Strategy in Research lix Section 2.3 Research Landscape lx Section 2.4 Scope of the Biodiversity R&D Programme lxi Section 2.5 Synthesis of Research needs: Information sources lxi Section 2.6 Outline Questions for guided discussion lxxii
ix Section 2.7 References lxxiv Section 2.8 Further information lxxiv
Section 3 Project Summaries 1 - 252 Project Code Project Title Theme 1: Threats to biodiversity 1 - 52 Theme 1 Table of unavailable summaries 2 0302 Climate change and migratory species. Indicator 3 species and protocols for data collection 0266 Extensions to Accelerates: climate change, 6 impacts and responses in the UK 0308 Modelling natural resource response to climate 9 change (The Monarch 3 Project) 0327 Towards adaptation to climate change (England 12 Biodiversity Strategy) 0326 Conservation of biodiversity in a changing climate 14 0389 Habitat connectivity – the ecological basis for 17 landscape permeability, facilitating adaptive response of species to climate 0289 Nitrogen atmospheric pollution impacts on 20 biodiversity 0295 Potential impacts of future energy policy on UK 23 biodiversity 0430 Wind turbines: determining the risk to bat 26 populations – phase 1 0281 Provision of bag statistics for huntable birds 29 0357 Assessment of the level of compliance with the 32 Environmental Protection (restriction on the use of lead shot) (England) Regulations 1999 (as amended) Theme 1 Paper review 0213 Integrated climate change 35
0223 Climate change UK 39 0245 Investigation of the causes of the decline of 42 House Sparrow and Starling in Great Britain 0293 Standard methodology to assess the risk from 45 non-native species considered possible problems to the environment 0371 Do bats avoid radar? 48 0415 Ad hoc technical expert group workshop on 50 climate change and biodiversity
x Theme 2: Economics and ecosystems 53 - 69 Theme 2 Table of unavailable summaries 54 0394 Mapping of business tools and methodologies for 55 managing biodiversity 0384 Benefits of global diversity assets to UK citizens: a 59 literature review 0419 The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity 62 (TEEB) phase 2 part 1. Development of valuation framework 0391 An evaluation of economic and non-economic 65 techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity to people in developing countries Theme 2 Paper review 0319 Human health and wellbeing through countryside 69 recreation Theme 3: International Biodiversity 71 -119 Theme 3 Table of unavailable summaries 72 0406 A global assessment of 100 questions of greatest 73 importance to conservation policy makers and practitioners 0290 Chinese plants for the horticultural trade 77 0258 Scientific advice on plant trade policy 80 0256 CITES capacity building 82 0340 CITES scientific authority support: trade in raptors 85 from Guinea 0345 Imported bushmeat – species identification using 88 DNA profiling 0300 DNA profiling of birds of prey – fluorescent 89 multiplexing 0202 Feathers as a source of DNA 91 0207 DNA testing using tiger bone 92 0407 Review of zoos’ contribution and education 94 contribution 0282 Secretary of States’s zoo inspectors’ performance 96 Theme 3 Paper review 0209 Wolf dogs 99 0243 Bushmeat trade in central and west Africa 102 (bushmeat) 0249 Plant substances as alternatives for animal 105 products in traditional medicines
xi 0260 An investigation into the trade in tortoises in Great 108 Britain 0312 The husbandry of elephants in UK zoos 111 0333 CITES licences – assessment of recent bushmeat 114 research and recommendations to her majesty’s government 0397 CITES licences – an assessment of the impact 117 Theme 4: Habitats & Species 121 - 171 Theme 4 Table of unavailable summaries 122 0150 Barn owls phase 2 124 0373 BTO birds projects 127 0219 AEWA – introduced waterbirds 130 n/a Further research on ruddy duck 134 0287 Japanese knotweed 137 Theme 4: Paper review 0222 Ruddy duck cull 140 0237 Review of current wildlife species genetic 143 research 0253 Musk deer 146 0259 Analysis of non-native species legislation 149 0216 Monitoring heathland fires in Dorset 152 0220 Research into proposed criteria defining 155 “important” hedgerows 0230 Biodiversity independent evaluation 158 0261 Sites of local nature conservation importance 161 0307 Environmental benefits of domestic gardens 163 0398 Review of evidence needs for Defra’s global 166 biodiversity sub-programme 0418 Developing a mechanism for filling knowledge 169 gaps in UK biodiversity action plans Theme 5: Countryside Survey 173 - 200 Theme 5 Table of unavailable summaries 174 203 ECN/CS2000 175 210 Countryside survey 2000 178 211 CS2000 part 2 – freshwater 181 212 CS2000 part 3 – LCM2000 184 264 CS2000 FOCUS (from CS2000 follow up) module 187 17 298 Scoping study for countryside survey 2006 190
xii 316 Preparing for CS2006 (2007) phase 1 193 334 Countryside survey 2007 (prep phase 2) 195 360 Countryside survey main field work 2007 198 Theme 6: Indicators and monitoring 201 - 255 Theme 6 Table of unavailable summaries 202 0251 Native woodland survey 203 0167 Plant atlas 206 0322 Targeted monitoring of air pollution and climate 209 change impacts on biodiversity 0386 Site based monitoring business development plan 213 (targeted monitoring) 0402/0304 Extended use of butterfly recording data in the UK 216 0405 UK biodiversity indicators – invasive non - native 219 species 0388 Habitat connectivity – development of an indicator 222 for the EBS, UK and CBD reporting part 1 0363 Climate change and migratory species – indicator 225 species and protocols for data collection 0374 UK spring indicator 228 Theme 6 Paper review 0175 ECOFACT 231 0186 Bat monitoring 234 0241 National Biodiversity Network 237 0250 MAGIC 239 0270 Global biodiversity information facility 243 0276 Biodiversity monitoring 244 0297 Local authority performance indicators for 247 biodiversity 0299 Enhancement of agriculture and environment 250 statistics 0404 UK biodiversity indicators – development of an 253 indicator of genetic diversity in selected farm breeds
xiii Policy Requirements Document for the Review of Defra’s Biodiversity Research Programme 1995 – 2008
1.1 Purpose of this paper This paper aims to provide an overview of the key policy issues to which the Defra Biodiversity Research Programme has contributed since 1995. Its purpose is to provide the policy background to help reviewers assess completed projects against evidence requirements. The last review of the Biodiversity Research Programme was undertaken in 1995 and this current review covers only the biodiversity projects, which were completed in the period since then up to 2008. With the exception of Countryside Survey, it does not cover projects completed or due to be completed after 2008 (that may have started in earlier years) because final reports were not available for the review, and it does not cover marine or landscape projects that were funded from the Biodiversity Research Programme Budget, amounting to between £600,000 and £800,000 a year. During this 14 year period, 145 biodiversity projects have been completed and project summaries are provided in Section 3.
1.2 Objectives of the Review The objectives of the review are:
• To review and evaluate the research and development projects delivered under the Biodiversity Research Programme against the evidence requirements for policy and other key questions given in Section 1.11
• To identify the key research opportunities or requirements for the future, guided by the review of completed projects and the Future Opportunities for Research document that is provided in Section 2.
• To determine our requirements for primary research to inform the policy cycle and help us to maintain our focus on delivering policy outcomes. • To report the results of completed research projects and provide guidance on the development of a Biodiversity Research Strategy for Defra.
1.3 Background Defra is committed to using quality scientific evidence to underpin and inform strategy, policy, and regulatory work and to mitigate risk.
Defra has identified the activities required to develop and provide a robust evidence base from which to develop policy options; recognising that there are both long and short-term pressures to which policy makers need to respond and for which different types of research may be required (Figure 1).
xiv
Figure 1: Processes to develop an evidence base for policy options; source: Defra website / Evidence & Innovation Strategy, 2005-08
In addition to the Biodiversity Research Programme there are a number of other Defra research programmes which have a biodiversity component or may be relevant to biodiversity (Table 1).
Table 1. Defra R&D programmes which have some relevance to biodiversity
Defra R&D Programme Biodiversity relevant research Biodiversity Current programme under Review Wildlife Management Aspects of control of populations of wild animals Marine Marine biodiversity Sustainable Farming Systems and Aspects of biodiversity as affected by farming Biodiversity practice Environmental Stewardship Evidence to support of the ES Scheme, including practical aspects which affect biodiversity Soils Soil biodiversity Air Quality Some aspects of air quality impacts on biodiversity Water Quality Some aspects of impacts of water quality on biodiversity Ecosystem Approach and Natural Development of the Ecosystem Approach including Environment Economics development and use of improved understanding of the value of biodiversity Climate Change Adaptation Assessing risks of climate change impacts in accordance with the Climate Change Act Flood Management Some aspects of the impact of flood and coastal erosion risk management activities on biodiversity
xv 1.4 Non R&D Budget The Biodiversity Evidence Non R&D budget supports evidence activities that do not meet the definition of R&D set out in the Frascati manual1.
'Research and experimental development (R&D) comprises creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications'.
The Non-R&D budget is therefore used to fund the following evidence activities:
• Routine or ongoing monitoring that is not addressing a specific research question; • Mapping or inventory work; • The collation of existing data (for example through the National Biodiversity Network); or • The provision of scientific advice (for example on trade in endangered species).
This Non R&D budget is not included in the current Review.
1.5 Policy History There have been significant developments in biodiversity policy and science over the period of this review and these have been reflected in the evidence needs within Defra and therefore the research priorities of the Biodiversity Research Programme.
The key policy developments are illustrated in the time-line which is shown in Annex A. Perhaps the most influential development was agreement to the International Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which was signed in Rio in 1992. This led to the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) in 1994, which has subsequently been translated into Country biodiversity strategies including the England Biodiversity Strategy after devolution in 1998, and contributed to the development of the Sustainable Development Strategy. The England Biodiversity Strategy (Working with the Grain of Nature) was published in 2002. The Biodiversity Action Plan includes targets and actions for priority species and habitats. The approach to conserving biodiversity in the UK depends upon partnership – partnerships involving statutory, voluntary, scientific and business sectors – to deliver more biodiversity, for its own intrinsic value, for the vital life-support services it provides, and because it enriches the lives of people. Over the last decade overarching international and European biodiversity targets have provided a new focus to our work. At the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, the international community agreed to achieve a significant reduction in the loss of biodiversity by 2010, whilst in 2001 in Gothenburg, EU Heads of Government agreed the target to halt biodiversity loss across Europe by 2010. Work at the international level, such as the Millennium Ecosystems Assessment in 2006, has also developed our understanding of the importance of biodiversity. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment placed an emphasis on biodiversity, its role in ecosystems and the delivery of ecosystem goods and services and the contribution to human wellbeing, and led to Defra developing its Ecosystem Approach Action Plan. The current international study on ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity’ (TEEB) will improve understanding about the value of the natural environment.
Our framework for conserving biodiversity in the UK has always been influenced by International and European factors. EU Directives (such as the Birds and Habitats Directives), and international conventions (such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Convention in International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)) provide
1 http://www.oecd.org/document/6/0,3343,en_2649_34451_33828550_1_1_1_1,00.html
xvi the backdrop to our domestic biodiversity work. Defra has a role in shaping and delivering international agreements.
Key domestic biodiversity legislative changes post 1995 include the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which refined conservation initiatives started in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), placing a duty on the Secretary of State and Defra to carry out functions with regard to conserving biodiversity and strengthened the protection provided to Sites of Special Scientific Interest. In addition, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) placed a duty on all local authorities and other public authorities in England and Wales to promote and enhance biodiversity in all of their functions, strengthened wildlife protection measures (including to address the threats from invasive non native species), and made some minor changes to the SSSI legislative regime.
Working with the Grain of Nature contained an essay on the issue of invasive non-native species and anticipated the report of a wide-ranging policy review of the subject. The report was delivered in 2003, and in 2004 a GB Forum was established to instigate dialogue. In 2005 the government established the GB Non-native Species Programme Board, followed in 2006 by a supporting GB Non-native Species Secretariat and the launch of the Invasive Non-native Species Framework Strategy for Great Britain in 20082.
Working with the Grain of Nature: Taking it Forward, Volume 1 (2007) included the establishment of the England Biodiversity Climate Change Workstream, and set particular targets and a work programme covering 2006-2010, including improving our evidence base and understanding of impacts and projected impacts of climate change on biodiversity and ecosystems.
There has also been an increasing need to understand and manage the impacts of climate change stimulated by reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the publication of the Stern Report on the economics of climate change in 2006. This latter report emphasised the economic costs of impacts on biodiversity and associated effects on delivery of goods and services and the importance of tackling climate change and taking a different approach to conservation. It stated: “For those species that can move rapidly in line with the changing climate, finding new food and suitable living conditions could prove challenging. Climate change will require nature conservation efforts to extend out from the current approach of fixed protected areas. Conservation efforts will increasingly be required to operate at the landscape scale with larger contiguous tracts of land that can better accommodate species movement.”
Biodiversity policies and priorities are also reflected in government commitments such as Public Service Agreements (PSA). Of particular relevance to the biodiversity policies are the current Natural Environment PSA (PSA 28-‘to deliver a healthy natural environment for today and the future’), as well as earlier PSAs such as those on Farmland Birds (to reverse the long term decline in the number of farmland birds by 2020) and Sites of Special Scientific Interests (to achieve 95% of SSSI area in favourable or recovering condition by December 2010). Defra is the lead partner for PSA 28. Five key indicators will assess progress in meeting this PSA, including data on wild bird populations in England as a proxy for the health of wider biodiversity.
The developments illustrated on the time-line in Table 2 reflect the shift in political importance attributed to biodiversity and an improved understanding of the benefits it brings – including ecosystem services and human wellbeing. Changes in the evidence requirements to support changes in priorities are reflected in the changes in the Biodiversity Research Programme, both in the types of projects commissioned and in the funding profile. The Biodiversity Research Programme aims to support the evidence requirements of Defra’s Biodiversity Programme. Some 145 biodiversity projects (excluding marine) were
2 see http://www.nonnativespecies.org/
xvii delivered between 1995 and 2008, and while the Programme did not start out with themed research topics, instead being largely responsive to the need to address emerging evidence requirements, the project summaries have been grouped under the following six themes for the purposes of this review:
1. Threats to Biodiversity 2. Economics & Ecosystems 3. International Biodiversity 4. Habitats and Species 5. Countryside Survey 6. Indicators and Monitoring 3
The changes over time in the funding profile for projects delivered under each of these themes are illustrated in Figures 2-4 in Section 1.10. This reflects a shift from research involving audit and accounting for biodiversity (habitats and species), towards identification of threats and ways to deal with them, and more proactive management to deal with future threats.
The key considerations for the review of completed projects are given in Section 1.11, and those for consideration of the future research requirements are given in Section 2.
3 The R&D programme does not fund data collection as part of ongoing monitoring, but does fund the development and testing of new protocols and the novel analysis of monitoring data.
xviii Table 2. Time line showing legislation / international agreements / government targets or other publications or events (greyed cells) that influenced policy needs for evidence during the period of the review, 1995-2008. Date Policy items Other events that influenced policy
1971 Ramsar 1973 CITES. 1976 Man and Biosphere 1976 Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1979 Birds, 79/049 EEC 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
Pre Review 1981 Zoos Act 1981 1985 Bonn 1990 IPCC 1st report 1991 Countryside Stewardship 1992 CBD 1994 92/42 EEC (Habitats Directive) 1994 UK BAP 1994 Eurobats
1995 IPCC 2nd report
1995 African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement 1997 UKCIP starts (scenarios published 2002) 1997 Bern 1997 The COTES Regulations 1997 (COTES) 1997 EC Regulations (338/97 and 1808/01) 1998 devolution 1998 England Forestry Strategy
Period of the Review 1999 Zoos Directive 2000 Water Framework Directive (WFD), 2000/60 EC
2000 CROW-Act 2000 2000 England Rural Development Strategy (ERDP)
2000 Climate Change Programme (revised in 2000) 2001 Defra created 2001 IPCC 3rd report 2001 Heads of European Government at the European Summit in Gothenburg agreement to halt the decline of biodiversity across Europe by 2010 2001 Global Biodiversity Information Facility, starts
2001 Defra Objectives set
2002 UKCIP02 climate projections published 2002 Environment Research Funders Forum (ERFF) 2002 Working with the Grain of Nature: a biodiversity strategy for England 2005 Environmental Stewardship 2005 UK Government Strategy for Sustainable Development Securing the Future. 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2006 Climate Change Programme
2006 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) 2006 Local Sites Guidance 2006 Defra Strategy Refresh 2006 Stern Report 2006 Climate Change Programme (revised)
xix 2007 Working with the Grain of Nature-taking it forward: Volume 1 progress 2002-2006 2007 Working with the Grain of Nature-taking it forward Volume 2-indicators 2007 England Forestry Strategy 2007 Ecosystem Approach 2007 IPCC 4th report
2008 GB Invasive Non-native Species Strategy 2008 Climate Change Act 2008 PSA 27 Climate Change 2008 PSA 28 Natural Environment 2008 Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) created 2008 The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB)-First phase interim report 2009 Biodiversity Core Policy aims
2009 UKCIP probabilistic climate projections published 2009 Defra Departmental Objectives
2009 Defra Objectives set 2010 Wildlife Management Strategy 2010 PSA SSSI target date 2010 Wildlife Management Strategy (in progress) Post Review 2010 Gothenburg: to halt loss of biodiversity across Europe target date 2014 IPCC 5th report due 2015 WFD Good ecological status of FW target date 2020 PSA Farmland Bird target date
1.6 Defra’s Priorities and Objectives Defra was created from a merger of the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) in 2001 with the purpose of securing a healthy environment in which we and future generations can prosper.
Defra’s current priorities are to:
1. secure a healthy natural environment for us all and deal with environmental risks; 2. promote a sustainable, low-carbon and resource-efficient economy; and 3. ensure a thriving farming sector and a sustainable, healthy and secure food supply.
The first of these priorities is most relevant to this review. Defra also has Departmental Strategic Objectives (DSO). The DSOs most relevant to this review are listed below:
DSO 1: Adapting to climate change A society that is adapting to the effects of climate change, through a national programme of action and a contribution to international action. The national programme of action on adaptation in England is being taken forward by the Adapting to Climate Change Programme. This is a cross-government programme led by Defra. This DSO shapes the delivery of all of our priorities as well as the delivery of cross-government objectives.
xx DSO 2: A healthy natural environment To protect and enhance the natural environment, and to encourage its sustainable use within environmental limits. Defra works to protect and enhance the natural environment and to encourage its sustainable use within environmental limits. We aim to ensure that the air we breathe and the water we drink are clean, that the management of land, fresh water and the seas is sustainably productive, that our landscapes and biodiversity are protected, and that people understand, enjoy and care for the natural environment.
1.7 Biodiversity Policy Responsibilities and Objective
1.7.1 Policy Objective The principal objective of Defra’s biodiversity policy is for biodiversity to be valued, protected and enhanced.
1.7.2 Policy Responsibilities As indicated previously, the key purpose of the Biodiversity Research Programme is to support the evidence requirements of the Biodiversity Programme4. The work areas within the Biodiversity Programme are: • Protected Areas (international and national) • Embedding Biodiversity in Policy and Decision Making • Priority Habitats and Species • Farmland Birds • International Biodiversity • Invasive Non Native Species • Wildlife Protection and Management (including species conservation, wildlife crime, zoos) • Climate Change and Biodiversity • Wildlife Management Strategy • Enthusing People
A summary of key policies, legislation, commitments and events relevant to biodiversity is given in Annex A to accompany the chronological order shown in Table 2.
1.8 Science and Policy Objectives of the Biodiversity Research Programme
ROAME stands for Rationale, Objectives, Appraisal, Monitoring, and Evaluation. ROAME is a process that requires a clear and succinct statement of the commissioning organisation’s rationale for funding research in the ROAME statement. The Biodiversity Research Programme only accommodates projects that fit within ROAME statements. There are two ROAME statements for the Biodiversity Programme, one to service domestic needs and the other to service international policy needs, each states both policy and scientific objectives.
Detailed expenditure on projects under themes each year is given in Annex B, but summary graphs are presented in Section 1.10, with short summary text explaining peak expenditures and policy relevance under each theme.
4 The Biodiversity Programme, established at the beginning of 2008, is largely composed of the activities of two previous Defra’s policy areas: Wildlife and Species Conservation (WSC) and Wildlife Habitats and Biodiversity (WHB). Prior to 2006, the work undertaken by WSC and WHB was undertaken by European Wildlife Division which was responsible for policy relating to UK and European wildlife legislation, and Global Wildlife Division which was responsible for policy relating to international wildlife agreements. xxi 1.8.1 Domestic ROAME Domestic ROAME statement written 19/04/08 (for review in 2009): The Domestic Biodiversity Assessment Unit provides evidence to underpin policy development within Defra’s Biodiversity Programme.
Domestic Policy Objectives
1. Site protection and biodiversity policy: • the best wildlife sites (SSSIs, EU sites) protected and managed effectively
• priority species and habitats conserved and enhanced, increasingly through emphasis on habitat restoration and re-creation at a landscape scale, as part of the shift to an ecosystems approach
• climate change adaptation integrated into site, species and habitat management
• biodiversity embedded in all sectors of policy and decision making
• a consistent and transparent approach to wildlife management
• the public enthused, and volunteering in increasing numbers
• a fit-for-purpose evidence base to record progress and plan future action
• conserve and enhance natural ecosystems and biodiversity
• implement measures as required by Natural Environment PSA and Departmental Intermediate Objectives on biodiversity
• 95% of SSSI area in target condition by 2010
• action taken to deliver the WSSD target of reducing the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010, and the Gothenburg target of halting it within Europe by the same date
• improve our understanding of climate change and how to implement adaptation policies to allow biodiversity to adapt over the next 20-50 years
• update the UK Biodiversity Action Plan and England Biodiversity Strategy and in particular, improve our ability to report on status and trends in biodiversity and to make best use of the existing data and information for policy development and appraisal, by March 2010
2. Species protection and non-native species policy • implement the wildlife protection provisions of relevant European Union Directives, plus other relevant international agreements and conventions, by means of domestic legislation for the protection of species
• to sustainably manage wildlife populations while resolving conflicts with humans and limiting the spread of non-native species:
• identify and implement strategies for the identification, interception and management of invasive non-native species.
• develop higher standards in zoos
3. Protection of wildlife from crime and illegal international trade
• enforce the regulation of trade in endangered species and implement measures to prevent wildlife crime
xxii
Domestic Science Objectives 1. Site protection and biodiversity policy in the UK • to undertake analysis of Countryside Survey results during 2008 to provide an updated evidence base for the natural resource protection programme on the status, condition and long-term trends in broad habitats, landscape features, soil and freshwaters and report results in stages from 2008 to 2010.
• to undertake studies which improve the knowledge of the current status and trends, autecology and taxonomy of BAP species where this knowledge is lacking and is necessary to enable progress towards the targets of Biodiversity Action Plan by 2010.
• to develop and implement a scientifically robust, cost-effective site-based monitoring network by 2008 which will enable the assessment of the impact of atmospheric pollution and climate change on UK biodiversity to inform activities aimed at improving condition of SSSIs and adaptation to climate change.
• to commission studies to improve our understanding of the effects of climate change on biodiversity, the implication for nature conservation policy, and effectiveness of adaptation options by 2009 in order that mitigation and adaptation strategies can be planned on the best available evidence.
• to improve our understanding of the role of biodiversity in ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem goods and services, and the implications for nature conservation policy, by 2010, in particular through a funding contribution to the Biodiversa European Research Area Network.
• to develop new indicators as agreed by the UK Biodiversity Partnership Standing Committee to assist in measuring progress towards the EU target of ‘halting biodiversity loss by 2010’ and to provide improvements for existing UK and EBS indicators where necessary by 2009.
2. Species protection and non-native species policy • to support the Department’s wildlife legislative and regulatory functions by ensuring that decisions are evidence based and in particular to review and assess the level of compliance with the Restriction of the use of lead shot regulation in England to provide an evidence base for an action plan to target areas or sectors where compliance is low (and evaluate whether existing hunting bag data schemes can be developed as tools for monitoring the UK harvest of birds).
• to build the evidence base on trade in wild birds, including an assessment of how important wild bird trade is to the livelihoods of local people, the impact of trade on conservation status of raptors, and the impacts of a ban on wild bird trade on illegal trade to enable the department to make objective decisions on wild bird trade.
• to ensure surveillance and reporting of non-native invasive species is sufficient to assess the risks to favourable conservation status for UK BAP priority habitats.
3. Protection of wildlife from crime and illegal international trade • to develop improved forensic methods for detecting wildlife crime and regulating the use of endangered species held in captivity and in particular to develop genetic techniques for the forensic identification of birds of prey held in captivity and CITES- listed basking shark, bushmeat, and timber and wood products by 2008.
• to review UK zoos’ contribution to conservation and education.
xxiii 1.8.2 International Biodiversity ROAME International ROAME statement written 09/04/08 (for review in 2012)
International Policy Objectives
1. Identifying patterns of biodiversity change • to influence global initiatives to analyse and explain patterns of biodiversity loss, so as to identify key areas for policy action and further research.
2. Identifying the drivers of biodiversity loss • increase understanding of drivers of biodiversity loss; and of how these will change in the future, as well as the effectiveness of policy responses in order to make decisions on the balance of efforts on biodiversity Conventions and on investments in biodiversity.
3. Biodiversity and ecosystem services • to communicate with more impact the magnitude of the threat to biodiversity, and hence the impacts on society by providing better evidence, and promoting wider understanding of, the implications of biodiversity loss for human society, and in particular to:
o ensure that biodiversity is given due consideration in the development aid process, recognising the important role of biodiversity in the achievement of the MDGs;
o influence business to minimise and mitigate impacts on global biodiversity and encourage sustainable trade by UK business; explore possibilities for further engagement with the business sector for integrating biodiversity into their business plans by COP 9;
o promote integration of biodiversity concerns into sustainable consumption and production schemes and projects; and ensure biodiversity concerns are reflected in the development of services to provide consumers with information on sustainable choices;
o emphasise the link between biodiversity and ecosystem services and on to human welfare.
4. Biodiversity and human conflicts • work to secure sustainable trade in species, for the benefit of human livelihood and underpinned by effective scientific monitoring, adaptive management and capacity building.
5. Biodiversity and climate change • achieve and promote a better understanding of the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and of the role of biodiversity in mitigating climate change effects, and identify appropriate means for the integration of biodiversity considerations into climate change policies.
xxiv 6. New and emerging issues and horizon scanning • the Assessment Unit will retain flexibility to address new and emerging science issues relevant to the policy and science objectives and it will actively ‘horizon scan’ to ensure that these new areas are identified promptly.
International Science Objectives
Specific scientific objectives will be developed (with the specifications for individual projects) within a framework for research contributing to the following areas:
1. Identifying patterns of biodiversity change • the early identification of new areas of high biodiversity loss;
• improved modelling and scenarios of biodiversity loss, including where most biodiversity loss is likely to happen geographically;
• a better focus for the work of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) on provision of information on global biodiversity change.
2. Drivers of biodiversity loss • improved identification of drivers of biodiversity loss, and on how these are likely to change in the future;
• information, from experience in their application, of tools for addressing drivers of biodiversity loss and under what scenarios to apply them;
• information on the impacts of HMG international (non biodiversity) policy on biodiversity.
3. Biodiversity and ecosystem services • to understand the application of valuation methodologies in developing countries and the use of valuation in decision making;
• to understand the development of tools to capture values and how these have been applied to achieve environmental and developmental goals;
• methodologies and approaches for ‘scale up’ of successful initiatives;
• improved understanding of ecosystem functioning including its contribution to meeting societal needs;
• improved understanding of the benefits to UK citizens from global biodiversity and to explore suitable methodologies for valuing these benefits.
4. Biodiversity / human conflicts • improved understanding of human-wildlife conflicts including from analysis of how these have been addressed at local level, and how successful approaches can be scaled up;
• improved information to inform sustainable trade in species, including on impacts of trade on biodiversity and on human livelihoods.
5. Biodiversity and climate change • improved understanding of the impacts of climate change on biodiversity;
• improved understanding of the role of biodiversity in mitigating climate change effects. xxv 6. New and emerging issues The Assessment Unit will retain flexibility to address new and emerging science issues relevant to the policy and science objectives. It will undertake an early review of evidence needs and gaps for International Biodiversity Policy and will actively ‘horizon scan’ to ensure that these new areas are identified promptly.
1.9 Biodiversity Research Programme Defra’s Evidence and Innovation Strategy (2005-2008) identified strategic needs and where these had been met by research delivered. It also identified outstanding gaps against those needs. The research delivered against strategic needs is summarised and presented according to the themes used in this review and is given in Annex C. The gaps are reproduced in the Future Opportunities for Research document in Section 2.
The Defra Science handbook sets out the formal processes for research procurement.
Each year in August or September, the Biodiversity Evidence (R&D and Non R&D) programme manager writes to Deputy Directors and Team leaders in the relevant policy teams, asking them to identify strategic evidence needs or specific project proposals for the forthcoming financial year. At the same time the Science Team engages directly with policy colleagues to draft project proposals in support of their strategic evidence needs. These draft project proposals are sent out for consultation to other biodiversity research funders both within and outside Defra, to ensure no duplication of research funding and to identify opportunities for collaboration. A separate meeting is held with NERC Swindon, because they are the largest biodiversity research funder in the UK.
All project proposals, together with consultee comments are tabled at a Research Priorities Group (RPG) meeting, usually held in December of each year. The RPG is chaired by Defra’s Head of Natural Environment Science and has representatives from the policy and science teams within the Biodiversity Programme. Representatives of the Welsh Assembly Government, Scottish Government, Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Natural England are also invited to comment on research priorities. The RPG assigns a priority to each proposal on a scale of 1-5:
Where the project is essential for policy development Essential because there is a gap in the evidence base and where commitment (1) there is a manifesto or other public Ministerial commitment. Where the project is essential for policy development Essential (no because there is a gap in the evidence base but where Priority commitment) (2) there is not a manifesto or other Ministerial commitment. Where the project is highly desirable for policy Highly desirable development and would significantly enhance the degree (3) of confidence in the evidence base. Desirable to refine the evidence base when resources Desirable (4) permit. Rejected (5) Not suitable for Defra funding.
Projects with the highest priority rating are then added to the programme, as funding allows. Once projects are accepted into the programme, they are assigned a Project Officer (PO) from the science team or from the relevant policy team. Projects with a policy team PO are assigned a liaison officer from the Science Team. The Project Officer then develops and lets the projects in accordance with standard Defra procedures set out in the Science Handbook.
1.10 Funding Profile and Financial Review The funding profile of the Biodiversity Research Programme is illustrated in several graphs, but given in detail according to theme in Annex B. xxvi
Figure 2 shows the profile over the time period 1995-2008 of the Defra Biodiversity Research Programme expenditure according to six themes: Threats to Biodiversity, Economics & Ecosystems, International Biodiversity, Habitats & Species, Countryside Survey and Indicators & Monitoring. The Countryside Survey theme, involves a unique project that serves many different policy areas in addition to biodiversity.
Figure 3 shows the total contributions from the Biodiversity Research Programme budget to each theme. Figure 4 shows the total contributions from partners to each theme. The number of projects under each theme is summarised in Table 3. The changes in expenditure across the time period 1995-2008, under each theme, can be related to key policy events in the time line (Table 2) and are summarised briefly in the following text.
Figure 2 Biodiversity Research Programme expenditure on research projects by theme over time* (not including marine or landscape projects) Defra expenditure on projects by theme 1,800,000
1,600,000
1,400,000 Countryside 1,200,000 Survey International
1,000,000 Economics & ecosystems Species & habitats 800,000 Indicators & monitoring 600,000 Threats to
Expenditure, Expenditure, £ Biodiversity
400,000
200,000
0 96_97 97_98 98_99 99_00 00_01 01_02 02_03 03_04 04_05 05_06 06_07 07_08 08_09 Year *Note that the total budget of the Biodiversity Research Programme included expenditure on marine and landscape projects, which are not included in this Review. In some years the marine and landscape projects amounted to £600,000-£800,000; this accounts for much of the year to year variation in the overall level of funding for biodiversity research, especially between 2002 and 2007.
xxvii Figure 3 Total expenditure for the Biodiversity Research Programme projects, 1995-2008 by theme (not including marine or landscape projects) Defra expenditure by theme 6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000 Expenditure, Expenditure, £ 2,000,000
1,000,000
0 1 International Economics & ecostystems Habitats and Species Indicators and monitoring Threats to Biodiversity Countryside Survey Theme
Figure 4 Total contributions from our partners to the Biodiversity Research Programme projects, 1995-2008 by theme (not including marine or landscape projects) Collaboration expenditure by theme
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000 Expenditure, Expenditure, £
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
International Economics & ecostystems Habitats and Species Indicators and monitoring Threats to Biodiversity Countryside Survey
Theme
The total contribution from partners to Countryside Survey over 1995-2008 period was approximately £10.2m, while the total expenditure from the Defra Biodiversity Budget was £5.9m (see Annex B for tables of expenditure under the Countryside Survey theme for details)
Table 3 Numbers of projects under each theme in the Biodiversity Research Programme 1995- 2008 Theme N Threats to biodiversity 33 Economics & ecosystems 13 International biodiversity 20 Habitats & species 42 Countryside Survey 14 Indicators & monitoring 23 Total 145
xxviii 1. Threats to Biodiversity (33 projects)
Figure 2 shows peaks in expenditure from the Biodiversity Research Programme under the threats to biodiversity theme during 1996/7, 199/00, 2001/02,and 2004/05, but some expenditure on this theme between 1999 and 2008. The Biodiversity Research Programme contributed a total of £1,631,875 to the theme, while partners contributed total of £1,582,508 (mainly toward two climate change prediction projects: Accelerates and Monarch 3) during this time (Figures 3 and 4). Monarch 3 was a project which modelled potential effects of climate change in the future on a range of species, and it cost the Biodiversity Research programme £19,999 with a contribution of £312,000 from partners between 2005 and 2007.
The peak in 01/02 was due to 2 projects: Starling and Sparrow Decline that continued into the next year and cost a total £174,347 and the New Plant Atlas: The Changing Flora of the UK (covering 1987-1999) that went on until 2004 and cost a total of £28,783 with a contribution from partners of £37,610.
The period 2002-2005 includes the costs for Climate Change, Land Use and Biodiversity (Accelerates), which cost a total of £43,676, but it involved some EU coverage and had contributions from partners of £1,100,000.
The peak in 1999/01 was mainly due to two climate change projects: Integrated Climate Change and Climate Change UK, which cost £59,874 and £85,515 respectively, as well as a small project to examine drivers of countryside change.
The peak in 2004/05 was also mainly due to two climate change projects: completion of Accelerates, and Climate Change and Migratory species, which cost £60,122 and one project called Standard Methodology to assess the risk to species.
These projects can be related to evidence needs for the UK BAP published in 1994, the Gothenberg commitment in 2001 to halt the decline of biodiversity by 2010, and recognition of the threat to biodiversity posed by climate change, possibly also related to the first IPCC report in 1995.
Climate change projects during the period included Monarch (2005-07) which had partnership funding of £312,000, Towards Adaptation to Climate Change (in 2005/06), Conservation of Biodiversity in a Changing Climate (2005/6) and the climate change workshop in 2008/9. The project: Habitat Connectivity - the ecological basis for landscape permeability, facilitating adaptive response of species to climate change in 2007/8 had partnership contributions of funding of £43,000.
These projects demonstrate the increasing need and activities to address the threat to biodiversity from climate change, which was identified as a major threat to biodiversity in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005, the 4th IPCC report in 2006 and in the first reporting round of the England Biodiversity Strategy, Working with the Grain of Nature- taking it Forward Volume 1, covering 2002-2006, and published in 2007. In addition, the Potential Impacts of Future Energy Policy on UK Biodiversity project over 2003-2006 was managed by the Biodiversity Research Programme’s science team, but funded entirely by partners (£49,000) demonstrates the need to understand relationships between policies for biodiversity and emerging policies for energy that sought to mitigate climate change (Climate Change Programme, 2006, as updated from 2000)
Other projects under the threats to biodiversity theme during the review period included Nitrogen Atmospheric Pollution Impacts on Biodiversity developed between 2003 and 2005, which modelled the potential effect of nitrogen deposition on Priority Habitats, partly as a result of evidence of eutrophication from Countryside Survey results for 1998 that reported in 2000. The project explored implications on i) the Public Service Agreement target for achieving favourable condition on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs); and ii) Biodiversity Action Plan targets for priority habitats and species and related indicators of biodiversity. xxix
There were two projects on bats, one related to the Eurobats agreement in 1994, and one addressing the effects of energy policy and biodiversity.
Several projects on lead shot (1996-2000 costing £20,844 and 2006/7 costing £20,000) were undertaken to review and assess the level of compliance, and hence the effectiveness, of the Environmental Protection (Restriction of the Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999 (as amended). The hunting bag statistics (2003/4) cost £22,270 and was undertaken to help inform policy to ensure that the practice of hunting complies with the principles of wise use and ecologically balanced control of the species of birds concerned as part of the United Kingdom’s (UK) government’s obligations under the European Birds Directive (Council Directive 79/409/EEC).
The projects under the threats to biodiversity theme inform a wide range of policies as well as those related directly to biodiversity.
2. Economics & Ecosystems (13 projects)
The projects categorised under the economics and ecosystems theme in 1996/7 through to 1998 were mainly concerned with land use, agriculture and CAP reform. More ecosystem focussed projects started after 1998/99 with a biosphere reserves project, which is related to our involvement in The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). Most of the ecosystems evaluation projects arise late in the programme, 2007/08 and are related to the response to the Millennium Ecosystem assessment in 2006 and Defra’s adoption of the Ecosystem Approach in 2007. Many of the economics and ecosystems projects have an international scope, but some of them also focussed on human well being while the larger, later projects focused on ways of valuing ecosystems and biodiversity. Only one project under this theme had funding contribution from partners - it was £54 000 towards Human Health and Wellbeing Through Countryside Recreation in 2004/5. The large peak in expenditure under the economics and ecosystems theme, in 2008/9 was due to 3 projects, the largest of which was The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) phase 2 part 1: Development of Valuation Framework. The other large project was An Evaluation of Economic and Non-Economic Techniques for Assessing the Importance of Biodiversity to People in Developing Countries.
The Biodiversity Research Programme contributed a total of £650,900 while partners contributed a total of £54,000 to projects under the economics and ecosystems theme during 1995-2008 (Figures 3 and 4).
3. International Biodiversity (20 projects)
The international biodiversity theme covers a wide range of policy areas, including zoos and international trade and protection of species, with some projects focussing on plants and others focussing on particular animal species or more generally based.
The Biodiversity Research Programme contributed a total of £993,698, while partners contributed total of £172,000 to projects under the theme between 1995 and 2008 (Figures 3 and 4).
Figure 2 shows peak expenditures under the international theme during 2002/3, which is associated with 5 projects, while that in 2005/6 is associated with 6 projects, 4 of which carried over into 2006/7. The peak in 2003/4 is associated with 2 projects that carried over since 2001/02.
Plant projects included Scientific Advice on Plant Trade (2001-2004), which cost £261,252. Traditional medicines (2001-2005) provided insight into the medicinal values of plants and cost £67,500 with additional contribution from partners of £68,000. xxx
CITES specific projects included CITES Capacity Building (2001-2006), which cost £103,568 and attracted partnership funding of £58,000
There were four projects on zoos, which cost a total of £227,000, with contributions from partners to one project of £35,000. The projects were for assessment of zoo practices from 1998 to 2000, performance of inspectors from 2002 to 2004, elephant husbandry from 2004- 2007 (which cost £61,000 and attracted the partnership funding), and the education contribution project from 2008 to 2009. These projects were all related to evidence needs for policy to comply with the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 amendment (England and Wales) and later to comply with the EU Zoos Directive in 1999.
There were four projects in DNA labelling to identify origins of imported species, and they illustrate the increasing use of this technique for meeting obligations under CITES and COTES, from the DNA feather project (1997 to 1998), through the DNA tiger bone project (1998 to 2001), the DNA birds of prey project (2004-2007) to the DNA bushmeat project in 2005-7.
The DNA bushmeat project in 2005 to 2007 followed the bushmeat project in 2000 to 2002, and was run concurrently with the bushmeat research and recommendations to HMG project in 2005 to 2007. The total cost of all three of the bushmeat projects was £54,167.
Bird projects included Raptors in Guinea (2005/6) which cost £25,000, and Wild Birds Trade (2007/08) which cost £7,000, but gave a comprehensive analysis of international imports and exports of wild birds.
4. Habitats and Species (42 projects)
Projects under this theme can be grouped into habitats, species, non native species, and more general projects. There were peaks in expenditure between 1999 and 2002, and again in 2003/04. The Biodiversity Research Programme contributed a total of £3,230,339 while partners contributed total of £443,353 to projects under the theme between 1995 and 2008 (Figures 3 and 4). One project stands out among the habitat projects, and that is the Environmental Benefits of Domestic Gardens, which cost the Biodiversity Research Programme £50,000, but received contribution from partners of £132,353, between 2003 and 2007. It was the first systematic appraisal of gardens as a habitat and wildlife resource across different kinds of urban area in the UK, and fed into Biodiversity Action Plans for urban areas, research on urban ecology, and debates about sustainable urban development. The Important hedgerows project (1998-2000) cost £111,528 and fed into the Hedgerow BAP. There were three projects on trees between 1999 and 2002, costing a total of £354,000. Other more general projects include the cost of implementing BAPs (2000-2002), which cost £34,000; Biodiversity Research Support (1999-2002), which cost £161,000 and was used for collaboration with the Biodiversity Research Group to indentify research needs including needs for monitoring and indicators to advise the UK BAP; and Sites of Local Importance (2001-2002), which cost £65,000 and led to development of Local Site Guidance in April 2006.
During the period of the review, there were 5 projects mainly on control of non native species, amounting to a total of £1,393,299 from the Biodiversity Research Programme, although there was a large expenditure on research to support the eradication of the Ruddy Duck (£896,097) between 1998 and 2003, and another costing £250,000 on further Ruddy Duck research in 2003/4. There was no contribution from partners to these projects. There were £311,000 worth of contributions from partners towards other non native species projects. These projects included research on introductions of water birds (1998-2001), musk deer (2001-2005), and control of Japanese knotweed (2003-2007), the latter was the most expensive of the three and cost the Biodiversity Research Programme £160,000, with a contribution of £301,000 from partners.
xxxi There was one project to analyse non native species legislation in 2001/2 which cost £10,000, and fed into the development of the GB Non Native Species Strategy that was published in 2008.
Nearly all of the projects in this theme inform the policies under CBD, EU and domestic BAP, and various legislation for protected sites, including the Birds and Habitats Directives.
5. Countryside Survey (14 projects)
The Countryside Survey theme has been separated from the indicators and monitoring theme because Countryside Survey collects an integrated data set from a representative sample of the British landscape, and it informs many policy areas as well as biodiversity. Other policy research budgets, within Defra, such as agri environment, soils, and water quality, also contribute to the project. Countryside Survey is a unique world-leading survey that delivers robust scientific evidence about stock and change of terrestrial and freshwater habitats, and changes in biodiversity in the countryside. It is a partnership project that is funded by partners including NERC, the devolved administrations and agencies. The survey is not continuous, but gives a periodic audit of habitats and landscape features every 6-9 years, to assess extent and change between surveys.
There have been two Countryside Surveys during the period of the review, one was undertaken in 1998, which reported in 2000 and the other was undertaken in 2007, but Countryside Survey has also been undertaken in 1990, 1984 and 1978 which has produced a database spanning 30 years. Each survey progresses through several projects involving preparations, execution and review. Figure 2 shows the expenditure from the Biodiversity Research Budget on Countryside Survey between 1995 and 2008. Between 1997 and 1998, there was a Feasibility Project, and a data validation project (where Countryside Survey results were compared with Environment Change Network data to check for yearly variation that may have influenced the results). The main survey was in 1998, and reporting on these result took some time, so the project ran from 1997 to 2003, and funding was provided for special reports (Freshwater between 1997-2003, Land Cover Map between 1998 and 2002, Results and Pilot indicators between 2002-2005, and a review of the survey (Focus) between 2003 and 2004). There were 3 projects to develop a web accessible tool to enable others to interrogate the database (Countryside Information System (CIS)). The Biodiversity Research Programme contributed £2,901,939, while partners contributed £2,073,102 during this time.
This survey was quickly followed by a scoping study and preparations between 2004 and 2007 for the next survey in 2007. The survey in 2007 is the only project included in the review that was not completed in 2008, it will complete in 2010, but the UK/GB and the first ever country level reports were published in 2009. The funding profile for the 2007 survey has been spread across the life of the project, so the figures must be viewed with this in mind. NERC contributes 45%, and the rest of the costs are met by partners (Figure 4) and Defra according to a funding formula related to the representative sample of each country. Defra contributes 35%.
Countryside Survey is the only source of information to report on Hedgerows and Arable Field Margin BAP targets. It also provides information for Priority Ponds in the wider landscape. In 1998 it reported signals of eutrophication based on changes in the vegetation communities, which was identified as a threat to biodiversity, and it also reported signals of losses of plant species richness in agricultural landscapes which led to development of agri environment schemes to reverse this decline. Countryside Survey also provides data for biodiversity indicators5; A4 which reports on trends in plant diversity in fields and field margins and A5, which reports on change in extent of farmland features, hedges, walls and ponds. The data has also been used for development of a new biodiversity indicator of habitat connectivity, to complete the suite required under EU and CBD as described under the Indicators and Monitoring Theme. Countryside Survey data can also be used to interpret
5 available at http://defraweb/wildlife-countryside/biodiversity/indicator.htm xxxii signals from other biodiversity indicators such as A1a populations of farmland birds in England and A1b, populations of butterflies on farmland in England. The information has a wide range of uses, including Natural England’s State of the Natural Environment Reports, and landscape quality assessments (see project 274, under the Indicators & Monitoring Theme).
6. Indicators & Monitoring (23 Projects)
The R&D programme does not fund data collection as part of ongoing monitoring, but does fund the development and testing of new protocols and the novel analysis of monitoring data. Figure 2 and Figure 3 show that the greatest expenditure from the Biodiversity Research Programme between 1995 and 2008, excluding Countryside Survey, was on the Indicators and Monitoring theme, approx £3.4m. Funding contributions from partners amounted to approx £1.6m (Figure 4).
The monitoring information is used to collect an inventory of habitats and species to enable us to appreciate the extent and changes in theses natural resources, and to provide the evidence base that can be used to identify possible causes of change. It also provides the data for development of indicators and reporting on the BAP targets, as well as at EU and CBD and some Government PSAs.
There are 3 main levels of targets, international targets and domestic, including PSAs.
International Targets: The Biodiversity Programme brings together our work towards meeting two important international targets to protect biodiversity: the 2001 agreement made by European Union Heads of State or Government that biodiversity decline should be halted with the aim of reaching this objective by 2010; and the 2002 agreement made by Heads of State at the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction in the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on Earth. The Water Framework Directive sets additional targets for most rivers and lakes.
Domestic targets and PSAs: Our two top-level targets are those arising from the 2004 Spending Review and are: reversing the long-term decline in the number of farmland birds by 2020 as measured annually against underlying trends; and bringing into favourable condition by 2010, 95% of the area of nationally important wildlife sites. The new PSA on the natural environment has 5 indicators (described at http://www.hm- treasury.gov.uk/d/pbr_csr07_psa28.pdf ).One of these is on Wild Birds as a proxy indicator of biodiversity.
These targets were chosen not only because they are important in their own right, but also for their value in representing a range of biodiversity outcomes, their linkage with actions taken by Government, and the availability of regular monitoring data. In the case of the farmland bird target success criteria have been established for the periods 2004-2006, 2009- 2014 and 2014-2020. The Natural Environment PSA target arising from the 2007 spending review, “to secure a healthy natural environment for today and the future”, which has biodiversity as one component, is less directly measurable and the biodiversity element is tracked by the proxy indicator of wild breeding bird populations (see below). The agreed success criteria for the wild bird indicator over the current CSR period is for the aggregate index (and its three component indices- farmland birds, woodland birds and water and wetland birds) to show no statistically significant decrease, or in the best case a statistically significant increase.
In addition to the PSA targets, in 2006, Government published targets for the existing list of UK priority habitats and species in England, as part of the England Biodiversity Strategy. These can be divided into those that aim to maintain the population or range of a species, or the extent or condition of a habitat (maintenance targets) and those that aim to increase the population or range of a species or to improve the condition or recreate habitats were xxxiii expressed in terms of the maintenance, restoration and expansion of habitats (enhancement targets) for 2010 and 2015. They included targets that explicitly recognised the shift to the ecosystem approach and the need to adapt to climate change, such as targets to increase the connectivity of populations, increase the patch-sizes of grassland habitats, and to establish landscape-scale wetlands. Collectively, these targets provide the milestones against which we assess progress towards the conservation of priority species and habitats, and represent an ambitious programme for reversing the declines of our priority species and habitats.
While the PSA targets cannot be achieved by Government acting alone, Government has underlined the shared nature of the BAP targets, emphasising that they require prioritisation of the limited resources available and better co-ordination of policies and programmes across Government and non-Governmental organisations. The targets have been regionalised, and as we embed them into Single Regional Strategies, they represent an important part of our policy advocacy at this level.
Since the publication of the BAP targets in 2006, a revised, longer list of priority species has been published. In England, the new delivery framework Securing Biodiversity emphasises delivery through integrated landscape-scale approaches that restore whole ecosystems. Natural England is leading the work being carried out through nine Biodiversity Integration groups to agree targets, which will integrate delivery for species, as far as possible. Separately, NE is leading a programme to deliver the most urgent species recovery actions where a bespoke approach is needed. Similar approaches are underway in each of the countries of the UK, and JNCC has been charged with proposing principles to maximise coherence across the UK for reporting purposes.
The expenditure on monitoring projects from the Biodiversity Research Programme amounted to £2,934,309 with contributions from partners of £1,226,785, with most of this towards MAGIC (Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside , www.magic.gov.uk) (£243,000) between 2001 and 2003 and research towards the development of the National Biodiversity Network (£115,516) between 2001 and 2005. The Biodiversity Research Programme also made a contribution of £430,890 to Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), between 2001 and 2008. While these projects did not involve monitoring, they provided an accessible information resource. They demonstrate both the partnership approach, and the increased emphasis on sharing and providing biodiversity information, even concerning biodiversity research activities up to a global level.
The expenditure on this theme amounted to £447,393 with a further £358,500 contribution from partners, including a contribution of £243,000 for the Countryside Agency project on Countryside Indicators in 2004 to 2006. This project was initiated in response to the Rural White Paper 2000, and used towards Quality of Life Indicators, to report on progress toward the Sustainable Development Strategy that was published in 1999. These indicators were published in 1999 and updated in 2004. Other indicator projects are more directly related to reporting on BAP targets, and used as part of a suite of biodiversity indicators. The first for England were published in 2007 in Working with the Grain of Nature Volume 2, and updated periodically as data becomes available. They were last updated in July 2009. The UK biodiversity indicators are updated every year.
Developing Methods to Assess Butterfly Abundance In The Wider Countryside between 2004 and 2008, attracted contributions from partners of £60,000. The indicator for connectivity in 2007/8, was a novel use of Countryside Survey data, and the project attracted partnership funding of £42,000. The UK Spring Indicator developed in 2006/7 was also a novel use of phenological data collected by the Woodland Trust.
The indicator for migratory species developed in 2007/8 also fulfils policy needs under the Convention of Migratory Species, as well as BAP reporting.
The indicator for invasive non native species developed in 2008/9 informs GB Non Native Species Strategy (2008) as well as BAP. xxxiv
The Local Authority Performance Indicators for Biodiversity developed from 2004 to 2006, and cost £53,883. This is not part of the England or UK Biodiversity indicator suite, but was to provide information that could be used in the Comprehensive Performance Assessment of local authorities and in the indicators for sustainable development (no. 197, Improved Local Biodiversity).
The Targeted Monitoring Projects (code 322 in 2005-2006 and 386 in 2007-2009) were developed to extend monitoring from the existing Environmental Change Network, to other sites across the UK to focus on detecting and distinguishing impacts on diversity due to climate change from other drivers of change. The projects cost the Biodiversity Research Programme a total of £85,161, with a contribution from partners of £40,000, and the results showed the costs of the proposed network over the long term to enable others to consider consideration whether they would support the new network. The development of these projects was of interest to the England Biodiversity Strategy Workstream for Climate Change, as it would have fulfilled part of their work plan, published in Working with the Grain of Nature, taking it forward, Vol 1 (2007). Further development is being considered.
1.11 Key Questions The main questions for consideration during the review are:
Programme assessment: 1. Did the research inform the related policy objectives, in particular is there evidence that the results were taken up (e.g. to inform policy or future research)?
2. Overall, did the research deliver evidence to address the most important policy needs?
3. Did the level and nature of collaboration and partnership working benefit the programme?
4. Did the programme strike the right balance between strategic and specific research? (Strategic research provides greater understanding of long-term effects of past and current policies, and determines the need for, and best way of achieving, further improvements. Specific research is more responsive, often focusing on a particular policy need, exploring options, costs and effectiveness of potential measures or proposing solutions to a particular issue).
5. Did the programme demonstrate sufficient innovation? (Defra defines innovation as the successful exploitation of new ideas. This can either by the uptake of new processes within the Department, or through practical implementation of new practices by stakeholders.)
6. Was there effective dissemination of results?
xxxv
Annex A Summary of key policies, legislation commitments and other events that have influenced biodiversity up to 2008.
The policy items here have been grouped here according to international, EU, UK, GB, England and Wales, England, Government, PSAs, Defra and other publications that have influenced biodiversity policies. A chronological list is provided in Table 2 of the main text. Policy item Publication/Start Summary International CBD 1992 To achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on Earth. Signed in 1992, Rio, see UK BAP, CROW, also adopted by World Summit on Sust Dev, and UN, led to Sust Dev goals. The 2010 target was set in 2002, but CoP 9 looked at setting future targets. GBIF 2001 Global Information Facility-for sharing information about biodiversity research, The UK is a voting member, contributes funding and JNCC provides interface with members and UK management. Bern 1997 The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (the Bern Convention) was adopted in Bern, Switzerland in 1979, and came into force in 1982. The principal aims of the Convention are to ensure conservation and protection of wild plant and animal species and their natural habitats (listed in Appendices I and II of the Convention), to increase cooperation between contracting parties, and to regulate the exploitation of those species (including migratory species) listed in Appendix 3. To this end the Convention imposes legal obligations on contracting parties, protecting over 500 wild plant species and more than 1000 wild animal species. To implement the Bern Convention in Europe, the European Community adopted Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (the EC Birds Directive) in 1979, and Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (the EC Habitats Directive) in 1992. Among other things the Directives provide for the establishment of a European network of protected areas (Natura 2000), to tackle the continuing losses of European biodiversity on land, at the coast and in the sea to human activities. The UK ratified the Bern Convention in 1982. The Convention was implemented in UK law by the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 and as amended). As the inspiration for the EC Birds and Habitats Directives, the Convention had an influence on the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations (1994), and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995, which were introduced to implement those parts of the Habitats Directive not already covered in national legislation.
Bonn 1985 The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (also known as CMS or Bonn Convention) aims to conserve terrestrial, marine and avian migratory species throughout their range. Under this, there is also an agreement to protect migratory European birds. It is the parent for the Eurobats Agreement for which UK is the Depositary and a leading party.
xxxvi Eurobats 1994 The Agreement on the Conservation of Populations of European Bats, which came into force in 1994, presently numbers thirty European states among its Parties, from North, South, East and West. The Agreement was set up under the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, which recognises that endangered migratory-species can be properly protected only if activities are carried out over the entire migratory range of the species. The Bat Agreement aims to protect all 45 species of bats identified in Europe, through legislation, education, conservation measures and international co-operation with Agreement members and with those who have not yet joined. African Eurasian Migratory 1995 AEWA was concluded in The Hague, the Netherlands in 1995 and entered into force in November Waterbird Agreement (AEWA) 1999. AEWA covers a total of 255 species of birds that are ecologically dependent on wetlands for at least part of their annual cycle. Of these, over 100 occur regularly in the UK and its territorial waters. The Agreement aims to protect migratory routes that encompass 118 countries from Europe, parts of Asia and Canada and the Middle East and Africa, and as of December 2008 there 62 Contracting Parties to the Agreement. Parties to AEWA are called upon to engage in a wide range of conservation actions which are described in a comprehensive Action Plan. This detailed plan addresses issues such as species and habitat conservation, management of human activities, research and monitoring, education and information, and implementation. The UK ratified AEWA in 1999. The UK's legal obligations for the protection of endangered migratory waterbird species are implemented through the WCA 1981 (as amended) and the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the Conservation of Migratory Birds of Prey in Africa and Eurasia The UK, with the UAE, played a leading role in finalising the legal text of the MoU and action plan for the agreement at the final negotiating meeting in October 2008 in Abu Dhabi. The meeting concluded with the signature and the immediate entry into force of the non-legally binding MoU and related Action Plan for the Conservation of Migratory Birds of Prey in Africa and Eurasia. Ramsar 1971, came into The conservation and wise use of all wetlands through local and national actions and international force 1975 cooperation, as a contribution towards achieving sustainable development throughout the world. Man and Biosphere Biosphere reserves serve as 'living laboratories' for testing out and demonstrating integrated management of land, water and biodiversity. Recognised internationally under UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere (MAB) programme, these reserves form a global network enabling exchange of information, experience and personnel. (UNESCO is the United nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). The UK has eight Biosphere Reserves, designated in 1976 or 1977, but fours sites were removed from the list in 2002, to ensure our sites met global criteria. CITES. The Convention on Trade 1973 International trading in species, as adopted in Washington in March 1973 and entered into force in in Endangered Species of Wild July 1975- see also EU Directive and UK legislation Flora and Fauna (CITES or the Washington Convention)
xxxvii Bushmeat The term “bushmeat” refers to a wide range of animals. It means “the meat of any wild animal hunted for food”. Bushmeat might therefore derive from critically endangered species listed in the Appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), but could equally come from relatively common species such as various kinds of deer or rodents. The Government has provided some £80k in support of the Bushmeat Working Group (BWG), which was set up to examine issues raised by the trade in bushmeat within the Central African sub region and report back to the 13th CITES Conference of Parties in October this year. Under the provisions of the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 (COTES) it is illegal to sell meat of species listed on Appendix II which has not been legally acquired or imported. To find out more, please visit the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species UK website. The Economics of Ecosystems & 2008 At the meeting of the environment ministers of the G8 countries and the five major newly Biodiversity (TEEB) industrialising countries that took place in Potsdam in March 2007, the German government proposed a study on 'The economic significance of the global loss of biological diversity'. They agreed to 'In a global study we will initiate the process of analysing the global economic benefit of biological diversity, the costs of the loss of biodiversity and the failure to take protective measures versus the costs of effective conservation.' This proposal was endorsed by G8+5 leaders at the Heiligendamm Summit on 6-8 June 2007. The German Federal Ministry for the Environment and the European Commission, with the support of several other partners, have jointly initiated preparatory work for this global study, which is named 'The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity (TEEB)'. Mr Pavan Sukhdev, was appointed as the independent Study Leader. He is assisted in his task by an Advisory Board, which consists of prominent experts. The study is in two phases, and will evaluate the costs of the loss of biodiversity and the associated decline in ecosystem services worldwide, and compare them with the costs of effective conservation and sustainable use. TEEB Phase I built on the work of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, which made significant progress in assessing current knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services. The TEEB interim report shows that if we do not adopt the right policies, the current decline in biodiversity and the related loss of ecosystem services will continue and in some cases even accelerate. Some ecosystems are likely to be damaged beyond repair. Current trends in the loss of ecosystem services on land and in the oceans demonstrate the severe dangers that biodiversity loss poses to human health and welfare. The interim report proposes a general framework for evaluating the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services that acknowledges that not all values of biodiversity can be measured in economic terms. Preliminary findings from the first phase have been presented at the High-Level Segment of the Ninth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The second, more substantial, phase of the study will run into 2009 and 2010 and will be between autumn 2009 and autumn 2010. The final results will be presented at CBD COP-10 in 2010.
xxxviii EU Directives Birds, 79/049 EEC 1979 Obligations to birds under Berne and Bonn Conventions, favourable conservation status birds and their habitats, designation of SPAs, hunting and falconry, non native species, appropriate research. Conservation of natural habitats and 1994 Obligations under Berne Convention. The main aim of the EC Habitats Directive is to promote the of wild fauna and flora, 92/42 EEC maintenance of biodiversity by requiring Member States to take measures to maintain or restore (Habitats Directive) natural habitats and wild species at a favourable conservation status, introducing robust protection for those habitats and species of European importance. Once adopted, these are designated by Member States as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), and along with Special Protection Areas (SPAs) classified under the EC Birds Directive, form a network of protected areas known as Natura 2000. Also need to consider intervening landscape- network- connectivity. Water Framework Directive (WFD), 2000 The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is the most substantial piece of EC water legislation to date 2000/60 EC and is designed to improve and integrate the way water bodies are managed throughout Europe. In the UK, much of the implementation work will be undertaken by competent authorities. It came into force on 22 December 2000, and was put into UK law (transposed) in 2003. Member States must aim to reach good chemical and ecological status in inland and coastal waters by 2015. Heads of European Government at 2001 To halt the decline of biodiversity across Europe by 2010. the European Summit in Gothenburg agreement Zoos Directive 1999 see Zoos Act
UK commitments UK BAP 1994 published 1994, response to CBD, later devolution led to country BAPS, see England BAP, partnership approach The England Biodiversity Strategy 2007 CCA Workstream established- and other deliverables added (EBS) Working with the Grain of Nature-taking it forward: Volume 1 Full report of the progress under the England biodiversity strategy 2002- 2006
xxxix The Control of Trade in Endangered 1997 The Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 (COTES) make Species (Enforcement) Regulations provision for enforcement of the European Regulations. The Department for Environment, Food and 1997 (COTES) Rural Affairs (Defra) is the CITES Management Authority for the UK. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), acting on behalf of the country nature conservation agencies, is the Scientific Authority for Animals, and the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew is the Scientific Authority for Plants. Enforcement is the responsibility of HM Customs and Excise and the police. EC Regulations (338/97 and 1997 see CITES, and COTES 1808/01 Climate Change Programme 2006 Up and International programme, initiated under the Climate Change and Sustainable Development Act 2006, made government obligation to report on green house gas emissions and action to reduce these. ERFF 2002 Environment Research Funders Forum-government, devolved administrations and agencies concerned with increasing efficiency of biodiversity research and monitoring towards protection and enhancement of the natural environment worked together to develop a 3 year rolling delivery plan (2004-7) published in 2007, which contributed to the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007. They compiled a comprehensive data base of all publicly funded research for the natural environment that was active in 2004/5 and published Report 04, which summarised their findings. Other reports are also available on their website. GB commitments Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 1981 Also amended. SSSI designation, lists protected species and non native/invasive species CROW-Act 2000 2000 Sec of State and Defra duty to carry out functions with regard to conserving Biodiversity in accordance with UN CBD, Rio 1992 GB Invasive Non-native Species 2008 High level framework for coordinated action by the GB Admins on INNS, supported by the GB NNS Strategy Secretariat and overseen by the GB Non-native Species Programme Board - chaired by Defra. Strategy has 7 operational chapters, including research. EU Commission working on an EU IAS Strategy for 2010. In 2003 Defra-led GB-wide non-native species policy review report was delivered.
xl Zoos Act 1981, and Zoo Licensing 1981 The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 came into force in 1984. The Act requires the inspection and licensing of Act Regulations 2002 all zoos in Great Britain. The Act aims to ensure that, where animals are kept in enclosures, they are provided with a suitable environment to provide an opportunity to express most normal behaviour. The Zoo licensing Act (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 amend the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. The amendment Act gives force to European Council Directive 1999/22/EC, which deals with the keeping of wild animals in zoos. The Regulations have force of law from 8 January 2003. In June 1998, the Council of EC Environment Ministers agreed proposals drawn up by the UK Presidency for an EC Zoos Directive aimed at strengthening the conservation role of zoos. The Directive entered into force on 9 April 1999 and requires all Member States to set up national systems for the licensing and inspection of zoos. The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 already implements many of the measures in the Directive such as the provision of proper accommodation and care for the animals; keeping up-to-date records and taking appropriate measures to prevent escapes. But the requirements that zoos participate in conservation and education activities is new. Although most zoos already do this, now that the legislation is in place, it has become a statutory requirement. The Government's view is that well-managed zoos can play an important role, both in educating the public about wild animals and their habitats, and through participating in activities which help conserve and protect threatened wildlife. Zoo organisations have put together a conservation strategy, published in 2005, looking at how zoos worldwide can contribute to conservation. This strategy can be found on the website of the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums Climate Change Act 2008 The UK Government is committed to addressing both the causes and consequences of climate change and has therefore passed a Climate Change Act. It will create a new approach to managing and responding to climate change in the UK through: setting ambitious targets, taking powers to help achieve them, strengthening the institutional framework, enhancing the UK’s ability to adapt to the impact of climate change and establishing clear and regular accountability to the UK, Parliament and devolved legislatures.
On adaptation the Government must report at least every five years on the risks to the UK of climate change, and publish a programme setting out how these impacts will be addressed. The Act also introduces powers for Government to require public bodies and statutory undertakers 1 to carry out their own risk assessment and make plans to address those risks. An Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change, in order to provide advice to and scrutiny of the Government’s adaptation work
xli NERC ACT 2006 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006). This legislation means that, from 1 October 2006, all local authorities and other public authorities in England and Wales have a duty to promote and enhance biodiversity in all of their functions Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 requires all public bodies to have regard to biodiversity conservation when carrying out their functions. This is sometimes referred to as the “biodiversity duty” and will help embed consideration of biodiversity into the decision making of all relevant sectors. Defra has published guidance to local authorities and other public bodies on implementing the duty. devolution 1998 This led to Individual Country BAPs. England and Wales Countryside Stewardship 1991 Countryside Stewardship was introduced as a pilot scheme in England in 1991 and operates outside the Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Payments are made to farmers and other land managers to enhance and conserve English landscapes, their wildlife and history and to help people to enjoy them. The scheme has now closed to new applicants and has been superseded by the Environmental Stewardship scheme. Some existing agreements will, however, continue until 2014. Farmers with an existing agreement, which lasts for 10 years, receive an annual payment on each hectare of land entered into the scheme. Grants are also available towards capital works such as hedge laying and planting, and repairing dry-stone walls. Environmental Stewardship 2005 Environmental Stewardship is an agri-environment scheme started by Defra in 2005 that provides funding to farmers and other land managers in England who deliver effective environmental management on their land. The primary objectives of Environmental Stewardship are to: conserve wildlife (biodiversity), maintain and enhance landscape quality and character, protect the historic environment and natural resources, promote public access and understanding of the countryside, protect natural resources. The secondary objectives of Environmental Stewardship are: genetic conservation and flood management. Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 The DWAA came into force on 22 October 1976 and aside from substitutions for the Schedule (the list of species requiring of a licence), the latest being in October 2007, the main body of the Act has remained substantively unamended since that time. Its primary purpose is to protect the public from risks arising from the keeping of dangerous wild animals, by way of a licensing regime administered and enforced by local authorities. The Act applies in England, Wales and Scotland but the issues with which it deals have been devolved in Scotland. Northern Ireland also has its own Dangerous Wild Animals legislation. There has been longstanding demand for reform of the Act and growing anecdotal evidence to suggest a high level of non-compliance. Following an independent review of the Act in 2001, and subsequent consultation exercises in 2002 and 2004, it was decided to develop deregulatory proposals to revise the Act so that it is more focused on risk and minimises the level of regulatory burden on local authorities and animal keepers. The current legislation does not adopt a
xlii proportionate approach to the regulation of dangerous wild animals based on risk to the public, is not consistent with other relevant legislation relating to public safety and the enforcement and inspection regime is not consistent with “Hampton principles”. The proposed changes to the Act, which should lead to a reduced burden on keepers and local authorities, are currently being made through a Legislative Reform Order (LRO) under the 2006 Act and are due to come into force in October 2009. England only Working with the Grain of Nature a 2002 The Strategy seeks to ensure biodiversity considerations become embedded in all main sectors of biodiversity strategy for England public policy and sets out a programme for the future to make the changes necessary to conserve, enhance and work with the grain of nature and ecosystems rather than against them. The strategy is intended to be a living document, subject to regular review. Working with the Grain of Nature- 2007 2005 BAP reporting on progress- 2002-2006,CC adaptation workstream set up- new deliverables taking it forward Vol 1 Working with the Grain of Nature- 2007 reported on BAP targets and gave suite of biodiversity indicators taking it forward Volume 2 England Rural Development 2000 2000-2006 The Rural Development Plan for England is funded by the European agricultural Find and Strategy (ERDP) Defra, mainly through Environment Stewardship (administered by Natural England and the Woodland Grant Scheme (administered by the Forestry Commission) to improve the competitiveness of the agricultural sector and to safeguard and enhance sustainable rural businesses across the region. It will help rural communities and business including farmers, growers and foresters invest in their long term economic future. England Forestry Strategy 1998 and revised The strategy for England's trees, woods and forests (ETWF) was launched on 20 June 2007. This 2007 sets out the Government's vision and priorities for England's tree and woodland resource, in both rural and urban areas, over the next fifty years. The ETWF Strategy builds upon the firm foundations of its successful predecessor The England Forestry Strategy which was published in 1998 and was the subject of a full review in 2006. Working with national and regional stakeholders, we have identified within the strategy, five key aims for government intervention in trees, woods and forests: to secure trees and woodlands for future generations; to ensure resilience to climate change; to protect and enhance natural resources; to increase the contribution that trees, woods and forests make to our quality of life; and to improve the competitiveness of woodland businesses and products. These aims will form the basis on which the Delivery plan will be developed by Natural England and the Forestry Commission England (FCE). Local Sites Guidance 2006 In most areas, local authorities, working with other local partners, have set up systems for locally valued non-statutory sites which now support in the region of 37,000 Local Sites in England Local Sites are sites of substantive nature conservation value. Although they do not have any statutory status, many are equal in quality to the representative sample of sites that make up the
xliii series of statutory Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). There are more than 37,000 Local Sites in England overseen by 65 Local Sites systems. These systems vary considerably in terms of size (both the administrative area they cover and the number of sites selected) and cover contrasting landscapes in coastal, rural and urban situations. Local Sites systems encompass both biodiversity and geological conservation. There are currently a number of different terms in use to describe sites of local importance, including Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs), Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs) and Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS), although Defra recommends that the term Local Site, which may be sub-divided to Local Wildlife or Local Geological Site, should be used as a standard generic term to promote common understanding Defra has produced guidance intended to promote more transparent and consistent approaches in the operation of Local Sites systems across the country, embracing regional and local diversity and variation within the natural environment. It outlines the purposes of Local Sites systems and proposes frameworks, standards and roles for their operation as well as for the selection, protection and management of the sites themselves. • Local Sites - guidance on their identification, selection and management [PDF] (260 KB) - 10 April 2006 National Indicator 197 – Improved Local Biodiversity National Indicator 197 measures the performance of local authorities for biodiversity by assessing the implementation of positive conservation management of Local Sites. The indicator relates to the influence local authorities have on Local Sites systems and the measures and procedures involved in ensuring effective conservation management is introduced to, and acted upon, by Local Site owners and managers. More information on NI 197 - Improved Local Biodiversity – proportion of Local Sites where active conservation management is being achieved Wildlife Management Strategy Under Defra published a consultation document on June 2008, toward developing a wildlife management development. strategy that will apply to the development of all new wildlife policy, helping Defra fulfil the Government’s vision to secure a diverse, healthy and resilient natural environment, which provides the basis for everyone’s well-being, health and prosperity now and in the future. Other Gov commitments Sustainable Development: UK 2005 In terms of focusing our efforts, the UK has identified four priority areas for immediate action, shared Government Strategy for across the UK, these are: Sustainable Consumption and Production Climate Change and Energy Sustainable Development Securing Natural Resource Protection and Environmental Enhancement; Sustainable Communities. The UK the Future. Government also recognises that changing behaviour is a cross cutting theme closely linked to all of these priorities. In addition, Securing the Future identifies wellbeing as being at the heart of sustainable development.
xliv Ecosystem Approach 2007 Securing a healthy natural environment: an action plan for embedding an ecosystems approach was published in December 2007. The action plan identifies a number of clear priority areas for action that will be fundamental to our success and to securing wider engagement at the national, regional and local levels. The main priorities are -: i) promoting joined-up working within Defra and the Defra network to deliver ii) identifying opportunities for mainstreaming an ecosystems approach iii) using case studies that demonstrate the benefits of taking an ecosystems approach iv) developing ways of valuing ecosystem services v) developing a robust evidence base Climate Change Programme 2006, revised The Climate Change Programme, published in 2006, revising the previous climate change programme since 2000 of 2000. It sets out our policies and priorities for action in the UK and internationally. We also made a commitment to introduce an annual report to Parliament. Subsequently, the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006 placed an obligation on us to report to Parliament on greenhouse gas emissions in the UK and action taken by Government to reduce these emissions. UKCIP 1997 The UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) is Defra funded and provide tools and guidance to help organisations to adapt to inevitable climate change. While it’s essential to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions, the effects of past emissions will continue to be felt for decades. Since 1997 UKCIP has been working with the public, private and voluntary sectors to assess how a changing climate will affect: construction, working practices, demand for goods and services, biodiversity, service delivery, health, and much more. Climate change scenarios (UKCIP 02) and projections UKCP09-were provided for others to use in assessing risks form climate change, The scenarios were used in several projects to assess the risks to biodiversity. Comprehensive Spending Reviews 2000,2003,2006. These are undertaken and used to revise or set new PSAs. The PSAs for wild birds and SSIs were (CSR) set after the 2000CSR, and these targets were retained after the 2003 and 2006 CSR, which added a new PSA for the Natural Environment, which includes a suite of indicators. Defra leads on this PSA. PSA s on biodiversity Natural Resource Protection and Environmental Enhancement PSA SSSI targets 95% favourable or recovering condition by 2010 PSA Farmland Birds reverse decline in farmland birds by 2020 PSA 28 Natural Environment 2007 secure a healthy environment for now and in the future PSA 27 Climate Change 2007 lead the global effort to avoid dangerous climate change DEFRA Defra created 2001 merged from MAFF and DETR Defra Strategy Refresh 2006 Rearrangement of Defra Policy teams, programmes and objectives
xlv DECC created 2008 shifted some responsibilities for climate change and energy to new department, but biodiversity implications remained with Defra Defra Departmental Objectives 2009 from http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/deprep/2009/chapter1.pdf 2009 Defra purpose: to secure a healthy environment in which we and future generations can prosper Defra Priority 1: Secure a healthy natural environment for us all and deal with environmental risks (there are 2 other priorities not so relevant to biodiversity programme) to help us achieve these priorities, we set Departmental Strategic Objectives: DSO 1: Adapting to climate change A society that is adapting to the effects of climate change, through a national programme of action and a contribution to international action. The national programme of action on adaptation in England is being taken forward by the Adapting to Climate Change Programme. This is a cross-government programme led by Defra. This DSO shapes the delivery of all of our priorities as well as the delivery of cross government objectives. DSO 2: A healthy natural environment To protect and enhance the natural environment, and to encourage its sustainable use within environmental limits. Defra works to protect and enhance the natural environment, and to encourage its sustainable use within environmental limits. We aim to ensure that the air we breathe and the water we drink are clean, that the management of land, fresh water and the seas is sustainably productive, that our landscapes and biodiversity are protected, and that people understand, enjoy and care for the natural environment. Biodiversity Core Policy aims 2009 Our aims are improved enjoyment of an attractive and well managed countryside for all; and effective conservation of wildlife. Other- publications that influenced policies for biodiversity Millennium Ecosystem assessment 2005 The importance of biodiversity and ecosystems to human well being, provided a framework of ecosystems service categories, and identified major threats to biodiversity. Stern Report 2006 Economic impacts of climate change- including impacts on BD.
xlvi IPCC reports 1990- Several reports published since 1990, the first was in 1990, second in1995, 3rd in 2001 and the 4th in 2007. Each report gives progressively stronger messages of the anthropogenic causes of climate change. IPCC 1st report (1990) stated we are certain of the following: there is a natural greenhouse effect...; emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases: CO2, methane, CFCs and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, will increase in response to global warming and further enhance it.
