Identifying Evidence Gaps to Support the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in the UK

Overseas Territories

Project Reference Number: BE0101

Final Report August 2015

Main Project Team

Mark Carine (NHM)

Alan Gray (CEH)

Mark Eaton (RSPB)

Jonathan Hall (RSPB)

Sarah Havery (RSPB)

Joe Scutt Phillips (CEFAS)

David Righton (CEFAS)

Additional Contributors

Joanne Chamberlain (CEH)

Alex Hipkiss (RSPB)

1

Executive Summary

Background

The UK has 14 Overseas Territories (UKOTs): Anguilla; Bermuda; British Antarctic Territory; British Indian Ocean Territory; British Virgin Islands; Cayman Islands; Falkland Islands; Gibraltar; Montserrat; Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands (commonly known as the Pitcairn Islands); St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha; South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands; Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus; and Turks and Caicos Islands. The UKOTs harbour globally significant biodiversity and support unique ecosystems; many of the species which inhabit these territories are endemic, rare and threatened. The main threats to this biodiversity and the ecosystem goods and services that they provide include invasive species, habitat loss and fragmentation and climate change. In the recent RSPB stocktake of UKOT biodiversity (Anker & De Grave 2012; Churchyard et al. 2014; Havery et al. 2015; Churchyard et al. Submitted) approximately 32,000 native species were catalogued from the island UKOTs. Of these 1,559 are considered as endemic, however, this number is likely to be subject to change as new species are still being discovered or subject to taxonomic revision. Furthermore, it was estimated that the UKOTs may hold an additional 70,000 species yet to be documented, of which perhaps 1,800 are previously undescribed endemics. The wealth of biodiversity and uniqueness of species and ecosystems in the UKOTs underpin many of the ecosystem goods and services that provide economic and social benefits to local populations in the UKOTs. Whilst the body of scientific evidence continues to grow there are still significant gaps in ecological and environmental knowledge in the UKOTs and the extent to which ecosystem services have been researched within the UKOTs is lacking. The overall aim of this project is to identify the gaps in evidence related to survey, monitoring and research of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the UKOTs, and to provide a framework for future investment/action. This final report consolidates project findings, policy implications and suggests areas for future work in the UKOTs.

Approach

We used an approach involving: (i) Review of evidence: In order to identify the gaps in evidence related to survey, monitoring and research of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the UKOTs, the first stage was identifying what work had already been completed. The project team reviewed peer reviewed and grey literature; freely available data on publications and studies from OT organisations (e.g. websites); UK Government sources (e.g. Darwin Initiative, DfID, Defra); Research Councils (e.g. NERC, BBSRC); European Union funded projects; IUCN; UKOTCF; JNCC reports; UK Reports to CBD and other Conventions; and Universities (UK and international) for relevant studies in the UKOTs. Data on studies was recorded for the details of funder, project lead, funding amount, links to any publications, and the taxonomic groups and the ecosystem services covered by the study: The ecosystem services were especially important to note, as to a large degree the economy, health and wellbeing of UKOT people depend upon the services provided by ecosystems such as food, water, soil, and nutrients. Ecosystem services were defined following the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment criteria (MEA 2005). The UKOT Biodiversity Strategy Priorities were also mapped onto the data and a further assessment was made in relation to the policy priorities set out in the Joint Ministerial Council (JMC) Communiqués (2012-2014). The review of evidence is included in Annex 1. (ii) Workshops: A workshop was held at the Natural History Museum, London to present initial findings from the review of evidence and discuss knowledge gaps and priorities with key UK stakeholders. For full details of the workshop, the resulting report is in Annex 2. In addition, a second discussion meeting was held in Gibraltar with UKOT Government representatives to demonstrate the evidence review and next steps in the project; UKOT government representatives were also encouraged to review the work done to date, and advise the project team where data were missing from the evidence review. (iii) Investment Framework: A framework detailing potential sources of funding to address the gaps in the UKOTs was produced and is available at Annex 3. The framework

2

includes details of the category of funder (charity etc.); funding deadlines; the size of grant available; whether UKOT partners can be lead applicants; the eligibility criteria; links to the funding website; geographical focus; the types of projects funded; scientific discipline; the biological groups covered; and the likely ecosystem services, UKOT Biodiversity Strategy priorities and JMC Communiqué priorities that the grant source could potentially be used to fund.

Cautionary Note on the resulting data: It is important to note that there is a degree of subjectivity (although we attempted to maintain consistency) in recording which ecosystem services, UKOT Biodiversity Strategy outcome and JMC Communiqué Priority a study may cover. There are fields with missing data, and core-funded work and grey literature are likely to be underrepresented. The scope of the project was work undertaken since the publication of the UKOT Biodiversity Strategy in 2009 so we do not provide a complete overview of biodiversity-related activities in the UKOTs.

Project Findings and Marine and Terrestrial Synthesis

Ecosystem Services: By far the most common ecosystem services recorded to have been studied were those categorised as cultural services. For provisioning services food and fibre was the service addressed by the greatest number of projects. Regulating services received little attention overall, with storm protection, water regulation, erosion and climate control the most highly recorded topics within this service type. Supporting services were the least studied overall which is an important gap as services such as soil formation, water and nutrient cycling and primary production are particularly important for ecosystem sustainability across the UKOTs. Whilst many projects were recorded as relating to cultural services, their relevance to such is indirect and key areas such as ecotourism studies were not directly assessed by the studies in the review. However, it is likely that a review of relevant literature from outside the UKOTs would provide directly relevant evidence for knowledge gaps in ecotourism.

UKOT Biodiversity Strategy: Whilst studies addressed all of the strategic priorities, data gathering to inform the preparation of policies and management plans (strategic priority 1) was the highest recorded. Strategic priority 3 – developing cross-sectoral approaches to climate change adaptation consistent with the principles of sustainable development – did not feature prominently in any territory. The strategic priority with the least number of studies was that of valuing ecosystem services.

JMC Communiqué Priorities: The nine JMC Communiqué priorities (2012-2014) were not as well represented in the studies examined as the strategic priorities of the UKOTs Biodiversity Strategy. That said, priorities relating to sustainable fisheries, conservation management, natural resource exploitation and capacity building were all relatively well represented. Renewable energy, and food security were less well represented.

Marine Ecosystems: Fish and invertebrate species (including corals) were the most common species examined in marine projects, with only a few projects examining marine micro-organisms and deep sea habitats. Offshore projects were less common in Caribbean regions. Current marine biodiversity projects have as a primary focus either ecosystems or the target species of a fishery, with intended impacts to improve preservation or achieve sustainable management. The focus of marine projects varies considerably between territories, but most emphasis was on biodiversity survey. Projects with a marine policy focus, or capacity building themes are rarer. Very few projects are clearly addressing the economic contribution of biodiversity in marine ecosystems and given issues over marine food security this is a clear gap in the knowledge base.

Terrestrial Ecosystems: The taxonomic groups in terrestrial ecosystems most often covered were birds, larger animals or more charismatic species such as fish, vascular plants and mammals. Poorly covered groups included non-vascular plants, algae and lichens: although there were a relatively larger proportion of studies on invertebrates in comparison to these groups these still remain understudied. Whilst many territories appear to have a larger number of studies on more

3

charismatic species, an encouraging number of studies are on multiple species, perhaps suggestive of an ecosystem approach. Additional applied research to support evidence gathering for underrepresented species groups is a clear need and in common with marine ecosystems, economics was also lacking in terrestrial systems. Even for well-known elements of the terrestrial biota there is still a long way to go before we have a rudimentary knowledge of the relationships between the UKOTs biodiversity and the ecosystem services they provide.

Investment Framework: The investment framework identified funding sources and classified them according to funding category, discipline, project types and broad biological groups. Available grant size was also recorded. 139 potential funding sources were identified ranging from small grants (< £2,000) to grants in excess of £250,000. There are far more funding opportunities for projects relating to cultural services than to the other ecosystem service types. All five priorities within the UKOT Biodiversity Strategy are well represented among potential funding sources. For JMC Communiqué priorities, a diversity of funding sources are relevant for most, although, funding opportunities for work relating to capacity building and food security are less numerous. The majority of potential funding sources are from charities/foundations, but more than half cover all biological groups. However, the largest grants area available from EU (BEST 2) and UK sources such as the Darwin Initiative and research councils. More than half of the sources are broad in their remit covering all aspects of conservation and ecology. In addition to the investment matrix we give details on available funding from research councils, opportunities from other research Councils and initiatives and the most applicable European Union funding.

