Synthesis of Reports for LWEC Ecosystems Challenge

skoptsytruculentAI and Robotics

Nov 15, 2013 (3 years and 11 months ago)

139 views











Synthesis of Reports for LWEC Ecosystems
Challenge





Authors:

Lindsay Maskell, Terry Parr, Laurence Jones and Simon Smart, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology

David Billett and Denise Smythe
-
Wright, National Oceanographic Centre

Mel Austen, P
lymouth Marine Laboratory



1

Contents

Executive summary









2


Introduction and methods








4

Synthesis of report recommendations by
priority
outcomes




6

Table of summary ‘options’ from report






21

Figure showing potential implementation of opt
ions





24

References (list of reports reviewed)







25



2


Executive summary

More than 900
r
ecommendation

or options

for Implementation, research and development,
knowledge exchange activities and knowledge gaps were extracted from more than 50 recent
p
ublications and
reports on ecosystem services.

The

recommendations

were classified to a series of priority
LWEC Ecosystem Challenge outcomes
.
This review was carried out independently for terrestrial, coastal and marine habitats and
for each of
these,
summ
ary

options


were identified. These were then integrated across terrestrial, coastal and
marine habitats to produce a
final summary set

of ‘options’ for knowledge, research and knowledge
exchange requirements to facilitate implementation of the ecosystem
approach.


The titles of these ‘options’ are shown below and they are described in more detail in Table 1.

Figure 1 is a conceptual diagram visualising how the various recommendations might fit together.


Interdisciplinary science



Research to understand
ho
w best to manage ecosystems
.



Research to assess how individual and community choices and decisions impact upon
service delivery and how to change behaviours to maximise benefits.



Multi
-
disciplinary research
: building capacity


Past, present and Future



S
ta
ndardized methods and criteria for the measurement, mapping and monitoring of
biodiversity and ecosystem services.




Relationships

between ecosystem services
, biodiversity and function
.



Assess the impact of key drivers.



Developing informatics
and k
nowledge

exchange
capability.



Interactions over s
patial and temporal scales
.



Integrated ecosystem
and bioeconomic
models and predictive tools (including decision
support systems).

Integrated land/seascape approach



Trade
-
offs between multiple ecosyste
m services.



Research
for
sustainable production systems that use fewer non
-
renewable resources,
while simultaneously producing lower levels of pollution.



New

research and synthesis of existing data
to support

an i
ntegrated landscape or
seascape approach, ecological
networks, NIA’s, SAC’s and MPA’s
.

Ecosystem vulnerability



Research into the resilience of ecosystems and ability to recover from disturbance
(including
thresholds and
tipping points)
.



Understand

vulnerability of different marine ecosystems
to human impact
s.



Understand patterns, mechanisms of establishment and the rate of sp
read of non
-
indigenous species.

Valuation


3



Improved valuation techniques and accounting frameworks for natural capital and
ecosystem services
.



Develop i
nterim accounts
to incorporate
quan
tification of uncertainty & risk
.



Research into the effectiveness of incentives
,

e.g. agri
-
environment schemes
, for
delivering multiple ecosystem services
.



Development of ‘green economies’

particularly in the marine environment
.

International



T
hreats/oppor
tunities to the UK from ecosystems good and services abroad and
implications of the UK

s
footprint.



Extend UK knowledge on the valuation of ecosystem services
internationally
.



R
esearch to improve and maintain ecological infrastructure to deliver
improved

e
cosystem services
and

human well
-
being internationally.



U
tilise UK marine science in the establishment of a new global mechanism to regulate the
conservation of marine biodiversity in the high sea.































4


Introduction

Since the publ
ication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) there has been a greater
awareness of how ecosystems and the services they provide interact with human health and well
-
being. The MA created a framework that appealed to policy makers as well as natural
and social
scientists, where outputs from ecosystems could be identified as services and goods, allowing a
value to be placed on them. It encouraged the idea of multi
-
functional landscapes where many uses
could be made of the same piece of land or sea. Thi
s has led to exciting new inter
-
disciplinary
research that attempts to quantify and value ecosystem services and understand how processes and
components of ecosystems contribute to service delivery.

In recent years there have been a number of
publications

and
reports that build on the MA approach
and focus on ecosystem services and biodiversity. They have been produced for different purposes
and from different perspectives. Some have focused on introducing economic expertise and tools to
studies of ecosyst
em services (e.g.
TEEB);
others have covered biological, economic and social
factors, or have reviewed the current state of knowledge and have then recommended future
actions. The recommendations that have been made by these reports are sometimes duplicated
, but
some diverge or conflict. Some recommendations focus explicitly on specifying research
requirements, others are more outcome orientated and do not detail the knowledge or research
required to implement them.
This review was commissioned by the LWEC E
cosystems Challenge
group and attempts to provide
a critical evidence base for the development of activities in the LWEC
Ecosystems Challenge
working group
and the NERC Biodiversity theme.



Methodology

The
publications and
reports assessed
were key

natio
nal and international

publications from

public,
academic, private and charitable organizations

and
include
d

reports by UK Government
Departments, UK Research Councils, OECD, World Business Council for Sustainable Development,

Crown estate,
Foresights Land
Use Futures group,

OSPAR commission,

European Environment
Agency, European Commission,
TEEB,
UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Regional Seas, RSPB and
Wildlife Trusts.

A list of the key reports is contained in the reference list.


The review was carried out

in
three

phases.

Phase 1:
C
lassify recommendations according to expected priority outcomes and determine
knowledge requirements

Recommendations taken from the various reports were classified according to the following Priority
Outcomes

which were identifi
ed in the project specification document
.


Outcome 1a

“Enabling and encouraging individuals and organisations to be more sustainable in their
choices through understanding how people and environments interact”
;


5

Outcome 1b

“Understanding the roles that ins
titutions, social dynamics, individual choices,
technologies and infrastructures play in embedding particular lifestyles
”;

Outcome 1c

Understanding the trade
-
offs between provisioning and other ecosystem services”;

Outcome 1d

Understanding why ecosystems

can be vulnerable, and what can lead to irreversible
changes in ecosystems”

Outcome 1e
“Understanding the value, both financial and non
-
financial, of natural capital and
ecosystem services to different communities.”

Outcome 2

“Facilitating the development

of the green economy through opportunities arising from
managing ecosystems and ecosystem services or by providing products or services which reduce
negative impacts on ecosystems, for example, certification of forestry and agricultural products,
carbon a
nd biodiversity offsetting, and monitoring technologies……...”

Outcome 3

“Identifying and promoting novel solutions to challenges facing ecosystems and provision
of ecosystem services, for example, halting biodiversity loss, ecosystem restoration and elimin
ation of
damaging invasive species……...”

Outcome 4


Promoting environmental sustainability in developed and developing countries, and
developing methods to reduce the UK’s impact on overseas ecosystems.”

R
ecommendation
s were also
c
lassified into four categ
ories;
Implementation, Knowledge
G
ap,
Research

& Development
, Knowledge
Exchange,

and entered into

a spreadsheet

(Appendix 1). Those
in the Implementation category
were related to the formation of policies, e.g. the creation of Nature
Improvement areas (Go
vernment White Paper).
Those classified as Knowledge G
aps
were where
knowledge was identified as lacking
e.g.
ecosystem resilience to fishing (OSPAR Quality Status
Report).
This resulted in a valuable resource, in Appendix 1, containing more than 900
recom
mendations taken from more than 50 reports.

Phase 2: Synthesis of research needs

A synthesis of needs for research, innovation and knowledge exchange activities was carried out.
Recommendations were organised into topics or theme
s within sectors (Terrestri
al, Marine and
C
oastal) and key recommendations and gaps in recommendations
extracted
.

These are summarized
in Appendix 2 with counts of the number of recommendations and the reports where these were
found included. From this data summaries of each outcome

were created and a number of options
were identified individually for Terrestrial, Coastal and Marine habitats.

Phase 3:

Integration across Terrestrial, Coastal and Marine habitats

Themes and options were integrated across these habitats to identify where

there was overlap and
commonality and where options were very different. Synthesis by outcome can be seen in the
following section. Table 1 summarises the ‘options’ and figure 1 demonstrates potential
relationships between options that may be useful for v
isualising implementation.