1995 IPCC 2nd report (1995) The major conclusions of Working Group I were: Greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to increase, Anthropogenic aerosols tend to produce negative radiative forcings, Climate has changed over the past century, The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate, Climate is expected to continue to change in the future. There are still many uncertainties. Its eighth chapter noted "these results indicate that the observed trend in global mean temperature over the past 100 years is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin. More importantly, there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcings by greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols in the observed climate record. Taken together, these results point towards a human influence on global climate."
2001 IPCC 3rd report (2001) describes the current state of understanding of the climate system and provides estimates of its projected future evolution and their uncertainties, An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human influences will continue to change atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century.
2007 IPCC 4th report (2007) is a landmark document on climate change. It presents comprehensive scientific information on the physical scientific basis, the impacts, adaptation, vulnerability and mitigation of climate change. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal and the role of human activities in the observed changes is now clearer than ever. The world is already committed to further warming from past emissions alone.. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal." "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." It includes many positive messages about the potential ways to tackle climate change, both in the short and long term. The 5th is due in 2014.
xlvii
Annex B Summary of expenditure (£) on projects according to themes, delivered by the Biodiversity Research Programme 1995-2008
Note that these expenditure tables only include the type of project which would be included in the current Biodiversity Research Programme. Consequently, Marine and Landscape projects, which in some years amounted to £600,000 to £800,000 have been removed.
Theme: Threats to Collaboratio CR 96_97 97_98 98_99 99_00 00_01 01_02 02_03 03_04 04_05 05_06 06_07 07_08 08_09 Total Biodiversity n 122 Lead Shot £45,795 45,795 123 Ruddy Ducks £5,517 5,517 124 Canada Geese Control 9,694 11,452 21,146 133 Deer Management 30,000 32,050 62,050 Canada Geese 25,779 148 Movements £25,779 151 Pest Birds Monitoring 70,192 40,765 110,957 180 Fish Eating Birds Pop 73,003 18,491 91,494 Fish Eating Birds 176,107 181 Feeding 105,805 70,302 182 Shot Lethality 12,700 3,351 16,051 Biological Monitoring 12,923 184 Lead Shot 6,952 5,971 188 Lead Shot Sales 5,228 8,092 0 7,525 20,844 196 Raptors - Game Birds 10,490 34,760 21,315 7,769 74,334 Raptor - Racing 21,738 197 Pigeons 4,700 17,038 Integrated Climate 213 0 38,367 21,507 59,874 Change 223 Climate Change UK 0 67,798 17,718 85,516 Drivers of Countryside 233 16,814 22,700 39,514 Change 1 234 Non-lethal bird scaring 11,750 5,875 17,625 Starling & Sparrow 245 33,168 124,443 16,736 174,347 Decline - pilot- Changing Distribution 265 37,610 10,000 13,000 5,783 28,783 of the Flora of the UK Climate change, land 266 use and biodiversity 1,100,000 10,790 28,055 4,831 43,676 (ACCELERATES) Provision of Bag 281 Statistics for huntable 0 9,548 12,730 22,278 birds
xlviii Nitrogen Atmospheric 289 Pollution Impacts on 16,000 49,000 73,912 18,000 140,912 Biodiversity Standard Methodology 293 to assess the risk to 0 0 60,000 60,000 species Sub account) Potential Impacts of 295 future Energy Policy on 49,920 0 0 0 0 UK Biodiversity Climate Change And 302 0 41,710 18,412 60,122 Migratory Species 308 Monarch 3 312,000 0 15,301 4,698 19,999 Conservation of Biodiversity in a 326 10,688 21,464 21,464 Changing Climate - Bioclime Towards Adaptation to 327 Climate Change (TACC 0 34,317 35,890 2,456 72,663 EBS) 357 Lead shot - Desk study 5,590 20,000 20,000 371 Do bats avoid radar 0 4,593 4,593 Habitat Connectivity - The ecological basis for landscape permeability, 389 43,000 33,167 0 33,167 facilitating adaptive response of species to climate change Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group 415 Workshop on Climate 7,700 36,500 36,500 Change and Biodiversity Windturbines: Determining the risk to 430 0 6,109 6,109 bat populations - Phase 1 Total - 1. Threats to 1,582,508 405,854 242,272 21,315 150,022 100,968 134,443 50,074 95,568 180,453 107,494 65,181 35,623 42,609 1,631,875 Biodiversity
xlix
Theme: Economics
and Ecosystems 142 CAP Reform 8,000 2,000 10,000 156 Common Land Survey 70,814 77,001 35,997 24,910 55,888 10,281 274,891 MEILUC 1 - Land use 18,455 173 change 18,455 191 Soil Data £410 410 LUAM Club - land use 23,501 198 allocation 3,525 5,875 5,875 0 2,350 5,876 Environmental Effects 22,795 199 of Agriculture 0 22,795 UK Biosphere 214 23,200 7,775 30,975 Reserves Survey of the Economic 268 53,932 53,932 impact of FMD Human health and 319 wellbeing through 54,000 10,000 10,000 countryside recreation Benefits of Global Biodiversity Assets to 384 0 34,900 34,900 UK Citizens: A literature review An Evaluation of Economic and Non- Economic Techniques 391 for Assessing the 0 10,000 39,428 49,428 Importance of Biodiversity to People in Developing Countries Business tools and 394 0 24,910 24,910 biodiversity The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) 419 0 96,703 96,703 phase 2 part 1. Development of valuation framework Total - 2. Economics 54,000 82,749 126,126 65,072 32,685 58,238 70,089 0 0 10,000 0 0 44,900 161,041 650,900 & ecosystems
l
Collaboratio CR Theme: International 96_97 97_98 98_99 99_00 00_01 01_02 02_03 03_04 04_05 05_06 06_07 07_08 08_09 Total n 183 DNA Advice £11,312 11,312 DNA Testing using 202 13,810 0 5,895 0 8,365 28,070 Feathers DNA Testing using 207 22,000 5,000 5,000 32,000 Tiger Bone 209 Wolf dogs 12,455 7,755 4,113 24,323 225 Review of Zoo Practice 23,430 28,636 52,066 243 Bushmeat 9,156 10,523 19,679 249 Traditional Medicines 68,000 0 30,000 24,500 10,000 3,000 67,500 CITES Capacity 256 58,000 0 24,031 64,537 0 12,500 2,500 103,568 Building Scientific Advice on 258 Plant Trade Policy 0 84,054 90,251 86,946 0 261,251 (Kew) 260 Tortoise Trade 0 15,750 1,750 17,500 S of State Zoo 282 Inspectors' 0 9,000 14,400 23,400 Performance Chinese Plants for the 290 11,000 7,277 8,550 8,550 24,377 Horticultural Trade DNA Profiling of Birds 300 0 60,700 30,987 51,505 143,192 of Prey The husbandry of 312 35,000 0 32,676 28,496 0 0 61,172 elephants in UK Zoos Bushmeat research and 333 recommendations to 0 13,500 16,988 30,488 HMG 340 Raptors in Guinea 0 25,000 25,000 345 DNA Bushmeat 0 2,000 2,000 4,000 350 Wild Birds Trade 0 7,000 7,000 CITES licences – an 397 assessment of the 0 12,800 12,800 impact 406 100 questions 0 15,000 15,000 Review of Zoos’ 407 Contribution and 0 30,000 30,000 Education Contribution Total - 3. International 172,000 11,312 13,810 57,885 47,286 18,269 172,723 190,038 111,346 83,477 115,213 107,539 7,000 57,800 993,698
li
Theme: Habitats and Collaboratio 96_97 97_98 98_99 99_00 00_01 01_02 02_03 03_04 04_05 05_06 06_07 07_08 08_09 Total Species n 102 Key Habitats £4,516 4,516 126 Arb VI £41,000 41,000 138 National Forest 10,294 10,294 143 Arb Advice 60575 60,575 158 BTO Atlas 483 4,348 4,831 164 ADDS 79,891 76,199 156,090 165 Research Assessment £12,547 12,547 Coastal Zone 19,340 176 Management £19,340 187 Mammal Monitoring 52,603 7,040 59,643 189 Cave Swiftlets £324 324 190 Breeding Birds Data £1,258 1,258 192 Ponds Survey 87,381 81,665 169,046 Common Land 42,543 194 Management Guide 17,517 25,026 Health of Non 60,907 200 Woodland Trees 28,576 32,331 201 OECD 0 5,000 5,000 216 Dorset Heaths 27,025 16,748 43,773 Biodiversity Research 217 0 72,777 55,390 32,865 161,031 Support 220 Important Hedgerows 89,222 22,306 111,528 Red Rose Community 224 0 5,000 37,617 42,617 Forest Cross Compliance & 229 21,910 10,594 32,505 CAP Biodiversity 230 26,329 4,411 30,740 Independent Evaluation Cost of Implementing 239 0 24,306 10,318 34,624 BAPS Rationalisation of 252 67,966 29,792 97,758 nature-conservation 254 Upland Farming 7,544 7,544 Sites of local nature 261 conservation 65,007 65,007 importance* Environmental benefits 307 132,353 30,000 10,000 10,000 0 50,000 of domestic gardens 370 Thames basin SPA 0 26,400 26,400
lii Review of evidence needs for Defra’s 398 0 43,700 43,700 Global Biodiversity Sub-Programme Developing a mechanism for filling 418 knowledge gaps in UK 0 5,000 5,000 Biodiversity Action Plans 150 Barn Owls II 2,092 2,454 2,352 2,580 4,011 2,591 16,080 AEWA - introduced 219 19,976 14,227 34,202 waterbirds Tree Root Form & 221 43,984 38,670 11,072 93,726 Function 222 Ruddy Duck Cull 60,022 250,176 273,568 184,343 127,988 896,097 226 Tree Pruning and Soil 43,483 66,546 61,467 171,496 Non-Woodland Tree 236 38,268 50,781 89,049 Survey Involving LAs in Deer 227 7,873 2,084 9,957 Control Review of Genetic 237 0 36,502 2,000 38,502 Research 253 Musk Deer 10,000 0 42,510 0 7,490 3,000 53,000 Analysis of Non-native 259 species 10,727 10,727 legislation 287 Japanese Knotweed 301,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 160,000 373 BTO birds project 0 7,361 7,361 Further research on N/A 0 250,000 250,000 Ruddy Duck Total - 4. Habitats and 443,353 418,397 234,063 206,470 521,604 560,926 576,150 159,780 327,490 53,000 50,000 73,761 0 48,700 3,230,339 Species
liii
Theme: Countryside
Survey Note that project code 360 Countryside Survey Main Survey, 2007, is ongoing and is the only project included in the review that was not complete in 2008, but the UK and Country level reports have been published. Note that the costs have been spread over the duration of the project, due to complete in 2010. Collaboratio CR 96_97 97_98 98_99 99_00 00_01 01_02 02_03 03_04 04_05 05_06 06_07 07_08 08_09 Total n 193 CIS Phase II 34,992 79,614 0 26,794 141,400 118 CIS Data Management £13,672 13,672 CIS Dissemination & 156,128 206 Support 10,000 25,000 50,660 37,002 21,346 12,120 195 CS2000 Feasibility 0 84,200 7,200 9,400 100,800 203 ECN / CS2000 11,216 11,216 Countryside Survey 210 1,745,202 97,932 778,500 419,874 487,526 137,000 35,312 1,956,144 2000 CS2000 Part 2 - 211 162,900 30,000 29,480 15,520 10,000 2,990 87,990 Freshwater CS2000 Part 3 - 212 75,000 23,000 65,000 48,125 211,125 LCM2000 CS2000 Module 9 Local 263 45,000 21,000 96,000 13,322 130,322 Results & Pilot Indictors CS2000 FOCUS (From 264 CS2000 Follow-up) 120,000 66,558 26,584 0 93,142 Module 17 Scoping Study for 298 Countryside Survey 80,000 49,950 66,076 116,026 2006 Preparing for 316 Countryside Survey 207,709 100,000 124,381 224,381 2006 Phase 1 Countryside Survey 334 1,167,884 320,000 281,534 5,000 606,534 2006_07 (prep phase II) Countryside Survey 360 6,647,000 155,000 846,000 773,651 1,774,651 main field work Total - 5 Countryside 10,175,695 48,664 282,962 915,700 559,208 605,048 216,471 137,980 122,584 163,272 510,457 436,534 851,000 773,651 5,623,531 Survey
liv
Theme: Indicators Collaboratio CR 96_97 97_98 98_99 99_00 00_01 01_02 02_03 03_04 04_05 05_06 06_07 07_08 08_09 Total and Monitoring n 167 Plant Atlas 190,000 74,252 62,965 53,563 102,664 41,562 25,143 11,376 371,524 Non-Woodland Tree 236 38,268 50,781 89,049 Survey Native Woodland 251 12,000 12,000 Survey Native Woodland Survey Phase 2 273 (Biodiversity of British 150,000 30,000 30,000 0 60,000 Woodlands - Completed) Biodiversity 276 38,269 10,000 0 10,000 Monitoring Targeted Monitoring Of Atmos. Pol. And 322 Climate Change 17,000 25,000 5,000 30,000 Impacts On Biodiversity Climate Change and Migratory Species 363 Indicator species and 0 60,000 9,941 69,941 protocols for data collection
374 UK Spring indicator 0 1,000 1,000
Site Based Monitoring Business 386 23,000 50,211 4,950 55,161 Development Plan (Targeted monitoring) Habitat Connectivity - Development of an 388 indicator for the EBS, 42,000 8,033 0 8,033 UK and CBD reporting part 1 Extending the use of 402 butterfly recording 270,000 99,306 99,306 data in the UK UK Biodiversity 405 Indicators – Invasive 3,500 25,294 25,294 Non-Native Species 175 ECOFACT 131,150 84,790 25,017 20,000 10,000 20,757 291,714 186 Bat Monitoring 80,045 104,228 96,912 112,864 72,252 34,512 500,812
lv 208 Hen Harrier Survey 5,000 0 5,000 10,000 241 NBN 115,516 67,439 291,205 287,015 246,105 11,040 902,803 250 MAGIC 423,000 39,200 0 21,500 60,700 Global Biodiversity 270 35,000 100,000 0 33,160 0 32,289 121,940 108,501 430,890 Information Facility CA Project on 274 Countryside 243,000 13,192 12,766 0 25,958 Indicators Local Authority Performance 297 0 36,410 17,473 53,883 Indicators for Biodiversity Enhancement of Agriculture and 299 0 10,350 10,350 Environment Statistics Developing Methods to Assess Butterfly 304 60,000 30,000 55,000 55,000 65,000 205,000 Abundance In The Wider Countryside UK Biodiversity Indicators – development of an 404 10,000 58,284 58,284 indicator of genetic diversity in selected farm breeds Total 6 - Indicators 1,585,285 285,447 256,983 175,492 240,527 280,721 457,397 473,083 288,871 120,960 97,473 93,289 305,184 306,276 3,381,703 and monitoring
lvi Annex C Evidence delivered by the Biodiversity Research Programme towards policy needs identified in the Evidence and Innovation Strategy
Theme 1: Threats to Biodiversity
Topic (s) Research needs delivered Improve the Develop and maintain networks of environmental monitoring/reference sites to improve understanding of long term drivers of biodiversity data resource change and its geographical distribution
Climate Improve understanding of : change • Impacts of climate change on biodiversity and migratory species and other • economic and social impacts of biodiversity change threats Establish methods and guidelines to assess environmental risks from chemicals and excess nutrients
Theme 2: Economics and Ecosystems
Topic (s) Research needs delivered Improve Improve understanding of biodiversity and ecosystem processes and interaction at UK and international levels. understanding Socio Improve understanding of economic and societal impacts of biodiversity change economic impacts
Theme 3: International
Topic (s) Research needs delivered Global Contribute to international work, and domestic work, to improve understanding of population, distribution and trends in species engagement, endangered by international trade, and contribute to international efforts to monitor progress to 2010 targets including development and monitoring. testing of global indicators, catalyse global initiatives, on biodiversity and support efforts to fill research needs. Support global initiatives on biodiversity Trade and Evaluate impact of international trade on endangered species and define international responses to ensure suitable management and crime prevent wildlife crime.
lvii Theme 4: Habitats and species
Topic (s) Research needs delivered Habitats Develop and adopt workable habitat definitions and improve evidence base for EU/ UK consistency Population Establish base line population distribution and trend data for wildlife and non native species Diseases Investigate the role species play in disease spread and factors affecting this
Condition Develop cost effective methods of assessing habitats and ecological networks and targeting policy effort assessment Report on condition of SSSIs and improve understanding of reasons for condition Develop concepts, tools and methods to achieve favourable conservation status of species Time trends Maintain and improve efficient monitoring of spatio-temporal trends in introduction, establishment spread and impact of non native species
Theme 5 Countryside Survey- Countryside Survey would come under delivery of trends and drivers of change under the indicators and monitoring theme, and information on ecosystems, under the economics and ecosystems theme.
Theme 6: Indicators and Monitoring
Topic (s) Research needs delivered Trends and Develop and test indicators to deliver policy relevant information on status, distribution, trends and drivers of change and sustainable use drivers of of biodiversity, and responses to climate change and to provide information on species and habitat status and trends change Evaluate indicators of status distribution and trends and success of policies designed to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010, and to meet the Bap targets. Conservation Develop baseline indicators and targets for favourable conservation status of species status
lviii
2. FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESEARCH
2.1 Purpose of this Paper The purpose of this paper is to stimulate discussion about future research needs for the Biodiversity Research Programme and to identify priority areas for research that will enable Defra to meet its objectives and commitments. As well as identifying individual research themes and topics, it is intended to develop ideas about the processes involved in identifying and prioritising research needs, and by which the programme is structured and carried out.
This paper provides a summary of future requirements for biodiversity research, as identified in a number of recent studies, including requirements identified internally by Defra, working groups such as the UK Biodiversity Research Advisory Group (BRAG) and European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS), horizon scanning studies and the Natural Environment Research Council’s (NERC) plans for research into biodiversity. By cataloguing these biodiversity research needs, this document provides a broad context to help stimulate discussion on the strategy and content of Defra’s future Biodiversity Research Programme.
The paper should be read in conjunction with the Project Summaries (which identify completed research and, in many cases, also provide suggestions for further research-See Section 3) and the Policy Requirements Document (which provides a policy view for future research in the context of meeting departmental priorities, related strategic outcomes and Defra’s national and international commitments).
For ease of comparison and cross-reference to the Project Summaries and Review Meeting agenda, the main tables in this document have been structured under the headings:
Threats to Biodiversity Economics and Ecosystems International Biodiversity Habitats and Species Indicators and Monitoring
2.2 Context for Defra’s Investment Strategy in Research Defra’s strategy for investing in research has been laid out in its Evidence and Innovation Strategy (2005-2008)6. The principles underlying the strategy are that investments should:
1. Support the delivery of Defra’s departmental priorities and reflect the strategic needs of the whole of the Defra network. 2. Encourage innovative approaches to evidence gathering and use as well as the development of innovation in the wider economy that is focused on Defra’s issues. 3. Reflect Defra’s view of future opportunities and threats. 4. Reflect the priorities and spend of other UK and international funders. 5. Support and deliver the required internal skills needs of Defra.
6 http://www.defra.gov.uk/Science/how/strategy.htm
lix 6. Take account of Defra’s key external capability needs. There are additional considerations: • there are both long and short-term pressures to which policy makers need to respond and for which different types of research may be required; and • research is required throughout the entire policy cycle, from defining and understanding issues through to developing delivery options, effective implementation and monitoring and evaluation of policy impacts and outcomes. Analysis by Defra of summaries of evidence and innovation needs in 2005 (Defra, 2005) showed an increasing need for: • social and opinion research to help understand people’s attitudes and preferences on policy issues, and their likely response to different solution strategies; • multidisciplinary analysis and assessment to address difficult policy questions (e.g. risk assessment); • greatly improved levels of evaluation (including social, economic and environmental as well as technical aspects) of issues and solutions; • expert specialist support to be broadened from “delivering outputs of a research project” to include “advising Defra on the potential application and use of the knowledge gained”; • a growing emphasis on working jointly with key stakeholders – their shared views on Defra’s evidence base being vital to securing its acceptance; and • recognising where work with other funding organisations is needed to ensure essential capabilities are maintained.
2.3 Research Landscape In determining biodiversity research needs in support of policy, Defra work with: government agencies, other government departments, devolved administrations and their agencies, international coordination bodies, UK Research Councils (particularly NERC), academia, experts and NGOs.
The partnership approach is key to the delivery of biodiversity targets. Partners such as Natural England and the Environment Agency have identified research needs and prepared research strategies to support their biodiversity-related delivery responsibilities and assist Defra with prioritising and delivering its research projects. As statutory adviser to Government on UK and international nature conservation, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee also provides expert advice to Defra on research needs for biodiversity. Partnership working includes projects (e.g. Sutherland, 2008), and activities (e.g. BRAG working groups and British Ecological Society workshop in 20067) that have identified future research needs.
Following devolution, individual countries have produced their own biodiversity action plans and research strategies, (e.g. SNH, 2007) and Defra engages with these partners on common research themes to deliver evidence needs for common policies.
Defra works with other government departments and their agencies to align research activity and draw evidence together to underpin Defra policy and to support and influence the
7 http://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/documents/policy_documents/policy_meetings/Assessing_ecosystem_services.pdf
lx polices of other government departments. For example, information on climate change scenarios and carbon trading schemes is important to both biodiversity and managing mitigation and energy and of common interest to Defra and the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
Defra engages in international activities, and research needs for conservation and management of biodiversity have been identified at a European level (e.g. EPBRS 2005) and global levels (e.g. The Convention on Biological Diversity Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice8). European Research Area Networks (ERA-Nets) provide a means of coordinating national research policies and activities in terms of objectives, expertise and resources. The ERA-Net BiodivERsA is likely to become important, but a recent assessment by Defra (Defra 2009) suggests it is too early to draw conclusions about its importance at this stage. Research undertaken by the Department for International Development is also important in informing the international elements of the programme and international committees will become increasingly important if the Inter-governmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services9 develops.
In relation to UK Research Councils, NERC has the largest programme on biodiversity research; one of the headline themes within its current strategy (NERC 2007a).
A large amount of monitoring and surveillance data is collected by voluntary organisations such as RSPB, BTO, WWT and recording schemes. These organisations also fund their own research and analysis of these data. They are frequently involved in Project Steering Groups, providing valuable expert input as well as funding.
2.4 Scope of the Biodiversity R&D Programme The Biodiversity R&D Programme will continue with its remit to commission research to support the evidence requirements of Defra’s domestic and international policy activities, as described in Section 1, Policy Requirements. 2.5 Synthesis of Research Needs: Information sources Priority areas for biodiversity-related research that are within the policy and strategic remit of the Biodiversity Research Programme are presented as a synthesis in Table 2.1. Six key documents were used to identify and compile these research needs. These are: 1. Defra’s Evidence and Innovation Strategy (2005) which sets out the relationship between policy goals and a proposed set of evidence and innovation inputs for the Natural Environment Strategic Priority. Those evidence and innovation needs that have not as yet been funded are included in the synthesis. 2. The results of Defra’s Investment in Evidence questionnaire (internal working document, 2009) for the Biodiversity Research Programme. 3. The European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS) Action Plan for Research in Europe (2005). EPBRS provides a forum for natural and social scientists and policy-makers to identify, structure and focus the strategically important research that is essential to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and thus to the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity to reduce the loss of biodiversity. The EPBRS keeps close connections with relevant international bodies, national governments, EU institutions and EU projects in the field of biodiversity
8 http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?tip=0&id=6830 9 http://ipbes.net/en/index.aspx
lxi research. Their Action Plan for Research in Europe identifies knowledge that is necessary to halt the loss of biodiversity in Europe and elsewhere, and to improve understanding of the drivers and ecological, economic and social consequences of biodiversity change. The plan contributed to identifying the most urgent research needs and scientific challenges in the field of biodiversity and contributed to European National Strategies for Biodiversity Research (EPBRS, 2008). 4. The UK Biodiversity Research Advisory Group’s (BRAG’s) overarching assessment of Research Needs for UK Biodiversity, which is closely aligned with the EPBRS Action Plan and research requirements they identified under the UK BAP, provided the basis for the UK National Strategy for Biodiversity research (EPBRS, 2008). UK BRAG is a group of expert advisers, of the UK Biodiversity Partnership. In addition to the overarching document used for the synthesis, UK BRAG’s working groups have produced several more detailed themed documents listing research needs and priorities, threats and opportunities for biodiversity that will help inform policy towards meeting the biodiversity commitments (see reference list). 5. A recent Defra funded horizon scanning study. In 2008, Sutherland et al. reported the results of horizon scanning that identified future novel threats and opportunities facing UK biodiversity that might arise in the UK up to 2050 to help set the agenda for policy, practice and research. Those with a high likelihood of occurring and of relevance to the programme are included in the synthesis. 6. NERC’s Strategy and Biodiversity Theme Action Plan. The main, and overarching challenge identified in the Biodiversity Theme in NERC’s Science and Innovation Strategy is to improve “understanding of biodiversity’s role in ecosystems: processes, resilience and environmental change”. NERC’s Biodiversity Theme Action Plan details the activities to implement the strategy and incorporates six areas for action. Research needs of particular relevance to Defra’s Biodiversity Research Programme are included from four of these: “ecosystem sustainability”, “valuing biodiversity”, “monitoring” and “rapid taxonomy”. The six key references noted above were chosen for their breadth and have been analysed in detail. The synthesised research needs are cross-referenced to these source documents and this assists with demonstrating where common themes occur. Other sources of information on biodiversity research needs are listed in Section 2.8. Table 2.1 is structured to provide separate component tables for each of the research themes adopted for the Review Meeting (with the exception of Countryside Survey). For each theme several generic topics are given, supported by a short statement summarising the research needs identified and cross-referenced to the six source documents used in the synthesis.
lxii Table 4 Synthesis of Biodiversity Research Needs Relevant to the Future Defra Biodiversity R&D Programme
lxiii Overarching Research needs identified Relevance to Source(s) other themes Overall To inform delivery of current commitments and future policy: All See below Research relationship between legislation and biodiversity policy [1], and its cohesion under future scenarios of environmental change [3][5] and; • Understand institutional and cultural constraints to change in policy and management [5] With UK research / contractor base, develop a longer-term strategic approach to wildlife research [1] Improved engagement with knowledge of wildlife from other countries [1]
Theme: Threats to Biodiversity Topic(s) Research needs identified Relevance to Source(s) other themes Drivers Identify, quantify, understand & predict drivers of biodiversity change including their relation to degradation & habitat loss [3] in the UK and globally [2] habitats & [1] Defra E&I species; Strategy international (2005)
Understanding Improve understanding of : [2] Defra E&I and predicting • How species will respond to climate change, incl. impacts of extreme weather events [2][3][4][5][6] Questionnaire climate change • The impact of climate change on ecosystem functions, goods and services [4][6] (2009) impacts • Genetic factors and their influence on the ability of species to adapt [1][3][4] species & [3] EPBRS • The likely impact of emerging carbon trading schemes on biodiversity [2] habitats Action Plan • CO2 feedbacks in natural and anthropogenic systems and implications for adaptation and mitigation strategies [2] (2005) & Investigate the likely impact of climate change on: • soil biodiversity / wetlands / other Priority Habitats [4] [4] UK BRAG To assist in developing effective adaptation strategies: [2][3] Research economics & Needs Climate change • Plan, establish and evaluate adaptation strategies; include approaches to site management. Include urban areas [4] and adaptation ecosystems Assessment • Improve understanding of ecological, social and economic costs and benefits of managed retreats & identify adaptation options for wetland (2007) and coastal zones [4] • Research the effects of scale in ecosystem management [4][6] indicators & [5] Horizon • Research effectiveness of translocations and trade-offs between translocation and increasing connectivity [5] monitoring Scanning for future novel Wildlife & Understand consequences of biodiversity change on health and incidence of disease in human and other species [3] threats (2008) disease spread Understand how changes (e.g. arising from land use change or climate change) interact with wildlife to affect impact of zoonoses and vector borne diseases [1][2][5] [6] NERC Develop risk assessment techniques for identifying & preventing problems at source [1] and control strategies, incl. for novel pathogens [2][5] Biodiversity theme (2007)
lxiv THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY
Theme: Threats to Biodiversity (contd.) Topic(s) Research needs identified Particular Source(s) relevance to other themes Non native Develop effective approaches to management of NNS. This requires research to: species • Agree a definitive list of NNS and establish status and trends in establishment, spread, and impact across GB [4] • Establish extent habitats support NNS or are threatened by them and level of the vulnerability (of habitats and associated species) [1][4] [1] Defra E&I • Research taxa needed as inputs to models. Quantify and characterise pathways & vectors. Model and forecast invasions/ invasiveness [1][4][5] Strategy (2005) & • Assess environmental, economic & social risks and impacts (incl. on native species) of NNS [2][4] economics
• Cost /benefit analysis and improved understanding of social dimensions, including awareness, perceptions and attitude to control [4]. & ecosys) [2] Defra E&I
• Evaluation of ecosystem consequences of removal [1][4] questionnaire Biological • Evaluation of effectiveness of legislation and regulatory measures [4] invasions (2009) Greatly increase understanding of the causes and effects of biological invasions [3] Changing land Investigate implications for managing conservation goals under various scenarios of future shifts in land use change (e.g. arising from energy habitats & [3] EPBRS use policies, food security issues, economics, population and development pressure) [2][5] species Action Plan (2005) Dramatic Monitoring & assessment of ecological impacts of extreme flows [5] changes in Model cumulative impacts. Determine impacts of increasing hydrological connectivity & decreasing ecological connectivity [5] freshwater flow [4] UK BRAG Develop cost-effective management interventions [5] Research Chemical Establish methods and guidelines to assess environmental risk posed by chemicals and biotechnology, including genetically modified organisms [3] Needs pollution Develop approaches for separating the effects of the multiple drivers of biodiversity change, from each other and from natural change [3], specifically: Assessment & • establish impacts of atmospheric pollution and climate change on biodiversity [2][4] indicators & (2007) Biotechnology Develop cost-effective approaches to reduce impacts of acidification including mitigation measures [1] monitoring [5] Horizon Innovation Explanatory Notes Scanning for future novel Continued horizon scanning to identify emerging threats and new issues in the UK and globally, monitor these (e.g. nanotechnologies, new pollutants, threats (2008) emergent disease threats) assess research needs, resilience of policy to these threats and timescales for developing action [2][5]
Employ DNA advances to new areas – incl. potentially for describing patterns of change in biodiversity in response to changing land use patterns and habitats & adaptation to climate change [2] [6] NERC species Biodiversity Employ novel techniques (e.g. DNA bar-coding) for tracing origins of NNS [4] theme (2007) Develop new technologies for predicting and detecting fires [5]
lxv THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY Theme: Economics & Ecosystems Topic(s) Research needs identified Particular Source(s) relevance to other themes Understanding Ecosystem functions have not been adequately defined and techniques are required for measuring them: ecosystem functions • Define and classify ecosystem functions, including resilience [3] [4] threats to [1] Defra E&I • Develop techniques by which ecosystem functions can be measured [3][4] biodiversity Strategy (2005) Understand role of biodiversity in ecosystems [6] and identify strength of the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functions [3]
Identify the environmental limits of acceptable change [6] [2] Defra E&I Assess changes in ecosystem function in response to environmental change [4][6] questionnaire Valuing biodiversity Improve and apply techniques that deal with cost/benefits, uncertainty and irreversibility [1][4][5][6] (2009) Understand perceptions of the value of biodiversity; e.g. by testing people’s valuation of biodiversity services and establishing trade-offs between biodiversity concerns and other concerns [3][6] [3] EPBRS Evaluate the economic benefits of the UK BAP [2] habitats & Action Plan Establish which environmental investments yield the highest social rates of return [4] species (2005) Public attitudes Improve understanding of public attitudes, beliefs, perceptions and how these relate to behaviour and policy [1][3][5] Determine whether attitudes and behaviour are changing, assess implications for policy /communication [5] [4] UK BRAG Understand the causes of conflicts between humans and wildlife [2] and specifically: Research Needs • Understand society’s perceptions and understanding of resolution of wildlife conflicts, incl. social attitudes to country sports or Assessment antagonism due to perceived health threat [1] [5] (2007), • Further develop participatory and conflict management and resolution measures for wildlife conflicts [1]
[5] Horizon Strengthen the Test the role of biodiversity in sustainable development [1][6] Scanning for socio-economic Test the cost effectiveness of existing conservation regulation, policies and projects [4] future novel dimension of an Develop predictive models of human systems and ecological systems, similar to the approach advocated under the ecoSERVICES threats to threats (2008) ecosystem DIVERSITAS science plan [4][6] biodiversity approach [6] NERC
Biodiversity theme (2007)
lxvi ECONOMICS & ECOSYSTEMS Theme: Economics & Ecosystems (contd.) Topic(s) Research needs identified Particular Source(s) relevance to other themes Develop & Develop and assess methods of conserving natural resources, including market approaches, that achieve sustainable lifestyles and reduce see previous Implement impact on biodiversity [1][3] page approaches Develop methods to implement, evaluate and improve the principles and application of the ecosystem approach to the CBD [3] Undertake targeted predictive modelling of effects of policies and associated adaptive resource management for wildlife management [1] Obtain cost/benefit data on various wildlife control methods [1] Assess environmental, economic and social impacts of current populations, model effects of greater lesser populations, assess true economic international cost of wildlife populations on e.g. trade and tourism and on provision of ecosystem goods and services [1] Innovation Explanatory Notes There are opportunities in the use of web-services for identifying new policy options including market creation in biodiversity (e.g. biodiversity offsets) and ecosystem goods and services [1][2]
lxvii ECONOMICS & ECOSYSTEMS Theme: International Topic(s) Research needs identified Particular Source(s) relevance to other themes Ecosystems, Understand UK and global relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem function, international trade, built environment, economic/social [1] Defra E&I protection and development and health [1] Strategy human well being (2005) Research into governance and management of biodiversity use – including international trade, conservation and restoration in different habitats & sectors, investigating legal issues, precautionary principle and multi-level governance [1] species Integrate biodiversity and ecosystem services into decision making in developing countries and overseas territories [2] [2] Defra E&I Understand the most effective mechanisms for minimising the impact of business and development on global biodiversity [2] questionnaire (2009) Wildlife crime Develop methods for identifying illegal trade in protected species, to enforce UK legislation and CITES commitments [2] habitats & Develop and test methods to assist in detecting wildlife crime and in regulating the use of endangered species held in captivity [1][2] species [4] UK BRAG Research Employ DNA advances to new areas – e.g. detection of wildlife crime [2] Needs Zoos Assess welfare standards in zoos [2] Assessment Innovation Explanatory Notes (2007) There are opportunities to use DNA and data processing advances in species identification and taxonomy [4] [6] Develop innovative methods to enforce regulation in trade in endangered species, evaluate impact of trade on endangered species, define [6] NERC international responses and ensure suitable management and prevent wildlife crime [1] Biodiversity theme (2007)
lxviii INTERNATIONAL Theme: Habitats and Species Topic(s) Research needs identified Particular Source(s) relevance to other themes Status & change in Identify surveillance requirements for European protected species and habitats to inform action to avoid potential EC infraction [2] [1] Defra E&I key species & To inform the UK BAP, Defra PSAs and Intermediate Outcomes: Strategy (2005) habitats • Review and improve definition of some HAPs [4] indicators & monitoring • Improve understanding of status and trends in UK wildlife [2] [2] Defra E&I Questionnaire • Understand cause of unfavourable condition of SSSIs [2] (2009) • Assess impact of climate change on the integrity of protected sites [2] threats to biodiversity • Monitor wild bird populations [2] indicators & [3] EPBRS monitoring Action Plan Species recovery Develop concepts, tools and methods to enable species recovery & to restore and manage the various functions of degraded ecosystems [3] (2005) Develop concepts, tools & methods to achieve favourable conservation status [2][3] Innovation Explanatory Notes [4] UK BRAG Research Pest control Develop publicly acceptable more humane or non-lethal control mechanisms which minimise impacts on non-target species Needs (e.g. immunocontraceptives in management of pest populations) [1][2] Assessment More effective use Investigate role in taxonomy and taxonomic analysis of e-science tools such as online identification keys and taxonomic peer-review [6] (2007) of taxonomy [6] NERC Biodiversity Theme(2007)
lxix HABITATS & SPECIES Theme: Indicators and Monitoring Topic(s) Research needs identified Particular Source(s) relevance to other themes Audit Develop a unified system for auditing the distribution of UK Priority Habitats (compatible with existing European schemes) [3][4] [1] Defra E&I Scale Improve ecological management at site-level and better understand the effectiveness of policy options to halt biodiversity loss by taking Strategy account of the wider landscape context and a changing environment [3][4], requiring: (2005) • Improved understanding of landscape/ecosystem processes and their impacts on sites [4][6]
• Develop methods for scaling-up: from single samples to landscape scale [4][6] threats to [2] Defra E&I • Develop models and decision systems to improve site level management and predict impact on sites of environmental & socio- biodiversity; questionnaire economics & economic change at landscape scale [4][6] (2009) ecosystems Identification of scale at which iconic species and habitats are viable, consequences for other species and cost/benefit [5] Monitoring & Continue development of cost-effective methods, including mass participatory surveys, for assessing distribution, status and trends in priority habitats & species [3] EPBRS surveillance species and other species of policy relevance [1] [4] Action Plan threats to Techniques (2005) Develop monitoring techniques that work in a changing environment [4] biodiversity
Develop techniques to define long-term viable status for biodiversity, especially the UK Priority Habitats [3][4] species & habitats [4] UK BRAG Improve techniques for evaluating the ecological effects of biodiversity change [4] Research Needs Assessment Indicators & Develop and update UK and England Biodiversity indicators to provide an evidence base for assessing 2010 targets [2] (2007), measures threats to Develop headline indicators of climate change impacts on biodiversity [4] biodiversity Establish baseline indicators & targets for favourable conservation status [1][3][4] [5] Horizon Scanning for Develop indicators for ecosystem function, ecosystem goods and services and genetic diversity [1][4] economics & future novel Identify key indicators and surrogates of biodiversity status (considering ecological function, direction and rate of change, and links to ecosystems threats (2008) socio-economic measures for provision of ecosystem goods and services) [4] Identify and evaluate surrogate indicators of condition at a landscape level [4] [6] NERC Biodiversity Evaluate the use of ecosystem function as a surrogate for biodiversity and ecosystem health [4] economics theme (2007) & ecosystems
lxx INDICATORS & MONITORING Theme: Indicators and Monitoring (contd.) Topic(s) Research needs identified Particular Source(s) relevance to other themes Targets Review the effectiveness of existing policy framework and suitability of conservation targets in UK (SPAs, SACs and BAPs) and role in shaping threats to see viable management options, incl. in light of climate change [1] [4] biodiversity previous Capacity building Support infrastructure for professional and voluntary biological data recording [4] page Innovation Explanatory Notes Accessibility & Create centralised integrated environmental data sets, which could be used for investigations to answer cross-cutting policy questions [2][4] Integration of data Use of innovative internet and e-technologies to gather, manage, interpret and share biodiversity data and results [1][2][5] EO techniques Use of Earth Observation to improve biodiversity mapping and monitoring, including of condition [1][2]
lxxi INDICATORS & MONITORING Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
2.6 Outline Questions for Guided Discussion The Forward Look discussion will identify particular future research needs (themes, topics, or projects) building from what has been learned from the backward look and using the tables in this document as a starting point.
Discussion will also cover the processes of how funding is planned and apportioned, or how the partnership approach can be strengthened, ensuring engagement and efficiencies of scale while avoiding duplication of effort.
It will also cover the communications, between policy makers and scientists, or different partners, and how these could be made more effective. In particular, it will examine whether there is a need to improve dissemination of research requirements and results.
A Identification of research needs • What are the most critical topics for the future research programme to address from a Defra perspective and why? • Is there a need for the programme to address new topics or themes that were not identified in the synthesis? • What horizon scanning activities should the programme be undertaking? • Does Defra lead the way in the application of science for biodiversity policies? • Where is Defra research strong? • Where is Defra research weak? • How can we better involve the research community in the identification of research needs, either through UK BRAG or through other mechanisms?
B Prioritisation and management of research projects Changing pressures on biodiversity (e.g. climate change, invasive species) are constantly generating new research requirements. The development of the ecosystem approach has also generated new requirements and there is an increasing need to examine socio- economic aspects in biodiversity research, but the collection of the evidence to increase understanding in these areas often requires long-term studies and integrated analysis. New biodiversity issues and priorities can emerge very quickly, and policy units need a responsive, flexible research programme that can address these needs.
• How should projects be prioritised? This requires consideration of: i) the balance of funding between strategic longer-term goals and applied research in support of more immediate policy needs. ii) assessment of value for money. iii) the balance between low risk/high return and high risk/high return projects, including improved consideration of innovative approaches. iv) the balance between projects and engagement at home, in Europe and globally and the changing balancing between these (e.g. are there key issues emerging at a more global scale?).
lxxii Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
v) the urgency of the issue in terms of the threat to biodiversity and rate of change, or delivery of particular targets.
• Can we improve the efficiency with which let projects are managed, making best use of external expertise (e.g. by the use of ‘theme steering groups’ or increased use external academics on steering groups)?
C Working with partners
• How could the programme best align with the research programmes of other organisations such as NERC? • How can Defra improve interactions (and more clearly define the boundaries) between this research programme and research carried out by other funding bodies such as Natural England, Environment Agency, the Devolved Administrations, and the Research Councils? • How could the partnership approach be strengthened, within in the context of active participation, collaboration and joint funding of projects? • Can Defra engage in more innovative projects by extending our partnership – perhaps engaging more with businesses and industry? • How might planning processes be improved to assist partners in realising the benefits of a partnership approach (e.g. in identifying research needs, planning, financing, procuring, delivering and communicating research)?
D Communications
• How should communications be improved to avoid overlap, identify gaps, opportunities for working together, including improved identification and response to urgent research needs?
E Review and assessment
• How frequently should future research needs be reviewed and updated? • How flexible should the process be for identifying and prioritising projects?
lxxiii Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
2.7 References (sources used in the synthesis table) Defra (2005) Evidence and Innovation Strategy 2005-2008. Consultation Document. Defra Defra (2009). Defra Evidence Investment Questionnaire 2009 – Overview & Evidence Needs (draft internal document). EPBRS (2005). Action Plan for Biodiversity Research in Europe. Formulated by the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy, and adopted at its meeting in Budapest, Hungary, 31st March – 4th April 2005. Ferris R (Ed) (2007) Research needs for UK biodiversity. A summary of the important knowledge gaps, identified by the UK Biodiversity Research Advisory Group, 2003-2006. Defra. NERC (2008) Biodiversity Theme Action Plan. Sutherland et al (2008) Future novel threats and opportunities facing UK biodiversity identified by horizon scanning. Journal of Applied Ecology 45, p821-833.
2.8 Further Information Arthur D Little Ltd (2009) Survey of External Capabilities to meet Defra’s Strategic Requirements. Final Report. BES-Defra Workshop (2006) Assessing Ecosystem Services in the UK. 8 December 2006, London, UK. BiodivERsA: Ferris R. and C. Fenwick (2006) An Assessment of Best Practice in Commissioning and Managing Biodiversity Research in Europe, and Approaches to Overcoming Barriers to Cooperation. CCW (2004) Corporate Plan: 2005-2008 “Working Together to Create a Better Wales”. EA Corporate Plan 2009-2012 Creating a better place – Translating strategy into action. EPBRS (2008) Draft European National Strategies for Biodiversity Research. ERFF (2007) Strategic analysis of UK environmental research activity. ERFF Report 04. Fay, F.M. and Ferris, R. (eds) (2007) Genetic conservation research needs. Edited by the UK BRAG Secretariat on behalf of the Genetic Conservation sub-group. Ferris, R. (ed) (2006) Research priorities: climate change and adaptation. Edited by the UK BRAG Secretariat on behalf of the Climate Change and Adaptation Research Priorities subgroup. Ferris, R. and Bainbridge, I. (eds) (2005) Strategy for NNS research. Edited by the UK BRAG Secretariat on behalf of the Non-Native Species sub-group. Ferris, R., Pullin, A.S. and Charman, K. (eds) (2005) Research strategy for Management of Habitats and Ecosystems. Edited by the UK BRAG Secretariat on behalf of the Habitat and Ecosystem Management sub-group. Forestry Commission (2005) Science and Innovation for British Forestry. A summary of the 2005 Strategy. JNCC (2009) The UK Terrestrial Biodiversity Surveillance Strategy. Proposal for a Terrestrial Biodiversity Surveillance and Monitoring Strategy. Natural England (2009) Natural England Corporate Plan 2009 -2012. Living with Environmental Change : http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/programmes/lwec/
lxxiv Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
NERC (2007) Science Theme Reports. NERC Strategy 2007 – 2012. Next Generation Science for Planet Earth. Biodiversity. NERC. NERC (2007a) Next Generation Science for Planet Earth 2007-2012. NERC. NERC (2007b) Science Theme Reports. NERC Strategy 2007 – 2012. Next Generation Science for Planet Earth. Climate System. NERC. Perrings, C. and Ferris, R. (eds) (2004) Socio-economic biodiversity research perspectives relevant to the delivery of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP). Robson, J. (ed) (2006) Research needs analysis for the role of biodiversity in ecosystem function. Rose, P.M. and Ferris, R. (eds) (2005) Research strategy for monitoring and surveillance of biodiversity and evaluation of actions. Edited by the UK BRAG Secretariat on behalf of the Monitoring and Evaluation sub-group. SNH (2007) Research and Development Strategy 2007-2012. UNEP (2003) Integrating Biodiversity with environment assessment processes.
lxxv Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
lxxvi Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
PROJECT SUMMARIES
THEME 1: THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY
1 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Theme 1 Project summaries not available Project Project title Contractor Number 0188 Lead shot sales ADAS Paper Review 0233 Drivers of countryside change 1 ITE Paper Review 0234 Non-lethal bird scaring BASC Paper Review 0265 New Plant Atlas: changing flora CEH Paper Review of the UK 122 Lead shot Paper Review
123 Ruddy ducks Paper Review
124 Canada geese control Paper Review
133 Deer management Paper Review
148 Canada geese movements Paper Review
151 Pest birds monitoring Paper Review
180 Fish eating birds pop Paper Review
181 Fish eating birds feeding Paper Review
182 Shot lethality Paper Review
184 Biological monitoring lead shot Paper Review
196 Raptors – game birds Paper Review
197 Raptors – racing pigeons Paper Review
There are a number of projects, mainly from 1996, for which summaries were not available. While these have been included in the financial assessments, they are, unfortunately, not available for review.
2 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0302: CLIMATE CHANGE AND MIGRATORY SPECIES. INDICATOR SPECIES AND PROTOCOLS FOR DATA COLLECTION
British Trust for Ornithology Humphrey Q.P. Crick BTO, The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk, IP24 2PU
1 September 2004 – 19 October 2005 £57,000
Executive Summary Our climate is changing and there is already compelling evidence that animals and plants have been affected in both their distribution and behaviour. Migratory species are likely to be particularly affected by climate change as their behaviour usually involves seasonal movement between different geographic areas and across national boundaries.
Changes in range have been widely documented in all taxa, with distributions of most shifting towards the poles. The act of migration itself may become more difficult due to climate change as stopover areas may become degraded. Interactions between climate change and human exploitation are also widespread, though poorly understood. A major conservation concern is for arctic and montane species (most of which are migratory), the distributions of which cannot shift further north. Among mammals, Polar Bear and northern seals are of key concern, due to the loss of Arctic sea ice; sea-level rise will also affect a range of species. A major effect of climate on migratory (and other) species will be changes in prey distribution and mismatching between the timing of events at different trophic levels (for example birds and their invertebrate prey); such changes are already well documented.
In terrestrial systems, changes to the water regime and loss of vulnerable habitat are likely to affect the greatest number of migratory species. While adaptation (through habitat management) to climate change may bring benefits in terrestrial ecosystems, a reduction in emissions will be required to achieve significant benefits in marine systems as habitat management is less feasible. In many cases, a reduction in human impacts (such as over-exploitation or habitat loss) will help animal and plants to adapt. It is critical that there is a commitment to long-term monitoring schemes to detect the impacts of long-term climate change and to assess the abilities of plants and animals to adapt to it. There is also a need to gather information on migratory stopover sites so as best to target conservation action. Targeted implementation and enforcement of existing measures should provide much of the protection needed, as would the broader use of existing guidance codes.
Introduction and Policy Rationale Climate change is one of the major factors likely to affect the earth’s ecosystems in the coming decades. The increase in global temperature in the 20th century was the largest in any century during the past 1,000 years and this has been associated with changes in weather patterns, precipitation, snow cover, sea-temperatures and sea- level. There is already compelling evidence that animals and plants have been affected by recent climate change. Migratory species, by travelling large distances, being subject to a wide range of environmental influences and relying on a wide
3 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
range of natural resources, are particularly likely to be affected by climate change at some point in their life cycles. These may be effects that apply to all species in that area, or effects that are specific to migrants. The UK Government is party to a number of international treaties and agreements that seek to promote and maintain the conservation status of migrant species of wildlife and Defra takes a lead role for the Government in these areas, with the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) being the primary instrument of interest. In this review, we focus on migratory species which occur in the U.K. or its Overseas Territories (UKOTs).
Objectives To (i) assess the strength of current scientific evidence of links between climate change and migratory species’ behaviour, abundance and distribution, (ii) identify what effects climate change has had, and may have in the future, on migratory species (iii) identify which species are threatened by climate change and comment on the measures proposed to tackle such threats and (iv) comment on the reliability or uncertainty of predicted effects.
Approaches and Methods We conducted a major review of the available published literature for the main taxonomic groups that contain a substantial number of migratory species, i.e. birds, marine and terrestrial mammals, bats, turtles, marine fish, marine invertebrates (primarily cephalapods) and insects. Where appropriate we supplemented this information with recent studies in the pre-publication stage. We also consulted with experts on the biology, ecology and conservation of these taxa. While this work considered information from throughout the world, special consideration was given to those species that occur in and/or pass through the UK and its Overseas Territories (UKOTs). We examined the climate change impacts on a number of species included on the CMS Appendices in some depth in a series of Case Studies, which highlight the types of impacts climate change may have on migratory species. The review was assessed and augmented by a panel of international experts brought together for a two-day workshop in Cambridge.
Results Our understanding of the likely impacts of future climate change varies greatly between taxonomic groups, with the best information being available for birds. Of the bird species listed on the CMS, 84% face some threat from climate change. Almost half of these are because of changes in water usage; this is equivalent to all other man-made causes put together.
Changes in range are perhaps the most widely documented effect of climate change and have been demonstrated in a number of groups. Changes in prey distribution are equally common and will have widespread effects on the distribution and survival of species at higher trophic levels (i.e. predators). These changes might be spatial (through changes in range), or temporal (through differential changes in development rates), and lead to a mismatch between prey abundance and the need for resources. Habitat loss and, importantly, changes in habitat quality are particularly important for migratory species that need a coherent network of sites to facilitate their migratory journeys. By altering distributions, climate change will bring some species into conflict with human activities. Conversely, anthropogenic responses to climate change are likely to exacerbate the impacts on wildlife caused by changing climatic 4 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
conditions, e.g. through increased water abstraction, changes in agri- or silviculture, or changes in fishing patterns. Although the scenarios of climate change are generally within the known range of historical conditions, the rate at which they are changing is unprecedented, so organisms may be unable to adapt sufficiently rapidly.
Relevance to Policy The UK Government is party to a number of international treaties and agreements that seek to promote and maintain the conservation status of migrant species of wildlife, and Defra takes a lead role for the Government in these areas. The primary instrument in this area is the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS, 1979) and associated agreements focussing on particular groups of taxa. Other key international legal and policy instruments for nature conservation that cover migrant species include the Ramsar Convention on wetlands (1971) and the EC Birds (1979/409/EEC) and Habitats (1992/42/EEC) Directives. This report was presented at the CMS CoP 8 in Nairobi, November 2005 and led to the CMS adopting a Resolution (UNEP/CMS/8.13) recognising the impacts of climate change on migratory species and calling for measures addressing this.
Technology Transfer Events Workshop bringing together international experts and key policy-makers; March 2005 (43 participants)
Reports and Publications International Press Coverage, including (in UK) Independent, Geographical Magazine Maclean, I.M.D., Rehfisch, M.M., Robinson, R.A. & Delany, S. 2008 The effects of climate change on migratory waterbirds within the African-Eurasian flyway. British Trust for Ornithology Thetford. Robinson, R.A., Crick, H.Q.P., Learmonth, J.A., et al. 2009. Travelling through a warming world – climate change and migratory species. Endangered Species Research 7:87-99. Learmonth, J.A., Macleod, C.D., Santos, M.B., Pierce, G.J., Crick H.Q.P. & Robinson, R.A. 2006. Potential effects of climate change on marine mammals. Oceanography and Marine Biology 44:429-456.
5 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0266: ASSESSING CLIMATE CHANGE EFFECTS ON LAND USE AND ECOSYSTEMS: FROM REGIONAL ANALYSIS TO THE EUROPEAN SCALE (ACCELERATES) and DEFRA Extension to ACCELERATES.
Contractor Organisation ECI, University of Oxford South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QY
2002 – 2005 Total cost (€k): 1233 (EU) Total cost of extension (£k): 43 (Defra)
Introduction and Policy Rationale In spatial terms, agriculture is one of the most important land uses in Europe. The management of this land has profound impacts on biological diversity. Throughout the second half of the 20th century European landscapes have experienced rapid changes in agricultural land use arising from developments in technology and management driven by socio-economic and political changes. The intensification of agricultural land use has led to the fragmentation and loss of natural habitats and their associated species. In the future these trends are anticipated to continue through the effect of reforms to the CAP, enlargement of the European Union, globalisation, technological change and climate change. Yet the rates of land use change and the potential implications of this for biodiversity are poorly understood. The EU-funded ACCELERATES project sought to gain insight into these issues and the Defra-funded extension enabled more habitats to be studied in the East Anglian case study region.
Objectives The overall aim of the project was to assess the vulnerability of European agroecosystems to environmental change. This was achieved through an assessment of:
• the rate, extent and dynamics of changes in agricultural land use arising from climate, policy and socio-economic pressures; • the impact of agricultural land use and climate change on biological resources; and • the vulnerability of agroecosystems based on economic and environmental considerations.
Approaches and Methods The research was undertaken in two phases: • Phase 1: Building an integrated modelling framework including models for crop growth, farm decision making, species distribution and species dispersal. • Phase 2: Applying this integrated framework to test the effect of different scenarios of climatic and socio-economic change on agricultural land use and the response of species. The Defra extension enabled modelling of species for lowland heathland and fens in East Anglia.
6 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Integrated framework The building blocks of the integrated framework were: a) A crop growth model, which estimated potential crop yields from soil, water, plant and nutrient characteristics. b) A farm-based decision model, which was designed to determine the cropping, labour and machinery which optimises long-term profit, accounting for risk aversion and imposed constraints for environmental reasons. c) A species distribution model, generating maps of the potential distribution of species for changed climatic conditions, based on actual presence or absence of these species and land use. d) A species dispersal model, indicating if a species can actually move to its potential distribution area. The integrated framework was developed within a GIS, so that the model outputs could be represented spatially, in map form.
Scenarios The modelling was driven by the use of environmental change scenarios for the years 2020, 2050 and 2080. These scenarios included estimates of not only changes in the climatic baseline, but also estimates of possible future changes in socio- economics. For example, prices of agricultural commodities and production costs may vary substantially over relatively short time periods in response to market and policy drivers. Where possible the socio-economic scenarios were directly linked to the climate change scenarios through the common societal and political assumptions that underpin each scenario. The relative importance of socio-economic and biophysical drivers were assessed, and the implications for policy highlighted. Vulnerable regions (those that are sensitive to change and are unable to adapt were identified using economic and environmental indicators.
Scales of application The project was undertaken at the scale of the European Union (EU15), and within six case study regions (Belgium; Denmark; the Belluno Valley, Italy; Almeria, Spain; the island of Lesvos, Greece; East Anglia, UK). The European scale work assessed changes in agroecosystems and the impact of this on the distribution of natural habitats and species. The regional case studies allowed more detailed analysis of the specific issues and processes affecting land use dynamics and species at a local level, notably, species dispersal processes within fragmented landscapes.
Results The project produced results on: 1. better understanding of the rates and processes of changes in agricultural land use and species distributions and dispersal; 2. refined understanding of the relationship between land use and species suitability; 3. identification of vulnerable agroecosystems and regions in terms of their sensitivities to environmental change and their ability to adapt to change; 4. vulnerable habitats, as in East Anglia, lowland heath plant species could persist, while Dartford warbler could lose climate space in some parts, but there was still a large suitable area into which it could disperse. Two fen plant species showed little change in the climate suitability, while one plant species and the birds could lose space. Thus this was a more sensitive habitat (Defra extension); 7 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
5. evaluation of the feasibility of an integrated approach to conservation and sustainable development involving local stakeholders; and 6. examination of policy mechanisms to mitigate undesirable changes in agroecosystems and biodiversity.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy The vulnerability of species to climate change suggests that conservation management and legislation need strengthening. Where climate space is predicted to be totally lost, species should become a conservation priority in countries which remain suitable, usually those to the north(east). Scandinavia will become increasingly important for species. Non-modelled rare/sensitive species could become vulnerable in the future and need protection and EU policy needs to be regularly reviewed and lists of species updated, as is planned for Red Data Book species’ lists. The impacts of climate change on agriculture will vary between regions. In southern Europe major concerns will be abandonment and water supply for irrigation whereas in northern Europe concerns are for intensified production and the negative environmental effects of farming. The CAP should deal with these regional differences with different instruments employed to avoid abandonment and to encourage more extensive production.
Technology transfer Events Joint Defra extension to ACCELERATES and MONARCH workshop on “Impacts of climate change on biodiversity and the implications for nature conservation policy and management” held on 18th – 19th May 2004 in Oxford.
Reports and publications The results of the project were widely published in the scientific press, including a Special Issue in Environmental Science and Policy containing eight papers (volume 9, number 2, pages 93 to 204 inclusive).
8 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0308: MODELLING NATURAL RESOURCE RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE (THE MONARCH 3 PROJECT)
University of Oxford Dr Pam Berry Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, 5, South Parks Road, Oxford OX3 1QY.
1 April 2004 - 30 September 2006 £327,000
Executive Summary In MONARCH 3, the SPECIES model was automated, so that the potential impact of a climate change on a greater number of species could be assessed. It was also refined to include ensemble forecasting to reduce within model uncertainty and Ecological Niche Factorization Ananlysis (ENFA), so that presence-only species data could be used. The model was applied to 120 Britain and Ireland BAP species at the 5km and to 32 of these at the 50km resolution. The model also was validated by hindcasting, using historical species’ distribution data. The role of climate uncertainty was also investigated by applying 28 climate change scenarios to six species to explore uncertainties from three sources: future greenhouse gas emissions, imperfect understanding of climate science and modelling, and natural climate variability.
MONARCH 3 helped advance the science and understanding of the potential impacts of climate change on biodiversity. The developments of the SPECIES model meant that it was at the forefront of bioclimate envelope models. MONARCH 3 continued to investigate the limits of bioclimatic envelope modelling and explored the limitations posed by data availability and reliability. It identified those BAP species that may need to respond to considerable changes in the location of their potential suitable climate space and thus highlighted that nature conservation should take broad actions to increase the resilience of habitats and the ability of species to move across landscapes.
Introduction and Policy Rationale Given the strong evidence of species currently responding to climate changes, it is highly likely that the future impacts of climate change on biodiversity will be substantial. MONARCH was a seven-year programme developed to assess the impacts of projected climate change on wildlife in Britain and Ireland. The key aim was to simulate the potential for change in the ranges of species, using the UKCIP scenarios. MONARCH 3 examined the potential effects on 120 rare or threatened species, listed as needing conservation under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), with a particular focus on 32 species with more robust data. In doing so, it sought to • make the case for adaptation to the unavoidable effects of climate change upon biodiversity over the next 50 years; • inform the development of nature conservation policy and ensure that the needs of biodiversity are considered in the adaptation planning across Britain and Ireland; • inform future development of UK BAP targets;
9 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
• demonstrate the potential consequences for British and Irish biodiversity of failing to reduce emissions, and thereby strengthen the case for action on mitigation.
Objectives 1. Automate the ‘SPECIES’ modelling process; 2. Apply MONARCH methodology in Britain and Ireland; 3. Validate ‘SPECIES’ model through hindcasting; 4. To assess and, where possible, quantify the uncertainty involved in the modelling process.
Approaches and Methods Bioclimate envelope modelling is a standard method for assessing the potential impacts of climate change on species' ranges, but is subject to a number of limitations. MONARCH 3 sought to address some of these through automation of the SPECIES model, in order that multiple runs could be performed for each species for ensemble forecasting, but for BAP species the availability of European distribution data for model training was a severe limitation. ENFA was added to the model to try and overcome this. Initially, maps were produced of the current recorded distribution overlain by simulated present and projected future climate space across Britain and Ireland at 5km resolution for all 120 BAP species. The simulations were then masked to remove areas of currently unsuitable land cover in an effort to better define the potentially suitable areas. A review by taxonomic specialists suggested that the 5km resolution resulted in a false sense of accuracy, given the limitations of the input data and thus the 32 species for which there was good distribution data where re- modelled at the 50km resolution and the implications for conservation were only analysed for these species.
In order to validate the SPECIES model, 12 species were selected according to whether they were expanding, contracting or showing little range change. The model was trained on an earlier observed species distribution dataset and corresponding climate and run forwards to simulate changes in potential suitable climate space, and also trained on the more recent datasets and run backwards (hindcasting). To explore the uncertainties from future greenhouse gas emissions, imperfect understanding of climate science and modelling, and natural climate variability, 28 climate change scenarios were applied to the climate space models for six species.
Results The automated SPECIES programme greatly reduced the time and difficulty of generating and analysing model projections and provided a friendly, graphical user- interface. The two methodological developments reduced model error through the use of ensembles and ENFA allowed the modelling of additional species, although there are still a number of modelling caveats that have not been addressed MONARCH 3 also demonstrated the importance of the availability and quality of species distribution data for species modelling, especially when dealing with rarer species. The land cover masking showed the limitations in defining the land cover types where a species might occur, and while it was good at limiting simulated climate space for coastal species, it was rather crude for others, as many were associated with a number of widely distributed land cover types. In the validation, the SPECIES model performed well when given climate and observed data from the same time period and simulated an expansion in potential suitable climate space for 10 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
the future period when run forward for species expected to expand. It was less good at simulating changes in climate space for contracting species. The backcasting often led to undersimulation of potential suitable climate space relative to the observed distribution, which was more difficult to explain. The uncertainty analysis results showed that there was a wide range of projections between different climate models and emissions scenarios, whilst uncertainties due to natural climate variability tended to be less. Uncertainties in the 2080s, however, were generally greater than in the 2050s, as might be expected. Model uncertainty tended to be greater than emissions uncertainty for the gains in potential suitable climate space projected for some species. However, there was little difference in the magnitude of uncertainty related to emissions scenarios and climate models for the losses in potential suitable climate space projected for all species, except one.
The projections for the 32 BAP species illustrated the severe threat posed by climate change to biodiversity, as 29 were projected to see significant shifts in suitable climate space. Eight were projected to lose substantial climate space: for six of them, all suitable climate space – or the vast majority of it – could be lost by the 2080s under a High climate change scenario. The projections also showed a northward shift in climate space for six species, while 15 had the potential to extend their range within Britain and Ireland. The latter may be particularly important to conservation if species are simultaneously losing climate space and declining further south, including in their continental European range.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy MONARCH 3 advanced the science and understanding of the potential impacts of climate change on biodiversity. Given the uncertainties in projections, adaptation for nature conservation should not assume specific outcomes for individual species, but instead manage for uncertainty. MONARCH’s projections reinforced the urgency for management interventions. The modelled responses of the 32 species to climate change were variable, but those projected to gain, lose or shift climate space (over 90% of them over the timescale of the scenarios) will all potentially need help in dispersing to and establishing in new areas, so developing effective adaptation measures appeared vital and MONARCH’s climate space projections have been important in this thinking. Planning for the impacts of climate change on biodiversity requires adaptation strategies that maintain and enhance resilience and strategies which accommodate change and MONARCH 3 has provided informative signposts that have helped develop policies for nature conservation and climate change.
Technology Transfer Events The Conservation Synthesis report was launched May, 2007 with a press release and meeting with Barrie Gardiner report. The work has also been presented at a number of conferences and meetings. Reports and Publications. Berry, P.M., O’Hanley, J.R., Thomson, C.L., Harrison, P.A, Masters, G.J. & Dawson, T.P. (eds.) (2007) Modelling Natural Resource Responses to Climate Change (MONARCH): MONARCH 3 Contract report, Oxford: UKCIP Technical Report. O'Hanley, J.O. (2009) ‘NeuralEnsembles: a neural network based ensemble forecasting program for habitat and bioclimatic suitability analysis’, Ecography,Vol pp32, 89-93. Walmsley, C.A., Smithers, R.J., Berry, P.M., Harley, M., Stevenson, M.J. & Catchpole, R. (eds.) (2007) MONARCH - Modelling Natural Resource Responses to Climate Change - a synthesis for biodiversity conservation, Oxford: UKCIP.
11 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0327: TOWARDS ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE (ENGLAND BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY (TACC EBS)
Contractor Organisation Ruth Mitchel (since left CEH) Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, OX10 8BB
November 2005 – May 2007 £72,660
Executive Summary The evidence that the Earth’s climate is changing as a consequence of human activity is strong and accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion. The changing climate is beginning to have an impact on English ecosystems and this impact is expected to increase and accelerate in future, threatening the conservation of biodiversity.
Introduction and Policy Rationale The England Biodiversity Strategy (EBS) “Working with the Grain of Nature” aims to ensure that biodiversity considerations become embedded in all the main sectors of economic activity that have an impact on or relationship with delivery of biodiversity objectives, both public and private. This project reviewed the scientific evidence and summarised the potential impacts of climate change on the biodiversity of England within each of the sectors of the EBS: Agriculture, Water and Wetlands, Woodland and Forestry, Coastal and Marine, Towns and Cities. It included direct impacts and indirect ones resulting from human responses to climate change. It gives a brief overview of the main non- climatic pressures on biodiversity and their possible interactions with climate change. Principles and measures for adapting biodiversity policy and management to climate change are presented.
Objectives The aim of this work is to provide a review of the evidence of climate change impacts on biodiversity in England and to explore adaptation options. Specific objectives for each of the sectors (Agriculture, Water and wetlands, Woodland and forestry, Towns, cities and development, Coasts and seas) were as follows: • To review and summarise the evidence for the direct impacts of climate change on biodiversity • To identify potential changes in policies, working practices, and land use that are a response to climate change and assess the opportunities and threats to biodiversity as a result of these changes • To assess non-climate change drivers of change and their interaction with climate change • To identify feasible adaptation strategies in terms of policy and practice.
Approaches and Methods The approach entailed a comprehensive literature review, and then used this marshalling of knowledge to follow a formal and systematic approach to assessing what were the likely affects of climate change on habitats and to what extent
12 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
management of the landscape could be conducted adaptively to allow habitats still to function. This included stakeholder workshops that used structured discussions to integrate expert knowledge into the assessment.
Results The EBS climate change adaptation workstream members identified four key principles for adaptation to climate change, aimed at reducing vulnerability and managing for uncertainty: • Reduce direct impacts • Reduce indirect impacts • Increase resilience • Accommodate change These are generic principles and their practical implementation can be summarised as six measures for adaptation. • Direct management to reduce impacts • Promote dispersal of species • Increase available habitat • Promote conditions for natural ecosystem functioning • Optimise sectoral responses to climate change for biodiversity • Continue to reduce pressures not linked to climate change.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy There are three key underpinning requirements to enable these measures to be developed and implemented. They are aimed at reducing uncertainties and will provide the evidence base and communications to facilitate a flexible approach to implementation of adaptive measures to climate change: • Monitoring and surveillance • Development of the evidence base and research • Knowledge transfer and communication
Future Work Within life of project The project has now been completed.
Technology Transfer Events Stakeholder workshops were held, but due to staff turnover the details of these are not readily available.
Reports and publications 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.; Wilson, E.. 2007 England Biodiversity Strategy - towards adapation to climate change. Final report to Defra for contract CRO327. Defra, 177pp. (Contract CRO327).
13 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0326: CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY IN A CHANGING CLIMATE
NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Rob Brooker, Macaulay Institute Juliette Young, CEH Edinburgh
2005 - 2006 £19,900
Executive Summary Climate change is impacting biodiversity, altering the seasonality of natural events, the size and ranges of populations, the composition of communities, and the functioning of ecosystems. Future impacts will include further similar changes, as well as the potential for non-linear responses as novel situations (and perhaps novel species) are created. Adaptation strategies are needed to conserve biodiversity during climate change. However, to develop and implement such strategies we must address key areas of uncertainty and gaps in knowledge with respect to the response of biodiversity to climate change. At the same time, we must examine biodiversity conservation policy, addressing whether current policy can incorporate adaptation to climate change, as well as the problems of promoting biodiversity conservation policy and developing cross-sectoral approaches to biodiversity conservation.
