SCOPING STUDY TO DEVELOP UNDERSTANDING OF A NATURAL …randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=10833_N... · This is the final case studies report for a study to scope the use of

SCOPING STUDY TO DEVELOP

UNDERSTANDING OF A NATURAL

CAPITAL ASSET CHECK: TOOL AND CASE

STUDIES Final Report for Defra

August 2012

eftec

73-75 Mortimer Street

London W1W 7SQ

tel: 44(0)2075805383

fax: 44(0)2075805385

[email protected]

www.eftec.co.uk

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.eftec.co.uk/

Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report

eftec August 2012

This report has been prepared by

Authors:

Ian Dickie and Guy Whiteley (eftec)

Roy Haines-Young (Fabis consulting)

Giles Atkinson (LSE)

Bruce Howard, Lindsay Maskell and Rosie Hails (CEH)

Reviewers:

Ece Ozdemiroglu (eftec)

Giles Atkinson

The study team is grateful for inputs from:

Jonathan Fisher, Bill Watts, Mark Diamond, Alison Miles and colleagues at the

Environment Agency; Steve Colclough (Colclough Coates Aquatic Consultants);

Jawed Khan (Office for National Statistics).

Any comments on this report should be sent to the project managers at eftec

([email protected]) and Defra ([email protected]).

eftec offsets its carbon emissions through a biodiversity-friendly voluntary offset

purchased from the World Land Trust (http://www.carbonbalanced.org) and only

prints on 100% recycled paper.

NOTE: This final case studies report is from a project led by eftec to scope

the development of a Natural Capital Asset Check for Defra. It reflects

thinking during that project, which fed into the project’s Final Report.



http://www.carbonbalanced.org/


eftec 1 August 2012

Table of Contents

SUMMARY 2

1 INTRODUCTION 4

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT 4

1.2 PROJECT APPROACH 5

2 DEFINING A NATURAL CAPITAL ASSET CHECK 7

2.1 INTERIM REPORT DEFINITIONS OF NCAC 7

2.2 NCAC VERSION 1.1 9

2.3 NCAC VERSION 1.2 15

2.4 TESTING THE NCAC 15

3 UKNEA TEST APPLICATION APPROACH 20

3.1 INTRODUCTION 20

3.2 RESULTS 20

3.2.1 SEMI-NATURAL GRASSLANDS 21

3.2.2 ENCLOSED FARMLAND 23

3.2.3 FRESHWATERS – OPENWATERS, WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS 26

3.2.4 LOWLAND HEATH 29

3.2.5 CLIMATE REGULATION 31

3.2.6 CONCLUSIONS FROM THE NEA CASE STUDIES 34

4 DETAILED CASE STUDIES 35

4.1 SALT MARSH ECOSYSTEMS AND FISHERIES PRODUCTIVITY 35

4.2 COUNTRYSIDE SURVEY DATA 40

4.2.1 ARABLE LAND 40

4.2.2 BOG 45

4.3 BROADLEAVED WOODLAND 48

5 NATURAL CAPITAL COMMITTEE INPUT 58

6 LESSONS LEARNT 60

7 NEXT STEPS 66

7.1 REVISED TERMINOLOGY – ASSET PERFORMANCE 66

REFERENCES 69

ANNEX 1: BACKGROUND ON COUNTRYSIDE SURVEY 73

REFERENCES FOR ANNEX 1 79


eftec 2 August 2012

Summary

This is the final case studies report for a study to scope the use of a natural capital asset check in

the UK. The aim of the study is to test how an asset check might be applied in the UK, and to

understand approaches that can be used operationally.

The aim of this study is to define what the scope of an asset check might be in the UK policy

context, and to suggest and test assessment approaches that can be used operationally. The

definition issue is discussed as part of the introduction to this report (see Section 1.1).

To achieve the project‟s aim, it reviewed the theory behind the key issues in an „asset check‟ and

its relationship to other environmental economics issues and appraisal methods. An interim report

(of 2nd May 2012) covered:

The definition of an asset and an asset check, and how it differs from existing

environmental-economics techniques that provide decision-makers with information, such

as accounting, ecosystem services and impact assessment processes, and cost-benefit

analysis.

A suggested outline for a natural capital asset check method, covering its purpose, how

data could be used to undertake it, and the presentation of its results in terms of future

values and risks.

It then defined a first version of a natural capital asset check. This is described in more detail in

Section 2, but in basic terms, a natural capital asset check will assess for an asset:

a) How much do we have? (amount, condition)

b) What does it produce? and

c) How do individual decisions affect a) & b) over time?

The first version of the asset check was tested in two ways. Firstly, a preliminary UK application

was undertaken drawing on the UK NEA, in order to consider some of the main ecosystems

components and systems that make up the UK‟s natural capital. This national testing is described

in Section 3.

Secondly through the three more detailed case studies selected from a long potential list

screened by a series of selection criteria, key issues in which included; policy relevance, poorer

ecosystem states, good and poor availability of data and high value services. The selection of the

case studies was discussed in the draft interim report and at a steering group meeting on the 8th

May 2012. The following case studies were selected to test the application of the draft natural

capital asset check methodology:

1. Fisheries and saltmarsh fish breeding habitat;

2. Using Countryside Survey (CS) data on habitats (e.g. farmland), and

3. Woodland, using CS data and other analysis, such as ONS national accounting data and

modelling of ecosystem services from the Public Forest Estate,


eftec 3 August 2012

The three case studies are described in Section 4.

The issues encountered in undertaking the case studies and lessons learnt are discussed in Section

6. Next steps for the project are described in Section 7.

The lessons learnt during this project resulted in revisions to the first version of the natural

capital asset check. Key elements of these revisions are:

- To be more specific on the answer required in the asset check tool table, for example,

blanking out cells where answers are not meaningful, and allowing space to specify

timescales.

- Focussing the tool on how assets operate as capital (i.e. produce something useful to

society), rather than the existence of assets per se (while acknowledging the overlaps

between these (e.g. through existence values).

- Developing the tool to take account of the concept of capital asset‟s “performance”

(being measured as fitness to carry out the role which is required of a capital asset). This

is regarded as useful because defining the required performance of natural capital assets

captures both the current and future quantity and quality of an asset. This is considered to

be a better way of summarising conclusions than through the heavily economics driven

language of „supply‟ and „demand‟ used in the first versions of the tool (even though both

terminology is based on the same concepts).


eftec 4 August 2012

1 Introduction

This is the case studies report from a project to scope the development and initial application of

a natural capital asset check in the UK. It aims to define what the scope of an asset check might

be in the UK policy context, and to suggest and test an approach that can be used operationally.

Natural Capital Assets produce value for human society. Our understanding of the links between

physical assets, the services they provide and the benefits humans receive as a result has

increased through application of ecosystem services concepts, and this in turn informs our

management of Natural Capital. To improve that management, we want to understand how

Natural Capital will continue to produce services over time, i.e. its physical resilience, which

reflects both the condition and the size of the stock. We lack a systematic way to assess this

resilience and feed it into management decisions – hence the desire to have „natural capital asset

check‟.

The emphasis of the work is on enabling a practical outcome – in both methodological, and

resource terms. Methodologically, the approach must be robust but also achievable with the

current state of environmental-economic knowledge. Resource-wise, it must be deliverable from

resources that are realistic in the context of public sector budget constraints and on a timetable

that can inform policy decisions.

This introduction provides some background to the study and defines the „Problem Statement‟

that the work intends to address. Section 2 summarises some of the project‟s work to date, in

particular the definition of a natural capital asset check, the first versions of an asset check tool,

and planning of the work to test the tool. Section 3 describes testing the tool using UKNEA data in

a high-level national natural asset check. Section 4 describes more detailed case studies of

specific elements on natural capital, using a variety of data sources.

The project‟s work has been discussed with the Natural Capital Committee, and initial feedback

from this discussion is provided in Section 5. Lessons learnt from this discussion, and the testing in

Sections 3 and 4, are discussed in Section 6. The next steps in the work, including plans to revise

the Natural Capital Asset Check method, are described in Section 7.

1.1 Problem Statement1

The UK Government is committed to Sustainable Development (SD), understood as inter-

generational equity2. However this broad concept of SD provides little guidance to decision

makers facing difficult decision-making trade-offs. The Government Economic Service review of

the economics of SD (Price et al. 2010) recognised that therefore we do not have an operational

definition of SD. The review argued that cost-benefit analysis (CBA), when done well, took us

quite a long way towards good decision making for SD (although it was recognised that there was

room for improvement in current practice). The main weakness of CBA was felt to be the

1 This draws on inputs from Tim Sunderland, Natural England. 2 i.e. the widely recognised Brundtland Commission definition of SD: „...development that meets the needs

of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.‟ (1987

Brundtland Report, “Our Common Future”)

http://www.earthsummit2012.org/historical-documents/the-brundtland-report-our-common-future


eftec 5 August 2012

inappropriateness of marginal valuations where thresholds effects were (potentially) being

approached.

The emergence of ecosystem services analysis, which marries economic and ecological concepts,

and definitions of natural capital, offer tools to help address these weaknesses of CBA. For

example, the concept of „critical natural capital‟ is important, recognising that substitution

between different forms of capital (man-made, human and natural) is not always possible.

However, substitutability has been an important assumption in any economic analysis of SD. For

example, adjusted GDP approaches are often built on the foundations of weak sustainability –

assuming that any non-substitutabilities between capitals are insignificant from a sustainability

point of view. However, Price et al (2010) rejected the weak sustainability argument, recognising

that some natural capital provided critical life support systems, and so did not have substitutes.

Therefore, in operationalising SD in policy making, there are challenges due to weaknesses in

current economic tools. The idea of a Natural Capital Asset Check (NCAC) aims to address these

weaknesses in two ways. Firstly, it can identify potential non-marginal consequences of exploiting

natural capital that make using CBA based on marginal economic valuations unreliable. Secondly,

it can look at whether natural capital is being managed sustainably. This can involve highlighting

where critical (parts of) natural systems (those without substitutes) are under-threat, or whether

enough natural capital is being saved for the future. To assess this latter point requires

consideration of whether there are cumulative long-term impacts on natural capital that may be

outside the boundaries of individual decision-making processes, but are collectively significant for

future generations‟ wellbeing.

1.2 Project Approach

The overall approach to the work is shown in Figure 1.1. Each objective builds on the previous

one, and there is feedback from the application of the framework in Objective 2 to its design in

Objective 1.


eftec 6 August 2012

Figure 1.1. Project Overview

Objective 1: Approach Design

Objective 2: Practical Application

Objective 3: Policy Links

3.1 Relevance to appraisal

processes (CBA, IA…)

3.2 When &

How to apply?

Obje

cti

ve 0

: M

anagem

ent

& C

oord

inati

on o

f te

am

1.5 Revised Asset Check Framework

Objective 4: Project Reporting

1.4 Next Steps

Interim Report & Meeting

2.1 Test UK Application

Lessons

learnt

Asset Check Framework

1.3 Limits and thresholds

1.2 Terminology and methodology

1.1 Basis, requirements & link

to environmental accounts

2.2 Case studies (habitats, sectors, scales)

4.3 Scope guidance design

4.2 Final reports

4.1 Conclusions and Recommendations

Option A:

Workshop

Policy context and uses


eftec 7 August 2012

2 Defining a Natural Capital Asset Check

This Section describes the project‟s first articulation of a natural capital asset check, as

produced in the Interim Report of 2nd May 2012. This method was used in the testing and case

studies described in Sections 3 and 4.