6


Synthesis of review recommendations according to priority outcomes

O
utcome 1a:

“Enabling and encouraging individuals and organisations to be more sustainable in
their choices through understanding how people and environments in
teract”
;

Develop standardized methods and criteria for the measurement, mapping and monitoring of
biodiversity and ecosystem services at various temporal and spatial scales to better assess the
sustainability of ecosystem services (EPBRS 2011).

There wer
e many rec
ommendations relating to
improved
m
onitoring of ecosystem services.

Particular gaps in current knowledge were
identified in relation to service types
;

regulating
and supporting services
were
believed to be
under
-
recorded (specific measures inclu
ded
suggestions for monitoring greenhouse gas
emissions
,

measuring pollination services).
Habitats and ecosystems thought to require
further study included urban habitats, freshwaters
(wetlands and lakes), woodlands, soils, mountains,
moorlands
,

heathlands
, coastal

and all marine habitats
.

A lack of the data and information required
to adequately quantify or measure ecosystem services in coastal areas was identified in many
reports. This covered basic information such as accurate determination of the spatia
l extent of
particular habitats which underpin ecosystem services, through to spatial variation in ecosystem

service provision (e.g. carbon
sequestration) and linkages between them.

A

concerted effort is required to create detailed
marine
habitat charts,
analogous to
“land use
maps”, typical of the terrestrial environment.

A
major problem

is

that

the biota and geology of

UK
waters remain largely unmapped and therefore unknown.

Quantification of biodiversity and development of understanding of the relatio
nships between
biodiversity and service provision was recommended
.


Measurement and monitoring of the
functional links between biodiversity and supporting and regulating services are also neede
d...” (NEA
Scotland chapter). The importance of measuring and m
onitoring ecosystem function, as well as state
was highlighted.
Components of biodiversity which were considered to be neglected by current
monitoring included those contributing to regulating and supporting services
,

e.g.
phytoplankton,
lower plants, fung
i, soil biodiversity and microbial communities. Biodiversity has a dual role as a
product (service) of ecosystems (e.g. charismatic culturally important species) and as a driver of
ecosystem processes (Mace et al 2011)

in the sea and on the land. This

need
s to be better
understood in the context of biogeochemical ecosystem processes. Current research initiatives such
as BESS are expected to yield new understanding.


There needs to be

further development of cultural service indicators
.


Further research is
required
to understand the social and physiological processes involved in people acquiring mental and physical
health benefits from engagement with nature, local places and landscapes


(NEA Synthesis).

Ensure
“ Estimates of the area of Sand Dunes,
Saltmarsh and Shingle vary by up to 50%
depending on methodology. There is no
definitive classification of saline lagoons...or
Machair and the habitats of UK cliffs are
only partially surveyed. A consistent and
thorough survey methodology for each
habitat would allow accurate estimates of
change in extent and habitat condition over
time.” (NEA Coastal margins chapter)



7

there is appropriate policy
-
relevant research
into the value of different landscapes for recreation and
tourism in urban, urban fringe and rural settings


(Foresight Land use futures).

Recommended implementation activities

relating to both the sea and the land

included
:
joining up
existing monitoring
;

developing monitoring and reporting frameworks which are better aligned with
the ecosystem approach
;

more integration of monitoring
a.)
across freshwater and terrestrial
ecosystems
b.) deep and shallow marine systems
including biogeochemical processes
.

Lo
ng term
monitoring was specifically recommended in many reports (e.g. NEA, Soil health and sustainability,
Defra evidence plans) (OSPAR Commission). A

single, concise and integrated report
is required
addressing

the state of the environment on land.
K
nowle
dge exchange activities
,

communicating the
results of environmental monitoring

in a timely fashion, are required
.


It is important to understand biodiversity and
ecosystem service responses to key drivers,
such as climate

change
,
changes in
land
,
coastal

and marine
use
, fisheries, aquaculture,

and
the effects of
nutrient enrichment
on

land
, rivers and the coastal and marine zones
from agricultural use
.

Again
, impacts from
drivers on regulating
, cultural

and supporting
services are of particular interest b
ecause they have been less well
-
studied

than provisioning
services
.

Research recommendations include
monitoring
and data collection of spatially explicit driver
data
, e.g. land
and

sea
use change, management
practices
;

and
additional complementary
experi
ments to understand causality

and to
understand how drivers affect ecosystem services.
In addition to single driver impacts
a greater understanding of the simultaneous effects of multiple
change drivers

and pressures

on ecosystems

and their

services is ess
ential
.

C
umulative
impacts on
ecosystems

(e.g. of renewable energy extraction devices

in marine environments
)

are also of
concern.


Spatial and temporal scale is an important consideration in all aspects of ecosystem service
research
. Beneficiaries of serv
ices vary spatially (e.g. consumers of water downstream from
catchment) and temporally (e.g. short term service use may be at expense of longer term
sustainability) and understanding of how and why habitats deliver different services from place to
place an
d at different spatial and temporal scales is critical

(Rafaelli et al 2009, Defra Natural value
evidence plans)
.

This may be addressed to some extent in the recent call from Defra on ecosystem
interactions but there is a lot that could be done in this are
a.



Supportin
g services underpin the delivery of all
other ecosystem services. Therefore,
understanding their response to key drivers, such
as climate change, land use and nutrient

enrichment, is vital for the sustainable
management of the UK’s land and water

resource.
” (NEA Synthesis)


“The evidence base provided by long term
data sets and specific research programmes
are extremely important in understanding
the impacts of climate change.”

MCCIP (2011)



8


Taking into account the spatial context of ecosystem services is important in
terrestrial and marine
planning, particularly for issues such as coastal (and riverine) flooding and diffuse pollution where
land use change in one area may impact on servic
e delivery in other areas

including coastal and even
oceanic waters
.



Developing informatics capability, in particular bringing together spatially explicit datasets
relevant to biodiversity, ecosystems, and socio
-
economic data

wa
s proposed in several repo
rts
(ICSU

2010
, EPBRS

2011
, NEA,
and US President’s Council of Advisors 2011
). There have been
considerable advances in this area with improvements in technology and data availability and
political will
,

e.g. the INSPIRE directive
. H
owever, there are still

issues around collation of data such
as consistent spatial and temporal resolution and extent, confidentiality

and
cost.

Identifying the
most important temporal and spatial data gaps
was advocated

as a priority

(
US President’s Council
of Advisors 2011
)
an
d this report proposed creation of

‘partnerships between private and economic
sectors to maximise financial savings and develop innovative tools for data integration, analysis,
visualization and decision making’
.
S
uch partnerships are in development for th
e offshore renewable
energy industry at an EU scale

and are well established in UK offshore oil and gas operations.

O
utcome 1b
:

“understanding the roles that institutions, social dynamics, individual choices,
technologies and infrastructures play in embedd
ing
particular lifestyles
”;

Fundamental to ecosystem services
are

the
interactions between institutions (including
businesses), social dynamics and policy and how
values of biodiversity and resources might change
depending on the social, governance and po
licy
context.

There
should be

research to understand
how best to manage ecosystems,

what institutions and
organisational structures are effective in balancing the trade
-
offs inherent in social
-
environmental
systems at and across local, regional and global

scales and how can they be achieved?

(ICS
U 2010).
To do this there needs to be suitable data and knowledge.


Best practice for building partnerships should be reviewed, to stimulate greater collaboration
between Governments, the scientific community and t
he private sector

(NEA

synthesis
, RSPB).
New strategies for creating partnerships (e.g. natural value ambassadors, local nature
partnerships)

were

proposed and the engagement of local communities and non
-
experts in
conservation is thought to be of great im
portance (NEA

synthesis
).


There is a need to understand risk to natural resources and ecosystem services and include it in
management and policy risk registers.


The impact of the Deepwater Horizon incident in the Gulf of

Analysing the impacts of existing and novel
governance and lega
l frameworks (local and
national) on the efficient delivery of
ecosystem services and protection of the
natural environment.”

(Defra Natural value evidence plan)


9

Mexico in 2010 is an example of t
he varied and
extended risks that can arise for institutions,
corporate and public through man’s impact on
marine ecosystems and their services (TEEB).




There needs to be research to understand
people’s perceptions and the reality of how they
interact w
ith
their
environment
s,

how individual and community choices affect ecosystem

service
delivery and how to change behaviours to maximise benefits.


Sustainable development

requires involvement from multiple stakeholders, including the public
in decision mak
ing:

A number of recommendations highlighted the need for multiple actors to be
involved in decision making, often through participatory processes. Some explicitly recommended
involvement of the public in these decisions. These approaches are more likely t
o address issues of
long
-
term sustainability by considering a wider range of viewpoints.