Introduction and Policy Rationale Climate change is now widely recognised as one of the major drivers of global biodiversity change and loss. It is therefore necessary to consider what measures might be taken in terms of the development of policy and research strategies, in order to minimise these impacts and conserve biodiversity. Considerable discussion is currently underway within Europe on these issues. Such discussions need to bring together information on the impacts of climate change on biodiversity in Europe (both observed and predicted impacts) and the existing policy framework for biodiversity conservation, and to identify gaps in knowledge or barriers to knowledge transfer that prevent the implementation of existing policies or development of new policies. As part of this process Defra organised a meeting in October 2005 of the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS) in Aviemore, Scotland, under the UK Presidency of the European Union entitled “Climate Change and Biodiversity Conservation: knowledge needed to support development of integrated adaptation strategies”.
Objectives This review was produced to aid the work of the EPBRS at the Aviemore workshop. Its aim was to review the impacts of climate change on biodiversity in Europe, the current, planned and proposed policy responses to those impacts, and the known knowledge gaps and barriers to knowledge transfer that prevent the development of policy responses.
Approaches and Methods A draft report was produced by the project team based upon a literature review of both research and policy documents. Although detailed reviews of current and predicted impacts of climate change on biodiversity are available elsewhere (e.g.
14 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
IPCC 2002, CBD 2003), this paper updated these reviews by including information from recent project reports and meeting outputs (e.g. RHS 2005, EEAC 2005). The draft version of the paper was posted for comment during an electronic conference on 'Climate Change and Biodiversity Conservation: Knowledge needed to support development of integrated adaptation strategies', 29 August – 16 September 2005. Information from the keynote papers and discussion from this conference were included during revision of the report, and in particular in the production of section 5, prior to submission to the EPBRS meeting. In addition background papers were produced to support working groups at the EPBRS meeting. Following the EPBRS and Nature Directors’ meetings, as well as a process of peer review, additional information has been included in this document including information from the output of both of these meetings, as well as from a background paper produced by the IUCN for the Nature Director’s meeting (IUCN 2005).
Results Climate change has been proposed as one of the major threats to the global biodiversity resource. Information on the response of European biodiversity comes from two main sources: observed responses of biodiversity to recent climate change and modelled scenarios of future biodiversity responses. A number of processes, in particular changes in the growing season and timing of biological events, as well as differences in the ability of species to shift ranges, will lead to changes in the composition of terrestrial communities. Communities will not move as unaltered units. Changes in climatic conditions will alter the productivity of ecosystems, and this will vary spatially across Europe. Changes in climatic variability may lead to the loss of rare species, or those at the margins of their ranges. Key sources of uncertainty relating to future biodiversity responses include the level of detail at which modelling can be conducted; the different abilities of species to respond to climate change; the interactive effect of climate change with other drivers of biodiversity change; and non-linearity of responses. Policy to deal with the impacts of climate change can be categorised into mitigation and adaptation. With respect to biodiversity conservation, adaptation strategies would aim to conserve biodiversity despite the impacts of climate change. There is now widespread recognition of the need to develop adaptation strategies for biodiversity conservation. The implementation of policy, and in particular EPI (Environmental Policy Integration) is an area that needs addressing to promote biodiversity conservation during climate change. However, careful design of sectoral adaptation strategies and a realisation of the financial value of ecosystem services (maintained by biodiversity) would promote integration of biodiversity conservation. A number of gaps in knowledge, research priorities and barriers to knowledge transfer exist relating to climate change impacts on biodiversity, and the development of adaptation strategies for biodiversity conservation.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy There are strong links between the natural environment and the planet’s climate through which climate change will impact on biodiversity. In fact, we are already seeing important changes in the natural world that are direct responses to climate change. It is now also apparent that, even with our best efforts in terms of reducing GHG emissions, current concentrations are already committing us to some degree of warming. Conserving biodiversity during rapid climate change is now a priority, driven not least by the realisation that biodiversity underpins ecosystem services, for 15 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
example, provision of clean water and air, production of harvestable biological resources (such as timber, agricultural produce and fish), and pest and disease control. However, in order to develop adaptation strategies to promote biodiversity conservation we need to address gaps in our ecological knowledge and critically assess the processes by which policy in a number of sectors is developed and implemented. Importantly, these processes are not isolated. We are now at a stage where it is becoming clear that a concerted and integrated effort by the research and policy-making communities is needed to tackle these issues. Unfortunately information exchange between these communities is commonly highlighted as a barrier to progress. This review helps address this issue by contribute to information flow and dialogue between scientists and policy-makers by condensing relevant information on science and policy into one readily-accessible source. For policymakers, this review provides an overview of the likely impacts of climate change on biodiversity, whilst highlighting the uncertainties associated with predicting such impacts and why these uncertainties exist. For scientists, the review provides an overview of the current situation with respect to the development of biodiversity conservation policies, and some of the primary needs of policymakers.
Technology Transfer Brooker, R., Young, J. and Watt, A. 2007. Climate change and biodiversity: impacts and policy development challenges - A European case study. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management, 3(1): 12-30
16 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0389: HABITAT CONNECTIVITY - THE ECOLOGICAL BASIS FOR LANDSCAPE PERMEABILITY, FACILITATING ADAPTIVE RESPONSE OF SPECIES TO CLIMATE
Forest Research Dr Kevin Watts/Dr Amy Eycott Centre for Human & Ecological Sciences, Forest Research, Alice Holt Lodge, Farnham, Surrey, GU10 4LH
2007 - 2008 Total £46,000 – Defra £33,000
Introduction 1. There is increasing evidence that climate change is having a direct impact on UK biodiversity. These impacts include: changes in seasonal events such as flowering and species migration; changes in species abundance, habitat preferences and range, and alteration to ecosystem functions such as carbon and nutrient cycling. It is likely that many species, including some UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) priority species, will need to alter their range and distribution in response to changes in their “climate space” – the geographical area within which the climate is suitable for population survival – and the distribution of habitat and resources. 2. Habitat fragmentation is thought to be a major factor constraining the ability of species to track geographical shifts in suitable climate space. Functional connectivity is dependant on species dispersal abilities, the size and spatial arrangement of habitat patches and the degree to which land cover and land use in the intervening matrix may facilitate or hinder movement. As such, functional connectivity is species-specific and a landscape may be functionally connected for some species, but not for others. 3. Defra and partners have produced guidance for land-managers on how to reduce the impact of climate change on biodiversity. This includes recommendations for the creation of ecological networks to improve connectivity between habitat patches by: habitat expansion, establishing physical linkages such as corridors and habitat “stepping stones”, and improving the permeability of the matrix to species movement. Although these measures are strongly underpinned by ecological theory, the empirical evidence is in need of review to guide and support actions to improve habitat connectivity.
Aims and Objectives 4. The aim of this project was to assess, through systematic review with expert consultation, the strength of the empirical evidence underpinning the development of functional habitat connectivity as an adaptation to climate change. The main objectives included: assessing the importance of landscape permeability/connectivity for a wide range of species including BAP priority species; categorising the time-scales and distances over which connectivity has been studied; identifying knowledge gaps in the evidence base, and providing recommendations for policy development in relation to landscape “design features” for enhancing species movement.
17 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Methods 5. A systematic review and synthesis of available evidence was undertaken including database and internet searches, meta-analyses of selected relevant quantitative datasets and exploration of qualitative data. The specific review question was ‘Which landscape features affect species movement?’ In the qualitative section, specific focus was given to studies of UK species, including UKBAP priority species and non-native species, and to the spatial and temporal scales of those studies. In consultation with the project steering group, priority was given to assessing quantitative evidence that landscape features, specifically corridors and matrix structure, can enhance species movement. 6. A total of 11,270 documents were systematically assessed and 313 studies (all on animals) identified where direct measurement of species movement had been undertaken in relation to the presence/absence of corridors or to matrix structure. Landscape features and experimental designs varied between studies, so the 313 studies were sorted into seven ‘evidence pools’ according to their characteristics, and the data from two pools were subjected to quantitative synthesis using meta- analysis. A qualitative review was undertaken on the subset of studies concerning UK species (67 studies; 109 species; 18 UK BAP priority species; 9 non-native species).
Results 7. The meta-analysis was able to provide evidence, for a limited number and taxonomic range of species on which studies have been conducted, that corridors have the potential to facilitate movement between habitat patches. Many of the studies available focused on insects and rodents in experimental spatial populations and should not therefore be used to infer wider application. Matrix type was shown to influence the movement of individuals, with matrices that were structurally more similar to the organism’s “home” or breeding habitat patch being more permeable to species movement. Provision of a corridor (versus no corridor) had a greater effect on inter-movement rates than provision of a permeable matrix (versus non permeable). However, there have been no direct comparisons of the preference of species for using a corridor compared to a permeable matrix. 8. There was uneven coverage of taxonomic groups in the 67 studies retrieved on UK species, and most focused on butterflies and moths, followed by birds and carabid beetles. Among the mammals, rodents were the most widely studied. Freshwater invertebrates appear particularly under-investigated and there were no studies retrieved on UK reptiles. Plants were not included in the review. Spatial scales of the studies ranged from 0.03 m2 (natterjack toads) to 15,800 km2 (deer) and timescales of the experiment/observations from two minutes to five years. Positive responses, such as increased movement rate or dispersal distance, to intervening matrix features of a similar structure to the ‘home’ habitat were recorded across taxonomic groupings, habitat types and scales. Exceptions occurred where the species used less structurally similar features for cover, was highly mobile and did not react to the matrix, or used more permeable features but still dispersed at the same rate. Some negative responses (decreased movement or dispersal) to barriers such as roads were recorded.
Conclusions and Recommendations 9. There is quantitative evidence that corridors do facilitate the movement of individual animals in the circumstances tested. However, this evidence comes from a limited range of studies and it is not possible to generalise across taxa and 18 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
landscapes. Landscape features between habitat patches, such as corridors and intervening matrix structure may have a role in enhancing connectivity for relatively mobile groups like butterflies, birds and large herbivores. For these species, measures to create corridors and an intervening matrix with structural affinity to the “home” habitat may enhance population persistence and could promote longer distance movement. This provides some limited support for current policy and guidance on improving functional connectivity by developing ecological networks to enhance species movements in response to climate change. 10. There was a large number of species for which no information was retrieved; reptiles and species of freshwater habitats were particularly under-represented as were species of low mobility. Plants were not included. In other instances the evidence was equivocal or confounded by other variables and the relative importance of landscape features, compared to other factors which affect species movement, is unclear. Notwithstanding the need for immediate action based on available evidence, further research relating to longer time-scales (over multiple generations) and greater spatial scales (greater than long-distance dispersal events) is required to refine our understanding of the spatial and temporal patterns of use of landscape features by different species and taxa. There is also a need for further evaluation of the effectiveness of landscape interventions in controlled situations. 11. The findings of this study need to be placed in the context of the broader question of the effectiveness of habitat networks. The review covered a relatively narrow slice of the potential full range of evidence that could be brought to bear on this question. Further reviews (e.g. to capture movement using inferred methods such as landscape genetics) and analysis of the evidence pools gathered would help build a more complete picture. In addition, other interventions to increase resilience of species to climate change may be as important as measures to enhance movement. Actions that can promote resilient populations include conserving protected areas and all other high quality habitats, reducing sources of harm not linked to climate, conserving the range and ecological variability of habitat and species, creating buffer zones around high quality habitats, and taking action to control spread of invasive species. In turn, larger populations can produce more individuals capable of dispersal and habitats will be more welcoming to colonisation and establishment, thereby increasing the likelihood and success of chance, long- distance dispersal events which for many species appear to be vital in keeping pace with shift in climate space.
19 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0289: NITROGEN ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION IMPACTS ON BIODIVERSITY: PHASE 1 – MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Simon Smart Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Library Avenue, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA4 4PD
January 2004 - ? 2006 £152,300
Objectives Development of models for the forecasting change in vegetation condition on GB nature reserves in response to N deposition and other drivers. 1. Review the knowledge base for atmospheric nitrogen pollution impacts on biodiversity. 2. Develop and test modelling techniques to help quantify the impacts of atmospheric nitrogen deposition on biodiversity nationally. 3. Apply the modelling techniques to a sample of habitats and sites to examine current and projected levels of the nitrogen threat (from atmospheric and other sources) to habitats and sites of high nature conservation importance. 4. Provide a preliminary interpretation of the results with respect to achievement of: i) the Public Service Agreement target for achieving favourable condition on SSSIs; and ii) Biodiversity Action Plan targets for priority habitats and species and related indicators of biodiversity (eg. Country Biodiversity Strategy indicators).
Approaches and Methods Predictions of the impact of nitrogen deposition on plant species in UK Priority Habitats were obtained by coupling a dynamic soil model (MAGIC) to empirical species niche models (GBMOVE). Empirical niche models were constructed for 971 higher plants, 233 bryophytes and 74 lichens in the form of multiple logistic regression equations for the presence of each species in relation to mean floristic indicator scores (e.g. Ellenberg N). These mean scores were linked to abiotic conditions via a second set of regression equations. The linkage of the species models to outputs from MAGIC was based on MAGIC simulations of annual change in soil chemistry on eleven test sites predicted for annual time steps between 1850 and 2050. At each of these test sites, soil characteristics, management operations and predictions of historical and future atmospheric S and N deposition were used as inputs to MAGIC. Additional testing focussed on the calibration equations between mean Ellenberg R and N values and soil C/N and soil pH (the main sources of uncertainty in the model chain). These calibration equations have been revised since the end of the project to use separate terms for %C and %N (Smart et al., in press). . To develop a capacity for testing realistic scenarios of past and future ecological change we developed linked models and filters sensitive to other key drivers that could constrain or exacerbate the effects of nitrogen. Biomass accumulation and effects of management were simulated using the Dutch SUMO model. Two separate trait-based filters were also developed, one allowed ranking of 2 Common Standards Monitoring (CSM) species by their likely ease of dispersal into a modelled Priority Habitat patch, the second allowed ranking of species by their expected ability to withstand or suffer from grazing by large herbivores. Two further statistical models
20 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
were developed to predict plant species-richness and probability of occurrence of rare species. A parallel activity sought to complement the detailed modelling work by assessing the extent to which a database of risk factors could be assembled for all UK ASSI/SSSI. The objective being to scope the potential for a UK-wide risk assessment based on an integration of the information provided by risk factors coupled with empirical CL exceedance for nitrogen.
Results 1. Three sites – Moorhouse Hard Hills, Porton Down and Rothamsted Park Grass - provided time-series long enough for testing predicted change against observations. 2. On two sites, weak yet significant positive correlations were detected between observed and predicted direction and rates of change in species abundance. These results provide a degree of support for the modelling approach, but uncertainties in certain model components, in particular calibrations between Ellenberg scores and abiotic conditions, were associated with high levels of uncertainty and sensitivity that weakened the predictive power of the models. 3. GBMOVE species models were partially validated by comparing predicted environmental optima with published Ellenberg numbers for higher plants and a new set of Ellenberg-style pH and fertility indices for bryophytes, constructed during this project. 4. The low explanatory power of the calibration equations between soil properties and mean Ellenberg scores appeared to be the major influence on poor prediction of species’ probabilities. The greatest uncertainty centred on application of the soil C/N versus mean Ellenberg N relationship in fertile (ie. low soil C/N) vegetation types. 5. GBMOVE species models require further individual screening and validation. 6. In order to model management impacts on the vegetation, the Dutch soil and succession models SMART/SUMO were tested on a number of UK sites and various modifications made to adapt the SUMO model to British conditions. 7. The empirical models developed for predicting the probability of occurrence of rare species showed promising results; more work is required to establish how many rare species could be effectively modelled. 8. The empirical model for predicting above -ground plant species richness was associated with very high uncertainty around predicted values; the model is unlikely to be a reliable tool for predicting patch richness on designated sites. 9. The dispersal filter was considered reliable however a number of CSM indicators, which need revisiting given the very recent availability of the Europewide LEDA database of traits. The grazing index was unsatisfactory and different analytical approaches are required. 10. Application of the MAGIC/GBMOVE and SMART/SUMO models to the prediction of current and future impacts on test sites showed how predictions could be used to estimate the likely impact of N deposition changes on CSM indicator species relative to the impact of management change (e.g. Rowe et al, 2008). Predictions appeared to have greater reliability at peaty, acid and infertile sites i.e. with soil C/N ratios greater than about 14.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy The goal was to produce a modelling capability to test scenarios of the impact of multiple drivers on Priority Habitat patches in terms of policy relevant indicators. 21 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
1. The relevance of the initial model tests to achieve Habitat Action Plan targets and expected change in UK and country-level indicators of biodiversity was limited by the small number of test sites and the low reliability of model predictions in raised bog, lowland meadow and lowland calcareous grassland Priority Habitats. 2. Predictions of the impact of nitrogen deposition to 2010 in upland heath and blanket bog suggested that characteristic dominants would not see marked change in habitat suitability. 3. Risk factors, that could potentially exacerbate or constrain the responses of species and habitats to N deposition selected, were site area and perimeter to area ratio, agricultural intensification history, empirical N Critical Load exceedance by Priority Habitat, flood risk, current growing season length (GSL) and recent change in GSL, and the extent of intensive versus less intensive semi- natural habitat types around each site. 4. It is currently feasible to assemble a risk database for all factors for all British sites but time-series of agricultural census data and flood risk assessments do not appear to be readily available for Northern Ireland. 5. Variation in the values of risk factors would be better used to generate a site classification to stratify and select sites for allocation of limited resources for monitoring and for testing scenarios using the developing models.
Future Work Beyond life of project Generating a standard index of change in agricultural productivity requires further research and input from agronomists.
Further work is required to produce linked soil and vegetation models that are fit for the purpose of reliably testing scenarios of change on terrestrial Priority Habitats. The results reported here provided a foundation for a long-term campaign of model improvement and building credibility for their practical application. This is continuing under the Defra projects “Terrestrial Umbrella” and “Critical Loads and Dynamic Modelling”.
Technology Transfer Reports and publications 1) Rowe EC, Evans CD, Smart S and Emmett BA (2008) Predicting Winners and Losers: Translating Air Pollution Policy Initiatives into Indicators of Habitat Quality Change. In: Sànchez-Marrè M, Béjar J, Comas J, Rizzoli AE and Guariso G. (Eds.) Proceedings of the iEMSs Fourth Biennial Meeting, Barcelona, Catalonia, July 2008, pp. 1869-1876. 2) Smart SM, Scott WA, Whittaker J, Hill MO, Roy DB, Van Hinsberg A, Critchley CNR, Marrs RH, Marina L, Evans CD, Emmett BA, Rowe EC, Crowe A, Le Duc M, in press. Empirical realized niche models for British higher and lower plants - development and preliminary testing. Journal of Vegetation Science. 3) Simon Smart et al (2009) Predicting ecosystem responses to multiple drivers – application and relevance to Dwarf Shrub Heath and Bog. Proceedings of the National Heathland Conference 2008. Natural England, Peterborough. 4) De Vries, W., Wamelink, W., Van Dobben, H., Kros, H., Reinds, G.J., Mol-Dijkstra, J., Smart, S., Evans, C., Rowe, E., Belyazid, S., Sverdrup, H., Van Hinsberg, A., Posch, M., Hettelingh, J.-P., Spranger, T., & Bobbink, R. (In press). Use of dynamic soil-vegetation models to assess impacts of nitrogen deposition on plant species composition and to estimate critical loads: an overview. Ecological Applications.
22 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0295: POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF FUTURE ENERGY POLICY ON UK BIODIVERSITY.
ADAS UK Ltd Environment Group Jo Hossell / Bethan Clemence ADAS UK Ltd, Wergs Road, Wolverhampton, WV6 8TQ
February 2004 - November 2005 £49,420
Introduction & Policy rationale Renewable energy sources are central to the Government’s energy strategy for the next 50 years. The UK is committed under international agreements to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5%, relative to 1990 levels, by 2010 and by 60% by 2050. These have recently been supplemented by European Union targets which set the UK a target of a 20% of energy generation by renewable means by 2020.
To achieve or even approach these targets will require major changes in energy infrastructure and generating capacity. The potential impacts of this on the environment, and biodiversity in particular are not fully understood. This research was commissioned jointly by Defra and the Scottish Executive with the aim of researching this issue further, identifying potential biodiversity impacts and considering how these may be affected by future developments in energy policy.
The renewable energy technologies considered in the research were those where the energy source may be wholly derived from non-fossil fuel sources:
Onshore wind, Offshore wind, Biomass crops (including agricultural residues, forestry residues and energy crops), Small scale hydro (<5MW), Novel technologies (solar water heating (SWH), ground source heat pumps (GSHP), photovoltaic (PV) and hydrogen fuel cells), Marine current, and Tidal energy sources.
Objectives The stated objectives of the project were:
Consider and assess negative impacts of current energy policy on UK biodiversity. Assess potential impact of future energy policy.
‘Current energy policy’ was taken to be maintenance of the status quo in terms of the proportion of energy derived from existing sources, including renewable, non- renewable and nuclear.
23 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Methodology and approach The research comprised two key stages:
Literature review and stakeholder consultation Development of an assessment methodology for determining the significance of identified impacts
The literature review was focused on existing research relating to the environmental impacts of different types of renewable and non-renewable energy generation options.
The assessment methodology was adapted from that commonly used in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), although the research was not intended to form a formal SEA of renewable energy policy. This involved the use of matrices to assess potential policy actions against biodiversity receptors. Receptors were broadly grouped into habitats and species.
Significance was assessed with reference to the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) guidelines for ecological impact assessment. These provide a method for determining significance in terms of the magnitude of a potential impact and the importance (value) of the receptor being affected.
In terms of meeting impending renewables targets (ie, 2010 and 2020) it was concluded that wind and biomass were the best developed of the technologies considered, and most likely to make significant contributions towards these targets. The research therefore looked at these technologies in more detail.
Results and conclusions All renewable energy technologies reviewed had some potential for negative effects on the biodiversity of their locality. The key factors determining the extent and magnitude of this effect were, as with any form of development, siting, scale and effectiveness of mitigation. Development control and assessment tools such as the spatial planning and development control system and EIA allow for the control of such impacts and direction of new development towards areas where impacts on biodiversity may be less significant.
The identified effects ranged from the slight and often temporary, such as disturbance of fauna during construction operations to potentially highly significant permanent and widespread impacts, such as loss of a habitat or impoundment by tidal barrages. Some technology types also have the capacity to enhance biodiversity to varying extents, through habitat creation or other means.
The assessment of the size and scale required for renewable sources to meet the 2020 targets demonstrated that only a small area of UK land or seabed is required for each technology considered in the scenarios. Hence, it was anticipated that the future energy generation scenarios presented could be met with minimal impacts on biodiversity, if: (a) Renewable energy developments avoid sites of high biodiversity interest, (b) All the suggested mitigation measures for all energy sectors are implemented and are effective, and 24 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
(c) Multiple sources of biomass fuel are utilised.
When assessed against the benchmark of the maintenance of the status quo, all potential renewable options generally compare favourably in terms of biodiversity impact. The main reasons for this are:
Mitigation of climate change Reduced raw material requirements Reduced waste generation Reduced pollution risk Reduced requirement for cooling water Less risk of catastrophic incidents and accidents
Of the renewable energy sources examined, novel technologies and micro- generation appear to present the lowest risk to UK biodiversity, at least in terms of their operation (risks associated with materials sourcing need to be considered). Within this technology type, photovoltaics were assessed as providing least direct impact upon biodiversity, provided that life cycle impacts associated with mining, manufacturing and recycling are subject to appropriate environmental controls. However, their rate of future development even in a best-case assessment, suggests that this technology is unlikely to provide more than 10% of the renewables target by 2020 (i.e. 2% of national energy demand).
Lifecycle effects of each renewable option, including consideration of such factors as manufacture process and raw material use for each technology was identified as a key consideration, although this would also be extremely complex and was not attempted as part of the research.
Knowledge gaps were also identified in the effectiveness of mitigation applied to renewable schemes. The research recommended that a more coordinated approach be taken to the monitoring of mitigation effectiveness on a range of renewable energy developments. Publication of monitoring data will be important to highlight and encourage best practice.
25 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0430: WIND TURBINES: DETERMINING THE RISK TO BAT POPULATIONS – PHASE 1
University of Bristol Professor Gareth Jones School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol, BS8 1UG. in collaboration with the Bat Conservation Trust.
1 March 2009 – 31 May 2009 £19,882
Executive Summary We produced a report from our scoping study that proposes a 3-year research project for Phase 2 (implementation of fatality searches). We propose that fatality searches for bats should be carried out at operational wind farm sites across Britain, on five days a week throughout August and September, as peak fatalities have been found at this time of year in other countries. We suggest that 10 wind farm sites are monitored each year of the project. A team of surveyors will be required to complete this intensive monitoring work, and will all undertake a three-day training course prior to the commencement of the surveys to ensure standardised protocols are followed. In addition to the fatality searches in August and September, we recommended that three core sites are selected for fatality searches on a fortnightly basis throughout the bat active season (April to October) in 2010 and 2011. The core sites will be selected after the initial fatality searches in 2009. Acoustic surveys are also proposed at the three core sites throughout the bat active season, starting in April 2010. The most effective approach, as indicated from the literature review, would be to install remote recording bat detectors on turbines at nacelle height, to record bat echolocation calls continuously from sunset to sunrise each day. These data can then be used to determine bat activity levels close to turbines and within the rotor- swept area. Sampling bias in fatality searches has been well documented both in North America and Europe. Variation in searcher efficiency and carcass removal by scavengers both lead to bat fatality rates being underestimated. Searcher efficiency and carcass removal trials should therefore be conducted during the intensive fatality survey period to account for this sampling bias and to allow fatality rates to be adjusted accordingly. In this report we reviewed the available literature on impacts of wind turbines on bats and assess the various methods used in different studies completed to date (section 2 or report). From this information we recommend detailed survey methods for fatality studies and acoustic surveys (section 3), and we propose a short-list of potential study sites with information on selection criteria (section 4). Details of the training requirements for surveyors undertaking fatality surveys are set out in section 5 of the report. Finally, in section 6, a detailed list of the resources required to undertake the proposed surveys for Phase 2 are given for each of the 3 years of the study.
Introduction and Policy Rationale Wind-generated electricity is a source of renewable energy that has the potential to contribute significantly towards reducing the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases are widely accepted as a major contributing factor of climate change, which few people would deny presents us with a serious long- term threat. As such there is a strong drive towards reducing greenhouse gas 26 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
emissions by using renewable energies. To facilitate delivery of their commitment to climate change and renewable energy, the Government has produced an Energy White Paper (2007). This policy aims for a 60% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, with some significant progress to be made by 2020 (as detailed in PPS22, SPP6 and TAN8). As part of this goal the Government has committed to generating 10% of UK energy from renewable sources by 2010, and 20% by 2020 (Energy White Paper 2007). In order to meet this target the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA – the trade and professional body for the UK wind and marine renewables industries) estimates that 35-45% of the UK’s electricity will have to come from green resources, including an estimated 33GW from wind energy.
Despite the clear environmental benefits of wind energy, there are concerns about the potential ecological impact of wind turbines, initially triggered by large numbers of bird fatalities recorded at some wind farm sites in North America and some countries in mainland Europe. Bat fatalities at wind farms received relatively little attention until 2003, when 1,400 – 4,000 bats were estimated to have been killed at a wind farm in West Virginia, USA. Subsequently, several other studies undertaken at large-scale wind farms in North America have also reported bat fatalities. Bat fatalities have also been recorded in 14 European countries, most notably in Germany, France, Portugal, and also the UK. A total of 1,502 European bat fatalities were reported as of 30 April 2009. At many of the study sites in North America and some in mainland Europe the number of bat fatalities has been so high that these figures have sparked serious concern for the conservation status of the species concerned.
In the UK all bat species and their roosts are legally protected, by both domestic and international legislation: under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000 for England and Wales), which implements the Bern Convention; the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC, 2006); and by the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations (1994) (as amended 2007, 2008, 2009), which implements the EC Habitats Directive. In summary, together these pieces of legislation make it an offence to damage or destroy any bat roost; intentionally or recklessly obstruct a bat roost; deliberately, intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat; or intentionally kill, injure or take any bat. The NERC Act (2006) also provides protection for bats and their roosts by requiring that local authorities take into account impacts on biodiversity when assessing planning applications.
The Agreement on the Conservation of Populations of European Bats, which came into force in 1994, presently numbers thirty European states among its Parties. The Agreement was set up under the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, which recognises that endangered migratory-species can be properly protected only if activities are carried out over the entire migratory range of the species. The EUROBATS Secretariat was established by the First Session of the Meeting of Parties in 1995. Resolution 5.6 of the Meeting of the Parties of EUROBATS (Bats and Wind Turbines) states 'Furthermore research projects should assess the risk of existing wind farms for bats. There is an urgent need to find solutions that will minimise their impact which can then be applied to planning of future wind farms. Further research projects are needed to increase our understanding on the impact of wind farms on bats either at an individual or population level'.
27 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Objectives 1. Review of existing information. 2. Development of survey protocols. 3. Identifying study sites. 4. Costing a field survey 5. Recommending survey methodology and sampling design.
Approaches and Methods Literature review of bat fatalities at wind farms; review of methodology used in earlier studies; recommending methods for survey in the UK.
Results Detailed review document and recommendations produced (158 pp.).
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy Implementation of fatality survey essential to meet legal obligations. Policy relevance detailed under ‘Introduction and Policy rationale’.
Future Work Beyond Life of Project Defra has put out a tender for a survey to implement the findings of the scoping study. Negotiations regarding award of this tender were in progress at the time of writing.
Technology Transfer The final report from the project is available online at The Bat Conservation Trust’s website: http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/wind_turbines.html
28 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0281: PROVISION OF BAG STATISTICS FOR HUNTABLE BIRDS
Central Science Laboratory Dr Dave Parrott Central Science Laboratory, Sand Hutton, York YO41 1LZ
The Game Conservancy Trust (sub-contractor) Stephen Browne
2003 - 2003 £13,000
Introduction • The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) commissioned a research project investigating the provision of bag statistics for huntable birds in the UK. This research is part of a European Union (EU) requirement to estimate the numbers of huntable birds harvested in each member state. • The UK’s list of huntable bird species can be divided into two categories – game birds and waterfowl. • The UK’s avian hunters engage in three different types of shooting discipline: driven shoots, rough shoots and wildfowling. Driven shoots principally pursue game birds, but some wildfowl (almost exclusively reared mallard) will also be shot. Rough shoots may include all huntable species but game birds and reared mallard predominate. Migratory wildfowl are mainly shot in estuaries and coastal marshes by ‘true’ wildfowlers. Inland wildfowling is dominated by mallard. • There is a paucity of basic information on the overall UK hunting community and its shooting activities. Detailed data is lacking on, for example, the number of hunters engaged in each shooting discipline, the frequency of hunting, location or habitat of hunting trips, quarry species pursued and hunting success.
Review of Existing UK and Overseas Schemes • A review was conducted of existing UK schemes for the collection of hunting bags. A number of voluntary schemes, run by non-governmental organisations (The Game Conservancy Trust – GCT and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation – BASC), were identified. Although a large range of species has been covered, all schemes are voluntary and relatively small-scale. This is likely to result in biases in the geographical range, number of species and number of individuals covered. No compulsory governmental schemes currently exist. • A review of existing schemes in Europe, North America and Canada was also conducted. Schemes ranged from compulsory registration of hunters alongside compulsory return of bag data, to non-registration of hunters with voluntary submission of bags. The principal feature of apparently successful overseas schemes, separating them from UK schemes, is the compulsory registration of hunters who wish to shoot wild birds. National schemes to collect annual hunt statistics operate by requesting bag returns from hunters on the register.
Potential Novel Schemes • Two novel methods for collecting bag statistics on UK huntable birds were investigated - the shotgun licensing system and the game licensing system. A
29 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
number of further sources of data were also considered – the GCT, Gamekeeper Organisations, Wildfowl Clubs/Associations, and the BASC. • All UK residents acquiring or in possession of a shotgun must have a shotgun certificate issued by the Regional Police Force. In Great Britain (GB), 631,805 certificates were on issue on 31st December 2001. Around 84,000 ‘firearms’ certificates are currently on issue in Northern Ireland. In addition, visitors’ permits are also issued. In GB, 10,038 (1.6% the number of shotgun certificates) visitor permits were on issue on 31st December 2001. It is estimated that around 542,000 hunters shoot game (birds and mammals) in the UK. A questionnaire survey of shotgun licensees would cover the entire pool of UK hunters. A request was made to the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland (ACPOS) as to whether the Police would, in principle, assist with any future surveys by forwarding questionnaires to a sample of shotgun licensees. The committee decided not to recommend Regional Forces to assist in any proposed survey at the current time. • The game licensing system comprises game licences and game dealer licences. All persons who wish to kill game must possess a game licence, whilst anyone wishing to trade in game must possess a game dealer’s licence. In 2001-02, 48,385 game licences were issued in the UK. A bag statistics scheme based on game licences, however, was considered to be ineffective as, although required by law, many hunters do not possess a licence. Game licences are also only required for persons wishing to kill, take or trade those species listed in the Game Acts. A scheme based on game dealer licences was considered to be ineffective, as not all waterfowl species can legally be traded, birds listed on Schedule 2 Part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 can be legally killed or taken during the open season without the requirement for a game licence, and not all shot birds are handled by game dealers. • The Game Conservancy Trust (GCT) was considered to be a potentially better source for bag statistics of gamebirds and inland wildfowl, via the database of estates already set up for its National Gamebag Census (NGC). Targeting estates is the best way of assessing bags on driven shoots, as the contribution of individual shooters to the overall bag on a drive is not possible to measure. It also covers rough shooting on private ground. It is not currently possible to extrapolate up from NGC returns to national bags because the total area of the UK which is shot over is not known. Also, there is potential bias in extrapolating bags from NGC estates to non-NGC estates. The GCT is, however, currently developing a database that seeks to encompass all UK shooting estates. This offers considerable scope for expanding the NGC, and a future opportunity to collect bag data from all or a random sample of UK shooting estates. • Members of gamekeepers’ organisations are also a potential source for obtaining bag statistics of game birds. There are approximately 5,000-6,000 gamekeepers in the UK. However, there would be considerable overlap between a keeper survey and the GCT’s NGC survey, leading to unnecessary duplication of effort. • Wildfowling associations and clubs could provide data on waterfowl bags. There are around 150 wildfowling clubs with approximately 8,000-9,000 active members. Much coastal wildfowling is conducted by these ‘true’ wildfowlers, so a survey of these clubs should provide reasonable estimates of coastal wildfowl bags. However, they will not take into account coastal bags by private syndicates, nor will they measure the inland component of wildfowling.
30 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
• The membership of BASC (c.20% of all shotgun licensees) engage in all three shooting disciplines and all huntable species are represented in the membership’s bag returns. However, there is potential bias in extrapolating data from BASC members to non-BASC members in order to derive estimates for national bags.
Recommendations • Currently, no single potential source of hunting bag data encompasses all three shooting disciplines and all huntable species. However, a dual component scheme that combined an individual-based survey and an estate-based survey would provide full coverage. The former would target hunters involved in coastal wildfowling and rough shooting on public land. The latter would target driven shoots and rough shooting (including wildfowl) on private land. Three alternative potential schemes are proposed for consideration. • Scheme 1: Establish registers of all hunters and shooting estates, which could be used to collect bag statistics from all or a random sample of hunters and estates. One approach would be to supplement regular random sample questionnaire surveys with more infrequent full register surveys. Voluntary registration would inevitably involve potential bias in survey data due to a self-selecting sample pool. Therefore, to ensure full participation in the scheme, a hunter licensing system could be introduced, whereby hunting was conditional on obtaining a hunting permit. There is a precedent for a field sports licensing system in the fishing licence. An additional application of hunting registers is that they could provide a range of data on the UK hunting community, such as the numbers of hunters engaged in each shooting discipline and quarry species pursued. One potential benefit of such information would be the ability to effectively target single species surveys in response to any future conservation concerns. • Scheme 2: A dual questionnaire survey scheme which utilises the shotgun licensing system to survey individual hunters, and the GCT’s UK shooting estate database (in preparation) to survey estates. On completion, the GCT’s database would provide a resource enabling full or random sampling of all UK shooting estates. A questionnaire survey of UK shotgun licensees would need to be large enough to ensure a sufficient ‘hit-rate’ of the hunters pursuing the species shot in lowest numbers (Gadwall - shot by an estimated c.1.5% of BASC members). For GB, an initial large-scale pilot survey would involve circulating around 26,000 questionnaires (assuming c.65% return rate). The results from this initial survey would be used to refine the methodology (including sample size). • Scheme 3: A dual questionnaire survey scheme which utilises existing BASC and GCT surveys. The membership of BASC could be used to target individual hunters, whilst the GCT’s NGC could be used to target shooting estates. The list of estates included in the NGC could be expanded as the GCT’s database of UK shooting estates is developed and completed. The BASC and GCT bag data, however, would need to be calibrated (initially and periodically thereafter) to ascertain how representative returns were in comparison to non-BASC members and non-GCT estates respectively. A comparison between BASC and non-BASC members’ shooting activities could be investigated via a survey of shotgun licence holders. A comparison of GCT and non-GCT estates could be investigated via a survey of landowners using Defra’s Agricultural Land-Holdings Register.
31 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0357: ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (RESTRICTION ON THE USE OF LEAD SHOT) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 1999 (AS AMENDED)
ADAS UK Ltd. Keith Ogden (Effective Control Ltd) Contact: Sam Beechener, ADAS UK Ltd, Woodthorne, Wergs Road, Wolverhampton WV6 8TQ
2006 - 2007 Total cost £25.5k
Introduction and Policy Rationale Legislation came into force in 1999 in England (Environmental Protection (Restriction on the Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999 (as amended)) prohibiting the use of lead shot for shooting all quarry species of wildfowl, including mallard, anywhere in the country, and for using lead shot for any shot gun shooting on specified wetland sites. The regulations prohibit the use of lead shot in: (i) Shooting in or over tidal areas, below the mean high water mark of spring tides; (ii) Shooting in or over certain Wetland Sites of Special Scientific Interest; and (iii) Shooting all legal quarry species of ducks and geese, noting that golden plover and common snipe were removed from the list in 2002.
The Lead Shot Legislation (England) Review Group was set up to review the Regulations. Subsequent assessment by the Review Group in 2000/01 of the level of compliance with the legislation, based on anecdotal evidence, indicated that the level seemed to be good. This conclusion was supported by the small numbers of potential offences reported to the police, none of which resulted in court action. A later independent study, conducted by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust in 2002, based on testing samples of mallard purchased from game dealers, showed that of the 40 birds from which pellets were retrieved, 27 had been shot with lead pellets. This suggested that compliance needed to be improved.
Aims and Objectives The specific aims of this project can be given as: • Review a range of methods of checking compliance with the 1999 regulations that are available in England and that are used in other countries with similar legislation, • Produce a report to recommend viable, cost effective, representative methods that should be considered for use in England.
The types of shooting covered by the regulations include coastal wildfowling (generally in tidal areas), inland wildfowling and game shooting. The regulations also prohibit the use of lead shot for any sort of shooting in tidal areas and in designated wetland SSSIs – this includes shooting of any non-wildfowl quarry species and pest species plus clay pigeon shooting.
Approaches and Methods Defra Wildlife Species Conservation Division established a small steering group to assist in the research, which was chaired by the Defra Contract Manager and
32 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
included stakeholders representing four other organisations. The group met with ADAS three times during the project to monitor progress and to agree next steps.
Research commenced with a literature review, to identify alternative methods of monitoring compliance used in other countries. In addition to desk research, the consultancy team also contacted a wide range of organisations in the UK and overseas in order to gain as full and wide an overview of the available literature as possible.
To collect further and more detailed information, ADAS consultants interviewed stakeholders in the form of policy and research officers at 11 organisations in the UK. These interviews collected views on issues relating to compliance monitoring, focusing in particular on the strengths and weaknesses of a list of alternative methods that the literature review stage had helped to formalise.
Based on the evidence and opinions collected, the project team then prepared summary plans, timetables, and estimated costings for each potentially viable option.
Results Initially nine methods were considered within the review, with a further two methods being identified and subsequently appraised. Two methods were rejected at an early stage, namely Method B – collection and analysis of dead wildfowl from nature reserves and Method K – use of sentinel ducks to monitor pellet ingestion on shot over wetlands. Method B was rejected due to a probable low sample size making it unrepresentative and not viable. Method K was rejected as it focused on measuring effects of regulations as opposed to compliance with regulations and gave rise to difficult animal welfare issues.
Method E – soil, sediment or mud analysis for spent shot in heavily shot areas was not recommended due to the complexity of the issues involved, too many variables and uncertainties surrounding the method. Method F – spent cartridge identification/analysis in tidal areas and SSSIs was not recommended due to the probable low sample size. Method J - spent cartridge wad identification in tidal areas and SSSIs was rejected due to some of the wads used for lead and non-lead shot cartridges in England being indistinguishable, and the difficulties in finding spent fibre wads in wetland areas.
Three methods involving the collection and analysis of shot wildfowl for the type of pellet used to shoot them were considered to be objective, ‘absolute’ measures of compliance. This term ‘absolute measure’ is used to distinguish those techniques that rely on direct observation or analysis of the presence of lead in birds that have been shot, as opposed to indirect measures which seek to provide useful information, but cannot provide a direct measure of compliance.
• Method A – voluntary sampling and analysis of shot wildfowl from shooters was not recommended due to concerns that any samples provided would be biased in favour of compliance. • Method H – compulsory sampling and analysis of shot wildfowl by a relevant authority was not recommended due to the probable need to review complex legal issues prior to implementation, resentment from the shooting community and the potential high costs. 33 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
• Method D – purchase and analysis of shot wildfowl from English game dealers was considered to be an absolute method of measuring compliance, which had some constraints relating to limited coverage of types of shooting and range of species. Its main strengths were seen as its practicality, ease of implementation and that it had the least chance of a biased sample when compared with other sampling methods. While this method would be suitable for assessing compliance in inland duck shooting for example, some initial pilot work would be helpful to assess whether the method could also provide useful information for other types of shooting.
Methods C and I (surveys of shooters and landowners) were not considered to be useful measures of compliance but were seen as potential means of judging levels of knowledge, awareness and understanding of the regulations. Method G – a survey of cartridge manufacturers to review sales volumes of non-lead shot was not considered as a measure of compliance but was seen as providing interesting, relevant contextual information.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy The consensus of opinion from the Stakeholders, the Steering Group and the Authors of this report was that Method D (purchase of shot wildfowl from English game dealers) complemented by Method C, G and I (surveys of shooters, landowners and cartridge manufacturers) should be considered as the most viable and cost effective methods for implementation in England.
Methods A and H (voluntary and compulsory sampling of shot wildfowl) could give better representation of types of shooting and range of species involved. The former method had inherent issues of bias while the latter had issues concerning impracticalities and resentment. Method H, however, could potentially be considered in the future, having reviewed the information obtained through other methods
Method E (soil, sediment, mud analysis for shot) was considered too complex with too many variables and method F (sampling of spent cartridges) was considered to have too low a sample size to be representative. However both methods could be good indicators in certain circumstances and could be worth further investigation or piloting on a small scale.
For any method to be taken forward in the future, a precise definition of compliance would need to be established at the outset.
Technology Transfer The final report, Assessment of Techniques for Monitoring Compliance with Lead Shot Regulations (England) 1999, was published via Defra’s website.
34 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0213: INTEGRATED CLIMATE CHANGE CC0337: Regional Climate Change and Impact Response Studies in East Anglia and North West England (RegIS) CC0362: Development of a metamodel tool for regional integrated climate change management (RegIS2)
Cranfield University Dr Ian Holman Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL
Environmental Change Institute (University of Oxford), Silsoe Research Institute, Université Catholique de Louvain, Southampton University, University of Manchester and Flood Hazards Research Centre (Middlesex University)
1 November 1998 - 28 February 2001 (CC0337) 1 September 2003 - 31 August 2005 (CC0362) £299,000 (CC0337) and £320,000 (CC0362)
Executive Summary The ‘Regional Climate Change Impact and Response Studies in East Anglia and North West England’ (RegIS) and RegIS2 projects provide a regional assessment of the implications of future climate and non-climate (socio-economic) changes for the major ‘sectors’ controlling landscape change (agriculture, biodiversity, coasts and floodplains and hydrology). RegIS developed the first UK methodology for stakeholder-led, regional climate change impact assessment that explicitly evaluated local and regional (sub-national) scale impacts and adaptation options, and cross- sectoral interactions. Although RegIS was successful in demonstrating the importance of cross-sectoral impacts and the differing importance of future climate and socio-economic change between sectors, the wider use of the methodology was hindered by the complexity of the models used. The RegIS2 project developed the use of computationally simpler modelling techniques, so called ‘meta models’ within a user friendly interface. The research produced the Regional Impact Simulator software, which is freely available from the UKCIP, that can be used by people who are not themselves climate change scientists for regional Integrated Assessment.
Introduction and Policy Rationale There was a developing view that climate change studies should focus at the sub- national (regional) scale, on specific, coherently defined regions, as these represented important and underexplored geographical and political foci for analysing the impacts of, and responses to, global change. Earlier stakeholder analysis had identified the need to develop a methodology for an Integrated Assessment of the sectors subsequently studied in RegIS (agriculture, biodiversity, coast and floodplains and hydrology). The RegIS and RegIS2 projects therefore sought to contribute to the scientific basis for the establishment of UK agriculture and biodiversity policy on climate change, through considering interactions between agriculture, biodiversity, other environmental sectors and future socioeconomic conditions.
35 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Objectives 1. To refine and implement a methodology for conducting climate change impact assessments on agriculture, hydrology, biodiversity and coasts 2. To engage stakeholders in the North West and East Anglian regions in the design of the integrated assessment, identification of critical impacts, interactions and adaptive responses, and dissemination of project results 3. To investigate the effects of climate change on critical impacts and interactions using linked models and scientific expertise 4. To investigate adaptive responses to climate change using linked models and scientific and stakeholder expertise
Approaches and Methods The RegIS integrated methodology was guided by the ‘Drivers-Pressure-State- Impact-Response’ (DPSIR) framework. Within the DPSIR framework, the RegIS methodology was based on a quasi-sequential approach to the flow and interpretation of information from the UKCIP98 and 02 climate change and regional socio-economic scenarios through the suite of models. Within RegIS2, the meta- model integration and data transfers were further developed and interactivity increased with the development of the user friendly Regional Impact Simulator.
Results RegIS demonstrated that the major sectors driving landscape change (agriculture, biodiversity, coasts and floodplains and water resources) will be differentially impacted by climate and socio-economic change. Climate change, without adaptation, could lead to severe flood impacts in East Anglia and significant agricultural abandonment. Despite yield changes, cropping is generally insensitive to climate, but very sensitive to socio-economic change. There is increased seasonality to river flows, compounded by increased urbanisation and irrigation demand. The individual nature of species’ response to climate change was shown. Those on their northern range margins could expand whilst those on their southern margin retreat and possibly be lost from the chosen regions. The ability of species to respond is also dependent on changes in other sectors and this may be an overriding influence, particularly in the short-term.
The Regional Impact Simulator developed within RegIS2 contains three main screens. These allow increasing levels of user interaction with the model variables, within a total run-time of 10-15 seconds: • Predefined Scenario Futures screen - allows the user to rapidly identify relative sensitivity to the different climate and/or socio-economic scenarios. • Exploratory Analysis screen - lets the user explore a scenario in greater detail by changing the input parameter values used in the models. • Influencing the Impacts screen - allows the user to test regional adaptation responses to the impacts previously identified. Example findings using the Regional Impact Simulator were reported in a Special Issue of the international journal Climatic Change (Volume 90, Issue 1-2).
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy The RegIS Integrated Assessment demonstrated the differing sensitivities of sectors to climate and socio-economic change, and the importance of future societal and policy decision making in shaping the future. It highlighted the need for (agri-
36 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
environmental) conservation policy to consider not only the direct impacts of climate change, but also the indirect effects of changes in land use and other parameters/sectors in affecting species’ distributions. In doing so, RegIS contributed to the principal policy objective of the CC03 programme to provide the scientific basis for the establishment of UK agriculture policy on climate change. The value of the Regional Impact Simulator lies in the ability of varied users to rapidly explore uncertain climate and socio-economic futures, rather than being limited to a small number of pre-defined simulations, as well as possible adaptation options. The potential for this engagement with the future change area represents a real outward value of RegIS2.
Technology Transfer Events (selection) Four regional workshops involving over 100 participants; UKCIP-hosted Technical Review workshop; presentations to the CIWEM East Anglian Branch (Jan 2002), UKWIR meeting on climate change (Sept 2001), European Research 2002 (Brussels), Geological Society of London meeting (Nov 2002), “The Challenge of Climate Change - A Cambridgeshire Perspective” conference (Nov 2002), Second International Conference on Climate Impacts Assessment (Germany, July 2004), Defra 'Indo-UK Workshop on Impact of Climate Change in India' (Dec 2004)
Reports and Publications (selection). Holman IP, Loveland PJ, Nicholls RJ, Shackley S, Berry PM, Rounsevell MDA, Audsley E, Harrison PA & Wood R (2002). RegIS- Regional Climate Change Impact Response Studies in East Anglia and North West England. DEFRA, London, 20pp. Shackley, S. & Deanwood, R. (2002). Stakeholder perceptions of climate change impacts at the regional scale: Implications for the effectiveness of regional and local responses. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 45(3), 381-402. Berry, PM, Dawson, TP, Harrison, PA, and Pearson, RG (2002). Modelling potential impacts of climate change on the bioclimatic envelope of species in Britain and Ireland. Global Ecology and Biogeography 11(6), 453-462 Holman I.P., Rounsevell M.D.A., Shackley S., Harrison P.A., Nicholls R.J., Berry P.M. and Audsley E. (2005). A regional, multi-sectoral and integrated assessment of the impacts of climate and socio-economic change in the UK: I Methodology. Climatic Change, 71, 9-41. Holman, I.P. Nicholls, R.J. Berry, P.M. Harrison, P.A. Audsley, E. Shackley, S. and Rounsevell, M.D.A. (2005). A regional, multi-sectoral and integrated assessment of the impacts of climate and socio-economic change in the UK: II Results. Climatic Change, 71, 43-73. Holman IP, Berry PM, Mokrech M, Richards JA, Audsley E, Harrison PA, Rounsevell MDA, Nicholls RJ, Shackley S, Henriques C (2006). Simulating the effects of future climate and socio-economic change in East Anglia and North West England: the RegIS2 project. Summary Report. UKCIP, Oxford, 21pp. Holman IP, Rounsevell MDA, Cojacaru G, Shackley S, McLachlan C, Audsley E, Berry PM, Fontaine C, Harrison PA, Henriques C, Mokrech M, Nicholls RJ, Pearn KR, Richards JA (2008). The concepts and development of a participatory regional integrated assessment tool. Climatic Change 90(1-2), 5-30. Audsley E, Pearn KR, Harrison PA, Berry PM (2008). The impact of future socio-economic and climate changes on agricultural land use and the wider environment in East Anglia and North West England using a metamodel system. Climatic Change 90(1-2), 57-88 Henriques C, Holman IP, Audsley E, Pearn K (2008) An interactive multi-scale integrated assessment of future regional water availability for agricultural irrigation in East Anglia and North West England. Climatic Change 90(1-2), 89-111. Harrison, P.A., Berry, P.M., Henriques, C. and Holman, I.P. (2008). Impacts of socio-economic and climate change scenarios on wetlands: linking water resource and biodiversity meta-models. Climatic Change 90(1-2), 113-139.
37 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Richards JA, Mokrech M, Berry PM, Nicholls RJ (2008). Regional assessment of climate change impacts on coastal and fluvial ecosystems and the scope for adaptation. Climatic Change 90(1-2), 141-167 Holman IP and Harman J (2008). Preliminary evaluation of the benefits of a participatory regional integrated assessment software. Climatic Change 90(1-2), 169-187.
38 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0223: CLIMATE CHANGE UK
ADAS UK Ltd. J. E. Hossell ADAS UK Ltd, Woodthorne, Wergs Road, Wolverhampton, WV6 8TQ
1999 – 2000 Total cost £10k
Introduction and Policy Rationale Climate change is expected to have a significant effect on species and habitats in the UK. If conservation policy and management are not adjusted to take account of climate change, it may lead to loss of species and habitats for which a site has been designated. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, ratified by the UK government in 1993, required developed countries to adopt policies and measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Subsequently, the UK government announced measures to achieve a 21.5% cut in six greenhouse gases by 2010. However, regardless of any reductions in emissions, some climate change is inevitable. In 1997, the UK Climate Change Impacts Programme (UKCIP) was initiated to assess impacts and adaptations.
Overall Aims 1. To review climate change impacts on species, habitats and networks, wider countryside, and current policy commitments. 2. To consider and outline policy responses and a framework for implementing these policies. 3. To recommend prioritised research and an early detection system.
Approaches and Methods The review focussed on Broad Habitats, Priority Habitats and species included in the UK’s Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). A literature review was carried out focussing on current trends from existing monitoring, models of climate change responses and palaeo-climatic analogues. An expert consultation was also carried out to seek views on which habitats and species were likely to be affected by climate change and implications for UK conservation policy. Results were presented as a series of vulnerability matrices.
Results Habitat and species vulnerability UK BAP habitats most sensitive to climate change effects are: • Montane habitats (vulnerable to loss of suitable climatic conditions) • Raised bogs (vulnerable to loss of suitable climatic conditions) • Soft coastal (supra littoral sediments) habitats (vulnerable to changes in coastal defences in response to climate change) • Chalk rivers (vulnerable to changes in water use and agriculture in response to climate change).
39 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Other habitats vulnerable to significant changes in species distributions and community composition are native pinewoods, calcareous grasslands and mesotrophic lakes. Certain taxa, such as insects and ruderal plants have a short life cycle and might adapt and change their distribution rapidly. Long-lived, sedentary species such as trees are more tolerant of a range of climatic conditions but will not respond quickly to the levels of climate change projected. Species level response will be heavily influenced by the current distribution and population size as well as dispersal capability. Species with highly localised populations might be less able to shift into climatically suitable areas. The complete loss of some more northerly and high montane species may occur as a result of climate change. However, changes in community composition through differential response of species is likely to be the most obvious effect. In addition, introduced species may spread into natural habitats from areas such as gardens and parks. Policy responses Much current UK conservation policy is focussed on protecting habitats and species that historically are declining. Forward assessment of conservation status is necessary to determine what will be possible to protect in future. It may not be possible to maintain some habitats or species in their current location or in the UK as a whole. BAP objectives need to adapt to take account of the expected effects of projected climate change. These need to be agreed by the institutions and agencies implementing UK conservation policy. Policies applied in the wider countryside such as agri-environment schemes have the flexibility to react relatively quickly to new BAP objectives. For example, buffer zones could be established around protected areas or stepping-stones created to assist species to colonise new sites. Local BAPs also need to be reviewed in the national context. The management of non-native species and spread of potential weed species under climate change needs to be considered. Current EU commitments need to be examined to ensure that fixed site policies do not hinder the redistribution and in situ conservation of species in response to climate change. International co-operation will be required to modify European and international wildlife conservation treaties. Consultation with EU and other European countries is needed to facilitate information exchange and a co-ordinated policy response. Monitoring of climate change indicators should be extended to incorporate indicators of habitat health and quality in response to climate change, especially for vulnerable habitats such as montane habitats and raised bogs. New indicators will need to be developed. Methods will also need to be developed for monitoring the status and quality of designated sites and key species affected by climate change. Public and institutional awareness of the effects of climate change needs to be raised. Demand for recreational resources might present a major barrier to changing conservation priorities, as will vested economic and cultural interests. Priorities for conservation will need to be periodically reviewed and refocused to take account of updated scenarios of climate change and advancements in understanding about the relation of species and habitats with climate. Priorities will need to be
40 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
forward looking and to anticipate responses of species and habitats to climate change.
Conclusions In spite of continuing uncertainty over the magnitude of climate change, it is clear that changes are occurring at a rate beyond the capacity of many natural systems to respond without human assistance. There is a need therefore to consider climate change as a key element in the development and implementation of nature conservation policies.
Future Work A number of knowledge gaps were identified that need further research: • Speed of response to climate change in vulnerable habitats • Response of built-up and garden habitats and species to climate change • Response of coastal habitats and species to climate change (as opposed to rising sea level) • Best management practices to encourage the shift of habitats and species within the wider countryside • Extension of existing monitoring and status and quality assessment techniques to recognise and detect the impact of climate change on species and habitats.
Reports and Publications Hossell, J.E. Briggs, B., Hepburn, I.R. (2000) Climate Change and UK Nature Conservation: A Review of the Impact of Climate Change on UK Species and Habitat Conservation Policy. HMSO/DETR/MAFF, London. Hossell, J.E., Ellis, N.E., Harley, M.J., Hepburn, I.R. (2003) Climate change and nature conservation: Implications for policy and practice in Britain and Ireland. Journal for Nature Conservation 11, 67-73.
41 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0245: INVESTIGATION OF THE CAUSES OF THE DECLINE OF HOUSE SPARROW AND STARLING IN GREAT BRITAIN
British Trust for Ornithology, University of Oxford, Central Science Laboratory, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, & WildWings Bird Management Humphrey Q.P. Crick BTO, The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk, IP24 2PU
1 December 2000 – 30 August 2002 £150,000
Executive Summary Populations of House Sparrow and Starling have declined markedly in recent years, we analysed long-term datasets on population size and demography to understand these declines. Declines of Starlings in farmland areas average 66% and were greater in areas of livestock farming; these declines could largely be attributed to changes in farmland management. The British breeding population of House Sparrows is 6-7 million pairs, having fallen from about 12 million pairs in the early 1970s. About 60% of House Sparrows occur in towns, villages and rural gardens. The decline of House Sparrow populations is likely to have multiple causes due to the small dispersal distance of individuals. Both species are permitted to be controlled under a general licence, but the incidence of this has decreased in the last 10 years, and the proportion of the population affected is small.
Introduction and Policy Rationale For many years in Britain and elsewhere, both Starlings and House Sparrows have been considered disease-carrying or agricultural pests. Because of the problems caused by large flocks of these species, both Starling and House Sparrow were placed on Schedule 2, Part II, of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). After securing a derogation under Article 9 of EC Directive 79/409, a licensing system was introduced in 1993, in which a general licence is issued, under Section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, for the taking of these species in the interests of health and safety. This derogation entails a responsibility to monitor these species to provide data on indicated their population levels and trends. In the 1990s, rapid declines meant that both had become candidate species for inclusion on the Red List of Species of Conservation Concern. Starling is also included as one of 20 species contributing to one of Defra’s eight Public Service Agreements with the goal of reversing the long-term decline in the number of farmland birds by 2020.
Objectives Investigate trends in breeding populations of Starlings and House Sparrows and identify variation in breeding success, recruitment and survival. Investigate human influence, including an assessment of impact of control activities. Identify likely causes of the declines in Starling and House Sparrow populations and place these within a whole population context
Approaches and Methods To meet these aims the consortium undertook to:
42 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
1. Analyse data from the BTO's long-term population census data sets in relation to environmental data sets to identify periods of population decline and stability, and the environmental factors that may influence them. 2. Analyse data from the BTO's national Bird Ringing and Nest Record Scheme to investigate factors influencing breeding performance and survival. 3. Analyse intensive data sets to investigate demographic patterns at a local scale to augment extensively gathered data. 4. Undertake an extensive questionnaire survey to collect information on the extent and scale of legal control activities of Starlings and House Sparrows on farms. 5. Combine this information to generate population models that will help identify the demographic and environmental factors contributing most to population declines.
Results The British breeding population of Starling is approximately 8.5 million birds. Farmland supports 30% of the British breeding population; urban/suburban habitats and rural gardens support 57% of the breeding population. Declines on farmland average 66%, being particularly associated with livestock-based systems. Starling breeding performance has improved since 1962, but shown least improvement in the south-east, where densities are currently greatest but where declines have been steepest. An intensive study of breeding performance in nestbox-breeding Starlings in a suburban area of SE England indicated no changes in breeding productivity per pair despite an abrupt decline in numbers in the early 1990s. Declines in the number of adults and young that returned to breed in this colony suggested that survival rates had declined. The survival rate of Starlings in their first year of life is 15% and thereafter is 69% per annum. Changes in first-year survival are likely to have driven population changes of Starlings in the wider countryside. Regional analyses suggested that while this held for N&W Britain, changes in E Britain reflected changes in adult survival; possibly because of differences in habitat availability.
The British breeding population of House Sparrows is 6-7 million pairs, having fallen from about 12 million pairs in the early 1970s. About 60% of House Sparrows occur in towns and villages. Populations have declined most in SE England but are currently increasing in Scotland and Wales. Population declines began earlier in farmland than in towns, but declines have been greatest in suburban and urban gardens. Dispersal distances are very limited for House Sparrow. Breeding performance of House Sparrows has increased over the past 40 years in all regions. High nest failure rates and a lack of any improvement in breeding performance in suburban areas, where populations are declining most rapidly, might be reinforcing the population declines there. Data from a recent intensive study on Oxfordshire farms showed no differences in key aspects of breeding performance between the periods and concluded that a reduction in survival rates was driving population decline. Nationally, the population decline of House Sparrows in the 1970s appears to have been caused by a decline in first-year survival rates. The decline was halted by a combination of increased breeding performance, most likely through declines in failure rates of nests at the chick stage, and increases in first-year survival rates.
Questionnaire surveys of farm owners and occupiers and of Local Authorities provided information on the extent of current legal control activities. The vast majority of owner/occupier respondents (97%) and all Local Authority respondents undertook no lethal control but it is estimated that c. 74,000 Starlings and c. 16,000 House Sparrows were killed in the survey year (2001); numbers killed more than ten years 43 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
ago were higher. In comparison with the national population estimates, calculated as part of this project, the numbers culled each year are small.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy To improve Starling population status, we suggest that it may be possible to encourage the inclusion of pockets of sympathetically managed grassland habitat in arable areas and to promote the management of grassland for the production of short, sparse swards. This information has been used to inform the development of agri-environment measures, particularly the Entry-Level Scheme.
The strongly contrasting fortunes of House Sparrows in different urban centres urgently need investigation by comparative studies. Potential factors that could have led to the declines of House Sparrows in urban situations include predation; loss of sources of food sources and changes in air quality. Although House Sparrows are not limited to nesting in cavities, loss of nest sites in urban areas may be important, thus the benefits of nest site provision should be explored experimentally. It is highly likely that stricter hygiene regulations have decreased food availability in farmyards, provision of tailings as a supplementary food source is likely to enhance House Sparrow populations at minimal cost, although methods will need to be devised to avoid problems from rodent infestation.
Information from this report was used to change the conditions under which control licences were issued: House Sparrows may no longer be controlled under general licence and Starlings only for the purposes of preserving air safety.
Technology Transfer Reports and Publications International Press Coverage, including (in UK) Independent, Daily Telegraph, Times Robinson, R.A., Siriwardena, G.M. & Crick, H.Q.P. 2005. Status and population trends of the Starling Sturnus vulgaris in Great Britain. Bird Study 52:252-260. Robinson, R.A., Siriwardena, G.M. & Crick, H.Q.P. 2005. Status and population trends of the House Sparrow Passer domesticus in Great Britain. Ibis 147:552-562. Freeman, S.N., Robinson, R.A., Clark, J.A., Griffin, B.M. & Adams, S.Y. 2007. Changing demography and population decline in the Starling Sturnus vulgaris: a multi-site approach to integrated population modelling. Ibis 149:587-596. Robinson, R.A., Siriwardena, G.M. & Crick, H.Q.P. 2006. The population decline of the Starling Sturnus vulgaris in Great Britain: patterns and causes. Acta Zoologica Sinica 52:S550-S553.
44 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0293: STANDARD METHODOLOGY TO ASSESS THE RISKS FROM NON- NATIVE SPECIES CONSIDERED POSSIBLE PROBLEMS TO THE ENVIRONMENT
Food and Environment Research Agency (Formerly Central Science Laboratory) Dr Richard H.A. Baker Food and Environment Research Agency (Formerly Central Science Laboratory) Sand Hutton, York YO41 1LZ
5 January 2004 - 10 January 2005 £60,000
Introduction and Policy Rationale In response to a key recommendation from the Defra Non-Native Review in 2003, this project developed a scheme for assessing the risks posed by any non-native organism to species, habitats or ecosystems in all or part of the UK. The work was undertaken by a consortium of six UK institutes/universities (CABI Bioscience (CABI), Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), Central Science Laboratory (CSL), Imperial College London (IC) and the University of Greenwich (UoG)). Coordinated by CSL, this one-year contract with Defra, which began in January 2004, benefited from additional ongoing national and international research on invasive alien species by consortium members. Contributions from other individuals and organisations were also received.
Outputs The project output was the UK non-native risk assessment (UKNNRA) scheme, which comprised seven modules and four examples of best practice. The main risk assessment module is complemented by modules to identify invasive attributes, evaluate pathways of introduction, determine the vulnerability of receptors, quantify economic impacts, summarise risks and uncertainties and select risk management options. A series of examples demonstrate use of the scheme. Six annexes provide the names of the contributors, a short glossary of terms, a list of species studied during the scheme’s development, recommendations for future work, specifications for an electronic toolkit and a list of the scheme’s Excel® and Word® files.
Approaches and Methods The UKNNRA is based on internationally recognised procedures developed by the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) following International Plant Protection Convention standards for pest risk analysis. As part of the project, the UKNNRA was enhanced and tested by conducting risk assessments for 33 non-native species that are already present in the UK or that could be intentionally or unintentionally introduced. The species were selected from 12 different taxon-habitat combinations to ensure the scheme is as generic as possible.
Results The UKNNRA is divided into two principal parts. In the initial, pre-screening, part, the assessor determines whether a detailed risk assessment is warranted by quickly answering a series of fourteen questions. The second part contains the detailed risk
45 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
assessment scheme with 51 questions designed to assess the potential for entry and establishment, the capacity for spread and the extent to which significant economic, environmental or social impacts may occur. The assessor is required to choose one of five levels of responses (very low, low, medium, high, very high) and one of three levels of uncertainty (low, medium, high), justifying these with a written, referenced comment. Guidance is provided on the procedures that should be adopted when information is lacking or highly uncertain. Four examples of best practice have been included: Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica), an insect fungal pathogen (Metarhizium anisopliae), topmouth gudgeon (Pseudorasbora parva) and the Indian house crow (Corvus splendens). The scheme is provided as a spreadsheet template, with a manual describing the procedures that should be followed.
Three of the modules are designed to assist with the risk assessment by helping to determine whether the species has invasive attributes (Module 1), to quantify economic impacts (Module 4) and to summarise risk and uncertainty into the low, medium and high categories specified by the Defra contract (Module 5). Module 1 consists of six pre-screening tools, adapted from the Pheloung et al. (1999) weed risk assessment, to score the invasive attributes of non-native plants, amphibia, marine and freshwater fishes and invertebrates in the UK. Module 4 provides a guide to the level of impacts appropriate for minimal, minor, moderate, major or massive responses to the impact questions and is based on the Australian and New Zealand Risk Management Standard. Eight additional questions can be answered to quantify impacts over time. Responses for the topmouth gudgeon are provided as an example. Although assessors are required to provide their own judgement of overall risk, Module 5 provides a summary of risk based on two additional techniques: score averaging and conditional probability. Score averaging often under-estimates high risk and over-estimates low risk. This project showed that the linear mapping of scores to conditional probabilities provides an important new approach to solve this problem. For each of the examples of best practice, risk summaries based on the assessor’s opinion, score averaging and conditional probabilities are compared.
The relative importance of introduction pathways (Module 2) and the vulnerability of receptors (Module 3) are assessed in two modules, which provide different perspectives on non-native risk assessment, each illustrated with two examples: human assisted introduction of non-native fish species and ship-assisted transfer of non-native avian species for pathway risk assessment, and slow flowing watercourses and oak trees/oak woodland for the receptor risk assessment scheme.
Once the risk assessment has been completed and a summary of the risks and uncertainties has been made, the assessor is asked whether risk management options should be selected. Module 6 provides a logical framework for selecting risk management options. Developed from another EPPO scheme, the principal modification has been to ensure that reliable, cost-effective options for intentional as well as unintentional introductions can be identified.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy This scheme provides the first structured framework in the UK for evaluating the potential for any non-native organism, whether intentionally or unintentionally introduced, to enter, establish, spread and cause significant impacts in all or part of the UK. In addition, specialist modules permit the relative importance of introduction pathways, the vulnerability of receptors and the consequences of policies to be 46 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
assessed and appropriate risk management options selected. These modules can also be used in stand-alone mode. Spreadsheets for summarising the level of risk and uncertainty, invasive attributes and economic impact have been created. New methods for quantifying economic impact and summarising risk and uncertainty have been pioneered. Examples of best practice are given and recommendations for improving the functionality and user-friendliness of the scheme are proposed in a specification for an electronic toolkit.
Future Work Within Life of Project In addition to the need for an electronic toolkit, the consortium highlighted the gaps and key areas for future work that should be undertaken to validate our work and enhance its functionality. While it was important to stress that the risk assessment procedures are time consuming and require a sufficient level of expertise, there remains considerable scope for increasing the scheme’s user- friendliness. The scheme also needs further testing with a wider range of intentional and unintentional introductions from different taxon/habitat combinations. To improve consistency, examples of each level of response for each question need to be given. Once a large set of consistently produced risk assessments is available, additional techniques for summarising risk and uncertainty and prioritising non-native species, pathways and receptors for action can be exploited. Beyond Life of Project Much of this follow-up work has been undertaken by project CR/2007/36: “Final Development of the UK Non-Native Species Risk Assessment Methodology” undertaken between 1 November 2007 and 31 July 2008. A number of other projects funded by the UK and the EU have and continue to address other remaining issues.
Technology Transfer Events The UK (now the GB) non-native risk assessment scheme developed by this project now forms the basis for decision making by the GB Non-native Species Coordinating Mechanism. Over 50 risk assessments have now been successfully prepared using the scheme and reviewed by the Non-Native Risk Analysis Panel. Presentations to a number of international fora, e.g. Neobiota, have received considerable interest. The UKNNRA scheme has been adapted to create the European Non-native Species in Aquaculture Risk assessment Scheme (ENSARS), and the scheme will be proposed as part of the new EU Invasive Alien Species strategy. Reports and Publications Baker RHA, Black R, Copp GH, Haysom KA, Hulme PE, Thomas MB, Brown A, Brown M, Cannon RJC, Ellis J, Ellis E, Ferris R, Glaves P, Gozlan RE, Holt J, Howe L, Knight JD, MacLeod A, Moore NP, Mumford JD, Murphy ST, Parrott D, Sansford CE, Smith GC, St-Hilaire S, Ward NL (2008) The UK risk assessment scheme for all non-native species. Neobiota 7 46–57. Copp GH, Vilizzi L, Mumford J, Fenwick GV, Godard MJ, Gozlan R.E (2009) Calibration of FISK, an invasive-ness screening tool for non-native freshwater fishes. Risk Analysis 29, 457–467. Holt J (2006) Score averaging for alien species risk assessment: a probabilistic alternative. Journal of Environmental Management 81, 58–62. Holt J, Black R, Abdallah R (2006) A rigorous yet simple quantitative risk assessment method for quarantine pests and non-native organisms. Annals of Applied Biology 149, 167–173. Mumford, J.D. 2007. Assessing and managing the distribution of risks posed by invasive alien species. Proceedings XVI International Plant Protection Congress, Glasgow, United Kingdom. pp606-607. ISBN 13 978-1-901396-67-6
47 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0371: DO BATS AVOID RADAR?
University of Aberdeen B. Nicholls and P. A. Racey School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 2TZ, UK
2006 - 2007
Summary The exploitation of wind as a renewable and pollution-free source of energy has led to the rapid proliferation of wind farms across the UK where 206 are currently operational, comprising 2381 turbines and with an estimated 444 sites proposed for future development.Several studies have highlighted the problem of birds colliding with turbine blades, but until recently the impact of wind turbines on bats has received little attention. However, it is now becoming apparent that bats are substantially more vulnerable to collisions with wind turbines than birds. Currently there is no accepted method of mitigating bat collisions with wind turbines and attempts at deterring bats by the use of ultrasound have, as yet, been unsuccessful. Therefore the identification of alternative methods capable of inducing an aversive response in bats approaching turbine blades is of paramount importance.
Following our demonstration that bat activity is reduced in the vicinity of large air traffic control and weather radars, we set out to test the hypothesis that an electromagnetic signal from a small portable radar unit (Furuno FR-7062 X-band marine radar) can act as a deterrent to foraging bats, and to identify the most effective parameters of the radar signal. If a deterrent effect could be replicated with a small, affordable and portable radar system then a direct method of mitigation would be available.