2.1 Interim Report Definitions of NCAC

The project‟s Interim Report suggested that a natural capital asset check is defined by

consideration of how the current and future extent and condition of natural assets will

influence future human welfare. The approach taken is not to define a natural capital asset

check as a new stand-alone tool, but as any analysis that fulfil certain criteria, including:

i. Considering the management of natural capital assets (defined as “… stock that can be

managed or protected in order to have a positive economic or social value”);

ii. Taking account of any changes to the extent and integrity of those assets, including

their structure/processes and functions;

iii. Assessing the implications of those changes for ecosystem services flows in the future,

and

iv. Assessing how those changes in services will affect human wellbeing.

A key factor is that an asset check adds a dynamic element to the existing approaches: how

the condition and integrity of natural capital assets change over time and how these changes

affect the values we derive from them in the future3. Thus we approach the definition of an

asset check broadly, looking at both past and future trends, and that both impact assessment

(forward looking) and audit (retrospective) are seen as part of the set of techniques available

to decision makers.

The types of natural capital assets that lend themselves to definition for an asset check could

be screened as follows using filter questions:

1. Can the natural capital asset be controlled?

If no, then it may still be desirable to monitor their condition to understand and

anticipate implications for human welfare, but policy decisions can only react to

them, and cannot influence their future levels.

2. If yes, then can the natural capital asset be owned?

3 An asset check could equally be concerned with changes in the past, but it is suggested that this only

has policy relevance as an indicator of future changes.


eftec 8 August 2012

If no (e.g. for plankton, atmospheric carbon), then an asset check could be

applied, but policy implications must be drawn in the context of how to manage

common pool resources.

3. If yes, then the natural capital assets should be best-suited to applying an „asset

check‟ as we develop our understanding of the process involved.

The working definition of an „asset check‟ used in this report is: An assessment of changes in

the ability of specific natural (capital) assets to sustain social and economic activities

and maintain human well-being.

It is suggested there are natural capital assets that are very relevant to our welfare, but

scientific understanding of them and approaches to their appraisal may require more

research. Therefore, they could be part of the issues addressed in the UKNEA follow-on.

Practical development of an asset check is more likely for assets that can be controlled, and

easier to link to economic thinking if they are also owned.

Thus, the purpose of a natural capital asset check is to assess changes to the volume and/or

condition/integrity of an asset to understand future changes the flows of services it can

produce, and the implications of this for human wellbeing.

Our approach at present assumes that an asset needs to have some physical measurement,

and defines natural capital assets as:

…stock that can be managed or protected in order to have a positive economic or social

value.

The approach outlined here is not the only possible form of analysis, but more generally a

natural capital asset check should aim to fulfil certain criteria. The main criteria a natural

capital asset check should examine, against a defined baseline, are:

o Taking account of any changes to the extent and integrity of natural capital assets, by

looking at their structure/processes and functions;

o Assessing the implications of those changes for ecosystem services flows in the future,

and

o Assessing how those changes in services will affect human wellbeing, distinguishing

between benefits, and values.

It is obviously the case that many forms of analysis already fulfil most or all of these

requirements. Most famously, the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change, which

highlighted the significance of climate stability to future wellbeing, provides thorough

answers to these questions in terms of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. In

this sense it can be regarded as a natural capital asset check of the climate.


eftec 9 August 2012

2.2 NCAC Version 1.1

In the Interim Report a table to organise information to answer these broad questions was

produced in a spreadsheet format shown in Figure 2.1 below. Note that one spreadsheet can

make up an asset check for a single habitat/service. For most asset checks, where there are

multiple services and/or habitats involved, different sheets may be needed for different

habitat/service combinations. An outstanding question was whether the natural asset

integrity and sustainability tests (which are potentially distinct in theory e.g. due to the

different timings of the assessments) are different in practice.

In Figure 2.2 the areas of the sheet that correspond to questions i) – iv) in Section 2.1 above

are identified.


eftec 10 August 2012

Figure 2.1 Outline Table for an Asset Check, v1.1

Criterion

Stat

us

Pas

t tr

end

Cu

rren

t st

atu

s

Futu

re p

rosp

ect

Po

licy

dri

ver

Bio

ph

ysic

al d

rive

rs

Soci

o-e

con

om

ic

dri

vers

Ecosystem type e.g. peat/bog

Ecosystem process e.g. carbon storage

Extent All or some of asset being considered? [ie. AC strategic or project focused?]

Ownership Private, public

Stock indicator Area, volume, number etc

Condition indicator Conservation status, age structure etc.

Type Provisioning, regulating etc.

Rival/non-rival

Market/non-market

Service output measure

(stock x condition)Change trajectory Linear/non-linear change anticipated?

LimitsAre there standards, or agreed limits? What are acceptable limits of change?

Threshold Likely threshold effects? Proximity to such thresholds?

Reversibility Is change reversible can NC be restored?

Cumulative impactsIf all asset stock is not being considered what are cumulative implications?

Maintenance costsLevel of investment in NC needed to maintain it above limit/threshold etc.

Uncertainties

Risks Risks of anticipated damage to NC

Trade-offs Implications for wider ecosystem services

Synergies Implications for wider ecosystem services

Substitutability Is compensation possible?

Liabilities Intergenerational implications?

Uncertainties

Has the demand/supply balance shifted adversely as result of plan or project?Is the integrity of the asset likely to be maintained overtime?

Type e.g. Health, security etc.

Beneficiaries Size and location

Demand Estimate level, and trend

Distributional issues Are there access issues in terms of benefitting form service?

Use Value metrics to be applied...

Non-use Value metrics to be applied...

Asset

criticalities

Well being

Function

Value

Service

Supply

Criticalities

Demand

criticalities

Service flows

Natural assets

Benefit

Natural asset integrity test

Sustainability test

Structure



Figure 2.2. Asset Check Table v1.1 Relationship to Key Questions

Criterion

Stat

us

Pas

t tr

en

d

Cu

rre

nt

stat

us

Futu

re p

rosp

ect

Po

licy

dri

ver

Bio

ph

ysic

al d

rive

rs

Soci

o-e

con

om

ic

dri

vers








Rival/non-rival

Market/non-market








Uncertainties






Uncertainties








Asset

criticalities

Well being

Function

Value

Service

Supply

Criticalities

Demand

criticalities

Service flows

Natural assets

Benefit


Sustainability test

Structure

ii) looking at their structure/

processes and functions

i) Considering the management of natural capital assets

iii) assessing the implications of those changes for ecosystem services flows in the future

iv) how those changes in services will affect human wellbeing, distinguishing between benefits, and values

ii) changes to the extent and integrity of those

assets



This suggested approach allows:

The use of data to identify the stock, volume and condition (integrity/resilience) of

different components of natural capital. Different ways of measuring these

characteristics of natural capital in an asset check can use both scientific data (e.g. on

extent and/or condition of ecosystems) and economic data (e.g. on the value of land

or resources, or the vallue of flows of services as a proxy for the value of capital).

Not all cells have to be completed within the table (this would be an undue analytical

burden). However, sufficient information is needed for an understanding of the ways

ecosystem service flows relate to changes in underlying asset stocks and conditions to

be developed. Thereby ecosystem service outputs are indicators of the state and

condition of our natural capital assets base. For example, this is necessary in order to:

o Aggregate impacts on a natural capital asset from different sources in order to

examine their cumulative effect, and

o Use economic data as a proxy for the condition of natural capital assets, for

example by looking at trends in the value of service flows to reveal the

underlying condition of assets.

Examine the identification of „red flags‟ to reflect critical issues or severe risks. These

may be possible to define through limits and thresholds in both ecological (system

change or collapse) and economic (loss of service values) terms. This was examined

through the UK test application and case studies, and will be examined further in the

NEA2.

Environmental changes can affect the physical quantity and quality of the capital asset,

ecosystem functions, intermediate services and benefits. An asset check must be able to

capture all these factors where relevant. While the aim is to capture as much information as

possible quantitatively, it must be recognised that this will not always be possible. More

important is the ability to describe key relationships, such as between capital assets and

services, and between change inducing action and capital assets / services.

Figure 2.3 provides a marine example to give a real-world description of the information

(data and sources) involved in answering the table questions. It is based on the data and

sources identified Table 2.1. It illustrates how there are links between the types of data that

will be used, and therefore the challenge and opportunity for biophysical and economic

coherence of the outputs. Note the importance of national data sets like UKNEA, BAP and

Charting Progress 2 (CP2).



Table 2.1: Potential data types presented in asset check

Criterion from Tool v1.1 Data type Marine Example

Natural asset stock indicator Area, density

Regional fish status – Charting Progress 2 Feeder Report.

Area of Saltmarsh (country data) – UK NEA economic assessment: driver of change: coastal squeeze.

Service flows from the stock Flow, productivity, harvests

Regional first sale value of fish – Charting Progress 2 Feeder Reports

Asset criticalities – threshold Tipping points** Definition of MSY* and minimum recruitment levels to sustain stocks

Asset criticalities – risk

Probability of collapse**

Probability of future fish stock collapse

Monetary values from models

Potential costs over time if stocks collapse

Wellbeing - value of stock Monetary value Value of fish stocks in UK waters

Wellbeing - value of ecosystem services

Monetary Value of fish landings from UK waters

*Maximum Sustainable Yield ** Potential red flags: The definition of red flags will be an important challenge for the work. One definition could use quantification of changes in how close an asset is to a threshold. Flags could reflect different levels of proximity to the limits. Defining such „levels‟ will require complex judgements about probabilities and uncertainties of reaching thresholds, consequences of crossing the threshold, and aversion to risk.



Figure 2.3 Asset Check Table v1.1 Marine Example

Criterion

Stat

us

Pas

t tr

en

d

Cu

rre

nt

stat

us

Futu

re p

rosp

ect

Po

licy

dri

ver

Bio

ph

ysic

al d

rive

rs

Soci

o-e

con

om

ic

dri

vers








Rival/non-rival

Market/non-market








Uncertainties






Uncertainties








Asset

criticalities

Well being

Function

Value

Service

Supply

Criticalities

Demand

criticalities

Service flows

Natural assets

Benefit


Sustainability test

Structure

Regional fish status

Area of Saltmarsh Coastal squeeze

Definition of MSY*

Regional first sale value of fish

Minimum recruitment levels to sustain stocks

Probability of future fish stock collapse

Value of fish stocks in UK waters

Potential costs over time if stocks collapse

Value of fish landings from UK waters



2.3 NCAC Version 1.2

It was recognised at the outset of the work that the order of questions in Figure 2.3 should

not be treated too rigidly. An asset check will need to work from different starting-points,

that may be determined by where the „change‟ in the asset analysed may come about. For

example:

Conservation strategies will start with physical assets;

Policies like the Water Framework Directive will start with intermediate services and

functions by affecting quality / condition, and link back to physical assets, and

forwards to final services and benefits, and

The analysis of provisioning services (e.g. wild-caught fish) can start at the benefits,

and work back through intermediate services to physical assets.

At the outset of the case studies, a discussion was held about the structure of the asset check

Table shown in Figure 2.3. This resulted in:

o Some presentational changes to the Table, in particular space to give a clearer

initial definition of the natural capital asset being checked, and

o Refinement of which columns were relevant to which rows, thereby simplifying

the number of cells the table contained.

These changes resulted in the Table being divided in two parts. The revised version of the

natural capital asset check outline table (v1.2) is shown in Figure 2.4. This is the form of the

Tables used to present the case studies in Section 3.

2.4 Testing the NCAC

The natural capital asset check approach described above has been tested by scoping two

practical applications. Firstly, through a preliminary UK application that draws upon the UK

NEA (see Section 3), and secondly through three more detailed case studies. These case

studies were selected from a long potential list through consideration against a series of

selection criteria, as described in Section 4 of the Interim Report.