O
utcome 1c
:


Understanding the trade
-
offs between provisioning and other ecosystem services”;


R
ecommendations
f
or interactions between provisioning and other servic
es are
extremely varied on
land and in the sea
.
Some concern tradeoffs of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystem services with
those in coastal and shelf seas (e.g. nutrient enrichment for farming causing localised
eutrophication), while others relate to the

balance between food/energy/mineral provisioning and
regulating/supporting services impacted by these activities. A

key objective
was
to increase food
production whilst maintain
ing

high levels of other ecosystem services
. For terrestrial environments

the
re
were

many innovative suggestions for how this could be done.


Research is needed
in terrestrial habitats
to develop
more sustainable production systems that use fewer
non
-
renewable resources, while simultaneously
producing lower levels of pollution

(N
EA

synthesis
).
Understanding which species are critical for ecosystem
functioning and hence provisioning services is also
required. Research areas may include traditional agricultural research
e.g.

breeding, use of
technology, or new methods such as manip
ulation of biogeochemical processes or landscape scale
research to explore the potential benefits of zoning of intensification of agriculture and forestry
versus management for non
-
provisioning services at a variety of scales from local to regional (NEA

En
closed farmland chapter
).


Improved understanding and implementation is required to achieve tradeoffs between multiple
ecosystem services
.

Recommendations about tradeoffs highlighted that conflicts occurred between
diverse combinations of services, not jus
t provisioning and others. Specific issues focused on the
need to improve our understanding of how to balance competing services, but also the need to
prioritise certain land uses or services over others, depending on the situation.

The identification
and
promotion of opportunities for multifunctional land use

in terrestrial habitats

is recommended
in several reports e.g.

We need to learn how to make the best of our land for multiple objectives.



Improve the delivery of environmental
outcomes from agricultural land
management practices, whilst increasing
food production.



(England Biodiversity Strategy)



What changes in behaviour or lifestyle, if
adopted by multiple societies, would contribute
m
ost to improving global sustainability


(ICSU 2010)


10

(RSPB Futurescapes)

and to
understand which bundles of servi
ces can be delivered simultaneously
by specific ecosystems.
’ (Defra evidence plans).
Decision making for ecosystem management is
reliant on good data and knowledge of potential tradeoffs.
‘Mechanisms need to be established to
allow negotiation to take plac
e, and trade
-
offs to be understood and agreed.’

(NEA synthesis)


A more detailed appreciation is needed of how people can exploit all ecosystem services
sustainably.
For example
in marine habitats
a balance needs to be struck between food production
(fis
hing and aquaculture), the need for sustainable fish stocks and the provision of space for
affordable, clean renewable energies.


The spatial
planning and
management of
coastal, shelf and deep seas for
fisheries and
other
maritime industries

must take into

account impacts on regulating

and support
ing

services
.

S
ome of
these

will be critical in supporting fish production and new mariculture activities (NEA
Marine
,
OSPAR QSR, HERMIONE).

Increasing use of the coastal and shelf sea
s

may
displac
e

fishing effort
into
UK deep waters where recent
large
-
scale r
adical transformations of seabed communities have taken
place

as a result of deep
-
sea bottom trawling.
Failure to account for the full economic values of
ecosystems and biodiversity has been a significant facto
r in their continuing loss and degradation
(TEEB)
.

There is a need to understand the
how

mariculture
and other
provisioning services
will impact on

other
marine
ecosystem services
,

especially
prior to the commercialization of
novel
products

(NNFCC).
Of co
ncern are emerging industries
,

such as
near
-
shore

and off
-
shore

cultivation of
macroalgae for bioenergy and commodity chemicals

(for feed, food, fertilizers and cosmetics) and
large scale aquaculture for food provision. For example we need to understand
ef
fects on wild
populations in relation to genetic exchange, diseases
and parasites, displacement of wild stocks
;
d
isplacement of natural populations and ecosystem
effects of introduced species (OSPAR
QSR

2010)
.


Spiritual and cultural values may be strong
in some
cases and should be considered in trade
-
offs of
ecosystem services (e.g. land/seascapes and
charismatic species (TEEB, NEA Marine). It is
important to recognise all ecosystem services even
if they cannot be monetised.



Spatial
interdependencies
are an important
component of evaluating tradeoffs
. S
patial
interdependencies between
coastal habitats and
adjoining

terrestrial and marine habitats

need to be
understood
.


Knowledge gaps also exist concerning the interrelations and interdependencies of
ec
osystems for delivery of ecosystem services”

(NEA, Scotland chapter).
I
nteractions between
“In und
erstanding and managing flood and
coastal risks locally, it is essential to consider
the impacts on other parts of the catchment
or coast. Activities must seek to avoid
passing risk on to others within the
catchment or along the coast without prior
agreeme
nt” (FCERM

England 2010, p15)


“Intangible values, which may be reflec
ted in
society’s willingness to pay to conserve
particular species or landscapes, or to protect
common resources, must be considered
alongside more tangible values like food and
timber to provide a complete economic
picture


(
TEEB Synthesis

201
0
)


11

ecosystem
s or habitats are also important
. Transitions between ecosystems are important areas for
trade
-
offs between services.


There

is

a

need

to

improve

our

unders
tanding

of

the

dynamic

relationships

between

ecosystem



structure
,

ecosystem

processes

and

the

provision

of

ecosystem

services.

In

particular,

those


relationships

for

supporting

a
nd

regulatory

services

are

poorly

understood.



(
Rafaelli 2009
)


R
ecommenda
tions for implementation and research activities in this area are quite generic. They
emphasise the need for understanding interactions but not so much how this could/should be done.


Outcome

1d
:


Understanding why ecosystems can be vulnerable

and what ca
n lead to
irreversible changes in ecosystems”

Vulnerability of ecosystem services was highlighted in a variety of ways in both terrestrial and
marine ecosystems, including soil processes, changes in primary production, land
-
sea pollution,
ecosystem resilie
nce and the spread of non
-
indigenous species.

To benefit from sustainable ecosystem services
,

there is a need for detailed knowledge on how
pressures on ecosystems lead to deleterious and irreversible change through non
-
linear
relationships and by passing
tipping points (LWEC Ecosystems Challenge).


Ecosystem responses to drivers are not necessarily linear, i.e. a critical point may be reached which
changes the system into another state (e.g. population crash)
from which

recovery is not
straightforward.
T
hresholds, (tipping points,
sensitivities and

non
-
linear relationships)
should be considered.
Positive feedbacks are
also possible and a better understanding of

which aspects of the coupled social
-
environmental system pose significant risks of
positive fe
edback with harmful consequences’

(ICSU 2010) and how best to respond to

these is
essential.

The UK Marine Science Strategy recognises that the oceans could be used to mitigate
climate change, for example by increasing their ability
to absorb and store ca
rbon but there are significant
concerns about our level of understanding of possible
large scale adverse impacts.


There were many recommendations for
a
better
understanding
of

soil processes

(NEA
Supporting
services chapter
and Soil health
and Sustaina
bility
report).
The key role of soils in ecosystem processes and
service provision and relative scarcity of knowledge in
this area has led to increasing recognition of their
importance for research into soil processes.

Further research on primary producti
on is necessary.

There
we
re a number of recommendations
(the NEA chapter on
S
upporting
S
ervices) regarding primary production. Some
were concerned with
how changes in

biodiversity, terrestrial plant composition

and

soil biodiversity
were

relate
d to

changes

in primary production. Others
are about
the lack of data on status and trends of primary

felt to b
e a lack of research into social
perceptions of soil, soil threats, and the
ecosystem services that soils provide”.

(Soil health and Sustainability, NERC)



Identify and characterize linear and non
-
linear
social and ecological dynamics (including tipping
points) and their interactions, to foster ecosystem
service resilience.” (ICSU 2010)

” (Defra evidence plans)




12

production
,

e.g.
lack of information on below
-
ground carbon in roots and
how that

impacts on net
ecosystem exchange of CO
2
.