From June to September 2007 bat activity was monitored at 20 foraging sites within a 100km radius of Aberdeen. At each foraging site a control (no radar signal) and experimental trial (radar switched on) were carried out. Starting 45 minutes after sunset, bat activity was recorded for a period of 30 minutes during each trial and the order of trials were alternated between nights. To avoid pseudoreplication, recordings were carried out only once at each of the 20 sites.
In most radar systems, antennae sweep through 360 degrees. For the current experiment this would reduce the extent of exposure along any radius. Therefore the experiment was repeated with the antenna of the radar fixed such that the radar signal was orientated directly towards the area of highest bat activity. Similarly the length of exposure to the radar signal is dependent on the duty cycle of the radar transmitter (pulse length x pulse repetition frequency). Therefore the experiment was repeated at each site using two different pulse length/pulse repetition rates (0.08µs/2100Hz, 0.3µs/1200Hz,) with the radar antenna fixed to maximise exposure. Experimental trials were carried out during 58 nights representing a total of 58 hours of recording data within the following parameters:
1. Rotating antenna – pulse length/pulse repetition rate (0.08µs/2100Hz) – 20h 2. Fixed antenna – pulse length/pulse repetition rate (0.08µs/2100Hz) – 20h 3. Fixed antenna – pulse length/pulse repetition rate (0.3µs/1200Hz) – 18h
48 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Our results demonstrate that electromagnetic radiation from a small affordable and portable radar system can significantly reduce bat activity within a given area. Results were most effective when the radar antenna was fixed to produce a unidirectional signal, therefore maximising dwell time within the beam of the radar. When foraging sites were exposed to a short pulse length signal from a fixed antenna there was a significant reduction in bat activity during experimental trials (bat activity dropped by 15.5%). An even greater level of significance was observed when foraging sites were exposed to a medium pulse length signal from a fixed antenna (bat activity dropped by 38.6%). Clearly this represents a considerable reduction in bat activity.
However, although bat activity was significantly reduced during experimental trials substantial numbers of bats continued to forage within the beam. Therefore, in order to better understand the response of bats to electromagnetic radiation, and to identify an optimum signal capable of deterring bats, will require radar engineers to work with bat biologists to develop a portable radar which can be manipulated to produce a wider range of electromagnetic outputs. The parameters most likely to be important are the frequency, pulse length/pulse repetition rate and power output of the signal. Similarly, the radar used in the present study was only effective when the antenna was fixed to produce a unidirectional signal (horizontal beamwidth of 1.9°). A narrow unidirectional signal is clearly not appropriate to deter bats from approaching wind turbines. In order to provide an effective deterrent it would be necessary to emit a multidirectional electromagnetic signal capable of encapsulating the large volume of the rotor-swept zone.
49 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0415 : AD HOC TECHNICAL EXPERT GROUP WORKSHOP ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND BIODIVERSITY
United Nations Environment Programme – World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) Dr Barney Dickson UNEP-WCMC, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0DL
8 September 2008 – 1 May 2009 (end date later amended to 31 Dec 2009) £51,807
Executive Summary This project comprised three literature reviews of the recent scientific and policy literature on the links between climate change and biodiversity for the first and second meetings of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on Biodiversity and Climate Change (established under the Convention on Biological Diversity (Decision IX/16)), as well as the collation of information from online consultation. The literature reviews covered: impacts of climate change on biodiversity; the linkages between biodiversity and climate change mitigation; and the linkages between biodiversity and climate change adaptation. The project also involved collaboration with the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD) in preparation of other papers for the AHTEG meetings.
Introduction and Policy Rationale Climate change is having major impacts upon a wide range of ecosystems, with huge implications for biodiversity, putting many species at risk. This will continue in the future, as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to increase; significant damage to ecosystem structure and function is expected if temperatures exceed 2°C above pre-industrial levels.
Biodiversity has a climate mitigation function through the carbon sequestration potential of numerous ecosystems. This is currently being explored under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) through the establishment of a mechanism for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) in developing countries, and through amendment of the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) rules. Maintenance of biodiversity also contributes to the capacity for adaptation through the provision of ecosystem services. Even stabilising at 2°C above pre-industrial levels, however, will have major impacts on biodiversity so any actions that can reduce emissions and minimise impacts on biodiversity will improve species’ capacity for adaptation and improve opportunities for societal adaptation to climate change.
The establishment of the AHTEG on Biodiversity and Climate Change provided a means by which the CBD could provide inputs on biodiversity to the climate negotiations.
Objectives To carry out literature reviews focused on research that has been carried out since the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (AR4). These reviews were to inform the deliberations of the AHTEG on Biodiversity and Climate Change established under
50 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
the Convention on Biological Diversity (Decision IX/16). There were to be policy- relevant outputs based on high-quality scientific evidence for climate change negotiators who do not necessarily prioritise biodiversity conservation.
Approaches and Methods The literature reviews were produced by carrying out a comprehensive literature search, after deciding on the methodology, structure and content of the literature review. Keyword searches in ISI Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar and the existing WCMC database were carried out to identify relevant and recent literature. This information was compiled and synthesised in comprehensive literature reviews on each of the aforementioned topics.
Supplementary advice was also sought from the Cambridge Conservation Forum (CCF) and the more recently established Cambridge Conservation Initiative (CCI), comprising of conservation organisations and academic researchers from across Cambridge. This was done on an informal basis, drawing on individual expertise, and more formally through a Horizon Scanning Project on REDD and biodiversity, held in October 2008. The outcomes of these discussions were additionally used to inform the literature reviews.
Other documents were prepared for the AHTEG in collaboration with the CBD Secretariat.
The literature reviews were presented at the AHTEG meetings, in which UNEP- WCMC actively participated. Additionally, drafts of AHTEG reports were reviewed and commented upon by UNEP-WCMC.
Results Three literature reviews on: impacts of climate change on biodiversity; the linkages between biodiversity and climate change mitigation; and the linkages between biodiversity and climate change adaptation were produced for the first and second AHTEG meetings. Support and assistance were provided to the SCBD, through the preparation of these documents, attendance at the relevant meetings and ongoing consultation with the SCBD and the AHTEG co-chairs to facilitate the effective working of the AHTEG.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy Conclusions from the review of impacts of climate change on biodiversity Many of the key findings at the time of IPCC AR4 have been strengthened, with a greater range of evidence, including observational evidence, to support them. While there are some specific areas where new understanding has emerged or the balance of evidence has shifted, the larger scale picture is one of increased support for earlier findings.
Conclusions from the review of the linkages between biodiversity and climate change mitigation Research since IPCC AR4 has served to strengthen the finding that biodiversity is an integral part of the carbon cycle, and important in mitigating climate change. Climate change mitigation policy has the potential to impact biodiversity both positively and negatively, but due to the important role of ecosystems in the carbon cycle, it is clear
51 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
that the potential exists to develop ‘win-‘win’ mitigation policies that are beneficial for both climate change mitigation and biodiversity.
Conclusions from the review of the linkages between biodiversity and climate change adaptation The limited evidence to date suggests that although technological and structural adaptation measures will be required, biodiversity will also play a vital role in adaptation to climate change. Ecosystem-based adaptation can be a cost-effective strategy to address the impacts of climate change, particularly in vulnerable areas where adaptive capacity is low. However, it will be optimal if biodiversity and ecosystem-based adaptation are incorporated into wider adaptation planning as a complement to, rather than an alternative to, other measures.
Relevance to policy Our reports have fed directly into the CBD AHTEG final report, which is being presented to UNFCCC and CBD Conference of Parties (COPs). In particular, this report is designed to influence UNFCCC negotiations with the aim of ensuring that they take proper account of the biodiversity aspects of climate change and climate change policy.
Future Work Within Life of Project The SCBD are going to publish the three literature reviews together in the CBD Technical Series documents.
Technology Transfer There has been no technology transfer related to this project.
52 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
PROJECT SUMMARIES
THEME2: ECONOMICS AND ECOSYSTEMS
53 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Theme 2 Project summaries not available Project Project title Contractor Number 0214 UK biosphere reserves University of Paper Review Oxford 0268 Survey of the economic impact Prism Paper Review of Foot and Mouth disease Research 142 CAP reform
156 Common land survey
173 MEILUC 1 – land use change
191 Soil data
198 LUAM club – land use allocation
199 Environmental effects of agriculture
There are a number of projects, mainly from 1996, for which summaries were not available. While these have been included in the financial assessments, they are, unfortunately, not available for review.
54 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0394: MAPPING OF BUSINESS TOOLS AND METHODOLOGIES FOR MANAGING BIODIVERSITY
Scott Wilson Ltd (with Green Environmental Horizons Limited and RSPB) Dr Steven Smith 6 – 8 Greencoat Place, London. SW1P 1PL
November 2008 – July 2009 Total cost: £47,518 (exclusive of VAT)
Executive Summary Scott Wilson – in partnership with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and Green Horizons Environmental Consultants Ltd – were commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to, firstly, provide a comprehensive picture of the currently available tools and methodologies to assist business across key sectors in managing their biodiversity impacts and identifying opportunities associated with biodiversity and, secondly, investigate the feasibility of developing tools / methodologies to fill the most evident gap(s) identified. The research builds on a previous desk based assessment of the tools available to UK business for the management of their biodiversity impacts undertaken on behalf of the Business and Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Group (BBSIG)1. Our conclusions gave an overview of the tools and methodologies (or ‘mechanisms’) available to different business sectors (and to business generally) for managing its biodiversity impacts. An overall set of conclusions were made for business and biodiversity generally and used to inform recommendations to the BBSIG.
Introduction and Policy Rationale The Parties to the 2002 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are committed to achieving by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss. The European Union (EU) Sustainable Development Strategy, renewed in 2006, includes a target to halt the loss of biodiversity and contribute to a significant reduction in the worldwide rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. However, in 2008 the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee concluded that the 2010 target to halt biodiversity loss was unlikely to be met. The Parties to the CBD have underlined the importance of engaging the business community in implementing the Convention; however, in a 2006 Decision, the Conference of the Parties argued that the private sector is “the least engaged of all stakeholders in the implementation of the Convention, yet the daily activities of business and industry have major impacts on biodiversity”2. Notwithstanding this, the Decision highlights various tools and mechanisms that might facilitate contributions from business towards implementation of the Convention and its 2010 target. The England Biodiversity Strategy – which includes a chapter on engaging business – commits the Government to “Provide advice, simple tools and support to help companies manage their biodiversity impacts”3. The BBSIG was established in response to the England Biodiversity Strategy and the findings of this research are intended to inform this SIG.
Objectives • Provide a comprehensive picture of the currently available tools and methodologies to assist business across key sectors in managing their biodiversity impacts and identifying opportunities associated with biodiversity.
55 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
• Investigate the feasibility of developing tools / methodologies to fill the most evident gaps identified.
Approaches and Methods • A ‘long list’ of the mechanisms available to a range of key sectors – construction and building; utilities; retail; mining; oil and gas; leisure and hotels; forestry and paper; food producers and processors; investment, insurance and banking, and; general / cross-sector – was established through a literature review and using the existing desk-based assessment as a starting-point.. • A shortlist was created based on factors including the extent of each mechanism’s ‘biodiversity focus’ – since many of the identified mechanisms had a general environment or sustainability focus with biodiversity only one of the topics covered – and its potential interest to Defra. • Each shortlisted mechanism was then subject to further investigation with the key contact for each mechanism being sent a standard data capture proforma for completion (with a telephone follow-up where appropriate). The proforma sought information on the mechanism’s perceived effectiveness (e.g. its reach through the supply chain, its communicability and its ease of execution / usability). • The research findings for each sector were then analysed and presented and discussed at a stakeholder workshop in April 2009. • The mechanisms investigated were primarily UK focused although international mechanisms were explored where appropriate.
Key conclusions The report made conclusions for each of the sectors investigated and from the stakeholder workshop. Key overall conclusions include:
• A large number of tools and methodologies exist to assist businesses in managing their biodiversity impacts and identifying opportunities associated with biodiversity. • Different types of tools and methodologies predominate in different sectors, reflecting the underlying drivers influencing each sector and the sector’s ‘proximity’ to biodiversity. • For many of the tools and methodologies investigated it is very much early days and their success at promoting biodiversity remains to be seen. • Some sectors, including food production, forestry, mining and utilities, have relatively well developed tools and methodologies for biodiversity with wide up- take, reflecting the importance of biodiversity to their operations and their clear links to it. Other sectors are only now beginning to experience pressure to develop tools and methodologies, particularly the food processing, retail and the leisure and hotels sectors, as a result of increasing consumer pressure. Sectors such as construction are also experiencing pressure to conserve and enhance biodiversity as a result of the accelerating sustainable design and construction agenda, in turn driven by concerns over climate change and the need for new housing. • Many tools and methodologies exist that have a general environmental or sustainability focus and a relatively minor biodiversity dimension (e.g. certification schemes). These were particularly prevalent in the construction, food processing, retail and leisure and hotels sectors, reflecting the plethora of other sustainable development concerns that these sectors need to take into account. 56 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Opportunities exist to promote a greater role for biodiversity in mechanisms with a wide up-take, for example environmental management systems. • In general, for a tool or methodology to be effective and secure senior buy-in it must represent a clear ‘win-win’ for both business and biodiversity, with the ‘win’ measurable for both. For a mechanism to be effective clear monitoring and auditing, assessment and capacity for corrective action are important. More widely, there is a need to break down the cultural barriers between businesses and environmental bodies, particularly in terms of language. • More broadly, it may be that a considerable shift in terms of the prospects for business engagement in biodiversity is on the horizon. The impacts of carbon markets, the trend towards payment for ecosystem services and the emergence of biodiversity banking / offsetting schemes may signal a new era for business and biodiversity.
Key recommendations In light of the research, the following recommendations for the future work of the Business and Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Group (BBSIG) were given:
• Identify the key generic principles underpinning an effective tool or methodology for assisting businesses to manage their biodiversity impacts. • Recognise that certain sectors (such as forestry, mining and utilities) have relatively well developed tools and methodologies for biodiversity with wide up- take, consider prioritising the following sectors for further research and support: construction and building; food processing, retail; leisure and hotels and investment, insurance and banking. • Identify those tools with an environment / sustainability focus and a wide take-up but a relatively minor biodiversity dimension and investigate the possibilities for strengthening the biodiversity dimension. • Given the differences between the different sectors in terms of drivers for addressing biodiversity-related concerns, consider establishing sub-groups or working groups within the BBSIG devoted to particular sector(s). • Monitor the effectiveness of the new tools and methodologies emerging in sectors such as construction and building and act to remedy any failure to promote biodiversity interests. • Consider undertaking formal reviews or evaluations of particular tools and methodologies in order to firmly demonstrate the gains to both business and biodiversity. • Consider a firmer focus on the future for business and biodiversity, namely the emergence of markets for biodiversity and ecosystem services and prepare UK businesses for the transition and the challenges and opportunities this presents.
1 Cokeliss, Z. (2005). A desk based assessment of the tools available to UK business for the management of their biodiversity impacts. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
2 Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2006). COP 8 Decision VIII/17 Private-sector engagement [online] available at: http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=11031
57 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
3 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2002). Working with the Grain of Nature: A Biodiversity Strategy for England [online] available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/pdf/biodiversity/biostrategy.pdf (page 85).
58 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0384: BENEFITS OF GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY ASSETS TO UK CITIZENS: A LITERATURE REVIEW
Scott Wilson Ltd (with the International Institute for Environment and Development and the Scottish Agricultural College) Dr Steven Smith 6 – 8 Greencoat Place, London. SW1P 1PL
October 2007 – July 2008 £34,900 (exclusive of VAT)
Executive Summary Scott Wilson – in partnership with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and the Scottish Agricultural College – completed a literature review to identify, firstly, the benefits which UK citizens derive from international biodiversity assets and, secondly, the values that they attach to these. The review focused on identifying the ‘ecosystem services’ provided by the five major biomes - forests, drylands, tundra, wetlands and marine - and assessing which of these services provided significant benefits to UK citizens. Through a review of the economic literature we then identified, where possible, the values that the UK public attaches to these services. Our conclusions highlighted the benefits provided by the different biomes particularly in terms of carbon storage and we made a series of recommendations to Defra regarding further research.
Introduction and Policy Rationale Scott Wilson – in partnership with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and the Resource Economics Unit at the Scottish Agricultural College – were commissioned by Defra to undertake a literature review on the benefits of global biodiversity to UK citizens.
The information generated through the review was anticipated to allow Government policy makers to better assess whether the level of resources presently committed to international biodiversity conservation (e.g. through the World Conservation Union, the Darwin Initiative, the Flagship Species Fund and the Global Environment Facility) appropriately reflects the value of global biodiversity assets to UK citizens. In terms of background, the Government currently spends approximately £26.7 million per annum on the conservation of international biodiversity.
Objectives The objectives of the study were two-fold:
• To provide a broad literature review of the benefits of global biodiversity assets and related ecosystem services to UK citizens, illustrating such benefits with reference to case studies.
• To provide a broad literature review of the value that UK citizens place on these benefits in both economic (including market and non-market values) and social terms, with these values expressed in monetary terms where possible and again illustrated with reference to case studies.
59 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Approaches and Methods The first stage of the research focused on identifying the benefits of global biodiversity assets and related ecosystem services to UK citizens while the second stage concentrated on ascertaining the value that UK citizens place on these benefits. Both stages of the research were based on a review of published evidence. The evidence assembled spanned the natural science, social science and economics literature in order to provide a comprehensive picture of the benefits of global biodiversity assets and the values attached to these. Crucially, it was considered that undertaking the review from a purely economic perspective might not provide the full picture and could fail to capture indirect and non-market benefits.
In light of the complexities of identifying the benefits and values associated with biodiversity per se, the decision was made to focus the review on the benefits that UK citizens derive from ecosystem services and the values they attach to these benefits. In identifying ecosystem services and their benefits and values to UK citizens, we took the five major biomes as our unit of analysis – forests, drylands, wetlands, tundra and marine - and organised the review findings around these.
Key Conclusions Overall, it was clear from the review of the literature that UK citizens derive significant benefits from global biodiversity assets and associated ecosystem services and that the values attached to these benefits significantly outweigh current Government spending on international biodiversity conservation.
The benefits of many ecosystem services are felt primarily on a local rather than global basis. For example, a wetland can provide a vast array of ecosystem services including provisioning services (e.g. food, water and fuel); regulating services (e.g. bioremediation of waste and erosion protection); cultural services (e.g. historical significance and spiritual sustenance); and supporting services (e.g. sediment retention and support for pollinators). However, broadly speaking the beneficiaries of these services will predominantly be people living in the vicinity of the wetland.
However, the benefits of some ecosystem services are felt more widely including by UK citizens. In particular, all the major biomes – forests, drylands, wetlands, tundra and marine ecosystems – sequester and store carbon and play a key role in regulating greenhouse gases and therefore climate change. In relation to forests, several studies have sought to estimate the benefits provided by forests to people beyond the local community particularly in relation to carbon storage. Aggregating these estimates indicates that the carbon storage benefit of protecting just 200,000 hectares (ha) of forest per year, even with very conservative assumptions regarding the amount of carbon released if the area were to be deforested, would be almost equal to annual UK spend on international biodiversity (£26.7 million).
Studies focused on the non-use values associated with forests indicate a willingness to pay (WTP) on the part of UK citizens of between £13 - £18 per household per year to as much as £28.52 per person per year for the preservation of particular tracts of forest. Aggregating these estimates indicates that the non-use benefit of protecting just 200,000 ha of forest per year ranges from £2 million - £2.9 million. In terms of the aggregate value of ecosystem services to UK citizens, analysis indicated that, even on the basis of conservative assumptions, the extent of the benefits derived by UK citizens appears to be around 100 times the amount currently 60 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
being spent (£2.9 billion vs. £26.7 million). Indeed, the limited evidence on the benefits arising from tropical forests alone is sufficient to support an argument to increase UK spending by 50 times the current amount.
Key Recommendations Our recommendations included:
• Further research to better establish the links between biodiversity per se, ecosystem functioning, ecosystem services, ecosystem services of global significance – particularly carbon storage - and consequent benefits to UK citizens.
• Further research into the values that UK citizens hold for global ecosystem services. The vast majority of studies accessed as part of the review elicited values from non-UK citizens. While the process of benefits transfer may be reasonably reliable (when judiciously applied) for transferring globally-derived values to UK citizens for direct uses (primarily tourism), much less is known about the determinants (such as levels of income, education, etc.) of willingness to pay for indirect use and non-use values.
61 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0419: THE ECONOMICS OF ECOSYSTEMS AND BIODIVERSITY (TEEB) PHASE 2 PART 1. DEVELOPMENT OF VALUATION FRAMEWORK
WC0908: A contribution to phase 2 of the TEEB project (The Economics of
Ecosystems and Biodiversity): Development of the valuation framework Contractor Organisation Project leader (for TEEB): Pavan Sukhdev, chairman of Deutsche Bank’s Global Market Centre in Mumbai. Project leader (for the development of the valuation framework): Pushpam Kumar Project leader address: University of Liverpool
April 2008 – March 2010 Total cost to Defra Biodiversity R&D programme in 08/09 (£96,703) (Note that this work is let by UNEP and there are a range of funding partners including the German Government, Defra, the European Commission and UNEP itself. Additional separate contributions of £50,000 from the Defra Biodiversity R&D programme have been provided in 09/10 for this ongoing project. Total cost of the development of the valuation framework is c. £0.5M).
Introduction and Policy Rationale The TEEB-Initiative was launched as a consequence of the G8+5 Environmental Ministers meeting in Potsdam, Germany, in March 2007, which decided to 'initiate, in a global study, the process of analysing the global economic benefit of biological diversity, the costs of the loss of biodiversity and the failure to take protective measures versus the costs of effective conservation.’'
TEEB has three major aims:
1. To strengthen economics as an instrument in biodiversity policy through improved understanding of the benefits from biodiversity, ecosystem services and the costs of their loss. 2. To synthesize state-of-the-art scientific and applied knowledge for the main types of ecosystems worldwide. It will propose a selection of cost-effective policy options for protecting biodiversity and ecosystem services. 3. To help policy makers, local authorities, companies and individuals in making decisions with respect to their responsibilities in safeguarding biodiversity.
TEEB 2, the current programme, is arranged as a series of separate work phases or packages, the first of which is entitled ‘development of the valuation framework’ (also known as D0, Science and Economics phase). This phase will provide the conceptual grounds for the other reports. It aims at developing a framework and methodology for the economic valuation of biodiversity and the main types of ecosystem services worldwide, and applying them to assess the costs of present and future losses. It will compare these costs to the net costs of policies to conserve and use sustainably biodiversity and ecosystem services. It will build on the preliminary work done in Phase I, and on the best achievable degree of consensus amongst academic institutions and experts.
62 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Objectives (development of a valuation framework phase) 1. To provide a biodiversity and ecosystem service assessment framework – building further on the TEEB I report, and further investigating the state of knowledge on ecosystem dynamics; 2. To develop a valuation methodology – after evaluating alternative approaches available for the main categories of ecosystem services and types of values, and analysing their suitability in various socio-economic contexts; and 3. To provide a large-scale assessment of the costs of the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services and of policy costs in various scenarios: notably assessing the costs of ‘business-as-usual’. This evaluation will be of a global scale.
Results The results will be published in time for the tenth Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity in October 2010, alongside the results of the additional work packages.
Future Work There are four further phases to TEEB. Each will pick up on the results from the Science and Economics phase:
D1 – TEEB for Policy Makers: the national policy level is the first end-user group to be addressed by the second phase of TEEB. This volume will explore the consequences of international and national policies on biodiversity and ecosystems, i.e. subsidies, impact offset requirements, trading rules, etc.
D2 – TEEB for Administrators: this volume will deliver a toolkit for regional and local decision makers and stakeholders (e.g. regional and local administration, mayors, NGOs, etc.) that adapt the legal framework set at the higher policy level and operate within it.
D3 – TEEB for Businesses: D3 focuses on the business end-user and aims to provide a framework for assessing the impact of production on biodiversity and ecosystems, both for assessing risks to business (e.g. lost production inputs, risk to brand reputation, etc) and opportunities (e.g. new market opportunities, brand building, etc).
D4 – TEEB for Consumers: D4 aims to provide an information toolkit for consumers. Although nutritional information is nowadays available on a variety of food products, there is still a large information deficit on the consequences of consumption patterns on biodiversity and ecosystems. D4 will use different medias and approaches to address stakeholders. Technology Transfer
Events Details of public events and presentations are available on the EC website: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/index_en.htm
Reports and publications The results of Phase 1 of TEEB are published in the interim report:
63 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Anon. 2008. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: an interim report. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/index_en.htm
This interim report draws on evidence from a number of subsidiary studies:
Braat, L. and ten Brink, P. 2008. Cost of policy inaction (COPI): the case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target. Contract report for DG Environment, European Commission Balmford, A., Rodrigues, A., Walpole, M., ten Brink, P., Kettunen, M., Braat, L. and de Groot, R. 2008. Review on the economics of biodiversity loss: scoping the science. Contract report for DG Environment, European Commission Markandya, A., Nunes, P.A.L.D., Brauer, I., ten Brink, P., Kuik, O. And Rayment, M. 2008. Review on the economics of biodiversity loss: economic analysis and synthesis. Contract report for DG Environment, European Commission Kontoleon, A. 2008. Study on the economics of conserving forest biodiversity. Contract report for UNEP-WCMC.
64 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0391: AN EVALUATION OF ECONOMIC AND NON-ECONOMIC TECHNIQUES FOR ASSESSING THE IMPORTANCE OF BIODIVERSITY TO PEOPLE IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
Aberystwyth University Dr Mike Christie IBERS, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Wales, SY23 3AL.
10 March 2008 – 31 June 2008 £49,500
Executive Summary This report provides a review of best practices for applying economic and non- economic techniques to assess the importance of biodiversity to people in developing countries.
Introduction and Policy Rationale Biodiversity supports a range of goods and services that are of fundamental importance to people, for health, well-being, livelihoods, and survival (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997). Often, it is the people from the poorest nations that have the greatest immediate dependency on these stocks; such as direct reliance on natural resources for food, fuel, building material and natural medicines. Thus, gaining a better understanding of the role of biodiversity is fundamental for securing the livelihoods and well-being of people in developing countries. However, to date, there have only been a limited number of applications of economic valuation of biodiversity in developing countries. This project reviews these applications and provides guidance on best practice for applying valuation methods in a developing country context.
Objectives This report aims to provide an evaluation of economic and non-economic techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity to people in developing countries. Specifically, the report aims to: • Assess the ability of a range of techniques to: (i) reveal the complex relationship between people and their natural environment; (ii) identify meaningful preference revelation; and (iii) produce results that are meaningful to policy-making; • Use case studies to illustrate the difficulties, issues and solutions encountered and delivered by the techniques examined.
Approaches and Methods To address these objectives and to ensure that the review of biodiversity valuation in developing countries is comprehensive, the following data gathering protocols were utilised: • A systemised search of (i) the Environmental Valuation Research Inventory (EVRI) database of valuation studies and (ii) the Web of Knowledge; • A survey of researchers and policy makers that were known to have undertaken research on the valuation of biodiversity in developing countries; • Five in-depth case studies that aimed to value biodiversity in: Southern Africa, Montserrat, Uganda, Solomon Island, and Agatti Islands.
65 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
The economic techniques reviewed included market-based approaches (production function, opportunity costs, damage costs, and replacement costs), revealed preference methods (travel cost method and hedonic pricing), stated preference methods (contingent valuation and choice modelling), participatory approaches to valuation (deliberative monetary valuation and mediated modelling), and benefits transfer. The non-economic techniques reviewed included non-economic consultative methods (questionnaires and in-depth interviews), non-economic deliberative and participatory approaches (focus groups, citizen’s juries, health- based valuation methods, Q-Methodology, Delphi surveys, rapid rural appraisal, participatory rural appraisal and participatory action research), and methods of review information (systematic reviews).
Results The search of the EVRI database identified 195 economic studies that valued biodiversity in developing countries, while the Web of Knowledge search identified 183 economic studies and 101 non-economic studies. These developing country studies represent approximately one-tenth of all published biodiversity valuation studies. The studies identified in the review were equally distributed between ‘lower middle income’ and ‘lower income’ countries; with no studies identified in ‘transition economies’. Half the studies were conducted in Asia, 18% in Africa and 5% in South America. The most commonly used methods included contingent valuation (73 studies), opportunity costs (56 studies), and questionnaires (48 studies); while the review failed to identify any studies that utilised mediated modelling, citizen’s juries, Delphi studies or systematic reviews.
The methodologies reviewed differ in terms of the types of values that they can elicit. Only the economic techniques are capable of eliciting economic values for biodiversity; the non-economic methods alternatively can only provide a quantitative and / or qualitative indicator or description of how people might benefit from biodiversity. Further, only the stated preference methods have the capacity to assess all components of ‘total economic value’ (e.g. use and non-use values), while revealed preference methods can only capture use values. Market-price and market- cost based approaches do not address ‘total economic value’, but alternative capture proxies for direct use.
The review highlights the fact that valuation biodiversity in developing countries is in its infancy, and that there are a wide range of methodological, practical and policy challenges specific to their application in developing countries. Methodological issues: • Low levels of literacy, education and language creates barriers to valuing complex environmental goods, as well as creating difficulties for utilising traditional survey techniques such as questionnaires and interviews. More deliberative and participatory approaches to data collection may overcome these issues. • Many developing countries have informal or subsistence economies, in which people may have little or no experience of dealing with money. The consequence of this is that they would find it extremely difficult to place a monetary value on a complex environmental good. • Most of the methods reviewed have been developed and refined by researchers from developed counties. There is evidence that the current best-
66 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
practice guidelines for these methods might not be appropriate for applications in developing countries. Practical issues: • Many developing countries are affected by extreme environmental conditions which may affect the researcher’s ability to access areas or effectively undertake research. • In many developing countries there may be a lack of local research capacity to design, administer and analyse research projects. However, the involvement of local people is considered essential within the research process to ensure that local nuances / values are accounted for. • There is some evidence that it may be easier to administer valuation studies in developing countries: response rates are typically higher; respondents are receptive to listening and considering questions posed; interviewers are relatively inexpensive (allowing larger sample sizes). Policy issues: • The lack of local research capacity in many developing countries may result in a lack of awareness of valuation methods and of the importance of biodiversity to people. A capacity building programme on these issues is considered important if developing countries are to effectively address biodiversity issues. • The lack of empirical valuation studies in developing countries is an issue for effectively illustrating the importance of biodiversity to people and for future input into benefits transfer. • Much of the existing biodiversity valuation research has been extractive, with little input or influence on local policy. Incorporating ideas from action research into valuation is seen as being essential if this type of research is to meaningfully influence policy.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy It was clear that the way people in developing countries think about the natural environment is different to those in developed countries. People in developing countries tend to have much closer ties to their natural environment. Much of their knowledge however is implicit, experiential knowledge, which may be difficult to elicit. Further, low levels of literacy and education mean that most people will have little or no scientific understanding of their natural environment. All of the above means that it may be extremely difficult for people from developing countries to express their value for natural resources. Given the above, standard approaches to valuation are unlikely to effectively reveal the preferences of people in developing countries. Evidence from this reports suggest that valuation may be more effective if (i) local researchers are used throughout the research process, and (ii) deliberative, participative and action research approaches are incorporated into the valuation methods.
Future Work (beyond life of project) • Deliberative, participatory and action research approaches appear to provide useful avenues for improving valuation research in developing countries. Further research is required to assess ways in which these approaches might best be incorporated into economic valuation. • Valuation research will be more effective and valid if local researchers are utilised at all stages in the design, administration and analysis of valuation 67 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
studies. However, there is often a lack of local research capacity in many developing countries. A research capacity building programme is therefore seen as essential if we wish to effective value biodiversity in developing countries.
Technology Transfer Events Christie M An Evaluation of Economic and Non-economic Techniques to Assess the Importance of Biodiversity to People in Developing Countries. EnvEcon conference 20 March 2009.
Reports and Publications Christie, M., Fazey, I., Cooper, R., Hyde, T., Deri, A., Hughes, L., Bush, G., Brander, L., Nahman, A., de Lange, W. and Reyers, B. (2008). An Evaluation of Economic and Non- economic Techniques for Assessing the Importance of Biodiversity to People in Developing Countries. Defra: London.
68 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Information extracted from SID5
0319: HUMAN HEALTH AND WELLBEING THROUGH COUNTRYSIDE RECREATION
Forestry Commission
2004 - 2005
Summary How does nature make us feel? Much, of course, depends on what else is important in our lives. Is it a good or a bad day? Irrespective of where we come from, it seems that the presence of living things makes us feel good. They help us when we feel stressed, and if there is green vegetation, blue sky and water in the scene, then we like it even more. This idea that the quality of nature affects our mental health is not a new one, but it has not greatly affected the planning of our urban and rural environments, nor the setting of public health priorities.
In the UK, more than 80% of people live in urban areas (Defra, 2004), though the greater growth is now in rural areas. Urban settings by definition have less nature than rural ones. And less green nature means reduced mental well-being, or at least less opportunity to recover from mental stress. As natural green environments have increasingly come under pressure from economic development, so it seems our own wellbeing has suffered as a consequence.
Today, stress and mental ill-health are becoming more common, and the associated public health costs are growing. The World Health Organisation estimates that depression and depression-related illness will become the greatest source of ill- health by 2020. This is partly because some other behaviours, such as smoking, over-eating and high alcohol consumption, are likely to be coping mechanisms for mental ill-health and stress, and have their own serious consequences. In addition, many urgent physical health challenges, including obesity and coronary heart disease, are also connected to sedentary lifestyles. Yet it is known that physically active people have a lower risk of dying from coronary heart disease, type II diabetes, hypertension and colon cancer. In the UK, there is evidence for a dramatic fall in physical activity over the past 50 years.
69 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
70 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
PROJECT SUMMARIES
THEME 3: INTERNATIONAL BIODIVERSITY
71 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Theme 3 Project summaries unavailable Project Project title Contractor Number 0350 Wildbirds trade: impact on UNEP-WCMC Block 1 livelihoods and illegal trade 0225 Review of zoo practice Zoo & Aquatic Paper Review 183 DNA advice
There are a number of projects, mainly from 1996, for which summaries were not available. While these have been included in the financial assessments, they are, unfortunately, not available for review.
72 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0406: GLOBAL ASSESSMENT OF 100 QUESTIONS OF GREATEST IMPORTANCE TO CONSERVATION POLICY MAKERS AND PRACTITIONERS
Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge William Sutherland
June 2009 - December 2009 Total cost £15,000
Executive Summary A global collaboration of policy makers, practitioners and academics identified the major questions that needed answering to benefit biodiversity
Introduction and Policy Rationale The prime aim and justification of conservation research is to benefit biological diversity, whether through identifying patterns and mechanisms, quantifying changes, recognizing problems or testing solutions. Many of the successes in conservation can be attributed to the successful translation of conservation science to practice. However, there is a widely acknowledged mismatch between the priorities of academic researchers and the needs of practitioners. One part of the solution is to identify the research needs of practitioners.
A previous exercise (Sutherland et al. 2006) sought to identify the questions of greatest relevance to policy-makers and practitioners in the United Kingdom. This exercise included individuals from 37 organizations including government, non- governmental organizations, and academia. In that exercise, questions were selected by the policy-makers and practitioners. The main target audience of the resulting paper was the academic community, as the objective was for policy makers to set the academic research agenda. Nevertheless, the paper has been considered by a wide range of governmental and non-governmental organizations in refining their own research agendas. This paper has been very widely read, showing considerable interest in this approach. It is the most downloaded paper ever from any British Ecological Society journal and was the third most downloaded paper from Blackwell’s 850 journals in 2006.
Objectives Our objective for the present exercise was to compile a list of 100 questions that, if answered, would have the greatest impact on the practice and delivery of conserving biological diversity worldwide. To achieve this aim, we brought together a team of senior representatives from the world’s major conservation organizations, professional scientific societies, and universities. Our intended audiences are researchers wishing to make their work more applicable to the practice of conservation and organizations (including governments and inter-governmental bodies) wishing to review and direct their conservation-research programs and financial support.
Approaches and Methods BirdLife International, British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge Conservation Initiative, Conservation International, DEFRA, Fauna & Flora International, GEF Secretariat, International Society for Reef Studies, IUCN, CIFOR, Living With Environmental
73 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Change, Natural Environment Research Council, Ocean Conservancy, The Nature Conservancy, Traffic International, Tropical Biology Association, UNEP-WCMC, Wetlands International, Wildlife Conservation Society, World Bank and World Resources Institute, nominated participants to identify the 100 questions of greatest importance to the conservation of global biological diversity. The Society for Conservation Biology’s Regional Sections, Marine Section and Social Science and Freshwater Working Groups were each invited to nominate a representative. Twelve academics from a range of disciplines, including one from each continent except Antarctica, participated. A representative from the British Antarctic Survey participated to represent that continent. The list of authors provides details of the individuals and participating organizations.
Each representative was asked to generate a list of questions from their organization via mechanisms such as seminars, informal small-group discussions and email solicitations. Each participant estimated how many people were actively involved in their process. The estimate included all those attending a workshop or discussion with the aim of generating questions, even if all those individuals did not submit a question. The estimate did not include individuals who did not actively participate, for example by receiving but not responding to an email request. A total of 761 individuals were involved in generating questions.
To be deemed suitable, questions had to meet the following criteria. 1. Questions should be answerable using a realistic research design. 2. Questions should be designed to allow a factual answer that does not depend on value judgments. 3. Questions should address important gaps in knowledge. 4. Questions should be of a spatial and temporal scale that reasonably could be addressed by a research team. 5. Questions should not be formulated as a general topic area. 6. Questions should not be answered by “It all depends”. 7. If related to impact and interventions, questions should contain a subject, an intervention and a measurable outcome. Thus, the question immediately suggests the research design needed to address it. 8. Questions should be unlikely to be answered by “yes” or “no”.
Because so many potential questions were intellectually interesting, we found it useful to remind ourselves repeatedly of the overall goal, by asking “Is this really one of the 100 questions that, if answered, would have the greatest impact on the practice and delivery of conserving biological diversity worldwide?”
A total of 2,287questions was submitted, a high proportion of which met most (although not all) of the above criteria. The questions were classified into major thematic areas (e.g., forest) and then subthemes (e.g., forest: carbon) to group similar questions for ease of discussion and prioritization. The online appendix provides the list of original questions with the name and organization of the person who suggested the question. In a few cases the name or organization was not given.
The list of questions was circulated to each participant to prioritize. Authors’ names and affiliations were removed to reduce potential bias. Participants were asked to select questions within any themes of which they felt they had sufficient knowledge. Participants were asked to retain roughly 5% of the questions (100/2,291) within the 74 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
themes they reviewed. They were encouraged to involve multiple individuals across their organizations and were invited to rephrase questions or identify missing key questions.
A list of the 1,655 questions that had attracted at least one vote for retention, together with the number of votes that each question received, were circulated to all participants prior to the workshop. Suggestions for rephrasing were also provided. At this stage we included all questions that had at least one vote even if some were similar or did not meet all the criteria outlined above. This was deemed to be more inclusive and allowed consideration of important ideas that could be rephrased into suitable questions.
The participants assembled in Cambridge, UK, for a two-day workshop from 9 – 11 September 2008. The retained questions were divided into 15 topical sections, each of which was discussed by a subgroup of participants with 3 or 4 subgroups working in parallel. This process of elimination and rewriting reduced the list of questions to 258 by the end of the first day. Three participants were unable to attend the meeting but one provided comments overnight on this shortlist that were circulated to all participants.
At each stage, participants were asked to focus on the overall goal of identifying questions that, if answered, would have the greatest impact on biodiversity conservation practice.
During the second day, three concurrent subgroups of participants, which each addressed three to five topical sections, identified their 30 priority questions, and 10 questions of secondary priority. In the final session, the entire group of participants discussed the 90 priority questions. Decisions on whether to retain questions were made by majority vote after discussion. Eight questions were removed or merged as they overlapped with questions produced by different groups.
During the first day participants realized that a considerable number of overlapping questions relating to the effectiveness of interventions appeared in various forms in the different thematic groups. Two participants collated all of these questions and suggested three questions that encompassed the main issues. Their inclusion was accepted by a vote of the entire group.
WJS and Dan Osborne (NERC) moved between groups during both days and answered questions and made occasional organizational points with the objective of ensuring consistency across groups. This also allowed some exchange of information across groups.
A total of 85 priority questions remained at the end of this process. Participants were then asked to nominate their top 10 questions among the 30 second-priority questions (10 from each group). The 15 questions garnering the most votes were discussed and included. The final list therefore consisted of 100 questions. The questions were edited by a volunteer for each thematic section and then circulated for editing by all the authors.
75 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Future Work Within life of project This project has ended Beyond life of project This exercise is being copied globally. There are Canadian, US and global agriculture exercises.
Technology Transfer Events The lead author has described this work at a range of conferences and workshops. Most recently (last week) to 1200 attending the European Congress in Conservation Biology.
Reports and publications Sutherland, W.J., Adams, W.M., Aronson, R.B., Aveling, R., Blackburn, T.M., Broad, S., Ceballos, G., Côté, I.M., Cowling, R.M., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Dinerstein, E., Ferraro, P.J., Fleishman, E., Gascon, C., Hunter Jr, M., Hutton, J., Kareiva, P., Kuria, A., Macdonald, D.W., MacKinnon, K., Madgwick, F.J., Mascia, M.B., McNeely, J., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Moon, S., Morley, C.G., Nelson, S., Osborn, D., Pai, M., Parsons, E.C.M., Peck, L.S., Possingham, H., Prior, S.V., Pullin, A.S., Rands, M.R.W., Ranganathan, J., Redford, K.H., Rodriguez, J.P., Seymour, F., Sobel, F., Sodhi, N.S., Stott, A., Vance-Borland, K. & Watkinson, A.R. (2009). An assessment of the 100 questions of greatest importance to the conservation of global biological diversity. Conservation Biology. 23, 557–567
This research was covered by Nature online, BBC Wildlife and a range on internet sites.
76 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0290: CHINESE PLANTS IN SPECIALIST HORTICULTURAL TRADE
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew Noel McGough Conventions and Policy Section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB
2004 - 2007 £30,000
Executive Summary China is a major source of biodiversity in trade and plays a significant role in trade in plants for medicinal and horticultural purposes. Much research has been undertaken into horticultural and medicinal plant trade but little work has been done to review the trade in ‘specialist’ plants. These are species adapted to specialist habitats – for example alpines- which make them particularly attractive to collectors. The UK has a long history of specialist horticulture and maintains a vibrant network of growers of ‘choice’ plants. The aim of the project was to review such trade and assess if the trade in these plants posed a threat to their survival in the wild. The project was carried out in association with the State Forestry Administration of the Peoples Republic of China.
The survey reviewed 1170 species from 145 genera of ‘specialist’ plants in trade from China to the UK. Data was collected on taxonomy, distribution, uses, trade and conservation status. This data was reviewed in an expert workshop which further reviewed the cultivation and artificial propagation status of these plants. The workshop identified 21 genera which were potentially threatened and these were targeted for detailed review. Following additional review a set of recommendations agreed by the Chinese and UK partners were formulated, these included:
• A species specific list of 10 genera requiring further investigation and possible monitoring • A list of 16 genera which may be under threat and should be traded as seeds only • Two genera which are suitable for a cultivation programme following sustainable harvest from the wild
Introduction and Policy Rationale During this period there was a growing trade in the UK of wild-collected plants from China. Recent concern and trade surveys had concentrated on the medicinal plant trade but ignored the trade in new species for specialist horticulture. The UK is a significant market for these species due to the large number of alpine garden enthusiasts with an interest in the plants concerned. Chinese specialists had expressed concern about the conservation implications for these plants in trade and indicated that they would value assistance in assessing the scale of the problem.
Objectives This project would undertake a survey of the trade to assess the species involved, and gather information on their conservation status, taxonomic status, possible propagation and natural distribution in China. It would identify potential detrimental
77 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
trade; and the European and global trade in these species would be overviewed to place the UK trade in context and assess the global threat to the species concerned. Recommendations would include the actions required to prevent the need for possible listing on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), together with a range of options including, if necessary, possible listing on Annex D of the EC Wildlife Trade Regulations.
Approaches and Methods 1. Carry out an initial internet, catalogue, trader and expert survey relating to Chinese plants in trade in the UK. Also identify key mainland Europe traders/sources and liaise with the State Forestry Administration of the Peoples Republic of China.
2. Bring together all available data on the taxonomy, conservation status, distribution and propagation status of the taxa identified in task 1.
3. Construct a plant trade database and include in it the information collected in tasks 1 and 2.
4. Prepare an interim report with datasheets on key taxa and draft recommendations relating to each species.
5. Convene a workshop of relevant experts including representatives of the State Forestry Administration of the Peoples Republic of China to consider the interim report.
6. Carry out any amendments/additional research required to produce final report and produce final report.
Results The survey reviewed 1170 species from 145 genera of such specialist plants in trade from China to the UK. Data was collected on taxonomy, distribution, uses, trade and conservation status. This data was reviewed in a specialist workshop which further reviewed cultivation and artificial propagation status of these taxa. The workshop identified 21 genera which were potentially threatened and were targeted for detailed review. Following additional review a set of recommendations agreed by the Chinese and UK partners were formulated, these included: • A species specific list of 10 genera requiring further investigation and possible monitoring • A list of 16 genera which may be under threat and should be traded as seeds only • Two genera which are suitable for a cultivation programme following sustainable harvest from the wild
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy The results of this project were used to promote the efficient and effective sustainable use of wild-collected plants in China, and the identify the actions required to pre-empt possible listing of species on the Appendices to CITES. The report informed decision making by CITES Management and Scientific Authorities in both China and the UK on desirable export and import requirements for these plants.
78 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Results informed recommendations made to the EC CITES Scientific Review Group by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (as UK CITES Scientific Authority for Plants), and to the EC CITES Committee by DETR’s Global Wildlife Division (as UK CITES Management Authority). The benefits accruing from this project were primarily associated with the avoidance of having to list new species CITES, preventing the imposition of trade controls by detecting potential problem trade.
Future Work Beyond Life of Project The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew continues to review trade in such species.
Technology Transfer Events Two project workshops including liaison visit to the Royal botanic Gardens, Kew by a staff member of the State Forestry Administration of the Peoples Republic of China.
Reports and Publications Michnowicz, S., 2007. Trade in Choice Plants. A review of trade in plants for specialist growers, from China to the UK. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK. 307 pp.
79 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0258: SCIENTIFIC ADVICE ON PLANT TRADE POLICY – REVIEW OF TRADE IN ARTIFICIALLY PROPAGATED PLANTS
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew Noel McGough Conventions and Policy Section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB
2001 - 2002 £20,000?
Executive Summary The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) includes over 25,000 species of plants in its Appendices. The high number of plant species included is due to the block listing of some of the larger plant families such as the orchids (with estimates between 15,000 and 30,000 species). These groups are in high demand by the horticultural trade and specialist collectors.
The horticultural trade in these larger plant families is now, for the greater part, confined to artificially propagated stocks. However, there are exceptions, notably in the cases where new species are entering trade or where groups are difficult to propagate. Plant from artificially propagated sources do not constitute a conservation problem and where the trade is large it can put a major burden on CITES authorities which have to license and monitor the trade. This project reviewed the trade in CITES succulents (Pachypodium spp., Aloe spp., succulent taxa of Euphorbia spp.) and orchids with a view to identifying taxa that could be removed from CITES regulation without impact on the survival of the related plants in the wild.
The review found that no taxa of Pachypodium was suitable for delisting, 133 taxa of Aloe were suitable for downlisting or delisting, 249 taxa of Euphorbia and 642 genera of orchids.
Introduction and Policy Rationale The listings of large groups of plants on the CTES Appendices put a significant burden on CITES authorities whose role it is to implement the Convention. In the case of large scale artificially propagated trade for horticulture there is little evidence that the regulation of such trade is of benefit to conservation. The resources used to regulate such trade may have a greater impact if redirected to monitor trade in plants coming from the wild such as the trade in medicinal plants and the international trade in timber.
An analysis of trade was required to inform policy making as regards to which taxa are suitable for delisting from CITES and might gain UK government support, to feed into the CITES Plants Committee’s formal review of the CITES Appendices, to inform decision making in the EU CITES Scientific Review Group and to prepare UK positions for the meetings of the Conference of the Parties.
Objectives This project reviewed the trade in CITES succulents (Pachypodium spp., Aloe spp., succulent taxa of Euphorbia spp.) and Orchids with a view to identifying taxa that 80 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
could be removed from CITES regulation without impact on the survival of the related plants in the wild. This information would then support UK policy in this area, inform CITES policy positions in the European Union and support the work of the CITES Plants Committee.
Approaches and Methods 1. Carry out an initial trade and expert survey of the plants in international trade, using the data available from the UNEP-WCMC database. Agree criteria for exclusion of taxa. Identify key taxa and countries in the trade. 2. Prepare a checklist of key taxa in trade known only from artificially propagated sources. 3. Bring together a range of international experts to review and assess this information in a workshop. 4. Refine the initial list. 5. Review the list again with the international panel and produce a list of final recommendations 6. Produce final report with recommendations and data supporting recommendations
Results The review found that no taxa of Pachypodium was suitable for downlisting or delisting, 133 taxa of Aloe were suitable for downlisting or delisting, 249 taxa of Euphorbia and 642 genera of orchids.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy Details of the taxa included in each results group and the criteria used for selection were supplied to the working group of the CITES Plants Committee responsible for the review of the Appendices and to the European Union CITES Scientific Review Group. The information contributed to the formal review of the CITES Appendices carried out by the Plants Committee on behalf of the Conference of the Parties.
Future Work Beyond Life of Project This report formed the basis for the UK positions on proposals to amend the CITES Appendices relating to orchids and succulents tabled at meetings of the Conferences of the Parties from November 2002 to date.
Technology Transfer Events Two project workshops including international experts on the plant groups concerned were held at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Reports and Publications Taylor, K., 2001. Review of Trade in Artificially Propagated Plants. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK. 354 pp.
81 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0256: CITES CAPACITY BUILDING
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew Noel McGough Conventions and Policy Section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB
2000 - 2006 £100,000
Executive Summary The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) includes over 25,000 species of plants in its Appendices. The high number of plant species included in the Appendices, the diversity of different plant types traded, the range of parts and derivatives, the difficulties with identification of the plants as they are traded and issues concerning taxonomy and nomenclature all combine to make implementation of the Convention difficult for plants. In addition, identification and training materials targeting CITES plants were limited and this discouraged CITES Parties from adequately implementing the Convention for plants.
Using the scientific and technical resources available to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew this project produced a range of tools, including manuals, illustrated PowerPoint training presentations with speakers notes, CD-ROM’s and posters. All of this material was produced in the 3 official languages of the Convention- English, French and Spanish. Copies were distributed to all CITES Parties with over 6000 publications distributed worldwide.
Introduction and Policy Rationale The limited resources available to CITES had traditionally been concentrated on supporting implementation of the Convention for animals. In addition, CITES enforcement staff and Scientific Authority staff had very little training on CITES plants in trade. Such training material was needed for UK enforcement officials and for CITES workers across the globe. The provision of these would allow the UK to influence, in a positive fashion, the implementation of CITES for plants in all of the CITES Parties and increase the profile of the UK’s scientific and enforcement work in the Convention.
Objectives This projected aimed to deliver a range of simple, user-friendly training materials to help build capacity in CITES Authorities to implement the Convention for plants.
Approaches and Methods 1. Produce a series of simple user-guides to the major plant groups on the Convention. 2. The user-guides to include PowerPoint training presentations with speaker notes, available in hardcopy and on CD-ROM. 3. The guides to be produced in English, French and Spanish. 4. The guides to be produced in a fashion that would allow adaption to local use and training. 5. A series of specialist manuals produced for UK Customs targeted at the major timbers in trade would also be produced. 82 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
6. A slide database to be developed to provide a source of high quality images of CITES plants as they are traded.
Results • CITES and Plants - A Users Guide Version 2.0 distributed as a CD-ROM (English, French, Spanish) at the 12th meeting of the CITES Conference of the Parties. Also distributed at workshops, EU meetings etc. • CITES and Plants - A Users Guide Version 3.0 produced in English, French and Spanish. It was formally launched at the 13th Meeting of the CITES Conference of the Parties by the UK Environment Minister Elliot Morley. Copies were distributed to all delegations and subsequently stocks were sent to the CITES Secretariat for additional distribution. Additional copies were distributed at CITES technical meetings, regional meetings and training workshops. The Italian CITES Authorities also produced a CD-ROM version in Italian. The Polish CITES authorities used this as a base for its national training manual on plants. • CITES and Succulents - A User’s Guide produced in English, French and Spanish. It was formally launched at the 13th Meeting of the CITES Conference of the Parties by the UK Environment Minister Elliot Morley. Copies were distributed to all delegations and subsequently stocks were sent to the CITES Secretariat for additional distribution. Additional copies were distributed at CITES technical meetings, regional meetings and training workshops. The Italian CITES Authorities also produced a CD-ROM version in Italian. • CITES and Slipper Orchids - A User’s Guide produced in English, French and Spanish was formally launched at the 16th meeting of the CITES Plants Committee in Lima, Peru by the UK Ambassador. Copies were distributed to all delegations and subsequently stocks were sent to the CITES Secretariat for additional distribution. Additional copies were distributed at CITES Conferences of the Parties, technical meetings, regional meetings and training workshops. • Guidelines for the Implementation of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations – Ramin (Gonystylus species). Produced as hard copy, CD-ROM and accompanied by the poster ‘In the Frame- Ramin’. • Guidelines for the Implementation of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations – Mahogany (Swietenia species). Produced as hard copy, CD-ROM and accompanied by the poster ‘Coming to a Port Near You- Mahogany’. • Guidelines for the Implementation of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations – Afrormosia (Pericopsis elata). Produced as hard copy, CD-ROM and accompanied by the poster ‘Coming to a Port Near You- Afrormosia’. • CITES Image Database. This database at the close of formal project held over 20,000 images related to CITES plants in trade. This is an important tool for producing CITES training material. • Tailor made training modules. These included: • Fifth European Regional CITES Plants Meeting, Warsaw-Debe, Poland, 14-16 April 2004. CITES Training Tools- CITES Sponsoby Nauczania. CD-ROM in English and Polish. • Training Workshop for Polish Customs Officers, Warsaw, Poland, 16 April 2004. Warsztat szkoleniowydla Polskiego Uredu Clenego Warszawa 16-ty kwiecien 2004r. Kew and UK Customs ran a one day training workshop 83 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
following the regional meeting. Organised by Warsaw Botanic Gardens, Kew and UK Customs. • CITES Training Workshop, National Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin, Dublin, Ireland. 3rd-5th November 2004. CITES Training Tools. CD-ROM in English produced for this two day training workshop prepared by Kew and UK Customs. Organised by the Irish National Parks and Wildlife Service, Kew and UK Customs. • Management and Enforcement of the CITES Timber Trade in the European Region. Perugia, Italy, 11-13th April 2005. CD-ROM produced for this three day meeting organized by the CITES Authorities of Italy, Spain and the UK Scientific Authority for Plants.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy The CITES User-Guides now form an essential tool in CITES training and are used across the globe by enforcement agencies, scientific authorities and a range of other CITES workers. The training materials have been translated into a number of additional languages and have been incorporated in national CITES training programmes.
Future Work Beyond Life of Project Funding from additional sources has allowed work to continue with guides currently in production for Cacti, Cycads and Ramin. Slide database in use and updated.
Technology Transfer Events A range of training workshops were held during the course of the project as outlined above. RBG Kew and the UK Customs CITES Team continue to carry out training for enforcement staff on a national and global basis using the material developed for this project. Reports and Publications McGough, H.N., Groves, M., Mustard, M. & Brodie, C., 2004. CITES and Plants - A User’s Guide, CITES et les Plantes – Guide de l’utilisateur, CITES y las Plantas – Guía del usuario. Pp. 262. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK. McGough, H.N., Groves, M., Mustard, M, Sajeva, M. & Brodie, C., 2004. CITES and Succulents, CITES et les Plantes Succulentes, CITES y las Suculentas. Pp. 196. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK. McGough, H.N., Roberts, D. L., Brodie, C. & Kowalczyk, J., 2006. CITES and Slipper Orchids, CITES et les orchidées Sabot de Vénus, CITES y las Zapatillas de Venus. Pp. 240. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK.
84 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0340: CITES SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITY SUPPORT: TRADE IN RAPTORS FROM GUINEA
Fauna Flora International (sub-contractor: Afrique Nature) Daniel Pouakouyou, FFI, Great Eastern House, Tenison Road, Cambridge, CB1 2TT
September 2005 - November 2006 £51.5k (Defra – £25k; Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) £25k & £1.5k translation costs)
Introduction & Policy Rationale Guinea has emerged, since the mid-1990s, as a significant exporter of live wild birds to the United Kingdom and the European Community. This trade involves significant number of birds of prey. Due to concerns over the sustainability of this trade, some of these species have been subject to import suspensions into the European Community under regulations implementing the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).
This project was initiated by the CITES Authorities in the UK (JNCC & Defra), in collaboration with the relevant authorities in Guinea. It aimed to provide a shared and improved understanding of the current status, distribution and abundance in Guinea of diurnal and nocturnal raptors upon which to base assessments of the sustainability of any trade. Such ‘non-detriment findings’ are required before the export of CITES specimens can be permitted (and are also required for imports to the European Community) but there was little information available to inform such assessments. The work was undertaken by Fauna & Flora International & Afrique Nature.
Methods & Results Counts of raptors were undertaken by driving road transects, supplemented by spot counts, transects on foot and nocturnal surveys, as a rapid but rigorous and reproducible survey technique which would provide information on distribution and relative abundance of birds of prey in Guinea. Information was gathered opportunistically on other bird species seen and which may also be subject to trade.
Some 3,635km of road transect were covered, over 27 days, distributed across the natural regions of Guinea and covering a representative range of habitats (forest and savanna) and including rural, urban and protected areas. These road counts were supplemented by 21km of pedestrian transects in forested areas and 6 nocturnal surveys. In all, some 47 species of diurnal raptor (equivalent to 76% of the raptor species known to occur in west Africa) and 2,792 individual raptors were recorded along with 7 species of owl (31 individuals). The numbers of diurnal raptors included 6 species of vulture and twelve Palearctic migrants. The four most abundant species recorded were hooded vulture Necrosyrtes monachus, black kite Milvus migrans, white-backed vulture Gyps africanus and grasshopper buzzard Butastur rufipennis. The survey recorded the first known observations of Eurasian griffon vulture Gyps fulvus, saker falcon Falco cherrug and red-chested owlet Glaucidium tephronotum from Guinea. No African grey parrots Psittacus erithacus, bustards or hornbills were observed at all.
85 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
More species of raptor were recorded from rural areas (43 spp.) than any other category but this area had the lowest overall abundance index (62.3 individuals / 100km); this land use type covered most of the survey route. By contrast, urban areas had the lowest species diversity (11 spp.) but the greatest abundance index (168.4 ind./100km), indicating that these areas supported significant numbers of a few species of large raptor. Notable amongst these urban raptors are the hooded vulture and black kite. Protected areas had moderate species richness (30 spp.) and abundance (78.8 ind./100km) but the highest number of species per transect. Three species, Cassin’s hawk eagle Spizaetus africanus, crowned eagle Stephanoaetus coronatus and African hobby Falco cuvierii, were recorded only from protected areas. By contrast, not a single vulture was recorded in protected areas.
When analysed by natural region, the Haute Guinée was the richest natural region with 37 species recorded but in moderate abundance; it was also the richest region for number of vulture species and for Palearctic migrants. La Moyenne Guinée was relatively rich in species (33 spp.) and with an index of abundance greater than the survey average. It was also the region where vultures were most abundant (74.4 ind./100km). La Guinée Forestière was relatively poor in species (28) and had the lowest abundance index (43.3 ind./100km). La Guinée Maritime recorded only 15 species but had the greatest abundance index for raptors (128.3 ind./100km) with hooded vultures being the most abundant individual species.
The results were compared with those from two other recent surveys in the region which used similar methodology. Whilst number of species and indices of abundance varied, there was generally a broad correspondence between the surveys. Whilst one survey recorded 49 species of raptor and the other 40 species, compared with 47 in Guinea by this survey, the other surveys covered significantly greater distances than this study, indicating the relative richness of Guinea for raptors. Notable from this study were the healthy vulture populations still found in the Fouta Djallon highlands of Guinea, in contrast to the pattern of decline for vultures and other large raptors over most of west Africa.
Conclusions & relevance to policy The study has provided the first quantitative and qualitative estimates of the occurrence, distribution and relative abundance of diurnal raptors within Guinea. This information is now available to the authorities in Guinea to enable them to better plan and manage any harvests and exports of raptors from their country. The survey route and method is reproducible and provides a baseline for future monitoring, especially in the context of raptor declines reported elsewhere within the region. The study also contributed in part to the identification and establishment of a protected area for vultures in the Fouta Djallon highlands of Guinea1. Implementation of the recently signed Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Birds of Prey in Africa and Eurasia, in which the UK played a significant lead in its negotiation, might also be enhanced by the information provided from the study. The work also included a significant training component (see ‘technology transfer’ below) to build the skills and capacity of CITES and other authorities in Guinea. However, over the course of the project, the EC introduced, under animal health legislation, a ban on the import of live captive birds in order to reduce the risks of avian influenza being introduced into the Community. Although there are some
1 http://www.birdlife.org/news/news/2007/01/vulture_sanctuary.html 86 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
exemptions to this import suspension, this measure has significantly reduced the numbers of birds imported to the EC from Guinea such that the policy need (by EC CITES authorities) for this information has been largely superseded. Nevertheless, Guinea continues to export raptors to other parts of the world; this information can still inform their non-detriment findings and makes a contribution to the ornithology of the region.
There is considerable scope to undertake similar studies to provide information to enable countries exporting CITES species to the UK and EC to make, with greater confidence, the required non-detriment findings and thus enhance the sustainability of wildlife trade.
Future work A publication remains to be edited – this will comprise an atlas of the occurrence of individual raptors within Guinea with individual species accounts and colour photographs. This will also be available in French and will hopefully stimulate greater interest in raptors in Guinea. This is likely to incur further translation and publication costs which will be provided by JNCC.
Technology Transfer Events • Training workshop (9-23 November 2005) - raptor identification, biology, handling and captive care and welfare. Aimed at Government officials and representatives from trader organisations and NGOs (12 participants). • Workshop (24th November 2005) – identifying problems associated with trade in raptors from Guinea. Participants (55) from full range of raptor traders, government agencies, NGOs and other interested parties. • Survey training – an official from the Ministry of Water & Forests (DNEF) accompanied the field survey team to be trained in raptor survey techniques.
Reports & Publications Rondeau, G, Condeé, M M, Ahon, B, Diallo, O & Pouakouyou, D. 2008. Survey of the occurrence and relative abundance of raptors in Guinea subject to international trade. JNCC report No.412
Rondeau G., Condeé M.M., Ahon B., Diallo O., Pouakouyou D., Littlewood A. & Fleming L.V. (in prep.) Birds Of Prey in Guinea: Status, Conservation and International Trade.
87 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
345: IMPORTED BUSHMEAT – SPECIES IDENTIFICATION USING DNA PROFILING
Wildlife DNA Services Ltd Dr Rob Ogden
2005 - 2007
Executive Summary In order to assess CITES infringements due to the illegal importation of meat into the UK, a pilot study was undertaken to identify the species composition of meat seized entering the country at Heathrow airport.
The project required a broad interdepartmental approach involving teams from HMRC, DEFRA Global Wildlife, DEFRA International Animal Health and the Food Standards Agency, in addition to backing from the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and technical expertise from Wildlife DNA Services (WDNAS).
Samples were obtained through seizures coordinated by HMRC CITES and Food Strike teams operating on five separate occasions during late 2005 and early 2006. In compliance with licensing regulations, DNA was extracted from samples at point of seizure by Wildlife DNA Services, prior to genetic identification in laboratories in North Wales.
A total of 62 samples were obtained, of which 13% were identified as wild meat, with the remainder originating from domestic animals. Of the wild meat samples, four were identified as belonging to CITES listed species, with a further sample likely to be listed based on its genus-level identification.
The ability to accurately and efficiently identify the true animal species retrospectively from meat samples was demonstrated. The only current limitation is the low number of exemplar DNA sequences from traded wild meat species against which to compare seizure samples.
The majority of the imported meat was likely for personal use given the low weight of consignments. Some of the wild meat samples entering the UK from Africa did so from transit flights via Amsterdam a possible a strategy to benefit from the less stringent controls on EC flights.
In addition to sampling at Heathrow, a further three samples were collected through covert purchasing by local authority inspectors operating in east London as part of a Food Standards Agency operation. The three samples all originated from wild meat of non-CITES listed species.
The results of the project are discussed in terms of their implications for our understanding of illegal importation of wild meat in general and of CITES listed species in particular.
88 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0300: DNA PROFILING OF BIRDS OF PREY – FLUORESCENT MULTIPLEXING
Wildlife DNA Services Ltd Dr Rob Ogden
2004 - 2007
Executive Summary The aim of this project was to develop a series of genetic tests for the identification of birds belonging to six species of raptor: goshawk, golden eagle, peregrine falcon, gyr falcon, saker falcon and merlin. The tests were commissioned in order to allow individual identification, sex determination and species identification of birds, from blood and feather samples. The resulting techniques were required to be validated for use in forensic investigations with the intention of providing evidence in criminal prosecutions involving bird of prey persecution.
Sample collection targeted captive bred birds of each species, with the aim of obtaining both unrelated birds and birds that constituted family groups. Wild bird samples were also collected for comparative purposes. Over 1000 samples were collected in total.
The construction of the DNA profiling systems for each of the six target species was performed in three principal phases. Potential microsatellite DNA markers were assessed on the basis of their amplification efficiency, variability and heterozygosity, in order to ascertain there suitability for incorporation into the profiling systems. Selected markers were subsequently validated according to forensic guidelines. Validated markers were combined to form PCR multiplexes to allow rapid and cost effective production of DNA profiles.
The resulting DNA profiles were analysed in order to assess their ability to distinguish individual birds. Statistical results indicate that the systems are powerful enough to provide strong evidence of identity in a legal framework.
A sex determination test was developed based on PCR amplification of a region of the avian sex chromosome. This test produces DNA fragments that enable male and female birds to be distinguished. The results can be visualised on agarose gel or incorporated into the individual and species identification tests.
A species identification test was designed that differentiates between each species with the exception of gyr and saker falcons. Due to the similarity of these two species at the DNA sequences analysed, it was not possible to design a robust forensic test capable of distinguishing them. Methods for gyr and saker discrimination at a research level are discussed.
In order to allow the rapid dissemination of the DNA profiling techniques produced in this project, a database containing all the relevant result data has been compiled and is freely available to other researchers in the field. Peer-reviewed publication of the project results is planned.
89 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
The report includes a discussion of the issues which arose during the project, including the selection of microsatellite loci and statistical considerations on the use of the profile systems in a forensic context, together with summary conclusions.
90 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Information extracted from SID5
0202: FEATHERS AS A SOURCE OF DNA – THE ISOLATION AND TESTING OF MICROSATELLITE MARKERS FROM SOME BIRDS OF PREY
Institute of Genetics, University of Nottingham
1999 - 2002
Summary This report begins by detailing the methods and rationale behind an attempt to isolate microsatellites from target species of birds of prey (raptors): Peregrine Falcon, Goshawk, Red Kite, Golden Eagle and Saker Falcon. The laboratory work was initiated by Dr Jon Wetton (salary financed by the Leverhulme Trust), but he left for a career with the Forensic Science Service a few months into the project. The work was continued by Nicola Peck as part of her post-graduate studies (salary funded by the European Commission and latterly by Forest Enterprise). After successfully completing her Ph D, Dr Peck also left for a career with the Forensic Science Service. Further research applying these microsatellites to additional species (Merlin, Peregrine, Saker and Gyr Falcons) has been undertaken by Amy Marsden (Ph D student financed by NERC) and Caroline Metcalf (M Phil student financed by the European Commission). Some of the Goshawk primers have been successfully applied to Sparrowhawks by Arnold van den Burg (Ph D student funded by University of Nottingham). Shortly after the successful identification of two highly variable loci from Peregrine, plus several others that remain unquantified, we learned that a Norwegian researcher (Dr Marit Nesje) was undertaking an exactly similar study with that species (Nesje et al. 2000). We agreed to transfer our attention to the other species. Exchange of methods was agreed, and we would test her micros on Merlin, Gyr Falcon and Saker.
The identification of microsatellite loci in Goshawk was successful. Golden Eagle and Red Kite proved much more difficult. Other groups have had similar difficulty with eagles (and indeed Goshawks). It seems possible that there are fewer microsatellite loci in eagles and kites: the success with Peregrine and Goshawk (and House Sparrow, African Grey Parrot and Red Squirrel) indicates that the method works in our hands, and perhaps the material is less tractable.
Microsatellites developed for individual species were tested across the rest of the targets. Primer sequences are given in detail, and protocols are provided for the amplification of all primer sequences against all variable loci. The microsatellites that were identified were tested against known families to confirm their inheritance. Selected results are given in more detail to show the potential of these for the recognition of parentage and provenance of individual birds.
91 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0207: DNA TESTING USING TIGER BONE
Forensic Science Service Ltd Dr Jon Wetton 2960 Trident Court, Birmingham Business Park, Solihull, UK, B37 7YN
March 1998 – May 2000 £32,000
Executive Summary The illegal trade in animal derivatives poses a great threat to many species, not least the tiger whose body parts are highly prized components of many traditional East Asian medicines. A test capable of detecting a feature of DNA which is specific to tiger, resistant to the manufacturing processes and detectable at trace levels in mixtures with the many other species incorporated into such remedies was developed to aid the enforcement of trade restrictions. Interestingly, no evidence of tiger bone could be found in an initial screen of a variety of medicines which claimed to contain tiger. Using similar methods, a further test was initiated to discriminate Shahtoosh wool from the CITES protected Chiru antelope (Pantholops hodgsonii) from Pashmina wool derived legally from Cashmere goats (Capra hircus), which are very difficult to distinguish by eye.
Introduction and Policy Rationale A significant proportion of the multi-billion dollar international trade in animal and plant derivatives involves the illegal exploitation of protected species. The tiger, which has long been a flagship of international efforts to conserve endangered species, is amongst the most severely affected. Despite the CITES trade ban, tiger populations are seriously threatened by poaching to supply the derivatives used in Traditional East Asian Medicines (TEAMs). Bone in particular is highly prized for its action against rheumatism and is used in a range of pills, pastes, plasters and tiger wine. Even though a label claiming to contain tiger bone provides grounds for seizure, proof of its presence is desirable before a prosecution is sought. The development of a forensic test for the presence of tiger bone would allow consumer states (such as the UK) to bring about successful convictions which would raise awareness and might thereby help to limit the trade.
Objectives Bone usually comprises less than 10% of the constituents listed on typical TEAM labels, the remainder being a highly variable mix of animal and plant products, of which medicinal herbs usually comprise the greatest proportion. The development of a test capable of detecting a feature common to all tiger body parts, which is specific to tiger, resistant to processing and detectable at trace levels in mixtures with many other species, would aid enforcement of the trade restrictions.
Approaches and Methods Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) is common to all tissues but regions of the genetic code carried by it differ between species. The UK Forensic Science Service (FSS) has developed a mitochondrial DNA sequencing method for reading the genetic code of the cytochrome b gene that can be used to identify virtually any vertebrate species. The number of differences between the cytochrome b codes of two
92 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
species is closely related to the how closely they are related; therefore it is often possible to determine what type of animal an item is derived from even if the species has not been examined previously. DNA sequence comparisons can be made with the public domain (GenBank) internet resource as well as the FSS species database.
Furthermore, the FSS developed synthetic DNA fragments that bind to DNA regions unique to tigers and then direct enzymes to make millions of additional copies of the tiger specific DNA code. Highly sensitive instruments are capable of detecting the end products of the replication process even from as few as ten starting copies of the tiger cytochrome b gene, which is considerably fewer than are present in a single cell. By contrast millions more fragments from other species have no detectable effect on the test. These tests employ the highly sensitive method of real time PCR.
Results Positive results were gained from tiger blood, hair and bone and a range of TEAMs spiked with 0.5% tiger bone. As no TEAMs were known to contain tiger bone for certain it was necessary to mix known quantities of powdered tiger bone with ground- up TEAM preparations. These experiments showed that chemicals within the TEAM powders could reduce sensitivity up to 25 fold compared with tiger bone mixed with cow bone which has a minimal inhibitory effect. Even so the test would be capable of detecting raw tiger bone at the levels claimed on the packaging. However, some TEAM manufacturers expose tiger bone to prolonged boiling or frying, which rapidly destroys DNA such that virtually none is detectable in a gram of bone after 8 hours treatment.