The selection of cases aimed to be representative of the assets in the UK. However, its main

purpose was to ensure that certain key issues; such as high policy relevance, poorer

ecosystem states, good and poor availability of data and high value services, are thoroughly

investigated. The selection of case studies covered:

o Services, which are specific outputs from natural capital;

o Habitats, which are distinct blocks of capital that often provide multiple services; and



o Thematic approaches, defined by data sets or issues important to input to an asset

check that cut across several natural capital assets.

Three case studies, one from each type listed above, were selected as follows:

1. Fisheries and saltmarsh fish breeding habitat, this case study builds on recent work

looking at fish populations (e.g. in Charting Progress II), modelling of recovery of fish

stocks (ongoing for MSFD analysis), and the science of fish lifecycles (Environment

Agency, pers comm, March 2012);

2. Woodland, using ONS national accounting data, modelling of ecosystem services

from the Forest Estate for Forestry Commission by eftec and smaller scale data (e.g.

for The National Forest). This examines different spatial scales (local/ regional/

national), and

3. Using Countryside Survey data on habitats (e.g. farmland). The Countryside Survey

is a data set that the project team have extensive experience of working with. The

advances that have been made in the survey enable some condition measures to be

examined, and analysis of how land cover data (i.e. broad habitat stock and

condition) may produce accounts showing the processes of change to capital from

1984-through 1990, 2000 and 2007.

These cases:

Cover some of the main ecosystem types used in the UK NEA;

Include services that are and aren‟t deteriorating;

Could give results that would be relevant to a range of current policies (e.g. CFP), and

could possibly be compared to analyses of „live‟ policy decisions (e.g. Impact Assessments

of marine Natura sites/MCZs; outputs of Independent Panel on Forestry), and

Test issues such as data capturing thresholds (e.g. fisheries collapse) and critical (non-

substitutable) functions (e.g. fish reproduction).

This combination of cases was judged to fulfil most of the case study selection criteria

outlined in the Interim Report.



Figure 2.4. Outline Table for an Asset Check v1.2, part 1

Direct Other

Sum

mar

y o

f

Tren

ds

Pas

t tr

end

Cu

rren

t st

atu

s

Futu

re p

rosp

ect

Po

licy

dri

ver

Bio

ph

ysic

al d

rive

rs

Soci

o-e

con

om

ic

dri

vers

Oth

er d

rive

rs

Subset of asset being checked (if

relevant)

List ecosystem service(s) from asset being

checked

Give summary of

trends and drivers

Extent All or some of asset being considered? (ie.

AC strategic or project focused?)Ownership Private, public



Ecosystem processes That support final services

Key

Category of service Provisioning, regulating, cultural

Rival/non-rival Is consumption of services rival or non-rival

Market/non-market Are services supported market or non-

market goodsCurrent service output measure Amount of asset (stock) x ability to provide

service (condition)

Natural

assets

Asset or part of asset

being checked

e.g. habitat type and/or ecosystem services (e.g. peat bogs, carbon

sequestration in woodland, all carbon sequestration)

Structure

Function

Service

flowsService

Status

no evidenceevidence shows no trend

Drivers

decreasingincreasing

Indirect

Trends



Outline Table for an Asset Check v1.2, part 2

Drivers

Sum

mar

y o

f

Tren

ds

Pas

t tr

end

Cu

rren

t st

atu

s

Futu

re

pro

spec

t

Po

licy

dri

ver

Change trajectoryLinear/non-linear change anticipated?

Give summary of trends and

drivers

LimitsAre there standards, or agreed limits? What are acceptable

limits of change?



Cumulative impactsIf all asset stock is not being considered what are cumulative

implications?

Maintenance costsLevel of investment in NC needed to maintain it above

limit/threshold etc.

Uncertainties Sources of uncertainty (strength of evidence?)




Uncertainties Sources of uncertainty (strength of evidence?)

What is the demand/supply balance?



Measurements Estimate level, and trend






Is the integrity of the asset likely to be maintained overtime?

(has the demand/supply balance shifted adversely?)

Supply

Criticalities

Demand

criticalities

Sustainability test

Conclusion

Ecosystem

service

interactions

Trends

Well being

Benefit

Value

e.g. habitat type and/or ecosystem services (e.g. peat bogs, carbon sequestration in

woodland, all carbon sequestration)

Asset or part of asset being

checked

Asset

criticalities




The following two Sections describe The UKNEA-based test application, and the three case

studies, respectively.

Each capital asset check in the two Sections reports key information from the tool v1.2. It

uses a series of headings that summarise the information in the tool:

o State of the asset (extent, condition)

o Drivers/threats to asset

o Services

o Drivers influencing future services

o Future services from the asset

o Synergies

o Thresholds

o Cumulative impacts

o Uncertainties (missing information)

o Reversibility

o Natural asset integrity test

o Values

o Sustainability test



3 UKNEA Test Application Approach

3.1 Introduction

The test application was undertaken in order to consider all the main ecosystems

components and systems that make up the UK‟s natural capital. It followed the ecosystem

categories covered by the UKNEA, but aimed to give more detailed consideration to

and/or subdivide those of greater interest, for example:

Services that are a priority because they are more valuable to society and/or

declining (see below), or

Where there is a known risk of non-marginal irreversible changes in the UK‟s

natural capital.

From the UKNEA services that were assessed as deteriorating (of all importance levels),

and those assessed as having high or medium-high importance and some deterioration

were identified. Economic values available from the UKNEA were then used to prioritise

between the different services that are deteriorating.

The habitats with the widest range of services showing deterioration or some deterioration

and medium-high value were freshwaters, open waters, wetlands & floodplains; and

enclosed farmland. These habitats are the priorities for coverage in the analysis below,

and for subdividing the UKNEA habitats in future UK work.

3.2 Results

The UK test application covers:

A selection of the main habitats used in the UKNEA:

o Semi-natural grasslands,

o Enclosed farmland, and

o Freshwater;

Lowland heath, which is a subset of one of the UKNEA‟s main habitats (mountain

moor and heath); and

Carbon storage, which is a service provided by many habitats.

Analysis of woodland based on the UKNEA is included in the woodland case study in

Section 4.3.



3.2.1 Semi-natural Grasslands

This information was taken from the semi-natural grassland chapter in the NEA (Chapter

6). Semi-natural grasslands are generally the result of traditional low intensity agricultural

practices, but their typical grasses and herbaceous plant species also develop naturally in

exposed locations.


Since 1945 there have been significant losses in semi-natural grasslands as a result of

agricultural improvement. There has been a 97% loss in semi-natural grasslands between

1930 and 1984 in England and Wales and only 2% of UK grassland has high diversity. Over

the last decade the loss of the remaining semi-natural grasslands has slowed substantially.

The Countryside Survey showed that there has been no loss of acid, neutral and calcareous

grasslands between 1998 and 2007. The losses over the 20th century have not been

reversed.


Since 1945 the greatest threat to semi-natural grassland has been agricultural

improvement. Technological advances and policy incentives meant that grasslands were

converted to more intensive arable or grazing land. Livestock production on semi-natural

grassland is low and therefore there has been pressure to move to improved grasslands to

improve productivity. These management practices, along with nitrogen deposition and

fragmentation remain the greatest threats to grasslands. In the uplands, afforestation is

the major cause of the loss of acid grassland.

o Services

The Countryside Survey 2007 showed that, within the top 15 cm of soil, acid grassland has

the highest carbon stock of any UK NEA broad habitat. Acid and Neutral Grasslands contain

293 teragrams of the UK‟s carbon store in the top 15 cm of their soil.

Semi-natural Grasslands have high invertebrate abundance and diversity, and may provide

pollination and pest control services by the spread of insects to agricultural areas;

declines in bumblebees since the 1960s are linked to declines in key semi-natural

grassland plants.

Semi-natural grasslands and those farming practises that support it have strong cultural

values, which can be an important part of a location‟s draw for tourists (UK NEA, chapter

6, p187).


Agri-environment schemes now provide increased protection for semi-natural grasslands,

where once incentives drove conversions of land. However, current policies can still have

negative consequences for semi-natural grasslands. For example, the Scottish Forestry

Strategy aims to plant woodland on 270,000ha of unimproved grasslands, which poses a

threat to acid grasslands.

Within England 68% of semi-natural grassland are designated as Sites of Special Scientific

Interest. In Wales 52% of semi-natural grasslands are within National Parks. As a result



many semi-natural grasslands sites are protected, even though the quality of these

protected sites is not assured. Conservation management is important in the maintaining

the quality of semi-natural grasslands: in England only 21% of non-SSSI grasslands are

found to be in a favourable condition, while in Scotland where a management regime

exists, in 2007 71% of SSSI sites were in a favourable or recovering condition.

o Future services from the asset

Increased protection through agri-environment agreements has resulted in a halting of

declines in services from semi-natural grasslands, but maintaining current trends into the

future is dependent on continued funding. Possibilities to increase services in future are

unclear.

o Synergies

Livestock raised on the rich pasture of semi-natural grassland is said to have better meat

quality, albeit at a lower rate of productivity than on more intensively farmed land. Semi-

natural grasslands can provide multiple ecosystem services for relatively low energy

inputs. Increasing plant richness can improve production in the absence of fertilisers.

Semi-natural grasslands provide recreation and tourism services, as well as pollination and

pest control. Lower intensity management is required in maintaining these services on

semi-natural grasslands than on intensive farmland.

o Thresholds

No evidence of thresholds in the NEA.


Extensive losses of semi-natural grasslands have resulted in fragmentation, which can

make any habitat more vulnerable to threats.


As with all habitats the impact of climate change is highly uncertain.

o Reversibility

Restoration of semi-natural grasslands from arable or semi-natural grasslands is possible

and vital in some locations to prevent loss of biodiversity through the long-term effects of

habitat fragmentation. Linked networks of semi-natural grasslands are required through

conservation planning for example through the European Ecological Network or the

Wildlife Trusts Living Landscapes. Restoration techniques are well established, but require

several years, and this time dimension is not reported in the UKNEA.


Semi-natural grasslands are a highly diminished and fragmented asset, but remaining areas

are still able to support a range of ecosystem services, and the habitat is being created

and is better protected than in the past as a result of conservation actions.

o Values



Calcareous Grassland is the major habitat of the new South Downs National Park. A 2003

study showed that there were about 39 million visitor days per annum to the South Downs

and these visitors spent £333 million. Semi-natural grasslands are a vital habitat for many

rare and threatened species within the UK. Of 1,150 conservation concerns listed under

the UKBAP, 206 are found on semi-natural grasslands.


Effective policy intervention is turning the tide for semi-natural grasslands, and therefore

current values coming from this habitat are likely to be at least sustained. This protection,

and the restoration/ recreation of grasslands is increasing supply of its services, but this is

expected to continue to be exceeded by demand for its cultural, carbon storage,

pollination, food production and other services.

3.2.2 Enclosed farmland

Enclosed farmland includes cropped and grass fields synonymous with the UK‟s agricultural

landscape. The information contained in this summary comes from its own chapter in the

NEA (Chapter 7).


Enclosed farmland currently covers:

52.1% of land area in England, made up of 30.4% arable and horticultural,

21.7% improved grassland

17.8% in Scotland, made up of 6.6% arable and horticultural and 11.2%

improved grassland

44% in Northern Ireland, made up of 3.5% arable and horticultural and 40.5%

improved grassland

37.4% in Wales, made up of 3.4% arable and horticultural and 34% improved

grassland.

The total area of arable land in Great Britain fell from 5.3 million ha in 1984 to 4.1milion

ha in 2007. The length of hedgerows in Great Britain fell from 624,000 km in 1984 to

506,000 km by 1990. By 2000, populations of farmland birds had fallen by 40% of their

1970s levels, and they have fallen by a further 4% since then. Only 26 out of the 710 SSSIs

that are on enclosed farmland are in a favourable condition with 536 in unfavourable

condition or destroyed.