The impacts of pollution were an importan
t subject area for recommendations
. A number of
implementation activities were proposed including identifying transport measures to reduce
nitrogen dioxide emissions, improvement of air quality in urban areas, reducing the impacts of
atmospheric deposition

on biodiversity, reducing diffuse pollution (NEWP). Knowledge gaps include
the mechanisms by which eutrophication (from agricultural sources: on land and water) impacts on
ecosystem function and biodiversity and hence on ecosystem services

(NEA England c
hapter)
including in the marine environment (NEA Marine Chapter); the relative importance of different
forms of N and improved understanding of recovery mechanisms and management options in the
light of reduced acidification. Research was also proposed on

the impact of heavy metals and PTEs
(Potentially Toxic elements) often added to soils as part of management regime to enhance organic
matter content (Soil health and Sustainability report).


We need better ways of assessing and managing
eco
system resilien
ce.
Knowledge of

resilience

require
s

a better

understanding of the resilience of key species in ecosystems to enable better
planning of long term management of
habitats

by monitoring and perturbation experiments
” (Defra
Natural Value evidence), for exampl
e, whether species can replace one another to perform similar
functions leading to the overall maintenance of
ecosystem services.
This will be addressed by the
NERC Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
Sustainability (BESS) programme to some extent.

T
est
ing of theories through observations and in
situ experimentation,
in terrestrial and
particularly in non
-
coastal (sub
-
tidal, shelf and
deep
-
sea) settings (
NEA

Marine)

will lead to

a

better understanding of the relationship between
biodiversity and ecosyste
m functioning
and
will allow a greater appreciation of resilience in
ecosystems.
New
marine
technologies are
leading to a transformation in how
experiments can be set up in situ to
investigate fundamental processes of
vulnerable life stages and in deliveri
ng
ecosystem services. Working with industry,
such as offshore oil and gas companies
(NERC SERPENT Project), provides opportunities for precision sampling and in situ experimentation
around seabed operations.

There was a specific recommendation on
using g
enetic tools to explore the links between genetic
information and the option/insurance value of biodiversity

in both terrestrial and marine
environments
.

“Genetic

portfolio /bio‐prospecting


valuation

pathway.

NERC

could

play

an important role
in the exploration

of the

links

between

genetic
information,

genetic

resources

and

the

option/insurance

value

of biodiversity.”(Rafaelli 2009).




We need a better
understanding of how deep
-
sea ecosystems function and how this
supports the provision of ecosystem goods
and services for humans…..knowledge of
goods and services, and the trade
-
offs among
them, is highly limited


(
HERMIONE

201
0
)


13

U
nderstanding

vulnerability of
different
marine ecosystems
to human impacts, such as bottom
trawling

which causes spatial

fragmentation of populations leading to irreversible change and
susceptibility to large
-
scale episodic environmental change (HERMIONE)
,

require
s more
knowledge of ecological traits of marine species
and a greater understanding of the

link between
the diversity and the resilience of an ecosystem. Such knowledge is important
for example
in
determining whether

network
s

of MPAs
will
support self
-
sustaining populations
,

to allow for the
recolonisation of impacted areas and in the designatio
n of shipping lanes (e.g. in the Arctic) (OSPAR
QSR).

There is a need to understand patterns, mechanisms of establishment and the rate of spread of
non
-
indigenous species, and how natural populations respond to invasions.

In the marine
environment i
ncreas
ing human interventions through shipping, aquaculture and seabed installations
(stepping stones), coupled with rises in sea temperature
,

is

leading to the spread of non
-
indigenous
species which may change the provision of natural ecosystem services.
‘Non
-
n
ative species are of
concern
in the terrestrial environment
; however, the NEA Drivers chapter stated that
‘t
o date,

non
-
native, invasive species
are thought to have had relatively little impact on ecosystems and ecosystem
services.’


O
utcome 1e
:


understa
nding the value, both financial and non
-
financial, of natural capital and
ecosystem services to different communities



There is
a

need for
better valuation of natural
capital and ecosystem services
(including non
-
monetary valuation)

in marine, terrestrial

and
coastal ecosystems
.
(NEA Marine).

Methodologies, metrics and standards for
sustainable management and integrated
accounting of biodiversity and ecosystem services
should be developed as a priority. (TEEB)


Valuations should be included in national a
ccounting frameworks

and apply to short and longer
times
-
scales

and

small and large spatial scales. Reports emphasise the global scale of this exercise
,

reflecting the large geographic distances and economic gradients separating the locations of
consumptio
n from those of production (DEFRA
Natural value
Evidence Plan, RSPB ‘Naturally At Your
Service’, NEA Synthesis, TEEB and
Foresight: Land Use Futures).


Sustai
nabilit
y of
resource us
e must be included in valuation.

Further development is needed on how to
i
ncorporate the sustainability of resource use

The value of ecosystem
s (natural capital) and
the services and resources they provide is
properly reflected in decision making, economy
and markets


in terms of costs, benefits and
welfare / wellbeing.”


(DEFRA Natural Value Evidence Plan)


“The extent to which mari
ne biodiversity
facilitates resistance to change in the delivery of
marine ecosystem services, as well as the ability
of marine biodiversity to recover and restore
delivery of services, needs to be understood”

(
NEA
, Marine

chapter
)

“The main issue in defining the fra
mework is
to seek to ensure that it encompasses the full
range of different types of costs and benefits”
(Saunders et al. 2010a)



14

into valuation,
including

for non
-
renewable resources such as oil and gas.

Knowledge gaps prevent the valuation of many ecosystem services
.

As with basic quantification of
ecosystem services, there are consid
erable
knowledge gaps precluding the valuation of many
services.
These were apparent for marine
habitats, particularly
non
-
coastal and sub
-
tidal
marine environments (near
-
shore, shelf and deep
-
sea)
(NEA Marine, NEA Valuation) but were found
in terrestrial
and coastal habitats also.
Gaps
highlighted include the data and/or
methodologies to value abiotic p
rovisioning
services (pipelines, gas storage),
r
egulating
services (
soil function, marine climate regulation,
net greenhouse gas emissions, natural hazards)
,
and
c
ultural services (recreation, aesthetic values,
spiritual and cultural wellbeing, residential location preference)
. This includes how to value

rare and
potentially functiona
lly less important species
. Whether all aspects of cultural services can or
should
be monetised is
an open question
. Valuation frameworks should build on existing frameworks,
incorporate the full range of different types of costs and benefits, have the option to be spatially
explicit, and be able to incorporate qualitative
informa
tion such as policy priorities and political
considerations.
P
redicting the future
meaningfully
is difficult.

The
re is a need to quantify

the scale
-
dependencies
(spatial and temporal) of ecosystem service
values
. H
ow these may change with cultural
context
and future environmental change was
highlighted.


Develop specific frameworks for the collection of new data specific to valuation exercises, and
collect primary data over time series
.

For example information on fish stocks and fish catches are
captured a
t different spatial and temporal scales and these are not necessarily appropriate scales for
valuation for marine planning and management (NEA Marine)

Option values need to be
understood and protected

for potential marine resources.
The genetic
diversity
of the marine environment is supplying increasingly novel ‘blue technologies’ in
biomedicine, biomimetics and biotechnology. In addition the largest marine contribution to GDP is
from seabed reserves of oil and gas within the UK Exclusive Economic Zone (EE
Z). Fibre optic
communication cables extending across the Atlantic and around the world are also vital to a large
proportion of business and finance wealth generation.


Beaumont et al (2008) estimate that the value of
CO2 sequestration in UK territorial waters is
between £420M an
d £8.5B based on carbon values
between £6 and £121 per ton carbon. DECC
envisage values increasing to £250 per ton carbon
in the next 40 years. The flow of carbon to the deep
sea could be worth in total €88B per year
(HERMIONE). CO2 capture and subsea bed
storage
in the Sleipner Vest gas condensate field off
Norway has saved about NK300M per year in

reduced CO2 tax (HERMIONE, OSPAR QSR).


The management of ecosystem services tends
to be localized, whereas the beneficiaries may
be widely distributed. e.g. much o
f the
regulation of water quality happens in upland
ecosystems, while the beneficiaries are
downstream to those ecosystems.”

(NEA Synthesis)




15

There needs to be better quantification of uncertainty & risk
.
The DEFRA Natural Valu
e Evidence
Plan highlights research gaps relating to how decisions can be made in the face of uncertainty and
incomplete evidence recognising the inevitable lag
in providing the data and science necessary to keep
track with implementation.
Economic valuati
on is
less useful in situations characterised by non
-
marginal change, such as radical uncertainty or
ignorance about potential tipping points.