A range of pills and plasters seized from TEAM shops showed no detectable trace of tiger DNA, whilst several bone fragments proved to originate from cattle and wild boar rather than tiger.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy The treatment to which bone may be exposed, evidence that much lower concentrations are used than alleged on the packaging, and substitution of bones from other species all suggest the likelihood of detecting tiger DNA in patent medicines is low. Despite this, the basic methods developed for this project have been thoroughly proven and can be readily applied to derivatives from other CITES protected species, such as shahtoosh wool. Mitochondrial DNA sequencing methods developed during this study are now regularly used in wildlife crime casework and the methods used for rapid confirmation of the presence of DNA from particular species are being updated to incorporate new advances and expanded to cover a wider range of species.
Technology Transfer Wetton JH, Tsang CSF, Roney CA & Spriggs AC (2002) An extremely sensitive species-specific ARMs PCR test for the presence of tiger bone DNA. Forensic Science International 126: 137-144.
93 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0407: REVIEW OF ZOOS’ CONTRIBUTION AND EDUCATION CONTRIBUTION
ADAS UK Ltd. British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums (BIAZA)
Sam Beechener ADAS UK Ltd, Woodthorne, Wergs Road, Wolverhampton WV6 8TQ
02/09 – 12/09 Total cost £58.5k
Introduction and Policy Rationale Zoos in England have a legal requirement to participate in conservation and education measures under the provisions of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 (as amended) and as stated in the Secretary of State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practice (SSSMZP). Each zoo’s contribution to conservation and education is expected to be proportionate to its size and type. The Zoos Forum Handbook supplements the SSSMZP guidance for zoos and outlines options and examples for the types of conservation activities in which zoos may choose to participate. The Handbook also suggests benchmarks for minimum standards of conservation, by zoo type and size. The SSSMZP states that zoos should demonstrate measureable performance in conservation, education and research. To include; overall conservation and education policy, and how this relates to the World Zoo Conservation Strategy and type and level of input into international conservation programmes.
Licensing of zoos in England is the responsibility of local authorities. The Secretary of State’s appointed Zoo Inspectors carry out inspections of zoos and animal collections and in addition to safety of the visiting public and animal welfare they also assess the zoo’s contribution to conservation and education. The benchmark guidelines presented in the Zoos Forum Handbook assist in this process by outlining some minimum contributions to conservation and education that may be expected. The guidelines in the Handbook are, however, only that and a degree of judgement is left to inspectors, especially when they are assessing an activity or contribution that is not necessarily articulated within the guidelines. The wide range of animal collections in England represents an additional challenge when it comes to assessing the adequacy of each zoo’s level of contribution to conservation and education. The risk of inconsistency of application is heightened as different inspectors assess different zoos. Furthermore, given the relatively small number of licensed zoos within each Local Authority area, some Local Authority’s officers may have infrequent and intermittent liaison with zoos within their area. In response to these risks, Animal Health rotates inspectors and runs regular training for local authority licensing officers in order to assist them in keeping up to date with the legislation and processes associated with licensing zoos.
Aims and Objectives This study was commissioned by Defra to assist with the assessment of zoos’ evolving role in a wide-range of conservation and education activities. The outcomes of this project are expected to be of particular benefit in highlighting examples of best
94 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
practice and encouraging a consistent approach for both zoos and inspection agencies.
The project aims were to collect and assess information about the amount and type of conservation and education work undertaken by zoos in England. On the basis of that assessment, and in the light of the SSSMZP and the Zoos Forum Handbook (including the Annexes to Chapter 2), the project will make recommendations for: • minimum standards for conservation and education in a variety of sizes of zoo; and • methods for zoo inspectors to enable them to assess zoo conservation and educational activities.
The specific objectives for this project were to assess the current level of conservation and education work for a range of zoos in order to:- a) provide an analysis of how zoos are meeting their legal obligations; b) recommend minimum standards for zoos with regard to their education and conservation work; and c) identify a proportionate means for zoo inspectors to assess compliance with the legislation.
Approaches and Methods Work was overseen by a Project Steering Group.
An iterative approach was adopted: • A Consultation Group was formed to inform each stage of the project; • A review of available literature was conducted; • A survey of a representative sample (n=100) of the population of licensed collections in England was carried out; and • Six case studies provided an opportunity for more detailed review of conservation and education activities among a selected sub-sample.
Results The project is in progress. At this stage; • the Consultation Group is in place; • the literature review has been completed; • the survey has achieved 96 completed replies from the original target of 100 respondents and is ongoing; and • suitable case studies are in the process of being identified.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy Evidence-based conclusions and recommendations will be developed by the Project Team in the light of emerging results and in discussion with the Consultation Group .
Technology Transfer The final report will be published via Defra’s web-site.
95 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0282: SECRETARY OF STATE’S ZOO INSPECTORS’ PERFORMANCE
International Zoo Veterinary Group Andrew Greenwood International Zoo Veterinary Group, Keighley Business Centre, South Street, Keighley, West Yorkshire, BD21 1AG
S.J.Hicks Hicks & Hayes, 49 Stokes Croft, Christchurch Street East, Frome, Somerset, BA11 1QD
January – August 2003 £23,400+VAT
Executive Summary This project aimed to furnish Defra with information required to make a decision on whether an appraisal system was required to analyse the performance of zoo inspectors in carrying out inspections of zoo collections under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981.
Several evaluation research methods were employed, including a contextual review, a wide consultation exercise, examination of other inspection regimes, observation of a zoo inspection and a review of inspection reports from defined collections.
Overall, the results of the study indicated a greater need, and support for, training of zoo inspectors, rather than for appraisal per se, in order to achieve the benefits perceived by the respondents to be important.
In light of these findings, we developed a proposal for an integrated performance management system for zoo inspectors, to include training, appraisal and monitoring, alongside centralised record keeping by Defra.
Introduction and Policy Rationale The Zoo Licensing Act 1981* first came into force in 1984. The Act aims to ensure that, where animals are kept in enclosures, they are provided with a suitable environment to provide an opportunity to express most normal behaviour.
The Act requires the inspection and licensing of all zoos in Great Britain. Responsibility for the day-to-day operation of the licensing system and the administration of the Act rests with local authorities. However Central Government does have a role. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has responsibility for maintaining a list of zoo inspectors and for setting detailed standards for zoo management with which zoos are expected to comply (the Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice). Following devolution, the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales have taken on these responsibilities in their respective countries.
The Secretary of State has a two-part list of inspectors that he can call on to inspect zoos. The first part contains names of veterinary surgeons who have experience of zoo animals. The second part lists persons who are competent (in the Secretary of
96 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
the State's opinion) to inspect animals in zoos, to advise on their welfare and to advise on general zoo management issues.
At the time of the report, there was no performance monitoring protocol in place for zoo inspectors.
[* Now amended to the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 and the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2003, in order to implement provisions of European legislation, strengthening the role of zoos in conservation and biodiversity.]
Objectives The aim of the project was to furnish the Department with the information required to make a decision on whether an appraisal system was required to analyse the performance of zoo inspectors and, if so, what form it should take.
As a part of the project, the Department required the development of an appraisal scheme, which was cost effective and would lead to a more proficient inspection regime.
Approaches and Methods Eight different evaluation research methods were used for this project:
i. Contextual interviews – with a small, selected group of individuals placed just outside the immediate area of interest, to gauge the context of our investigation ii. Review of instrument – a review of the methods previously used to select individuals to the Secretary of State’s list of zoo inspectors iii. Stakeholder consultation – an extensive consultation by questionnaire to three groups – zoos, local authorities and zoo inspectors iv. Consultation of Zoo Standards Review 1999 – the review carried out by the Zoo Standards Review Group for DETR in 1999 was consulted to identify areas of overlap with this study v. Review of licensing regimes of other comparable inspectorates – to identify what, if any, appraisal or performance management was employed vi. Observation of a zoo inspection – to identify areas where potential for inconsistency existed vii. Review of findings from previously held training event for zoo inspectors – to gauge level of interest from inspectors for further training viii. Review of a sample of zoo inspection reports from defined collections – to identify any inconsistencies in the approach of inspectors.
Responses were compiled to identify the perceived problems with the existing system, and to make suggestions for an effective appraisal system to improve the inspection regime.
Results Although all responding groups felt that zoo inspectors were knowledgeable, professional and competent, respondents from local authorities and zoos felt that there was a real need to instigate some kind of performance management for inspectors. Insufficient training, an inconsistent approach to inspections and lack of a centralised database of previous inspection reports was identified by the study,
97 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
along with a willingness from the inspectorate to undertake further training in their role.
Overall, the research indicated a greater need, and support for, training than for appraisal.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy We concluded from our study that appraisal of zoo inspector performance alone could not satisfy all the perceived needs of the stakeholders. Instead, we recommended a system of improved management, with continual evaluation, of the whole dynamic inspection process, including zoo inspectors. We provided a framework for an integrated performance management system to incorporate training, appraisal, monitoring and evaluation, alongside centralised record keeping by Defra.
As a result of our report, and following consultation and consideration by the independent advisory body the Zoos Forum, the Department has built on the success of its first inspectors’ training seminar held in 2002, and now organises regular training seminars for inspectors and other individuals involved with the inspection process.
Defra has developed a centralised list of zoos operating in England, and now requires returns of inspection reports from local authorities to maintain centralised records. Further work has also been done on improving the standard inspection form used by inspectors, in an attempt to improve consistency of inspectors as well as bringing the form up to date with the Amendments to the Act.
Technology Transfer Events Since the publication of this report, Defra has hosted Zoo Inspectors’ Training Seminars in 2004, 2006 and 2009.
98 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0209: WOLF DOGS - THE KEEPING OF WOLF-HYBRIDS IN GREAT BRITAIN
International Zoo Veterinary Group Andrew Greenwood International Zoo Veterinary Group, Keighley Business Centre, South Street, Keighley, West Yorkshire, BD21 1AG
June 2000 – March 2001 > £20,000 +VAT
Executive Summary Following concerns from the general public and other interested parties, this project was commissioned by DETR and the RSPCA to investigate whether the keeping, breeding and sale of wolf hybrids was causing public safety or other problems and, if so, what action was required to deal with them.
It was found that very few wolf-hybrids were kept and that advertisements for wolf dogs were generally misleading and had been embellished to attract public interest and justify high prices.
The main problem identified was reluctance from local authorities to deal with unlicensed suspected wolf dogs under the Act, stemming from their inability to prove the identity of an animal in court. Dogs are directly descended from wolves and no genetic test exists to distinguish between the domestic dog and the wolf.
Recommendations were made to improve the definition of animals scheduled by the Act, particularly with regard to hybrids. An amendment to the Act to prohibit the advertising and sale of unlicensed animals was also advised.
Introduction and Policy Rationale At the time of the project, wolf hybrids were scheduled, and therefore required licensing, under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 (Modification) Order 1984*. The purpose of this Act is to regulate the keeping of Dangerous Wild Animals (as defined by the Schedule to the Act) in order to protect public safety and, to a lesser extent, safeguard the welfare of the animals.
The project was commissioned jointly by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) following concerns from members of the public, Members of Parliament, animal welfare organisations and local authorities about the effectiveness of controls on the keeping of wolf dog hybrids in Great Britain.
Under the schedule of the Act, all species of the dog family (Canidae) require a licence unless they are specifically excepted. Scheduled species include wolves, coyotes and jackals; however the domestic dog is excluded. Any hybrid offspring of any animal where one or both parents are included in the schedule also requires a licence. This requires hybrid offspring between a wolf and a dog to be licensed. Since such hybrid offspring also require a licence, any offspring produced by them would also require a licence, theoretically ad infinitum. Unfortunately, through the generations, it becomes increasingly difficult to tell what is a domestic dog (and therefore excepted), and what is a wolf hybrid (and therefore scheduled). Dogs and 99 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
wolves share a common ancestry and are very closely related species – no genetic test exists to distinguish between them. This has created significant difficulties for local authorities in determining whether or not animals ‘wolf-like’ in appearance require licensing.
[*The Schedule has since been modified to update the list of animals requiring a licence under the Act, and is now cited as the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 (Modification) (No.2) Order 2007.]
Objectives Information gathered was to be used by the Department to assess whether the keeping, breeding and sale of wolf hybrids was causing public safety or other problems and, if so, what action was required to deal with them.
Approaches and Methods A consultation exercise was undertaken in an attempt to determine the numbers of wolf hybrids kept legally and illegally in Great Britain. A questionnaire was sent to all local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales requesting information on the number of licences granted to keep wolves or wolf dog hybrids. Other interested parties were consulted through open letters to professional and special interest magazines, or through personal interviews.
An extensive literature and internet search was conducted to explore the popularity and regulation of such animals in other countries.
Results In the five years prior to this study, local authorities in Great Britain licensed a total of 26 wolves, and 20 wolf dogs. Following enquiries into illegal ownership, we did not discover any genuine wolf hybrids that were not licensed. We did learn of at least 21 alleged wolf dogs in the country that were not licensed, but our investigations did not provide any evidence that these animals came from sources where pure wolves or known genuine wolf hybrids were kept and it was concluded that these animals were unlikely to be recently descended from wolves.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy The local authority survey indicated that very low numbers of wolves and wolf hybrids were being kept at the time of the study. It is possible that some illegal, unlicensed animals were being kept, however we estimated the number of these to be no greater than 10. At the time of this study, there was no provision in Northern Ireland to regulate the keeping of wild animals, and so it was possible that this provided a potential source of wolves for the unlicensed sector in Great Britain (Northern Ireland now has its own Dangerous Wild Animals legislation).
Advertisements of wolf hybrids for sale were investigated, and we concluded that the vast majority of these animals were fakes – misrepresented as wolf hybrids to attract higher interest and prices. In our opinion, it was this trade that resulted in the public concern prompting this research.
Whilst these animals were not genuine wolf hybrids, they still caused difficulties for licensing authorities that had to respond to their being represented as animals that fall under the Schedule to the Act.
100 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
The major problem identified by this study was reluctance from local authorities to deal with unlicensed suspected wolf dogs under the Act, stemming from their inability to prove the identity of an animal in court.
The definition of hybrid as defined by the Schedule to the Act, which appeared to include any dilution of hybrid, was found to be unsatisfactory and confusing.
Clarification of this definition was recommended to the Department as a result of our research, not only to improve the regulation of wolf hybrids but also of other hybrid animals, particularly Bengal cats.
In addition, we recommended that the Act be amended to incorporate sections prohibiting or defining as an offence the advertising for sale of unlicensed schedules animals, including hybrids, and the sale of licensed animals to unlicensed owners.
A review of the whole of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act was conducted for Defra in 2001. As a result of this review, the Schedule of animals included by the Act was modified. The opportunity was taken at this time to redefine the definition of hybrid and, following further work by a panel of experts appointed to advise the Department, additional clarification is now available to aid interpretation of the hybrid definition1.
1Defra (2008) Hybrids of domestic animals, [online], Available: http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/protection/dwaa/hybrid.htm [31 August 2009].
101 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0243: BUSHMEAT TRADE IN CENTRAL AND WEST AFRICA.
Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich Sub contractor organisations Overseas Development Institute Flora and Fauna International The original project leader in no longer at NRI. The final project leader is overseas. The current NRI contact is Adrienne Martin. Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Central Avenue, Chatham Maritime, Kent. ME4 4TB
1 October 2000 – 30 September 2001 £19,679
Executive Summary The research examined the bushmeat trade in terms of institutions and policies, biodiversity and livelihoods, and characterised it using available knowledge. Important questions about the trade that require urgent answers are identified. Principles are given for promoting sustainability of the trade in bushmeat, within what is a complex scenario. Researchable constraints to progress in tackling over-hunting in the region are examined and prioritised.
Introduction and Policy Rationale The development of this research was in the context of the expanding bushmeat trade in Central and West Africa. While this trade provides livelihood opportunities both in rural and urban areas, its sustainability is not secure. Specific wildlife populations have been declining and access to the trade is not necessarily equitable.
Objectives The purpose of the project was to determine the scope and possibilities for appropriate specific and feasible interventions necessary to achieve a sustainable bushmeat trade in Central and West Africa. The specific objectives were to; 1. Identify the key unanswered problems and data requirements through an analysis of the long term and short term factors (pressures and shocks) that are causing the trade in bushmeat to become increasingly unsustainable. 2. Propose activities and methodologies that need to be developed to identify and implement solutions to the unsolved research issues. 3. Engage with and provide practical inputs into the on-going international efforts to solve the bushmeat crisis.
Approaches and Methods Using available sources, the research characterised the bushmeat trade in terms of institutions, policies, biodiversity and livelihoods, to identify the key constraints to sustainability and to prioritise the main researchable issues for the attention of DEFRA and other UK government departments with remits that include bushmeat.
Results Output 1 – Consolidated overview of the bushmeat trade issues and problems The current characteristics of the bushmeat trade and its operation were identified. The bushmeat trade is a large, but often invisible contributor to the economies of West and Central Africa. It is highly complex and displays significant geographic
102 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
variation. Bushmeat has significant impacts on the livelihoods of the rural poor, providing both an affordable source of animal protein and a livelihood opportunity for men as hunters and women as traders. Hunting tends to be opportunistic. Bushmeat is a favoured food item and is part of a complex commodity chain, linking rural hunters to urban and rural consumers. Smoked bushmeat is often the only method of maintaining a store of protein for rural communities. The logging industry is an important stakeholder sector that often facilitates the trade.
From an ecological perspective, tropical forests, the source of much of the bushmeat, have intrinsically low rates of production of wild animals in comparison to other ecosystems. Some bushmeat species thrive in secondary forest and may be able to sustain relatively high levels of hunting, others may be pest species and some species are genuinely threatened by over-hunting. The current trade is having a negative impact on populations of vulnerable species, resulting in local extinctions that could ultimately lead to global extinctions. Although large bodied species such as elephant and gorilla are a small percentage of the total trade, this level of off-take is a real problem.
Institutions, laws and policy are not always conducive to encouraging greater sustainability for this trade. There are typically few tenurial rights given to forest dwelling and dependent human populations. Forest areas may be immigration zones for the national population. Non traditional protected area management schemes have typically been overlooked.
Output 2 -Developed research approach and recommendations to address key problems and issues. An important principle for future research in the bushmeat trade is to ensure research is action and solution–oriented rather than geared towards abstract or academic questions. There is a need to analyse the livelihood implications of any given intervention on all stakeholder groups and mitigate against the potential for tensions between livelihood and conservation objectives. Given the complexity, multi- pronged approaches are appropriate, and alternative models from other sectors may be relevant. Facilitation of a more positive policy environment for wildlife management in tropical Africa is required and also recognition of the significance of the international dimensions of the bushmeat trade.
Researchable constraints relating to livelihoods, included working with hunters to improve the sustainability of the trade; engaging urban consumers in managing the bushmeat trade; improving management of the bushmeat commodity chain to increase the sustainability of the overall trade. Further challenges were to increase the positive management role played by the logging industry with regard to the bushmeat trade and to increase community involvement in wildlife management whilst ensuring sustainability as a common objective. There is also a need for a realistic assessment of the practical alternatives to hunting as a source of income and food and for clarification of the health issues surrounding bushmeat as a crucial protein source for the rural poor.
For ecological issues, the researchable issues were; the assessment of the most appropriate mechanisms for the direct protection of vulnerable wildlife populations and their current conservation status; the identification of transferrable data sets, tested models and control methods that could be used as replicable models to 103 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
improve bushmeat management; meeting the ecological information needs that still exist with regard to the bushmeat trade.
For policy and institutional themes the researchable constraints were how to improve the regulation of the bushmeat trade at national and regional levels in Central and West Africa and to assess the significance of the intercontinental trade and improve its monitoring and regulation.
Output 3 - Feasibility and prioritisation of the current and further required research and activities and potential solutions. The above research areas were prioritised with particular reference to the potential efficiency of investment, their biodiversity value and the anticipated sustainable livelihood gains. Key target institutions, policy makers and other stakeholders were identified that would be required to move forward solutions to each of the research issues. Further areas for policy and institutional research were; legislative models for the management of community based hunting and how these could be adapted to the realities of commercial as well as subsistence activities; and the influence of formal law enforcement on the bushmeat trade.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy The ‘bushmeat trade’ is a highly complex issue with few, if any, general solutions. The general characteristics of the situation have been well researched and because of the growing urgency of the issue it is now time to concentrate on the specifics from an action oriented perspective.
Future Work Subsequent field research was conducted on the Bushmeat trade in Ghana and its implications for rural livelihoods and wildlife conservation (NRI, DFID funded).
Technology Transfer Reports and Publications Bowen-Jones, E., Brown, D. & Robinson, E. 2002. Assessment of the solution orientated research needed to promote a more sustainable bushmeat trade in Central and West Africa. Report to the Wildlife & Countryside Directorate, DEFRA, DETR, UK. Bowen-Jones, E, Brown, D and Robinson E J Z (2002) Economic commodity or environmental crisis? An interdisciplinary approach to analysing the bushmeat trade in central and west Africa, Area 35:4 390–402
104 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0249: PLANT SUBSTANCES AS ALTERNATIVES FOR ANIMAL PRODUCTS IN TRADITIONAL MEDICINES
Contractor Organisation: Middlesex University Dr Celia Bell Middlesex University, The Burroughs, Hendon, London NW4 4BT
Joint/Subcontractor: Prof Monique Simmonds, Head of Biological Interactions Jodrell Laboratory, Royal Botanic Gardens (RBG), Kew, UK
2000 - 2005
£67,500 Project co-funded by IFAW Total Cost: £135,472
Executive Summary An investigation of plant species as alternatives to the use of products obtained from endangered animal species (bear bile, rhino horn and tiger bone) was undertaken with financial support from the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). The research was carried out by Middlesex University (UK) in collaboration with the Jodrell Laboratory, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (UK).
Products from several endangered species are used in Traditional Chinese Medicine for a variety of purposes. Bear bile (xiong dan) and rhino horn (xi jiao) are primarily classified as anti-inflammatory and fever-reducing remedies and tiger bone (hu gu) has been used as an anti-rheumatic/anti-arthritic remedy; the pathology of arthritis also involves inflammatory mechanisms. With the popularity of Traditional Medicine increasing, a continued demand for these products poses an ongoing and major threat to the survival of these species, all of which are listed under Appendix 1 of CITES. This study was undertaken in response to a recognised need for more research into possible herbal substitutes.
Based on both traditional use and scientific evidence for pharmacological actions, single herbs and TCM ‘prescriptions’ (combinations of herbs) were selected for investigation as alternatives to the use of bear bile, rhino horn and tiger bone in Traditional Chinese Medicine. A selection of 7 single herbs and 2 prescriptions were chosen for investigation as potential alternatives to bear bile; 9 single herbs and 6 prescriptions as potential alternatives to rhino horn; and 19 single herbs and two prescriptions as potential alternatives to tiger bone. As all three animal products are traditionally used to treat conditions associated with inflammatory processes, this area was chosen for investigation. The inflammatory response is a complex cascade of events, often triggered by infection (commonly by bacteria) and is one of the body’s defence mechanisms in fighting disease. The inflammatory response forms one of the underlying pathologies of arthritis, fever, liver diseases, cancer and cardiovascular diseases. Therefore, preliminary studies were conducted to assess the effects of crude extracts, fractions and isolated compounds on bacterial growth and an anti-inflammatory mediator, nuclear factor-kappaB (NF-κB) in vitro. Cytochrome P450 3A4 inhibition tests were conducted to determine the effect of herbal extracts on this drug metabolising enzyme in vitro. 105 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
When recommending potential herbal alternatives it is essential to ensure that the correct plant species is being proposed. Verification of the plant material was carried out by comparing the chemical profiles of the samples obtained for research from commercial sources with chemical profiles of authentic and reference material from the Chinese Medicinal plant Authentication Centre, Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew. In addition, pesticide residues and metal concentrations were determined to confirm the quality of the product.
Several of the herbs chosen for investigation as possible alternatives to bear bile were found to possess anti-bacterial activity (Anemarrhena asphodeloides, Gardenia jasminoides, Scutellaria baicalensis, Phellodendron amurense, Coptidis Rhizoma and Rhei Radix et Rhizoma). Extracts of three herbs were also shown to have anti- inflammatory properties through the inhibition NF-κB activity (Rhei Radix et Rhizoma, Coptidis Rhizoma and Scutellaria baicalensis). Preliminary results from the cytochrome P450 3A4 inhibition studies suggest that possible herb-herb interactions may occur in preparations containing both Coptidis Rhizoma and Scutellaria baicalensis (such as dia-orengedokuto and orengedokuto). Also, drug-herb interactions may occur when herbal preparations containing Coptidis Rhizoma and/or Scutellaria baicalensis are co-administered with some pharmaceutical drugs metabolised by this enzyme. Further work is required to investigate the extent these effects.
Water extracts of rhino horn did not demonstrate anti-bacterial or anti-inflammatory properties, nor did they have any effect on the drug metabolising enzyme, cytochrome P450 3A4. However, certain Traditional Chinese Medicine prescriptions, both with and without rhino horn, did show anti-bacterial and anti-inflammatory properties in the assays used in this study. Further work using other bioassays is required to ascertain the contribution of the horn extracts to any activity shown by the prescriptions. The majority of herbs chosen as possible alternatives to rhino horn showed some anti-bacterial activity (17 out of 20). Extracts of several single herbs were also shown to have anti-inflammatory properties through the inhibition NF-κB activity (Paeonia suffruticosa, Isatidix Radix, Rehmannia glutinosa and Salvia miltiorrhiza, Trichosanthis Radix, Sojae Praeparatum Semen, Coptidis Rhizoma and Lophatherum gracile) as well as extracts of two prescriptions (xi jiao dihuang tang and qing ying tang). To date, no scientific literature has been found suggesting that Lophatherum gracile has an anti-inflammatory effect and further studies are required to confirm these findings. Salvia miltiorrhiza, Rehmannia glutinosa, as well as Scutellaria baicalensis and Coptidis Rhizoma, showed inhibition of cytochrome P450 3A4. Since they are commonly used TCM herbs, further work may be required to determine potential adverse interactions with other remedies or orthodox medicines.
Preliminary results suggest that tiger bone may possess some anti-inflammatory properties through the inhibition of NF-κB activity. Three herbs included in existing Traditional Chinese medicine prescriptions containing tiger bone also showed anti- inflammatory activity in the same assay (Angelica dahurica (bai zhu), Loranthus parasiticus (sang ji sheng), and Angelica sinensis (dang qui)). None of the herbs investigated as alternatives to tiger bone were found to affect cytochrome P450 3A4 activity.
106 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Supported by evidence of efficacy as anti-inflammatory and anti-bacterial agents as measured in this study, by information obtained from the available scientific literature, and by Traditional Chinese Medicine theory, a number of prescriptions and single herbs have been selected as suitable alternatives to the use of bear bile, rhino horn or tiger bone in Traditional Chinese Medicine. Most of the suggested herbal ‘alternatives’ to the animal products were found to already form part of one or more traditional prescriptions containing the animal products. This finding confirmed the practice in Traditional Chinese Medicine of combining remedies with similar functions for their additive and synergistic effects.
The inflammatory response is a complex cascade of events and nuclear factor- kappaB is only one anti-inflammatory mediator amongst many. Further studies are warranted to assess other pharmacological mechanisms through which the plants might mediate anti-inflammatory effects. Further work should also be carried out to investigate further the effect of herbal extracts on drug metabolising enzymes such as cytochrome P450 3A4.
If the findings of this study are to impact upon the use of products from endangered animal species in Traditional Chinese Medicine, the suggestions made for herbal alternatives will need to be acceptable to practitioners in terms of philosophy as well as potential efficacy. It will be necessary to discuss the findings of this study with TCM practitioners to determine whether the selected plant species would be considered suitable for use in Traditional Chinese Medicine as substitutes to bear bile, rhino horn and tiger bone. The suggested herbs and the evidence to support these suggestions will then need to be disseminated to practitioners and the public, both via scientific publications and through the more popular Traditional Chinese Medicine literature.
Future Work Beyond Life of Project: Publications for peer reviewed journals are currently being prepared.
107 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Information extracted from SID5
0260: AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE TRADE IN TORTOISES IN GREAT BRITAIN
TRAFFIC International
2000 - 2003
Summary For many years in Britain there has been a growing interest in reptile keeping, and the keeping of tortoises as pets in particular. There has also been evidence of smuggling and illegal trade in tortoises to meet the demand. To date, no studies on the situation nationally have been undertaken. The UK Government department responsible for the trade in tortoises, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – Defra, commissioned this study to investigate the trade, both legal and illegal, and to make suggestions on how to improve any problems found. TRAFFIC has researched the trade for Defra and the summary of the findings is included here.
Conclusion The tortoise trade is big business. Over 15,000 live tortoises have been imported directly into Britain from outside the EU since 1996. Additionally, large numbers are bought within the EU and brought into Britain, and these do not appear in import statistics. With a 100% mark-up from wholesale to retail, the profits that can be made in the tortoise trade are substantial.
The majority of tortoise traders are aware of the legislation in place to protect tortoise species and ensure that they abide by it. A number of other traders either lack the legislative knowledge to stay within the law or choose to ignore it and, by doing so, bring the whole trade into disrepute. As the public is generally not aware of the licensing requirements for tortoises, these disreputable traders are able to perpetuate the illegal tortoise trade with ease. Over 6,600 tortoises were seized in 10 European countries between 1994-2001, illustrating that the illegal tortoise trade is both large-scale and prevalent across Europe.
Illegal tortoise trade is happening in Britain, as it is throughout the EU, as a result of smuggling. It is known that tortoises are smuggled into the EU and, once inside, these illegally sourced tortoises are very difficult for enforcement authorities to detect since there are no internal border checks inside the EU. Tortoises can therefore pass freely from one EU Member State to another. Much of the trade in tortoises to Britain comes from within the EU in this way.
Licence fraud is another known method of illegal trade in tortoises. In the process of investigating the trade for this report, instances of fraud and illegal trade were detected. The Defra licensing system for issuing Article 10 Certificates is open to abuse, particularly as it is based on a certain level of trust on the part of the issuing authority. Applications for Article 10 certificates need to be thoroughly scrutinised and the information provided by applicants validated to limit the possibility of fraudulent applications being processed. It is important that more effort is made to inform traders of the requirements they need to meet when selling tortoises. 108 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Increased awareness of tortoise licensing requirements among the general public could be a great asset in combating illegal tortoise trade. It would help to reduce the likelihood that illegally sourced tortoises could be sold to unsuspecting buyers with a fraudulent licence, or without any licence at all. The public should also be informed that price can be a good indicator of legality or otherwise, as tortoises that have been illegally sourced are usually priced lower than those that have been obtained legally. It is only by informing the public of the current situation, through reports like these, that they can aid in uncovering illegal trade.
Defra, traders and consumers need to work together to “clean up” the tortoise trade business and thereby eliminate the few rogue traders that are undermining legitimate businesses and threatening wild populations of tortoises throughout their range. Enforcement agencies need to be encouraged and supported in taking forward to prosecution any cases of illegal tortoise trade that they investigate.
The following are suggestions for potential solutions to remedy some of the issues outlined in this study.
Informing tortoise buyers, traders and breeders. There are many examples of buyers purchasing tortoises without Article 10 Certificates and only becoming aware of the law after they have made their purchase. Unless purchasers are made aware of the requirements surrounding the sale of tortoises in Britain, they will continue to perpetuate the illegal trade. Raising the awareness of traders and keepers in Britain is essential. Suggested methods for this include: • A joint campaign by Defra, the police, Customs and the pet trade should encourage buyers to ask the right questions when they are thinking of purchasing a tortoise. If legitimate buyers are well informed, traders will not be able to sell tortoises without the necessary certificates. o The campaign should focus on highlighting the illegal tortoise trade and the need for an Article 10 Certificate for sale and purchase of a tortoise species listed in Annex A of the EU wildlife trade regulations. o Through the campaign, more buyers or sellers of Annex B-listed tortoises should be aware that they need to be able to prove its legal origin. o Traders and breeders of tortoises should also be targeted to make them aware of the tortoise licensing requirements and that Defra Wildlife Inspectors will be making concerted efforts to check sellers of tortoises for possession of Article 10 Certificates and proof of legal origin of tortoises. o Encouragement should be given to traders to apply for Article 10 Certificates for tortoises they have purchased legally and wish to sell – thereby ensuring they are not breaking the law. To this end, Defra could consider including a colourful information sheet with every Article 10 certificate issued, which can in turn be passed on to buyers. The sheet could be sponsored by interested conservation and animal welfare organisations and could include information on the husbandry, origins, conservation and legal status of the tortoise species being traded. This would add value to the tortoise being traded and ensure that it was more likely to be well-kept by its buyer. 109 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Helping law enforcement • Police and Customs should be made more widely aware of the illegal trade in tortoises and the tricks used by smugglers and illegal traders to evade the law. Information should be distributed particularly to all Police Wildlife Liaison Officers and Customs Wildlife and Endangered Species Officers. • Members of the public and traders should be encouraged to report suspected illegal trade in tortoises to the authorities, Crimestoppers or the WWF/TRAFFIC Eyes & Ears campaign. • Legal traders, breeders and buyers should ask traders if they have Article 10 Certificates for their tortoises and, if they cannot provide them, they should be reported to Defra or the police. • The police and Customs authorities should be supported in taking forward any cases of suspected illegal tortoise trade. They require provision of expertise (identification, forensics and veterinary), resources such as funding for housing seized tortoises, and tools and materials to assist in investigation and prosecution (e.g. microchip readers, identification manuals). • Defra Wildlife Inspectors should have appropriate resources to make regular checks on wholesalers, retailers and other sellers of tortoises to ensure that they have the Article 10 Certificates for the tortoises they are selling. A concerted effort by Wildlife Inspectors during the period of the awareness- raising campaign suggested above would help to make traders realise that they are likely to be checked and prosecution may result if they were found to be trading illegally.
An EU-wide approach There is no doubt that the tortoise trade issues in the UK are linked very closely to the wider EU situation of species protection, trade and awareness. It is important that these issues be tackled more widely in the EU, as well as in the UK. Many tortoises in trade in Britain were sourced via other EU countries and traders there should be aware of the need to provide Article 10 Certificates and refuse to purchase and sell illegally sourced tortoises. • The UK authorities should co-ordinate with the EU Commission, CITES Secretariat, World Customs Organisation, ICPO-Interpol and the EU Enforcement Working Group to review the situation and formulate partnerships for enforcement action and improved controls in the future. • Awareness campaigns for traders, buyers, breeders and law enforcement should be promoted in the EU in a similar way to those suggested here for the UK.
110 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Information extracted from SID5
0312: THE WELFARE, HOUSING AND HUSBANDRY OF ELEPHANTS IN UK ZOOS
University of Bristol
2004 - 2008
Summary This programme of research had four primary objectives:
(1) Gather expert opinion from an Elephant Welfare Expert Panel to finalise methods of welfare assessment and select variables for data collection during zoo visits; (2) Collect welfare-relevant data from all participating UK zoos that house elephants by visiting each zoo three times; (3) Obtain comparative data from wild African elephants and Asian elephants captive in an extensive environment; (4) Objectively document the current state of welfare of elephants housed in UK zoos and the relationship to their housing and husbandry.
Seventy-seven elephants were housed in UK zoos during this study. Forty-one (53.2%) were Asian and thirty-six (46.8%) African. Their ages ranged from 0.6 to 50 years (Asian) and 0.5 to 40 years (African).
The elephants were kept in a wide range of husbandry conditions. Even within a zoo, husbandry differed according to an individual’s sex, age, species, history, hormonal status, individual temperament, the season and current zoo policy. It was therefore difficult to make generalised findings about overall welfare in relation to housing and husbandry using a conventional statistical approach based on zoo means, but we were able to analyse a range of specific factors affecting or indicating an individual elephant’s welfare.
The total amount of outdoor space available to each individual during the winter ranged between 280 and 22,514m2, and during the summer between 280 and 36,422 m2. Most of the outdoor enclosures prevented natural walking patterns that would be adopted by wild elephants. Some of the changes in space allowance when an elephant was moved from the outdoors to the indoors were large. One individual was housed during the day in an enclosure that was 15,527m2 but during the night was housed singly in an enclosure measuring 17.9m2. This individual stereotyped for 23.4% of the day – the second highest frequency recorded.
The elephants spent up to 83% of their time indoors. The total amount of indoor space available to each individual ranged between 17.9 and 560.0m2 with a mean of 165.9m2.
There were concerns about foot health, gait and being overweight (see below). Otherwise, most of the elephants appeared to be in good physical health. The keepers and staff were all highly skilled at detecting health issues such as injuries and disease, and whenever necessary, took appropriate corrective action. The majority of skin lesions were minor 111 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
(grazes and small cuts, often caused by interactions with other elephants). Keepers were always aware of these minor injuries and if they were more than superficial, they were treated and monitored.
Stress levels were monitored using faecal cortisol metabolite (FCM) measurements. African elephants had higher FCM than Asians. The range of FCM concentrations in UK zoo elephants was similar to those reported for wild elephants. The highest mean FCM concentrations for zoos were similar to the maximum FCM values recorded from a bull elephant during relocation from the UK to France – a putatively stressful procedure. Elephants kept in larger groups had higher FCM concentrations, but this was probably due to the African elephants (with naturally higher FCM) usually being kept in larger groups than the Asians. African elephants which had experienced a birth in their group had higher FCM than individuals in a group which had not, although this relationship was not significant for the Asian elephants.
Foot health was a major welfare concern for the elephants; 19.9% had major problems with their forefeet and 8.0% with their hind feet. Sixty-six elephants had their foot health scored on all three visits over 18 months; only 13 of these (19.6%) were scored as having no problems on all three occasions.
Only 11 of the elephants were scored as having a normal gait; 22% had an imperfect gait, 35% were mildly lame and almost a quarter of the national herd (23%) had an obvious limp or were severely lame. Older elephants had poorer gaits. Elephants with larger amounts of outdoor space during summer had better gaits.
Only 6 individuals were scored as having normal bodyweight; 75% were categorised as ‘overweight’ or ‘very overweight’.
Comparing the health and welfare of the UK elephants with those of extensively managed elephants in India, the UK elephants had considerably fewer skin lesions, similar foot health scores, but poorer locomotion scores than the extensively managed elephants of a similar age.
The time budgets indicated that UK zoo elephants spent approximately 45% of the daytime and 35 % of the night-time, eating. Aggressive interactions were rarely recorded, totalling less than 0.1% of observations.
Of the 77 elephants, 42 (54%) showed stereotypies during the day-time. More than a quarter (25.9%) of the elephants stereotyped for more than 5% of the day-time. Older elephants stereotyped during the day-time more than younger animals, although 5 young (<15 yrs of age) elephants stereotyped for more than 5% of the day-time. Almost 50% of the Asian elephants in UK zoos performed stereotypies whereas 25% of Africans exhibited these behaviours. In addition, the Asians stereotyped for almost three times as long as the Africans. Elephants provided with less outdoor space during the winter or summer stereotyped more during the day- time.
41 elephants which could be reliably identified were filmed at night. More than a third (36.6%) stereotyped for more than 5% of the night-time. One individual stereotyped for 53.2% of the night. Elephants with a small amount of indoor space stereotyped at
112 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
night significantly more than elephants with a medium amount. Elephants in larger outdoor enclosures stereotyped more when indoors at night.
Of the 41 elephants that could be reliably identified during both the night-time and daytime, almost half (46.3%) stereotyped for more than 5% of the 24-hr period. One individual stereotyped for 60.8% of 24-hrs. Elephants with a small amount of indoor space stereotyped over 24-hrs significantly more than elephants with a medium amount of indoor space.
113 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Information extracted from SID5
0333: CITES LICENCES – ASSESSMENT OF RECENT BUSHMEAT RESEARCH AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT
Overseas Development Institute
2005 - 2007
Summary The present study was undertaken at the invitation of the Living Land and Seas Directorate-General, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It followed from a request of the Ministers sitting on the Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group on Biodiversity (IDMGb) for further information to inform their discussions about HMG policy on the bushmeat trade. Ministers expressed particular interest in its effects on endangered species and on the livelihoods of the poor in producing countries.
Thirteen questions were posed in the study ToR, in three broad areas: i. Questions about trends in the conservation status of animal species targeted by the bushmeat trade ii. Questions about bushmeat in human livelihoods iii. Questions about the policy implications for HMG
The first and second sets are concerned with describing the available evidence, while the third set relates to policy development. This report is structured in line with this classification, Sections 2, 3 and 4 presenting the evidence, and Section 5 the policy arguments arising.
A corpus of evidence is presented, much of it very recent, to show that bushmeat is an important commodity in the economies of producer states, and an important livelihood asset for the poor, particularly (though not only) in West/Central Africa. It is a primary source of protein for the majority of forest families, and many urban ones. It is also a major source of income for forest-dwellers. Its value lies in its absolute contribution to household welfare and also its role in household safety-nets, food security and risk mitigation.
However, at present off-take levels, there are major threats to the conservation of biodiversity. There is strong empirical support for the view that, within the range states, bushmeat is being depleted on an unprecedented scale. There has been a major transition in the scale of offtake from forest areas in recent decades, with West/Central Africa worst affected. Extraction rates are of orders of magnitude higher there than in comparable ecosystems like the Amazon, and much less likely to be sustainable. The evidence suggests that this drawdown will have negative consequences for future generations, in relation both to biodiversity and livelihoods. Bushmeat is an important source of protein for rural households and a significant source of revenue. Research indicates that, given the steadily growing population,
114 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
low incomes and an increasing gap between food consumption and production, protein deficiency is now a significant threat (see Section 3 below). Increasing the opportunity costs of bushmeat hunting by creating alternative employment and income generation possibilities in rural areas is often advocated to overcome the problem of bushmeat over-exploitation, so as to address the food needs of a rapidly growing population and reduce dependence on the forest. However, bringing any employment into many of the source areas will be difficult, and it might anyway serve to exacerbate bushmeat offtake, not restrict it. To increase the opportunity costs of hunting sufficiently to reduce the level of offtake on an adequate scale will require that the alternatives provide significantly greater returns, and on a sustained basis. It might well be more feasible to look for ways to address the underlying governance problems which are leading to the excessive offtake, particularly those concerning weak rights and tenure.
A further challenge lies in seeking public acceptance of protected areas. Strong emphasis on agricultural development needs to be combined with habitat and protected area management to effectively address the linked issues of food insecurity and bushmeat overexploitation. As matters stand, these tend to have very little public buy-in in the main range states of West-Central Africa (and often elsewhere).
As regards the relevance of these findings to HMG, it is concluded that this is a subject that should command the interest of UK policy, and also UK policy research. Some important questions arise concerning the integration of conservation and development policies. The answers to these questions are not likely to be immediately forthcoming – to address them will need sustained interest from key international and - especially - national players willing to commission appropriate research and bring the findings into the policy process.
To the extent that this is a matter for global action, then (in terms of HMG strategy), the lead agency is DEFRA. However, to the extent that the primary issue is with national policy development in the bushmeat range states, then the main player is DFID. This department leads for the UK on poverty reduction and sustainable development at national and regional levels in developing countries.
Arguments are presented to support the view that the focus of interest should be the national level in the producer states. Thus, DFID needs to be centrally involved. DEFRA’s impact at the international level is limited by the lack of grounding of the issues at the national level and the lack of engagement in the bushmeat range states.
Informants for this review were unanimous that the topic is not presently of serious interest to DFID, and that without concerted efforts to locate it within current policy preoccupations, it is unlikely to become so in the foreseeable future. This has the effect of inhibiting constructive engagement with DEFRA, and creating a barrier to interaction with national decision and policy makers in the range states.
The point at issue is one of policy engagement. By and large, ‘bushmeat’ fails to connect with the sorts of policy interests that are presently of concern in DFID, being too low-level and commodity-specific. The immediate challenge is thus to reconcile the bushmeat issue with both DFID’s policy preoccupations and delivery systems 115 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
and capacities. The starting point should be the framework within which DFID is now committed to delivering its support. This has a central focus on reinforcing national ownership and supporting country-led approaches, and finding legitimate entry points into national and global processes for external official actors in line with these guiding principles.
A number of themes in DFID strategy are identified which commend themselves in this regard. These centre on the need to bring the bushmeat economy into national environmental accounting, and thereby into national planning processes. Without public recognition of the value of wild meat to the economy, there is little acknowledgement of the need for its use to be regulated and planned - in short, for bushmeat to be properly conserved. In the current aid environment, such an acknowledgement is a prerequisite for bushmeat to warrant donor interest and support, technical and/or financial. Several more specific – though often contingent - policy preoccupations are identified (protein sufficiency; climate change and avoided deforestation; illegal logging and forest governance; remote areas and their problems) where the study’s findings are also relevant. There could well be a role for DEFRA in initiating background research on these various issues, with a view to encouraging their take-up by DFID country offices and regional programmes, and thereby stimulating national interest and policy engagement in the range states. A number of take-up pathways are discussed, which would permit HMG to promote the topic of wild meat within its international support strategies, enriching the fabric of ongoing debates but without making heavy demands on its in-house staff or requiring them to adopt an inappropriate commodity focus.
Addressing the policy challenges in the ways proposed would, it is suggested, offer significant benefits. These relate not only to reinforcing HMG’s established priorities and capacities, but also to harmonisation of strategies between different Departments and coordination with international processes.
116 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0397: CITES LICENCES – AN ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT
Economics for the Environment Consultancy Ian Dickie Economics For The Environment Consultancy Ltd, 73-75 Mortimer Street, London W1W 7SQ.
April 2008 – October 2009 £28,000
Introduction and Policy Rationale The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) aims to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. This work investigated the potential impacts of a proposed increased in the fee for CITES licenses from £5 to £50 or more in order to fully recover the costs of administering them.
Objectives The purpose of the work was to complement Defra’s existing impact assessment1, and assess the impact of proposed increases in CITES license charges on:
• The many different business sub-sectors that trade in CITES goods, • Animal welfare, • Conservation activity, and • Illegal trade in CITES-listed species and rates of compliance with the licensing regime.
Approaches and Methods Impacts on the many different business sub-sectors that trade in CITES goods were assessed by statistical analysis of detailed license and trade data for each of the main sub-sectors applying for CITES licenses in the UK. The analysis in each sub- sector was then brought together to draw conclusions on a number of key issues.
Where analyses of business sectors suggested greater transportation of live vertebrate species was likely to occur as a result of the changes in trade in response to the proposed CITES charges, animal welfare impacts were considered. The analysis looked at potential impacts on the specimens’ welfare and the value to UK citizens of this.
The analysis considered the role of scientific sub-sectors on CITES trade in the UK in Global conservation activity, and assessed the extent to which any impacts on conservation activity could be mitigated.
Finally, potential impacts on illegal trade in CITES-listed species and rates of compliance with the licensing regime were analysed using the “Table of 11”. This poses a series of questions designed to help understand the effects of policy changes where individuals’ response behaviour is a key factor. For this project it particularly considered:
1 www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/cites-charging/ 117 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
• The scale of illegal trade and its impact on global conservation; • Geographical trade routes; and • Smuggling methods and motivations.
Results Key results from the analysis are:
• The value of the UK CITES trade was estimated at £10 million-50 million per year. • As a result of increased charges, the number of applications is estimated to reduce by around 2,500 per year in response to the proposed charges increase. • The reduction in applications will reduce revenue to Defra by under £100,000 per year, and will lead to a loss of tax revenue of up to £100,000 per year. • A small amount of UK CITES-permitted activity has some strategic importance for global conservation activity (such as captive breeding programmes or scientific work to identify species or diagnose conservation threats) that could be adversely impacted by an increase in CITES charges. • There are risks that increased CITES licence charges would increase the risk of illegal trade, particularly for financially marginal activities by collectors, hobbyists and businesses, and those currently undertaking illegal trade by methods that involve the (fraudulent) use of permits. However, practical constraints in transporting live animals will restrict any shift to illegal activity. • There is little evidence that the proposed charges will increase the transport of live specimens, so there is no significant impact expected in terms of animal welfare.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy The work did not identify major impacts from the proposed increase in charges. However, significant impacts may occur in niche uses of CITES licenses, such as in certain conservation science activities, or by traders importing CITES goods for which the costs of transporting via other EU countries are relatively low, or that are amenable to illegal trade methods which avoid paying for permits. These relatively small effects may have a small detrimental impact on global biodiversity.
The work considered means of mitigating potential impacts on conservation. Increased conservation funding through existing routes was not regarded as an effective way to mitigate for the proposed charges increase’s impact on conservation science, because they are slow and administratively complex. A measure in the applications process – either a continued waiver or some simplified application procedure, was identified as the most beneficial to the conservation science activities expected to be affected.
The work provided information suitable for use in impact assessments of the proposed increases to CITES licensing charges. However, the analysis was sensitive to a number of qualitative assumptions made about the structure of the sub-sectors of CITES trade analysed. These mean that there is only moderate confidence of the results produced, despite using best available evidence. Key assumptions include the nature of applications for which some data is missing (e.g. blank purpose codes)
118 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
and the structure of the trade in terms of commercial organisations, small/micro businesses and part-timers/hobbyists.
Future Work Eftec, in association with Regeneris consulting, subsequently undertook further analysis of proposals to change CITES regulations by analysis the potential impacts of changes to the ports designated for CITES trade between the UK and third (non- EU) countries. This work built on the understanding of the trade developed during contract 0397 described above.
119 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
120 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
PROJECT SUMMARIES
THEME 4: HABITATS & SPECIES
121 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Theme 4 Project summaries unavailable
Project Project title Contractor Number 0221 Tree root form and function NERC Paper Review 0226 Tree pruning and soil HRI Paper Review 0227 Involving LAs in deer control Northumberland Paper Review Wildlife Trust 0236 Tree condition survey Forestry Paper Review Commission 0217 Biodiversity research support NCB Paper Review 0224 Red Rose Community Forest RRCF Paper Review 0229 Cross compliance and CAP IEEP Paper Review 0239 Cost of implementing BAPS Baker, Shepherd, Paper Review Gillespie 0252 Rationalisation of nature UNEP-WCMC Paper Review conservation 0254 Upland farming English Nature Paper Review 0370 Thames basin SPA English Nature Paper Review 102 Key habitats
126 Arb VI
138 National Forest
143 Arb advice
158 BTO atlas
164 ADDS
165 Research assessment
176 Coastal zone management
187 Mammal monitoring
189 Cave swiftlets
190 Breeding birds data
192 Ponds survey
194 Common land management guide
200 Health of non-woodland trees
122 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
201 OECD
There are a number of projects, mainly from 1996, for which summaries were not available. While these have been included in the financial assessments, they are, unfortunately, not available for review.
123 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0150: REPORT ON BARN OWL RELEASE SCHEME MONITORING PROJECT PHASE 2
British Trust for Ornithology, Dawn Balmer, Sue Adams & Humphrey Crick (BTO) British Trust for Ornithology, The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk, IP24 2PU
1 April 1997 – 31 October 2001 £18,000
Executive Summary A total of 1,737 rings were issued for use on captive-bred Barn Owls between April 1993 and the end of September 2000. Of the birds that have been ringed, 135 have been subsequently recovered. Of the birds that have been recovered, 81% were ringed as pulli or juveniles. Most pulli were ringed between May and August, with some later broods between September and October.
The location of the ringing site for those captive-bred Barn Owls that have been recovered shows that the distribution of captive-breeding schemes are generally concentrated in Staffordshire/Derbyshire, Devon, Buckinghamshire/Oxfordshire, North Yorkshire, Sussex and Gloucestershire/Gwent.
Birds were recovered in a wide range of circumstances. Road casualties were the most common cause of finding circumstances and accounted for 40% of all recoveries, although it should be noted that birds dying away from roads or human sites are less likely to be found. Of the 135 birds recovered, over half were found within 0-10 km of the ringing site, which is a similar pattern to wild birds in their first year of life. The maximum distance recorded was 262 km. Of the birds that have recovered, 70% were found within the first six months after ringing, and 90% were found within a year of ringing.
Introduction and Policy Rationale The Barn Owl is listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which makes unlicensed releases of captive-bred Barn Owls into the wild illegal. A licensing scheme for Barn Owl release was introduced 1 January 1993. Wild Barn Owls that have been found, taken into care and rehabilitated could be released under a general licence from DETR.
The population decline and contraction in distribution of the Barn Owl have given cause for concern. From about the middle of the 19th Century the Barn Owl population began to decline, possibly as a result of increasing levels of persecution. A survey in the early 1900s suggested a population estimate of about 12,000 breeding pairs. At the time of the first BTO Breeding Atlas, covering 1968-72, there were an estimated 4,500-9,000 breeding pairs in Britain and Ireland. The second BTO Breeding Atlas (1988-91) showed that there had been a substantial contraction in range between the two atlases, and the maps suggested that the population at the time of the second Atlas was restricted to a number of strongholds. Project Barn Owl, a joint project between BTO and the Hawk and Owl Trust, with the aim of producing a population estimate for Barn Owls in the UK, was carried out over three years (1995-1997). Population estimates for the UK were: in 1995 – 3,480 pairs; 1996 –
124 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
3,967 pairs; 1997 – 3,951 pairs, collectively suggesting a population of around 4,000 breeding pairs.
In an attempt to boost the wild populations, many people have bred Barn Owls in captivity and released them. There were concerns over the apparently poor survival of released birds, potential competition with wild birds and the lack of adequate groundwork prior to some releases and of monitoring of released birds. In 1992 it was estimated that between 2,000 and 3,000 birds were released annually by about six hundred operators.
The results of this project were available for consultation when the decision was made whether or not the release scheme should be continued. The findings would have provided important information on the movements and longevity of released birds.
Objectives The DETR required the ringing of captive-bred Barn Owls prior to release as one of the licence conditions. BTO were contracted by DETR to issue rings to licensed BTO ringers (at no cost to the ringer) for this purpose and to produce a short report on the seven years of the operation of the scheme.
Approaches and Methods All recovery and control information were computerised. The ring recovery information was then analysed in respect to age of ringing, location and timing of ringing, finding conditions and circumstances, longevity, distance travelled and direction travelled.
Results Over half of the birds recovered were found within 10km of the ringing site. It has been shown that young Barn Owls ringed in Britain & Ireland disperse away from their natal site during the first few weeks after fledging. Other reports have shown that 37% of Barn Owls ringed as pulli had moved more than 3 km from their nest site within two weeks of fledging and using information from the national recovery database showed that the median distance of natal dispersal is 12 km, thus released Barn Owls appear to be acting similarly to wild birds. Information from other sources suggests that Barn Owls of breeding age are largely sedentary, although adults tend to forage slightly further afield during the winter months.
A small number of birds were found at greater distances from the ringing site, up to 262 km. It is most likely that some of the birds killed on roads are transported for some distance before falling off the vehicle which hit them. This often leads to an overestimation of the dispersal distance for such birds; for example, Taylor (1994) found that Barn Owls that had been killed on the road had travelled significantly further than those reported from other mortality causes.
The causes of recovery for captive-bred Barn Owls are similar to those of wild Barn Owls recovered in Britain & Ireland and reported elsewhere. It should be noted that the reporting rate for birds involved in collisions on the road is likely to be significantly higher than that for birds that die from other causes and that might occur away from sites of human occupation.
125 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
There was no statistical difference in the four categories of direction travelled between ringing and being reported.
Recommendations The report recommend that information gathered by the Barn Owl Release Scheme Monitoring Project should be analysed with that from the national ringing scheme to compare the survival rates of captive-bred and wild Barn Owls. A preliminary assessment should be made of the factors affecting the success of different release methodologies and that was important the Barn Owl Release Scheme Monitoring should be continued to enable a full evaluation of the release of captive-bred Barn Owls.
Further Research The Barn Owl Release Scheme was stopped around 2001. BTO continues to continue the Barn Owl population through the Barn Owl Monitoring Project (nest box occupancy, breeding success) and the Bird Atlas 2007-11 project (range changes and new population estimates).
Technology Transfer Report Balmer, D.E., Adams, S.Y. & H.Q.P Crick. 2000. Report on Barn Owl Release Scheme Monitoring Project II. BTO Research Report No. 250. A report by BTO to DETR.
126 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0373: CHANGES IN BREEDING BIRD POPULATIONS DUE TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BASED ON BIRD DENSITIES AND ASSEMBLAGES ALONG URBAN-RURAL GRADIENTS
British Trust for Ornithology, Dr Ian Henderson and Dr Dan Chamberlain (BTO) British Trust for Ornithology, The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk, IP24 2PU
31 January 2007 – 27 March 2007 £7,000
Executive Summary To date there has been no quantification of net levels of change in biodiversity due to housing expansion into rural areas. This prevents objective and tiered assessments of risk to landscapes, from those supporting high biodiversity to those holding less significant bird communities or populations.
This report combines existing bird data for 2000, from the long-term BTO/RSPB/JNCC Breeding Bird Survey with CEH Land Cover Map data for 2000 to quantify and assesses broad-scale differences between suburban and rural bird communities along urban-rural gradients.
Land cover data were used to define squares into suburban and suburban-adjacent rural squares. Rural squares adjacent to suburban areas had less arable agriculture, and were less intensively managed, than rural squares ‘isolated’ in the wider countryside. The finding that broadleaved woodlands cover a greater area in those rural squares that are adjacent to suburban areas is important where the potential for urban expansion exists.
Bird species richness, diversity and individual species density were analysed in two ways in relation to land cover. First, regression analysis was performed on bird data in relation to continuous land cover variables: suburban, urban, woodland and farmland cover. Second, bird data were compared between suburban and ‘rural’ (as defined above) squares using ANOVA.
Species richness, diversity and individual species density showed a significant non- linear response to a suburban land cover gradient in most cases, where there was a peak at intermediate levels of suburban cover. This was not the case, however, for several farmland and woodland indicator species. The explanatory power of the models (as measured by adjusted R2) was very low for all species except Collared Dove, Blackbird, Starling and House Sparrow. When other cover variables, apart from ‘urban’, were included in the model, there were marked improvements in adjusted R2 suggesting that the majority of species respond most strongly to woodland and/or farmland cover.
For all bird species combined, bird species diversity and richness were both significantly higher on rural squares than suburban squares. For the 27 urban species there was no significant difference in species diversity between rural squares
127 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
and suburban squares, and species richness was expectedly higher on suburban squares than on rural squares.
Overall, the results indicate a net loss of species richness and diversity when substituting rural habitats for suburban habitats, particularly in the south and east of England. In the Eastern region, there were over eight more species on average in rural than suburban squares for all species and just under five for indicator species. This analysis suggests that such species are likely to be at risk from urban expansion, and is particularly important given that the Eastern region is one that is especially likely to be targeted for further housing development.
Introduction and Policy Rationale Rates of urban expansion have increased over the last two decades: in rural areas in Great Britain, the cover of developed land has increased by about 4% since 1990. Continued housing development on farmland and semi-natural habitats has enormous implications for the composition of biodiversity in “green-belt” areas, with potential impacts on sensitive wildlife “amenities”, such as river corridors, heathlands, woodlands and coastal strips. To date there is no way of quantifying net levels of change in biodiversity due to housing expansion into rural areas. This prevents objective and tiered assessments of risk to landscapes, from those supporting high biodiversity to those holding less significant bird communities or populations. With respect to birds, some environmental costs of house building may be pre-supposed (e.g. loss of farmland specialists), but some long-term benefits of suburban “succession”, where vegetation development over time in suburban green spaces (including gardens) may provide some quality habitats for certain species, are possibly under-estimated.
Objectives To quantify, and assesses broad-scale differences between suburban and rural bird communities (species composition and abundance of breeding birds), along urban- rural gradients, on a regional basis.
Approaches and Methods The analysis combined two large, existing sources of data. (1) The cover of various land use types at a 1-km square level from the Land Cover Map. LCM2000 data were analysed in two ways. First, data were expressed as continuous variables for five cover types (suburban, urban, pastoral farmland, arable farmland and woodland). Second, data were used to define rural-adjacent suburban squares, suburban-adjacent rural squares (‘rural’) that were adjacent to suburban classes, and isolated rural squares, rural squares that were not adjacent to suburban squares. (2) Species densities, species richness (analysed as the log of number of species seen per 1-km square) and species diversity (expressed through Shannon indices) were derived from BBS data and analysed in relation to the above variables.
Results Rural squares that lie close to suburban areas, where the potential for urban expansion may exist, contain less arable agriculture, are less intensively managed and have greater broadleaved woodland cover than those in the wider countryside. Generally, bird species diversity and richness were both significantly higher on these same rural squares than suburban squares, so that a net, negative change on birds 128 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
would be expected overall from urban expansion. Even for the urban-indicator bird species, where species richness and densities were expectedly higher on suburban squares than on rural squares, the data suggest a strong, probably crucial association for most species with woodland and/or ‘suburban’ habitats (as opposed to the urban component, per se). Thus, the short-term impact on species in rural squares, of new developments, without mature greenspaces or woodland, is undoubtedly negative for virtually all urban indicator species (and therefore most species in general), except possibly Carrion Crow and Mallard. From this study, based on a 1-km scale of analysis, we would predict that urban expansion into nearby rural areas would cause significant net losses in bird species richness and density. This change would be particularly acute in the south and east of England.
Recommendations Developments should probably avoid areas of countryside where relatively high populations of farmland and some woodland specialists exist, or where a high potential exists for such habitats to improve in future (due to their proximity to species–rich areas). In terms of possible mitigation, it may be that ‘mature’ greenspace is a critical factor that can increase the value of urban developments, although more research is needed on this aspect.
Further Research Much greater detail, and finer assessments of the impact of urban expansion on rural bird communities are now possible using existing data, e.g. use Mastermap to derive densities and areas of buildings, greenspace etc., use ‘Defra aerial photographs’ to assess habitat ‘composition’. The two data sources, together with the Breeding Bird Survey data would provide a powerful, spatially-linked analysis of urban impact. BBS volunteer support would be available to ‘ground-truth’ electronic data where necessary, while also collecting new bird data. Such a project would provide a strong evaluation of the suburban ‘habitat’, and of variation in and therefore potential for suburban habitats to support or affect bird assemblages.
Technology Transfer Report Henderson, I., Chamberlain, D., Davies S. & Noble D. (2007) Changes in Breeding Bird populations due to housing development based on bird density and assemblages along urban-rural gradients ISBN 978-1-906204-18-1 62pp.
129 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0219: REVIEW OF THE STATUS OF INTRODUCED NON-NATIVE WATERBIRD SPECIES IN THE AGREEMENT AREA OF THE AFRICAN-EURASIAN WATERBIRD AGREEMENT (AEWA)
British Trust for Ornithology (lead), Central Science Laboratory (sub- contractor) Dr Mark Rehfisch BTO, The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk, IP24 2PU
9 September 1998 – 31 March 2000 £32,000
Executive Summary The African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA) aims to put in place sound, agreed conservation strategies for migratory waterbirds over their complete life-cycle. As part of the United Kingdom Government's contribution to the AEWA, the status of introduced non-native waterbirds in the AEWA Range States was assessed, and the extent to which such species affect native species was reviewed from the literature and from questionnaires. The information available on the number and range of non-native species in most countries tended to be sparse, however introduced waterbirds had a deleterious effect on native species. A minority of countries had introduced and implemented sound legislation to restrict the introduction of non-native species. AEWA provides a sound mechanism for raising the profile of the problems caused by introduced species, and for co-ordinating efforts to deal with the difficulties. Prevention of introductions and escapes is likely to be the most cost effective and the most ecologically sound strategy, and strengthening and enforcing legislation to this effect should be a priority for the governments of AEWA Range States. Surveillance of non-native species should be encouraged. Aviculture collections and zoos should be made responsible for ensuring that species do not escape. Non- native species should be removed from legislation aimed at protecting wild birds. The public needs to be informed of the risks posed by non-native species.
Introduction and Policy Rationale Article IV of the Agreement text introduces the AEWA Action Plan, which is attached as Annex 3 to the Agreement. Paragraph 2 of the AEWA Action Plan describes the introduction of non-native species as an issue of particular concern for the AEWA Contracting Parties and they are invited to “…prohibit the introduction of non-native species of animals and plants, which may be detrimental to the populations listed in Table 1…require the taking of appropriate precautions to avoid the accidental escape of captive birds belonging to non-native species…ensure that when non- native species or hybrids thereof have already been introduced into their territory, those species or their hybrids do not pose a potential hazard to the populations listed in Table 1.” This review assessed how the parties are dealing with non-native species.
Objectives The project aimed to assess the status of introduced and non-native waterbird species within the agreement area of the AEWA, and assessed the extent to which these species may negatively affect native species.
130 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Approaches and Methods Using a combination of literature review and questionnaires sent to government officials and bird specialists in each AEWA Range State, information was collected on: • the range and populations of non-native waterbird species and sub-species within the AEWA Range States, • on the measures taken by the Parties to avoid the accidental escape of non- native captive birds, and • on the measures taken by the Parties to ensure that non-native species of waterbirds, or their hybrids, which have already been introduced to the wild within their territory do not spread in a manner potentially hazardous to indigenous species.
Results There was little information in the literature about introduced waterbirds because they have often been viewed as of secondary importance. The references that existed were often narrow in outlook, concentrated on specialist subjects (such as hybridization or disease pathology of captive-reared species), were outdated or dealt with very small samples.
Much of the information gathered during the project about the numbers of, and legislation relating to, introduced species was collated from 77 responses received to questionnaires sent to the 120 Range States. The questionnaire obtained information for each country on the identity of each introduced species, its location, habitat and history, whether it exhibited sedentary or migratory behaviour, its breeding and population status, hybridization evidence, disease evidence, habitat changes, escape recruitment, and threat to other waterbird species. In addition, the questionnaire sought information on national conservation measures and legislation, their effectiveness, and on countermeasures or legislation on introduced species. The presence of the waterbird trade, collections of live waterbirds and free-flying stock was also assessed. All of the information received from the questionnaires was held in a database that would provide a useful reference to the status of introduced waterbirds within the AEWA area.
In all 111 introduced waterbird species (and two hybrid populations) were recorded as regular escapes and some 50 more noted as isolated records. The number of introduced species in each country was very variable. The numbers ranged from 0- 24 species in Africa, 0 in America, 0 in Asia, 0-25 species in Asia Minor and the Middle East and 0-79 species in Europe. The likely number of introduced species in each of the non-responding countries was estimated based on a variety of parameters. This ranged from 0-4 species in Africa, 0-8 species in Asia Minor and the Middle East and 0-10 species in Europe.
Even in countries with many observers, little was known about the status of introduced waterbirds, mostly because of a lack of agreed methods of reporting them. Record-based population estimates were mostly underestimates and distributions were usually poorly known. Little was known about the behaviour and biology of most introduced waterbird species in their adopted environment. The data collected from the questionnaires were fragmentary, although for the more numerous introduced species, patterns of spread were apparent. The questionnaire
131 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
respondents provided clear evidence of an increase in the number of introduced waterbird species recorded, of an increase in the occurrence of breeding and of an increase in the population sizes of some species.
Assuming that the above trends continued, forecasts (with broad caveats) were made for 16 introduced waterbird species which were thought to pose a particular threat to native waterbird species in the AEWA area. Less detailed species accounts were written for a further 95 introduced waterbird species which were considered to pose less of a threat to native species.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy The legislation in the AEWA Range States varied from complete and apparently effective to non-existent. Some countries, such as Botswana, which had no introduced species, had planned sound, comprehensive legislative countermeasures. Controls were planned on importation, keeping birds in captivity and release into the wild. Some countries, which had introduced relevant legislation found it difficult to legally implement any countermeasures. Other countries had legislation in place, but it was inadequately implemented. AEWA provides a sound mechanism for raising the profile of the problems caused by introduced species, and for co-ordinating efforts to deal with the difficulties. Surveillance of non-native species should be encouraged. Prevention of introductions and escapes is likely to be the most cost effective and the most ecologically sound strategy, and strengthening and enforcing legislation to this effect should be a priority for the governments of AEWA Range States. Aviculture collections and zoos should be made responsible for ensuring that species do not escape. Non-native species should be removed from legislation aimed at protecting wild birds. The public needs to be informed of the risks posed by non-native species.
Future Work The 2008 “Review of the status of introduced non-native waterbird species and hybrids thereof” project updated the original project.
Periodic monitoring of non-native species of waterbird should be maintained in the AEWA Range States; the Ruddy Duck shows quite clearly the biodiversity threat that can be posed when introduced species establish themselves outside of their natural range. In Britain, the Defra/JNCC-funded non-native surveillance scheme that is being established should help ensure that the threat posed by newly recorded non- native species can be rapidly assessed.
There is a clear need for detailed assessment of the competitive impacts of introduced species on biodiversity. For example, remarkably little is known about the impact that the 100,000 Canada Geese increasing at a rate of 10% per year in Britain (Austin et al. 2007) have on other fauna and flora (Rehfisch & Allen in press).
Technology Transfer Events • AEWA MOP2, review results presented. • "Competition and hybridization resulting from introduced waterfowl" symposium organised by M Rehfisch presented project results at the International Ornithologists’ Congress, Beijing, China.
132 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
• Talks based on project results presented at several other conferences and bird clubs. • AEWA MOP4, Madagascar, BTO staff presented results of 2008 review (see Future work above). • British Ornithologist’s Union Conference, on non-native species, 2008 review results presented
Reports and publications • Rehfisch, M.M., Allan, J., Hughes, B., Rhymer, J., Robertson, P., Shaw, K.A. & Williams, M. 2006. Symposium 33 Competition and hybridization resulting from introduced waterbirds: an issue rising up the political agenda. Acta Zool. Sin., 52 (Suppl.), 570-571. • Rehfisch, M.M., Blair, M.J., McKay, H. & Musgrove, A.J. 2006. S33-1 The impact and status of introduced waterbirds in Africa, Asia Minor, Europe and the Middle East. Acta Zool. Sin., 52 (Suppl.), 572-575. • Rehfisch, M., Blair, M., Clorley, J., & McKay, H. 2000. No passport? Introducing the introduced. BTO News, 229, 6-7.
133 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
FURTHER RESEARCH INTO CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR RUDDY DUCKS (L1BZ)
Central Science Laboratory Iain Henderson The Food and Environment Research Agency, (formerly Central Science Laboratory) Sand Hutton, York. YO41 1LZ
March 2003 – February 2004 Total cost £250,000
Executive Summary A total of 1,681 Ruddy Ducks were culled which led to an estimated reduction of 20% in the national population. Access to the 40 most important wintering sites in the UK had already been identified as being crucial to the acceptable progress of an eradication programme. The owners of 34 of these sites were approached for permission to control Ruddy Ducks by shooting, and access was agreed to 25 sites. Permission was refused at eight sites, and the remainder were either not contacted or did not reply. Efficiency of control by shooting on wintering sites was significantly increased by the use of additional staff and boats. The effect was particularly marked on larger wintering sites, where the proportion of birds culled per visit was 58% higher than under previous research. The alternative control method of egg oiling was tested on four sites and eleven nests were found, representing 85% of those believed to be present. However, this method proved to be much more labour intensive than shooting. Based on the increased efficiency of winter shooting, modelling suggested that there was a 90% probability that the population could be reduced to fewer than 175 birds within five years, at a likely cost of £3.4M.
Introduction and Policy Rationale The Ruddy Duck occurs naturally in the Americas, but is a non-native species in the UK that became established in the wild following escapes and releases from captivity. From the mid 1970s their range and population increased significantly until large parts of the UK had been colonised. As the range of Ruddy Ducks in the UK spread, the number of records in mainland Europe began to increase. By 1991 hybrids between feral Ruddy Ducks and the endangered White-headed Duck were recorded in Spain. The two species hybridise readily and hybridisation with the Ruddy Duck has long been recognised as the greatest long-term threat to the survival of the native (European) White-headed Duck as a distinct species. Until recently the UK held around 95% of Europe’s Ruddy Ducks, and was almost certainly the main source of the birds reaching mainland Europe. In recognition of this, the Government decided to assess the feasibility of Ruddy Duck control in the UK. Initial research was carried out in the mid 1990s and the results were verified by larger-scale regional control trials between 1999 and 2002. In 2003 the Government concluded that eradication of the Ruddy Duck from the UK was the preferred outcome, but that further research work into control techniques was still required in order to determine more efficient techniques of control, and to further explore the use of alternative measures such as egg pricking.
Objectives To develop more efficient control techniques and to investigate egg oiling as an alternative to shooting.
134 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Approaches and Methods The use of additional staff and boats had been identified by previous research as likely to lead to increased effectiveness of control by shooting. Three additional boats were bought and experienced staff from within the organisation were used to augment the numbers of shooting staff on larger sites. The owners/occupiers of a range of sites including the 40 most important wintering sites in the UK were approached for permission to carry out shooting. Where permission was granted, shooting was carried out by full-time staff that recorded basic information for each visit. On smaller sites shooting took place from the bank while on larger sites boats were used as mobile shooting platforms. The information recorded was used to assess efficiency of control, and included data on number of staff present, arrival and departure times, dates, weather conditions, number of Ruddy Ducks seen, number of birds culled, and number wounded. Counts of Ruddy Ducks were also carried out on non-shooting sites to allow an assessment of the effects on regional populations.