It is likely that climate change and water stresses will mean enclosed farmland will come

under increased pressure in the future. In addition it has been reported that 350,000 ha of

bio-energy crops will be planted by 2020, whether these crops will offset food production

remains to be seen. The 20th century saw specialisation and mechanisation of agriculture

and the subsequent homogenisation of landscapes. Non-native species also remain a threat



to landscapes. Foot and mouth and bovine TB have caused problems for livestock in the

past and remain a threat into the future.

o Key observations

Enclosed farmland makes up a significant proportion of land in the UK. The productivity of

the land (provisioning ecosystem services) has gone up dramatically but with this intensity

has come a sacrifice of other ecosystem services. This trend is being challenged and in

some cases reversed.

o Services

Agriculture harnesses provisioning services. Enclosed farmlands are vital for food

provisioning. There is a need to increase the amount of food produced per hectare in the

future, which means that technological advances are required.

Increases in these provisioning services since 1945 came at the expense of ecosystem

services and functions, including biodiversity habitats, carbon storage and water quality.

This impact of agriculture on regulating services is declining.

Some form of agricultural production and crops rely on invertebrates for pollination (field

crops, fruits and vegetables) and pest control, but the number of honey bees has declined

by 54% since 1985.


Agri-environment schemes have increased the area of grassland in the UK, and hedgerow

regulations have stemmed the loss of hedgerows. Changes to Common Agricultural Policy

payments have reduced stock densities, now raising the possibility of under-grazing on

some habitats (e.g. in the uplands).

Many farmers‟ actions with respect to responsible management of the land are voluntary.

92% of farmers have hedgerows on their farm, 82% of farmers cut their hedges sensitively

to avoid nesting birds, and 53% of cereal farmers use beetle banks or field management to

encourage natural predators.

o Conclusions about future services from the asset

UK enclosed farmland provides many ecosystem services, and much is required of this land

in the future including food and bio-energy crop provision, and maintaining biodiversity.

How these different requirements are coupled in the face of the uncertainties surrounding

the impacts of climate change is unclear.

o Synergies & tradeoffs

There have been developments in the last 20 years in increasing the level of biodiversity

and cultural services that flow from farmland. However, the relationship between these

services and provisioning services involves greater tradeoffs than synergies. Diversification

of crops will potentially help provide resilience against climate change.

Low input agriculture will deliver many more ecosystem services per unit of land, but will

not be able to match the food and energy productivity of high intensity agriculture.



o Thresholds

No details of thresholds in NEA.


It is likely that if regulating ecosystem services were damaged sufficiently by over

intensification of production, then these supporting services, such as pollination, would

decline significantly, and possibly to the extent that they would limit levels of other

services.


Climate change is a constant uncertainty. It is also uncertain how the competing

requirements of enclosed farmland, food provisioning and other ecosystem services will be

managed or whether technological solutions are possible.

o Reversibility

Because enclosed farmland is a human-created habitat, the loss and recreation of habitats

within it are relatively straightforward. Certain management practises allow the

restoration of biodiversity on agricultural land. This can halt and reverse declines in

certain species. Other species have seen persistent declines despite agri-environment

funding.


The extent of the asset has declined, but this can be reversed. There are concerns over

the condition of some parts of the asset, e.g. in relation to soil fertility and pollination

services.

o Values

Agriculture currently employs 470,000 people, which is 2% of the overall workforce, this is

only half the number employed in 1970. The UK agri-food sector contributes 6% of GDP. UK

self sufficiency in the production of indigenous foods is now 73% up from 30% in the 1930s.

The agri-food sector employs 3.6 million people which is 13.7% of the overall workforce.

Enclosed farmlands also have considerable cultural benefits, e.g. many public footpaths

crossing farmland.


There is strong awareness of the various demands and requirements on UK enclosed

farmland. It may not possible to meet all these demands; the numerous demands for

provisioning and regulating ecosystem services from enclosed farmland, suggests that

demand currently exceeds supply. Priorities must be established to determine the

management of enclosed farmland, to optimise the extent to which different demands on

agricultural land management can be satisfied concurrently.



3.2.3 Freshwaters – Openwaters, Wetlands and Floodplains

Freshwater habitats include standing and flowing water bodies, wetlands (where the water

table is near the surface of the land), and floodplains. The information contained in this

summary comes from its own chapter in the NEA (Chapter 9).


In the UK there are over 389,000km of rivers, 6,000 large lakes, and half a million ponds.

The vast majority of freshwaters (90% of volume, 70% of area) are in Scotland. Freshwater

habitats have experienced the fastest habitat loss of any type in the UK becoming

fragmented and disconnected. For example, engineering works have separated 42% of

floodplains in England and Wales from their rivers. Those water bodies close to population

centres and intensively farmed areas have especially low water quality. In some

freshwater bodies juvenile populations of trout have decreased by 60%. As a result of

factors such as fragmentation and pollution, no completely pristine freshwaters exist in

the UK. Overall water quality has been slowly improving since 1990, but some rivers have

experienced declines, especially in Wales, the cause of which is uncertain.

Wetlands comprise the largest proportion of SSSIs. While the number of ponds declined

prior to 1980, it is now increasing even though water quality is poor due to excessive

nutrient loads. This is a similar story to lakes.

o Risks/threats to asset

Engineering works, including flood embankments and channel modifications, have

damaged flood plains. Drainage, changes in land cover and atmospheric deposition have

all impacted on freshwater habitats, but these factors are now managed so that damage

is much reduced or halted. Nitrate and phosphorous pollution from agricultural sources

remains a problem in certain locations. Freshwater bodies have been converted to

provide specific services such as irrigation.

Past threats to freshwaters include acidification, impoundment, flow modification,

eutrophication, siltation, habitat degradation, fragmentation, loss and drainage, toxic

pollution, over abstraction and invasion by non-native species. New pollutants (endocrine

disrupters, nano-particles) are emerging as new threats to water bodies.

Climate change and increased water demand from population changes are likely to result

in problems for freshwaters. Rising sea levels can result in increased salinity in

freshwaters in coastal areas. The impacts of water temperature rises as a result of

climate change are uncertain.

o Key observations

Freshwater bodies have suffered historical damage and remain under stress: policy action

is attempting to control pollutants and the destruction of water courses, but as these

threats subside new threats emerge in the form of new pollutants, water stress and

climate change.



o Services

Freshwaters can supply a large range of services including consumptive and non-

consumptive uses of water, food, recreation and conservation and energy. They can

regulate flooding, water quality, erosion and sedimentation, and pollutants. They have

large cultural services providing existence values, recreation and a draw for tourism.

These services have been impacted by the fragmentation and degradation of freshwaters.


Policies in the past have focused on nature conservation instead of the service flows from

freshwater bodies, with priority habitat designation not reflecting the services that

freshwaters provide. At present only 1% of the UK‟s entire river network has formal

protection. Invasive, non-native species are a growing problem in water bodies. These

species pose a threat to ecological processes, which may increase in the future as climate

change provides them with new suitable climatic zones.


Future levels of services will be higher and/or more secure if current legislation is better

applied and holistic catchment management makes its way into policy. Future services

can be increased through the recreation and restoration of freshwater habitats.

o Synergies

Synergies exist between cultural and regulating services where land surrounding water

bodies is managed to secure ecosystem service delivery. Restoration of freshwater bodies

can provide cost effective solutions to the flood risk reduction and water quality

improvements.

o Trade-offs

Freshwater ecosystems have historically been replaced with land uses which had

downstream impacts on other freshwater bodies. For example runoff from intensive

agricultural practices means that maximising an ecosystem service in one part of a

catchment will generally impact on another service in a downstream part of the

catchment.

o Thresholds

Freshwater bodies have thresholds which once crossed will lead to service losses that are

difficult to restore. For example, biological recovery from acidification lags behind

chemical recovery, and potential recovery from damage by invasive species is uncertain.


There are numerous threats to freshwaters. Individually each can have considerable

impact on freshwater ecosystems, but often they occur together and their cumulative

effect can be severe (see state of the asset).


Uncertainty exists in how the condition of freshwater bodies and connectivity between

them influences ecosystem services levels. Greater understanding of the links between



physical, biophysical and ecological processes is required. There has been limited

monitoring of lakes and wetlands and therefore considerable uncertainty remains as to

the state of many of these habitats.

o Reversibility

Restoration and recreation of freshwaters is possible over relatively short timescales (5 –

10 years), and can provide multiple benefits for flood risk management, water quality and

cultural and other services. There is growing knowledge of the practical action required

to restore freshwater bodies. However, once threshold have been crossed and a „regime

shift‟ has occurred, freshwater ecosystems are difficult to restore.


The integrity of freshwaters has been damaged by historical drainage and remains

threatened by water pollution from upstream activities. In order for freshwater integrity

to be enhanced, catchment level policies and action must occur.

o Values

Freshwater bodies provide many important ecosystem services, but these are often

inadequately valued. Of those services that can be valued using market data:

- Freshwater angling is a significant source of revenues for rural communities;

coarse fisheries across the UK contribute £850 million to the economy, with

£3 billion spent by rod fishermen.

- Freshwater provision is a critical input into a wide variety of industries, for

example into the Whisky industry which supports 40,000 jobs.

- In the 1990s the water resources in Rutland Water alone was estimated to

have an annual value of £215 million.

- Recreation on freshwater also contributes to local economies, for example,

in the River Spey in Scotland, recreation contributes £1.7million to the local

economy and supported 48 jobs.

- Wildlife tourism is a valuable input into the economy. It was estimated that

those who went to watch Ospreys (birds of prey that are associated with

freshwater) in 2006 contributed £5 million to the Scottish economy.


The full value that could be extracted from freshwater bodies is not being realised. The

wide variety of threats to freshwaters requires a holistic approach to catchment

management to optimise and to sustain the ecosystem services coming from freshwater

bodies. Demand for services from freshwater ecosystems exceeds supply, particularly in

terms of regulating services, with expensive engineered substitutes required to regulate

water quality, and large socio-economic losses suffered in relation to flood damages.



3.2.4 Lowland heath

Lowland heath is characterised by heathers and trees such as pine and birch. It is a

conservation priority because it is a rare and threatened habitat. Information regarding

this habitat was contained in the Mountains, Moorland and Heaths chapter of the NEA

(Chapter 5).


Only 20% of lowland heath that existed in 1900 still exists. The declining trend has been

recently reversed to meet UK Biodiversity Action Plan targets through recreation or

restoration of habitats. The Countryside Survey reported a 15% increase in dwarf shrub

heath between 1998 and 2007. This increase has been due to the reduction of scrubland

and woodland, the recreation of heathland sites, the control of bracken and the re-

introduction of grazing. Total area of dwarf shrub heath was 1,360,000 ha in UK in 2007.


Extensive areas of lowland heath have been lost in the past due to agricultural

improvements, afforestation, and urban expansion. Reduced grazing has been considered

a prime cause of the deterioration of lowland heath. Wildfires are a significant threat to

lowland heath. They present a risk to the habitat but also the carbon stores contained in

the habitat. Ammonia pollution also presents a problem for lowland heath habitats. Those

rare species that exist on heathland are put at risk by fragmentation of the habitat.

o Key observations

Lowland heath has been under threat for an extensive period of time. But policy action

appears to be taking hold and is succeeding in reversing this trend.

o Services

Lowland heath supports limited levels of some provisioning services, such as livestock,

wool, honey, water regulation, but cultural services appear to be the main service from

lowland heath habitats.


Agri-environment subsidies are providing incentives for livestock grazing which supports

heath regeneration. The policies that are influencing habitat creation include: BAP

Targets, Higher Level Stewardship schemes, Countryside Stewardship and Tomorrow‟s

Heathland. NGOs undertake a large proportion of the activities that support lowland heath

regeneration.