One response to uncertainty is to include
‘insurance’ in management programs, trying to
avoid the worst outcomes
. It may be worth giving
up some service, e.g. reduced fish catches, in order to reduce the risk of unpleasant surprises, such
as fish stock collapses. This can be achieved by setting safe minimum standards and using a
precautionary approach to management,

ensuring that we do not risk crossing uncertainty
thresholds that could lead to potentially catastrophic and irreversible outcomes).

The Valuing Nature Network (VNN) launched by NERC in 2011 aims to promote research capacity in
the valuation of biodivers
ity, ecosystem services and natural resources to forward this agenda and
facilitate the integration of such approaches in policy and practice in the public and private sectors.


Clear communication of values across business, science and policy is required
;

complexity and
jargon should be prevented from becoming obstacles (World Business Council for Sustainable
Development).

Outcome

2

“F
acilitating the development of the green economy (through the opportunities arising
from managing ecosystem services or by
providing products or services which reduce negative
impacts on ecosystems, for example (certification of forestry and agricultural products, carbon and
biodiversity offsetting and monitoring technologies.)”

The majority of recommendations relevant to this

outcome were related to implementation
measures and some to R&D. There were few recommendations on knowledge or knowledge
transfer needs, perhaps because it is anticipated that the private sector
will address these. There
was

a broad range of recommend
ations about the general need to develop ‘business opportunities’.

There is scope to develop markets for ecosystem services.


Much work needs to be done to
understand better the environmental and business scope of environmental markets. Leaders of key
sta
keholders must take all available opportunities to advocate the rigorous exploration and,
wherever possible, the development and implementation of environmental markets
.”
(Private
solutions to public problems). Processes and products for developing a green

economy are much
more advanced in the terrestrial than the marine environment where they might include fishery
catch shares, fish nursery habitat protection and regulation of water quality (
Chan

& Ruckelshaus
2010).

Most of the recommendations related to
the use of incentive schemes to encourage business and the
need to develop regulations, sustainability standards and compensatory mechanisms to provide
environmental safeguards and protect against unforeseen consequences of a business led approach.

“Events in the Gulf of Mexico ..should have
set off alarm bells in boardrooms all over the
world. ..A major energy compa
ny was
suddenly faced with society’s valuations of
marine and coastal ecosystems.


(
TEEB
)


16


Ther
e is an opportunity to develop ‘beneficiary pays’ principles
.

This reflects the recognition that
the providers and beneficiaries may be separated in space or time as for instance when upstream
flood control services benefit downstream communities.

This w
ill be a complex issue to implement
and control.


Research into the effec
tiveness of i
ncentives in delivering multiple ecosystem services should be
carried out.

Incentives
particularly through CAP and the agri
-
environment scheme
s

were mentioned
frequently
.


Review and redesign incentives and reward systems for managers of rural land


to
reflect the cost of carbon and the wide range of ecosystem services the land can provide alongside
the production of food, fibre and energy

(Foresight: Land use
f
utures)
. Research should link use of
incentives to other proposed action such as the integrated landscape approach; e.g. ‘
explore how
Environmental Stewardship can best contribute to nature restoration through the creation of buffer
zones, stepping stones and wil
dlife corridors
’ (NEWP).


There is a need for ecosystem service characterisation, quantification and modelling

which supports
economic development
.


Offsetting


was the most commonly identified business opportunity with

development of a market for paymen
ts for services

and
recommendations relating to

implementation
and R&D.
Some research areas were suggested e.g. “
To design effective offsets for the residual

impacts of development on a site, it is necessary to understand what aspects of biodiversity need
to be
offset”

(N
atural
C
apital
I
nitiative
).

The
collecti
o
n
/collation of monitoring
data
was
to use for
offsetting

was proposed
.

There are no good measures or accountability systems
for most marine ecosystem services.

The

current and
near
-
future major use
s of the oceans all require good
environmental management with opportunities for
reducing environmental impacts through the
development of technologies and planning offsets.

There is a need to develop environmental accounting to support policy and managem
ent,
quantifying processes, their impact on marine ecosystem services, the benefits they generate and
their value

(NEA Marine)
.

Through having good knowledge of ecosystem processes it will be possible
for the UK to offer services in building environmental
accounts for marine ecosystems.

O
utcome 3
:

Identifying and promoting novel solutions to challenges facing ecosystems and
provision of ecosystem services

Most

recommendations in this category were for implementation activities, there
were

many new
initiat
ives and ideas being trialled to address
the
challenges facing ecosystems.

“Measuring Biodiversity: Markets work
best when the traded good or service is
homogenous. .... . Crucial to the success of
environmental markets, will be clarity
abo
ut what is needed and the outcomes
delivered. This will require agreed,
practical definitions, measures and
indicators of ecosystem attributes and
characteristics”

(Private Solutions to Public Problems)



17

There is need
for

the establi
shment of a multi
-
disciplinary
integrated decision analysis and
support community, uniting natural sciences with economists, risk analysts and other
social
scientists


NEA (Economic Analysis chapter).
Interdisciplinary and whole systems research
bringing together researchers from different
disciplines who have not previousl
y worked
together (Rafaelli 2009
)

was considered to be
important
. The importanc
e of integrated inter
-
disciplinary working
was

apparent in the
recommendations for monitoring
(outcome 1a)
and implicit in the use of holistic ecosystem models
.

It is recognised through the VNN that it is essential to b
uild links between natural science an
d
economics to advise on the dynamics of natural systems for underpinning of bioeconomic models
and approaches
. One recommendation (Soil Health and Sustainability) identified a skills gap in
‘systems science’; there could be further education and training
to produce ‘systems scientists’.



N
ew experiments are needed at scales from controlled environment to catchment, combining
different forms of land management; this should be supplemented by systems modelling
because
the actual outcomes of different land m
anagement combinations on multiple services are likely to be
sensitive
.
’(NEA enclosed farmland chapter). This applies equally in marine and coastal habitats
related to marine use and planning and exploitation of resources. New experiments were proposed
in
a number of reports (e.g. NEA MMH and Marine chapters, soil health and sustainability, Defra
evidence plans).

There is a need to develop models
, decision support systems

and predictive tools that link
biodiversity, ecosystem function, ecosystem services a
nd values. The models need to be
‘operational’
at scales useful for policy, regulation and management
(
NEA Synthesis and

Marine
2011
, US President’s Council of Advisors, the Belmont forum
)
.
Addressing complex ecosystems and
multiple uses in space and time
will require good predictive capabilities through modelling
.
These
offer
ed

a potential way forward for understanding some of the uncertainties and highlight
ed

the
sensitivities of multiple interacting drivers on ecosystems, the processes within them, and t
he flow
of services and goods.

Landscape scale research on the best ways of creating and maintaining ecological networks
is
a
critical requirement.

An integrated approach is important and was

proposed across sectors
(‘responses that are initiated within

a single sector often impact negatively upon other sectors and
services’

NEA Synthesis) and spatial and temporal scales. A priority is to restore function across
landscapes, by improving connectivity, creating ecological networks including restoration are
as and
increasing the size of protected areas and buffer zones to counteract problems from habitat
fragmentation and isolation (Lawton report).
Proposed mechanisms (implementation
strategies) to achieve this include reforms to the
planning regime (NEWP), c
reation of Nature
Improvement Areas, use of biodiversity
offsetting to create ecological networks,
integrated land and water management
resulting from the Water Framework Directive, the RSPB Futurescapes, the Wildlife Trusts Living

Understanding the interconnectedness of the
‘Eart
h System’ across its physical
-
chemical
-
biological
-

societal dimensions and across
spatial and temporal scales.


(The Belmont Forum)



We will move from net biodiversity loss to net
gain, by supporting healthy, well
-
functioning
ecosystems and coherent eco
logical networks.


(
UK Govt White Paper
-

The Natural Choice’
)


18

Landscapes, restoration
of linear network (roads, canals) by public authorities and a green
infrastructure network to provide wildlife corridors.
Pr
ioritisation of new supporting
inter
-
disciplinary
research and efficient ways of synthesising existing data and knowledge are vital.



N
ew understanding gained from the new tranche of Nature Improvement Areas
may

be widely
disseminated and adopted.

We will establish an Ecosystems Knowledge Network. Run by an
independent organisation, this network will involve our environmental bodies
and include local
projects, drawing on practical experience to share learning and good practice.”
(NEWP)


A

comprehensive scientific case
that includes
full economic valuation of all ecosystem services

is
required to underpin establishment of marine

networ
ks of
protected areas and conservation
zones

at UK, European and international levels (
NEA Marine
, HERMIONE
, OSPAR QSR, UK Govt
White paper, TEEB
)
.
Ecosystem services should be

fully considered within the criteria for future
designation.