Results The results showed substantially increased efficiency on both larger and smaller wintering sites arising from the use of additional staff and boats when compared with the results from previous research. There was an increase in efficiency in terms of the proportion of birds shot per visit on larger wintering sites (26% to 41%) and also in the proportion of ducks shot per visit on smaller sites (50% to 59%). Importantly, this increase in the proportion of birds shot was not at the cost of a large increase in staff time - on larger wintering sites there was a 55% reduction in the staff time per bird killed, while on smaller wintering sites the comparable figure was 72%.
70% 1999-2002 2004-2004 60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Waters less than 1km.sq. Waters more than 1km.sq.
Figure 1 Percentage of Ruddy Ducks culled per visit, 1999-2002 (regional control trials) and 2003-2004 (additional research)
135 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
The results of requests for permission to carry out shooting of large flocks on key wintering sites is shown in Table 1.
Ten most important 25 most important 40 most important sites in UK sites in UK sites in UK Full permission, 60% 60% 50% including shooting Permission in principle (e.g. 20% 8% 12.5% subject to approval of risk assessment) No permission (at least for 20% 24% 20% 2003/2004) No reply 0% 4% 2.5% Not approached 0% 4% 15%
Table 1 Summary of access to major wintering sites in winter 2003/2004 for control, by shooting
Egg oiling was carried out on four sites. A total of eleven nests were found and 57 eggs dipped in liquid paraffin. The searches took a total of 99 staff hours, thus each nest took an average of nine hours of staff time to find. These figures exclude the risk assessment visit (which should be required only once for each site) and the final observation visit (which was only required as part of this research into the effectiveness of egg oiling, and would not be carried out under normal circumstances). A total of two broods were observed on the final observation visit, both on the same site, giving a success rate of 85% on the sites for which permission was granted and conditions allowed the work to be carried out safely. Both the staff time inputs and the success rate are similar to those obtained during the previous work on egg oiling.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy Shooting on post-breeding and wintering sites was identified as the most effective method of control, followed by shooting in the breeding season, and finally egg oiling and breeding season trapping. Based on the effort required to bring about this reduction, it was estimated that the national population could be reduced to fewer than 175 birds in less than five years at a cost of £3.4M. The report concluded that access to between 60% and 70% of Ruddy Duck sites in the UK could probably be obtained on a voluntary basis, but that several site owners remained wary of the risk of bad publicity and the effect that this might have on their business.
Future Work The results of this work led to a successful bid for funding and the start of a national eradication programme in September 2005, jointly funded by Defra and the EU LIFE- Nature programme.
136 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0287: NATURAL CONTROL OF JAPANESE KNOTWEED
CABI Dr Dick Shaw Bakeham Lane, Egham, Surrey, TWE20 9TY
May 2003 – ongoing £242,733.83 (Defra contribution)
Introduction and Policy Rationale Japanese knotweed is one of the most damaging invasive species to arrive in the UK, and is capable of growing three metres in as many months. It was introduced from Asia to Europe in the early to mid-19th century as an ornamental plant. In its native Japan, the plant presents little or no problems due to natural controls that have evolved to co-exist alongside and provide a natural brake on its spread. But in the UK, it is now deemed to be one of the worst invasive species. This is due to its vigorous nature, the damage it causes to buildings, paving, archaeological sites, riparian corridors and railways. It also harms our native biodiversity, through exclusion and increased flooding risk and erosion.
The cost to the UK economy is also great. In 2003, the Government put the cost of control, if attempted UK-wide, at over £1.5 billion. Since then, both the cost and the problem have grown. These control methods rely mainly on chemicals and have been deemed unsustainable and unsuitable for a national eradication programme. A longer-term solution to the problem is required.
Objectives To investigate whether there are any highly specific and effective coevolved natural enemies (NEs), either arthropod or fungal, for consideration as classical biological control agent(s) for Japanese knotweed in the UK.
Approaches and Methods Over a century classical biological control of weeds has developed a series of methods which were used as follows: Literature review – The literature on NEs in English and Japanese was reviewed Area of origin – the exact area of origin of JK was determined using morphological and molecular tools at the University of Leicester. Surveys – 7 surveys were carried across Japan and across the growing season of the plant in collaboration with the team at the University of Kyushu. Identification and prioritisation of NEs – Field observations were used rapidly to exclude those NEs with too broad a host range leaving a handful for further testing Test plant list preparation – using the published phylogenies a test plant list was drawn up following the accepted “centrifugal phylogenetic host range testing sequence” proposed by Wapshere (1974) Host range testing – the exact techniques for host range testing each natural enemy varies according to their life-cycle and means of selecting their host. In the case of the psyllid, Aphalara itadori, multiple-choice oviposition tests were followed by development tests supported by no-choice adult and nymph survival and development studies. The scientific experimentation was carried out under licensed quarantine conditions in England.
137 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Results - 186 species of arthropod were found to be associated with JK in Japan along with more than 40 species of fungi. - The UK clone of JK was found to have its closest match in Nagasaki prefecture. - A successful collaboration with the University of Kyushu was established - 5 species of NE were examined in depth (2 fungi and 3 insects), all of which were only found on JK in Japan. - The psyllid , Aphalara itadori, and the leafspot Mycosphaerella polygoni cuspidatii were found to be the best agents though at the end of the research phase only the psyllid had been studies fully. - A test plant list of 73 species was drawn up but with the addition of North American Test plant species we were able to test 87 test plants against the psyllid. - During four years of research the fate of 145,000 eggs was followed. 98.48% of were laid on invasive Japanese knotweeds when the adults were given a choice. - Those eggs that were laid on non-target plant species were found to be incapable of developing through to adult so A. itadori can be assumed to be unable to sustain a population on any other plants. - It was however, possible to force the psyllid to develop to adult if nymphs were manually transferred to wire plant (Muehlenbeckia complexa), another invasive plant, although only in very low numbers. - We can conclude that this psyllid is a true knotweed specialist. - A Pest Risk Analysis was completed and reviewed alongside a Wildlife and Countryside Act application, which was assessed by ACRE. Both dossiers were reviewed by 3 anonymous peers and the application is under public consultation.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy As is the case with almost all invasive alien species, there exists in the native range, a much larger suite of natural enemies on JK than can be found in the UK. Amongst these, at least one phytophagous insect appears to be restricted to feeding, laying eggs on and reproducing on only Fallopia japonica and very closely related exotic knotweeds. There appears to be good potential for using this insect as a classical biological control agent against this target. This pioneering project has clarified the procedures and regulatory pathway for classical weed biocontrol agents and added to the tools available as well as public understanding. This approach should now be considered when dealing with those IAS that are beyond control by traditional means.
Future Work Within Life of Project Respond to any issues raised by the public consultation and plan and execute release of the psyllid should it be approved Beyond Life of Project Establish and carry out a short to medium-term monitoring programme under consultation with FERA.
Technology Transfer (Events) Presentations were given by team members at the following places/events:
Japanese knotweed Project Launch Defra HQ (July 2009); Ireland IAS conference (April 2009); Rothamsted seminar series (April 2009); Scottish Biodiversity Forum’s 138 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
conference (March 2009); Welsh Biodiversity Partnership, Newtown (Feb 2009); Norfolk non-native species forum (Feb 2009); CSL York (Jan, 2009);WBP subgroup in Mold (December, 2009); EWRS in Croatia (September 2008); Neobiota, Prague (Sept 08); US Mycological Society Meeting (August 2008); International Plant Pathology Congress in Turin (August) ; BCPC, Peterborough (October 2008); POST/BES IAS meeting (May 2008); Network Rail National meeting (December 2007); Natural England’s (NE) Peterborough office (September 2007); Scottish Working Group (August 2007); XIIth International Symposium on Biological control of Weeds (April 2007, France); PSAM, Cork University (April 2007); WWSA Japanese knotweed Symposium, Oregon (March 2007); Annual meeting of the PSJ, Japan, (March 2007); Japanese knotweed conference, Cornell University (October 2006); West Country River’s Trust’s Invasive Weeds Symposium, Eden Project (October 2006); ECCB conference, Hungary (August 2006); Integration of Research and Practice Conference Cornwall (March 2006); Ecology, impact on environment and management of invasive Reynoutria spp. Switzerland (March 2006); RHS’s Wisley Gardens, (February 2006); EMAPI 8 Katowice, Poland (Sept 2005); 12th Regional Biodiversity Conference Sheffield, UK (September 2005); Cheltenham Science Festival (June 2005); 13th International symposium of the EWRS Italy (June 2005); BES Annual meeting, Lancaster. (September 2004); Welsh stakeholders meeting, Newtown (June 2004); INTEREG, Cardiff (April 2004); Wrexham Science Festival (March 2004); Annual meeting of the PSJ, Japan (March 2004); Environment Agency Conservation and Ecology in Action seminar Birmingham (November 2003); British Waterways (November 2003); Annual meeting of the phytopathological society of Japan (March 2003); Wrexham Science Festival (March 2003)
Technology Transfer (reports and publications) There have also been more than 100 media articles in newspapers, TV and Radio including BBC & ITV, all major national papers and Radio 4 Today Programme. There have also been 14 progress reports and one final report on the project. In addition 13 peer reviewed publications have been produced so far including: Shaw, R.H., Bryner, S. & Tanner, R. (2009). The life history and host range of the Japanese knotweed psyllid, Aphalara itadori Shinji: Potentially the first classical biological weed control agent for the European Union. Biological control 49 105-113. Kurose D., Evans H.C., Djeddour D.H., Cannon P.F., Furuya N., Tsuchiya K. (2009) Systematics of Mycosphaerella species associated with the invasive weed Fallopia japonica, including the potential biological control agent M. polygoni-cuspidati. Mycoscience 50(3):179-189 Djeddour, D.H., Shaw, R.H., Evans, H.C., Tanner, R.A., Kurose, D., Takahashi, N. & Seier, M. (2007) Could Fallopia japonica be the first target for classical weed biocontrol in Europe? In: Proceedings of the XIIth International Symposium on Biological control of Weeds, Montpellier, France. CABI Publishing Kurose, D. Renals,T., Shaw, R. Furuya,N. Takagi, M. and Evans, H. (2007) Fallopia japonica, an increasingly intractable weed problem in the UK: can fungal pathogens cut through this Gordian knot? The Mycologist Vol. 20, Part 4, p.126-9. Sheppard AW, Shaw RH, Sforza R (2006) Top 20 environmental weeds for classical biological control in Europe: a review of opportunities, regulations and other barriers to adoption. Weed Research 46, 93-117.
139 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0222: UK RUDDY DUCK REGIONAL CONTROL TRIAL
Central Science Laboratory Iain Henderson The Food and Environment Research Agency, (formerly Central Science Laboratory) Sand Hutton, York. YO41 1LZ
April 1999 - July 2002 £819,334
Executive Summary The Ruddy Duck Regional Control Trial was established to determine the feasibility, costs and access requirements necessary to reduce the UK Ruddy Duck population to less than 175 birds in ten years. The regions chosen for the trial were Anglesey, the western Midlands, and Fife. A total of 2,651 Ruddy Ducks were culled compared to an estimated national population in winter 2000/01 of around 6,000. Effective control proved feasible on breeding sites and on a range of post-breeding and wintering sites. On average 47% of the Ruddy Ducks present on breeding sites were killed per visit. On post-breeding and wintering sites 1 km. sq. or less in extent, 54% of birds present were shot per visit on average, while the comparable figure for larger waters was 19%. Permission to carry out control was sought on a voluntary basis for 153 sites. Of 193 landowners and other interested parties contacted, 58% gave permission for control. Modelling of the results suggested that the UK population could be reduced to fewer than 175 individuals using year-round control in four to six years if access was available to the principal wintering sites. The estimated cost of this reduction was between £3.6m and £5.4m.
Introduction and Policy Rationale The Ruddy Duck occurs naturally in the Americas, but is a non-native species in the UK that became established in the wild following escapes and releases from captivity in the 1950s and early 1960s. From the mid 1970s their range and population increased significantly until large parts of the UK had been colonised. As the range of Ruddy Ducks in the UK spread, the number of records in mainland Europe began to increase. By 1991 hybrids between feral Ruddy Ducks and the endangered White- headed Duck were recorded in Spain. The two species hybridise readily and hybridisation with the Ruddy Duck has long been recognised as the greatest long- term threat to the survival of the native (European) White-headed Duck as a distinct species. Until recently the UK held around 95% of Europe’s Ruddy Ducks, and was almost certainly the main source of the birds reaching mainland Europe. In recognition of this, the Government decided in 1992 to assess the feasibility of Ruddy Duck control in the UK. The initial research was carried out by the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust in the mid-1990s. The report on this work concluded that eradication was feasible, with breeding season shooting and winter shooting the most effective methods of control, but there was a need for verification of the results via a regional trial.
Objectives The objectives of the Regional Control trial were as follows: - - To monitor the effects of the control trial and model its effects on the population to assess whether sufficient Ruddy Ducks could be killed to reduce the UK population to less than 175 individuals in ten years, and at what likely cost. 140 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
- To reduce the immediate pre-breeding population in the Western Midlands by the maximum amount possible; to reduce the breeding population on Anglesey by the maximum possible but by a minimum of 70% within three years; to kill the maximum number of the post-breeding population in Fife. - To conclude whether compulsory access to land would be necessary to ensure the success of any future national control strategy.
Approaches and Methods The owners/occupiers of sites within the study areas which were known to have held Ruddy Ducks were approached for permission to carry out control by shooting. Where permission was granted, shooting was carried out by experienced full-time staff who recorded basic information for each visit. On smaller sites shooting took place from the bank while on larger sites boats were used as mobile shooting platforms. The information recorded was used to assess efficiency of control, and included data on number of staff present, arrival and departure times, dates, weather conditions, number of Ruddy Ducks seen, number of birds culled, and number wounded. Counts of Ruddy Ducks were also carried out on non-shooting sites to allow an assessment of the effects of shooting on regional populations.
Results A total of 2,651 Ruddy Ducks were culled during this research. On Anglesey the original breeding population of 200 birds was reduced by over 70% within the first twelve months of the trial and by an estimated 93% within sixteen months. In the western Midlands, counts on a sub-set of sites showed reductions of 28% in the first twelve months and a further 54% reduction in the second twelve months, giving an overall reduction of 66% in the first two years of the trial. A total of 216 Ruddy Ducks were removed in Fife between September 1999 and September 2001. Permission to carry out control was sought on a voluntary basis for a total of 153 sites. These had a total of 193 owners/occupiers, of which 58% gave permission for the control of Ruddy Ducks. Permission to carry out control was granted for 52% of the 153 sites. Control by shooting was allowed on 48% of all sites, with control by trapping on a further 4%. Effective control by shooting proved feasible on breeding sites and on a range of sizes of post-breeding and wintering sites. On average 47% of the Ruddy Ducks present on breeding sites were killed per visit with a staff input of 1.98 hours on site per bird killed. On smaller post-breeding and wintering sites (less than 1 km. sq. in extent), 54% of birds present were shot per visit on average, with a staff input on site of 1.1 hours per bird killed. On larger wintering waters the percentage of birds killed was reduced (mean 19%) but the staff input on site was only 0.8 hours per bird. Trapping of Ruddy Ducks was also tested at three post-breeding/wintering sites and three breeding sites. Approximately 900 hours of staff effort in construction, maintenance and driving of ducks during the autumn and winter failed to result in any captures during this period. During the breeding season approximately 750 hours of staff effort in construction and checking of traps resulted in a total of 17 birds being caught on one of the three sites. A stochastic Monte Carlo simulation model was constructed to project the national Ruddy Duck population from January 2000 under a variety of control strategies. Three variables were included; efficacy per person (by how much each member of staff could reduce the national population by per year), numbers of staff, and changes in ruddy duck population growth rate.
141 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
There were as many as 1,000 breeding sites nationally, but access to the large flocks on forty or so key post-breeding and wintering sites was identified as being critical to the acceptable progress of an eradication scheme. If this access were available, modelling suggested that there was an 80% certainty that the population could be reduced to fewer than 175 birds in between four and six years, at a cost of between £3.6m and £5.4m.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy The results of this research confirmed that shooting was the most efficient method of control, and that shooting of large winter flocks from boats was more effective than breeding season shooting. The results of the trapping research suggested that post- breeding and winter trapping was ineffective with this species, but that breeding season trapping, although much less efficient than shooting, may be effective on certain sites. The report identified the need for additional shooting staff and boats in order to increase the efficiency of control on large wintering sites. Although shooting could be negotiated on a voluntary basis for around 50% of sites, it was concluded that access to the sites containing large wintering flocks would be critical, and that powers of compulsory access might need to be considered to ensure the success of a national programme within a reasonable timescale. The conclusions in this report were highly relevant to the Government’s decision on whether to continue with research into Ruddy Duck control.
Future Work Additional research on Ruddy Duck control was commissioned by Defra in 2003/04 and 2004/05. Based on the evidence of this and previous research, a national eradication programme began in September 2005.
142 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0237: A REVIEW OF CURRENT WILDLIFE SPECIES GENETIC RESEARCH: IDENTIFICATION OF A PRIORITY LIST OF WILDLIFE SPECIES IN TRADE, WHERE DNA RESEARCH WOULD ASSIST LAW ENFORCEMENT
Contractor Organisation Dr Carole Foy LGC, Queens Road, Teddington, Middlesex, TW11 0LY (Main contractor)
Dr Crawford Allan TRAFFIC International, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL (Subcontactor)
March 2001 - March 2003 £38,852
Executive Summary A joint collaboration between LGC and TRAFFIC International created an analytical system to generate priority lists of illegally traded endangered species (plants and animals) protected in law where DNA information could assist in law enforcement. A database of available DNA markers was compiled and ranking strategies devised to prioritise species where markers were lacking.
Introduction and Policy Rationale DNA testing is becoming a standard tool to assist law enforcement through provision of robust evidence, and it is being applied more widely for wildlife trade law enforcement cases. DNA can assist enforcement bodies to get a conviction in a variety of ways. It can provide a means of species identification to establish whether a plant or animal (including parts and derivatives) is an endangered species that is protected in law. This is useful, as many species will not be traded as an easily recognisable whole animal or plant. For example a plant could be traded as a seed or crushed up leaves in medicines while animals could be trade as lumps of bush meat, pelts or ground up bones to be used in herbal medicines and remedies. Alternatively, DNA testing provides a means to discriminate between individuals, where population and/or familial-specific markers can identify whether an animal has been bred in captivity or taken from the wild. DNA markers can also be used to link a suspect to the scene of a crime. DNA can also provide geographical information as markers can discriminate at the sub species level e.g. South China tiger or a Sumatran tiger.
Issues arise when DNA tests are not available for a specific target species. Although there is a wealth of DNA research constantly developing new markers there are still thousands of species, which have been recognised as being under threat where no such markers have been developed. Usually the need for a test arises from an enforcement case, but development takes time, which is often too long for the requirements of a particular case. It is accepted that resources are not available to develop DNA methodology to underpin enforcement activities for every such species. This project, therefore, aimed to develop a prioritisation strategy to select a priority list of species where DNA marker information could be sought. The initial list was then prioritised further to identify 75-100 critically endangered species that were traded or difficult to breed in captivity and where DNA markers were lacking,
143 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
therefore identifying potential priority areas for future funding and research.
Objectives The overall objectives of the project were to:
• Identify a priority list of 75-100 endangered species in trade where DNA-based research to support enforcement activity are likely to deliver the most significant benefits; • Assess the current availability, or otherwise, of DNA markers for those species by reviewing current literature and research effort; • Identify individuals and institutions with expertise in the development and/or utilisation of related DNA techniques
Approaches and Methods • Development of appropriate criteria to enable selection of the species suitable for inclusion on the priority list (TRAFFIC International); • Identification of relevant DNA research activities relating to these, or closely related, species and identification of active research groups (LGC); • Interpretation and assessment of current DNA research activities for those species (LGC); • Compilation, interpretation and linking of the selected species list with current research activities to produce the final priority list (LGC and TRAFFIC International).
The work focussed on developing a filter and ranking mechanism within a database structure, which scored species, based on a variety of criteria such as extent of illegal trade, breeding capacity, legal controls, degree of threat and DNA research. From a first cut of over 5000 species in the database, the system was filtered down to a working data set of nearly 350 species, from which a priority list of 100 species was produced.
Results LGC and TRAFFIC International identified a priority list of endangered species in trade where DNA information was currently lacking but, if available, could help in wildlife trade law enforcement cases.
In producing this list two additional resources were developed: • An analytical system that could be revised or adapted to generate priority lists in future if conditions changed or different scenarios were applied; • A catalogue of details of the main papers, researchers and laboratories involved in genetic studies on endangered wildlife
A searchable Access database was designed to hold the compiled data and to rank the species according to their combined priority rankings using the developed criteria. The strategy combined the rankings for the major criteria under investigation (protection in law, degree of endangerment, significance of illegal trade, ease of captive breeding and availability of DNA markers) to generate an overall priority ranking. Separate databases were designed for animal and plant species. Both of these databases were transferred to DEFRA for exploitation.
144 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy A ranking strategy was developed whereby priority species lacking DNA research could be identified. This process could highlight any significant gaps where insufficient expertise exists to provide useful support to enforcement in key areas. It was hoped that the areas identified in this project could be targeted for research in the future.
Each species had a list of publications, contacts, and key author’s wherever possible showing all the up to date information on that species. This would aid the search for up to date information and potential collaborators who may be able to help in developing DNA markers for the high priority species.
The information provided to DEFRA, in the form of a searchable database with flexible prioritisation ranking, provided a signpost for DNA research groups seeking to target their work programmes into areas of significant applicability, and also provided a priority list for research funding in this field.
This database, if not updated, has a limited life span as DNA research is a fast moving area of research and new markers are being developed all the time. In addition, trends in illegal trade may also change which could affect a species overall ranking. For the database to remain accurate it therefore needs to be updated regularly.
Future Work Beyond Life of Project • The database needs to be constantly updated and maintained so it will maintain commercial value. • The research also needs to be extended to all species on the ICUN red list and not just those classified critical or annex A.
Technology Transfer Events CITES workshop, 22nd May 2002, Italy. Carole Foy - Identifying priority species for DNA research to assist law enforcement.
145 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Information extracted from SID5
0253: CONSERVATION OF AND TRADE IN MUSK DEER
WWF
2000 - 2005
Summary This study attempts to clarify the status of populations of Siberian Musk Deer Moschus moschiferus in the Russian Federation and Mongolia. It also investigates hunting (including poaching) of the deer in those countries and the associated trade in musk. The Siberian Musk Deer is a Vulnerable species, according to the IUCN Red List, and is listed in Appendix II of CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). Recent reports of declines in populations and high demand for the musk produced by the male deer prompted research for this study. To complement the findings from the Russian Federation and Mongolia, the principal areas of research, a brief review of musk use and trade in the Republic of Korea (South Korea) is included to provide a snapshot of the consumer end of the trade in musk. South Korea is a country known to use musk in traditional medicine and known to trade musk internationally. It is hoped that the results of this study will fill gaps in information necessary to place musk deer conservation on a firm footing for the future.
Research was undertaken in the winters of 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 (population surveys in the Russian Federation); in 1998-2002 (poaching/musk trade survey in the Russian Federation); in the winter of 2001-2002 (Mongolian research); and in 2001- 2002 (Korean research).
Surveys of musk deer populations in the Russian Federation were conducted using model plots in various habitat types in musk deer range in the Russian Far East and the Altai-Sayan region. The results of these model surveys were extrapolated to provide estimates of the musk deer population in wider areas of such habitats in those regions. An assessment of the levels of hunting (including poaching) of musk deer and the associated trade in musk in the Russian Federation and Mongolia was made by questioning stakeholders, for example, hunters, rangers, illegal traders and enforcement agents. Members of South Korea’s associations of doctors and pharmacists of Korean medicine provided information on the demand for musk use in that country. CITES data were used for assessments of international trade in musk in the Russian Federation and South Korea - such trade is banned in Mongolia.
The population surveys in the Russian Federation for this study resulted in estimates of substantially larger numbers of musk deer than official Russian Government figures show, especially for the Russian Far East (about 140 000, as opposed to 40 000 deer). Owing to the limitations of the methodology used, it is emphasized, however, that the results of the surveys conducted for this study cannot be considered as an accurate reckoning of the number of musk deer in the areas selected, but as an estimate only.
146 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Despite the results indicating larger musk deer populations than are recorded by official surveys in the Russian Federation, population surveys for this study nonetheless found densities of musk deer to be low in the Altai-Sayan region, and it was reported to researchers that the musk deer population in the region had decreased, as a result of poaching, for musk. Reproduction of the musk deer was estimated to have been affected in 50% of their habitats in the Altai-Sayan region. Musk deer in the Altai-Sayan region were said to be systematically targeted by poachers and the trade in musk to be monopolized by three dealers. Moreover, the average weight of a musk gland in the region was found to have decreased (from 23- 25 g to 17 g) in the past few years - a likely indication of high hunting pressure. In the Russian Far East, musk deer populations are stable, according to results of this study. Although the animals are still the target of poachers, this region is less densely populated by humans and less well served by roads than the Altai-Sayan region. Overall, over 80% of all musk deer killed in the Russian Federation, 1999- 2000, were estimated to have been poached. This scale of poaching not only raises the question of how long musk deer populations can sustain this rate of harvest, but also highlights a clear enforcement problem. Although there is a quota for the legal hunting of musk deer in the Russian Federation, the illegal alternative is apparently widely preferred, as there is little incentive, including from a financial perspective, for musk deer hunters to operate within the law.
It is almost exclusively for their musk glands that musk deer are poached in the Russian Federation. An estimated 400-450 kg of raw musk from Russian musk deer were traded illegally, annually, 1999-2000, corresponding to about 17 000 to 20 000 male musk deer, assuming the weight of one musk gland to be 23 g. This is about five times the amount calculated to have been traded legally during the same period (72 kg). The musk harvested in the Russian Federation is almost without exception for export. Both legal and illegal exports were reported to be overwhelmingly to East Asian destinations, for use in traditional forms of health care. China (including Hong Kong) and South Korea are particularly notable as consumers of Russian musk.
There are no estimates based on up-to-date surveys for the size of the population of musk deer in Mongolia. Research for this study ascertained that an upsurge in hunting the deer at the beginning of the 1990s was in response to the opportunity to trade with China in the wake of changes in Mongolia’s political regime. The hunting of musk deer is banned in Mongolia, but from market surveys in Mongolia in 2001 and 2002, it is calculated that, during the period 1996- 2001, a minimum annual average of 2000 male musk deer were poached. As in the Russian Federation, therefore, musk deer poaching in Mongolia represents an enforcement problem on a significant scale. This level of poaching is likely to have a deleterious effect on Mongolia’s musk deer populations, estimated to have numbered no more than 44 000 in the 1970s. Numbers of musk deer in some of the few areas of Mongolia surveyed recently by scientists indicate that some populations are barely viable. Trading musk in Mongolia is illegal, but this appears to be virtually academic and the fact that musk was traded in and from Mongolia was widely acknowledged during surveys. University students were notable as a group involved in transporting musk from poaching regions to market in Mongolia. Onward trade from Mongolia over the border to China, the sole reported destination for musk from Mongolia, is seemingly largely unimpeded by enforcement authorities.
147 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Musk for traditional Korean medicine was found to be considered indispensable by about one third of traditional health care professionals responding to the survey undertaken in South Korea. Approximately 24% of survey respondents were using musk, 1998-2001, although almost 50% said their use of musk had decreased since 1994. Musk trade is legal according to South Korean law, providing the musk has been obtained legally. The retail price of musk in South Korea was reported to be the equivalent of approximately USD24-36/g and the import price about USD12/g, at least four times the stated price per gramme received by hunters in the Russian Federation and Mongolia. All recorded musk imports to South Korea since 1997 have been from the Russian Federation, with the exception of three kilogrammes from China. Additionally, reports of illegal trade in musk to South Korea from the Russian Federation were received during research. Reports of illegally traded musk to South Korea are supported by the fact that records of Customs authorities there show several seizures of musk, 1997-2002.
What this study shows is that lack of effective enforcement of domestic laws for musk deer hunting in the Russian Federation and for the total protection of musk deer in Mongolia, coupled with demand for musk in traditional East Asian medicine, is likely to have been to the detriment of musk deer populations in those source countries. Although the sizes of the musk deer populations of the Russian Federation and Mongolia are not known with any degree of certainty, extraction of musk deer from the wild in the two countries has been unrestrained and musk deer populations have been reported to be adversely impacted by poaching. In the Altai- Sayan region, it was alleged that musk deer populations had been reduced to a quarter or one fifth of their levels in the 1970s and 1980s and, in Mongolia, experts believe that poaching is inevitably threatening populations of musk deer, a species classed as “very rare” in Mongolian national legislation. Disproportionately low ratios of male to female musk deer were reported from parts of Mongolia and the use of indiscriminate snares, the common form of catching musk deer illegally in the Russian Federation, are likely to have skewed gender balances in musk deer populations in that country.
Although enforcement of the law in relation to musk deer hunting and musk trade is weak in the Russian Federation and Mongolia, stepping up enforcement pressure alone would not be likely to reduce poaching sufficiently, nor would it always be practicable in the Russian Federation and Mongolia, both countries where the musk deer range extends into remote and sparsely populated regions. Poverty was a stated cause for musk deer poaching and, rather than focus on applying disincentives for illegal practice, financial benefits could be linked to legal hunting of musk deer and trade in musk in the Russian Federation, and alternative forms of income explored for musk dealers in Mongolia. Meanwhile, in consumer countries, where demand for musk so clearly still exists, if South Korea is representative of this, much can still be done to improve regulation of the trade, alongside efforts to research medicinal alternatives for musk and to promote awareness of the detrimental effect that illegal musk trade is having on musk deer populations.
148 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0259: REVIEW OF NON-NATIVE SPECIES LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE
Ecoscope Applied Ecologists (RPS Group) Matthew Fasham Willow Mere House, Compass Point Business Park, Stocks Bridge Way, St Ives PE27 5JL
May 2001 – October 2001 £9,129
Executive Summary A review of domestic, European and international legislation relating to the control of non-native species in the UK, and a review of legislation in four other countries was carried out. Deficiencies in the existing legal situation were assessed and recommendations made to address identified problems.
Introduction and Policy Rationale Non-native species bring both costs and benefits. Benefits include new crop or pasture species, attractive plants for horticulture, novel biocontrol agents and others. Costs include damage to existing economic interests, harm to native species and habitats, and the costs associated with preventing introductions of harmful species, monitoring existing populations and conducting control or eradication schemes.
Legislation is required to limit the costs associated with non-native species and to prevent introduction of species to places where they could be harmful. The UK has a number of pieces of legislation to carry out these functions in addition to being signatories to a number of international conventions.
Objectives 1. To conduct a review of existing legislation and guidance concerned with non- native species in the UK. 2. To review the UK’s international obligations, and assess whether the existing situation of sufficient to meet those obligations. 3. To review the situation in other countries. 4. To make recommendations to the Non-native Species Review Group based on an analysis of the situation both in the UK and elsewhere.
Approaches and Methods A review of the status of the UK was undertaken using a review of available literature including web-based sources. The organisations represented on the review group and other people involved with non-native species were contacted, and their viewpoints on the issue of non-native species were sought.
For other countries, a review of web-based and other available literature was carried out. In addition, a request for information was distributed on a web-based non-native species list server. Following on from this, contacts were established with individuals and organisations in the countries under review and their advice and opinions sought.
149 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Results All relevant international agreements and pieces of European and domestic legislation were identified and their implementation evaluated. This included 16 international agreements, nine pieces of European legislation and 25 pieces of domestic legislation. A review was also conducted of relevant legislation in the USA, New Zealand, Germany and Italy.
The evaluation of the legislation reviewed the ways in which they are implemented including strengths and weaknesses.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy In summary, it was concluded that the domestic legislation was insufficient to meet the requirements of our international obligations under the Convention for Biodiversity and other binding international instruments. The shortfalls were: • No guiding policy on the general import of non-native species. • Ineffective enforcement of legislation prohibiting the release of animal species. • No comprehensive controls on the release of non-native plants, fungi and micro-organisms. • Little provision for the conservation of within-species genetic diversity • No legal provision for eradication or control of established non-native species. • No legal requirement or mechanism for monitoring of non-native species. • No controls on introductions via ballast water discharge • No controls on release of native species outside their natural range within the UK.
There were a large number of recommendations for the UK system that were proposed as a result of the review of international and domestic legislation.
These were split into a number of different categories ranging from a global to national scale. The recommendations for the UK included: • Establish a co-ordinating body, perhaps along the lines of the United States’ Invasive Species Council, to promote cooperation and information transfer between agencies and organizations involved in activities relating to non-native species. The co-ordinating body should draw up a National Non-native Species Strategy • Important terms such as non-native and invasive should be soundly defined in a way that makes sense both ecologically and in terms of Great Britain’s economic and environmental goals. Avoiding ambiguity of definitions in legislation is essential, and existing ambiguities should be resolved. • The question of the current sectoral approach should be addressed in the UK. In particular, legislation addressing non-native species should to be consolidated to avoid contradictions. • While a single co-ordinating body is necessary, responsibility for day-to- day activities is best managed at a local level and with existing expertise. In Great Britain, separate agencies could take responsibility for non- natives in waterways, in nature reserves and so on, but should all report to a single body which in turn would provide advice and ensure that activities in the same region are co-ordinated. 150 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
• A comprehensive review of the status, current impacts and potential impacts of non-native species established in the UK should be carried out as a priority; these species should be prioritised and acted on accordingly. It might also be necessary to consider the status of non- invasive species in their country of origin. • The keeping and sale of known invasive species (including plants) should be prohibited; this could potentially be enacted through existing legislation, but it may be more appropriate to introduce new legislation specific to non-native species to address this. • The UK should develop a co-ordinated monitoring system to detect newly established non-native species and to collate relevant results from existing surveys and other reported sightings of non-native species. • The precautionary principle should be adopted when considering actions against newly-discovered invasive species; eradication should be considered if it is thought likely that negative impacts could occur should new species become more widespread. • More resources should be allocated to enable adequate enforcement of existing or new legislation. • The development of effective Risk Assessment techniques for all groups of non-native species should be a priority.
Legislation-specific recommendations: • Amend the Wildlife & Countryside Act to control introductions of non- native plants, fungi and micro-organisms. This should include the addition of known invasive plant species to Schedule 9 Part II. • Consider amending EIA legislation to require the careful assessment of projects or activities involving the use of non-native species near sites of conservation importance, especially wetlands; introduce stricter controls on the use of non-native species near vulnerable sites or ecosystems.
Future Work The project fed into the Defra Review of non-native species policy: report of the Working Group in 2003 which in turn led to a move towards risk assessment and the production of a non-native species strategy for Great Britain (2008).
151 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0216: MONITORING HEATHLAND FIRES IN DORSET
Terra Consult (Terra Environmental Consultancy) Dr Dominic Tantram 11 Henderson Avenue, Guildford. GU2 9LP
Subcontractors: Just Ecology Ltd, Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Augur Information Systems.
November 1998 – September 1999 £39,000
Executive Summary The research was based upon a variety of methods including gathering quantitative data and information from face-to-face interviews, questionnaires and seminars. Data were analysed in a variety of ways including quantitative statistics and spatial analysis using GIS. User requirements were generally assessed qualitatively. Phase 1 of the study concentrated on drawing together existing records of heathland fires with the aim of establishing a baseline data set. The results showed fires can occur at any time of the year but are most frequent between April and August when, unfortunately, they are likely to cause most damage to heathland vegetation and wildlife. Fires were concentrated in heathlands in or adjacent to urban areas and many of these areas had been subject to large numbers of fires. Phase 1a investigated the relationships between heathland fires, meteorological variables and fire risk. It also considered the utility of the fire prediction system employed in the New Forest. Cumulative weather patterns for concurrent periods provided the best explanations for variations in fire frequencies. There was a high level of fire danger when the preceding 10/11 day period had over 100 sunshine hours, cumulative relative humidity was <600% and when there had been <5mm of total rainfall. The Fire Hazard and Fire Danger ratings used in the New Forest, contributed useful information to the assessment of risk in Dorset heathlands. Phase 2 concentrated on the evaluation of fire information, users needs and proposals for a future monitoring system. The recording of information was found to be fragmented and sectoral and subject to a variety of data quality issues. Data were not collected to common standards and key data for the assessment of fire impact were not consistently recorded. Building upon the baseline information gathered by Phase 1, detailed proposals were made for a Dorset-wide information system to address deficiencies in current information and provide a system for the management and dissemination of standardised information in the future.
Introduction and Policy Rationale Lowland heathland is a rare and threatened habitat and one for which the United Kingdom has international responsibility. Dorset has around 6000 ha of heathland that gives it the third largest area for an English county. In Dorset in particular there had been widespread concern that repeated incidences of fire have been diminishing the resource and threatening important heathland species. In July 1998 the Council of Europe’s Bern Secretariat undertook an “on-the spot” appraisal visit to the Dorset heathlands. Part of the remit was to assess the effect that fires had on the conservation interest of the heathland, particularly those areas lying close to or within 152 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
the large urban conurbation of Poole and Bournemouth where the problems were thought to be most severe. In anticipation of the Standing Committee’s recommendations the European Wildlife Division of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions decided to commission independent research to draw together existing records of heathland fires. The main purpose was to establish and analyse a baseline data set to help target future actions and produce proposals for recording future fire events.
Objectives The objectives of the research were to: i. Establish the extent of existing records of heathland fires held by local bodies (Phase 1). ii. Collate and analyse existing records, about the time, location and causes of fires as well as the nature and extent of the damage (Phase 1). iii. Identify any existing patterns or trends from existing records (Phase 1). iv. Devise a simple, standardised but effective means of collecting information on future heathland fires (Phase 2). v. Consider and make recommendations on how that information should be collected, co-ordinated and disseminated (Phase 2). vi. Identify any additional costs involved in implementing those recommendations (Phase 2).
Approaches and Methods, Phase 1 A large number of records of heathland fires were gathered from a variety of relevant conservation, land management and public organisations, the vast majority of these records were generated by the Dorset Fire and Rescue Service. The resulting data set contained 3333 incidents for the period 1990-1998 across Dorset. Data were checked and cleaned to removed duplicates and to firmly establish site location. Data were analysed both statistically and spatially and results presented in terms of temporal and geographic characteristics. Statistical examination of yearly, month, daily and time patterns in the frequency of fire events was undertaken using χ2 analyses, with one- or two-way comparisons. Geographic analyses used the fire event database, vegetation, OS topographic, urban ‘mask’, DEM and designated areas data. These were used to assess fire event distribution, density, and incidence in relation to built-up areas, topography and designated areas.
Figure 1: Total numbers of unplanned fires on the Dorset Heathlands each month, shown separately for each year from 1993-1998.
Results – Phase 1 - Uncontrolled fires can 400 occur at any time of the 1993 300 year but are most frequent 1994 between April and August 1995 200 when, unfortunately, they 1996 are likely to cause most 1997 100 damage. Fires were more 1998 likely to occur at weekends than weekdays, 0 during school holiday Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec periods rather than term Month 153 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
time and during the afternoon and early evening. Fires occurred on nearly all patches of heathland over the study period with higher concentrations near to conurbations. It was not possible to quantitatively assess the ecological impact fires had had upon Dorset’s heathlands due to lack of information. However, it is clear that a number of heathland sites have been subject to substantial numbers of fires and that these may have caused significant ecological disturbance and damage.
Approaches and Methods, Phase 2 The information for Phase 2 was gathered in four main ways. Using Phase 1 metadata, holding a data holder’s seminar in March 1999, a questionnaire to evaluate IT systems in relevant bodies and by presenting interim results to the Steering and the Dorset Heathlands Working Groups for evaluation and feedback. In parallel with these Phases the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology collated available knowledge on the ecological processes and impacts associated with fire on heathlands.
Results – Phase 2 The recording of information was found to be fragmented and sectoral. Information was spread amongst several organisations and this situation presented a variety of data quality issues. The work conducted for Phase 1 brought together baseline information on heathland fires in Dorset for the first time and proposals were made for a Dorset-wide information system that addressed the deficiencies in current information and provided a system for the management and dissemination of standardised information in the future. Detailed system specifications were made.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy • The available information suggests that heathlands in Dorset were subject to over 3000 fires between 1990 and 1998. • The risk of fire can be related to meteorological variables. Examination of weather conditions can help predict possible fire risk. The Fire Danger ratings produced by Forest Enterprise can help indicate periods of risk. • The current pattern of fire information provision is fragmented and of variable accuracy and quality. Information collection and management practices need to change to build up a consistent, comprehensive and reliable picture the future. • A model for the development of an integrated system of data exchange for the assessment of the impact of fires on heathland is proposed. The deficiencies in the current situation are clear. The proposals aim to address the current problems in a format that imposes minimum overheads on the participants. The implementation of proposals requires some resource input, but more importantly, the continuing commitment of all relevant participants. • Heathland conservation and management bodies in Dorset already have many shared objectives. It was clear from feedback gathered throughout the project that those involved in conserving and managing heathland in Dorset have many common objectives and a shared enthusiasm to tackle information and management issues and this provides a promising basis for the establishment of a heathland fire information monitoring system. Full reports can be found at: http://www.terra-consult.co.uk/res.htm and http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/regions/south_west/ourwork/dorsetheathlands.aspx 154 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0220: RESEARCH INTO PROPOSED CRITERIA DEFINING ‘IMPORTANT’ HEDGEROWS
Adas UK Ltd Jean Churchward ADAS, Boxworth, Cambridge, CB23 4NN
October 1998 – September 1999 £94,900
Executive Summary The Hedgerows Regulations 1997 provide protection for important hedgerows. A review of these regulations proposed revised criteria for defining ‘important’ hedgerows. This project assessed, by field survey and historic record search, the proportion of hedgerows likely to satisfy one or more of the criteria, and the extent to which hedgerows of landscape value were covered by the criteria. The results informed further consideration of the suitability of the proposed revised criteria as definitions of hedgerow ‘importance’ by Ministers and others.
Introduction and Policy Rationale The Hedgerows Regulations 1997 were introduced to protect important hedgerows in England and Wales. A Review Group was set up to make recommendations on how this new system of hedgerow protection might be strengthened, and it proposed revised criteria for determining whether a hedgerow would be judged ‘important’ under the regulations (Anon., 1998).
An assessment was required to determine the proportion of hedgerows likely to satisfy the proposed criteria for defining ‘important’ hedgerows, and the degree to which hedgerows might meet more than one of the criteria. In addition, an assessment was needed of the extent to which hedgerows that were considered to be of landscape value were covered by the proposed criteria.
Objectives The overall aim of the research, commissioned by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, was to inform further consideration of the suitability of the proposed criteria as definitions of hedgerow ‘importance’.
The objectives of the project were: • To expand the data held on hedgerows in all of the sample squares in England and Wales previously surveyed by ADAS in 1995, in connection with the Hedgerow Evaluation System (HES) project (Churchward et al, 1996); • To assess the percentage of hedgerows surveyed which satisfied the criteria, broken down individually and in various combinations; • To evaluate the extent to which the hedgerows surveyed satisfied more than one criterion and the nature of any such overlap; • To assess the value of hedgerows in the sample squares in terms of their contribution to landscape; and • To evaluate the extent to which hedgerows found, through this assessment, to be of landscape value fulfil the proposed criteria.
155 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Approaches and Methods As part of the HES project ADAS had already recorded various ecological and historical characteristics of the hedgerows in 50 sample squares of 1 km x 1 km, in England and Wales. However, the criteria now proposed included new elements which required additional information. The assessments required fell under three headings; historic, ecology and landscape.
Historic records held at Local Authority Records Offices, the National Library of Wales and the Sites and Monuments Records were researched to assess whether each hedgerow: • Incorporated or was associated with an archaeological feature or site; • Marked the boundary of a historical administrative boundary, a pre-1600 estate or manor, or the outer limits of field systems, parks, woods or common land; • Was an integral part of a field system dating from before 1800/1845 or, in the case of an enclosure field system, from before 1870, and that system was substantially complete.
The field survey gathered information on: • The number of listed woody species in each hedgerow; • The number of woody species in specified 30 metre stretches; • The number, location and type of connections between each hedgerow and other hedgerows, woods, ponds, rivers, streams or other semi-natural habitat; • Evidence of any Biodiversity Action Plan priority species within the hedgerow (local biological record offices were also consulted); • Whether the hedgerow marked the boundary of a public road.
The aim of the landscape survey was to assess the value of the hedgerows in terms of their visual importance. The survey followed an established methodology, which was agreed with representatives of the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales. The process involved two stages: firstly an identification of areas of distinct landscape character, within each of which all hedgerows were given the same landscape value; and secondly an assessment of each individual hedgerow to establish whether its value should be upgraded compared with the others in that character area because of its particular attributes.
The information collected was added to the existing database, and the data were analysed in relation to the proposed criteria for defining ‘important’ hedgerows. Where the detail had not been fully specified in the criteria (e.g. the number of woody species numbers), a range of options was examined.
Results In total, 1597 hedgerows with a total length of 247 km were surveyed in the 50 sample squares. Of these, 261 (16%) totalling 39 km were located in the seven sample squares in Wales.
Some 94% of hedgerows surveyed met one or more of the seven criteria proposed by the Review Group. If the two criteria that were not fully supported by the Review Group (relating to field systems and hedgerow connections) were omitted, then some 59% of hedgerows met one or more of the remaining five criteria.
156 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Some 77% of hedgerows met the proposed connections criterion, whilst 57% would qualify as an integral part of a substantially complete field system dating from before 1845, or in the case of an Enclosure Act system, 1870. Almost a third of hedgerows were found to be alongside a public highway, and the proportions of hedgerows which met the various potential versions of the woody species criterion were generally within the range 25-40%.
In the landscape assessment, 89% of hedgerows were assessed as being important or very important. Analysis of the data appeared to indicate that species-rich hedgerows and hedgerows adjacent to public highways were particularly likely to have been judged as having landscape importance, as were hedgerows with connections to two or more other features.
A wide range of further combinations of criteria was examined. These included: a simplified approach, requiring a hedgerow to meet one of only three criteria; a hedgerow having to meet at least two or three criteria; and a hedgerow having to meet one of certain ‘primary’ criteria or at least two of the ‘secondary’ criteria.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy The data have been used to assess the percentage of hedgerows surveyed which satisfy the revised criteria, and separate elements of the revised criteria, proposed by the Hedgerows Regulations Review Group. The degree of overlap between specified revised criteria has been presented, as have the proportions of hedgerows that met particular combinations of the revised criteria.
The landscape survey has allowed the extent to which hedgerows of landscape value fulfil the proposed criteria to be demonstrated.
These results will inform further consideration of the suitability of the proposed revised criteria as definitions of hedgerow ‘importance’ by Ministers and others.
Future Work NA
Technology Transfer NA.
References Anon. 1998. Review of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London. Churchward, J; Britt, C; McLeish, A; Davis, M and Wright, B. 1996. The Hedgerow Evaluation System. Department of the Environment, London.
157 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0230: BIODIVERSITY INDEPENDENT EVALUATION
Entec UK Ltd Richard Knightbridge, Entec UK Ltd, Gables House, Kenilworth Road, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, CV32 6JX
1999 - 2000 £26,000
Introduction and Objectives In 1996, the UK government made a commitment to report on progress with implementing the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) every five years, with the first report due in 2000/2001. To inform the preparation of this report (UK Biodiversity Group, (2001) Sustaining the variety of life: 5 years of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. London: Defra), the UK Biodiversity Group decided that an independent evaluation should be undertaken to: • Provide a summary of views about the successes and failures of the biodiversity process (i.e. the whole gamut of activity related to the implementation of the UK BAP), from those engaged in the process and those outside the process with whom it seeks to work; • Draw conclusions about these successes and failures; and • Make recommendations about amendments to the biodiversity process.
Approach In order to provide a basis for the evaluation, it was agreed with the DETR that it was necessary to define a set of objectives relating to the means of achieving the overall aims of the biodiversity process, as set out in the UK BAP. The first stage of the study was therefore to identify these objectives, ensuring that they covered the range of activities that were considered necessary to contribute to the achievement of the UK BAP’s aims over its first five years. These objectives were finalised following a process of consultation.
Against each of these objectives, one or more questions were devised to elicit views about the performance in contributing towards the delivery of the overall aims. These questions formed the basis for a questionnaire, which was circulated to a list of some 80 organisations and individuals. The responses that were obtained through a combination of face to face and telephone interviews provided the raw material for the evaluation.
Findings Key successes of the biodiversity process during its first five years included: • Bringing together, over a short time period, a partnership comprising a very wide range of organisations covering all of the sectors that have a major influence on biodiversity; • Establishing and maintaining a common agenda for all partners to follow; • Quickly putting in place the complex organisational structure needed to support the process; • Some key partners changing their staffing and budgeting to reflect the priorities of the process;
158 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
• Completing all programmed species and habitat action plans (SAPs and HAPs), with targets that provide, for the first time, a clear definition of objectives and priorities, a focus for action and a good means of measuring achievements; • The large proportion of the UK that, within a short space of time, has been covered by local BAPs (LBAPs); • The level of engagement of local people, businesses, local authority members and others that has been achieved through many of these LBAPs; • Integrating biodiversity into a wide range of policies and programmes - of particular note is the integration of BAP targets into agri-environment schemes; • Contributing to the development of The Countryside and Rights of Way Act; • Initiating a wide range of research, particularly relating to the needs that are identified in SAPs and HAPs; • Raising the profile of the need for a National Biodiversity Network (NBN); • Highlighting the inadequacies in the current situation relating to the collection of biological data, thereby increasing the likelihood of them being addressed.
Issues and concerns that were identified included: • A fear that the biodiversity process could ‘sink under its own weight’ as a result of the large number of plans with their related bureaucracy and the huge number of actions required. • A concern that insufficient priority was being given to considering the key issues (e.g. climate change) that are affecting many species and habitats not just priority habitats and species. • The need to raise the public’s awareness of biodiversity, for which considerable resources were needed. • A concern that the focus on the biodiversity process may have slowed progress in objective-setting for Natura 2000 sites and in notifying sites.
Recommendations A large number of recommendations was made, including the following. • Develop a set of strategic aims (or ‘ends objectives’) that provide a realistic vision of what we want to achieve in relation to biodiversity. • Develop an agreed set of means objectives (along the lines of those devised for this study). • Prioritise measures to extend the engagement in the biodiversity process of business and industry, regional and local government, various government departments, and the education sector. • Review whether there is a need to prioritise certain HAPs/SAPs or certain actions in HAPs/SAPs in recognition of resource limitations. • Explore the scope for public participation in the implementation of HAPs and SAPs. • Seek to ensure that both new and updated BAPs at each level (e.g. regional through to local) are complementary (i.e. avoiding contradictory targets). • Clarify the importance of LBAP preparation/implementation as a means of engaging local people in the biodiversity process. • Extend the involvement of local authority departments, business and others in the LBAP process.
159 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
• Encourage feedback of local achievements to the national level. • Provide new guidance on the preparation of LBAPs • Forge better links between biodiversity and sustainable development. • Encourage development plan preparation and decision-making over planning applications to reflect the requirements of the biodiversity process. • Consider drawing on professional communications, marketing and PR advice to help develop a strategy for raising the public’s awareness of biodiversity. • Develop a co-ordinated and funded strategy for biodiversity education. • Seek to ensure that all agricultural, fisheries and forestry advisors are able to offer appropriate advice about biodiversity, whether this is specialist advice or a recommendation to contact a specialist. • Consider how best to make available, UK-wide, consistent advice on biodiversity that is readily accessible to the general public and business. • Better enforce the legislation concerning species protection and introductions. • Give priority to developing co-ordinated proposals for the control of both non- native species and native species outside of their normal ranges. • Do more to promote the use of plant material of local provenance in habitat creation and landscaping schemes. • Afford greater priority to achieving appropriate management of statutory sites. • Consider modifying the SSSI guidelines to permit sites to reflect better the requirements of the biodiversity process. • Implement the findings of the Biodiversity Research Working Group. • Ensure that research findings relevant to the biodiversity process are disseminated in a form that is accessible to practitioners. • Improve baseline data collection with the objective of early detection of changes in species’ populations (mirroring what is already done for birds). • Introduce adequate monitoring for priority BAP habitats and species. • Government and its agencies should give greater priority (and funding) to the establishment of the NBN. • Consider the need for a legal or other statutory basis for the biodiversity process. • Address the conservation of the genetic resource within our heritage of domestic/agricultural varieties of animal and plants.
Relevance to Policy The study informed the preparation of the UK Biodiversity Group’s report Sustaining the variety of life: 5 years of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. In this report, the Group accepted the study’s recommendation to adopt more strategic aims and objectives for the BAP process. Many of the other recommendations that are made in the report have subsequently been wholly or partly addressed.
160 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Information extracted from SID5
0261: STUDY INTO NON-DEVELOPMENT DAMAGE TO LOCAL SITES, POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO DAMAGE AND PROVISION OF RESOURCES
Just Ecology Limited
2001 - 2002
Summary The overall aim was to examines the nature and extent of damage to Local Sites (both wildlife and geological) from non-development activities, i.e. operating outside the definition of 'development' in the planning system. The work was also to:
• Provide an assessment of funding, and other forms of support received by Local Sites, to include advice on management, availability and constraints on existing funding, and other possible sources of funding. • Give careful consideration to possible mechanisms for damage prevention, which are appropriate and proportionate to the local tier of sites, including the provision of resources in England and Wales.
The ultimate goal is to achieve a better status for, and better overall protection and management of, the Local Sites network in England and Wales.
Conclusion Distinguishing development from non-development activities was rarely straightforward. The difficulties are discussed.
Concern about non-development damage was widespread amongst the responding Local Authorities, with damage arising from agricultural and forestry operations, recreational over-use, tipping/dumping, vandalism/fire and horse keeping/grazing being the main areas of concern.
Neglect at sites was also highlighted as a significant factor, though is best classified as deterioration rather than a damaging activity in its own right.
There was little data available, or accessible, from Local Authorities or others from which to assess the extent of non-development damage to Local Sites.
There is a lack of systematic, quantifiable and verifiable data on damage, and no assessment/monitoring programmes able to provide this information.
Few Local Authorities were currently successful at securing external funding specifically for Local Sites work. There were gaps in sources of advice, difficulties with access, lack of coordination and no obvious clear route for providing face-to- face, or other forms of management support, for Local Sites.
New measures may be needed which address development and non-development damage together, in a more holistic way. This seems to be the only way to address
161 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
the full range of non-development- and development-related damaging activities at Local Sites.
162 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0307: EVALUATING AND IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF DOMESTIC GARDENS IN URBAN AREAS
University of Sheffield K.J. Gaston Department of Animal & Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN
2003 - 2007 £50,000 (Defra contribution only)
Executive Summary This project provided the first detailed audit and comparison across cities in the U.K. of the size and structure of the domestic garden resource, the size and occurrence of features in domestic gardens, the size and composition of floras of domestic gardens, and the use and management of domestic gardens. The findings highlight the major contribution of domestic gardens to urban green space, their potential as a significant biodiversity resource, and the threats to that potential posed by urban development policies.
Introduction and Policy Rationale Domestic gardens in urban and suburban areas of the U.K. are assuming an increasing importance for conservation biologists, policy-makers and planners for several reasons. First, gardens are a major component of our urban green space and therefore need to be considered when formulating conservation strategies, such as Local Biodiversity Action Plans, for urban and suburban regions. Second, it is becoming increasingly apparent that some species which have suffered marked population declines in the wider countryside are found in significant numbers in urban and suburban areas, and particularly in domestic gardens. Third, green spaces are important to the quality of life of those people who live in urban and suburban areas, and there is growing evidence that access to such spaces can have positive effects on their physical and mental health. Domestic gardens may be particularly significant in this regard, given their importance as sites for privacy and personalised relations with nature. Despite this growing recognition of the importance of gardens, even basic understanding of the resource they provide has been wanting. The Biodiversity in Urban Gardens in Sheffield (BUGS1) project provided a first attempt at tackling this knowledge gap systematically. The present project was commissioned to extend this work and specifically to examine the generality of some of its key findings by assessing the form and extent of the garden resource across five cities in the U.K.
Objectives To characterise the resource provided by urban domestic gardens from three perspectives: (i) The spatial structure of greenspace provided by gardens; (ii) The internal features (e.g. trees, ponds, lawn areas, compost heaps, nest-boxes); and (iii) Floristic diversity.
Approaches and Methods Characterisation of greenspace structure - GIS analyses of digital maps and aerial photographs were used to estimate the overall extent of domestic gardens, the size distribution of those gardens, and patterns of spatial variation in size, shape and
163 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
connectivity for five cities across the U.K. (Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Leicester, Oxford). Characterisation of features - In each city field surveys were conducted in c.50 gardens, chosen to capture the breadth of variation in degree of urbanisation, area, age etc. The habitat structures of the gardens were mapped and the presence/absence of key features recorded. These surveys were supplemented with data obtained from other field and questionnaire surveys to provide a broad picture of the frequency, extent and longevity of key resources in gardens. Characterisation of floristic diversity - Field surveys (for both whole gardens and quadrats within gardens) were conducted in the same sets of sample gardens as in (ii) to inventory their floristic composition.
Results Characterisation of greenspace structure - The urban area of each city covered by domestic gardens ranged from 21.8% to 26.8% and was positively correlated with variation in human population density and housing density. In a random sample of at least 500 houses in each city, 99% had associated gardens, the mean areas of which ranged from 155 m2 to 253 m2 and were closely associated with housing type (terraced, semi-detached or detached houses). Small gardens were very important as they contributed disproportionately to the total garden area of each city, being more numerous than larger gardens. Characterisation of features - In all five cities garden size had an overwhelming influence on garden composition. Larger gardens supported more of the land-use types recorded, in greater extents, and were more likely to contain particular features, including tall trees and mature shrubs, areas of unmown grass and uncultivated land, vegetable patches, ponds, and composting sites. Older houses, which were more likely to be found further from the urban edge of the city, contained fewer hedges and greater areas of vegetation canopy. Combining data from 12 surveys across the U.K., we estimated that 22.7 million households have access to a garden, with a total garden area of 433,000 ha. Approximately 12.6 million (48%) households provide supplementary food for birds and there are a minimum of 4.7 million nest boxes in gardens. This is about one feeder for every nine feeder-using birds in the U.K., and one nest box for every six breeding pairs of cavity nesting birds. Gardens also contain 2.5–3.5 million ponds and 28.7 million trees: just under a quarter of all trees outside woodlands. Significant numbers of households participate in some form of wildlife gardening, but feeding wild birds accounts for most of this. Spatial variation in wildlife gardening activities was related to the proportion of households with access to a garden, average garden size and the proportion of land cover by gardens. There was no evidence for strong effects of household density or the socio-economic status of householders on the prevalence of wildlife friendly garden features or of activities to encourage wildlife. Characterisation of floristic diversity - 1056 plant species were recorded across the sample gardens in the five cities, of which 30% were native and 70% alien. 34% of the 50 most frequently recorded species in gardens were native, a number of them being weeds. Although plant species richness in individual gardens varied with garden area, the above breakdowns held true when the cities were considered individually. The only exception was Belfast where, overall, plant species richness was slightly lower than in any of the other cities. Species richness in quadrats was found to be greater in the garden habitats than in a number of other semi-natural habitats, with steep species accumulation curves due to the high proportion of alien 164 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
species found in gardens, and in particular those surviving at low densities as a result of human intervention.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy The results of this project established that many of the conclusions drawn from the BUGS1 work in Sheffield generalized to a range of U.K. cities. The results enabled nationwide estimates of the scale of the resource and these features to be made. The findings support the view that the habitats provided by gardens in urban areas have potentially high significance for both people and wildlife, and have formed the basis for recommendations for management of the garden resource, and for predicting the likely consequences of present and future policies for the development of urban areas (particularly infilling, densification, and backyard developments).
Technology Transfer Events Results from this project were presented at English Nature Science Conference, Warwick (2005), Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) seminar, Liverpool (2006) and Scottish Natural Heritage Sharing Good Practice workshop, Edinburgh (2007).
Reports and publications Davies, Z.G., Fuller, R.A., Loram, A., Irvine, K.N., Sims, V. & Gaston, K.J. (2009) A national scale inventory of resource provision for biodiversity within domestic gardens. Biological Conservation, 142, 761-771. Gaston, K.J., Cush, P., Ferguson, S., Frost, P., Gaston, S., Knight, D., Loram, A., Smith, R.M., Thompson, K. & Warren, P.H. (2007) Improving the contribution of urban gardens for wildlife: some guiding propositions. British Wildlife, 18, 171-177. Gaston, K.J., Fuller, R.A., Loram, A., MacDonald, C., Power, S. & Dempsey, N. (2007) Urban domestic gardens (XI): Variation in urban wildlife gardening in the UK. Biodiversity & Conservation, 16, 3227-3238. Loram, A., Thompson, K., Warren, P.H. & Gaston, K.J. (2008) Urban domestic gardens (XII): The richness and composition of the flora in five cities. Journal of Vegetation Science, 19, 321-330. Loram, A., Tratalos, J., Warren, P.H. & Gaston, K.J. (2007) Urban domestic gardens (X): the extent & structure of the resource in five cities. Landscape Ecology, 22, 601-615. Loram, A., Warren, P.H. & Gaston, K.J. (2008) Urban domestic gardens (XIV): the characteristics of gardens in five cities. Environmental Management, 42, 361-376.
Internet http://www.bugs.group.shef.ac.uk/BUGS2/bugs2-index.html
165 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0398: REVIEW OF EVIDENCE NEEDS FOR DEFRA’S GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY SUB-PROGRAMME
Scott Wilson Amalia Fernández-Bilbao 6 Greencoat Place, London, SW1P 1PL
October 2008 – May 2009 £43,000
Executive Summary Scott Wilson – in partnership with Jonathan Loh from the Living Planet and Professor Terence Dawson from the University of Southampton – were commissioned to identify and prioritise evidence required to deliver Defra’s Global Biodiversity Sub- Programme and to prepare up to 20 outline project proposals for the International Biodiversity (R&D) Assessment Unit for the period 2009 – 2013.
Introduction and Policy Rationale Defra’s Global Biodiversity (R&D) Assessment Unit has a budget of about £400,000 per annum. To date, the R&D Unit has funded research projects on a relatively ad hoc basis. However, given the limited financial resources available, Defra identified the need to have a clearer focus on collecting evidence that will inform and contribute to the achievement of the UK’s policy objectives on conserving global biodiversity.
Objectives The specific objectives of this project were:
• To review and identify the evidence needs for delivering the UK commitment’s to global biodiversity conservation. • Review evidence gaps identified in other key sources. • Identify strategic priorities for the Assessment Unit and, within each priority, identify a range of potential projects to be undertaken in the period to 2013 • Provide a final report outlining the agreed strategic priorities and a series of outline project proposals.
Approaches and Methods The research was conducted through desk reviews, meetings and a round table discussion as well as email and face to face consultation with Defra, JNCC, WWF, Cambridge Conservation Initiative, RGB Kew, representatives of the major biodiversity related conventions (CBD, CMS, CITES and Ramsar) and others.
The project identified six priority areas for research and sixteen related research proposals (see Results section below). In addition, the research provided a series of recommendations to Defra on the criteria that should be used to identify new priority areas:
• Priorities in terms of UK policy obligations on global biodiversity (e.g. in relation to UK Overseas Territories)
166 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
• Focus on the global impacts of UK’s consumption and activities (e.g. on global land use change) • Areas that complement and add value to existing and on-going research initiatives (e.g. the TEEB project) • Research areas that are not sufficiently covered by other research programmes (e.g. research on biomes other than forests or UK Overseas Territories) • Current and emerging policy issues, including climate change, poverty, food security, sustainable consumption and production and value of ecosystems • Focus on improving and mainstreaming tools and approaches that the UK has particular expertise in including the Ecosystems Approach and valuation of ecosystem services
Results The six priority research areas identified were:
1. Addressing the UK’s global impacts and responsibilities, particularly in relation to the Overseas Territories 2. Carbon markets and biodiversity 3. Refining and implementing the ecosystems approach 4. Global land use change: drivers and impacts on biodiversity 5. Research on biodiversity and ecosystem services for biomes other than forests 6. Valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem services
Sixteen detailed proposals were identified under the priority areas listed above are listed in Table 1 below.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy The project provided the following recommendations to maximise the funding:
• Engaging with on-going research programmes and other initiatives and groups including conservation NGOs. • Better and more frequent communication both within Defra and other organisations in order to identify these other initiatives. • Seeking to influence the objectives and the delivery of the Darwin Initiative. • Ensuring that the research funded is ‘policy relevant’ and can be used to ‘make the case’ for biodiversity with other Government departments such as DfID and DECC.
Evidence has a central role in Defra’s policy cycle. The research funded in the future through the Global Biodiversity R&D Unit will therefore influence future UK policy direction in relation to global biodiversity. A strong evidence base is also needed by Defra in order to influence other government departments (e.g. DECC or DfID), major treaties and conventions and EU policy. The outcomes from this project will contribute to achieving evidence based policy and will also help Defra to obtain the evidence to influence national policy, international treaties, EU policy and the major biodiversity conventions.
Future Work The draft research proposals will be published by Defra as Expressions of Interest.
167 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Technology Transfer The research was documented in the following report:
Scott Wilson (2009) WC0901: Review of evidence needs for Defra’s Global Biodiversity Sub-programme
Table 1: Research Proposals Research Proposals 1. Institutional mapping in biodiversity hotspots 2. Assessing the impacts and developing strategies for the management of Invasive Alien Species in Overseas Territories 3. Future threats to biodiversity in Overseas Territories 4. Case studies in UK Overseas Territories 5. Assessing habitat survey and baseline data requirements for decision making and policy in Overseas Territories 6. Determining the effects of emerging carbon markets on biodiversity through their impacts on habitat protection, management and creation 7. Assessing the impacts of the different market mechanisms found under REDD on biodiversity 8. Understanding the nature and significance of trade-offs among ecosystem service beneficiaries and evaluating the potential for benefit sharing 9. Communicating biodiversity effectively to policy makers and the public 10. UK biofuel consumption and impacts on ‘agricultural frontiers’ 11. Case study of the biodiversity and ecosystem services value of marine areas 12. The carbon storage value of biomes other than forests – review of existing evidence 13. Evaluating direct and indirect impacts of UK activities on the biodiversity and ecosystem services of global biomes 14. Making the case for high seas marine protected areas 15. Developing best practice guidelines for the valuation of ecosystem services and biodiversity in developing countries and policy integration 16. Biodiversity credits/ offsets: international application
168 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0418: MECHANISMS FOR FILLING KNOWLEDGE GAPS FOR BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN SPECIES
Peak Ecology Limited Mark Hampton Lumford Mill, Riverside Business Park, Bakewell, Derbyshire, DE45 1GS
October 2008 - January 2009 £10,000
Executive Summary The project’s objective was to develop a mechanism, through a workshop, to fill the knowledge gaps arising from the review of UK BAP species. A workshop of about 30 experts, drawn from across the biodiversity community, reviewed the UK BAP signposting data to identify research and one-off survey projects for single species and groups of species. A total of 1300 priority actions, including some new actions generated in the workshop, were classed as suitable for immediate action: 556 of these were ranked as highly important. However, 189 actions were noted as requiring further consultation with experts before a project could be taken forward. All results have been published via the UK BAP website (Signposting page). UK BRIG and a joint working group with UK BRAG will further develop the outcomes of the workshop, including identifying groupings of research actions that can be taken forward collectively as multi-species projects and recommending a process for further developing the remaining research requirements.
Introduction and Policy Rationale The Governments of all four UK administrations adopted a revised UK list of priority species and habitats in August 2007. This list, a result of the most comprehensive analysis ever undertaken in the UK, contains 1150 species and 65 habitats that have been listed as priorities for conservation action under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP). In early 2008, a list of categorised priority conservation actions for these species was published and submitted to the country groups for use in planning country implementation for the UK BAP; the list included 3500 actions ranging from monitoring to research to management. To further facilitate interpretation of this list of actions, especially highlighting possible efficiencies in undertaking the work, a sub- group of UK BRIG and BRAG agreed to review actions that were one-off surveys or research; this project is part of that review.
Objectives Develop a mechanism, through a workshop, to fill the knowledge gaps arising from the review of UK BAP species.
Approaches and Methods Organise, host and facilitate a workshop of about 30 experts, drawn from academics currently working in biodiversity, species experts, surveyors, research agencies, and NGOs, to: • draw on the UK BAP signposting data to identify research and one-off survey projects for single species and groups of species, which can be taken forward without delay;
169 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
• recommend a process to the BRIG / BRAG group for further developing outstanding research requirements.
The people that attended the workshop comprised experts from the Species and Habitats Review Group (to help identify the single species requirements), people with an understanding of the research environment in the UK (to identify the grouped research requirements) and potential funding organisations.
The contractor managed the workshop to achieve the required outputs which were to assign the actions to Suite 1 (priority actions that could go forward now) or to Suite 2 (actions which appear to be one-off survey or research, but which need expert clarification or survey or research actions that are already being undertaken or are complete).
Results Overall, 2048 actions across the different taxa were assessed at the workshop. Of the 2048 actions listed on spreadsheets, 842 were confirmed at the workshop as actions that were long term monitoring/surveillance or management and were not considered further. 1017 spreadsheet actions were assigned to Suite 1 (priority actions that could go forward now). 401 Suite 1 actions were ranked as highly important by the relevant expert. 283 new or additional actions were assigned to Suite 1 at the workshop; of these 155 were ranked as highly important. Suite 1 therefore has a total of 1300 priority actions, with 556 ranked as highly important.
189 actions were assigned to Suite 2, as they were already being carried out, or could not be assessed for another reason, such as insufficient time at the workshop or the relevant expert not being present.
It was agreed at the workshop that because there was no expert on fish present and because there was insufficient time at the workshop to complete all the actions assigned to invertebrates and vascular plants, additional assessments from experts were requested after the workshop but using the same methods as the workshop. This work was completed and the results are included. Actions for which no input could be obtained in this manner would be dealt with as Suite 2 actions as outlined below.
The report of this work and supporting data are available on the UK BAP website: http://www.ukbap.org.uk/Signposting.aspx
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy A total of 1300 priority research and one-off survey actions, including some new actions generated in the workshop, were classed as suitable for immediate action: 556 of these were ranked as highly important. However, 189 actions were noted as requiring further consultation with experts before a project could be taken forward; this will be part of the ongoing work of UK BRIG and UK BRAG in support of the UK BAP process. Around 340 research and 120 one-off survey actions were classified as ones that might be possible to group in some way, either in taxonomic or habitat based groups, and taken forward in multi-species or more substantial projects than single-species approaches. UK BRAG will further consider the potential to group actions for more efficient delivery. The outcomes of the workshop and the follow-up 170 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
work of UK BRIG and UK BRAG should help funders of actions under the UK BAP to both prioritise immediate activity and create efficient projects to deliver actions.
Future Work Within life of project None – project completed.
Beyond life of project The workshop outputs were used to identify projects to deal with the single species and grouped species research and one-off survey requirements, for referral to the BRIG / BRAG sub group, who will take this work forward. The information derived from the workshop was summarised in the Peak Ecology report and used to guide research according to the following urgencies:
• Identify single species research and one-off survey projects that can be taken forward immediately • Identify groupings of research projects that can be taken forward collectively in the near future and prepare tentative research proposals for these groupings • Recommend a process for further developing the remaining research requirements.
The information in each of the bullets above is being used to gain research funding for these projects using funding from the country agencies, Defra and other funding organisations.
Technology Transfer Not applicable.
171 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
172 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
PROJECT SUMMARIES
THEME 5: COUNTRYSIDE SURVEY
173 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Theme 5 Project summaries unavailable Project Project title Contractor Number 195 CS2000 feasibility University of CS presentation Nottingham
263 CS2000 module 9 local results CEH CS presentation and pilot indicators
193 CIS phase II Paper review
118 CIS data management Paper review
206 CIS dissemination and support Paper review
There are a number of projects, mainly from 1996, for which summaries were not available. While these have been included in the financial assessments, they are, unfortunately, not available for review.
