Naturescot SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE Sub-Group Report on Surveillance and Monitoring
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SAC/2020/09/01 NatureScot SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE Sub-group Report on Surveillance and Monitoring Draft (August 2020) Monitoring & Surveillance Sub-group Report to the Scientific Advisory Committee by the Sub-group reviewing on land monitoring and surveillance by NatureScot Mitchell, R.J.1, Blake, D.2, Boulcott, P.3, Pearce-Higgins, J.4, Nisbet, A.5, Scott, B.,6 Wilson, J.7, Woodin, S.6, and Eardley, B.2 1The James Hutton Institute 2NatureScot 3Marine Scotland 4British Trust for Ornithology 5Natural England 6University of Aberdeen 7RSPB When published, this report should be cited as: Mitchell, R.J., Blake, D., Boulcott, P., Pearce-Higgins, J., Nisbet, A., Scott, B., Wilson, J., Woodin, S., and Eardley, B. (2020). Report to the Scientific Advisory Committee by the Sub-group reviewing on land monitoring and surveillance by NatureScot. NatureScot, Inverness. i SAC/2020/09/01 Executive Summary Background Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)1 (NatureScot from 24th August 2020) is reliant on up to date and accurate monitoring and surveillance data in order to fulfil its statutory role. NatureScot defines surveillance as ‘systematic observation through time to establish the baseline state and track natural heritage change’. It defines monitoring as ‘surveillance against a target’. A major component of NatureScot’s monitoring work is the Site Condition Monitoring (SCM) programme which monitors the condition of features (species, habitats, geological features) on protected areas. In 2019 the third cycle of SCM was completed, and NatureScot’s Surveillance Strategy became due for review. It was recognised that within NatureScot, monitoring and surveillance had been operating under separate work streams. With preparatory work underway to develop the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy 2030, it was timely to review and refresh work in these areas. Staff proposed combining protected areas’ monitoring and surveillance into a new Monitoring and Surveillance Strategy for NatureScot. The expectation was that this would form the blueprint for the development of a wider Strategy for partners responsible for the delivery of a project to identify and address gaps in biodiversity evidence (known as Project 4) as part of the Scottish Government – NatureScot Programme Board developing the 2030 Strategy Scottish Biodiversity Strategy. Following advice from NatureScot’s Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC), a Sub-group was formed to advise how NatureScot’s surveillance and monitoring work can: (a) monitor protected area condition and its responses to management intervention, in particular to comment on a proposed 3-tiered approach to future SCM in on land systems; (b) adapt to a changing environment, cope with transitions between habitats and losses/gains in species due to climate change; (c) understand drivers of change (and best indicators for each driver); (d) enable comparisons between protected areas and the surrounding countryside; (e) develop indicators (descriptors) to monitor ecosystem health; (f) make best use of all existing data resources and opportunities from the on land protected areas network; and (g) identify opportunities to make use of emerging new methods and technologies where these would offer gains in effectiveness and efficiency. In addition to having SAC and Expert Panel members, the Sub-group was joined by staff with expertise in monitoring from Marine Scotland and Natural England. The focus of the work of the Sub-group’s review was ‘on land’ SCM, but it also considered parallel initiatives in the marine environment. The Scottish MPA monitoring strategy2 provides the strategic direction for NatureScot’s marine survey activities formerly undertaken as part of the corporate SCM programme (including features in the intertidal zone). Work to implement the MPA monitoring strategy is ongoing. Recommendations from the sub-group review that are applicable to marine monitoring will inform development of NatureScot’s future programme. Work is underway to scope the process that will be used for marine monitoring, including future engagement with the SAC. It is envisaged that a marine implementation plan will be produced in due course. Recommendations 1 We have used SNH and NatureScot interchangeably in the report 2 https://www2.gov.scot/Resource/0052/00521312.pdf and see https://www.gov.scot/policies/marine- environment/mpa-monitoring-strategy/ ii SAC/2020/09/01 The Sub-group made nine recommendations: R1. The Framework required to implement a ‘3-tiered’ approach to on land SCM should be implemented in full The Sub-group devised a framework to enable a 3-tiered approach to SCM to be clearly implemented, and the success of the trial to be evaluated. This should be implemented in full with training from habitat and species specialists provided to properly deliver the programme. In order to realise savings, additional resources will be required initially to allow staff to fully develop the method and provide the required training. R2. Ecosystem health needs to be more clearly defined There is some ambiguity across agencies, and more widely, about the definition and measures of ecosystem health. NatureScot is asked to develop a suite of indicators on land features akin to the approach taken for devising indicators relating to Good Environmental Status (GES) in the marine environment (noting a potential framework provided by Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC)). R3. Further work is required to define the how transitions between features are accommodated on protected areas, and how this affects ecosystem health A change in habitat features, e.g. transition between habitats or loss/gain of species, while representing a change in condition of the original feature, does not necessarily constitute a change in ‘ecosystem health’. This issue is especially germane in considering the expansion of woodland features at the expense open heath and grassland features on EC Directive Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas. Work is required to define ecosystem health in this context. R4. A mechanism is required to determine acceptable transitions on protected areas. Stemming from R3, due to the dynamic nature of ecosystems and climate change, there needs to be agreement within NatureScot about the transitions between habitats and losses/gains of species that are acceptable/desirable. We expect this to require underpinning by a significant workstream in order to be implemented robustly. Once transitions are agreed this needs to be reflected in the conservation objectives and monitoring of sites. R5. Better use should be made of existing data sets to be able to compare that status of nature within and outwith protected areas Monitoring of the wider countryside to compare it with protected areas should be a collaborative effort across sectors/organisations, utilizing as much existing data as possible. By 2022 an assessment of potential use of existing data should be completed and additional data requirements identified. NatureScot should work with the Terrestrial Surveillance Development and Analysis partnership (TDSA) to develop metrics to compare protected areas against the wider countryside. Future State of Nature reporting should be enhanced by implementing the seven suggested areas for development. This will allow a more robust reporting of the state of nature in Scotland and comparisons of trends and abundance inside and outwith protected areas. This cross sector/organisation approach to monitoring the wider countryside and the State of Nature reporting requires the continued funding of the many different monitoring programmes on which it relies and links to the SBIF report3. R6. Opportunities for the implementation of new technologies in monitoring and surveillance should be actively pursued Continued development of NatureScot’s work on remote sensing/earth observation will help deliver on R1 and R5 but ground truthing is required. DNA based methods offer opportunities for the targeted detection and monitoring of protected and invasive species and 3 https://nbn.org.uk/about-us/where-we-are/in-scotland/the-sbif-review/sbif-review-final-report/ iii SAC/2020/09/01 applications are being developed for the metabarcoding of multi-species samples. These techniques have the potential to provide new metrics of ecosystem function and health. Staff need to be aware of current limitations when considering their use. R7. A Long-term Monitoring Network approach should be developed amongst partners Building on the foundation provided by the Scottish sites within the Environmental Change Network4, the development of a Long-term Monitoring Network would allow intensive monitoring to better understand how the five drivers of change identified in the IPBES report are changing, their impacts on biodiversity and allow monitoring of indicators including indicators for Good Environmental Status (R2) and ecosystem health (R3). NNRs should be utilized to provide this (R8) but resources would be required. R8. Further use should be made of NNRs for monitoring, research and demonstration Greater recognition and use should be made of the existing network of NNRs for monitoring, research and demonstration. NNRs should provide evidence-based conservation and management informed by an adaptive management approach with good documentation and publicity of the integration of monitoring, research and evaluation of management. NNRs should provide a network of sites to identify and monitor the impact of drivers of change in species across different trophic