As the networks t
hat are currently
being
designated

in the UK

are reviewed ecosystem
services

and their values

will need to be included in the analyses of their

e
ffectiveness.


I
ntegrated fit
-
for
-
purpose ecosystem service indicators

are needed

in both terrestrial and
mar
ine

environments
.
For example t
here was a commitment to roll out a set of key indicators by Spring
2012 to track progress on NEWP objectives. Specific calls include indicators for soil health that can
be used by foresters/land
-
managers
.


Some recommendat
ions recognise
d

the cost
-
effectiveness of searching existing databases
and datasets for new indicators based on
robust relationships
between
service delivery
and

biodiversity. In other cases there is a call
for new system studies and experiments to fill
ke
y gaps in understanding linkage between
above and below
-
ground processes, biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and ecosystem service
delivery.


There is a need to develop a consistent
environmental management approach for all businesses
using ecosystem

ser
vice

methodologie
s

(NEA Marine).

Developing an ecosystem service approach
to integrated management requires methodology by which all uses of space and resources and their
ecosystem impacts can be examined on an equal basis. Quantifying the environmental i
mpacts in
terms of ecosystem services and changes in their socio
-
economic value (i.e. costs) provides a
common currency system directly comparable with the economic benefits accrued from the
different uses.

In coastal habitats
Flood and erosion risk manag
ement working with natural processes
may bring
wider environmental and socio
-
economic benefits, and may be cheaper than traditional hard
engineering.



Indicator taxa whose presence, abundance or
density reveal different levels of service provision
(or the lack of it) could be identified and used as
assays for the state of systems as appropr
iate,
either via bespoke field protocols or by making use
of existing data sets or data collection”

(NEA England chapter)



19

O
utcome 4


Promoting environmental sustainability in developed and developing countries, and
developing m
ethods to reduce the UK’s impact on overseas ecosystems.”

The White paper states that “The UK will show environmental leadership internationally and within
the EU, to protect and enhance natural assets globally, promoting environmentally and socially
susta
inable growth (NEWP)
.

The UK is a leader in developing and implementing international
environmental policy. In 2010, the UK played an important role in the Conference of the Parties to
the Convention on Biological Diversity. We will be collaborating clos
ely with our EU partners so that
the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit
-
sharing is properly implemented.


Some of the recommendations
extend activities such as
the
valuation of ecosystem services and
the
creati
on

of national accounting systems from nati
onal commitments to international
commitments
.

Strengthen international efforts to value natural capital, including it in the agreed
international standards for producing national accounts.”(NEWP)


There a
re likely to be
associated
research implications
as it cannot be assumed that methods used
in one country are easily transferrable.

There is a need to develop methods for the ecosystem management of the UK Overseas Territories
through a better appreciation of the ecosystem services they supply.

The FCO
recognise that 95%
of the UK’s biodiversity lies within the OTs. The UK Government White paper ‘The Natural Choice’
has committed to giving priority to the UK OTs Biodiversity Strategy through a coordinated across
government. The UK has introduced a no
-
tak
e Marine Protected Area around the British Indian
Ocean Territory (Chagos archipelago) and a managed MPA around South Georgia and the South
Sandwich Islands.

There are opportunities for research
to

improve and maintain ecological infrastructure to delive
r
increased ecosystem services
which will

have significant impacts on human well
-
being

(particularly poverty alleviation)

internationally.

Where possible k
nowledge
should be transferrable and provide insights
into ecosystem services manage
ment

in the UK.

S
ome research is or will be funded through
Darwin and ESPA initiatives.


There were many recommendations on
ensuring Global sustainability

and

addressing the UK’s
dependence on overseas
ecosystem
services

(including climate change mitigation and biodivers
ity).
A number of actions to mitigate against climate change have been announced
,

e.g. funding for the
International climate fund to support
action preventing climate change,
and
development assistance which promotes
low
-
carbon and resource efficiency to
u
nderpin environmentally sustainable
growth. Research activities proposed
included risk analysis to the UK from

Human dependence on
ecosystem services and
particularly their role as a lifeline for many poor
households needs to be more fully integrated into
policy
.”(TEEB)



Understanding the threats/opportunities to the UK from
the changing nature of ecosystems good and services
abroad

which might have implications for UK economic
planning, whilst also looking at the implications of the

UK

s economic activity on ecosystems abroad.


(Defra Natural Value Evidence Plan)



20

changing nature of ecosystem goods and
services abroad.

It is important to have a good understanding
of the sustainability and impact of
ecosys
tem
services
sourced from overseas. T
his
may
have implications for the future provision of
goods and services to the UK
and

also impacts
on global drivers of change such as climate
change which we have measures to reduce within the UK.

It is also l
inked to

the UK’s ecological
footprint and impact abroad. This may be very difficult to assess, much of the UK’s economy is based
on cheap imported products that haven’t incorporated ecosystem sustainability into costings. Data
may not be available or easily acces
sible.

In 2010 the UK Government committed to

the establishment of a new international body, the
Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES), so that the UK could
work with other governments and the United Nations to develop
effective, efficient governance.

This has implications for marine and terrestrial habitats and will require scientific input.

There is a gap in the international process to deal with the conservation of high seas biodiversity.
The UK Government will work
with our partners in the UK and around the world to establish a
new global mechanism to regulate the conservation of marine biodiversity in the high sea (UK
Government White Paper


‘The Natural Choice’).
Such work will undoubtedly
require good
scientific
guidance from the UK science base.


Conclusions

Summary ‘options’ are shown below in Table 1.

Figure 1

shows the

potential implementation of
‘options’

by suggesting how they could be linked.


The UK is the seventh largest economy in the
world; we have responsibilities beyond our borders:
our footprint matters. Our society is reliant on
healthy ecosystems in other

countries…


(
UK Govt White Paper


‘The Natural Choice’
)


21


Table 1: Summary ‘options’ from review of reports

Summary title

Inter
-
Disciplinary science

Research to understand
how best to manage

ecosystems.


Research to understand
how best to manage ecosystems, what institutions
and organisational structures are effective in balancing the trade
-
offs
inherent in social
-
envi
ronmental systems at and across local, regional and
global scales and how can they be achieved?


Research to assess how
individual and community
choices and decisions
impact upon service
delivery and how to
change behaviours to
maximise benefits.


Sociol
ogical research to assess how individual and community choices
and decisions impact upon service delivery and how to change
behaviours to maximise benefits. This needs to be coupled with
environmental research to determine the impacts of policies on the
ec
osystems that are spatially explicit.

Multi
-
disciplinary
research: building capacity


The establishment of an integrated decision analysis and support
community, uniting different disciplines of the natural sciences with
economists, risk analysts and oth
er social scientists (NEA)


Past, present and Future

S
tandardized methods
and criteria for the
measurement, mapping
and monitoring of
biodiversity and
ecosystem services.



S
tandardized methods and criteria for the measurement, mapping
and monitoring of
biodiversity and ecosystem services at various
temporal and spatial scales should be developed.

This includes the
development of new integrated fit
-
for
-
purpose ecosystem service
indicators and particularly needs to address supporting, regulating
and cultur
al services which are currently poorly recorded. To attain
the same level of knowledge as on land, there is a need for detailed
marine mapping so that the spatial extent and rates of delivery of
ecosystem services can be quantified.


Relationships between

ecosystem services,
biodiversity and function.


Research to understand relationships between ecosystem services,
biodiversity and function with feed
-
back to improve monitoring
activities. More empirical data on ecosystem function and rates of
ecosystem p
rocesses through in situ and mesocosm experimentation are
required. In terrestrial habitats the BESS programme is intended to
address some of these relationships.

Assess the impact of key
drivers


Further research and data collection to assess the impac
t of key drivers
such as climate change, pollution, land and sea use change and nutrient
enrichment effects of land use management on terrestrial, coastal and
marine habitats, including cumulative and interacting effects.

Develop informatics and
knowledg
e exchange
capability.


Improve Informatics capability; bring together spatially explicit datasets
relevant to biodiversity, ecosystems, and socio
-
economic data. Create
partnerships between private and economic sectors to maximise
financial savings and dev
elop innovative tools for data integration,
analysis, visualization and decision making.