174 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
203: ECN/CS2000 (LINK) University of Nottingham Mike Morecroft (now left and at Natural England),Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Grange-over-Sands, Merlewood, Cumbria (now closed and moved to Lancaster University Campus)
January 1998 - March 2001 £83,323
Executive Summary This module of the Countryside Survey 2000 research programme addressed the issue of year-to-year variability in vegetation: whether it was likely to influence Countryside Survey results and how it might relate to weather patterns. Although there were significant differences between years, and climate may well have been an important factor causing these, very few significant correlations between vegetation and weather variables were found. This is probably because of the short length of the time series. Many climatic effects may be subject to a time-lags and interactions between variables. Introduction and Policy Rationale The vegetation of plots at Environmental Change Network (ECN) sites throughout the UK was recorded in 1998 and 1999. ECN is a collaborative, long-term monitoring programme, with the aim of detecting change in a wide range of environmental variables, using a series of intensively studied sites. An understanding of year-to- year changes in vegetation can help to inform the results of Countryside Surveys. Quantifying signals due to the effects of the weather within or just before each survey is important because of the possibility that weather-related impacts on biomass growth and gap availability can generate species compositional changes that resemble those due to other drivers such as pollution and land management. Objectives • To repeat monitoring of sample plots up to at least 1999.
• To determine the relationship between annual fluctuations in vegetation and weather.
• To assess the extent to which vegetation monitoring in CS2000 is affected by year to year variations in weather.
• To review the protocols for monitoring vegetation at ECN sites with respect to applications in the Countryside Survey and to make recommendations.
Approaches and Methods For a number of ECN sites vegetation plot data were available from 1997, 1996 and in some cases 1994. These data were combined with newly recorded data in 1998 and 1999 and analysed by testing for year-to-year differences in numbers of species and the ecological characteristics of those species (using the systems of Grime and Ellenberg); these variables have also been used in the analysis of the main CS2000 vegetation results. The Countryside Vegetation System (CVS) was used for classifying the vegetation and stratifying the sampling and analysis.
175 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Results Year-to-year changes in CVS aggregate vegetation classes were found: 23% of the studied plots changed classification at some point. Between 1998 and 1999, the two years with the most data, 12% of plots changed. This compares with a change of 30% between 1990 and 1998 in CS2000 data. Arable Crop/ Weed communities showed the largest year-to-year variability in species number and ecological characteristics; fertile grasslands and woodlands were also relatively variable. The number of species per plot decreased significantly between 1997 and 1999, taking all vegetation classes together. The difference was also statistically significant in fertile grassland, lowland woodland and heath / bog classes when analysed separately. In the fertile grasslands, which showed the largest significant decrease, the decline in numbers of species was largely due to decreases in ruderal species ('weeds' able to grow quickly in temporary gaps in the grass sward). This may relate to the differences in weather between the dry conditions of 1995-7 and the substantially wetter period between 1997 and 1999. In infertile grassland there were significant differences in some vegetation characteristics, but not species richness, between 1999 and earlier years; the tendency was away from stress tolerant plants and towards more fast-growing competitive ones. An increase in the mean Ellenberg fertility score in this vegetation class, indicated a higher proportion of species adapted to high nutrient conditions. This may reflect an ongoing change in response to nutrient enrichment (e.g. from atmospheric pollution and spray drift), detected in both CS1990 and CS2000 data. Although there were significant differences between years, and climate may well have been an important factor causing these, very few significant correlations between vegetation and weather variables were found. This is probably because of the short length of the time series. Many climatic effects may be subject to a time-lag and interactions between variables.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy Year to year variability can be large enough to obscure or distort long-term changes and should be accounted for in the interpretation of CS2000 and similar monitoring exercises. In the case of the CS2000 survey it is likely that changes of a similar nature would have been detected if the main field survey were carried out in 1997 or 1999 rather than 1998; the size of the changes could however have been quite different. At the end of the project it was recommended that annual vegetation monitoring be continued at ECN sites with further developments to improve the coverage of vegetation types and sites. More detailed analysis, using other data from ECN sites should be carried out to improve understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Ultimately it should be possible to develop models of vegetation response to climate to help interpret results of wider, intermittent monitoring programmes.
A key implication of the work was that temporally local climate signals within the surveys ought to be routinely quantified when attempts are made to attribute changes in CS response variables to key directional drivers such as land-use, atmospheric pollution and climate change. This call was partially addressed by
176 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
another ECN-CS linking project undertaken for the most recent Countryside Survey in 2007.
Future Work Beyond life of project ECN/CS2007 link planned and nearly completed.
Final report available on-line at http://www.countrysidesurvey.org.uk/archiveCS2000/Final_reports/M10_final_report.htm
177 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
210: COUNTRYSIDE SURVEY 2000 - MODULE 1 NERC Colin Barr (now retired), Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Grange-over-Sands, Merlewood, Cumbria (now closed and moved to Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Library Avenue, Bailrigg, Lancaster LA1 4AP)
January 1998 – March 2001 £2,337,900
Executive Summary Following the 1990 Countryside Survey a GB-wide survey was again carried out in 1998/’99 (CS2000). This survey saw an increase in the number of 1km sample squares visited so as to increase the precision of land-cover stock and change estimates made within individual countries. For the first time land-cover statistics were also reported by Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Broad Habitats increasing the policy relevance of the outputs.
Introduction and Policy Rationale The CS1990 Policy review and the Haines-Young & Swanick (1995) review both emphasised the growing importance of Countryside Survey to national policy delivery given the emergence of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan and devolution in Wales and Scotland. Specific recommendations to enhance the policy relevance of the survey outputs were as follows: 1. Derive individual country estimates using only sample squares within each country. 2. Report land cover by BAP Broad Habitats. 3. Provide more robust estimates of stock and change in Broad Habitats. 4. Use CS as a vehicle for monitoring BAP targets e.g. species-rich hedgerows and arable field margins. Post-CS2000, the survey data also contributed to the new series of Quality of Life Counts Indicators and England Biodiversity Strategy Indicators. The soils and freshwaters components were also seen as essential in helping supply an emerging policy demand for large-scale indicators of soil health and water quality.
Objectives The field survey had the following objectives: • to estimate the extent and distribution of widespread habitats in Great Britain; • to characterise widespread habitats in terms of their land cover and botanical composition and to assess changes in these characteristics over time; • to derive indicators of sustainable development for the wider countryside including measures relating to biodiversity, land cover/land use and landscape features; • to provide accessible databases containing information about the state of the British countryside for use in a wide range of policy and scientific applications including the detection and forecasting of long term environmental change; • to provide ground reference data for the calibration and validation of a satellite- based census of land cover ‘Land Cover Map 2000’.
Approaches and Methods CS2000 maintained consistency with the three previous surveys in 1978, 1984 and 1990 but increased the national time series of sample-based 1km square surveys of the countryside. CS2000 gained statistical power by visiting previously recorded squares and vegetation plots but given the policy recommendations above, the
178 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
number of 1km squares was increased to 568 with more squares placed in the uplands of England and Wales. Efficient location of 1km sample squares is achieved using the stratification of the countryside by land-classes that divide up Britain into physiographically similar sampling domains. In CS2000, this land class stratification was modified, increasing the number of classes from 32 to 40 and producing a new series of six environmental zones nested within each country. Vegetation plot types also increased in number reflecting the need to more robustly sample unenclosed upland habitats and to specifically record the species composition of arable field margins and hedgerows. Comprehensive sampling of soils and freshwaters was also carried out during the visits to squares repeating and extending the sampling carried out in 1978 and 1990 respectively.
Results Headline results from CS2000 included the following: 1. Plant diversity increased in arable fields, especially in the boundaries of the fields. Plant diversity in some arable field boundaries in England and Wales increased by 38%. 2. Plant diversity continued to decline in the least agriculturally improved grasslands in Great Britain. Plant diversity in some meadows fell by 8%, including losses of meadow species important for butterflies. The area of ‘neutral’ grassland in Northern Ireland decreased by 32%. 3. Following marked losses in the 1980s, there was no significant difference in the 1990 and 1998 estimates of hedgerow length in England and Wales. There is some evidence that losses in the early 1990s have been reversed. 4. Road verges showed evidence of increasing nutrient levels and losses in plant diversity. Plant diversity fell by 9% in some road verges in England and Wales. 5. Broadleaved woodland expanded by 4% in England and Wales and 9% in Scotland between 1990 and 1998. The total area of coniferous woodland in the UK was unchanged. 6. The area of semi-natural ‘acid’ and ‘calcareous’ grasslands fell by 10% and 18% in the UK. There was evidence of increasing nutrient levels or eutrophication in dwarf shrub heath and bog, suggested by an increase of plant species more typical of lowland grasslands. 7. The number of lowland ponds increased by about 6% between 1990 and 1998 in Great Britain. 8. The biological condition of streams and small rivers improved in Great Britain. Over 25% of sites improved in condition and only 2% were downgraded. 9. Streamside vegetation became more overgrown, and plant diversity decreased by 11% in England and Wales. Fen, marsh and swamp expanded by 27% in England and Wales and 19% in Scotland. 10. More broadleaved woodland was created on formerly developed land than was lost to new development in Great Britain in the 1990s.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy The Brigg Review carried out after CS2000 identified 1) the existing contribution CS made to the demand for policy indicators, 2) the large potential for further development, 3) the fact that CS is, and will always be, one among a number of sources from which ecological indicators are derived. The Brigg review also emphasised that whilst more could be done to increase the ability of CS to monitor rare habitats – a call that drew a practical response in CS2007 – CS played a key role in providing large scale contextual information that could help evaluate the 179 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
performance and targeting of agri-environment schemes. This application of CS data was realised subsequently in two DEFRA funded projects; one to review monitoring methods on agri-environment land and the other to evaluate the targeting of Countryside Stewardship agreements.
Future Work Within life of project Beyond life of project FOCUS project; Projects developing indicators for Hedgerows, Arable Field Margins, QOLI and England Biodiversity Strategy
Technology Transfer Events Launch event in London and extensive round of talks in 2000 and 2001 to stakeholder organisations and others.
Reports and publications Haines-Young, R.H., et al (2000) Accounting for nature: assessing habitats in the UK countryside. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London.
Special issue of the Journal of Environmental Management (2003); vol 67.
Smart, S.M. et al (2003) Locating eutrophication effects across British vegetation between 1990 and 1998. Global Change Biology 9, 1763-1774.
Smart, SM et al (2006) Spatial relationships between intensive land cover and residual plant species diversity in temperate, farmed landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology 43, 1128-1137.
Smart, SM et al (2006) Biotic homogenization and changes in species diversity across human- modified ecosystems. Proceedings of the Royal Society. London. B. 263, 2659-2665.
Smart, SM et al (2005) Large-scale changes in the abundance of common higher plant species across Britain between 1978, 1990 and 1998 as a consequence of human activity: Tests of hypothesised changes in trait representation. Biol. Cons. 124, 355-371.
180 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
211: CS2000 – FRESHWATER STUDIES NERC Mike Furse (now retired and other team members now left), Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Winfrith Technology Centre, Dorchester, Dorset DT2 8ZD (now closed and moved to CEH Wallingford)
January 1998 – March 2001 Total cost £?
Executive Summary During the field recording campaign undertaken for Countryside Survey 2000, headwater streams were visited within 425 1km sample squares. Chemical and macro-invertebrate sampling was carried out in addition to recording of habitat quality. The principal finding from subsequent analysis was an improvement in biological condition between 1990 and 1998 in all parts of Britain but especially in Scotland.
Introduction and Policy Rationale At the time of the survey, results from the headwater stream component were most relevant to the ‘Freshwater Quality’ aspects of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy and to Environment Agency long-term objectives for achieving and maintaining clean waters and sustainable, diverse ecosystems.
Objectives Within the overall objectives of the Countryside Survey 2000 programme, a sub-set of more detailed objectives were developed for the survey of freshwater habitats as follows: • to provide information on the status, distribution and recent changes in freshwater habitats in Great Britain: to include assessments of freshwater biota, river habitats and water chemistry. The survey work was integrated with the survey of widespread habitats and landscape and made compatible with the survey and monitoring procedures used by the Environment Agency • to provide information on the status and distribution of the macro-invertebrate fauna of streams and rivers in Great Britain. • to determine and evaluate change by comparison with 1990 survey data relating to the same sites • to determine the habitat structure and degree of modification of river corridors • to undertake a limited diagnostic survey of the chemical character of the watercourses to help interpret the results of macro-invertebrate and river habitat surveys • to investigate the relationship between the habitat quality and modification of river corridors, the ecological quality of the watercourse and the condition of the surrounding countryside • to derive indicators relating to status and change in watercourse and river habitat quality
Approaches and Methods Aquatic macro-invertebrate fauna and habitat quality of river corridors of a single watercourse were surveyed in each 1km square in which an appropriate watercourse was present. Single chemical samples were also taken at each site. Opportunistic 181 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
surveys of diatoms, macrophytes and chironomid pupal exuviae were also undertaken. A total of 425 watercourses were surveyed for their river habitat quality, of which 404 were flowing at the time of visit and were also sampled biologically and chemically. All surveys were undertaken in 1998. The biological condition of each sampling point was assessed using the same standard quality indices widely applied by the water industry. Two further indices, the Habitat Quality Assessment (HQA) and Habitat Modification Index (HMI) were used to assess the condition of the river corridor.
Results Macro-invertebrate samples collected during CS2000 were compared with samples collected from 354 matched sites also sampled during CS1990. Comparisons showed a widespread increase in taxon richness, with an average of 24.3 taxa (mainly species) per sample in 1998, compared with 16.5 in 1990. Mean gains were greater in the uplands than the lowlands and greater in Scotland than England and Wales. However, the mean number of taxa per site remained slightly higher in England and Wales than in Scotland. There was a tendency for the greatest gains in frequency to be made by taxa associated with fast flow conditions. Conversely, taxa making the least increase or the greatest decrease in frequency tended to be those associated with slow-flow conditions or standing water. Increases in number of taxa also occurred at family level. The number of relevant families present in a sample (NTaxa) is one of the two indices of biological condition of sites derived from the Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP) Score system for the purposes of this study. The other is the Average Score Per Taxon (ASPT). ASPT is a measure of the average organic pollution tolerance of the taxa present in a sample. A general increase in the number of scoring taxa per site and of ASPT values led to apparent improvement in the biological condition of Countryside Survey sites in 1998 compared to their condition in 1990. These improvements occurred in all six Environmental Zones recognised in Countryside Survey 2000 but were most marked in Scotland. RIVPACS (River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification) was used to compare the grades of biological condition of sites in 1990 and 1998. Analyses showed that 25.1% of sites in GB showed a significant increase in their biological grade between 1990 and 1998, whilst only 2.0% showed a significant decline. The respective figures for Scotland were 33.0% (significant improvement) and 1.1% (significant decline). In England and Wales the corresponding values were 17.2% and 2.9%. The general improvement in biological condition of Countryside Survey streams was matched but an equivalent annual rate of improvement between the National Rivers Authority’s 1990 River Quality Assessment and their 1995 General Quality Assessment. Values of the Habitat Quality Assessment were, on average, higher in Scotland than in England and Wales, where the lowest mean value per Environmental Zone was recorded in the “Easterly lowlands”. Conversely, Habitat Modification Scores were lower in the uplands than the lowlands and in Scotland rather than England and Wales. Low values signify little channel management and are considered desirable. The lowest mean value of this index was in the “True uplands” of Scotland, indicating minimal management practices. Conversely, the highest mean value was in the
182 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
“Easterly lowlands” of England and Wales, where channel straightening and dredging are commonplace. In all Environmental Zones, except the “Uplands” of England and Wales, one or both of the biotic index values derived from the BMWP Score system were significantly correlated with one or both of the two indices of habitat quality and modification derived from River Habitat Survey. This confirms expectations that the biological condition of streams tends to be highest in stretches that are of good habitat quality and subject to little channel management.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy Possible explanations for the improvement in the biological condition of the CS2000 watercourses between 1990 and 1998 were considered. The possibility that they resulted from the differential performance of the field surveyors was discounted. The previous experience of the 1990 and 1998 field teams and the pre-survey training that each group received were well matched. Other possible explanations included: • differences in flow conditions • improved water chemistry • reduction in pollution incidents • increase in the development of vegetated riparian strips (buffer zones), managed separately from the rest of the adjacent field Whilst the presence of unmanaged, tall vegetation was correlated with good in- stream biological condition, results from other modules of CS200 suggest that this form of vegetated riparian strip is also associated with reduction of botanical diversity. Management procedures for “buffer zones” that consolidate the improvement of in-stream conditions, without reducing the diversity of streamside vegetation, are desirable.
Future Work Beyond life of project Three research programmes were proposed, in order to examine the results of CS200 in more detail. These were: • How is the improvement in the quality of freshwater habitats related to management, use and structure of the river corridor and adjacent catchment land cover? • How can the multiple sources of ecological information collected during CS2000 be best used to indicate the nutrient status of small watercourses? • How are changes in the biological condition of upland streams related to changes in land management and climate?
183 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
212: CS2000 PART 3 – LAND COVER MAP 2000 NERC Rob Fuller (now retired), ITE Monkswood, Abbotts Ripton, Cambridgeshire PE28 2LS (now closed and moved to CEH Lancaster, Library Avenue, Bailrigg, Lancaster LA1 4AP)
1997-2001 Total cost £?k
Executive Summary Land Cover Map 2000 (LCM2000) provides a census of UK habitats and land cover as digital maps and databases plus a range of derived products held in a geographical information system (GIS). The map updates and upgrades the Land Cover Map of Great Britain, made in 1990-92. Introduction and Policy Rationale LCM2000 was a part of Countryside Survey 2000 (CS2000 - Haines-Young et al. 2000). It provides a comprehensive survey of the countryside of the United Kingdom in the form of digital maps and databases plus a range of derived products held in a geographical information system (GIS). LCM2000 updates and upgrades the Land Cover Map of Great Britain (LCMGB), made in 1990-92 (Fuller et al., 1994a). Refinements included: · Improved accuracy of classification; · Added thematic detail; · Compatibility with other systems of environmental survey and evaluation; · Closer integration with field survey data.
LCM2000 was funded by a consortium which also formed a steering group to the project: · The Countryside Council for Wales; · The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; · The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Northern Ireland); · The Environment Agency; · The Environment and Heritage Service, Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland); · The National Assembly for Wales; · The Natural Environment Research Council; · Scottish Natural Heritage; · The Scottish Executive. The members of the Consortium have policy and / or operational remits which require, for their implementation, sound information on the status and trends in natural resources. LCM2000 provided comprehensive information on land cover and of widespread examples of terrestrial, freshwater and coastal Broad Habitats in the UK; it showed their patterns, inter-relations and environmental contexts. Such information helps users to make stock estimates, develop their understanding of environmental processes, predict environmental impacts, model change, plan responses, devise management strategies and monitor their successes in operation.
Objectives . Undertake a census survey of the land cover / widespread Broad Habitats of the UK at the turn of the Millennium; 184 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
· Apply the most appropriate satellite imagery and automated image processing techniques to achieve a classification accuracy of 90% for target classes; · Produce and make available, under licence, a range of geographically referenced data outputs on land cover characteristics, tailored to the needs of Consortium members; · Calibrate and validate satellite-derived classifications against ground reference data, publish results of the correspondence analyses, and provide a guide to their interpretation.
Approaches and Methods LCM2000 used red, near infrared and middle infrared reflectance bands from summer and winter satellite images. The image data were calibrated to reduce atmospheric haze effects, masked to remove cloud, shadow and snow, corrected for differential illumination due to undulating terrain, and registered to the British and Irish National Grids. The pixels which make up the image were grouped into areas or segments broadly equivalent to land parcels (e.g. individual fields) using a process of image segmentation. The results were generalised to exclude small segments <0.5 ha. The classification of land cover types within segments avoided the use of edge- pixels with mixed spectral signatures by using the mean spectral response of pixels within the core of each segment. Ground reference data from field reconnaissance surveys were used to identify image segments of known land cover. These formed a sample of so-called ‘training areas’ used to calculate the spectral reflectance statistics for each land cover class. Classification used a maximum likelihood algorithm applied to each segment. The procedure compared the mean reflectances of unknown segments with the training set and recorded the most likely spectral subclass in statistical terms: in fact, it stored probabilities for the top five spectral subclasses, usually covering >90% of the probability distribution. For segments which were classified with low confidence or with classes out of their natural context, knowledge-based corrections (KBCs) were used to allocate an alternative class label, where more appropriate. The individual classified satellite scenes were ‘mosaicked’ together into 100 x 100 km squares. Residual cloud-holes were patched using the best available substitute images (e.g. single date classifications). Maps showing acid-sensitivity in the landscape were used to label semi-natural grasslands as ‘acid’, ‘neutral’ or ‘calcareous’. Geological maps showing peatland were used to distinguish between ‘heaths’ and ‘bogs’.
Results According to LCM2000, more than half the UK was used for intensive agriculture or is developed. The remainder was largely semi-natural. Woodlands occupied a quarter of the semi-natural land, with Broadleaved woodland and Coniferous woodland about equal in extent. Mountain, heath and bog covered a third of the UK’s low intensity land; semi-natural grass swards (including rougher examples of improved swards) formed over a third of all semi-natural cover. Coastal habitats and Open water, while important, were small in extent. The four countries of the UK differed markedly. Intensive uses affect nearly three-quarters of England, about two- thirds of Northern Ireland and about half of Wales; in Scotland, less than a quarter is intensively farmed or developed. The semi-natural land of England was evenly split between woodlands and grasslands. In Wales, the balance was similar within a far greater extent. In Scotland, Mountain, heath and bog made up more than half of all the semi-natural land. 185 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Northern Ireland also had reasonably extensive Mountain, heath and bog and Semi- natural grass but, at the resolution of LCM2000, is notably short of woodland cover.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy LCM2000 had, for the first time, mapped the land cover of the whole of the UK from satellite images. The resultant vector data recorded the ‘real’ structure of the landscape and thus could satisfy wide ranging user-needs. LCM2000 offered much more scope than the conventional per-pixel products of the earlier mapping. It had a detailed spatial resolution which was far better than other vector-based maps of full UK land cover. LCM2000’s structural picture of the landscape showed the spatial inter-relations of parcels and habitats. It therefore lent itself much better to applied uses where patterns affect processes and determine their consequences. LCM2000 has been used for a wide range of applications including environmental character assessments, environmental protection, transport planning, animal disease distribution, bird and habitat relationships and forestry research.
Future Work Beyond life of project LCM2009 commissioned. Many projects used and still use LCM2000 census coverage of UK land-cover.
Technology Transfer Events Launch Event in London
Reports and publications Fuller, R.M., Wyatt, B.K. & Barr, C.J. 1998. Countryside Survey from ground and space: different perspectives, complementary results. Journal of Environmental Management, 54, 101-126.
Smith, G.M., & Fuller, R.M., 2001. Multi-sensor, high resolution, knowledge-based per-parcel classification of land cover: an example in the Island of Jersey. International Journal of RemoteSensing. 22, 3123-3142.
186 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
264: CS2000 FOCUS (FROM CS2000 FOLLOW-UP) MODULE 17
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Colin Barr (now retired), ), Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Grange-over-Sands, Merlewood, Cumbria (now closed and moved to Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Library Avenue, Bailrigg, Lancaster LA1 4AP)
2001 - 2003 (£274,896)
Executive Summary Following the publication of the Countryside Survey 2000 results a number of questions were raised about the level of confidence in the results and the interpretation of changes reported. In all, 17 specific questions were formulated that were grouped into seven topic areas. The results were re-examined, compared with non-Countryside Survey datasets and the policy relevance of the findings explored.
Introduction and Policy Rationale The results were reported in two ways, volume 1 described the policy relevance of the changes and suggests the implications. A second set of reports, available on the internet, provided the supporting evidence, showing the scientific detail of the analyses and interpretations made. The seven topic areas were based on six aggregations of Broad Habitats used in the report of Countryside Survey 2000. They were Enclosed farmland; Boundary and linear features; Woodlands; Mountain, moor, heath and down; Rivers, streams and standing waters; and Developed land in rural areas. The seventh topic was more management related and covered agri- environment schemes.
Objectives 1. to undertake further critical analysis of the data arising from CS2000 to answer a series of specific questions concerning interpretation and understanding of the results in terms of ecological processes and land management effects; 2. to acquire and use other contextual data to assist in the analysis, interpretation and assessment; 3. to recommend improvements to survey protocols; 4. to establish and consult a steering group and organise workshops as necessary to ensure that user requirements are defined, clearly understood and addressed; 5. to publish the results in technical reports and concise non-technical summaries and to present the results at a seminar; and 6. to maintain the CS2000 website and to facilitate internet publication of the results of ongoing CS2000 projects.
Approaches and Methods The objectives were met as a result of three main areas of work: i. Answering specific research questions arising from published results. ii. Recommending improvements to survey protocols. iii. Maintaining the CS2000 Website. The specific research questions were aggregated under seven distinct
187 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Topics each relating to one of the Broad Habitat groups (Chapters) in the CS2000 main report (Haines-Young et al., 2000), with the exception of one (Topic 7 – the role of agri-environment schemes) which was of a more over-arching nature. The range of questions were addressed by the following general approaches: i. Where possible, research and survey results external to CS2000 were incorporated including information and expertise held by the funding consortium. ii. Since the programme of work was initiated to clarify or expand on some of the results from CS2000, it was necessary to include an assessment of uncertainty of these further, second-stage results. Statistical significance was been handled in the same way as in the earlier analyses but, in addition, discussion was held with interested sponsors and other experts about the policy significance and relevance of any results and conclusions. The project stopped short of recalculating national assessments based on new allocations of parcels to selected Broad Habitats but made recommendations that this should be explored during the next survey. iii. The work adopted a flexible approach to the use of geographical frameworks according to customer requirements; i.e. Environmental Zones (Annex 3), countries, including the production of separate reports for England and Wales and investigated the appropriateness of using other possible geographical breakdowns – regions, catchments and natural areas.
Results In general the more detailed analyses confirmed the interpretations made in the original publication although in some cases the extent of change recorded could be recalculated to allow for alternative interpretation, errors in field mapping and data processing. The study clarified the limits of analysis and interpretation of CS2000 data. CS2000 was a general survey of rural habitats and therefore not optimal for making definitive statements about Priority Habitats or urban areas as the sample had limited coverage in these areas. The data are still valuable in examining questions about these topics as they provide context by characterising the background matrix of common vegetation types and landscape structures in which change had occurred. The report showed the importance of communication and liaison between different groups generating datasets for monitoring. Following the study, a number changes in the survey methodology were proposed, but these it was recommended that their implementation was carried out in such a way as to maintain the integrity of the time-series and previous lower level definitions of land-cover and landscape features. Additional surveys, sometimes repeating previous work, were proposed to answer questions that CS2000 data was incapable of addressing. The work should be carried out using techniques that will maintain compatibility with CS, but should not be included within the CS structure. The work generated a list of potential modifications to field recording that ought to have speeded up the production of results after the next survey. The modifications need to be reviewed to guarantee their security, consistency and comprehensiveness.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy Detailed reassessments of some of the more controversial results of CS2000 produced a clear evidence base to support or question reported changes and to underpin recommendations for specific modifications to survey methods and parcel allocations in readiness for the next survey. The reassessment also highlighted the occurrences of Priority Habitat assemblages in CS data and produced evidence of some of the causes of real change in vegetation cover and condition. The project helped build confidence in the fitness-for-purpose of CS2000 whilst openly 188 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
articulating areas for method improvement in ways that would not risk consistency with previous survey data. The work, in combination with the Botanical Review of Monitoring project, led to the adoption of a new vegetation sampling unit in CS2007 that guaranteed the feasibility of jointly analysing agri-environment and CS datasets.
Future Work Within life of project Beyond life of project Recommendations largely implemented in the CS2007.
Technology Transfer Events Expert group meetings convened twice in the lifetime of the project.
Reports and publications Barr, CJ et al (2003) FOCUS – Finding out causes and understanding significance. Final Report – Vol I. Implications of findings to policy. CEH Merlewood, Grange-over-Sands.
Barr, CJ et al (2003) FOCUS – Finding out causes and understanding significance. Final Report – Vol II Technical Annexes. CEH Merlewood, Grange-over-Sands.
Petit, S, Firbank, LG (2006) Predicting the risk of losing parcels of semi-natural habitat to intensive agriculture. Agric, Ecosystems & Environment 115, 277-280.
Firbank, LG, Smart, SM (2002) The changing status of arable plants that are important food items for farmland birds. Aspects of Applied Biology 67, 165-170.
189 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
298: COUNTRYSIDE SURVEY SCOPING STUDY
ADAS UK Ltd. Environment Systems Ltd. Aberystwyth University Jacqueline A. Parker ADAS UK Ltd, Woodthorne, Wergs Road,Wolverhampton, WV6 8TQ
8 April 2004 – 30 November 2005 £196,000
Introduction and Policy Rationale Countryside Survey (CS) is a long-term surveillance exercise, using field survey and satellite mapping, that provides information on change in the countryside to support both scientific research and policy objectives. It has been running in Great Britain since 1978. A similar programme has been run in Northern Ireland since 1986. The scientific research will improve our understanding of processes of change in natural resources. CS also provides a baseline against which evidence based policy can be formulated. It can also be used to assess the effectiveness of policy and provide statistics to meet international commitments in areas such as biodiversity and carbon inventory. CS provides contextual information about the wider countryside but cannot, for example, provide detailed or local information on most Priority Habitats or Species. The next survey was being planned as a joint initiative of the NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), Defra & other partners. Defra and partners (Scottish Executive, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Forestry Commission, English Nature, Countryside Council for Wales and Scottish Natural Heritage) commissioned ADAS to lead a Scoping Study to review the user requirements and best technical solutions for the next Countryside Survey.
Overall Aims 1. To develop a costed business case, detailed technical specifications and management structure for Countryside Survey 2006 on behalf of the Countryside Survey Planning Group. 2. To establish appropriate linkages with related surveillance programmes, making recommendations for methodological developments and data sharing, as necessary. 3. To support the CSPG in undertaking its business and to facilitate communication within the group and with external stakeholders.
Approaches and Methods The Scoping Study team, working with CEH, consulted widely with representatives from key Departments and Agencies through meetings, workshops and written consultation. Proposals submitted by various organisations for additional data gathering under CS were considered and a workshop held to incorporate other Stakeholder interests, such as NGOs and research organisations. The Scoping Study established and facilitated a series of Topic Groups (Farmland & lowland habitats, Freshwaters, Hedgerows, Historic Environment/ Countryside Character, Land Cover Map (LCM), Uplands and Woodlands) to establish and evaluate how CS could provide suitable data for key policy requirements.
190 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Results The Policy Context of the Survey was reviewed and reported (Juppenlatz et al., 2004) and a Business Case produced for sponsors. The Business Case (Temple et al., 2005) set out and justified the rationale for both the field survey and Land Cover Map components. It provided recommendations for the organisational structure and project management approach, including an initial assessment of risks and recommended that CS be managed as a long-term programme of co-ordinated projects using PRINCE2. Technical recommendations for consideration in preparation and implementation of the next survey were presented in the Technical Review (Critchley et al., 2005) and LCM (Keyworth et al., 2005) reports. A specification summarising user requirements was prepared for sponsors.
The Scoping Study set objectives for the survey and it was agreed that the next Countryside Survey, including the production of the LCM, would take place in 2007 to allow time for development of the improved field survey in 2005 and to test new methods and protocols in a pilot study in 2006. The continued requirement was identified for a report with headline messages as well as individual Country reports (to include LCM results), separate reports for soils and freshwaters and a website for access to data and products.
Changes to CS were recommended to optimise its utility for current and emerging policy. In determining potential changes, care was taken not to compromise its role in supporting scientific research. Account was taken of the need to retain backwards compatibility with previous surveys. Examples included increasing sample size in Wales to allow reporting on the stock of Broad Habitats; increasing sample in some Priority Habitats; new field margin transects to account for changes following CAP reform and new agri-environment schemes; additional hedgerow and hedgerow diversity plots; freshwater sample areas in small watercourses to complement Water Framework Directive monitoring in larger rivers; and using data from Countryside Quality Counts to contextualise the character of CS sample squares. Recommendations for formalising links, including data sharing, with other datasets or means of data dissemination were also made.
Technical recommendations were made for the production of the next LCM, taking account of factors such as the uncertainty of the future operation of Landsat sensors. Research proposals were made to be conducted by CEH in the pilot phase (2006) to evaluate the relative operational, technical, cost and accuracy considerations of using alternative imagery, including the Disaster Monitoring Constellation and other optical sensors. Issues included whether to adopt a decision rules-based approach (coupling ecological rules with the information content of remote sensing data) or a standard supervised classification; which imagery or combination of imagery to use & whether this should vary according to criteria such as type of landscape (urban / upland etc); whether there should be access (under appropriate agreements) to the raw remote sensing data, pre-processing algorithms and corrected data upon which the classification was based; and the implications of the research for change detection and the potential for a rolling programme approach to the LCM as part of the next CS. This built on work already done by CEH to identify a single preferred option for mapping, and taking account of the type of imagery to be used to produce CORINE, as determined by the EU.
191 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
There was potential for greater uptake of CS information and greater access to data by third parties, a possible requirement under the Environmental Information Regulations. However, retaining confidentiality of survey locations was essential to preserve the integrity of the time series. The potential for allowing data access under contractual agreement was explored and agreed in principle by CEH.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy The policy review report (Juppenlatz et al., 2004) detailed the policy and legislative requirements that might use CS data and provided an update of emerging policy, scientific and legal drivers that may influence the planning and design of CS. The key areas identified were Devolution and Regionalisation of Government Functions & Environmental Responsibilities, Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform, Strategic Environmental Assessment; Spatial Planning & Development Pressures, Water Resources & Aquatic Ecosystems, Soil Resources Protection, Climate Change Policy, Renewable Energy Policy and Access to Environmental Information.
Future Work The recommendations from the Scoping Study were considered by the CS Planning Group and CEH. Some further technical development was needed, such as pilot fieldwork, data analysis or assessment of field codes. Issues of data access and technical specification of the LCM also needed to be finalised. Cost implications needed to be estimated and taken into account. The next stage of preparation for Countryside Survey was to address the recommendations given in the Scoping Study Technical Review and Land Cover Map to assess feasibility, practicality, value for money and plan the delivery of the main Countryside Survey 2007.
Technical Reports Critchley, C.N.R., Slater, J.A., Barr, C.J., Mole, A.C. (2005) Countryside Survey: Scoping Study. Technical Review. Report to Defra. ADAS UK Ltd. Juppenlatz, J. Clemence, B.J, Mole, A.C. (2004) Countryside Survey: Scoping Study. Policy Review and Forward Look. Report to Defra. ADAS UK Ltd. Keyworth, S., Lucas, R.M., Slater, J.A. (2005) Countryside Survey: Scoping Study. Land Cover Map Report: Key Issues For The Production Of The Next LCM. Report to Defra. Environment Systems Ltd. Temple, M., Barr, C.J., Hopwood, G.A., Keyworth, S. & Slater, J.A. (2005) Countryside Survey: Scoping Study Business Case. Report to Defra. ADAS UK Ltd.
192 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0316: PREPARING FOR CS2006 (CS2007): PHASE 1
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Dr Peter Carey CEH Monks Wood, Abbots Ripton, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE28 2LS
March 2005 - February 2006
Executive Summary: Countryside Survey is a unique study of the natural resources of the UK countryside. The survey has been carried out at intervals since 1978. The countryside is sampled and studied using rigorous scientific methods, so that the results from successive surveys can be compared with those from previous years. In this way the gradual and subtle changes that occur in the UK countryside can be detected and used to inform policy development. This project constituted the first phase of preparation for the CS survey planned for 2006 but ultimately conducted in 2007.
Introduction and Policy Rationale: Countryside Survey provides scientifically reliable evidence about many aspects of the state of the UK countryside. This evidence can be used to review and develop policies that influence the management of the countryside both now and in the future.
Countryside Survey findings are of relevance to policies in the areas of: Biodiversity, Natural Environment, Sustainable Agriculture and Environmental Stewardship, Water Resources, Sustainable Forestry, Soil Protection, Urban Development, Air Quality and Climate Change.
Preparatory Phase 1 was commissioned to prepare for the survey ultimately conducted in 2007 by developing, defining and refining: sampling strategies, data collection methods, analytical procedures, outputs and project management, and to address a number of percieved shortcomings in previous surveys, namely: • The time between the end of the survey and reporting was too long. • Datasets were not integrated making exploratory analysis difficult. • Poor project management structure. • There were too few scientific developments. • There were difficulties in data access and poor communication . • The data have been under-analysed across the time series and at the country scale.
Objectives: The CS2006-7 Phase 1 study had three overarching objectives: • to ensure that technical information and advice relating to previous surveys and subsequent development work were available for the scoping study and to inform decisions by the CSPG; • to develop and test efficient, cost-effective and reliable data capture and data management systems; • to undertake pilot studies, including field trials, to test new survey protocols, instruments and analytical procedures.
193 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Results and conclusions: • Investigation of the transfer of the spatial data collected by surveyors to OS Master Map® was promising but inconclusive. The work continued during Preparation Phase II. • Development and testing of electronic field data gathering methods was required to increase precision and ensure quality. This work demonstrated that a package capable of dealing with the complexity of CS spatial data did not exist, although the hardware did. • Recommendations from the Scoping Study Technical Review and internally from within CEH need to be considered fully, and where necessary tested, to ensure they do not compromise the ability of the survey to deliver its objectives or affect the long-term integrity of the data. • Field trials in 2005 have demonstrated difficulties in defining Broad and Priority Habitats. • Mapping change in habitat area in the uplands is very difficult. Habitats could change from one period to another but the changes could be caused by surveyor error in mapping. This is almost entirely an upland problem that CEH is trying to overcome through further field trials. • Relocating plots is difficult, especially in the uplands, and it is desirable to fix all plots using DGPS during the next survey. This will give improved accuracy and negate the need for surveyors to carry around metal plates, hammers and metal detectors etc. in the future. • The desirability of using CS data to carry out integrated analyses of some ecosystem services was clearly demonstrated at the workshop held in Grange- over-Sands in July 2005. • Analysis protocols were developed for the vegetation component of CS2006/07 and work on the freshwater and soils analysis protocols was started. • CS must meet user requirements and deliver information that is fit for purpose. Effective communication and liaison with stakeholders will be required to provide appropriate steering and communication of documents within the CS2006/07 community • Project management will be key to efficient and timely delivery of this complex project and encompasses communications, Quality Assurance, and Risk Assessment and Management. A management structure using PRINCE2 principles is proposed for CS2006/07.
194 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0334: COUNTRYSIDE SURVEY 2007 PREPARATION PHASE 2
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Dr Les Firbank CEH Lancaster, Lancaster Environment Centre, Library Avenue, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4AP
February 2006 - February 2007
Executive Summary: Countryside Survey is a unique study of the natural resources of the UK countryside. The survey has been carried out at intervals since 1978. The countryside is sampled and studied using rigorous scientific methods, so that the results from successive surveys can be compared with those from previous years. In this way the gradual and subtle changes that occur in the UK countryside can be detected and used to inform policy development. This project constituted the second phase of preparation for the CS survey conducted in 2007.
Introduction and Policy Rationale: Countryside Survey provides scientifically reliable evidence about many aspects of the state of the UK countryside. This evidence can be used to review and develop policies that influence the management of the countryside both now and in the future.
Countryside Survey findings are of relevance to policies in the areas of: Biodiversity, Natural Environment, Sustainable Agriculture and Environmental Stewardship, Water Resources, Sustainable Forestry, Soil Protection, Urban Development, Air Quality and Climate Change.
Preparatory Phase 2 was commissioned to build on the requirements identified in Preparatory Phase I to produce a fully defining, agreed and costed specification for CS2007 in consultation with stakeholders.
Objectives: The objective of Preparatory Phase 2 can be summarised as follows: • To agree the aims, objectives and scope of the survey. • To agree measurements and methodologies. • To agree a specification for and develop data capture systems. • To plan and prepare for the field survey required to collect data and samples. • To explore options for and plan the land cover mapping. • To begin planning what to report and how to report it. • To begin the development of analytical protocols to meet reporting needs. • To establish links with complementary surveys and data holders. • To define and develop the project management requirements and systems. • To agree an external communications strategy and begin delivering external communications materials. • To identify key staff involved in delivery of the project. • To tender for and secure the contract for the main Countryside Survey 2007.
Results and conclusions: The objectives for CS2007 were agreed and can be summarised as: to collect, store, analyse, interpret and provide access to data on stock, condition and extent of habitats, landscape features, vegetation, land cover, soils and freshwaters in the 195 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
countryside, and improve our understanding of the causes and processes of change and their implications for ecosystem services (see CS2007 project summary for details).
Measurements and methodologies: Three work-packages were tasked with defining what to measure and how it should be measured (field and laboratory protocols) for: 1) Landscape features, habitats and vegetation, 2) Freshwaters and 3) Soils. Measurements under consideration were prioritised against long-term data sets, policy, scientific and other users needs, and cost effectiveness. Considerable effort was put into the refinement of methods without threatening the long-term integrity of time-series. Details of all the field and laboratory protocols are documented in a series of Field Handbooks available from the CS Web site: www.countrysidesurvey.org.uk.
Data collection, analysis and reporting: Planning of the field collection of data, analyses to be performed and reporting were driven by requirements to increase data quality, improve speed of reporting and produce separate country reports for England, Scotland and Wales. Planning for data collection included preparation for the field survey and the development of the new data recording methodology. Preparation for the field survey was informed by a Pilot Survey and included: 1) an assessment of the number of squares required for statistically robust reporting, 2) estimating manpower requirements and how to deploy this most efficiently, 2) planning coordination, 3) recruiting and training the surveyors, and 4) sourcing and purchasing equipment.
A digital data capture system was developed to record data on field computers. This involved software development and re-engineering of underlying data structures for existing CS data. New areas of functionality were needed especially for linear features. Other software systems were developed to allow data entry in-the-field for vegetation plots and River Habitat Surveys. The system will improve data quality and reduce costs by eliminating the need for lab-based data entry (estimated saving c. £1.0m).
Statistical developments were carried out in support of new reporting requirements for providing separate Welsh and English analyses, and for estimating the national stock and change of Priority Habitats. The automated analytical tools have been adapted for use in CS2007 and developments will continue in response to the emerging reporting requirements.
An integrated assessment framework has been developed to assess the capacity of CS data to inform reporting on the impacts of natural and human pressures on ecosystem services in the British countryside. A review concluded that CS2007 could contribute to many sustainable development and biodiversity indicators, including: habitat provision, water quality, soil fertility, soil nutrient cycling and carbon storage.
It was agreed that CS2007 will deliver a series of reports, including: the main report for UK, separate country reports for England, Scotland and Wales, Headwater Stream Report, Soils Report and an Integrated Assessment Report. A tiered structure has been agreed for the main report: Tier 1 will be a public friendly summary written to present major themes, Tier 2 will be a more systematic account
196 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
of the stock, change and extent data making use of the whole CS time series, and Tier 3 access to summary data.
Land Cover Mapping: The work on the production of remotely sensed products from CS2007 focused on three areas: Land Cover Map 2007 (LCM2007), Land Cover Change and Airborne Applications. The LCM2007 work addressed the key issues in developing a production ready solution and included: 1) a review of land cover mapping research and development and the requirements of the UK user community, and 2) development of a production specification which includes the generalisation of the Ordnance Survey MasterMap, an EO data strategy to deliver full UK coverage and a new digital data collection system for field data, 3) a pilot study and production prototype, 4) a review of ancillary data sets, and 5) the assessment of the test datasets compared to internal and external validation information. Results suggest that the approach adopted will improve the quality, accuracy and usability of the product and be able to cope with the range of types and qualities of the input data.
CS2007 has been designed to provide a detailed assessment of the state of habitats and landscape features in the UK countryside and build on the outputs of previous surveys to identify and understand change. As with previous surveys, the core of CS2007 is a statistically rigorous, sample-based survey which is representative of different environments in England, Scotland and Wales.
CS2007 will be structured around eight interconnected Work Packages (WPs) that will work together to deliver the survey, analysis, reporting and integrated assessment stages of the project. The importance of the range of activities contained within the individual WPs and their interconnected nature cannot be over emphasised and makes CS2007 unique in terms of its potential for truly integrated analysis of the countryside at a national scale.
197 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0360: COUNTRYSIDE SURVEY 2007
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Project leader name: Dr Ian Simpson Project leader address: CEH Lancaster, Lancaster Environment Centre, Library Avenue, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4AP
February 2007 - March 2010 £9,165,000
Executive Summary: Countryside Survey is a unique study of the natural resources of the UK countryside. The survey has been carried out at intervals since 1978 with the latest survey in 2007. The countryside is sampled and studied using rigorous scientific methods, so that the results from the 2007 survey can be compared with those from previous years. In this way the gradual and subtle changes that occur in the UK countryside can be detected and used to inform policy development.
Introduction and Policy Rationale: Countryside Survey provides scientifically reliable evidence about many aspects of the state of the UK countryside. The results from 2007 can be compared with the findings of the previous surveys in 1998, 1990, 1984 and 1978 to measure and analyse change. This evidence can be used to review and develop policies that influence the management of the countryside both now and in the future.
Countryside Survey findings are of relevance to policies in the areas of: Biodiversity, Natural Environment, Sustainable Agriculture and Environmental Stewardship, Water Resources, Sustainable Forestry, Soil Protection, Urban Development, Air Quality and Climate Change.
Objectives: • To record and report on the amount and condition of widespread habitats, landscape features, vegetation, land cover, soils and freshwaters. • To assess changes in the countryside and improve our understanding of the causes and processes of change, by comparison with data from earlier surveys. • To collect, store and analyse data in ways that optimise the integration of Countryside Survey data through time and make it compatible with other data sources. • To provide access to data and interpreted results that underpin a range of policy and science needs for major environmental zones and landscape types in the UK, Great Britain, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. • To contribute to the development of an integrated assessment of the drivers and pressures of change and better understand their effects on the UK countryside and their implications for ecosystem goods and services.
Approaches and Methods: There are two main elements to Countryside Survey: the Land Cover Map and the field survey. The Land Cover Map uses data from satellites to form a digital map of the different types of land cover across the UK. The field surveys involve an in-depth study of a sample of nearly 600 1km x 1km squares across Great Britain and 285 0.5km x 0.5km survey squares in Northern Ireland. The
198 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
two field surveys are undertaken separately but the results are brought together where possible for the UK.
Results: Results from Countryside Survey are made available in a series of reports (see below) and through peer reviewed scientific publications. The reports and the data are accessible via the project website www.countrysidesurvey.org.uk. By way of example some of the key results from 2007 for the UK are: • The area of Broad Habitats: Broadleaved Woodland, Improved Grassland, Neutral Grassland, Acid Grassland and Standing Waters Broad Habitats increased, whilst Arable and Bracken Broad Habitats decreased. [1998-2007]. • Improved Grassland covered an estimated area of 5.1 million ha, an increase of 6% [1998-2007]. • The length of previously managed hedgerows decreased by 6%. Many of these became lines of trees and relict hedges [GB results 1998-2007]. • No change was detected in plant species richness in Broadleaved Woodland [GB results for 1998-2007] • Competitive plant species increased in fields, woods, heaths and moors, whilst ruderal species decreased [GB results 1978-2007]. • The frequency of occurrence of plant species preferring wetter conditions increased in all types of vegetation sampled [GB results 1998-2007]. • Collectively, non-native plant species account for nearly 2% of the vegetation cover in the countryside [GB results 2007]. • The physical characteristics of streams improved [GB results 1998-2007]. • Soil pH (0-15cm) increased in less acidic habitats [GB results 1978-2007]. • There was no change in soil carbon conc. (0-15 cm) [GB results 1978-2007].
Conclusions and relevant to Policy (using the UK results as an example): • The changes in the areas of Broad Habitats in the UK are broadly in line with conservation objectives as expressed in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. • Plant species richness within surviving arable habitats has increased. This suggests that generally arable landscapes have become more diverse, including more set-aside, cereal field margins and areas of Neutral Grassland, which all should have benefits for farmland biodiversity. • There is a continuing trend for ‘managed’ hedges to revert to relict hedges or lines of trees/shrubs, though nearly half of hedges are assessed as in good condition. • The overall trends in plant species richness across all habitat/vegetation types in Great Britain show that longer term declines have slowed. However, the continued decrease in species richness in both linear features and in areas targeted for their botanical interest (including Priority Habitats) is of concern because these areas contain much of the surviving plant diversity in the wider countryside and provide important habitats for a wide range of wildlife. • The vegetation across Great Britain has changed in character. Species that prefer wetter conditions and species that cast or prefer shade have increased. These species tend to be more competitive and less ruderal. Vegetation has become less disturbed in nature and succession has taken place, especially in and alongside linear features. • In headwater streams the ‘in channel’ habitat condition has improved but surrounding vegetation has become more overgrown and less diverse.
199 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
• Soils (0-15cm) show evidence of increasing pH associated with recovery from previous high levels of acid deposition, though the impacts of these changes on vegetation are less obvious. Between 1998 and 2007, a preceding increase in mean carbon concentration in soil (0-15 cm) in some habitats between 1978 and 1998 has slowed or reversed. These changes in soil carbon concentration are important for our understanding of feedbacks with the global climate system. • Combining the soil data with the vegetation sampling plot data will further the understanding of soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics and how they affect the growth of vegetation.
Events • The UK results were launched in London by Rt. Hon. Hilary Benn, M.P. Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Nov. 2008) • The results for Scotland were launched at the Royal Highland Show by Roseanna Cunningham MSP (June 2009) • The results for Wales were launched at the Royal Welsh Show by Elin Jones, Minister for Rural Affairs (July 2009)
Reports and publications: UK Headline Messages – published November 2009; UK Results from 2007 – published November 2008; Scotland Results from 2007 – published June 2009; Wales Results from 2007 – published July 2009; Web access to summary data - launched November 2008; Web access to data from individual survey squares – launched June 2009
Future Work: England Results from 2007 – to be published September 2009; Ponds Report – Summer 2009; Headwater Streams Report – late 2009; Soils – late 2009; Integrated Assessment – 2010; UK Land Cover Map for 2007 – 2010; Future analysis of Countryside Survey data will lead to many peer reviewed scientific journal articles.
200 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
REVIEW REPORTS
THEME 6: INDICATORS AND MONITORING
201 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Theme 6 Project summaries unavailable Project Project title Contractor Number 0236 Non-woodland tree survey Forestry I&M presentation Commission 0273 Native woodland survey phase CEH I&M presentation 2 (biodiversity British woodlands) 0208 Hen harrier survey RSPB Paper Review 0274 CA project on countryside NERC Paper Review indicators
There are a number of projects, mainly from 1996, for which summaries were not available. While these have been included in the financial assessments, they are, unfortunately, not available for review.
202 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0251: NATIVE WOODLAND SURVEY (LONG TERM ECOLOGICAL CHANGE IN BRITISH WOODLANDS (1971-2001)
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Simon Smart, CEH Lancaster, Lancaster Environmental Centre, Library Avenue, Bairigg, Lancaster. Keith Kirby, English Nature (now Natural England), Northminster House, Peterborough PE11UA
April 2000 – April 2005 £300,000
Executive Summary In 1971 103 woods across Britain were selected as representative of a wider sample of 2,453 woods (> 4 ha) surveyed in the late 1960s. Within each of the 103 woods sixteen 200m2 plots were located at random and records made of soils, tree and shrub composition, and ground flora with each plot.
Between 2000 and 2003 (the ‘2001’ survey) the plots were re-recorded on as close to the same point as possible using the the original methods. The results were used to identify plot/site level changes over a thirty-year period.
Soil Changes Soil pH increased across sites, with a large reduction in the number with soil pH<5 and a corresponding increase in the number of sites with more alkali soil pH. The soil pH increase was more marked in organic than in mineral soil, and in non- calcareous than calcareous soils. The increase is consistent with trends from the Countryside Survey 2000 and the re-survey of the National Soil Inventory.
There was no overall change in soil organic matter (SOM) although there were significant changes within 23 sites, of which 15 sites showed an increase. There was no increase in the mean level of plot SOM, but the number of plot with low levels of SOM (<10%)decreased. SOM increased for lowland soils and mineral and organo- mineral soils but declined in organic soils. There was a positive correlation between changes in modelled nitrogen deposition and increases in SOM.
Changes to the tree and shrub species Most tree and shrub species remained stable in terms of their frequency of occurrence at plot and site levels, although 15 species (eight of these shrubs) declined, whilst five other species (four conifers) increased. There was a net loss of stems from the smallest size classes (particularly less than 10 cm dbh) with some smaller gains in the 30-60 cm classes. Stems greater than 60 cm remained scarce.
Individual species showed distinct patterns: for example oak lost stems in the lowest size classes but gained in the larger ones; holly increased substantially in the smallest size class; hazel lost small stems. Mean basal area of trees and shrubs increased both for individual plots and across most sites.
Species richness amongst saplings (25-130cm high) decreased, but small increases in frequency were shown by some shade tolerant species including yew, beech and
203 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
holly. Open habitats (rides, glades etc) and some wet habitats (ditches, boggy patches) became less common.
Grazing signs increased in the lowlands; across GB the biggest increase in recorded grazing signs was for ‘Other deer’ (i.e. species other than red deer).
Ground Flora Changes Overall species richness per plot and per ‘site’ (set of 16 plots) declined markedly by 36% and 12% respectively. Increases were more common in the south and east, particularly in woods affected by the 1987 storms.
Although species frequency in 2001 was strongly correlated with that in 1971, more species declined in frequency than increased at both site and plot levels. ‘Woodland specialists’ were more likely than other species to show decreases in frequency.
Increases in tree basal area were associated with species richness declines; other variables relating to disturbance (1987 storm damage, grazing, open habitats) were associated with increased richness. There was an overall shift across the data set towards more shaded assemblages of plants, but no change in mean Ellenberg light score. Reductions in the numbers of open habitats recorded per plot and increases in basal area were associated with declines in Ellenberg light scores. Species increasing in cover tended to be associated with semi-shaded conditions.
There was no overall shift in species towards more fertile/eutrophic assemblages and no change in mean Ellenberg fertility score. Increasing soil pH and high levels of intensive land surrounding the wood were however associated with increases in Ellenberg fertility scores. Species increasing in cover tended to be associated with high (rather than low) nutrient status conditions. Changes in abundance for some species were correlated with increases in modelled nitrogen deposition.
Stress-tolerator species scores declined and were negatively associated with changes in open habitats. Competitor and Ruderal species scores did not show any overall change, but the Ruderal changes were positively correlated with changes in open habitats and negatively with basal area change.
51 species out of 332 showed a significant relationship (in all but four cases positive) between spring temperature change and change in frequency within woodland plots. Other species changed in cover in relation to increased growing season length, with both increases and decreases being found.
Conclusions and Implications The broad composition and structure of the whole suite of woods was not dramatically different in 2001 from that in 1971. Some of the results indicate some recovery from past damage – for example the increase in soil pH. Other changes, most particularly the decline in woodland specialist richness, represent deterioration in the quality of the woods.
We found effects on species distributions and abundance correlated with climate change over the last 30 years. Given the changes that are already being observed in the phenology of species, it seems likely that effects on woodland species abundance will become even more common in the next 50 years. 204 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
No simple woodland management response can be made to offset the future impacts of climate change, because we cannot predict with any certainty what the impacts will be in terms of species responses. However, in general larger populations (or meta-populations) are more likely to survive and spread than small ones. This supports the case for an increase in woodland area and for improving connectivity within the landscape, but also for addressing other causes of species decline that do have a clear management solution.
Signs of eutrophication in the ground flora were detected that were correlated with models of diffuse pollution and the management of adjacent land. Increased nitrogen inputs (and also spray drift effects) at the edges of woods from adjacent agriculture can be addressed in part through developing buffer strips next to woodland and by developing dense vegetation at the wood edge: in effect establishing a scrub/grassland ‘ecotone’.
Given the generally young nature of most of the stands, then without deliberate management intervention broadleaved woods are, on average, likely to become older and darker in the next twenty years. This could benefit some species and communities – those of fallen dead wood and shade-loving conditions - but may lead to continuing decline in much of the ground flora and also other groups associated with open space and young growth.
Opening out the wood temporarily may increase the abundance of some species, which is desirable if existing woods are to act as sources for the colonisation of new woodland. In undertaking such management we must be aware of the increasing potential of interactions with and between other drivers (climate change, nitrogen deposition, deer grazing) to influence the outcome.
Relevance to Policy Part of the evidence base that contributed to development of England’s Trees, Woods and Forest Strategy, the Wood-fuel strategy, work to deliver SSSI PSA objective.
Future Work The general trends have been confirmed in subsequent studies of individual sites and counties and in the CS2007.
Technology Transfer End of project stakeholder seminar and presentations at national/local conferences. Press release coverage at the time (2005)
Kirby, K.J., Smart, S.M., Black, H.I.J., Bunce, R.G.H.,Corney,P.M.and Smithers,R.J. (2005). Long term ecological change in British woodland (1971-2001). Peterborough: English Nature (Research Report 653).
205 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0167: PLANT ATLAS
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Chris Preston Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, OX10 8BB
1999 - 2003
Executive Summary This Technical Report presents the results of analyses of the data collected for the New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora, a survey of the distribution of vascular plant species in Britain and Ireland carried out between 1987 and 1999. It includes comparisons with the only previous such survey, published in 1962 in the Atlas of the British Flora. The analyses are carried out for the U.K., and at the 10-km square scale.
Analyses of floristic change have hitherto been handicapped by the absence of a classification of species into habitat categories. We have therefore allocated native and archaeophyte species to the Broad Habitat (BH) categories devised for the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. To do this, we calculated preference indices using the quadrat data collected for the National Vegetation Classification and for the Countryside Survey 2000 project. Additional information, including the species accounts published in the New Atlas, were used to extend the classification to the rarer species which are not adequately covered in the quadrat databases.
The next section of the report analyses the geographical variation in the number of species recorded per 10-km square. The total of non-critical native and archaeophyte species expected in a 10-km square has been modelled using combinations of geological, climatic, topographic and habitat variables. In the UK, 65% of the variation found in the species richness of these species can be attributed to climatic factors. Including the full range of variables improved the model fit to 76%. Models that adjusted for the richness of the local species pool (biogeographic zones) were generally little better than those obtained using a single species pool for the whole of the UK. Separate models of species richness developed for each Broad Habitat, varied in their prediction success from 34% to 88%. Linear and boundary features (BH4), built-up areas (BH17) and montane habitats (BH15) were best predicted. The worst-predicted Broad Habitats were acid grassland (BH8), inland rock (BH16), and fen marsh and swamp (BH11).
Models have also been applied to provide an expected estimate of those native species which are difficult to record, and to neophytes. The variation in recording intensity in the three recording periods mapped in the New Atlas (pre-1970, 1970- 1986, 1987 onwards) is summarised in a series of vice-county maps which shows that most counties were at least moderately well recorded in the pre-1970 and post- 1986 periods. The exceptions are identified. The variation in available records from the 1970-86 period (when there was no comprehensive survey) is very great.
The relative success of vascular plants characteristic of different Broad Habitat categories is analysed using a change index developed in an earlier paper. In Britain as a whole, native and archaeophyte species in the Arable and horticultural, Dwarf 206 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
shrub heath, Calcareous grassland, Bog, Montane and Acid grassland categories have been the least successful, whereas those of Improved grassland and Built-up areas ands gardens have done relatively well. When the results are analysed for individual countries and regions of the UK there is considerable geographical variation: species of Arable and horticultural habitats have done less well in the three regions of Scotland examined than elsewhere, for example, whereas those of Acidic grassland show little change in the Scottish regions but a marked decrease elsewhere. Changes in plants of aquatic habitats (Rivers and streams, Standing water and canals) are difficult to interpret because as a group they were under- recorded in 1930-69 but covered by intensive, targeted recording in Scotland and N. Ireland in the later period.
There is also marked geographical variation in the patterns of change analysed for species with different ecological attributes.
• The relative success of neophytes, decline of archaeophytes and stability of native species is shown in almost all regions, but in Scotland archaeophytes have declined to an even greater extent than elsewhere, and neophytes have been less successful. • Species characteristic of habitats with high nutrient levels have been relatively successful in almost all areas except the Scottish Highlands, but in England the success of these species has been particularly marked. • Species characteristic of sites with very acidic or very basic soils have been less successful than those of circum-neutral conditions in all areas except the Scottish Highlands, although the decrease in Northern Ireland is not statistically significant. • In many areas species of shaded conditions have been more successful than those of unshaded sites, but there is no significant trend in S.E. England, N. and N.W. England and Highland Scotland, and the trend is in the opposite direction in S.W. Scotland. • Tall plants (which tend to be more competitive) have been more successful than short plants in all areas except Highland Scotland. • Northern species have declined in all regions except Highland Scotland.
A ‘dynamism index’ has been devised to summarise the stability of the range of species. Native species tend to have much less dynamic ranges than neophytes. Annuals have more dynamic ranges than other terrestrial vascular plants.
When trends demonstrated by the change and dynamism indices are analysed for species of differing conservation status, the more threatened plants show a greater tendency to decline (decreasing mean change index) and perhaps for this reason, more dynamic distributions (increasing mean dynamism index).
The results of the comparison of the two atlas surveys can be compared with those for the Countryside Survey, which is based on a survey of sample 1-km squares between 1978 and 1998. The trends in both surveys are compared for those 371 species recorded sufficiently frequently in the Countryside Survey to allow a statistical comparison.
207 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
The results of the atlas comparisons have also been compared, although in a less quantitative manner, with those reported by recent studies of change at the vice- county scale. These local studies have often been based on analyses of species’ extinctions at the county level. The loss of species of Arable and horticultural habitats, Dwarf shrub heath and Acid grassland has been reported from several lowland counties in England, as has the relative stability of the flora of Broadleaved woodland and Neutral grassland flora. All these are in agreement with the results of the atlas surveys, although the local surveys offer less support for the decline of Calcareous grassland species. They also suggest a decrease in species of aquatic habitats, a group which has not been satisfactorily analysed by the methods adopted in this report. The county studies also provide corroborative evidence for the decline in southern England of species of habitats which are open rather than shaded, nutrient-poor rather than nutrient-rich and acidic rather than basic. There is also some support for the conclusion that Northern species have decreased and that more competitive species have been more successful than less competitive plants.
Future Work Within life of project The project has now been completed. Beyond life of project No future work arose directly from this project.
Technology Transfer A booklet summarising the results of the project was published by Defra publications and distributed widely to relevant stakeholders Preston, C. D., Telfer, M. G., Arnold, H. R., Carey, P. D., Cooper, J. M., Dines, T. D., Hill, M. O., Pearman, D. A., Roy, D. B. & Smart, S. M. 2002. The changing flora of the UK. London: Defra.
Publications Hill, M.O., Preston, C.D., & Roy, D.B. 2004. PLANTATT Attributes of British and Irish plants: status, size, life history, geography and habitats. Huntingdon: Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.
208 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0322: TARGETED MONITORING OF AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON BIODIVERSITY
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Dr Mike Morecroft, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Wallingford, Maclean Building, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, OX10 8BB Other contractors: Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland Additional input from Expert group which included staff from: British Trust for Ornithology; Oxford University; Rothamsted Research; Forest Research; Macaulay Institute; Liverpool University; York University; Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research; Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland.
October 2005 – March 2006 £57,000
Executive Summary This project scoped and presented a proposal to monitor aspects of biodiversity alongside climate and air pollution across a network of conservation sites, spanning the widest possible range of air pollution conditions and predicted climate changes. The proposed network of between 40 and 90 sites would build on and complement existing monitoring and survey work and would be an extension to the UK Environmental Change Network (ECN). Estimated costs were about £11,000 to initiate monitoring at each site, with annual running costs estimated at between £417 (40 sites) and £818k (90 sites). A follow-up project refined the details of the proposed network, now known as the Environmental Change Biodiversity Network (ECBN). Efforts are continuing to launch a fully operational network, for which central funding is required.
Introduction and Policy Rationale Atmospheric pollution and climate change present major threats to biodiversity. National and regional governments have commitments to address these issues. Responding to the threats posed by air pollution and climate change requires an understanding of the nature and extent of their impacts. Monitoring allows changes in biodiversity to be detected and quantified and therefore provides objective evidence on which to develop scientific understanding, policy and management responses. Climate and air pollution are rarely measured at sites where biodiversity is monitored so potential relationships can only be assessed by using interpolated – sometimes unreliable - national data. The use of statistical techniques to compare trends at sites with contrasting environmental conditions would give best results if physical data have been measured on site. This would be particularly powerful in a network where sites were selected to maximise the contrast in air pollution and climate change regimes. The network proposed by the project would provide a purpose-designed evidence base to support policy and management decisions.
209 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Objectives The objective was to design, cost and make recommendations for an extended site network, linked to the terrestrial Environmental Change Network, that provides targeted monitoring of atmospheric pollution and climate change impacts on biodiversity. The aim was to prepare a report describing the proposed network and explaining the basis for the recommendations made.
Approaches and Methods A. Selection of measurements A wide range of potential measurements were reviewed for inclusion in the proposed network. The review drew on information from a range of sources including: the views of ECN site managers; a workshop; discussions at steering group meetings; expert papers; one-to-one meetings with relevant experts, and assessment of measurement costs. A range of criteria were used to assess potential measurements. B. Programme of measurement collection Consideration was given to a realistic timetable of measurements to be made at sites, and a programming schedule was recommended. C. Analysis and interpretation of data Recommendations were made concerning the statistical analyses required to be performed on data collected from the operational network. Consideration was also given to additional datasets that might add value to the monitored data, such as from experimental manipulations and model outputs. D. Selection of potential sites Power analysis was used to determine the ideal number of sites required. The air pollution conditions and climate change scenarios for a wide range of potential sites were characterised using national mapped data. A network of potential sites was identified that (a) maximised the range of environmental conditions (and hence the chances of detecting significant relationships), and (b) separated (as far as possible) the effects of different variables. The practicality of carrying out monitoring at the potential sites was assessed by people familiar with the sites and considering issues such as the remoteness of sites, existing monitoring work and availability of suitable staff. During the process it was agreed to restrict sites to National Nature Reserves, existing terrestrial ECN sites and selected experimental sites. E. Other issues: Data and information management, network management, communication Relevant staff from the existing ECN Central Coordinating Unit prepared recommendations concerning the above three areas. These were presented to and agreed by the project steering committee. F. Implementation issues Recommendations were made concerning the strategy to adopt for best implementing the proposed network. G. Costs A detailed assessment of start-up and on-going costs was prepared. Two models were considered (i) a network of 40 sites and (ii) a network of 90 sites.
210 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Results A suite of measurements were recommended for inclusion which would allow changes in important elements of biodiversity to be quantified alongside the aspects of the physical environment causing change. The main measurements for initial inclusion were: climate; air pollution (pH, nitrate, ammonium sulphate, ammonia, total nitrogen deposition); soil chemistry and physical characteristics; vegetation composition; butterflies; birds; satellite remote sensing of phenology; site management. Additional measurements were identified that could be introduced at a later stage. Between 40 and 90 sites should be established for the new network. Combining with data from existing ECN sites and some ICP Forest Level 2 plots for analysis would yield a combined network of at least 50 sites. A flexible approach to the inclusion of habitats was advocated, but priority should be given to: Acid grasslands, Dwarf shrub heath, Broadleaved mixed & yew woodland, Calcareous grassland, Bogs, Montane habitats and Neutral grassland. A further assessment of how to best incorporate coastal habitats into the network was proposed. Approximately 90 potential sites were identified maximising the range of climatic and air pollution regimes. These were mostly NNRs. Sites with relevant field manipulation experiments, such as nitrogen additions, were also included. Data management and network coordination would need to be carried out in association with the ECN and strategies were proposed. A communication strategy was prepared, and recommendations and options for an implementation plan were presented. The estimated costs were £11,000 to initiate monitoring at each site, with annual running costs of between £417 (40 sites) and £818k (90 sites). Note that a follow-up project yielded higher figures (£650K per year for 40 sites).
Conclusions and relevance to policy The project concluded that there was a need to improve monitoring of the impacts of climate change and air pollution on biodiversity, to allow policy and management decisions to be based on evidence and to test and refine models and predictions of change. An extension to the ECN was seen to offer the best opportunity to ensure that a new site-based network was cost effective and complementary to existing research and monitoring work.
Follow-up Work The proposal was followed-up by a second project (CR0386), led by ADAS, which generated a business case and business development plan for the network, now known as the Environmental Change Biodiversity Network. Some partners (CCW and NE) have begun instrumenting sites and initiating monitoring. Including existing ECN terrestrial sites, there are 43 sites in the ECBN. However, centralised financial support is still required for the network to become fully operational and sustainable. Sites must also be established in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Final project report: Morecroft, M.D. et al. (2006). Targeted Monitoring of Air Pollution and Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity. NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. 78 pp.
211 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Figure 1: Map of proposed sites. Existing terrestrial ECN sites are shown. In addition, the map indicates locations of ICP Forest Level II sites with plots in deciduous woodland, which may also be suitable sites for inclusion in the proposed network.
212 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
CR0386: SITE BASED MONITORING BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
ADAS UK Ltd. Team Projects Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Jacqueline A. Parker Team Projects, 6 Holly Meadows, Salters Lane, Winchester SO22 5PQ.
19 October 2007 – 30 April 2008 £78,000
Introduction and Policy Rationale Effective management of habitats is needed in the face of environmental threats, particularly in the form of climate change and air pollution. The Environmental Change Biodiversity Network (ECBN) is a UK wide, environmental monitoring scheme that can provide a shared evidence-base to support partners in dealing with these threats. It builds on the Environmental Change Network (ECN) which monitors animal populations, vegetation, soils, climate, air pollution and other variables at 12 terrestrial sites in widely different habitats, climates and pollution regimes. The ECN is effective for developing scientific understanding of processes at these sites but a larger network is required to provide generalised information to inform the development of biodiversity policy and management. CEH and partners produced a proposal1 to extend the ECN by adding a second tier of terrestrial sites, now known as the ECBN. The proposed network includes a range of habitats on high biodiversity value sites, mainly on National Nature Reserves across the UK. The ECBN would include existing ECN terrestrial sites and at least a further 40 sites to form a purpose designed monitoring network for detecting and distinguishing ecological responses to atmospheric pollution and climate change.
Objective The objective of the project was to produce a Business Development Plan for the ECBN, including a Business Case, to provide the information needed to progress its implementation and long-term development and funding.
Approaches and Methods 21 organisations and 35 long-term monitoring schemes and associated co-ordination initiatives were consulted by means of a short questionnaire to assess their interest in a range of specific planned outputs of ECBN and establish uses that would be made of these. The questionnaire also explored interest in including coastal monitoring sites and invited views and rationales for the possible inclusion of further measures. Questions also sought to identify any added value that could be gained by co-operation with other monitoring schemes. Specifications for governance and project management, risk management, quality assurance and a communication plan were also drawn up for ECBN. An assessment was also made of how ECBN would support a range of strategic policy initiatives. Cost estimates produced by Morecroft et al. (2006) were reviewed and presented in more detail. Experience gained by CCW and NE in setting up pilot sites during
1 Morecroft, M.D., Sier, A.R.J., Elston, D.A., Nevison, I.M., Hall, J.R., Rennie, S.C., Parr, T.W. & Crick, H.Q.P. (2006) Targeted Monitoring of Air Pollution and Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity. Report to Defra, CCW and English Nature (CR0322). 213 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
2006/7 was used improve estimates of capital costs, agency and site staff time and analytical services. Central co-ordination costs and salary costs were also updated and costs produced for adding coastal habitats to the network.
Results The proposed ECBN is expected to separate the effects of the multiple drivers of biodiversity change from each other and help to explain the probable causes of biodiversity changes. ECBN can also link to other monitoring schemes in interpreting and explaining biodiversity trends and providing data for research and co-analysis with existing data. ECBN would be less useful for detecting large-scale trends in biodiversity, air pollution or climate change, which were already the subject of various national schemes. Synergies with strategic initiatives were identified, being the Environmental Observation Framework, Terrestrial Biodiversity Surveillance Strategy, Living with Environmental Change and the NERC Science Strategy. The case for monitoring of coastal habitats was described. Rationales for additional measurements were identified, costed and discussed. An outline timetable for implementation of ECBN was proposed (Fig. 1). During 2008-2012 the first 40 sites would be added to the existing ECN sites. Fig. 1. Outline timetable of ECBN development Main tasks Financial Year
2013 2005/06 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 onwards
Proposal & technical specification to develop the Completed ECBN
Identify and initial set up of pilot sites Completed
Business Development Plan, incl. Business Case Completed
Arrange funding, formalise partnership, establish ECBN CCU Implementation phase: Establishing further sites and Further sites full suite of monitoring, data management and processing. Establish full suite of monitoring
Develop methods for coastal sites, protocols, data Data management & processing analysis and reporting Establish requirements for review of the Implementation Review / forward phase; carry out review, forward planning. Final planning. contract report.