Project Conclusions

In the period since 2009, few UKOT studies were explicit in studying ecosystem services although a large number were directly relevant. Studies reviewed did not address all of the priorities defined from the JMC Communiqués, although, there may be ongoing studies that have yet to report and were not reviewed given the recent communiqué dates. However, the priorities from the UKOT Biodiversity strategy were much better represented. The balance of studies across taxa is uneven; most studies have been on charismatic species such as birds or larger animals despite the pivotal role that less charismatic species play in ecosystem services (e.g. invertebrates in pollination; micro-organisms in nutrient cycling). This could be a consequence of the different aims of the studies i.e. they are not aiming to directly study ecosystem services. With some notable exceptions (e.g. turtles) most UKOT taxa, even those that are well studied (e.g. birds), appear to be still in the early stages of the scientific data gathering process; few have moved from recording distribution to more applied research. Deep sea taxa are also not well studied due to their inaccessibility. Few projects were funded by UK based research councils. Multiple funding options are available to cover the study of a wide breadth of species, ecosystem services, and the priorities in the JMC Communiqués and the UKOT Biodiversity strategy.

Suggested areas for further work in the UKOTs

Before being addressed, the identified knowledge gaps will require a prioritisation process to be conducted at territory level. Ecosystem Services: Given the current and future potential role of ecotourism as a high-value component of the tourist industry, the paucity of ecotourism studies should be re-visited, however, relevant literature from outside the UKOTs would be directly relevant for filling any knowledge gaps. The lack of activity in fresh water provision is also a gap worthy of further investigation particularly in light of climate change and island water provision vulnerabilities. Other regulating services such as pollination, water purification, waste treatment etc. and supporting services are also gaps that require addressing. UKOT Biodiversity strategy: Strategic priority three – developing cross-sectoral approaches to climate change adaptation consistent with the principles of sustainable development – did not

4

feature prominently in any territory and requires further investigation. The valuation of ecosystem services needs to be reviewed in greater number of the territories. JMC Communiques: Renewable energy and food security are underrepresented and are JMC Communiqué priorities that need addressing more widely. Marine: There should be an increased emphasis on policy, capacity building, and economic outcomes for marine projects. The contribution of biodiversity to territory economies is also a clear gap in the marine knowledge base. Terrestrial Habitats: Applied research to support distribution and diversity studies clearly needs addressing if relationships between biodiversity and ecosystems services are to be known with any certainty and this may require greater engagement with the research community. In common with the marine habitats the study of biodiversity contribution to territory economies in terrestrial systems is also another gap.

5

Acknowledgements We would like to thank all of the people who have helped with this project and in particular all the attendees of the workshop and the meeting in Gibraltar for their valuable insights and comments. We would also like to thank those who took the time to corresponded and provide comments to us via email. Lastly we would like to thank those member of the UKOTs who devoted valuable time to comment and contribute to the data gathering and helping to correct our mistakes, with missing data and also providing suggestions on how to improve the project, these include: Samia Sarkis, Alison Copeland, Nicola Weber, Joseph Smith Abbott, Benito Wheatley, Stephen Butler, Jim Kerr, Katrine Herian, Mike Pienkowski and the members of the project Steering Group Mark Baxter (DEFRA), Colin Clubbe (RBGE Kew), Clare Hamilton (DEFRA), Natasha Lewis (DEFRA), Tara Pelembe (JNCC) and Eram Qureshi-Hasan (FCO). If mistakes or omissions have arisen during the production of this report then these can be addressed by contacting Alan Gray (alangray@ceh.ac.uk).

6

Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 5

1. Policy Background ............................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Scientific Background ........................................................................................................................ 7

1.2 Project Aim ........................................................................................................................................ 7

1.3 Approach and Methodology ............................................................................................................. 8

2. Project Findings and Marine and Terrestrial Synthesis .................................................................... 15

2.1. Ecosystem Services ........................................................................................................................ 15

2.2. UKOT Biodiversity Strategy ............................................................................................................ 20

2.3. Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council Communiqué Priorities ......................................... 22

2.4. Marine Ecosystems ........................................................................................................................ 24

2.5. Terrestrial Ecosystems ................................................................................................................... 24

2.6 Geographical Distribution Across Territories .................................................................................. 25

3. Investment Framework ..................................................................................................................... 27

3.1. Funding Source Appraisal .............................................................................................................. 27

3.1.1. Funding Categories and Remit .................................................................................................... 29

3.1.2. Research Council Funding ........................................................................................................... 30

3.1.3. European Union Networks .......................................................................................................... 32

4. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 34

5. Suggestions for future work in the UKOTs ........................................................................................ 35

6. Future Development Work ............................................................................................................... 36

7. References ........................................................................................................................................ 38

8. Internet Links .................................................................................................................................... 38

7

1. Policy Background The UK has 14 Overseas Territories (UKOTs): Anguilla; Bermuda; British Antarctic Territory; British Indian Ocean Territory; British Virgin Islands; Cayman Islands; Falkland Islands; Gibraltar; Montserrat; Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands (commonly known as the Pitcairn Islands); St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha; South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands; Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus; and Turks and Caicos Islands. The UKOTs host globally significant biodiversity and support unique ecosystems; many of the species which inhabit these Territories are endemic, rare and threatened. Major threats to this biodiversity and the ecosystem goods and services that they provide include invasive species, habitat destruction and climate change (Churchyard et al. 2014).

The 2012 White Paper ‘The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability’ and the Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy commit Defra, the Foreign and Commonweath Office and the Department for International Development, with support from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, to working in partnership to ensure that UK Government strategies and policies for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the Overseas Territories are sufficient to meet the UK's international commitments. Defra takes the lead in co-ordinating this work.

1.1 Scientific Background The UKOTs globally important biodiversity far outweighs the UK mainland contribution to global biodiversity. In the recent stocktake of UKOT biodiversity (Churchyard et al. 2014; Havery et al. 2015; Churchyard et al. Submitted) approximately 32,000 native species were catalogued from the island UKOTs. Of these 1,549 are considered as endemic, however, this number is likely to be subject to change as new species are still being discovered (Anker & De Grave 2012) or subject to taxonomic revision. Furthermore, it was estimated that the UKOTs may hold an additional 70,000 species yet to be documented, of which perhaps 1,800 are previously undescribed endemics. 91% of the endemic species in the UKOTs have not been assessed under the IUCN Red List criteria (Churchyard et al. 2014) , even though, in common with many other island communities, the biodiversity that resides in the UKOTs is under severe threat of global extinction (Blackburn et al. 2004; Fordham & Brook 2010; Churchyard et al. 2014; IUCN 2014).

The combination of a wealth of biodiversity and uniqueness of species and ecosystems underpins many of the ecosystem goods and services that provide economic and social benefits to local populations in the UKOTs. For example, fisheries account for a significant proportion of the economies of Tristan da Cunha and the Falkland Islands whilst the fresh water supplies for both Montserrat and St Helena are reliant on healthy ecosystems in the central high altitude areas. The environment plays a key role in supporting tourism in several UKOTs and in some, the value of ecotourism is likely to increase in the very near future. For example, in St Helena where the airport project is nearing completion, this will greatly increase the accessibility of the island to tourists (Anon 2012). Biodiversity, therefore, plays a central role in the livelihoods of the people that inhabit the UKOTs and is a crucial component if sustainable development is to be realised.

Whilst the body of scientific evidence continues to grow, there are still significant gaps in ecological and environmental knowledge in the UKOTs and the extent to which ecosystem services - the benefits provided by ecosystems that contribute to making human life both possible and worth living (UKNEA 2015) - have been researched within the UKOTs is unclear.

1.2 Project Aim The overarching aim of this project was to provide a focus for future evidence investment by governments, and the academic and voluntary sectors, to improve the evidence base in the UKOTs,

8

therefore helping to deliver the overarching objective of the UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy to “enable the UK and Overseas Territory Governments to meet their international obligations for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the Overseas Territories”; and to help to promote more coherent and strategic delivery of evidence related to biodiversity and ecosystem services; a need identified by the Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry ‘Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories’

The aim of this project is to identify the gaps in evidence related to survey, monitoring and research of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the Overseas Territories, and to provide a framework for future investment/action. It assembles recent (post the 2009 publication of the UK Government’s Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy) information on survey, monitoring and research projects and publications that have been carried out in the UKOTs and reviews funding opportunities.

This report consolidates project findings, policy implications and suggests areas for future work in the UKOTs.