Knowledge exchange activities communicating and interpreting the
results of research between scientists (from different disciplines),
government, and the wider public

e.g. land managers including better
communication of uncertainty.

Interactions over spatial
and temporal scales.

Further research to understand how ‘services and ecosystems interact
over different spatial and temporal scales and in different locations
(i
ncluding terrestrial, freshwater and marine linkages)’. This could
include multiple scales, up
-
scaling and down
-
scaling.

Integrated ecosystem and
bioeconomic models and
Develop integrated ecosystem
models and predictive tools (including
decision support systems) that link biodiversity, ecosystem function,

22

predictive tools (including
decision support systems).


ecosystem services and values. The models need to be ‘operational’
at scales useful for policy, regulation and management.


Integrated land/sea sc
ape approach

Trade
-
offs between
multiple ecosystem
services.


Tradeoffs:

Improved understanding and implementation is required to
manage trade
-
offs between multiple ecosystem services: conflicts occur
between diverse combinations of services. Improve our

understanding of
how to balance competing services, and to prioritise certain land/marine
uses or services over others. Trade
-
offs need to consider spatial
interdependence between habitats. The identification and promotion of
opportunities for multifunct
ional land /sea use are important. Trade
-
offs
also need to balance knowledge of short
-
term service provision with
long
-
term costs. Inclusive decision making with multiple partners is also
required, involving the public where appropriate.


Research for sus
tainable
production systems

Research to develop more sustainable production systems that use
fewer non
-
renewable resources, while simultaneously producing lower
levels of pollution.

New research and synthesis
of existing data to support
an integrated lan
dscape
approach/ Marine planning
ecological networks, NIA’s,
SAC’s and MPA’s.

New research and synthesis of existing data and knowledge for
integrated landscape approach/marine planning which includes
creation and maintenance of ecological networks and in
itiatives such
as Natural Improvement Areas and marine conservation zones.


Ecosystem vulnerability

Research into the resilience
of ecosystems and ability to
recover from disturbance
(including thresholds and
tipping points)
.


Research into the resilien
ce of ecosystems and ability to recover from
disturbance should be prioritised through monitoring and
perturbation experiments. Identify factors that maintain resilience
and resistance in the face of use and development to deliver services
and identify and

characterize linear and non
-
linear social and
ecological dynamics (including tipping points) and their interactions,
to foster ecosystem service resilience.

Understand vulnerability of
different marine ecosystems
to human impacts.


Research to understand

vulnerability of different marine ecosystems
to human impacts, such as bottom trawling which causes spatial
fragmentation of populations leading to irreversible change and
susceptibility to large
-
scale episodic environmental change requires
more knowledge

of ecological traits of marine species.

Understand patterns,
mechanisms of
establishment and the rate
of spread of non
-
indigenous
species.


Understand patterns, mechanisms of establishment and the rate of
spread of non
-
indigenous species, and how natural

populations
respond to invasions. This was particularly identified in reports on
marine habitats.


Valuation

Develop improved valuation
techniques and accounting
frameworks for natural
capital and ecosystem
services.


Improved valuation techniques and a
ccounting frameworks are
required to better value natural capital and ecosystem services.
Methodologies, metrics and standards for sustainable management
and integrated accounting of biodiversity and ecosystem services
should be developed as a priority. Th
ey must accommodate the full
range of information, including qualitative information, and operate
at varying spatial and temporal scales. Further development work is
needed to incorporate the sustainability of resource use into
valuation, particularly for
non
-
renewable resources such as oil and
gas. There is ongoing work in the VNN network to address these
issues.



23

Develop interim accounts
to incorporate
quantification of
uncertainty & risk
.

Develop interim accounts incorporating quantification of uncertai
nty &
risk: balancing global environmental/economic books may not be fully
possible due to knowledge gaps and data deficiencies. Gaps highlighted
include the data and/or methodologies to value regulating and cultural
services and abiotic provisioning servi
ces (e.g. pipelines, gas storage).
‘Insurance’ should be factored in where valuation is used in decision
making under conditions of significant economic or ecological uncertainty.


Understand risk to natural resources and ecosystem services and include it
in management and policy risk registers.


Research into the
effectiveness of incentives,
e.g. agri
-
environment
schemes, for delivering
multiple ecosystem services.

Research into the effectiveness of incentives e.g. agri
-
environment
schemes in delivering m
ultiple ecosystem services should be carried out.
Research should link use of incentives to other proposed action such as the
integrated landscape approach; e.g. explore how Environmental
Stewardship can best contribute to nature restoration through the cr
eation
of buffer zones, stepping stones and wildlife corridors.

Development of ‘green
economies’ in the marine
environment.


Developing green economies has progressed to some extent in terrestrial
habitats, however, in the marine environment it is at an e
arly stage.
Incentives and subsidies need to take into account the effect on the marine
environment.


International

Threats/opportunities to the
UK from ecosystems good
and services abroad and
implications of the UK

s
footprint.


Research to understand t
he threats/opportunities to the UK from the
changing nature of ecosystems good and services abroad and to assess
the implications of the UK

s economic activities on ecosystems and
ecosystem services overseas.

Extend UK knowledge on the
valuation of ecosys
tem
services internationally.


Extend UK knowledge on the valuation of ecosystem services and the
creation of national accounting systems to developing and developed
countries through international collaboration.


Research to improve and
maintain ecologic
al
infrastructure to deliver
improved ecosystem
services and human well
-
being internationally.


Research to improve and maintain ecological infrastructure to deliver
increased ecosystem services which will have significant impacts on
human well
-
being (part
icularly poverty alleviation) internationally.

Utilise UK marine science in
the establishment of a new
global mechanism to
regulate the conservation of
marine biodiversity in the
high sea.


Address gap in the international process to deal with the conser
vation of
high seas biodiversity. Work with our partners in the UK and around the
world to utilise UK marine science to support establishment of a new
global mechanism to regulate the conservation of marine biodiversity in
the high sea.


24
















Figure 1
: Schematic figure showing potential implementation of ‘options’

References

ALSF report: M.C. Austen, C. Hattam, S. Lowe, S.C. Mangi, K. Richardson (2009) Quantifying and
Valuing the impacts of marine aggregate extraction on ecosystem goods and
services. Published
September 2009 ISBN: 978
-
0
-
9519618
-
5
-
8

Austen, M.C., Burrows, M., Frid, C., Haines
-
Young, R., Hiscock, H., Moran, D., Myers, J., Paterson,
D.M., Rose, P. (2008) Marine biodiversity and the provision of goods and services: identifying th
e
research priorities. Report to the UK Biodiversity Research Advisory Group.

Austen M, Hattam C, Mangi S, Watt A, Young J, Raffaelli D, 2009 Valuation of Biodiversity: a Review
of the State of Science at NERC’s Research and Collaborative Centres. NERC Sco
ping Study Report 45
pages,
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/themes/tap/reports/2008/documents/scoping
-
study3.pdf

Baxter, J.M., Boyd, I.L., Cox, M., Donald, A.E., Malcolm, S.J., Miles, H., Miller. B., Moffat, C.F. (Editors)
(2011). Scotland’s Marine Atlas: I
nformation for the national marine plan. Marine Scotland,
Edinburgh, 91pp.

The Belmont forum

Blue Carbon: The role of healthy oceans in binding carbon.

UNEP. http://www.grida.no/publications/rr/blue
-
carbon/ebook.aspx

Business sources (e.g. Armsworth et a
l 2010, others to be suggested by steering group)

Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services


http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2011/08/19/pb13583
-
biodiversity
-
strategy
-
2020/


Defra Delivering Fisheries 2027: towards an

implementation plan


Blyth
-
Skyrme, R.E. (2010). Options and opportunities for marine fisheries mitigation associated with
windfarms. Draft report for Collaborative Offshore Wind Research Into the Environment contract
FISHMITIG09. COWRIE Ltd, Nature Bureau
, Newbury, UK. 125 pp.

Chan KMA * and Ruckelshaus M 2010 Characterizing changes in marine ecosystem services F1000
Biology Reports 2010, 2:54 (doi:10.3410/B2
-
54)DEFRA CP2 (2010)

DEFRA (2007) Fisheries 2027: a long
-
term vision for sustainable fisheries. 18p
p.