Lowland heath regeneration and restoration is being supported through various policies

and initiatives. It is likely that the services coming from lowland heath will increase in the

future as its area increases. Although it is likely that full service values will be realised

where restoration occurs to increase contiguous habitat.

o Trade-offs



A trade-off exists between the re-establishment of natural woodland, development of

provisioning services from farmland and lowland heath habitats.

o Thresholds

Soil acidity is a key threshold for maintaining peaty or sandy soils suitable for lowland

heath habitats. Critical acidity levels are nationally mapped to UK BAP habitats. This is

based on the acid deposition that would prevent soil solution pH falling below 4.4 over

steady state conditions. In general the acidity of soils is falling. Between 1986 and 2006

the proportion of Mountain, Moorland and Heath habitat areas with soils exceeding the set

acidity threshold for Dwarf Shrub Heath habitats fell from 92.7% to 46.5%.


As detailed above, numerous threats exist to lowland heath. Lowland heath has been lost

to afforestation and conversion to agricultural farmland. This has fragmented remaining

heathland areas, resulting in potentially less resilience against other threats to the

heathland such as acidification or wildfires.


The impact of climate change is a key uncertainty.

o Reversibility

There have been many examples of successful recreation of lowland heath. For example in

China Clay country in Cornwall 4,000 ha of heathland has been recreated or restored. The

RSPB (2003) published a Practical Guide to the Restoration and Management of Lowland

Heathland, describing techniques for restoration, maintenance and monitoring of lowland

heathland habitats.


Although under pressure, policy action appears to be achieving limited reversal of large

historical declines in lowland heath habitats. As lowland heath appears to be increasing in

quality and quantity we can expect the services that flow from heathland to remain at

least constant or to increase, but the impact of climate change on habitat condition is an

uncertainty which could threaten service provision.

o Values

Provisioning services that come from lowland heath support the production of such goods

as wool and honey. As a lowland habitat, heaths are often close to large town and cities

and therefore have extensive recreational benefits, as well as being of significant

existence values for cultural and nature conservation reasons.


Lowland heath has been severely depleted in the past, but through effective policy action

and NGO activity, lowland heath is being restored. The NEA does not comment on the

sustainability of values, but it is likely that with area and quality of lowland heath

increasing that current values can be sustained.



3.2.5 Climate Regulation

Processes that sequester and store carbon in ecosystems regulate the climate, and

enhancement to this service has become a priority in the face of anthropogenic climate

change. Data for this sub-section have been drawn from a variety of chapters in the

UKNEA. It gives a brief overview of the state of the climate regulation services provided by

ecosystems. This service in each ecosystem could itself be the subject to detailed analysis

(e.g. the importance of carbon sequestration in coastal habitats could be highlighted and

broken down further, and in marine habitats requires further understanding).


The level of carbon storage, and hence climate regulation services, in the UK‟s ecosystems

is extensive, as shown in Table 3.1. There is significant sequestration and storage (e.g. in

coastal and woodland habitats) and also significant losses of stored carbon (e.g. from

enclosed farmland and from the deterioration of peat soils).

Data allows the service from woodland habitats to be broken down in more detail, as in

Table 3.2. This shows that the similar areas of coniferous and broadleaved woodland in

the UK have similar levels of soil carbon storage, but broadleaved woodland supports more

than twice as much carbon storage in its vegetation.


Continued drainage of peat soils (e.g. in the uplands to allow higher livestock densities,

and in the lowlands to allow horticultural/agricultural uses) results in high levels of carbon

loss from UK ecosystems. Climate change could result in further changes to ecosystem-

carbon storage, for example coastal erosion due to sea level rise could release carbon

stored in inter-tidal habitats.

o Key observations

Coastal margins, woodland, enclosed farmland and mountain, moorland and heath are the

most important habitats for carbon storage in the UK. Some management practices are

increasing carbon storage (e.g. woodland and inter-tidal habitat restoration), whereas

others are releasing stored carbon (e.g. agricultural use of peat soil).


Carbon impacts are not yet an active part of management decisions for most UK habitats,

so current trends are expected to continue in the near future.

o Trade-offs

A large trade-off exists between carbon storage and provisioning services. Smaller

tradeoffs exist between lowland heath habitat restoration (mainly for cultural services)

and carbon storage.



Table 3.1. Climate Regulation Services in Main UKNEA Habitats

Habitat

Service

Mountain,

Moorland &

Heath

Semi-natural

Grassland

Enclosed

Farmland Woodlands Freshwaters Urban

Coastal

Margins Marine

Provisioning Crops

etc

Wild Species Diversity

Cultural (env. Settings)

Regulating

Climate Sequestration

low, large loss

from peat

soils

Moderate

storage,

higher in acid

soils

Mean

43tC/halosses

1978-2007

Substantial

vegetation

and soil

carbon*

Moderate

sequestration

and storage

Low High sequestration and

storage, but marine less well

understood

Hazard

Detox.

* See Table 3.2



Table 3.2. Climate Regulation Services in Woodland Habitats

* Woodland Area

Vegetation

storage Soil storage

Total

storage

Coniferous

1.3

mha 24.8 mtC 97.4 mtC 122.2 mtC

Broadleaved

1.4

mha 63 mtC 93.4 mtC 156.4 mtC

o Thresholds

Climate thresholds have been identified, albeit with some uncertainty around targets to

limit warming to 2OC. The role of carbon storage by the UK habitats in delivering this

target is not well understood, as such carbon has not been part of global carbon-

management frameworks (e.g. under the Kyoto protocol).


The effects of emissions of carbon from UK habitats are compounded by emissions from

anthropogenic sources.


Opportunities to enhance climate regulating services and other services (e.g. provisioning

services from agriculture) are poorly understood and therefore potential synergies are

highly uncertain.

o Reversibility

Habitat management can be changed to alter levels of carbon storage (e.g. woodland and

coastal habitat restoration and re-wetting of peat soils can all reduce losses of stored

carbon and/or increase storage of carbon). However, the reversibility of climate change is

highly uncertain.


The state of carbon storage in UK ecosystems is mixed, with some positive factors (e.g.

storage in woodland). However, negative factors (e.g. losses of historically accumulated

carbon from agricultural soils) mean that overall the integrity of the asset is declining.

o Values

Abatement of carbon emissions can be valued through the social cost of carbon4.

4 The UK government‟s official non-traded marginal abatement cost of carbon (MACC) prices (DECC, 2009) are used to value the changes in annual emissions from 2000 to 2060 under each scenario. This means that carbon prices are set at £41.28 tonne-1 of CO2e in 2000, and are increasing to £273.50 tonne-1 of CO2e in 2060 (2010 prices). (UKNEA, 2009, p1282).




Large losses of stored carbon from some habitats are contributing to unsustainable climate

regulation (i.e. it is contributing to predicted future climate instability). Where carbon

storage services are being maintained or enhanced (e.g. in woodlands) these services can

be sustained into the future.

3.2.6 Conclusions from the NEA case studies

The NEA typically contained substantial information that was useful for analysis of the

extent and condition of the habitat and some of the provisioning and regulating services

that flow from it. For some of the more nuanced categories in the tool, such as the asset

criticalities, the NEA was less useful. Therefore, while the NEA is a very valuable source of

information for undertaking a natural capital asset check, it is insufficient; in general

completing the tool requires more information than was contained in the NEA.

Summarising the data from the NEA into the asset tool and then writing up the findings

results in an asset check case study that is very similar to the key findings section for each

habitat of the NEA. In some areas (e.g. water policy) where there is extensive economic

analysis and investment appraisal that is not captured in the NEA, an asset check based on

the NEA does not reflect the complete body of knowledge available.

Therefore to add value, the natural capital asset check cannot just re-interpret UKNEA

data (especially habitat based data). It needs to combine this data with other sources of

information, such as on predictions of future ecosystem service levels and criticalities.

These may be implied in the UKNEA scenarios, but are hard to ascertain from this source.

Understanding of criticalities often involves expert judgement based on scientific

knowledge (e.g. of the extent to which different ecosystem processes are limiting factors

in the provision of ecosystem services).

Sections of the natural capital asset check case study that goes beyond the UKNEA, i.e. to

make a judgement on sustainability or natural asset integrity, requires interpretation and

extrapolation of the data contained in the NEA. There is often a large gap between what is

referred to in the NEA and what is required of the asset check as there is insufficient

evidence to draw firm conclusions and these sections move away from the robustness of

the NEA.

However, the NEA is a useful compendium of data related to the UK‟s ecosystems and

therefore should be the starting point for an UK natural capital asset check. Regardless of

how the „asset‟ is defined, NEA is likely to contain information that is useful in an

assessment.



4 Detailed Case Studies

The three case studies selected (salt marsh ecosystems and fisheries productivity;

countryside survey data; and woodland) are described in this section. For each case study,

the NCAC Tables that were drafted in v1.2 (as in Figure 2.4) is provided in a xls separate

file. Separate files are necessary because the completed Tables do not lend themselves to

easy presentation within a word document format. Therefore, this section provides a

write-up of each case covering the main observations from each part of Table v1.2.

It is clear that the presentation of Table v1.2 and the NCAC analysis can be improved. This

and other observations made from undertaking these case studies are reported in Section

4.4.

4.1 Salt marsh ecosystems and fisheries productivity

The natural capital asset in this case study is the input of salt marshes into the ecological

cycle that supports commercial fisheries. Salt marshes are highly important for the early

life stages of some commercial fish species, and therefore contribute to maintaining

spawning stock biomass and potential fish yields. Salt marshes are also important habitats

for a range of regulating and cultural ecosystem services.


Salt marshes around the UK‟s coastline have declined significantly in extent over the past

century, although there are uncertainties in recent data (Phelan et al, 2009). In the UK

and across Western Europe, 80% of salt marsh has been lost (Attrill et al, 1999). Losses

continue in the UK, estimated at around 50 ha/yr.

The evidence on the importance of salt marsh as a nursery ground for fish species has

recently be improved (e.g. Colclough et al, 2010). The fish species involved include

commercial species, such as bass, and these and other species that are prey items for

other commercial species. Citations in Colclough et al (2005) describe the historic losses

of intertidal habitats in the UK and impacts on fish production (e.g. McLusky, Bryant &

Elliott, 1992 and Elliott & Taylor, 1989). For example, historic losses in the Forth Estuary

over the past 200 years are estimated to have reduced fish production by 40% (similar

figures have been developed in the US). Across the UK, such losses would cumulatively

mean a massive impact on overall fish production5.

In the UK waters, the stocks of majority of commercial fish species are exploited

unsustainably and at rates above those that will deliver the highest long term yield6.

Fishing intensity, which has increased as a result of technological advances, has put more

pressure on the stocks.

5 Paragraph based on inputs from Steve Colclough, pers comm, July 2012. 6 Charting Progress : The State of UK Seas (2010)



o Drivers/threats to asset:

Loss of salt marshes continues in the UK due to rises in sea level causing coastal squeeze

(Luisetti et al, 2011), and development of built capital, for example demand for new ports

driven by increased levels of international trade. Important fisheries habitats (e.g. nursery

grounds) can also be impacted by run-off from farming affecting terrestrial provisioning

services. Recently, the rate of loss of salt marsh in the UK has been slowed by managed

realignment schemes.

Overall reduction in the extent of salt marsh nursery grounds constrains the level of fish

stocks, preventing recovery for those that are already over-exploited. Continued loss of

this habitat, albeit at a reducing rate, will restrict the availability of nursery grounds to

young fish and may constrain the maintenance or recovery of fish stocks.