1.3 Approach and Methodology We used an approach involving an evidence review of post-2009 UKOT biodiversity projects and publications, a workshop to engage with UKOT stakeholders in London, and a discussion with UKOT government representatives at the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) UKOTs Training and Research Steering Group in Gibraltar to identify evidence gaps in both terrestrial and marine ecosystems, and to compile existing and potential funding resources, available for research in the UKOTs, into an investment framework.

(i) Review of evidence: We collated and reviewed the available evidence of biodiversity and ecosystems services projects and programmes carried out since the publication of the OTs Biodiversity Strategy in 2009. The major sources for this review were:

peer reviewed and grey literature;

freely available data from OT organisations e.g. websites;

UK Government sources e.g. Darwin Initiative DfID, Defra;

Research Councils e.g. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC);

European Union funded projects (e.g. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Territories of European Overseas, BEST III);

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN);

United Kingdom Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (UKOTCF);

JNCC reports;

UK Reports to Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and other Conventions;

Universities (UK, US and international).

Keyword searches were performed from these sources to compile the available evidence e.g. territory names. A matrix was then developed which includes the details of funder, project lead, funding amount, links to any publications, taxonomic groups and the ecosystem services that each project potentially covered where these data are accessible and could be recorded. The UKOT Biodiversity Strategy Priorities (DEFRA 2009) were also mapped onto the data using the definitions in Table 1. A further assessment was made in relation to the policy priorities set out in the JMC Communiqués 2012-2014 which are shown in Table 2. Lastly, ecosystem services were defined following the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment criteria (MEA 2005) and are shown in Table 3. Studies were then counted to indicate how many were in each category and the assumption made that where there is a low number of studies this presents a potential gap. We attempted to capture the economic and societal impact of the studies but were unable to populate the database with any

9

evidence so we also assume that where studies occurred they were of benefit and had positive impact.

Table 1: Strategic Priorities from the UKOT Biodiversity Strategy(DEFRA 2009)

Strategic Priority

Definition Interpretation and examples for inclusion in the data matrix

1 Obtaining data on the location and status of biodiversity interests and the human activities affecting biodiversity to inform the preparation of policies and management plans (including baseline survey and subsequent monitoring)

Biological recording surveys; population studies; species inventory; habitat mapping

2 Preventing the establishment of invasive alien species, and eradicating or controlling species that have already become established;

E.g. EU Invasive species projects

3 Developing cross-sectoral approaches to climate change adaptation that are consistent with the principles of sustainable development;

Climate change work

4 Developing tools to value ecosystem services to inform sustainable development policies and practices

Projects valuing nature

5 Developing ecosystem-based initiatives for the conservation and sustainable use of the marine environment

Marine projects tackling ecosystems rather than just species

10

Table 2: Joint Ministerial Council Communiqué Priorities (2012-2014)

JMC Priority Commitments

Sustainable fisheries to develop sustainable fisheries – including developing sustainable management plans and facilitating development of the sector (with the UK providing - as necessary - support for scoping studies on fish stocks, model legislation and fisheries monitoring and patrols); promoting the development of, and investment in, sustainable fishing industries, particularly in Territories where potential resources are underutilised or illegally exploited;

Renewable Energy to create sustainable long-term incentives and encourage private sector investment in renewable energy; increasing the use of renewable energy sources, including enabling production and removing barriers to use;

Conservation Management to take a more strategic approach to the management, protection and conservation of the natural environment, including embedding that understanding into Government policies and decision-making;

Natural Resource Exploitation to ensure that where commercial use of natural resources takes place, it is carried out in the most sustainable and environmentally responsible way (including through the use of environmental impact assessments, evidence-based management plans, and protection of important areas);

Capacity Building to identify and share best practice; establishing workshops in order to assist Territory Governments in capacity-building, technical assistance and renewable energy financing;

Food Security to share knowledge and best practice in the areas of food security and agricultural and aquaculture production;

Table 3: Definitions of Ecosystem services (MEA 2005).

Service Type Definition Category Examples

Provisioning Services Products obtained from ecosystems

Food and fibre This includes the vast range of food products derived from plants, animals, and microbes, as well as materials such as wood, jute, hemp, silk, and many other products derived from ecosystems.

Fuel Wood, dung, and other biological materials serve as sources of energy.

Genetic resources This includes the genes and genetic information used for animal and plant breeding and biotechnology.

Biochemicals, natural medicines, and pharmaceuticals

Animal products, such as skins and shells, and flowers are used as ornaments, although the value of these resources is often culturally determined. This is an example of linkages between the categories of ecosystem services.

Ornamental resources

Fresh water Fresh water is another example of linkages between categories-D8in this case, between provisioning and regulating services.

Regulating Services The benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes

Air quality maintenance Ecosystems both contribute chemicals to and extract chemicals from the atmosphere, influencing many aspects of air quality.

Climate regulation Ecosystems influence climate both locally and globally. For example, at a local scale, changes in land cover can affect both temperature and precipitation. At the global scale, ecosystems play an important role in climate by either sequestering or emitting greenhouse gases.

Water regulation The timing and magnitude of runoff, flooding, and aquifer recharge can be strongly influenced by changes in land cover, including, in particular, alterations that change the water storage potential of the system, such as the conversion of wetlands or the replacement of forests with croplands or croplands with urban areas.

Erosion control Vegetative cover plays an important role in soil retention and the prevention of landslides.

Water purification and waste treatment Ecosystems can be a source of impurities in fresh water but also can help to filter out and decompose organic wastes introduced into inland waters and coastal and marine ecosystems.

Regulation of human diseases Changes in ecosystems can directly change the abundance of human pathogens, such as cholera, and can alter the abundance of disease vectors, such as mosquitoes.

Biological control Ecosystem changes affect the prevalence of crop and livestock pests and diseases.

Pollination Ecosystem changes affect the distribution, abundance, and effectiveness of pollinators.

Storm protection The presence of coastal ecosystems such as mangroves and coral reefs can dramatically reduce the damage caused by hurricanes or large waves.

12

Table 3 continued

Service Type Definition Category Examples

Cultural Services the nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences

Cultural diversity The diversity of ecosystems is one factor influencing the diversity of cultures.

Spiritual and religious values Many religions attach spiritual and religious values to ecosystems or their components.

Knowledge systems (traditional and formal)

Ecosystems influence the types of knowledge systems developed by different cultures.

Educational values Ecosystems and their components and processes provide the basis for both formal and informal education in many societies.

Inspiration Ecosystems provide a rich source of inspiration for art, folklore, national symbols, architecture, and advertising.

Aesthetic values Many people find beauty or aesthetic value in various aspects of ecosystems, as reflected in the support for parks, “scenic drives,” and the selection of housing locations.

Social relations Ecosystems influence the types of social relations that are established in particular cultures. Fishing societies, for example, differ in many respects in their social relations from nomadic herding or agricultural societies.

Sense of place Many people value the “sense of place” that is associated with recognized features of their environment, including aspects of the ecosystem.

Cultural heritage values Many societies place high value on the maintenance of either historically important landscapes (“cultural landscapes”) or culturally significant species.

Recreation and ecotourism People often choose where to spend their leisure time based in part on the characteristics of the natural or cultivated landscapes in a particular area.

Supporting Services Services that are necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services

Soil Formation

Water Cycling

Nutrient Cycling

Primary Production

13

(ii) Workshop: A workshop was held at the Natural History Museum, London to present initial findings to key UK-based stakeholders and discuss knowledge gaps and priorities. For full details on this activity please see Annex 2. In addition, a second discussion meeting was held in Gibraltar with JNCC’s UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies Training and Research Steering Group to communicate initial results and to help highlight where data were missing.

(iii) Investment Framework: A framework detailing sources of funding to potentially fill knowledge gaps in the Overseas Territories was produced (see Annex 3). These sources were identified from EU opportunities, research councils (NERC, BBSRC), and charitable and philanthropic funds e.g. Mohammed bin Zayed and Schmidt Ocean Institute. For each funder we attempted to record details of the category of funder (charity etc.); funding deadlines; the size of grant; whether UKOT partners can be lead applicants; the eligibility criteria; links to the funding website; geographical focus; the types of projects funded; scientific discipline; the biological groups covered; and the likely ecosystem services, UKOT Biodiversity Strategy priorities and JMC Communiqué priorities that a successful project could potentially cover.

Constraints

This project report acknowledges that the results, suggestions for future work on the UKOTs and conclusions are provided within the parameters of a number of constraints which include:

Some fields in the evidence review database were difficult to define and record. Thus, it is important to note that there is a degree of subjectivity in the recording of projects and publications for ecosystem services; UKOT Biodiversity Strategy priority; and JMC Priorities. As islands were spilt among team member for classification it was possible to cross reference a number of projects where the team members had inputted data on the same studies, we used these to check for consistency amongst classifications.