Defra evidence plans
http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/page/3/?s=evidence+plan


The European environment


state and outlook 2010: Synthesis

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publica
tions#c9=all&c14=state_of_the_environment_reports_soer&c12
=&c7=en&c11=5&b_start=0


European Commission (2011) Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to
2020. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Co
uncil, the Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. 17pp.


1

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/
pdf/2020/1_EN_ACT_part1_v7[1]
.pdf



European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy. Recommendations of the meeting of the
European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy,
http://share.bebif.be/data/EPBRS/EPBRS
-
HU2011
-
EcosystemServices_Final.pdf

EU HERMIONE Project report on Ecosystem Goods and Services of the Deep Sea

DEFRA UK Marine Monitoring and Assessment Charting for Progress 2 (CP2) (2010) Overview and
Reports
http://chartingprogress.defra.gov.uk/cp2
-
overview and feeder reports

Dickie, Sau
nders, Hull, Tinch 2011, Valuing the Marine Estate and UK Seas: Dynamic Baseline
Assessment. Draft
-

report in preparation

European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008)

http://eur
-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:164:0019:0040:EN:PDF


Foresight Review on Land Use

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/bispartners/foresight/docs/land
-
use/luf_report/8614
-
bis
-
land_use_futures_exec_summ
-
web.pdf


FCERM
-
England (Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy) 2010. Understanding the
risks, empowering communities
, building resilience. The national flood and coastal erosion risk
management strategy for England. Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 7 of the Flood and
Water Management Act 2010.

Getting the best from our land, A Land Use Strategy for Scotland

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/345946/0115155.pdf


Hattam C, Austen M, Mangi S, Bloodworth A, McEvoy F, Peach D, Wrighton C, Watt A, Hails R, Carss
D, Young J, 2009. Valuation of Natural Resource: a review of the state of science at NERC’s Resear
ch
and Collaborative Centres. NERC Scoping Study Report 48 pages,
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/themes/tap/reports/2008/documents/scoping
-
study4.pdf


ICSU (2010).’ Earth system Science for Global sustainability; The Grand challenges’, International
Counci
l for Science, Paris

Hull, Saunders, Dickie 2011, Valuing Change in the Marine Estate and UK Seas: Temporal and Spatial
Assessment . The Crown Estate

Institute for European Environmental Policy TOWARDS A REFORM OF THE COMMON FISHERIES
POLICY IN 2012


A C
FP HEALTH CHECK. JULY 2009 Indrani Lutchman, Chris Grieve Sophie des Clers,
Elizabeth De Santo



2

James (2009) UK Aquaculture R&D Database


Strategic Summary 1999
-

2009.

LWEC Ecosystems Challenge Workshop Report

Making Space for Nature: A review of Engla
nd’s Wildlife Sites and Ecological Network (Lawton
report)
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/documents/201009space
-
for
-
nature.pdf

Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership (2011) Annual Report card 2010
-
2011. 12pp.

Naturally, at your ser
vice: Why it pays to invest in nature


http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/Valuingnature_tcm9
-
230654.pdf


Natural Capital initiative (
http://www.naturalcapitalinitiative.org.uk/2
-
home
/)
workshop reports:



Towards no net loss, and beyond: Addressing practical challenges for biodiversity offsetting
in the UK;



Valuing our life support systems


Natural Environment White Paper


http://www.official
-
documents.gov.uk/document /cm80/8082/8082.pdf


Nellmann, C., Corcoran, E., Duarte, C.M., Valdes, L., de Young, C. Fonseca, L., Grimsditch, G. (2009).

NNFCC Research Needs in Ecosystem Services to Support Algal B
iofuels, Bioenergy and Commodity
Chemicals Production in the UK

NOAA’s National Ocean Services Science Plan 2005
http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/

Northern Ireland: DARDNI information on aquaculture

Recent OECDS work on biodiversity
http://www.oecd.org/data
oecd/63/39/46226558.pdf

Summary record of the expert workshop on mobilising private sector finance for biodiversity
conservation and sustainable use
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/52/35/48202045.pdf

OSPAR Commission (2010) Quality Status Report. 175pp.

Pre
sident’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology , 2011. Sustaining environmental capital:
protecting society and the economy. Report to the President Executive Office of the President of the
USA.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsit
es/ostp/pcast_sustaining_environment
al_capital_report.pdf


Private Solutions to Public Problems, Developing Environmental Markets

http://www.cla.org.uk/pdf/Private%2
0Solutions%20to%20Public%20Problems.pdf



3

Raffaelli D, Smart J, Austen M, , Mangi S, Hattam C, Termansen M, Fraser E, Abson D, 2009.
Valuation of Biodiversity
-

A NERC scoping study. NERC Scoping Study Report 132 pages,
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/theme
s/tap/reports/2008/documents/scoping
-
study1.pdf


RSPB Futurescapes, Space for Nature, Land for Life

http://www.rspb.org.uk/images/futurescapesuk_tcm9
-
253866.pdf


Saunders, J., Tinch, R., and Hull, S. (2010a). Valuing the Marine Estate and UK Seas: An Eco
system
Services Framework. The Crown Estate, 54 pages, March 2010. ISBN: 978
-
1
-
906410
-
15
-
5.

Saunders, Tinch, Ozdemiroglu, Hull (2010b), Valuing the Marine Estate and UK Seas: Initial Static
Baseline Assessment. The Crown Estate.

Scottish fish farm producti
on survey 2009 (Marine Scotland, 2010)


Soils evidence plan
http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13510
-
ep
-
soils.pdf


Soil Health and Sustainability
https://connect.innovateuk.org/c/document_library/


get_file?folderId=5309952&name=DLFE
-
48585.pdf



TEEB


The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity reports
http://www.teebweb.org/

UK National Ecosystem As
sessment
http://uknea.unep
-
wcmc.org/

UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011) The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the
Key Findings. UNEP
-
WCMC, Cambridge.

Chapter 4; Norris, K. (2011)
Biodiversity in

the Context of Ecosystem Services

Assessment.
In
: The UK
National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report. UK National Ecosystem Assessment, UNEP
-
WCMC, Cambridge.


Chapter 5; Van der Wal, R. (2011)
Mountains, Moorlands and Heathlands (MMH)
.
In
: The UK
Natio
nal Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report. UK National Ecosystem Assessment, UNEP
-
WCMC, Cambridge.


Chapter 7; Firbank, L. and Bradbury, R. (2011)
Enclosed Farmland
In
: The UK National Ecosystem
Assessment Technical Report. UK National Ecosystem Assessmen
t, UNEP
-
WCMC, Cambridge.



4

Chapter 9; Maltby, E. and Ormerod, S. (2011)
Freshwaters
-

open waters, wetlands and floodplains
.
In
: The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report. UK National Ecosystem Assessment,
UNEP
-
WCMC, Cambridge.


Chapter 11; Jones
, L. (2011)
Coastal margins
.
In
: The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical
Report. UK National Ecosystem Assessment, UNEP
-
WCMC, Cambridge.


Chapter 12; Austen, M.C. and Malcolm, S.(2011) Marine
In
: The UK National Ecosystem Assessment
Technical Report
. UK National Ecosystem Assessment, UNEP
-
WCMC, Cambridge.

Chapter 13; Bardgett, R.(2011) Supporting services
In
: The UK National Ecosystem Assessment
Technical Report. UK National Ecosystem Assessment, UNEP
-
WCMC, Cambridge.


Chapter 19; Aspinall, R. (2011)


Status and Changes in the UK Ecosystems and their

Services to Society: Scotland
.
In
: The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report. UK
National Ecosystem Assessment, UNEP
-
WCMC, Cambridge.



The UK Water Research and Innovation Framework (UKWRIF)

UNEP


Taking steps toward marine and coastal ecosystem
-
based management. An introductory
guide


see
http://www.unep.org/pdf/EBM_Manual_r15_Final.pdf

Uplands policy review
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/rural/documents/interim2/upland
-
policy
-
review2011.pdf


WBCDS Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation


http://www.wbcsd.org/DocRoot/VSaiYK6enw6XqphqqkTT/WBCSD_Guide_CEV_April_2011.pdf


Welsh Assembly Government Wales

fisheries strategy (2008)

Wildlife Trusts Living Landscapes

http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/sites/wtmain.live.drupal.precedenthost.co.uk/files/files/TWT%20A%2
0Living%20Landscape%20vision%20FINAL.pdf

Worm, B et al (2006) Impacts of biodiversity loss on ecos
ystem services, Science 314 787
-
790.







5