Saltmarsh is a priority habitat under UK and EU conservation objectives, but its protection

under the Habitats Directive can conflict with the affordability of flood defence

requirements. There may be a trade-off between fisheries biological productivity

supporting services from salt marsh, and societal preferences for freshwater biodiversity

or farmland.

There have been improvements in the management of fisheries but further action is

needed. The Common Fisheries Policy reform planned to be introduced in 2013 and the

Marine Strategy Framework Directive planned for action by 2016 present opportunities to

address the problems faced in the fisheries. It remains to be seen whether intertidal

habitats will be protected as part of these policies.


Saltmarsh is an important habitat in the ecological cycle that supports fisheries through

the provision of nursery grounds for commercial fish species. The contribution of salt

marsh as an input into this provisioning service (and many other ecosystem services) is

constrained by the historical and continuing decline in its area in the UK.

o Other services

From an broader perspective, saltmarshes not only provide provisioning services as a

nursery ground for commercial species but also regulating services through flood hazard

protection, and absorption of micro-pollutants7 and cultural services through supporting

biodiversity and landscape values. These services are valued in different ways, within the

market system through the sale of commercial fish landings, and outside the market

system (e.g. through the non-use value attributed to biodiversity).

o Thresholds

Any improvements to fish stocks are likely to be linear, but declines if the threshold for

stock collapse is breached would be non-linear and may not be reversible. The probability

7 B. Watts, Environment Agency, pers comm July 2012.



of a collapse increases with increasing pressure on all parts of the ecological cycle that

supports fisheries, such as loss of nursery habitats as considered in this asset check, and

other pressures such as over-fishing.


Loss of salt marsh habitat, and therefore deterioration of its role in the ecological cycle

that supports fisheries, has been accruing over several decades through the cumulative

effects of land drainage for agriculture, coastal development and coastal squeeze caused

by sea level rise. Effects on other parts of the ecological cycle that supports fisheries (e.g.

from some fishing gears on sub-tidal benthic habitats, from pollution and from over-fishing

that reduces adult stocks) create a cumulative pressure on fish stocks.


Although we know that there are limits in the exploitation of fisheries (at which fish stocks

and potential catches decline, and potentially collapse), at present the science is

uncertain as to when limits in the ecological cycle that supports fisheries will be crossed

and what the consequences will be. Such uncertainties exacerbated by the unknowns

surrounding climate change, which is also influencing the populations of different

commercial fish species in UK waters. Scientific uncertainties remain surrounding fish

stocks and their dependence on salt marsh - site specific knowledge is reasonably strong,

but extrapolating this to the whole of the UK is less certain.

o Reversibility

The (re)creation of salt marsh through managed realignment schemes is reasonably well

understood (Nottage & Robertson, 2005), so the decline in the area of salt marsh is

potentially reversible. Commercial fish stocks can potentially recover reasonably quickly

from sub-optimal population levels, but there are thresholds beyond which recovery may

be very slow or impossible. These thresholds are not known with certainty for most fish

stocks.


Demand exceeds supply for UK provisioning services from the ecological cycle that

supports commercial fish stocks. For some commercial fish species (e.g. bass) the extent

of salt marsh natural capital assets is a constraint on their supply. For most fish stocks

increases in supply to meet demand cannot be sustained, and increase the risk of fish

stock collapse.

o Values

Each hectare of salt marsh on the East coast of the UK could support fisheries productivity

that results in £1-£67 of commercial fish landings per year8.

8 Calculation based on productivity value/ha/yr of £36 to £67.5 ha/year (Stevenson, 2001) and £1.12 to £50.85

/ha/yr (Fonseca, 2009). This modelling has significant uncertainties, such as in the ranges of observed

productivity in different areas of saltmarsh, and in the market price for fish, which result in a large range.



Fisheries also have non-use values in terms of the socio-cultural values that are placed on

healthy fish stocks and a healthy marine environment. These values are determined by

society‟s understanding and appreciation of the marine environment and fish stocks.

The value of fish stocks to society is currently lost through unsustainable management of

fisheries. An estimated $50 billion a year is lost through poor management and

inefficiencies in fisheries globally, and in the EU fisheries currently operate at a net cost

to society (Arnason et al, 2009). Effective management of fisheries and the saltmarshes

that support them could increase the value from the fisheries.


As the extent of salt marsh declines in the UK, its input to productive fisheries is also

declining. Salt marsh is already understood to be a limiting factor in the population of

some commercial fish stocks (e.g. bass). Loss of habitat will continue this trend, with the

threat of stock collapse. This trend has been slowing but is likely to continue.

With climate change, bass populations have increased in UK waters. It is likely that the

availability of nursery habitats is now acting as a constraint on this increase in bass stocks.

Restricted habitat availability is therefore constraining the ability of the UK‟s environment

and economy to adapt to climate change.

A summary of the key points from this case study is provided in Table 4.1 below. This uses

the same headings as developed to summarise the Country Survey case studies in Table 4.2

in Section 4.2.1.

o Lessons from the case study

This case study draws on a significant amount of published evidence, but still relies on

expert opinion to connect this evidence and draw conclusions on integrity and

sustainability of the natural capital asset. It also highlights the difficulty in precisely

defining the natural capital asset - this changed over the course of the study. There are

several natural assets involved in the study (e.g. salt marsh habitat, fish spawning stock

biomass), but the „check‟ has focussed on their combination into productive capital in the

ecological cycle that supports commercial fisheries.



Table 4.1. Summary of natural capital asset check result for saltmarsh and fisheries ecological cycle

Key observations Thresholds Natural asset integrity Tradeoffs Future Sustainability

Provisioning: fisheries

productivity

Decrease in extent of UK saltmarshes due to historical land claim from sea, ongoing

loss from coastal development and relative sea level rise being

slowed by managed realignment.

Saltmarsh plays key role in development of juvenile fish, insufficient habitat could limit fish stocks,

increasing vulnerability to other pressures.

Currently supply of saltmarsh habitat is

potentially insufficient to support demand for fish stocks (i.e. could be a limiting factor).

Managed realignment usually removes land from agricultural use (except

extensive grazing). Loss of crops may be of similar

value to gains in fisheries productivity.

Continued loss from climate change threatens to increase constraint on fish stocks from lack of

juvenile feeding habitat.



4.2 Countryside Survey Data

This case study looks at uses of Countryside Survey (CS) data to complete a natural capital

asset check. Three broad habitats: arable, bog and woodland, have been examined. The

case study aimed to establish how well CS data could support the asset check process.

The CS was examined because, as a structured time-series of land cover data (i.e. broad

habitat stock and condition) it may produce accounts showing the processes of change in

natural capital from 1984-through 1990, 2000 and 2007.

More details on the Countryside Survey are provided in Annex 1.

4.2.1 Arable Land

The natural capital asset considered in this example is arable and horticultural land use

systems in the UK. This habitat was assessed in the NEA enclosed farmland chapter and

consists of arable crops, ploughed land and annual successional vegetation associated with

set aside. This habitat is very important for provisioning services i.e. food. It does also

provide disservices, i.e. negative impacts on other ecosystem services (e.g. chemical

runoff impacts on water quality). Tradeoffs between services are an important

consideration in this habitat. It is a habitat that may change in area and condition

relatively rapidly, responding to changes in policy, land management and economics.


The area of arable and horticultural land across Great Britain fell from 5.3 million ha in

1984 to 4.1 million ha in 2007 (UK NEA, chapter 7, p203). This appears to be due to de-

intensification and conversion to other habitat types (notably grassland). This result is

supported by other information on yields and production - the contribution of food

production to GDP has fallen relative to the value of other economic sectors. This is

probably due in part to importing food (40% of UK food is imported) although some food

prices have also fallen.

The condition of arable habitats has declined: CS data show declines in soil quality. The

decline of other ecosystem services as production increased post-war (e.g. loss of

biodiversity, increased pollution) is well –documented. Eventually these have feedback

effects on production and long term sustainability (e.g. loss of habitat for pollinators or

natural pest predators). More recently there have been improvements with incentives in

agri-environment schemes and policy orientated towards improving biodiversity and

habitat heterogeneity (e.g. hedgerows and field margins).

o Structure

There has been a tendency for farms to become bigger with fewer owners over the past

few decades. Recently the arable area has decreased and farming is less likely to be take

place on marginal land.

o Services



There is some variation depending upon the service as to whether a measurement from

the CS is a stock or condition indicator. For example, plant diversity is a stock indicator

for cultural services and a condition indicator for food production. For the former,

increases are favourable, but for the latter a decrease in richness of other plant species

may be desirable. The primary service from arable habitats is food production, but other

services are also provided. This case study looks at multiple service provision from the

same habitat. Although the service usually prioritised for arable land is food production,

there has been some progress in multiple service provision from arable habitats.

o Thresholds

There are thresholds for crop production in terms of soil quality. There are also economic

thresholds when land becomes uneconomic to farm because input costs exceed the value

of the outputs. There are thresholds in the capacity for ecosystems to cope with pollution

from agriculture, such as excess nutrients etc. in terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems.

There are thresholds for each individual crop in climatic requirements. There are also

thresholds for the loss of key species e.g. charismatic culturally important species such as

farmland birds or key species for ecosystem functioning such as pollinators. However,

these thresholds are not known with certainty.


Eventually cumulative losses of soil quality may be greater than can be fixed by the

addition of chemicals. Climate change is a real threat to food production. Already there

have been impacts from weather patterns, droughts and floods.

o Future services

Patterns of food production have changed in the UK, as a lot of food is imported and other

services have become important in arable habitats (e.g. water quality, biodiversity). It is

unclear if this balance will remain in place, change (e.g. due to changes in food prices) or

whether it becomes something that is spatially segregated (e.g. zonation of some land for

food production and other land for other services).

There have been some changes in managing land for other ecosystem services (e.g. if land

can be managed to prevent nutrient runoff through use of buffer strips etc.) then costs of

treating water can come down.


The future is uncertain, Food security has risen up the agenda and higher energy prices

may increase food prices and make importing food relatively more expensive. Therefore

production intensity and the area of land under arable may increase, however it may also

be that arable land is managed to provide multiple ecosystem services instead of just the

single provisioning service of food.


There have been cumulative impacts overtime on services from the arable land capital

asset due to: artificially supplementing soil chemistry, which may leave soil depleted of

nutrients; accumulation of nutrients in water resources; loss of landscape diversity; and

loss of pollinator species.




There are many uncertainties, on the socio-economic side there are uncertainties in

demand for food, the continued availability and price of imports, and demand for seasonal

vs. unseasonal produce. There are physical uncertainties such as the relationship between

soil quality indicators and production and the rate of nutrient cycling. Climate is a source

of uncertainty and likely to become an even more important driver with impacts on food

production, quantity and type of crop grown, and effects on associated species such as

pollinators. The relationship between the number of pollinators and pollination of crop is

also unclear.

o Reversibility

Restoration potential of arable land has been well studied and there are numerous

examples in the literature. We have subdivided the table to record information on

reversibility/restoration potential for different services/processes within habitat.

Reversibility may also mean restoration to a different habitat type. CS data currently

report on changes in condition within a habitat. There may also be opportunities to

explore CS data to look at changes between habitats and how this affects condition, or

over what time scales changes from one habitat type to another take place. This,

however, is difficult without precise management information.


Currently supply and demand for most services provided by arable land are well matched,

future demand may depend on food and energy prices and prioritisation of services.

Exceptions to this are that:

i. Demand for water quantity and quality regulation services from arable land exceeds

supply, and therefore is substituted with man-made water treatment services.

ii. Demand for pollination may exceed supply available from pollinators from arable

habitats, but this is uncertain and location specific.