There are many fields with missing data, especially funding amount and economic/societal impact, because this information was not available.

Despite our best efforts, we will not have been able to capture everything; gaps in the data are likely to include, in particular, core work in territories where reports are not widely published and grey literature. In addition, our work did not investigate what relevant evidence might be available from studies in other similar islands outside the territories; generic studies, or those in geographically adjacent nations (e.g. other Caribbean islands) which might be closely applicable to UKOTs.

The scope of the project was work undertaken since the publication the UKOT Biodiversity Strategy in 2009. Consequently, the study does not provide a complete overview of biodiversity-related activities in the UKOTs. In this regard, it is important to bear in mind that gaps identified in the analysis could already have been addressed prior to 2009.

It should also be borne in mind that in the analysis that follows there is the potential for double counting (i.e. the same study being counted twice) since projects do not always record their outputs and publications do not always explicitly acknowledge the projects that gave rise to the publication. Nevertheless, when data relating to publications and projects were analysed separately in relation to the UKOT Biodiversity Strategy priorities, similar results were obtained.

Ideally the UKOT consultation process could have been more wide ranging, however, this wasn’t feasible within the timeframe of the project; it’s therefore possible that some of the gaps identified here may have been addressed in some territories already.

In addition, the gaps presented here are generic and the extent to which these have been addressed in some cases varies according to each OT.

14

We initially intended to match studies to OT Biodiversity Action Plans and National Environmental Management Plans. However, it became apparent that this was a larger task than anticipated and wasn’t practically feasible in the project timeframe.

15

2. Project Findings and Marine and Terrestrial Synthesis N.B. An analysis of the collated data was presented in the workshop report (Annex 2) and that analysis is not repeated here but we include the main findings.

Using our synthesis of marine and terrestrial evidence collected since 2009, we focus on the evidence, and gaps in that evidence, with regards to ecosystem services, the UKOT Biodiversity Strategy and the JMC Communiqué priorities. Data from 515 studies and publications were recorded in the time period since 2009 (see Annex 1 for data definitions). Most studies were conducted on the Falkland Islands with the fewest found for the British Virgin Islands. There were some other biases in the dataset with the majority of studies were on birds and uneven spread of studies covering ecosystem service, Biodiversity Strategy and the JMC communiqués. Nevertheless, the data do suggest that activities may be beginning to address some of these understudied areas. 338 publications resulted from all the studies we reviewed (NB 41 studies produced multiple outputs resulting in 72 publications). Of these publications the vast majority were in the peer reviewed literature (80%).

2.1. Ecosystem Services Table 3 provides the definitions of the 29 Ecosystem Services used in this study. These follow the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment criteria (MEA 2005) which also group services into four service types: provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services. Table 4 and Figure 1 summarise the number of studies (projects and publications) classified for each ecosystem service for each territory.

Very few studies (<1%) explicitly researched ecosystem services or the economic valuation of ecosystem services. Notable examples of studies that did address these explicitly include the EU Best-funded Payments for Ecosystem Services in Caribbean Marine Protected Areas CARIPES project which aimed to quantify ecosystem services provided by marine protected areas in the Caribbean with a view to their payment (see CARIPES link below), and the study of Baker et al. (2015) on the supporting services provided by seagrass meadows in the Turks and Caicos Islands. The vast majority (99%) of studies conducted over the last six years only indirectly addressed ecosystem services.

By far the most common ecosystem services across all projects identified were those categorised as cultural services. In particular, Educational, Aesthetic and Sense of Place were each covered by a large number of projects (26%, 22%, and 35% respectively) (Table 4). However, as the definitions for these services are somewhat vague, this may reflect the fact that projects focussing on the biodiversity of the UKOTs are likely to have educational, aesthetic values and a sense of place derived by default. Studies were also frequently recorded for Recreation and Ecotourism, although, projects recorded for this service tended to be research/survey projects with an emphasis on birds and herptiles (turtles).

Gap: Given the current and future potential role of ecotourism as a high-value component of the tourist industry, the paucity of studies in this area is an issue that should be re-visited: However, literature from outside the UKOTs would be directly relevant for filling any knowledge gaps.

Provisioning services were addressed in 12 territories (Table 4) 17% of studies covered Food and Fibre, with a substantial number of those (85%) addressing fisheries-related issues. A more limited number of studies were identified as addressing ornamental resources and genetic resources (4% and 3% respectively). Projects on fuel, biochemicals, natural medicines and pharmaceuticals, and on fresh water provision were largely lacking from this category (0.2% 0.6% and 1% respectively).

16

Gap: The lack of activity in fresh water provision would appear to be a gap worthy of further investigation given the potential vulnerabilities of island UKOTs in this regard, particularly in light of climate change.

Regulating services received little attention overall (Table 4) with storm protection (6%), water regulation (4%), erosion (3%) and climate regulation (3%) the most studied topics within this service type. Supporting services were the lowest number of projects overall; soil formation (2%), water cycling (2%), nutrient cycling (2%) and primary production (3%) (Table 4). This does not seem to reflect data or methodological deficiencies but rather a lack of research in these areas. Regarding biological control (a regulating service), the Food and Environment Research Agency does provide a plant pest identification service for UK Overseas Territories. For pollination for example, we identified only one project from Gibraltar that investigated pollination in relation to bees (see Helping Hand link below).

Gap: For other regulating services such as pollination, water purification, waste treatment and supporting services that are particularly important for ecosystem sustainability across the UKOTs, the lack of activity would appear to be an issue to address.

17

Table 4: Numbers of studies for each ecosystem service (see table 3 for definitions of the table codes/ecosystem service).

Service Type

Provisioning Services Regulating Services

Category Food and fibre

Fuel Genetic resources

Biochemicals, natural medicines, and pharmaceuticals

Ornamental resources

Fresh water

Air quality maintenance

Climate regulation

Water regulation

Erosion control

Water purification and waste treatment

Regulation of human diseases

Biological control

Pollination Storm protection

Anguilla 9 2 2 1 1 5

Ascension Island 3 1 2 2 2

Bermuda 2 3 1 1 1 1 1

British Antarctic Territory

British Indian Ocean Territory

7 5 3 2 1 6

British Virgin Islands

Cayman Islands

Cyprus SBAs 2 1 3 2 2

Falkland Islands 19 1 1 1

Gibraltar 7 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 1

Montserrat 5 3 1 3 2 2 4

Pitcairn Islands 9 9 8 5 2 5

South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands

St Helena 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

Tristan da Cunha 4 2 3

Turks and Caicos Islands

18 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 4

UKOTs - all 1

18

Table 4: continued

Service Type Cultural Services Supporting Services

Category Cultural diversity

Spiritual and religious values

Knowledge systems (traditional and formal)

Educational values

Inspiration Aesthetic values

Social relations

Sense of place

Cultural heritage values

Recreation and ecotourism

Soil Formation

Water Cycling

Nutrient Cycling

Primary Production

Anguilla 4 2 9 2 11 3 10 1 1 2

Ascension Island 5 14 27 1 14 1 1 1 5

Bermuda 2 2 1 3 4 1

British Antarctic Territory 1 1 1 1 1

British Indian Ocean Territory 17 1 9 2

British Virgin Islands

Cayman Islands 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Cyprus SBAs 10 2 8 5 1 3 1

Falkland Islands 18 2 40 70 1 21 1 1 2 3

Gibraltar 32 1 4 1 7 8 1 1

Montserrat 8 2 1 7 9 2

Pitcairn Islands 21 1 12 3 1

South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands

2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

St Helena 15 2 2 18 1 29 2 4 1 2

Tristan da Cunha 9 22 8 5 8 10

Turks and Caicos Islands 4 12 22 1 6 1 2

UKOTs - all 2 8 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

19

Figure 1: Numbers of studies for each ecosystem service (see table 3 for definitions of the table codes/ecosystem service).

