Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Measuring and monitoring natural capital Stewart Clarke Natural England & Natural Capital Committee Secretariat Outline • What is natural capital and why does it matter? • The Natural Capital Committee • Measuring and monitoring natural capital • Data gaps and recommendations Defining Natural Capital Natural Capital : the stock of our physical natural assets (such as soil, forests, water and biodiversity) which provide flows of services that benefit people (such as pollinating crops, natural hazard protection, climate regulation or the mental health benefits of a walk in the park) (Natural Environment White Paper, 2011) 1) produced or manufactured capital (roads, buildings, machines) 2) human capital (health, knowledge, culture and institutions) 3) natural capital (available from nature) http://www.forumforthefuture.org/project/five-capitals/overview#sthash.Xmo2hc70.dpuf Stocks and flows capital stock of soil and trees flows from stock benefits or services timber drugs clean water aesthetics shelter The problem: state of natural capital stocks There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that natural capital stocks have been and continue to be degraded: MEA 2005: Nearly two thirds of the services provided by nature to humankind are in decline worldwide. ‘In effect, the benefits reaped from our engineering of the planet have been achieved by running down natural capital assets’ UK National Ecosystem Assessment concluded that although UK ecosystems are currently delivering some services well, others are in long-term decline What has the NCC been set up to do? NCC 1 Provide advice on when, where and how natural assets are being used unsustainably Independent Advisory Body to Government 2 Advise the Government on how it should prioritise action to protect and improve natural capital, so that public and private activity is focused where it will have greatest impact on improving wellbeing in our society. 3 Advise the Government on research priorities to improve future advice and decisions on protecting and enhancing natural capital. AUDIENCE: Senior ministers and civil servants, reports to Economic Affairs Committee of the Cabinet Who is on the Committee? Dieter Helm (Chair) Giles Atkinson Kerry ten Kate NCC Secretariat Ian Bateman Georgina Mace Rosie Hails Robin Smale Colin Mayer 7 Outputs and timeline... Second State of Natural Capital report to EAC First State of Natural Capital report to EAC Advice to SoS on CAP reform May 12 Advice to SoS on valuing non-market benefits from woodlands Research Priorities advice Advice to SoS on biodiversity offsets Jan 13 Advice to SoS on Habs Regs review Advice to SoS on CAP reform Third State of Natural Capital report to EAC Jan 14 Working paper: metrics for natural capital Case studies on corporate accounting Research report on metrics and risk register Jan 15 Working paper: economic growth? 8 An illustration – Lower Yangtze Basin RS = Regulating services index – biodiversity, sediment regulation, soil stability, sediment quality, water quality, air quality (Dearing et al., 2012) Dispersed, interconnected & dynamic Goods Food Fibre (inc. Timber) Energy Clean water Clean air Recreation Aesthetics Hazard protection Wildlife Equable climate Ideally we need metrics linking assets directly to changes in goods and benefits but data gaps on status of assets are significant. No metrics exist. Benefits (Values) Species Ecological Communities Soils Freshwater Land Atmosphere Minerals Sub-soil Assets Coasts Oceans Ecosystem Services Natural Assets Major land-use categories (NEA Broad Habitat Types) Other capital inputs Thresholds, targets and limits Threshold Safe Limit Target Reference level Target Benefit Value (£) Benefit Value (£) Safe limit Threshold Natural asset condition time Tracking natural capital changes Data on natural capital Asset Composite Indicator Species Ecological communities Soils Data Quality A () A A Land () A Minerals and subsoil assets Freshwater () A Coasts () 2 Oceans 3 Atmosphere A/G A A/R A England Biodiversity Indicators –Trend (Indicator Reference No. in brackets) 1 BAP Species (4a) EU Protected Species(4b) () () () Farmland (5) () () () Woodland (5) () () Wetlands (5) () () Marine (5) () Invasives (20) Protected Areas (1) EU Protected Habitats(2b) () Invasives (20) n/a n/a n/a Water quality (21) n/a Fisheries (23) Invasives (20) Pollution (19) Sulphur deposition (19) Nitrogen deposition (19) Key Composite Indicator: good data and composite indicator appropriate for purpose; () some data appropriate for purpose and potential indicator available; no composite indicator and data insufficient to determine status and trends across all components Data quality: Indicative assessment of state of knowledge for natural asset: Red = limited suitable data, Amber = some data, inconsistently collected across components, time or space, Green = good data at appropriate spatial or temporal scales England Biodiversity Indicators: upward trend (improving); downward trend (deteriorating); no real change; multiple arrows indicate multiple indicators for the asset/pressure. Indicator reference number in brackets. UK Species Data Marine Terrestrial & Freshwater Species Group Abundance Distribution Trend Microorganisms Fungi Algae Lichens Bryophytes Higher plants Invertebrates (freshwater) 1 Invertebrates (terrestrial) Fish (freshwater) Amphibians Reptiles Birds Mammals 2 Plankton (phyto- and zoo- ) Algae Invertebrates 3 Fish Seabirds Mammals Key: Red – limited suitable data; Amber – data inconsistently collected across components, time or space; Green – good data at appropriate spatial or temporal scales Current status of natural assets Summary of findings Asset Species Ecological communities Soils Land Minerals and sub-soil assets Freshwater Coasts Oceans Atmosphere Significant monitoring issues or data gaps Current focus is on rare species or certain groups. Uncharismatic and difficult to identify taxa are currently underrepresented (many of these are important for key ecological processes). Current focus is on habitats which may be a good proxy for the structural components of ecological communities but our understanding of the link to processes and interactions is less well developed. Currently no systematic soil survey across the UK. Data on soil depth limited and biological elements poorly represented. Monitoring is confounded by poor definition and delineation of this asset. Some aspects may combine elements of built capital (landscape). As non-renewable assets a different approach is required to determine status. Current data are for production volumes and estimates of the size of asset base. Small water-bodies (ponds, lakes, ditches and headwaters) are currently underrepresented in the current monitoring network. Current monitoring focuses on the aquatic elements of the coastal system, habitat data provides some information on more terrestrial components but has limitations (see ecological communities). Large areas of sea-bed are unmapped. Current emphasis is on monitoring air pollution i.e. impact upon the asset rather than overall status. Aggregation and Composite Indicators • Reporting on status and trend can be complex – we need simple records of change • Need to be able to aggregate assets and components of assets • Composite metric: a single measure which combines a range of condition measures to provide an overall summary of state or condition • Simple and ideal for communication but can hide problems or trends in specific components • How do you combine different components? What weights should be applied? Conclusions • Long history of data collection in UK – voluntary and statutory • To monitor and make informed decisions about natural capital may require different types of data • We have enough data to give some indication of status/trend; for most assets this generally only provides a partial picture • Tendency to measure structural aspects of assets rather than processes and underlying functions. (Many benefits are driven by those processes) • In addition to plugging data gaps, we need to be able to aggregate measures for different assets and components to provide an overall status assessment. Acknowledgements Natural Capital Committee members (Georgina Mace, Rosie Hails) Julian Harlow (Natural Capital Committee Secretariat) The review of existing data sources was led by Lindsay Maskell (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology); the results of this review can be viewed on the Natural Capital Committee website. www.naturalcapitalcommittee.org