Past use of agricultural land has had major negative impacts on other ecosystem services

(such as cultural services from biodiversity and over-reliance on water regulation services

to absorb its pollution), and has relied on non-renewable resources (e.g. for inputs of

nutrients through chemical fertilisers). These trends are unsustainable, for example due to

increasing risk that water pollution impacts will become unacceptable, or that chemical

inputs will become unaffordable. Changes to arable land management to target agri-

environment schemes more efficiently and introduce measures such as arable headlands

are moves towards a more sustainable use of agricultural land.

Likewise greater uptake of more targeted catchment sensitive farming measures would

increase the sustainability of agricultural land. New policy mechanisms, such as payments

for ecosystem services can potentially incentivise more sustainable management. It should

be noted that evidence and judgements on these issues can vary at different spatial

scales.



o Attempted summary of results

An attempt was made to summarise the results of the case study of arable land in a single

page of information. This was challenging given the complexity of the habitats and issues

involved. The result is presented in Table 4.2 below.

Table 4.2 summarises the state, integrity and sustainability of the main services from this

natural capital asset in qualitative terms. Although data have been used to construct the

analysis, the „results‟ for the key asset check questions are heavily reliant on expert

judgement.

o Lessons from case study

Countryside Survey is a useful source of data for agricultural landscapes. It allows an

understanding of how arable habitat extent and condition is changing and has changed

over the past thirty years. This includes impacts on soil and water quality, biodiversity of

common plant species, arable weeds, soil invertebrate and freshwater habitats.

Additional datasets are required to fully understand arable habitats. Most important is

management data for the farm, and yield and costs in relation to management actions.

Agri-environment data are also useful. It is possible to use surrogate indicators from CS

data to represent services (see Table 2 in Annex 1) and it is important to do so as there

are few sources of co-located data at this kind of scale. However there is a need for

additional data, in particular relating a biophysical measurement to demand in a spatially

explicit way.

For example, additional data are needed to relate provision of water for drinking to the

beneficiary rather than identifying where water quality is high. Further development of

the pollination indicator „bee and butterfly nectar sources‟ is planned by weighting the

number of nectar sources by the distance to crops requiring pollination. Some services

(e.g. water quality regulation) are not well provided by arable land - rather there is a

disservice as management of arable and horticultural land often has negative impacts on

water quality, and is as an important component of assessment of this habitat type.

Assessing water quality impacts by habitat is quite difficult as water quality is the result of

a complex of habitats within a catchment; the integrated assessment (Smart et al, 2010)

analyses were carried out using the % area of arable land in a square against changes in

water quality. However these analyses were not done spatially in 2007. To draw more

detailed conclusions in this area, good data are needed on habitat mosaics, allowing

integrated assessment of water quality regulation services in a catchment across a range

of habitats.



Table 4.2. Summary of natural capital asset check results for arable and horticultural habitats

Key observations Thresholds Natural asset integrity Tradeoffs Future Sustainability

Provision-ing: Crops

Big increase in production post 1945, more recently amount of arable land decreased. 40% of UK food imported.

Decline in soil quality (e.g. soil phosphorus).

Soil quality and economic viability:

proximity to thresholds

increased in recent years

Currently supply and demand well-matched but is volatile and depends upon

food prices and energy costs.

Prioritising food production means

tradeoffs in all other services. Vice versa

measures to favour other services likely to impact

production.

Future uncertain, risks from climate change and

energy costs, prioritisation of services critical in arable

habitats.

Water Negative impacts on water quality from agricultural runoff. Measures to minimize impacts being introduced

but effectiveness not yet demonstrated. Issues with water

availability.

Ability of ecosystem to

cope with nutrient loading

and water quantity.

Water quality; supply matches demand although

costs of processing for nitrate removal factored in. Water quantity: problems

with supply

Provisioning services (addition of chemical

fertilizers) conflicts with water quality.

Needs better planning. There are initiatives for

managing catchment runoff and supply and demand for water. May require heavy

investment.

Cultural Decline in wildlife in arable habitats over past 30 years however some

increases in plant diversity possible due to de-intensification and initiatives such as set-aside. Improvements in extent and

condition of aesthetically pleasing features such as hedgerows and

wildlife strips.

Loss of key species habitats:

thresholds crossed for some

species

Demand exceeds supply. Conflict between provision

of food production and management for

biodiversity and landscape aesthetic appeal.

Tradeoffs between food production, biodiversity

and aesthetic qualities of landscape.

Will depend whether demand for food is prioritised above

biodiversity and cultural appreciation

Pollination Number of nectar plants for pollinators declined in past 30 years but more recently increased. There are issues with selected pollinators.

Loss of key pollinators; proximity to

threshold increased

Demand exceeds supply Excessive use of fertilisers and intensive

food production tradeoffs with habitat for

pollinators.

Future sustainability in doubt. Definite issues with sustainability of pollinator populations, although some

actions may assist.

Climate regulation

Soil carbon has been lost from agricultural soils.

Integrity of soil Carbon in soil not primary focus of carbon storage and

sequestration policies currently demand not

exceeding supply

Measures to maintain carbon levels may impact food supply although may

benefit long term sustainability

May require action to protect soil carbon and

hence climate regulation.


Other important data need to be collected (e.g. crop yield and fine-scaled land

management information) to complement the CS data. Using the tool v1.2 table to

report on a single habitat type shows what is happening to ecosystem services

within the habitat, but misses between habitat-service interactions which are

extremely important. A trend seen in the last Countryside Survey was de-

intensification, the loss of arable and horticultural habitats and increases in

improved and semi-natural neutral grassland. For these habitats in particular

(which can change fairly rapidly and are often components of the same

management unit, i.e. farm) there are frequent changes of habitat types which are

an important way of managing the total service outputs from a management unit.

The complexity of the table makes it quite difficult to consider multiple habitats.

4.2.2 Bog

The Bog broad habitat includes blanket bogs, raised and valley bogs, and mires. It

is predominantly found in the uplands where rainfall is high. The water chemistry is

nutrient-poor and tends to be acidic, and the habitat is dominated by acid-loving

plant communities, especially Sphagnum mosses. Bog is a very important habitat

for carbon storage and consists of deep peat soils.


There has been no significant change in the extent of bog broad habitat across GB

(2.2 million ha in 2007). Condition appears to be remaining fairly stable with

declines in the fertility of vegetation, changes in soil carbon and some changes in

pollutants.


Inappropriate management, such as certain moor burning regimes and drainage,

threaten to condition of the asset. Climate change is a significant threat to bogs

and the services they provide.

o Services

Key services are provision of clean water for drinking, regulation of water flow,

carbon storage for climate regulation. Additional services which are less habitat

specific and more generally associated with uplands include livestock production

and cultural services – e.g. recreational use of bogs for hiking, mountain biking,

grouse shooting.

o Key observations

Bog is a result of past climatic conditions and management, takes a long time to be

created and to change. Currently changes don‟t appear to be significantly

detrimental, but there are a number of risk factors.

o Drivers influencing future services?



Management regimes have had significant effects on the asset. Overgrazing or

undergrazing affects the ability of the habitat to maintain services. In general the

grazing regime has probably declined in recent years and undergrazing may be

more of a problem in some areas. Major land use change has caused damage in the

past, for example afforestation was abundant in the 1980s and 1990s, but again has

declined in recent years). The impact of burning on climate change regulation is

uncertain. Historical drainage systems still cause damage to bog habitats, but there

have been positive management actions such as re-wetting (grip blocking), re-

vegetation and catchment management initiatives and the realisation of the

importance of bogs in providing multiple services.


Climate change is likely to impact on services from bog habitats either by directly

affecting the condition and extent of the habitat or by affecting the land use of

bog habitats. Most bogs are found in cold wet environments; climate change may

increase temperatures, reduce rainfall or increase extreme events. It may be

possible to increase farming on peatland habitats if temperatures become warmer.

Interactions between the management regime, the potential to sequester and store

carbon and the ability of bogs to purify and regulate water flow are likely to be

complex and currently not entirely predictable.

o Structure

The extent of the habitat has remained constant. There are natural flows between

certain habitats (heathland, bog, fen, acid grassland) dependent upon management

and climate.

o Function

The condition of the habitat has fluctuated to some extent. There have been fears

that in some areas bogs have become carbon sources rather than sinks. Countryside

Survey (CS) data do not necessarily detect deterioration of vegetation condition.

Vegetation moisture scores remain constant, and fertility has declined. Species

richness has declined, but this may be a good thing as higher species diversity can

indicate the presence of species that prefer more fertile habitats, but are

undesirable in nature conservation terms. However, there has also been a decline

in species regarded as indicators of good habitat quality (CSM indicators) so

perhaps there has been some deterioration in quality.

Soil carbon storage has declined significantly There was no change in soil carbon.

o Thresholds

There are understood to be critical loads for nitrogen, visitor pressure, climatic

thresholds, ability of systems to regulate water flow, ability of systems to purify

and remove toxins, and the ability of vegetation to capture and store carbon in

soil.




Atmospheric deposition, management and climate change could have severe

cumulative impacts on UK bog habitats. The cumulative impacts of these factors

are site-specific, but have contributed to declines / degradation?


There are many uncertainties: bogs are a complex habitat and interactions

between processes, components and services are still poorly understood. The

future impacts of climate change are uncertain. The ways in which biological

components interact and provide regulating and supporting services are poorly

understood. Impacts of management activities on service provision may also be

uncertain.

o Reversibility

There is information available in the literature on the potential for restoration of

bogs to provide ecosystem services and recent research has looked at re-wetting

and restoring vegetation cover. It can take a long time to restore the condition of

bog - more research is required. There are opportunities to explore CS data to look

at changes in habitat condition with drivers of change over time and over what

time scales changes within habitat and between habitats take place.


Currently the asset is mostly maintaining its integrity; however, there are

uncertainties about the future.

o Success of case study

There are very few data sources on the extent and condition of the Bog Broad

Habitat across the UK, but Countryside Survey does provide useful information on

this.

It is difficult to assess the impact of the condition and extent of bog on one of the

main ecosystem services provided by bog: water quality. Although water quality

data are collected from headwater streams, it is difficult to relate this to

individual broad habitats. However, it could be possible to incorporate CS data

with other data sources to get a better idea of how bogs as a habitat impact on

water quality. Another important service provided by bogs is climate regulation

through acting as a carbon sink. CS data are important in that they provide a

consistent measure of soil carbon across habitat types, However, the depth of soil

carbon is also important but currently unrecorded in the CS. This may be something

that could be recorded in future surveys. Data on above ground carbon and GHG

emissions are also required but could be obtained by using CS data in conjunction

with other datasets.

Using the table to report on a single habitat type tells you what is happening to

ecosystem services within the habitat, but misses between habitat-service

interactions which are extremely important. Although the extent of bog habitat has

not changed significantly there are flows between Bog and other habitat types

(acid grassland, heathland, fen and coniferous woodland habitats) which will

impact on service provision (Carey et al, 2008, Annex 6). Change of habitat type



can be important; bogs have been frequently afforested in the past with coniferous

woodland and understanding how this impacts on all of the services is important.

The case study was also very useful in demonstrating the lack of knowledge and

uncertainties in determining service provision from bog habitats. They are complex

and provide complex functions. Much more research is required to understand how

they function and how services, management regime and climate interact.

4.3 Broadleaved woodland

This case study uses data from both the Countryside Survey (CS), as above, and

other sources of analysis.

In the CS woodland is defined as „having over 25% canopy cover of trees and shrubs,

over a metre high‟. There are two woodland Broad Habitats which include all

broadleaved and coniferous woodlands as well as scrub. Lines of trees and hedges

are covered separately as woody linear features, in the Boundary and Linear

Features Broad Habitat.