UKOTs

- all

Turk

s an

d Ca ico

s Island

s

Trista

n da

Cunha

St H

elen

a

Sout

h Geo

rgia a

nd Sout

h Sa

ndwic

Pitcairn

Isla

nds

Monts

erra

t

Gibra

ltar

Falk

land

Islands

Cyprus

SBAs

Caym

an Is

land

s

British India

n Oce

an Te

rrito

ry

Bri ti sh Anta

rctic

Ter

ritory

Berm

uda

Ascens

ion Island

Anguilla

200

150

100

50

0

Nu

mb

er

of

stu

die

s

Inspiration

Educational values

Knowledge systems (traditional

Spiritual and religious values

Cultural diversity

Storm protection

Pollination

Biological control

Regulation of human diseases

Water purification and waste tr

Primary Production

Erosion control

Water regulation

Climate regulation

Air quality maintenance

Fresh water

Ornamental resources

Biochemicals, natural medicines

Genetic resources

Fuel

Food and fibre

Nutrient Cycling

Water Cycling

Soil Formation

Recreation and ecotourism

Cultural heritage values

Sense of place

Social relations

Aesthetic values

Category

20

2.2. UKOT Biodiversity Strategy 96% of the studies reviewed were relevant to the strategic priorities in the UKOT Biodiversity Strategy, with only 3% being not applicable to this category and 1% with no data to classify (Table 5 and Figure 2). Whilst studies addressed all of the strategic priorities, data gathering to inform the preparation of policies and management plans (strategic priority 1) was the highest recorded (92%). This likely reflects the state of knowledge of UKOT biodiversity which is focussed on recording the distribution of species and habitats rather than researching ecological relationships among those. It is also clear that there is much still to be done in documenting species and habitats. Invasive species and marine sustainability were each recorded in more than 18% of studies; although there was considerable variation between UKOTs in the extent of activity in relation to these two strategic priority areas. Strategic priority three – developing cross-sectoral approaches to climate change adaptation consistent with the principles of sustainable development – did not feature prominently in any territory (9% of total). The strategic priority with the least number of studies was that of valuing ecosystem services (6%). This was in keeping with the lack of activity in relation to ecosystem services overall (see above). The most common single habitat grouping of studies looking into this priority area were marine in nature (40%). This may suggest that valuing ecosystem services needs some attention in terrestrial ecosystems, particularly in relation to sustainable development and ecotourism. The JNCC have carried out tourism studies in Anguilla and British Virgin Islands but further investigations across the other territories would be particularly helpful especially where tourism is to be a major component of economic development.

Gap: The valuation of ecosystem services in terrestrial ecosystems in relation to sustainable development and ecotourism needs further study.

Gap: Climate change adaptation had few studies and may require addressing (Table 5).

Table 5: Numbers of studies for each UKOT Biodiversity Strategic Priorities found by this study

Territory Data Gathering

Invasive species

Climate change adaptation

Valuing Ecosystem Services

Marine Sustainability

No Data N/A

Anguilla 22 8 4 5 6

Ascension Island 40 3 2 1 4

3

Bermuda 21 6 1 3 5 9

British Antarctic Territory 1

1

British Indian Ocean Territory 21 1 1 1 12

British Virgin Islands 7 3 3 2 1

Cayman Islands 7 3 3 2 1

Cyprus SBAs 17

2 1

Falkland Islands 99 14 2 2 14

3

Gibraltar 36

5 2 8

Montserrat 23 10 8 4 3

Pitcairn Islands 18 7 4 2 15

South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands 11 5

3

St Helena 31 4 2 2 2

1

Tristan da Cunha 20 10 2

2

16

Turks and Caicos 56 13 4 2 9

UKOTs all 24 9 4 2 5

21

Figure 2: Numbers of studies for each UKOT Biodiversity Strategic Priorities found by this study

UKOTs

all

Turk

s an

d Caico

s

Tri sta

n da

Cunha

St H

elen

a

Sout

h Geo

rgia a

nd Sout

h Sa

ndwic

Pitcairn

Isla

nds

Mont

serrat

Gibra

ltar

Falkla

nd Is

land

s

Cypru

s SB

As

Caym

an Is

land

s

British

Virg

in Is

land

s

British India

n Oce

an Terr

itory

British A

ntar

ctic

Territo

ry

Bermud

a

Ascen

sion

Isla

nd

Anguilla

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Data

N/A

Marine Sustainability

Valuing Ecosystem Services

Climate change adaptation

Invasive species

Data Gathering

Category

22

2.3. Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council Communiqué

Priorities The JMC Communiqué priorities (2012-2014) were not as well represented in the studies examined as the strategic priorities of the UKOTs Biodiversity Strategy. Priorities relating to conservation management (34%), sustainable fisheries (5%), natural resource exploitation (5%) and capacity building (4%), were the best represented, although there were marked differences between territories (Table 6). Renewable energy and food security (both 0.4%) were less well represented. However for these latter two it may also be that they are addressed through other core or internal projects that were not found by this study or are being covered by projects that have yet to report.

Gaps: Renewable energy, capacity building and food security appear to be the least studied JMC priorities and may need addressing.

Table 6: Numbers of studies for each Joint Ministerial Council Communiqué Priority by territory found by this study.

Territory Sustainable Fisheries

Renewable Energy

Cons. Man.

Nat. Res.

Exploit.

Capacity Building

Food Security

N/A

Anguilla 8 28 7 4 5

Ascension Island 16 1 44 3 3

Bermuda 3 36 7 6 1

British Antarctic Territory

1 2

British Indian Ocean Territory

10 14 13 4 4

British Virgin Islands

8 1 3

Cayman Islands 8 1 3

Cyprus SBAs 7 7 4

Falkland Islands 31 1 112 17 8 10

Gibraltar 13 34 4 2 1

Montserrat 2 1 27 4 3 2

Pitcairn Islands 11 19 7 2 4 1

South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands

4 15 2 1

St Helena 2 1 35 9 6

Tristan da Cuhna 13 6 22 4 5 1

Turks and Caicos 11 57 5 5 5

UKOTs - all 4 1 24 11 6 2

23

Figure 3: Numbers of studies for each Joint Ministerial Council Communiqué Priority found by this study.

UKOTs

- a ll

Turk

s an

d Caico

s

Trista

n da

Cuhna

St H

elen

a

South

Georg

ia and

Sout

h Sa

ndwic

Pitcairn

Isla

nds

Mont

serrat

Gibra

ltar

Falk

land

Islands

Cypru

s SB

As

Caym

an Island

s

British

Virg

in Is

lands

British India

n Oce

an Terr

itory

British Ant

arct

ic Ter

ritory

Bermuda

Ascens

ion Island

Anguilla

200

150

100

50

0

Data

N/A

Food Security

Capacity Building

Nat. Res. Exploit.

Cons. Man.

Renewable Energy

Sustainable Fisheries

Territory

24

2.4. Marine Ecosystems Fish and invertebrate species (including corals) were the most common species examined in marine projects, with only a few projects examining marine micro-organisms and deep sea habitats. Offshore projects were less common in Caribbean regions.

The UKOTs encompass the full diversity of marine ecosystems of the planet. The Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of the UKOTs combined covers a vastly greater area than the terrestrial environments of UKOTs, and represent the fifth largest national marine area in the world. It is consequently hard to monitor and protect. The challenges of climate change and overfishing present a great threat to UKOT marine habitats, ranging from coral bleaching in the tropics to poorly understood mesopelagic ecosystems in the Southern Ocean. Marine resources form a critical component of the economies of all UKOTs, from food provision to ecotourism, through to coastal flood protection and nutrient cycling. The main focus for marine UKOT biodiversity projects are either ecosystems or the target species of a fishery, with intended impacts to improve preservation or achieve sustainable management. The relative importance of marine focussed projects varies considerably between territories, with an emphasis on biodiversity surveys, rather than projects with clear policy, capacity building, or economic outcomes.

Gap: Very few projects are clearly addressing the economic value of biodiversity in marine systems and given issues over food security this is a clear gap in our knowledge base.

2.5. Terrestrial Ecosystems In terrestrial ecosystems the taxonomic groups most often covered were birds (19%) and larger animals or more charismatic species (17%) (Figure 4). Poorly covered groups included non-vascular plants (2%), algae (2%) and lichens (1%), although there were a relatively larger proportion of studies on invertebrates in comparison to these groups but invertebrates are still poorly covered. Whilst many territories appear to have a larger number of studies on the more charismatic groups, an encouraging number of studies are on multiple species (13%), perhaps suggestive of an ecosystem approach. These studies are however still largely focussed on recording diversity and distributions with very few research studies appearing to be beyond this stage. This may be just a reflection of the current knowledge base i.e. we need to know where things are before we can study them. For example, studies on the St Helena invertebrates are in the early stages of cataloguing and mapping distribution and virtually nothing yet is known of their complex ecological relationships. Invertebrates are crucial to pollinating endemic flowering plants and maintaining links between plant populations and genetic diversity and remain an understudied group.