Continuation, extension and further development of ECBN, as appropriate
Data recording will be carried out by a combination of local NNR site staff, trained volunteers and specialist teams /contractors visiting sites on a periodic basis. This will be supported by co-ordinators from the statutory conservation agencies. During the implementation phase, national agency co-ordinators will continue to identify sites, assess their suitability and support site-staff in arranging the set up of equipment and establishment of monitoring. CEH will manage the ECBN, collate data, develop analysis procedures and report findings, based on the well-established ECN information management system run by the ECN Central Co-ordination Unit.
214 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Open access to ECBN data will be available, dependent on agreement of all sponsors. Ongoing costs of ECBN fluctuate between £500,000 and £650,000 per annum and are reasonable in comparison with other monitoring programmes of similar intensity. The ECBN will benefit from contributions by volunteers to bird and butterfly surveys valued at over £117,000, reducing the overall costs to partners to £2,132,373 during the first 4 years of operation.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy There is a clear scientific and policy rationale for implementing the ECBN and the consultation identified benefits that ECBN can bring to a wide range of users representing policy and scientific interests, conservation management, industry and the general public. The ECBN would inform the development and implementation of climate change adaptation strategies for conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning on sites managed for their high biodiversity value and in the wider countryside. It would enhance the evidence base to underpin and develop policy objectives and targets for UK BAP species and habitats, SSSIs, Common Standards Monitoring and regulation of emissions and inform a wider range of policy and science needs including efficient bio-monitoring required under the Habitats Directive. It will provide access to an integrated data set, that could become especially important in increasing our understanding of ecosystems and living within environmental limits and will increase the coverage of the ECN. It will also increase awareness of the effects of climate change and atmospheric pollution, through a communications package, including web based information and data access, summary reports, and opportunities to commission special reports.
Future Work Further development of the ECBN will be needed during the implementation phase (Fig. 1) and in the longer-term. The long term objective is to extend ECBN to an optimal size through a phased implementation, depending on the growth of the partnership and availability of funding. Further statistical analysis is required to ensure a good representation of environmental space and habitats from the pilot sites and further candidate sites identified by national agency co-ordinators in each country.
Technical Reports Parker, J.A., Critchley, C.N.R, Morecroft, M.D. (2008). The Environmental Change Biodiversity Network: Business Development Plan. Report to Defra. ADAS UK Ltd. Parker, J.A., Morecroft, M.D, Temple, M.L., Holmes M., Critchley, C.N.R. (2008). The Environmental Change Biodiversity Network: Business Case. Report to Defra. ADAS UK Ltd. Parker, J.A., Critchley, C.N.R, Morecroft, M.D. (2008). The Environmental Change Biodiversity Network: Supporting Document. Report to Defra
215 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0402/0304: DEVELOPING A UK-WIDE BUTTERFLY MONITORING SCHEME: INTEGRATING THE WIDER COUNTRYSIDE (CR 0304)
Centre for Ecology & Hydrology David Roy Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, OX10 8BB
Butterfly Conservation Tom Brereton Butterfly Conservation, Manor Yard, West Lulworth, Dorset
1 January 2005 - 31 March 2008 £428,878
Executive Summary Butterflies are widely recognised as being uniquely placed amongst British terrestrial insect and other invertebrate groups to act as indicators of the state of the environment and the progress of policy initiatives such as the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, agri-environment schemes and protected areas. The UK Butterfly Monitoring Scheme (UKBMS) is a world-renowned scheme that has operated since 1976 with support from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the Natural Environment Research Council. Through this project, between 2005 and 2008, the scheme has undergone a major re-development and expansion through funding by a broader multi-agency consortium led by Defra.
Conclusions 1. An extensive scheme for monitoring the changing abundance of UK butterflies built upon volunteer effort can be operated cost-effectively and with great efficiency. The scheme comprises an integrated network of over 1500 transect and 250 non-transect monitored sites, with more than 900 sites monitored each year. The scheme operates with a single co-ordinator and almost all data is now submitted electronically. 2. Targeted, regional development can reap rapid results. The monitoring network has undergone significant expansion, especially in Wales and Northern Ireland where, for example, transect coverage has improved by 400%. 3. UKBMS transects are effective for monitoring most UK butterfly species. The majority of habitat specialist species are well covered by the UKBMS. Canopy-dwelling species, especially the hairstreaks, are not well-suited to the current transect approach, but there is potential to develop improved methods for these species Research is also required to develop suitable monitoring methods for high altitude species such as Mountain Ringlet. We recommend that an overall monitoring strategy for all UK butterflies is produced. 4. Robust estimates of population trends can be derived for the great majority of UK butterfly species. There has been a large (551%) increase in the number of sites used to compile national species abundance indices, with the increase evident in all UK countries. There has also been an increase in reliable annual indices and population trends for resident and regular migrant butterflies in the United Kingdom from 41 to 49 species (out of 62).
216 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
5. The enhanced UKBMS dataset has enabled new assessments of species status. The assessment of species population trends has prioritised species for inclusion on the revised UK BAP Priority Species list, and been published in the State of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland (Fox et al. 2006). A re-assessment of the status of butterflies on agriculturally managed land, in and outside of agri- environment scheme agreement, supports previous studies that highlight the benefits of schemes to short/medium turf species and the negative impacts on some species requiring scrub and habitat mosaics. 6. A set of Butterfly biodiversity indicators have been adopted. Butterfly biodiversity indicators have been published for England, Scotland and the United Kingdom, and contributed to international initiatives, including a European Butterfly Indicator. An analytical procedure for rapid compilation of the indicators enables timely annual updates. The indicators highlight the continued problems that habitat specialist butterflies face across the UK, with the problems most acute in lowland woodland habitats. Specialist species are also in decline on semi-natural farmland, though agri-environment schemes are helping to slow or reverse some of the species, including BAP Priority species. In contrast, wider countryside species have fared better, with stable trends in England and the UK and a significant increase in Scotland since 1979. 7. An effective scheme for monitoring butterflies in the wider countryside has been developed and tested. • A new scheme has been developed that is both scientifically valid and efficient has been developed, field tested and piloted using volunteer recorders. • The basic method involves recording along two parallel 1-km transects within 1- km squares identified by stratified random sampling. Butterflies and other insects with similar search images (day-flying moths and dragonflies) are recorded in the conventional 5m box in equal length transect section. An additional method for monitoring a suite of easily identifiable insect species has been developed to be carried out after the main survey. • Field testing took place over three years and in 2007 the method was tested by volunteer recorders on 310 squares and the features of the method and research outcomes are detailed below: • A comparison of different reduced effort designs, recommended a scheme of three visits (Roy, Rothery and Brereton, 2007). From this analysis, and following consultation with recorders, we propose a scheme with two core visits in July- August and optional extra visits from May onwards. The average number of sites required to detect a 25% decline over ten years is approximately 630 for a 2-visit scheme which is easily achievable with the predicted uptake. • The scheme design provides efficiency gains through the broad variety of insects monitored- these include around 200 species from eight orders covering a range of functional groups and habitats. Using BBS squares means that site details and access is arranged and insect and bird trends from the same sites can be compared. • Using the BBS as a framework means that there are around 3500 active squares across the country and a further 2000 registered. These squares can be supplemented by a new random selection of squares for BC members to provide representative data for the UK as a whole.
217 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
• Uptake doubled expectations with 25% of invited BBS recorders taking part and BC branches achieving twice the level predicted by co-ordinators. Volunteer feedback has been very positive with 95%satisfied with the survey method, 74% would be willing to take part on a regular basis, 67% would like some kind of training. Online data entry was very successful with over 80% use by BTO recorders. • 42 species were detected including 24/25 wider countryside species. Habitats surveyed in the pilot were representative of those in the UK landscape as a whole. • We predict a future scheme if rolled out in 2008 would sample ~1400 squares across the UK< and provide a sufficient sample size to reliable assess the status of all wider countryside butterfly species.
Relevance to Policy Through discussions with project stakeholders and a review of policy documents, the primary policy relevance of butterfly monitoring are: UK BAP and Habitats Directive reporting, site condition monitoring of SSSIs, publishing and developing biodiversity indicators, assessing the impacts of climate change and land-use in the wider countryside, agri-environment scheme targeting.
Future Work Within Life of Project The project has now been completed. Beyond Life of Project Further development of butterfly monitoring has been undertaken in the Defra- funded project ‘Extending the use of butterfly recording data in the UK’
Technology Transfer May 15th 2006 saw the official launch of the UK Butterfly Monitoring Scheme (UKBMS), together with the release of the scheme website (http://www.ukbms.org/) and the publication of The State of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland (SOBBI - http://www.naturebureau.co.uk/shop/books/StateofButterflies.html)
The scheme was officially launched by the then Biodiversity Minister, Barry Gardiner. The story was covered in the Times, Independent, Guardian and widely in regional newspapers and on radio stations. The UKBMS launch attendees included BC trustees and transect co-ordinators, Defra policy staff and the media as well as BC and CEH staff directly involved with the UKBMS.
Publications arising from project Fox, R., Asher, J., Brereton, T., Roy, D.B. and Warren, M.S. (2006) The State of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Pisces, Newbury. Roy, D.B., Rothery, P. and Brereton, T. (2007) Reduced-effort schemes for monitoring butterfly populations. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44:993-1000.
218 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0405: UK BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS - INVASIVE NON-NATIVE SPECIES
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Mark Hill Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, OX10 8BB
07 July 2008 - 31 January 2009 £29,000
Executive Summary We developed a methodology to measure the abundance, extent and impact of invasive non-native species in Great Britain. Most of the options for an abundance indicator did not in fact measure abundance, but used either frequency in samples or frequency in recording scheme data as a substitute. Over the period 1990-2007, the mean indexed proportion of records of non-native species in samples of birds, mammals, plants and marine life rose by 23%. Except for mammals, the absolute proportion was still only about 1% of the total.
No direct measure of impact could feasibly be calculated for all invasive species in Great Britain. As a substitute, an indicator based on the extent of occupation by invasive species was adopted. The methodology for the indicator was based on a scheme developed by the Belgian Forum on Invasive Species. First, a list of the 49 most invasive species was compiled, using a simplified environmental impact assessment protocol to assign species to threat categories. The extent but not the number of these invasives increased markedly in the terrestrial environment, but in there freshwater and marine environments, there were large increases in the number of species as well as of their extent.
Introduction and Policy Rationale The UK has a national suite of 18 indicators to measure its own progress towards the 2010 EU target for biodiversity. In this project we developed a state indicator showing the threat to biodiversity from non-native species.
Objectives The project had two main objectives, namely to develop: 1. A measure of the abundance of non-native species in Great Britain and, where possible, the proportion which are invasive. 2. A measure of the impacts from the sub-set of non-native species that are invasive. In addition to the two main indicators for GB, analogous indicators were required for England, Scotland and Wales.
Approaches and Methods Indicators were based on datasets that can be updated in future. For the abundance measure, the proportion of non-native species (out of all species) in repeated surveys was used. • Birds (Breeding Bird Survey) • Mammals (Breeding Bird Survey) • Vascular plants, random plots (Countryside Survey)
219 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
• Vascular plants, streamside plots (Countryside Survey) • Bryophytes (BRC dataset) • Marine (Marine Life Information Network). Impacts could not be measured directly in a repeatable way. An alternative measure was devised, based on the area occupied by each of a number of invasive species that were judged to be harmful to the environment.
Results Over the period 1990-2007, the mean indexed proportion of records of non-native species in samples of birds, mammals, plants and marine life rose by 23%. Except for mammals, the absolute proportion was still only about 1% of the total.
Fig. 1. Proportion of non-native species in samples of birds, mammals, plants and marine organisms, 1990 to 2007
Out of 3,500 non-native species in Britain, the 49 with the greatest potential impact on native biodiversity have been assessed for the extent to which they are established in Great Britain. The number of these ‘most invasive’ non-native species established in or along more than 10 percent of Great Britain’s land area or coastline has increased since 1960 in the freshwater, terrestrial and marine environment, increasing the likely pressure on native biodiversity.
220 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Fig. 2. Changes in the extent of widely established invasive non-native species in freshwater, marine, and terrestrial environments, 1960 to 2008
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy The results show an increasing threat, especially in the freshwater and marine environments. The policy on non-native species is made by UK Government, advised by the Non-Native Species Programme Board. Results from this project and surveillance through the GB Non-Native Species Information Portal will be used to decide what action should be taken.
Future Work Within Life of Project The project has now been completed. Beyond Life of Project Results from the project will be updated as data become available. Changes in the list of invasive species and their extent will be reviewed in the light of results from the Defra-funded GB Non-native Species Information Portal (started March 2009).
Technology Transfer The output of the project was an indicator posted on the website of the Joint Nature Conservation Council http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4246.
221 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0388: HABITAT CONNECTIVITY - DEVELOPMENT OF AN INDICATOR FOR THE EBS, UK AND CBD REPORTING PART 1.
Forest Research Dr Kevin Watts Centre for Human & Ecological Sciences, Forest Research, Alice Holt Lodge, Farnham, Surrey, GU10 4LH
2007 - 2008 £50,000 – (Defra £8K)
Introduction 1. Biodiversity decline is thought to be occurring as the result of habitat loss and fragmentation from human activity over a long period. The process of fragmentation involves the sub-division of large habitat patches into smaller patches. This occurs as a result of land-use change, urbanisation, road building and other infrastructure, and inappropriate habitat management. 2. Habitat fragmentation hinders the movement of individuals among small, isolated populations, threatening their long-term viability. Fragmentation may also inhibit species movement in response to predicted climate change impacts on their climate space. 3. In an attempt to address biodiversity decline from fragmentation and provide climate change adaptation strategies, conservation policy and action is expanding from site-based to landscape-scale. 4. In order to assess the effectiveness of conservation actions, there is a need to monitor change through time and identify whether habitat fragmentation continues to challenge biodiversity conservation. 5. The impacts of habitat fragmentation can be examined by assessing the structural connectivity or connectedness of the landscape, by examining the spatial structure or pattern of the landscape. Functional connectivity, on the other hand, is a measure of the ability of a species to move through a landscape. Functional connectivity is essentially species-based; a landscape can exhibit low structural connectedness at the same time exhibiting different degrees of species-specific functional connectivity. There is growing interest in the use of functional connectivity indicators, particularly in fragmented landscapes such as the UK.
Aims and Objectives 6. The UK Biodiversity Partnership Standing Committee has agreed to develop and use a suite of 18 biodiversity indicators to report progress towards 2010 targets and provide an effective communication tool for biodiversity assessment. One of these, an indicator of habitat connectivity/fragmentation, requires identification and testing. This indicator, which is aligned with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and European Union (EU) requirements, is intended to assess the change in habitat fragmentation and impacts on habitat connectivity and biodiversity. 7. The overall aims of the pilot study were to identify and test the most suitable and accepted methodology and data sources for the production of UK and country level indicators of functional habitat connectivity and provide recommendations for further development.
222 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Methods 8. Spatial land-cover data sets, Land Cover Map (LCM) and Countryside Survey (CS) produced by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology were tested in the pilot study to examine functional connectivity indicators. A beta version of the most recent LCM product (in development during 2007/8) showed a number of inconsistencies and was currently unsuitable for further analysis; the final product may be well suited for future analyses. Therefore, CS data for 10 sample squares were used in the pilot study to investigate approaches for the development of a connectivity indicator. 9. In order to assess functional connectivity a number of species-landscape interactions were defined. These interactions related to negative edge impacts from, and the permeability of, the surrounding landscape. This resulted in a number of alternative area (no edge, fixed edge, weighted edge) and distance (Euclidean and least-cost) options for further analysis. 10. These alternative area and distance options were then analysed by simple landscape metrics, to describe the general change in landscape structure and aid interpretation of connectivity measures, and three different groups of connectivity measures – Graph theory, Buffer radius and Incidence Function Models (IFM) – to assess functional connectivity. This analysis was first conducted on 1 CS sample square to refine the options for further application on all 10 CS sample squares.
Results 11. From the analysis of the single CS sample square the preferred area option was based on a weighted edge as this takes account of changes within the surrounding landscapes. Similarly, the least-cost distance option was accepted as this incorporates changes in landscape permeability. All three connectivity measures demonstrated potential to assess functional connectivity within the single CS sample square and were accepted for further analysis. 12. The study of the CS sample square also identified the need to consider whether connectivity measures were patch or grid-based, as patch-based measures may suggest an increase in connectivity with increased fragmentation. As a result, patch and grid/hybrid-based versions of the connectivity measures were included in the analysis of the 10 CS sample squares. 13. All connectivity indicators were able to detect change within the 10 CS sample squares. However, the change reported by some patch-based measures (buffer radius mean habitat area and patch-based IFM) were inconsistent with the observed landscape change. These measures predicted an improvement in connectivity with an increase in fragmentation. The grid/hybrid-based measures (grapy theory and IFM) were able to detect change consistently with observed landscape change.
Conclusion and recommendations 14. The report demonstrates that there is a trade-off between indicator complexities, inputs required and outputs they provide. On the one hand, very simple indicators which require minimal inputs do not realistically report on ecological processes such as connectivity. On the other hand, relatively complex mechanistic-type models are far more difficult to parameterise. Between these extremes are relatively simple heuristic approaches, based on sound theory and expert opinion, which can offer connectivity indicators based on a limited knowledge of how species interact with landscapes.
223 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
15. The urgency to implement conservation policy means that the there is often little time to wait until more complete data have been assembled. The pace of both land-use and climate change requires that policy and action must be based on acceptable principles, albeit subject to change in the light of emerging research. An adaptive modelling approach is a very practical response to the need for adaptive management, where one informs the other and vice-versa. 16. As a result of this study, it is concluded that the proposed indicator should be developed using a combination of metrics. It should comprise an area metric with a weighted edge, a least-cost distance metric and a hybrid (patch/grid-based) Incidence Function Model (IFM) applied to the Countryside Survey (CS) data. This proposed approach allows the indicator to take account of changes to area, isolation, edge and matrix as a result of fragmentation. 17. A comparison of the proposed spatial data and connectivity indicator with indicator suitability criteria, developed by CBD and EU, confirmed that both were highly suitable for indicator development, with the only concern being the limited extent of the CS data which may not reflect wider landscape change. 18. In the short term, to apply the indicator to a wider selection of CS sample squares to enable UK and Country level reporting there is a need to: • Further develop the GIS based hybrid IFM indicator tool. • Ensure CS data is in the required format with linear features added. • Review and revise the edge and permeability values. • Further review the performance of the proposed indicator by examining change in landscape scenarios. 19. In the longer term, there would be a need to tackle scale issues, linked to the limited extent of CS data, by utilising larger extent data, possibly LCM. There is also an ongoing need to validate connectivity with empirical evidence for selected focal species.
* The conectivity indicator developed in this project has been published as:
Watts, K. and Handley, P. (In press). Developing a functional connectivity indicator to detect change in fragmented landscapes. Ecological Indicators.
* The connectivity indicator developed in this project is currently being applied across the UK in Defra project CR0429: Habitat connectivity – an indicator for UK and country level reporting. phase 2 production of the indicator.
224 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0363: CLIMATE CHANGE AND MIGRATORY SPECIES – INDICATOR SPECIES AND PROTOCOLS FOR DATA COLLECTION
British Trust for Ornithology (lead), Swansea University, CEFAS, University of Aberdeen and Bat Conservation Trust (sub-contractors) Dr Humphrey Crick (BTO) BTO, The Nunnery
8 May 2007 – 29 August 2008 £70,000 + (£10,000 BTO contribution)
Executive Summary Anthropogenically-induced climate change is one of the major factors likely to affect the Earth’s ecosystems in the coming years and centuries. Migratory species, by travelling large distances, often between discrete sites, are particularly likely to be affected by climate change at some point in their life cycles, and there is already compelling evidence for impacts on a wide range of marine mammals, fish, sea turtles, squid, bats, terrestrial mammals and insects. Impacts include changes in timing of migration; changes in population sizes; and changes in population distributions (see review 0363). The UK Government is a signatory to a number of international treaties and agreements that seek to promote and maintain the conservation status of migratory species of wildlife, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) takes a lead role for the Government in these areas. The primary instrument in this area is the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). The Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals recently adopted a Resolution (CoP 8.13) recognising the impacts of climate change on migratory species and advised that more research is needed to improve our understanding of these impacts and to implement adaptation measures to help reduce foreseeable adverse effects. In order to achieve this successfully, monitoring of the impacts is required, both to quantify the extent of the problem, but also to assess the success of any implemented measures. Clearly, given the great range and diversity of taxa affected by climate change it is impossible to monitor all species and all effects of climate change. However, it is likely that many of the key physical and ecological processes through which climate change may impact wildlife could be monitored through a suite of key indicators, each comprising of certain parameters of species / species populations or of groups of species as proxies for wider assemblages, habitats and ecosystems. This project aims to identify such a suite of indicators.
Objectives The aim of this work is to identify a suite of indicators whose attributes could inform of climate change impacts on the global status of migratory species. This suite is intended to be representative of the widest possible range of taxa, habitats and geographical regions as well as of the key physical and ecological processes through which climate change is expected to affect migratory species.
225 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Approaches and Methods Desirable properties of an indicator The high diversity of potential indicators means that these indicators need to be evaluated for the degree to which they are ‘fit-for-purpose’ as a decision support tool. As a guide, desirable criteria for evaluating and choosing indicators were defined and agreed upon at the onset. These criteria were based on the literature, and adapted to fulfil the specific objectives of this work. In total twelve desirable indicator criteria were proposed. These address four key aspects: net impact, statistical properties, data requirements and global applicability of data collection methods
Choosing the indicator suite Guided by the literature, expert opinion and the desirable properties mentioned above, a suite of indicators that would reflect impacts of climate change on key groups of migratory species were selected from a larger list presented at a workshop attended by international experts in this field. We focussed specifically on climate change “impacts”, defined here as a negative effect on the conservation status of the population or community of interest, in order to inform parties to the CMS of detrimental impacts of climate change that may require policy action. Migratory species were defined here according to the CMS, as ‘species that cyclically and predictably cross one or more national jurisdictional boundaries’.
Results We consider here a suite of eighteen indicators, which we feel are sufficient for further consideration. This includes four indicators for birds (1) Relative abundance of Trans- Saharan migrant birds, (2) Relative abundance of Penguins, (3) Productivity of seabirds, and (4) Productivity of Arctic Shorebirds; four indicators for marine mammals (5) Polar bear body condition, (6) Fur seal pup production in the Antarctic, (7) Southern Right Whale calf output in the Antarctic, (8) Ice-breeding seal pup survival; one indicator for fish (9) Juvenile survival of Salmon, two indicators for turtles (10) Loss of suitable sea turtle nesting habitat through sea level rise, and (11) Skewed sex ratios in sea turtles, four indicators for land mammals (12) Caribou / Reindeer calf production and survival, (13) Population size and range of large African herbivorous mammals, (14) Population size and movements of Wildebeest (15) Population size of Saiga antelope and three indicators for bats (16) Abundance of bat aggregations at ‘underground’ hibernation sites, (17) Populations of straw colored fruit bat in Africa, and (18) Populations of Mexican Free-tailed Bats. Whilst an attempt was made to select a suite of indicators here that present the clearest signal of the impacts of climate change on migratory species, it is likely that indicators here will be subject to other strong influences. In addition it is clear that very few indicators scored highly for their specificity and theoretical basis. The effects of climate change on species result from the complex interaction between global climate, regional climate, local atmospheric / ocean processes, and other anthropogenic pressures such as fishing, contaminants and habitat loss. In addition, ecological mechanisms influencing the populations, such as density-dependent factors and species interactions, may act in consort with, synergistically with or in opposition to those of the climate. Both the physical, anthropogenic and ecological processes should be considered in conjunction if we are to understand the causal mechanisms that control population dynamics. For any population, the interactions of all these pressures represent one state to which the population needs to adapt. If one is to have any chance of adequately conserving species / populations, then consideration should be given to all the pressures together. Therefore, and where possible, indicators should be complemented by analyses to identify the contribution
226 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
of climate change, over and above other influences. It is also important that where there is additional information that provides support for an indicator that this is presented with the indicator. This may include distributional change or phenological indicators which reflect climate change, but where the impact is currently unclear. In addition, remote sensing information provides an extremely powerful resource for putting an indicator in context. This has the potential for improving our understanding of how climate change processes affect populations and as a tool more generally for explaining what is happening to a wider audience.
Recommendations In order to maintain a scientific basis, advance testing of individual indicator performance should ideally be undertaken before an indicator is implemented. Each indicator suggested here would need to be agreed and developed by those experts groups that hold the time series of data. It is possible that for a small number of the indicators presented here, such as the bird indicator for populations of Trans- Saharan migrant birds and Polar Bear body condition and survival, it would be relatively straightforward to produce an indicator of the impacts of climate change given the existence of well established standardised monitoring protocols and if support was obtained from the appropriate data providers. In addition, the methods for constructing indicators from such data are already well developed for other purposes. However, most indicators proposed here require additional data collation and, and in many cases, would require data collation and some development of novel methods for producing trends and constructing indicators. In the development of all indicators, it is essential to consider how the outputs will relate to conservation objectives and how a system of alerts and triggers for action could be implemented.
Future work To be used as a model for considering the development of other indicators, Defra asked for a pilot indicator to be produced, of which an indicator for Trans-Saharan migrants based on data collected through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Project (PECBM) was proposed. A concept note was submitted in 2008.
Technology Transfer a) Events A workshop involving international experts and relevant stakeholders (held at the University of East Anglia 13/14 December) was organised to a) help define indicator methodology, b) critically assess the proposed list of species and habitats; c) refine the list of suitable indicator species and habitats; d) discuss potential standardised protocols which can be applied internationally in both developed and developing areas; discussion of proposed alerting methodology; identifying gaps and how these might be filled.
b) Report and publications Newson, S.E., Mendes, S., Crick, H.Q.P., Dulvy, N.K., Houghton, J.D.R., Hays, G.C., Hutson, A.M., Macleod, C.D., Pierce, G.J. & Robinson, R.A. (2009) Indicators of the impact of climate change on migratory species. Endangered Species Research 7, 101-113.
Newson, S.E., Dulvy, N., Hays, G.C., Houghton, J.D.R., Gerard, F.F., Hutson, A.M., Macleod, C.D., Mendes, S., Robinson, R., Sparks, T.H., Pierce, G.J. & Crick, H.Q.P. (2008). Indicators of the impact of Climate Change on migratory Species. BTO Research Report 494, British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford.
227 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0374: UK SPRING INDICATOR - SPRING INDEX
Woodland Trust Richard Smithers UK Conservation Adviser, Woodland Trust, Autumn Park, Dysart Road, Grantham, Lincs NG31 6LL
2006 - 2007 £1,000
Executive Summary The UK Spring Index is calculated from the annual mean observation date of the following four biological events: first flowering of hawthorn, first flowering of horse chestnut, first recorded flight of orange tip butterfly and first sight of swallow. The 1891-1947 data were collected by the Royal Meteorological Society and the 1999-2008 data by the UK Phenology Network.
While the indicator has fluctuated from year to year, on average spring events in the UK occurred seven days earlier in the year between 1999-2008 than in the pre-1948 records. These changes in the Spring Index are strongly linked to increases in temperature in March and April.
Introduction and Policy Rationale The UK Government has committed to two important international targets to protect biodiversity. In 2001, European Union Heads of State or Government agreed that biodiversity decline should be halted with the aim of reaching this objective by 2010. In 2002, Heads of State at the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development committed themselves to achieve, by 2010, a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level, as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on Earth.
In 2009, Defra published a suite of eighteen biodiversity indicators that provide part of the evidence provide part of the evidence to assess whether the targets set out above have been achieved. One of these, the Spring Index is a contextual indicator that shows how changes in climate can lead to changes in the timing of biological events.
Approaches and Methods The UK Phenology Network (UKPN) Spring Index is based on the annual mean observation dates for four natural events: first flowering of hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), first flowering of horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum), first recorded flight of orange tip butterfly (Anthocharis cardamines) and first sight of swallow (Hirundo rustica). These four events were chosen for the following reasons:
• Good UK coverage • Well recognised and easily recorded species • Good historical data • Spanning both early and later spring events • Included plants, a vertebrate and an invertebrate • Strong phenological response observed. 228 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
The overall index is compiled by calculating an annual mean across all sites where all four biological events were recorded.
The pre-1948 data were mostly collected by the Royal Meteorological Society (RMS). In 1998 the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology revived the Phenology Network in the UK, which was launched by the Woodland Trust as a web-based project in 2000. The UKPN has grown since its inception to 29,000 registered recorders in 2008. In Spring 2005 the UKPN launched the Springwatch survey with the BBC, the biggest ever survey into the arrival of spring, with 70,000 people logging 157,000 records.
Results
Figure 1. Spring Index for the UK, 1891-1947 and 1999-2008 *Number of days after 1 January (e.g. day 121 = 1 May) Source: Royal Meteorological Society, UK Phenology Network
The Index shows a strong relationship with the mean March and April temperature (Figure 2). There is also a significant difference in the magnitude of change in the Spring Index at higher temperatures. The average advance in dates for the Spring Index is 3.2 days per oC below a mean March-April temperature of 7oC and 7.4 days per oC above 7oC.
229 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Figure 2. Relationship between Spring Index and Central England Temperature, 1891-1947, 1999-2008
Future Work Within Life of Project Annual update
Beyond Life of Project In association with the University of Cambridge, work is ongoing to explore potential to develop a ‘Total Spring Index’ using first flowering dates of the 408 plant species held by the UK Phenology Network for the period 1753 to date.
Technology Transfer Events None
Reports and Publications Collinson, N. & Sparks, T. (2005). Nature’s Calendar – 2004 results from the UK Phenology Network. British Wildlife, April 2005, 251-256.
230 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0175: ECOFACT(POST-CS1990 RESEARCH)
NERC Bob Bunce (now retired and most of research team left CEH), Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Grange-over-Sands, Merlewood, Cumbria (now closed and moved to Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Library Avenue, Bailrigg, Lancaster LA1 4AP)
1996 - 1998 £1,393,791 NB. Six of eleven modules were funded by NERC.
Executive Summary This diverse project developed the evidence base from Countryside Survey 1978 and 1990 on several broad yet highly policy-relevant fronts. On conclusion the range of modular work programs increased understanding of the significance of observed temporal and spatial patterns of land-cover and diversity across Britain whilst making a first hypothesis-led attempt to estimate the causes of vegetation change seen between the surveys. Additional work focussed on 1) specific habitats or/and drivers of change, 2) assembling a better understanding of historical land management, 3) articulating the practical land-management implications of observed changes between 1978 and 1990, 4) developing links to other surveys, 5) reviewing monitoring methods by wider consultation.
Introduction and Policy Rationale The project comprised modules of work funded separately or jointly by DEFRA (then DOE with MAFF) and NERC reflecting a program of research that comprised underpinning scientific development work as well as applied research to develop indicators of ecological change and articulate the policy implications of observed changes in light of their landscape locations and possible causes. The tender document referred explicitly to the Government White Paper ‘Our Common Inheritance’ and the new UK Biodiversity Action Plan, both of which required that sound science should underpin all environmental policy.
Objectives A flavour of the breadth and purpose of the research can be gleaned from the list of work modules as follows:
1a Measuring the quality of botanical diversity 1b Botanical diversity within woodlands 1c Species and vegetation on agricultural land in England and Wales 2a Developments of links to other surveys and classifications 2b Land Cover Map development for Wales 3 The role of seedbanks in the restoration of biodiversity 4 Review of land management practices that affect botanical diversity 5 Historical review of countryside and agricultural policy 6a Understanding the causes of change in biodiversity 6b Impact of pollution on biodiversity in the British landscape 6c Causes of change in uplands and road verges 6d Biodiversity of agricultural land in Scotland 7a Patterns of biodiversity in the landscape 7b Relationships between landscape features and ecological function 8 Review of techniques for survey and monitoring 231 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
9 Seminars 10 GIS development for CS2000 11 CS2000 planning group
Approaches and Methods Such a varied range of module deliverables warranted a similarly diverse range of approaches. The research was collaborative, employing experts outside CEH as and when necessary, to form a wide-ranging consortium of scientists and policy experts. In addition the varied nature of the project meant that new field work and laboratory analysis of soil and plant tissue samples was carried out for some modules whilst others required novel development of multivariate statistical techniques. The wide range of methods is reflected in the diversity of project outputs.
Results A selection of key findings and outputs: 1. Produced the MAVIS software now downloaded by >2000 users and in use on at least tow taught university courses (MMU and Birmingham). 2. Produced a dataset of recalibrated Ellenberg indicator values for the British higher plant flora. Now widely used by students, scientists and practitioners for analysis of survey and monitoring data. 3. Developed key indicators of botanical quality and process subsequently applied in CS2000 and CS2007. 4. Based on correspondence between vegetation change and the prevalence and severity of drivers, the most apparent possible causes of change between 1978 and 1990 were in descending order; neglect of road verges, conifer planting, agricultural intensification, crop management, upland sheep grazing, neglect of stream banks.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy The Ecofact program provided insights into the most important potential drivers of change in the British countryside in the critical period between 1978 and 1990 which appeared to coincide with the culmination of post-war agricultural intensification and the changes in production associated with the Common Agricultural Policy. The project also trialled and developed a series of key indicators of change in vegetation condition subsequently used in the series of UK Indicators of Sustainable Development, the England Biodiversity Strategy and to characterise the condition of Broad and Priority Habitats up to and including the most recent survey in 2007.
Future Work Within life of project Beyond life of project The project overlapped with and helped prepare the ground for CS2000.
Technology Transfer Reports and publications Smart SM, et al (2002) Do field boundaries act as refugia for grassland plant species diversity in intensively managed landscapes in Britain? Agric.Eco.Env. 91, 73-87.
Smart, S.M., Firbank, L.G., Bunce, R.G.H., Watkins, J.W. (2000) Quantifying changes in abundance of food plants for butterfly larvae and farmland birds. Journal of Applied Ecology 37, 398-414.
232 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Hopkins, A., Bunce, R.G.H., Smart, S.M. (2000). Recent changes in grassland management and their effects on botanical composition. Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England. 161, 210-223.
Hill, M.O., Roy, D.B., Mountford, J.O., Bunce, R.G.H. (2000). Extending Ellenbergs’ indicator values to a new area: an algorithmic approach. Journal of Applied Ecology 37, 3-15.
MAVIS (Modular Analysis of Vegetation Information System) Software tool free on-line at http://www.ceh.ac.uk/products/software/mavis/download.asp
Published Ecofact reports:
Firbank, L.G., Smart, S.M., van de Poll, H.M., Bunce, R.G.H., Hill, M.O., Howard, D.C., Watkins, J.W., Stark, G.J. (2000) Causes of Change in British Vegetation. ECOFACT Volume 4. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London. 98 pp. Bunce, R.G.H., Barr, C.J., Gillespie, M.K., Howard, D.C., Scott, R.A., Smart, S.M., van de Poll, H.M., Watkins, J.W. (1999a) Vegetation of the British countryside - the Countryside Vegetation System. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London. 224 pp.
Bunce, R.G.H., Smart, S.M., van de Poll, H.M., Watkins, J.W., Scott, W.A. (1999b). Measuring Change in British Vegetation. ECOFACT volume 3. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London. 138 pp.
Hill, M.O., Mountford, J.O., Roy, D.B. and Bunce, R.G.H. (1999b). Ellenbergs’ indicator values for British plants. ECOFACT Volume 2, Technical Annex. ITE Monkswood, Huntingdon. London: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
233 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0186: NATIONAL BAT MONITORING SCHEME
Bat Conservation Trust Dr Allyson Walsh (Current contact point Dr Karen Haysom) 15 Cloisters House, 8 Battersea Park Road, London SW8 4BG
1 January 1996 – 31 December 2000 £501,055
Introduction and Policy Rationale Effective conservation relies on gathering information to identify changes in populations that are of conservation concern. In the UK, a paucity of quantitative historical data means that population trends of bats were poorly known, prior to the survey programme established through this contract.
In December 1995, the Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions commissioned a five-year programme of research (1996-2000), the National Bat Monitoring Programme (NBMP), with the overall goal of developing an effective monitoring strategy for resident species of bat in the UK. Since 2001 the project has continued with core funding from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
The NBMP is designed to underpin obligations to conserve bats under European directives and international agreements, in particular the Agreement on the Conservation of Bats in Europe (EUROBATS) and the EU Habitats and Species Directive. The aim is to provide relevant information about bat population levels which could then be compared with targets outlined in National Biodiversity Action Plans and to provide data of value to broader conservation actions, and to policy development and implementation.
Approaches and Methods The programme relies on data gathered by volunteers across large numbers of sites. The NBMP has adopted sampling strategies to minimise bias and observation error, and maximise precision and hence the probability of detecting significant population changes as early in the monitoring process as possible. Power analyses were employed to guide survey designs capable of making reliable inferences about population trends.
Three principal methods were applied: counts at summer maternity roost sites; counts at winter hibernation sites; summer field surveys using bat detectors. Target species during the establishment phase of this programme were Rhinolophus ferrumequinum, R. hipposideros, Eptesicus serotinus, Nyctalus noctula, Myotis daubentonii, M. nattereri, Pipistrellus pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus.
Standardised monitoring protocols were developed to collect UK-wide baseline data for each of the target species. To cross-validate, a double-sampling approach has been applied whereby each species is monitored by two methods.
Where appropriate, sites are sampled in an optimum random-stratified design to maximise the precision of national population estimates. The ITE land classification system was adopted as the base stratification system.
234 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Progress and results
A range of pilot studies were conducted, leading to the implementation of six key annual national monitoring schemes for eight target species of bat. Key schemes, start year and number of sites included in the network up to 31st Dec 2000 were:
Maternity colony monitoring • Lesser horseshoe bat, 1993 in Wales, 1995 in England, 157 sites. • Serotine, 1997, 54 sites • Pipistrelle bats (both species), 1997, 585 sites
Field survey monitoring • Mixed species: noctule, serotine, both pipistrelle species, 1998, 367 sites. • Daubenton’s bats, 1997, 716 sites
Hibernation site monitoring • All species present in hibernation sites in the UK, 1997, 255 sites.
Pilot studies highlighted problems in the use of a maternity colony monitoring scheme for Natterer’s bats, and the need for an increased number of sites. Standardisation of greater horseshoe maternity colony counts was not possible during the project period, but counts were being collated. Analyses of data from other schemes did not identify any major problems with project protocols, although some minor changes were recommended.
Improved summer and winter distribution maps were produced for all UK bat species, and published in a provisional UK Bat Atlas.
By the end of 2000 over 1,500 people had been recruited to the programme, and of these 851 volunteers had participated in the monitoring schemes and contributed data. The volunteer recruitment rate increased consistently from year-to-year. Over 60 training workshops were delivered.
A dedicated relational database was built (Access 97) to store NBMP data. The database model and management systems were reviewed and structural changes recommended to improve efficiency and ease of data transfer to Recorder2000 and the Countryside Information System (CIS).
This project demonstrated for the first time that statistical trends in bat populations could be identified from data collected by volunteers following NBMP survey protocols. For example, the UK lesser horseshoe bat population increased by approximately 4.8% per year over seven years (1993 to 1999). This upward trend was mainly due to an 11% per year rise over the three year period 1997-1999. Differences existed between the English and Welsh populations; an overall decline of approximately -3.2% per year was evident in the English population, in contrast to a 6.2% per year rise in the Welsh population from 1993 to 1999.
235 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Recommendations Key methodological recommendations were to maintain annual monitoring of target species using a volunteer network and to ensure a minimum of 30-40 sites per monitoring scheme were surveyed each year. It was recommended that monitoring schemes for two further species (brown long-eared and Leisler’s bat) should be incorporated into the programme over the following two years. Research studies to develop novel methods, in particular for woodland species, were recommended for implementation during the next five years.
Implementation of a monitoring programme to encompass most UK bat species requires considerable improvements in our knowledge and understanding of bat populations. The project findings highlighted a need for further research at the genetic, species and ecosystem levels. It was recommended that the surveillance schemes established through the NBMP be supported by research and validation projects to maximise the effectiveness of delivery and continued refinement of protocols.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy The surveillance schemes established through the NBMP have enabled reporting on changes in bat species status for various policy customers. Beyond the life of this project, these have included the UK Biodiversity Strategy (BAP reporting and target setting), reporting to Europe against the Habitats Directive (Article 17) and the recent establishment of a UK Biodiversity Indicator.
Future Work Subsequent to the project reporting period, the NBMP has been extended to provide data for 11 UK species and a network of more than 3000 sites. The existence of parallel monitoring schemes in other European countries offers the possibility of integrated pan-European monitoring and the development of pan-European indicators with a high degree of relevance to tracking the impact of climate change. Alternative uses of NBMP data, including the examination of species-habitat associations to inform land management planning and the ecosystem approach to biodiversity delivery are ongoing.
Technology Transfer Over 60 training workshops were delivered during the reporting period. Subsequently technology developed through the project and its later JNCC follow-on contracts has informed capacity building workshops in several European countries.
236 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0241: NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY NETWORK
The National Biodiversity Network Trust Dr James Munford (report by Geoff Johnson) Registered office for NBN Trust and BioD Services Ltd 3-5 High Pavement, Lace Market, Nottingham, NG1 1HF
Feb 2008 – Feb 2011 £574,000 (ex VAT
Executive Summary The National Biodiversity Network (NBN) contract has allowed the NBN partners to continue the development of infrastructure, tools, resources and relationships to increase the quantity, quality and use of biodiversity data for conservation management and decision-making. Significant increases in the availability and use of relevant species records have been realized during the first 18months of the contract. Use has been expanded to include specific example applications for biodiversity screening, planning screening and agri-environment assessment. Work is continuing on climate change, ecosystem services and other priority research areas.
Introduction and Policy Rationale The NBN Trust and Defra have had Joint Venture Agreement since 2001 designed to accelerate the development of the NBN, to take the Network from an early proof of concept, through a pilot phase, to an operationally robust tool for delivering biodiversity data to users. By September 2007, this programme of work, coupled to the investment made by individual member organisations of the Trust, delivered an operational web Gateway containing 28 million species records and other datasets supported by a data collation framework reflecting the recommendations of the Co- ordinating Commission for Biological Recording (CCBR). The aim of this contract is to build on the work carried out so far to continue to develop the NBN.
Objectives The aim of the contract is to develop the NBN through the implementation of a themed work programme. The themes satisfy both the NBN’s strategic requirements and are aligned with Defra’s strategic objectives. The three programme themes are identified and described in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Programme themes and descriptions Theme Description Wider use of data The NBN provides a series of tools, standards and services to allow data providers and users access to data. This theme is about developing and extending the use of those facilities. Specific priorities include engagement with conservation, planning and agri- environment uses across the UK. Greater access to This theme is concerned with increasing the availability of relevant data biodiversity data through engagement with data providers and the maintenance of the NBN tools, standards and services. Further engagement This theme is concerned with getting the general public involved with with the public biodiversity recording.
237 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Approaches and Methods The National Biodiversity Network is a partnership of data providers and users. It includes the UK country conservation agencies, the Environment Agency and national and regional organizations associated with the collection and use of biodiversity data. Work towards contract objectives has been carried out through a combination of partner project delivery and the development of tools and resources managed internally by NBN Trust officers. Project development and selection has been on a thematic basis along the three work areas identified for the contract.
Table 2 provides details of example work areas carried out so far under the contract.
Table 2: Example work areas Theme Examples Wider use of data Development of Biodiversity Screening toolset for the Environment Agency Development of Agri-environment spend assessment toolset for Natural England – also to be promoted in Wales & Scotland Engagement with the Planning Portal (Planning 360) to identify ways in which biodiversity data can be used in planning strategy and screening. Greater access to Development and maintenance of the NBN Gateway data Development and promotion of Data Flow, Biodiversity Screening, Planning Screening and Data Management protocols Data collation and capture of lichen records Training of data providers and users by Local Record Centres including IEEM members. Further engagement Development of public recording tool for Non Native Species data with the public capture by the public.
Results Much of the work carried out under the contract is concerned with the development and maintenance of relationships for the supply, maintenance and use of data using the NBN. Measuring the effectiveness of those relationships in an objective and repeatable manner is difficult, and so proxies based on the use of the NBN Gateway and web services and the number and availability of species records through the NBN Gateway have been used as metrics. Metrics covering Use and Access to Data are presented in tables 3 & 4. The year identified refers to the ending FY ie 2008 numbers are for the period 01/04/2007 – 01/04/2008.
Table 3: Numbers of users of the NBN Gateway and web services for 08-09 Metric - use 2008 2009 Change List of organisations using web services 13 19 46% Number of active users on the Gateway website 1171 1428 22% Number of Gateway website hits 166378 184864 11% Number of web service hits 49411 84987 72% Number of custom download requests 8 36 350% Number of help desk enquiries 168 274 63%
238 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0250: MAGIC - MULTI-AGENCY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FOR THE COUNTRYSIDE
Defra Phillipa Swanton c/o Ergon House, Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 2AL
2000 - 2003 £485,000
Executive Summary MAGIC1 is a geoportal2 created by a partnership of UK government departments and agencies to provide access to rural and countryside information for partner organisations, other public and private sector organisations and the wider public.
The service enables users to access, view and interrogate map-based environmental scheme and designation information drawn together from across government.
MAGIC services an extensive and diverse range of users and usage has grown significantly since its launch in July 2002. For example, the average daily number of user sessions rose from 400 at the launch to an average in excess of 4,000 per day over the last 12 months to end July 2009.
Introduction and Policy Rationale A number of government departments and agencies are involved in developing and implementing rural and countryside policies in England. This involves the collection and use of data on a wide range of land management schemes and countryside and environmental designations.
Effective implementation of policies at all levels (from the national down to the site level) is significantly dependent on access to integrated environmental and rural economy datasets.
Much of the information was held as digital mapped information suitable for use in GIS by organisations including the then Farming and Rural Conservation Agency, English Heritage, English Nature and the Countryside Agency3, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions4, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food5 and the Forestry Commission. Some information was shared between the partners but there was no single source of datasets that was readily accessible to all or to wider stakeholders.
The overall goal of the project was to create a shared geographic information resource providing rural and countryside information to the participating organisations by the end of March 2002.
1 www.magic.gov.uk 2 A type of web portal used to find and access geographic information (geospatial information) and associated geographic services 3 Now Natural England 4 Now Communities and Local Government 5 Now Defra 239 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Objectives The project objectives were:
• To bring together existing core data into a single accessible GIS acting as an agreed definitive source of major rural and countryside datasets for the participating organisations.
• To increase access to rural and countryside information by providing data for other rural information platforms, including DETR's Countryside Information System (CIS), the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) and agency and departmental websites.
• To provide access to rural and countryside information to a wide range of organisations, including, for example, the Environment Agency, Local Authorities, Government Offices, Regional Development Agencies, National Park Authorities and to the wider public.
Approaches and Methods MAGIC was delivered as a project under the governance of a project board on which all partners were represented. The main activities included:
• Development of a corporate Identity, awareness raising and external publicity.
• Investigation of suitable software packages.
• Research and investigation into best practice and lessons learned for similar applications.
• Development of a prototype system to demonstrate the data and functionality that could be included in the final system.
• Creation of a user requirements specification using feedback from demonstrations, questionnaires and face-to-face interviews.
• Establishing protocols and formats for collation, documentation and updating datasets in agreement with the participating organisations.
• Collation of the datasets required by users, digitisation of any datasets not held in digital format and creation of supporting documentation and metadata
• Design and build of the technical architecture, GIS system and website.
• User testing of a pilot implementation followed by the launch of the service and a programme of user training.
• Development of the system to allow wider access to information.
• Post-implementation review.
240 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Results The post-implementation review confirmed that the project had been very successfully delivered and that partners had had their expectations met or exceeded.
In the area of wider access MAGIC significantly exceeded the original project objectives by taking an unrestricted internet approach and making MAGIC available to an unlimited audience. The variety and number of users and uses outside the original partnership is now far greater than originally envisaged.
In 2009 MAGIC is a well known and respected “brand” and a service heavily relied on by many people in their daily work.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy Geographic information is an essential resource for evidence-based policy making, enabling policy makers to take account of “place” and regional diversity when planning and monitoring policy measures. For Defra the ability to share data is essential because of the cross-cutting nature of its policy agenda and the extended delivery network.
MAGIC succeeded against a background of limited apparent success in multi-agency collaborative GIS initiative, as a result of the collaboration and sense of partnership created by the organisations behind MAGIC. This was the key success factor.
The MAGIC partners made the service available to all internet users. This means that data has been used in ways that had not been originally anticipated. For example, MAGIC has been used by schools, researchers, environmental consultancies, campaigners, archaeologists and for planning outdoor activities.
A recent customer survey indicated that over 60% of users find MAGIC meets their needs extremely or very well, although the performance of the service will need to be improved to meet increasing demand.
Users who do not have access to the training and support provided to the partners can find the user interface difficult to use and it is recognised that future internet based web service design will need to reflect the needs of less specialist users.
When MAGIC was launched it was recognised that interoperability6 between services would become increasingly important. MAGIC successfully tested interoperability with the NBN service and demonstrated the value of sharing data for a broad range of policy and operational purposes.
The experience has been built upon to deliver shared spatial information services for Defra and its delivery network (SPIRE). It is also informing thinking about implementation of a European Commission Directive (INSPIRE) that will improve the availability of spatial information across Europe.
Future Work The MAGIC project has been completed and the service is now run on a business as usual basis by Natural England on behalf of Defra and the partners.
6 The ability to communicate and exchange information between systems 241 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Additional project work completed in 2005 increased the scope of MAGIC to include marine and coastal data. Data is updated every month and new datasets are added to reflect user demand.
The future of the MAGIC service is kept under review and the MAGIC system may be integrated with SPIRE to reduce the overheads of running separate systems. The publication of data to meet INSPIRE may also change the role of MAGIC.
Technology Transfer
MAGIC has been demonstrated at an extremely wide range of events including GIS industry conferences, partner events and environmental and countryside initiatives.
For example, during the course of the project, MAGIC hosted three UK seminars for the Environment and Rural departments and agencies on the lessons learned in working in partnership.
MAGIC received the Information Management Award (GIS Category) and the AGI7 Central Government Award for best practice in 2002.
“MAGIC: a geoportal for the English countryside” was published in Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Volume 29, Issue 1, January 2005, Pages 71-85 David Askew, Sharon Evans, Ruth Matthews, Phillipa Swanton.
7 Association of Geographic Information 242 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Information extracted from press release
0270: GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY INFORMATION FACILITY
JNCC
2001 - 2011
Summary In 2001 the UK became a full voting member of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). The goal of this international science facility is to provide world wide access, via the Internet, to geographical, ecological, genetic, and taxonomic information about the world’s biological resources.
GBIF will be a network of biodiversity databases and information technology tools that will enable users to navigate the world’s vast quantities of biodiversity information. The data will produce national economic, environmental and social benefits by advancing education and scientific research in areas such as conservation, biology, agriculture, and biomedicine.
Access to information on biodiversity will be made much easier – especially for developing countries, from which the majority of the data originates.
So far over 20 countries have joined and pledged financial support for GBIF’s first three years of operation. A number of other countries and international organisations have become associate (non-voting) participants. The UK attended the fourth meeting of the GBIF Governing Board in Canberra, Australia.
243 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Review Report: Information extracted from SID5
0276: REVIEW OF UK AND SCOTTISH SURVEILLANCE AND MONITORING SCHEMES FOR THE DETECTION OF CLIMATE-INDUCED CHANGES IN BIODIVERSITY
Just Ecology Ltd
2002 - 2004
Summary Projected climate change scenarios suggest there will be marked, but in some cases uncertain, differences in our weather patterns in years to come. Scottish and UK conservation policies will have to be adapted to address the potential and actual climate-induced responses. Key to this will be an ability to monitor the response of species and habitats, in order to test and refine impact predictions and to monitor their response to adaptation activities. The strategic importance of a fit for purpose surveillance & monitoring programme is therefore very clear. Climate change impacts on species and habitats can be summarised as either a change in quantity (the abundance of a species, or area of habitat), location (the range and distribution of species and habitats), or quality (the community composition or structure of a habitat, or the genetic variability in a population of a species). What is not known is the reality of occurrence and scope of these impacts; and for that we need to look to various surveillance & monitoring projects.
Aims and objectives The objective of this project was to review existing and planned Scottish and UK surveillance & monitoring schemes, assess their adequacy for detecting climate- induced changes in biodiversity, identify gaps in the data provided either within or between schemes, and provide recommendations on how important gaps could be addressed. The ultimate aim was to define a coordinated, targeted and cost-effective surveillance & monitoring framework to detect and measure climate change effects on Scottish and UK biodiversity, so as to help develop policy to safeguard and, where appropriate, enhance biodiversity.
Methodology In order to judge the extent to which UK biodiversity surveillance could meet climate change surveillance & monitoring requirements, a list of 626 possible species and 103 possible habitats on which to focus climate change surveillance & monitoring effort was assembled. These were drawn from species and habitats of particular conservation importance, alien or pest species and species already in use as indicators of climate change.
A consultation with the UK biodiversity surveillance community was held on this list and the selection subsequently rationalised in response to their suggestions (Including recommendations of additional species). Once the list of habitats and species to be Included in the final surveillance & monitoring framework had been rationalised, the results of the consultation were also used to make comparison
244 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
between this framework and the current capabilities of existing UK biodiversity surveillance & monitoring schemes. In a follow-up consultation, organisations whose remit was felt to Include certain of the species/habitats on the rationalised list that were not as yet monitored were approached to outline proposals for filling these gaps.
Results Fifty-five schemes fulfilled set criteria for Inclusion. Most of these were targeted towards the surveillance & monitoring (often distribution mapping) of particular species, the majority of which relate to the terrestrial environment. Habitat-level surveillance & monitoring is currently restricted mainly to statutory bodies such as the Forestry Commission and Environment Agency/Scottish Environmental Protection Agency and to the Countryside Survey. The consultation on the initial list of species/habitats resulted in an idealised surveillance & monitoring framework consisting of 400 species and 39 habitats that were sensitive to climate, easily monitored on the whole, Included species/habitats of particular conservation importance and, where possible, had a long time-series of past data.
310 of these climate sensitive species and 15 of these habitats are currently monitored in such a way as to detect predicted responses to climate change. However, the majority of schemes do not, as a matter of course, currently interpret their findings in the context of climate. Five schemes do interpret their findings with climatic data (the MarClim and Sealife Survey schemes coordinated by the Marine Biological Association, the Rothamsted Insect Survey, the UK Environmental Change Network and the UK Phenology Network) but restrict their focus to certain taxa. There remain some gaps in climate change surveillance & monitoring, which if filled could provide data of use in surveillance & monitoring of the effects of climate change on UK biodiversity. The most important gaps are surveillance & monitoring for bryophytes, fungi, hymenoptera, and aquatic invertebrates. Some of these gaps could be filled by the implementation of a range of surveillance & monitoring proposals put forward by organisations Including the Marine Biological Association, British Bryological Society and British Mycological Society or by further adaptation of the Countryside Survey.
Key conclusions To detect climate-induced impacts on biodiversity, measurements will need to be made which are able to show changes in the quantity, location and/or quality of species and habitats and the rate of change of these factors. If properly collated and utilised, there are already a considerable range of biodiversity surveillance schemes that provide data of use in surveillance & monitoring of the effects of climate change on UK biodiversity.
The five principal schemes that interpret findings with climatic data as a matter of course provide valuable data but restrict their scope to certain taxa.
In addition, there is as yet no centralised collation and reporting structure in place for the provision of this information to policy-makers.
245 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Therefore, although the range of taxa and environments covered by these schemes will provide a good overview of the effects of climate change on biodiversity, in most instances further analysis with climatic data and the establishment of a centralised reporting framework will be necessary and appropriate resources will need to be supplied to facilitate this.
Future developments Three distinct projects can be identified which, if implemented in full, would lead to the establishment of an extensive UK-wide climate change surveillance & monitoring framework. These projects are: a) A project that would essentially maintain the status quo and by bringing together those climate-related analyses and data that already exist and reporting them in a single format – either a publication or on a website. b) A project to enable the reporting structure to be expanded to Include collation and reporting of analyses from other regularly updated surveillance schemes. c) A project to rectify taxonomic and habitat surveillance & monitoring gaps.
246 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0297: LOCAL AUTHORITY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR BIODIVERSITY
Entec UK Ltd Richard Knightbridge, Entec UK Ltd, Gables House, Kenilworth Road, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, CV32 6JX
2004 - 2005 £54,000
Introduction and Objectives The objective of this study was to “develop a robust, consistent, cost effective and simple indicator for local authority performance on biodiversity which has the capability to be included as a measure within the process of Comprehensive Performance Assessment”. The Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) is a mechanism for assessing local authorities which is designed to drive the continuous improvement of their services by measuring performance and promoting ‘excellent’ status amongst local authorities. The addition to the suite of indicators used in CPA of a new indicator for biodiversity would allow local authorities’ delivery of biodiversity services to be measured at a national level.
Approach A literature search was undertaken to identify biodiversity indicators that were already in use by local authorities. In parallel to this, a review was undertaken of the services provided by local authorities to identify the ways in which they can make positive contributions to biodiversity. The result of this was a profile of what represents an ‘excellent’ authority in relation to biodiversity, for use in informing the development of performance indicators.
Drawing on the review of existing indicators and the study team’s own experience, one or more performance measures were derived for each service in the profile of an ‘excellent’ authority. The resulting ‘long list’ of potential performance measures were assessed against a series of question-based criteria, which were developed to ensure that indicators met the requirements of the project (i.e. were robust, consistent, cost-effective and simple) and were SMART (i.e. Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-bound). The outcome of this review was a short list of potential indicators. For each indicator in the short list, a detailed justification was produced to identify the purpose of the indicator together with an indicative target and guidance on the interpretation of the indicator. Alongside the short list, a series of context questions were identified that had the potential to be used in the development of the ‘criteria for judgement’ used by Audit Commission inspectors to provide a contextual background to the assessment of a local authority’s performance relating to biodiversity.
The short-listing process identified a range of possible performance measures and different options for their implementation. In order to progress to the point where recommendations could be made as to the suitability of individual measures and the methods of implementation, it was important to obtain the views of local authority practitioners. To this end, consultation was undertaken with a sample of 20 randomly selected local authorities in order to obtain their views on the appropriateness of the short-listed measures and the practicalities of implementing
247 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
them. The results of this consultation were analysed and the findings relating to a recommended suite of sub-indicators and a headline indicator were presented to a workshop session of the project’s Steering Group (comprising representatives of Defra and of key stakeholders who would be involved in the delivery of the biodiversity indicators, namely the Audit Commission, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Association of Local Government Ecologists and the Local Government Association) and other key stakeholders (including English Nature, the RSPB and the Wildlife Trusts).
Following the workshop, the project Steering Group decided that it would be beneficial to undertake a second stage of work in order to develop a map-based method of recording, analysing and presenting the performance data for each indicator, using Geographical Information Systems (GIS).
Findings Stage 1 of the study concluded that a single national ‘headline’ indicator should be used to report on local authority performance for biodiversity. However, in recognition of the wide range of local authority duties relating to biodiversity, it was concluded that this headline indicator should be derived from the following five sub- indicators.
• Sub-indicator 1 - The percentage change in designated wildlife sites as a result of planning permissions granted by the authority. • Sub-indicator 2 - Percentage of the authority’s landholdings managed to a plan which seeks to maximise the sites’ biodiversity potential. • Sub-indicator 3 - Percentage of biodiversity potential achieved on the authority’s landholdings. • Sub-indicator 4 - Progress towards English Nature’s accessible natural greenspace criteria. • Sub-indicator 5 - Percentage of authority owned/managed Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) units in ‘favourable’ or ‘unfavourable recovering’ condition.
The target value for all of these sub-indicators was 100%. It was proposed that the percentage scores would be added together and that this sum would then be divided by five to provide a headline percentage based around the same target of 100%.
As part of the second stage of the study to develop a map-based method of recording, analysing and presenting the performance data for each indicator, opportunities were explored to streamline the suite of indicators developed in Stage 1 and simplify their calculation. Consequently, the five sub-indicators developed in Stage 1 were reduced to four through the amalgamation of two sub-indicators relating to the management of local authority landholdings. The result was the following suite of sub-indicators.
• Sub-indicator A – The effect of development control decisions on designated wildlife sites. • Sub-indicator B – The management of local authority landholdings to address biodiversity conservation and enhancement opportunities. • Sub-indicator C – The provision of accessible greenspace.
248 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
• Sub-indicator D – The condition of Sites of Special Scientific Interest that are owned and/or managed by local authorities.
The headline indicator was the local authority’s progress towards its ‘biodiversity potential’ as defined in relation to the four sub-indicators. The sub-indicators and the headline indicator were illustrated on colour-coded maps which used a ‘traffic light’ colour scheme to identify strong and weak performance. Guidelines were developed for the structure and use of GIS databases for recording data for each of the indicators and their subsequent analysis. Instructions on how this analysis should be undertaken were provided in both technical and non-technical terms. Examples of data and outputs were presented together with recommendations for their implementation and options for their future development.
Relevance to Policy Subsequent to the study, Defra decided to take forward a different indicator to that which had been developed through the study, namely National Indicator 197 (the proportion of Local Sites where positive conservation management has been or is being implemented). Despite the fact that the study’s recommendations were not adopted, the study can be considered to have had a positive role in promoting discussion between Defra and key stakeholders (including the Audit Commission) about the importance of developing a biodiversity indicator. This together with the evidence that was assembled through the Entec study can be considered to have contributed to the process of developing National Indicator 197.
249 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
Information extracted from SID5
0299: ENHANCEMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STATISTICS SYSTEM USING GROUND SURVEYS
Eurostat
2004 - 2005
Summary 1. Defra commissioned a scoping study to investigate the opportunity for enhancing the agriculture, rural and environment statistics available in England using the Eurostat survey LUCAS, and to investigate the potential for enhancing the LUCAS survey itself. The general methodology used in this project will be relevant to other EU Member States who may wish to consider enhancing LUCAS within their own territories. 2. LUCAS is a land use/cover area frame survey based on a 1 km grid (from 2006). Pilot surveys were undertaken in 2002 and 2003 in the UK and Ireland, and involved a spring ground survey to measure land cover and various environmental parameters, followed by an autumn farmers’ postal questionnaire, to collect data on yields and agricultural techniques. Only the ground survey is to be undertaken from 2006 onwards and this study takes account of planned changes in LUCAS subsequent to the Working Plan being agreed with Eurostat. The area frame approach has advantages over the random sampling approach of most other surveys in terms of analysing interactions (e.g. between rural and environmental variables) and monitoring change over time. 3. The study was organised into five Work Packages (WPs): WP1. Checking business registers, WP2. Phase I (ground survey) additional data, WP3. Phase II (postal survey) additional data, WP4. Comparison with existing surveys in England and WP5. Any other enhancement opportunities. 4. In WP1, various data sources for farm business addresses were investigated that could be matched to LUCAS data. There is considerable potential for Eurostat and Member States to follow the US approach to register checking, and collect address information on the ground. The issues covered in this study are: • In the UK and Ireland, it is customary for surveyors to obtain permission from the landowner prior to gaining access. Therefore these data are likely to be collected during future LUCAS surveys in these Member States and could be used for register checking or for postal surveys. Data ownership and access issues would need to be addressed. • Name and address data could not be released by Eurostat for confidentiality reasons, and Eurostat would not require these to be collected in the future under the proposed methodology. • Defra are currently in the process of developing three corporate registers: land, livestock and customer. 5. WPs 2 and 3 identified additional data (compared to what was collected in 2002 and 2003), which could be collected during the LUCAS ground 250 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
survey and by postal survey respectively. This was done by reviewing EU and UK agri-environment policy, statistical indicators, and by targeted consultation with stakeholders and sponsors of other surveys, to identify data gaps. The results are as follows: • There is potential to collect additional environmental data on: soils, vegetation structure, weeds, water quality, wildlife (mammal signs), nuisance, land cover/land use, landscape features, boundary type in relation to crop and width of linear features. One specific rural dimension is housing (new and derelict). The following data were considered, but were not felt to be appropriate for monitoring during the LUCAS ground survey: air quality, birds, insects, and information on cross-compliance. • If a postal survey were to be undertaken, there is potential to collect data on: farmer training, diversification, collaboration between businesses, community transport, fuel costs, energy sources, water sources, leisure and areas under crops. An added benefit is that if these rural/socio-economic data were collected under the LUCAS framework, it would enable interactions with environmental data to be analysed and hence the drivers of change to be investigated (e.g. by using Driving forces-Pressures-State-Impacts- Responses (DPSIR) models). This may benefit from a case study looking in depth at particular sample areas. • A process is suggested whereby the required sample size could be estimated. • Although insufficient information was available to quantify costs precisely, the relative effort (involved in collecting these data) and impact (relevance to indicators and data gaps) were indicated using a scoring system. Adopting a rolling programme of data collection would contribute to cost-effectiveness and quality assurance and also minimise respondent load. 6. WP 4 investigated relationships with existing surveys in England, paying particular attention to the Countryside Survey. There is considerable scope for integration of LUCAS with other ground surveys in England. • Only four out of the 25 surveys considered were found to be ground surveys and hence comparable with LUCAS. • Three out of the 25 surveys currently collect data on crop production. The report explores whether they can be replaced by LUCAS. While LUCAS could collect percentage cover of crops on the ground, it could not provide information on yields and hence production. • The Countryside Survey has been more detailed but less frequent than LUCAS. There is considerable potential to use LUCAS data to provide information on intervening years, and early warning of irreversible changes and adverse trends. The report considers the degree of compatibility between LUCAS and CS and Recommendation 3 considers options for closer collaboration with CS. 7. Additional opportunities for enhancement are described in WP 5. These include the use of other surveys to populate LUCAS sampling points. Further consultation is required to fully investigate this area and explore the possibilities with the sponsors. 8. Recommendations are made on the way forward (listed in the following Section Recommendations). These include:
251 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
• The EU and Member States should work more closely together when planning and implementing LUCAS. In addition, they should further explore: i. the use of LUCAS to check business registers and collect additional data including socio-economic information, ii. the use of LUCAS to validate land cover maps. • The UK government should consider setting up an overall programme board to steer ground surveys. • Defra should further explore: i. increasing the interaction between LUCAS and the Countryside Survey, ii. the use of LUCAS to monitor the condition of a subset of SSSIs. 9. Further work proposed includes: • consultation with stakeholders to decide on the data to be collected • sampling methodology for the additional data • accurate estimation of the costs of collecting the additional data • designing surveyors’ forms, instructions and training for additional data collection.
252 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
0404: UK BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS – DEVELOPMENT OF AN INDICATOR OF GENETIC DIVERSITY IN SELECTED FARM BREEDS
SAC Commercial Ltd / Roslin Institute Beatriz Villanueva c/o Tim Roughsedge, SAC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG
14 August 2008 – 31 March 2009 £74,284
Executive Summary 1. Reducing the loss of livestock genetic diversity is one of the internationally agreed 2010 biodiversity targets. In order to monitor progress towards the targets a limited number of indicators of biodiversity need to be developed using existing data. 2. The objectives of this study were i) to produce an indicator of genetic diversity for livestock species; and ii) to evaluate the proposed indicator in native UK sheep and cattle breeds.
3. The indicator proposed is the species average effective population size (Ne) for the lower tail of the distribution of Ne across breeds within the species. It is sensitive to i) genetic variation within breeds, and ii) what is happening to breeds most at risk of disappearing. 4. A total of 31 sheep and 20 cattle UK breed societies provided the information required for estimating Ne. This represents 53% of sheep and 58% of cattle UK native breeds. If a breed pedigree was available, Ne was estimated from rates of change in inbreeding. For breeds with no pedigree information, Ne was estimated from predictive equations utilising population information.
5. For each species, the indicator was calculated by i) estimating Ne for each breed; ii) calculating the distribution of Ne; iii) finding the average Ne for the lower 20% tail of the distribution. 6. For sheep, the indicator values were 36 and 41 animals for years 2001 and 2007, respectively. Equivalent values for cattle were 26 and 34. There was no evidence that the increase in the sheep indicator was statistically significant. However, there was evidence (P < 0.05) to support the conclusion that the cattle indicator increased. 7. Additionally the population data was used to provide a geographical disaggregation of the breeds in either the lower 20% tail or with Ne < 50. This information was produced to assist policy makers in directing conservation actions.
Introduction and Policy Rationale In 2002 the UK, along with all other Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), made a commitment to ‘achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the national, regional and global level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth’. The CBD Conference of the Parties decided that in order to assess progress at the global level towards the 2010 target a limited number of indicators of biodiversity need to be 253 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
developed and used for a global assessment using existing data sources.
Genetic diversity in livestock species is an important component of biodiversity. In November 2006, Defra and the rural affairs departments of the Devolved Administrations published their National Action Plan on Farm Animal Genetic Resources (FAnGR) and in March 2008, they launched the National Standing Committee for FAnGR to oversee the implementation of the plan. One important aspect in the monitoring of trends in FAnGR is to produce a biodiversity indicator for them. This has been recognised also in the set of biodiversity indicators for the UK published by Defra (http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/2010-BIYP2007.pdf) in June 2007.
Objectives The objectives of this study were: (i) to develop a genetic indicator of biodiversity for farm animal species that would account for this partition of livestock biodiversity whilst meeting the needs outlined by the CBD Conference of the Parties for communicating progress on trends in biodiversity; and ii) to evaluate the proposed indicator in UK sheep and cattle.
Approaches and Methods The initial step to develop the indicator was to identify the information available for estimating Ne for all native breeds of cattle and sheep, as listed in the UK Country Report (Defra, 2002). These include 59 sheep breeds and 36 cattle breeds.
The information required was requested from all breed societies of native breeds, including pedigree files for breeds with electronic recording or numbers of breeding animals used each year (and number of breeding years) for breeds without electronic recording. All data received was treated in the strictest confidence. The responses obtained represent 53% of sheep and 58% of cattle UK native breeds.
For each species, the biodiversity indicator was calculated in the following way: i) estimate effective population size (Ne) for each breed for which information was available; ii) calculate the distribution of Ne; iii) find the average Ne for the lower 20% tail of the distribution. In step i), for breeds with pedigrees available, Ne was estimated from rates of change in inbreeding. For breeds with no pedigree information, Ne was estimated from predictive equations assuming mass selection. In step iii), 20% was chosen because, given the number of breeds with available information, it provides a good compromise between giving high weight to the breeds most at risk, without being too sensitive to events surrounding a single breed. The indicator value goes down when breeds become extinct or when management within breeds deteriorates. It will be sensitive to those breeds most at risk, and insensitive to events in breeds where Ne remains high. Bootstrapping was used to assess the significance of changes of the indicator from 2001 to 2007 estimated based on breeds responding. This was necessary since it was not possible to obtain data from all the breeds.
Results The indicator values for the two species and two years of calculation can be seen in Table 1. Of the 6 sheep breeds included in the 20% lower tail of the 2007 indicator, one is classified by the RBST as ‘critical’ (Boreray), one as “endangered”, one as “vulnerable” (Castlemilk Moorit) and two “at risk” (Manx Loaghtan and Soay). The sixth breed is not listed in the RBST website. Of the 4 cattle breeds included in the 254 Defra Biodiversity Research and Development Programme Review 28 and 29 September 2009
20% lower tail of the 2007 indicator, one is classified by the RBST as ‘critical’ (the Chillingham cattle), one as “vulnerable” and one as “minority”. The fourth breed is listed as a mainstream native breed in the RBST website.
Table 1. Indicator values for sheep and cattle for 2001 and 2007 using the lower 20% tail of the distribution of Ne.
2001 2007 Sheep 36.3 40.8 Cattle 25.5 33.8
The sheep indicator showed a small increase but there was no evidence that this increase would have been observed with data from all breeds. The indicator for cattle showed a larger increase and, assuming the representativeness of the breeds sampled, there was evidence to support that an increase would have been observed with data from all breeds.
Conclusions and Relevance to Policy We have developed an indicator of biodiversity at the national level that measures the status and trends of genetic diversity in farm animals. The need for indicators for livestock biodiversity emerge strongly from the Interlaken Declaration on Animal Genetic Resources (FAO, 2007) where the ongoing loss of genetic diversity within livestock species was noted ‘with alarm’ and where it was acknowledged that the diversity was essential for addressing both current and future challenges to food security. Therefore the accompanying Global Plan of Action identified as a specific priority the monitoring of the genetic diversity in livestock breeds.
Technology Transfer Event Oral presentation at 2009 EAAP meeting in Barcelona by B. Villanueva Reports and Publications UK Biodiversity Indicators in Your Pocket 2009 published by Defra Villanueva, B., R.M. Sawalha, T. Roughsedge, E. Rius-Vilarrasa and J.A. Woolliams. 2009. Development of a genetic indicator of biodiversity for farm animal. EAAP, Barcelona, Spain, Sept 2009. Villanueva, B., R.M. Sawalha, T. Roughsedge, E. Rius-Vilarrasa and J.A. Woolliams. 2009. Development of a genetic indicator of biodiversity for farm animals. (Manuscript in preparation.)
255