Gap: Given this, additional applied research to support the findings of diversity and distribution studies is a clear gap, especially if relationships between biodiversity and ecosystems services are to be known with any certainty or conservation efforts are to be sustainable. Another gap, in common with marine ecosystems, is economics; this is particularly important when the application of ecotourism is in terrestrial systems.

25

Figure 4: Percentage of studies in each biological group found by this study. Marine comprehensive and comprehensive are studies that involve more than 10 taxa.

2.6 Geographical Distribution Across Territories At the territory level there were differences in the geographical scope in terms of where studies were carried out. The following examples illustrate some of the main differences in geographical scope across the territories where projects were carried out.

Of the ninety-one studies relating to invasive alien species (UKOT Biodiversity Strategy priority 2), Turks and Caicos Islands (19.8%), Falkland Islands (18.7%) and Tristan da Cunha (17.6%) had the highest numbers of studies (Figure 5). In marine ecosystems the greatest number of studies were found for the Falkland Islands (20%), the Turks and Caicos Islands (15.8%), the Pitcairn Islands (15.8%) and the British Indian Ocean Territories (13.7%) (Figure 6). The great majority of studies relating to ecotourism, were in the South Atlantic and Caribbean.

Where most gaps have been identified there is a tendency for these gaps to be across the board geographically even though some studies have been conducted. For example, fresh water studies were conducted in Bermuda, Cyprus, Gibraltar and Turks and Caicos Islands but with only 5 studies in total this is unlikely to bridge the knowledge gap in these or other territories. Studies classified as soil formation were located in Ascension Island, Anguilla, Cyprus, Falkland Islands, Pitcairn, South Georgia and St Helena, but with only one study in each territory, again this unlikely to address that knowledge gap. That said, whether these are gaps require addressing at territory level will require a process of priority setting at the territory level.

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

BirdsComprehensive

FishMarine Invertebrates

Vascular PlantsMammals

ReptilesPlants

InvertebratesTerrestrial InvertebratesMarine Comprehensive

Non-Vascular PlantsAmphibians

Algae Lichens

Marine ReptilesMarine Mammals

FungiMicro-organisms

LivestockPicophytoplankton

Percentage of studies

26

Figure 5: Numbers of invasive species studies by territory.

Figure 6: Numbers of studies conducted in marine ecosystems by territory.

Conclusions and Next stages

It’s clear that much work has and is being done in the UKOTs but equally that significant knowledge gaps remain. For ecosystem services these include fresh water provision; ecotourism, pollination, water purification, waste treatment and supporting services. In addition, gaps in fulfilling the UKOT Biodiversity strategy remain: developing cross-sectoral approaches to climate change and valuing ecosystem services. For the JMC Communique priorities, renewable energy and food security appear to be lacking evidence. In terrestrial ecosystems additional applied research to support the findings of diversity and distribution studies is a clear need. For both marine and terrestrial systems

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

27

economics evaluation in relation to biodiversity is lacking. Where these knowledge gaps are deemed to be a priority, funding will need to be secured likely from multiple sources and some suggestions for this are given in the next section.

3. Investment Framework The investment framework (Annex 3) details potential funding sources. As in the evidence review database, each funding stream has been classified according to the Ecosystem Services (taken from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), (Table 1) the UKOT Biodiversity Strategy priorities (Table 3) and JMC Communiqués (Table 5). The funding sources in the investment matrix were also recorded according to funding category, discipline, project types and broad biological groups. Available grant size was also recorded.

A list of potential funders was also compiled from the evidence review, although excluded are in-kind sources of funding (e.g. many OT Governments or NGO sources) and certain philanthropic sources for which details could not be found.

A further source of information on potential funding is the JNCC funding database (last updated 2010): http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4747-theme=default

3.1. Funding Source Appraisal We identified and evaluated 139 potential funding sources. The funding sources ranged from small grants (< £2,000) to grants in excess of £250,000. We recorded the type of funding, the amount and again attempted to classify funding sources according to ecosystem services, the UKOT Biodiversity Strategy Priorities and the JMC priorities each funding source could potentially cover (see Annex 3).

With regards funding to support research into ecosystem services, there are a number of funding sources for each of the broad ecosystem service types (Figure 8a) although the same caveats apply with regards classification of funding sources against ecosystem services as in the evidence review. There are far more funding opportunities for projects relating to cultural services than to the other service types as any biodiversity project could be considered as contributing to evidence on cultural services. This in part reflects the way in which these are defined, with most funders having within their remit support for biodiversity projects contributing to cultural services. However, it may also reflect a pre-requisite for cultural service type actions for some funding streams.

All five priorities of the UKOT Biodiversity Strategy and are well represented among potential funding sources (Figure 8b).

With regards the JMC Communiqué priorities, a diversity of funding sources are relevant to sustainable fisheries, renewable energy, conservation management and natural resource exploitation (Figure 8c). Funding opportunities for work relating to capacity building and food security are less numerous but potential sources for researching these services can be large e.g. Research Councils.

28

Figure 8: Numbers of funding sources recorded for (a) Ecosystem Services (b) Biodiversity Strategy Priorities (c) JMC Communiqué Priorities (see Table 3 for ecosystem service codes)

N/A

ES 2

9ES 2

8ES 2

7ES 2

6ES 2

5ES 2

4ES 2

3ES 2

2ES 2

1ES 2

0ES 1

9ES 1

8ES 1

7ES 1

6ES 1

5ES 1

4ES 1

3ES 1

2ES 1

1ES 1

0ES 9

ES 8

ES 7

ES 6

ES 5

ES 4

ES 3

ES 2

ES 1

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Nu

mb

er

of

Fun

din

g s

ou

rce

s

N/A

Supporting Services

Cultural Services

Regulating Services

Provisioning Services

Ecosystem Service Type

(a)

29

3.1.1. Funding Categories and Remit The majority of potential funding sources in the investment matrix (>100) are categorised as Charity/Foundation. However, they are not always the largest in terms of amount of funding; although fewer in number, sources categorised as European Commission (e.g. BiodivERsA), Research Council and Funding associated with UK Government offer larger grants and there may be opportunities to target some of these funding sources more effectively (see below). For biological

N/A

Mar

ine su

staina

bility

Valui

ng e

cosy

stem

ser

vice

s

Clim

ate ch

ange

sus

tainab

ility

Inva

sive

alien

spe

cies

Biodiv

ersit

y da

ta g

athe

ring

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Nu

mb

er

of

Fun

din

g s

ou

rce

s

(b)

N/A

Food

Sec

urity

Capa

city Bu

ilding

Natu

ral R

esou

rce Ex

ploita

tion

Cons

erva

tion Man

agem

ent

Rene

wable

Ener

gy

Sust

aina

ble

fishe

ries

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Nu

mb

er

of

Fun

din

g s

ou

rce

s

(c)

30

groups, charismatic bird and animal groups appear to have more potential funding sources than other groups, (see Annex 3). However, more than half the funding sources, including the larger funding sources, cover all biological groups. In terms of discipline, again more than half of the sources, including larger funding sources, are broad in their remit covering all aspects of conservation and ecology. It is notable that only one source was classified as specifically covering Ecotourism.

Where the types of projects needed are likely to be <£50k, the major funding streams are likely to be the Darwin Initiative, EU BEST and research councils. As most projects appear to be data gathering a shift in focus from gathering baseline data into more applied research may be required at some point. When scientific research is needed gaining Research Council and other research orientated funding is likely to be necessary. It is unknown whether the lack of studies funded by research councils is due to a lack of collaboration opportunities or that proposals are being prepared and are unsuccessful. In either case, it is likely that greater engagement with the research community is needed particularly as most UKOT bodies are ineligible for funding through these routes and would require Universities and other eligible research organisations to apply.

3.1.2. Research Council Funding One finding from the review was the limited number of projects funded by UK research councils since 2009. The most relevant Research Councils include the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). The following section is not intended as an exhaustive list but gives some examples of the type of research funding that we regard as being useful starting points or mechanisms.

The Natural Environment Research Council

NERC is particularly relevant for research into ecosystem services and funding opportunities arise periodically (see link below). Of the types of funding that NERC provides probably the most relevant to conducting UKOT research for filling knowledge gaps are: innovation funding, postgraduate training, and strategic research (see Annex 3). UKOT members and some organisations are generally not eligible (e.g. the RSPB Centre for Conservation Science). However, this should not be seen as a barrier since many qualifying researchers from Universities and Research Institutions would be extremely interested in collaborating and researching the highly novel ecosystems and species that occur in the Territories. Generating greater collaboration between UKOTs and the research community would be particularly useful in this regard and two example mechanisms are highlighted below that include some of the engagement processes that NERC helps to fund (Green Infrastructure and Living with Environmental Change).

NERC Green infrastructure (innovation funding)

NERC has recently announced a call (this includes the UKOTs see link below) to address issues and opportunities around green infrastructure (GI) in the decisions that are made by local policymakers, planners and organisations who have responsibility for controlling development (construction, house builders, developers). Green Infrastructure includes:

sustainable urban drainage systems ecosystem services (use of natural capital for hazard alleviation) reforestation zones green bridges and green roofs green urban areas fish migration channels floodplain restoration and flood-retention facilities as well as natural areas

31

high-value farmland and forest areas, which demonstrate the advantages of nature-based solutions to purely technical ones

innovative planning approaches for intelligent, multi-purpose land use.

The aim of the call is to support translational and knowledge exchange activity which delivers direct tangible and demonstrable benefits to end users and increase research output impact, and use environmental data, expertise and skills to develop:

decision support tools around the value of GI models to allow demonstration of value of GI innovative approaches that could assist in the development of new business models and

processes underpinning GI.

Living With Environmental Change

Living With Environmental Change (LWEC, see link below) is another collaborative programme that was established in 2007 as a partnership of 22 public-sector organisations that fund, carry out and use environmental research, evidence and innovation. Its aim was to provide decision-makers in government, business and society with the knowledge, foresight and tools to mitigate, adapt to and benefit from environmental change. In 2015 LWEC evolved into an enabling network, with a focus to help its 20 members take forward their own strategic priorities that require multilateral collaboration. The LWEC network model is currently being piloted and a progress review is planned for late 2015. LWEC aims to enable funders to co-ordinate, leverage their resources and avoid duplication, resulting in more efficient use of public funds across the network. LWEC takes a UK-wide perspective and considers this in its international context and it would be particularly useful if initiatives for the UKOTS could be developed using this mechanism.

NERC Doctoral Training Programmes (Postgraduate training)

An important resource for conducting research In UKOTs are PhDs and other studentships. These present an area where collaboration with UKOT members and Universities and Research Institutions could potentially be more productive. NERC-funded PhD studentships are allocated through Doctoral training partnerships (DTPs, see link below). All the DTPs are relevant to the UKOTs and those interested in pursuing ideas for PhD studentships should identify and make contact the appropriate DTP.

Thirty percent of the total NERC-funded studentships are CASE (collaborative) studentships delivered in collaboration with non-academic partners. PhD students spend between three and eighteen months in total with their CASE partner and the focus of the work should originate from the CASE partner; NERC provide funding for CASE studentships through two funding routes:

the annual Industrial CASE Studentship competition; and

DTPs that award a number of studentships as CASE studentships.

CASE partners supplement the studentship by paying at least £1,000 per year to the lead Research Organisation for the duration of the studentship and meet the extra expenses incurred by students visiting and working in their establishments. They are also expected to contribute in cash or in kind towards necessary materials. The eligibility of an organisation to act as a CASE partner depends on the route through which the studentship is funded (see link below). CASE studentships have been used to support research in UK Overseas territories previously (e.g. Stringell et al. 2013) and these should continue to be a potential route for funding research in the UKOTs.

Highlight Topics (strategic research)

NERC invites ideas for scientific advances that contribute to addressing major environmental challenges and uses the ideas to develop strategic research funding. Ideas can come from any individual or group and it would be possible to submit ideas to NERC that cover some of the major

32

environmental challenges in the UKOTs. UKOT colleagues and eligible researchers could potentially develop and propose ideas to NERC and would then be able to respond to the appropriate calls (see link below). From 2016 NERC anticipate having annual cut-off dates for highlight topic ideas in the spring and for the strategic programme in the late summer or autumn.

Other Councils and Networks

NERC is not the only UK based Research Council and there are similar funding sources to those detailed above, e.g. BBSRC, that are applicable to ecosystem services, details can be found in the BBSRC Strategic Plan (see link below).

Often research councils combine efforts in specific calls that span the remits of individual councils. For example, the ESRC, in combination with NERC and the Arts & Humanities Research Council (AHRC), and Defra recently launched the Valuing Nature Programme (see link below). This programme aims to better understand and represent the complexities of the natural environment in valuation analyses and to consider the wider societal value of ecosystems services, even where these may have no perceived market value. The Programme is led by NERC with a budget of around £7m and will run for six years and was developed under the Living With Environmental Change partnership (see above). This would seem a good example of the type of programme that could be developed to address the gap in the valuation of UKOT ecosystem services.

3.1.3. European Union Networks EU BEST

The BEST 2.0 Programme is supported by the European Commission as part of the EU Biodiversity for Life (B4Life) flagship. It aims to promote the conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of ecosystem services, including ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation, as a basis for sustainable development in Europe's Overseas Countries and Territories. As such BEST 2.0 should be an ideal grant scheme for gaining funding to fill some of the gaps identified in this study. The projects supported by BEST 2.0 can target one or more of the EU OCTs but the grant can only be used to cover costs related to actions in the OCTs. Calls for Proposals for small and medium grants were launched in September and further calls will be launched in 2016. The application process for grants is dependent on the amount of funding requested with swift small grants being of the order €50,000 and other small grants between €50,000 and €100,000. The first call for small grants proposals for were for the following regions: the South Atlantic, the Indian Ocean and Polar/Subpolar regions. The second call for proposals for small grants will be launched in spring 2016 for the Caribbean and the Pacific. Proposals for Medium Grants are in the region of €100,000 to €400,000 and the first call was for the Caribbean and Pacific regions. The second call in spring 2016 will cover the South Atlantic, the Indian Ocean and Polar/Subpolar regions.

NetBiome-CSA

NetBiome-CSA (NETworking tropical and subtropical Biodiversity research in Outermost regions and territories of Europe in support of sustainable development) was set up from an existing biodiversity research partnership based on European overseas regions and territories. The focus is on financing high quality research, and connecting stakeholders at all levels (knowledge institutions, enterprises, government and civil society). NetBiome-CSA intends to facilitate improved knowledge transfer and uptake, provide appropriate tools and models to manage information and data for policy makers, and raise awareness of natural resources, including raw materials.

It is funded by eight project partners from French, Portuguese and Spanish overseas entities and the Portuguese and French research councils. Projects funded under the scheme, together with the regions and territories involved in the scheme are shown in Table 7.

33

Table 7: regions and territories involved in the Net Biome scheme.

Project Regions and territories involved

FRAG&BINV : Consequences of forest fragmentation and conditions for biological invasions: the case of Caribbean birds

France, Martinique, French Guiana, Portugal, United Kingdom

Island-Biodiv : Understanding biodiversity dynamics in tropical and subtropical island in an aid to science based conservation action

Canary Islands, Reunion, France, Azores

MOVECLIM : Montane vegetation as listening post for climate change

Reunion, Guadeloupe, Azores, French Polynesia, Canary Islands, France, South Africa, Switzerland, Germany, Malaysia

POMARE : Polynesian, Martinique’s, Reunion’s marine benthic invertebrates: interactions and chemodiversity evaluation for a sustainable use

French Polynesia, Reunion, Martinique, Netherlands, United Kingdom, France

SafePGR : Towards Safer Plant Genetic Resources through improved viral diagnostics

Guadeloupe, France, Reunion, Azores, Madeira

SEAPROLIF : Diversity and functioning of coastal marine biomes under siege: implications of seaweed proliferations across three oceans

New Caledonia, Canary Islands, France, Portugal, Azores, Reunion, Guadeloupe

VABIOME : Characterization, Protection, Sustainable use and valorization of Vanilla Biodiversity in Tropical EU

Reunion, French Polynesia, France, French Guiana, Guadeloupe

The UK and UKOTs are not represented at a project team level. The UKOTs cannot collaborate because the UK has not contributed any funding into the pot. There are however UK representatives at the stakeholder and advisory levels, and some collaboration has occurred. Much of the available detail appears aspirational and there does not appear to be any specific funding calls at present but it may be one mechanism by which a greater networking of end users, economists and researchers could be brought about to facilitate further studies into ecosystem services.

34

4. Conclusions

In the period since 2009 few UKOT studies were explicit in studying ecosystem services although a large number were directly relevant despite having different aims. Studies did not address all of the priorities defined from the JMC Communiqués. However, the priorities from the UKOT Biodiversity strategy were much better represented.

The balance of studies across taxa is uneven; most studies have been on charismatic species such as birds or larger animals despite the pivotal role that less charismatic species play in ecosystem services (e.g. invertebrates in pollination; micro-organisms in nutrient cycling). This may be a consequence of the different aims of the studies i.e. they are not aiming to directly study ecosystem services.

With some notable exceptions (e.g. turtles) most UKOT taxa, even those that are well studied (e.g. birds), appear to be still in the early stages of the scientific data gathering process; few have moved from recording distribution to more applied research. Deep sea taxa are also not well studied due to their inaccessibility.

Multiple funding options are available to cover the study of a wide breadth of species, habitats, ecosystem services, JMC Communiqué priorities and the UKOT Biodiversity strategy priorities.

Few projects were funded by UK based research councils.

Table 8: The three least studied topics for Ecosystem services, Biodiversity Strategy, and JMC communiqué priorities, with the least studied topic first (descending order) for each section across all UK Overseas Territories.

Ecosystem Service or Priority Topic

Provisioning Services Fuel

Biochemicals, natural medicines, and pharmaceuticals

Fresh water

Regulating Services Regulation of human diseases

Water purification and waste treatment

Pollination

Cultural Services Spiritual and religious values

Knowledge systems (traditional and formal)

Inspiration

Supporting Services Soil Formation

Water Cycling

Nutrient Cycling

UKOT Biodiversity Strategy Valuing Ecosystem Services

Climate change adaptation

Marine Sustainability

JMC Priorities Renewable Energy

Food Security

Capacity Building

35

5. Suggestions for future work in the UKOTs It is suggested that the following are gaps that have been identified through the above analysis and

need to be addressed:

Ecosystem Services

Given the current and future potential role of ecotourism as a high-value component of the tourist industry, effort to address any knowledge gaps on ecotourism should be re-visited. This should include review of directly relevant literature from outside the UKOTs.

The lack of activity in fresh water provision suggests that further studies investigating sustainable water provision may be necessary particularly in light of climate change and island water provision vulnerabilities.

Other regulating services such as pollination, water purification, waste treatment and supporting services also require research but will need prioritisation at the territory level.

UKOT Biodiversity strategy

Strategic priority three – developing cross-sectoral approaches to climate change adaptation consistent with the principles of sustainable development – did not feature prominently in any territory and requires further research.

The valuation of ecosystem services needs to be addressed on a much wider geographic scale to include more territories.

JMC Communiques

Renewable energy and food security are underrepresented and are JMC priorities that need more studies to be undertaken.

Marine Ecosystems

There is a continuing need for more marine biodiversity base line survey and monitoring to build on current knowledge monitor critical ecosystems and species and inform on progress.

There should be an increased emphasis on policy, capacity building, and economic outcomes for marine projects.

The valuation of biodiversity is also a clear gap in our marine knowledge base. Terrestrial Ecosystems

There is a continuing need for more terrestrial biodiversity base line survey and monitoring to build on current knowledge monitor critical ecosystems and species and inform on progress.

Applied research to support the distribution and diversity studies clearly needs addressing, this may require greater engagement with the research community.

The economic value of biodiversity in terrestrial systems is also a knowledge gap to tackle.

36

6. Future Development Work In attempting to address the conclusions and suggestions for future work in the UKOTs there are opportunities to build on the foundation of the work done under this project, through linkages with other existing initiatives that compliment this projects aims and outputs, and to enhance the projects legacy. Future steps could include:

JNCC Data access project

JNCC has initiated a project looking at facilitating better access to UK Overseas Territories data with the general aim of improved access to OT ‘core’ biodiversity data. There are various types of Overseas Territories’ biodiversity data including: biological records e.g. species occurrence (including museum specimens); physical data on the environment (depth, geology, topography etc.); habitat maps; a range of information on activities and land use; and non-spatial data e.g. species lists and status. Some of these data are already available and there are almost half a million species observations for the Overseas Territories already contained in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) of which about 20% have been provided by the UK. An agreed Metadata standardisation for OT data and outputs will include UK Gemini metadata standards within an OT metadata catalogue, and the data compiled for this study will form a key foundation for this OT metadata catalogue.

Priority setting for gaps using MAPISCO

The Defra funded MAPISCO project developed a scoring method that enables species to be ranked based on their combined contribution to a selection of co-benefits linked to conservation targets. This methodology is expandable and additional datasets can be added to it and co-benefit weightings can be altered to fit with individual policy aims. The possibility of combining the data gathered for this study with the approaches developed in MAPISCO for priority setting in relation to UKOT taxa and priorities in policy could be explored.

In addition to the above, the foundation provided by this project could be further developed by beginning to address the constraints that were identified in the approach and methodology (section 1.3) above.

Increased Geographical Scope

As stated above, our work did not investigate what relevant evidence might be available from studies elsewhere (outside UKOTs); generic studies, or those in geographically adjacent nations (e.g. other Caribbean islands) which might be closely applicable to UKOTs. Therefore, in any continuation and expansion of the database investigation of these sources would be advised as they are likely to harbour much pertinent evidence (e.g. ecotourism, invasive species) and would help avoid unnecessary repetition.

Increased Temporal Scope

The scope of this project was post 2009 studies as a consequence it is possible that identified gaps have already been covered by previous work. Future work should, therefore, seek to extend the temporal scope of this work so that gaps can be confidently assigned and hence prioritisation becomes more evidence based.

Impact

Whilst scientific impact can be assumed from the studies identified by this project, with over half of all publications being in the peer reviewed literature, we had also intended to quantify economic and societal impact: Lack of available information however prevented us from delivering on this aim. In reality to do this thoroughly would require a dedicated impacts project, and future work

37

could therefore attempt to quantify economic, societal and conservation impacts of completed research.

38

7. References Anker A, De Grave S (2012) Description of Alpheus cedrici sp. n., a strikingly coloured snapping shrimp (Crustacea, Decapoda, Alpheidae) from Ascension Island, central Atlantic Ocean. ZooKeys, 183, 1. Anon (2012) St Helena Development Plan. St Helena Government. Baker S, Paddock J, Smith AM, Unsworth RKF, Cullen-Unsworth LC, Hertler H (2015) An ecosystems perspective for food security in the Caribbean: Seagrass meadows in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Ecosystem Services 11, 12-21. Blackburn TM, Cassey P, Duncan RP, Evans KL, Gaston KJ (2004) Avian extinction and mammalian introductions on oceanic islands. Science, 305, 1955-1958. Churchyard T, Eaton M, Hall J, Millett J, Farr A, Cuthbert R, Stringer C (2014) The UK’s wildlife overseas: a stocktake of nature in our Overseas Territories. . RSPB, Sandy, UK. Churchyard T, Eaton MA, Havery S, Hall J, Millett J, Farr A, Cuthbert R, C. S, Vickery JA (Submitted) The biodiversity of the United Kingdom’s Overseas Territories: a stock take of species occurrence and assessment of key knowledge gaps. DEFRA (2009) The United Kingdom Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. Fordham DA, Brook BW (2010) Why tropical island endemics are acutely susceptible to global change. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19, 329-342. Havery S, Churchyard T, Eaton M, Hall J, Vickery J, Millett J, Cuthbert R, Stringer C (2015) The UK’s wildlife overseas: a stocktake of nature in our land-based Overseas Territories. RSPB, Sandy, UK. IUCN (2014) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. MEA (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Stringell TB, Calosso MC, Claydon JAB, Clerveaux W, Godley BJ, Lockhart KJ, Phillips Q, Ranger S, Richardson PB, Sanghera A, Broderick AC (2013) Marine turtle harvest in a mixed small-scale fishery: Evidence for revised management measures. Ocean & Coastal Management, 82, 34-42. UKNEA (2015) http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/EcosystemAssessmentConcepts/EcosystemServices/tabid/103/Default.aspx.

8. Internet Links

BBSRC: http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/news/planning/strategy/ CARIPES: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/best/pdf/fs_caripes.final.pdf. Helping Hand: http://www.helpinghand.gi/projects/2045-bees-gibraltar-honey. LWEC: http://www.lwec.org.uk/ NERC Funding: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/funding/ NERC Case Studentships: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/funding/available/postgrad/focused/industrial-case/#eligibility NERC DTPs: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/funding/available/postgrad/responsive/dtp/ NERC Green Infrastructure: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/innovation/activities/infrastructure/green-iip-call/ NERC Highlight Topics: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/portfolio/strategic/ideas/ Valuing Nature Programme: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/funded/programmes/valuingnature/