The woodland Broad Habitats also include a number of Priority Habitats, which are

more restricted in their distribution - only the more widespread habitats are

effectively sampled by CS. These Priority Habitats are defined by the species cover

and composition of the woodland canopy. In the Broadleaved, Mixed and Yew

Woodland Broad Habitat CS provides some limited information on Lowland Mixed

Deciduous Woodland, Wet Woodland, Upland Mixed Ash Woodland and Upland Oak

Woodland Priority Habitats and in the Coniferous Broad habitat there are native

pine woodlands. One important thing to note is that the nature of forest surveyed

by Countryside Survey particularly the Broad leaved woodlands is likely to differ

from other data sources e.g. Forestry Commission. Due to its random survey design,

CS does not set out to specifically survey large areas of woodland so many of the

habitats described as broadleaved woodland may be small patches rather than

extensive woodland.

ONS current research into developing national environmental accounts has

developed a pilot analysis of woodland accounts (J Khan, pers com, April 2012).

Another potential data source for trends in UK woodlands is the Woodland survey of

103 British Broadleaved woodlands carried out in 1971 and re-surveyed in 2003

(Kirby et al., 2005). The Forestry Commission also carry out surveys on forest

condition which will be more appropriate for some service measures. Finally, there

are also analyses of ecosystem services from subsets of the UK‟s woodlands (e.g.

eftec, 2010a; eftec, 2010b).

These data sources are combined in this case study, which allows examination of

natural capital asset check questions at different scales.


The stock of woodland assets can be assessed using data on the area of woodlands.

The condition of woodland assets can be assessed using age of the intact woods,



carbon density (bio-carbon, standing crop of carbon and carbon in soils) and the

management status of the woodland.

The area of Broadleaved woodland has increased across the UK in recent years

(although not as sharply as coniferous woodland has done), this is due in part to

policy changes favouring creation of new woodland (e.g. under agri-environment

schemes, farm woodland scheme etc). Management also plays an important part

(see below).

The condition of broadleaved woodland has declined; like other British habitats

eutrophication has increased, soil phosphorus has declined, and species richness

has decreased, reducing nature conservation values. On the other hand soil carbon

has increased, pH has increased and there has been recovery from acidification.

Other measures of condition such as capacity for timber provision, changes in

water quality and prevention of flooding are not reflected in CS data.

Table 4.3 shows the draft UK physical asset account for forest and wooded land.

Details of how this account is constructed are not discussed here but are explained

in a draft paper by ONS (J Khan, pers com, April 2012). It is assumed that the

majority of the changes to natural regenerated forest and minority of those to the

planted forest are broadleaved woodland, and therefore its area in the UK is shown

to be expanding slightly.



Table 4.3. Physical asset account for forest and other wooded land (thousand

hectares)

2010 Type of forest and other wooded land

Forests

Other wooded land

Primary forest

Other naturally regenerated forest

Planted forest

Total

Opening stock of forest and other wooded land

0.00 700.57 2348.27 21.17 3,070

Additions to stock

Afforestation 0.00 1.72 5.77 0.05 7.54

Natural expansion 0.00 0.15 0.5 0.01 0.66

Total additions to stock

0.00 1.87 6.27 0.06 8.2

Reductions in stock

Deforestation 0.00 - - - -

Natural regression 0.00 - - - -

Total reduction in stocks

0.00 0.05 0.15 0.00 0.2

Closing stock of forest and other wooded land

0.00 702.39 2354.39 21.23 3,078

Source: Jawed Khan, ONS, pers com, April 2012.


Climate change is likely to impact upon the distribution and abundance of certain

species (e.g. Beech), although it may not impact on the extent and condition of the

habitat as such. There may be conflicts and tradeoffs between different land uses

(e.g. if more land is required for provision of food, or within a woodland conflict

between timber extraction and recreation).

Unsustainable harvesting activity could exert pressure on woodlands leading to

their loss. Conversely, insufficient management, particularly of smaller woodlands,

can reduce species diversity in broadleaved woodlands, reducing the condition of

the asset.

o Services

This habitat provides multiple ecosystem services, so there are variations in levels

of provision by service. Most services are increasing, the exceptions are



detoxification, nutrient cycling and timber provision. Timber production has

decreased whilst the extent of woodland and quantity of standing timber has

increased, however this is believed to be due to increased demand for multi-

functional woodlands in the UK (and availability of timber imports). Woodlands are

being used for many more purposes than in the past. Recreation in woodlands has

increased habitat conservation and appreciation of the role woodlands play in

ecosystem services (e.g. nutrient cycling, carbon storage, air and water

purification, control of water runoff and cultural services).

o Management

Broadleaved woodland is not an important provider of timber in Great Britain, but

it is increasingly being managed for multiple ecosystem services on a more

sustainable long term basis. Management of woodlands is a long term process -

there have been increases in woodland planting and increases in the use of more

traditional woodland management methods (e.g. coppicing for sustainable

forestry). The trend appears to be towards sustainable woodland management,

with greater recognition of the benefits provided by Broadleaved woodland in

terms of cultural and regulating services.


Future services do not appear threatened currently as policy has favoured

woodland creation even if there may be some issues with condition. There is no

indication that the extent of the asset will decrease. It is in fact expected to

increase, but climate change and pest and disease threats could alter these trends.

For the multiple services provided, most are not at risk from decline in

broadleaved woodland condition, but there is decline that is of concern for

conservation/biological interests. Future biodiversity conservation and other

services are uncertain due to the potential effects of climate change. Increases in

woodland extent may be increasing risks to other habitats, for example, it can lead

to increases in the role of deer as agricultural pests.

o Structure

Broadleaved woodland in the UK is both privately and publicly owned, and also

owned by NGOs (e.g. National Trust, Woodland Trust). The size of individual

woodlands can vary from the broad scale across a landscape, to small patches of

woodland and the services provided will vary with size. The supply of timber

depends on the age structure of woodland stock and the proportion that is at

felling age.

o Thresholds

Potential thresholds within woodland management may be due to climate change –

this is most likely to affect individual species rather than whole woodlands (unless

the magnitude of effects is much greater than predicted). There will also be

thresholds associated with ability to deal with pollutants and atmospheric

deposition and the critical load values, but these are only partially known (e.g.

critical load for nitrogen 17 kg-N ha-1y-1). At the extreme a threshold may be the



complete removal of the woodland canopy; this benefits timber production, but

will fundamentally change the other services provided, ending the flow of services

that are woodland-specific.

At a local level, if woodland cover drops below a certain level then some services

may no longer be provided (e.g. woodland biodiversity may no longer be

maintained in the small/fragmented remnant habitat, or reduced landscape

diversity may reduce recreational services).

o Synergies

Woodlands support multiple synergistic ecosystem services. Increased growth and

productive capacity of woodland can increase carbon storage. Neglected woodlands

could be thinned to create better recreation access and also wildlife habitats.

Restoration of riparian woodland could enhance the landscape and improve

recreation opportunities, while also improving regulating services (e.g. erosion

control).

o Trade-offs

A balance is required between management for carbon storage and management

for other woodland benefits. Increased harvesting of timber decreases the carbon

sink, unless the products extracted have a long-life. Increased productivity of

woodlands may reduce the recreation benefits flowing from woodland through

increased infrastructure to support commercial operations. Those plants/crops that

are best for carbon storage may not be those that have the highest recreation or

cultural value.

A study by eftec (2010a) of the ecosystem services from the Public Forest Estate

(PFE) in England shows potential trade-offs between ecosystem services from the

UK forests. The analysis here illustrates some broad conclusions, but is subject to

several caveats including the partial or lack of measurement and/or valuation of

some important ecosystem services (e.g. landscape impacts, biodiversity values).

Table 4.4 shows the predicted ecosystem services from the public forest estate for

seven scenarios. It illustrates the main factors included in the analysis. Table 4.5

summarises the main changes in the ecosystem services as assessed for four

scenarios relative to the current management plan for the PFE. These data show

tradeoffs and synergies between services:

o The biggest increases in assessed services values come with greater

management to provide recreational services;

o Implementing nature conservation plans increases biodiversity values (but

note these are poorly measured), but reduces climate regulation services

due to replacement of some forest habitats with heathland habitat, which

stores less carbon, and

o Increased timber production („timber focus‟) is only possible at the expense

of losses of recreational and aesthetic values, resulting in an overall

reduction in services.




There are uncertainties over the evidence of links between woodland extent and

condition and provision of clean water and flood prevention. It is hard to determine

whether detoxification (soil and water purification) is increasing or decreasing,

data indicates the amounts of nutrient present rather than measuring these

processes. The CS does not provide data on timber production, but this may be

available from other sources (e.g. FC, ONS forest inventory).

Evidence of impacts from climate change are also uncertain, in particular feedback

effects are important given that woodlands are a valuable carbon sink. Future land

use conflicts, for example if food security may conflict with policies for woodland

planting, are also hard to predict.

o Reversibility

This is very difficult to assess as a general concept – as a general habitat type,

woodlands can obviously be recreated. However, this does not necessarily reverse

the loss of individual woodland ecosystem services – this depends what has

happened to the habitat. For example, water quality regulating services from

woodland will decline sharply if all the trees are removed, and this won‟t be

reversible in the short term. If some of the trees are removed, water quality may

decline, but it may be reversible, with new planting, over a shorter time scale. In

general, time is a major factor in woodlands as obviously replacement of an entire

woodland will take decades.


Table 4.4: Headline results of the scenarios: value flows (£million) for costs and benefits of the PFE in year 2070

SCENARIOS

STATUS QUO

CURRENT PLAN

PAST

RECREATION FOCUS

HABITATS ACTION PLANS

PAWS RESTORATION

TIMBER FOCUS

BENEFITS

Timber/fuelwood 20 16 22 16 13 15 22

GHG regulation 298 257 315 247 216 243 298

Recreation 160 160 58 262 161 162 83

Aesthetic 90 90 32 131 90 91 53

Biodiversity 34 38 32 39 40 40 34

TOTAL BENEFITS 602 562 459 695 522 550 490

COSTS

Land management 27 26 26 27 24 25 26

Access 8 8 1 14 8 8 1

Conservation and heritage 6 7 3 7 9 7 0

Community engagement 4 4 1 6 4 4 1

TOTAL COSTS 45 45 31 54 44 44 29

BENEFITS MINUS COSTS 557 517 428 642 477 506 461

DIFFERENCE IN BENEFITS -40 -143 93 -80 -52 -112

DIFFERENCE IN COSTS 1 14 -8 1 1 16

DIFFERENCE IN NET VALUE -40 -129 85 -79 -51 -96

Net value per ha (£/ha) 2,122 1,971 1,631 2,446 1,820 1,928 1,756

Change in net value (£/ha) -151 -491 324 -302 -194 -366



Table 4.5. Summary of changes to ecosystem services for four scenarios vs current

planned management (£million)

CURRENT PLAN

RECREATION FOCUS

HABITATS ACTION PLANS

PAWS RESTORATION

TIMBER FOCUS

SCENARIOS

BENEFITS Total Changes compared to Current Plan

Timber/fuelwood 16 0 -3 -1 6

GHG regulation 257 -10 -41 -14 41

Recreation 160 102 1 2 -77

Aesthetic 90 41 0 1 -37

Biodiversity 38.1 0.8 2.1 2.1 -4.1

TOTAL BENEFITS 562 133 -40 -12 -72


There are impacts from climate and atmospheric pollution that have a cumulative effect

on the resource. Woodlands are slow-growing and mature over long time spans, so there is

more opportunity for different pressures to impact on them.

The restoration of woodland cover in The National Forest (TNF) in the East Midlands on

England illustrates how decline in woodland assets can be reversed. An initial assessment

of the values of the ecosystem services from TNF was undertaken by eftec (2010b), and its

conclusions are shown in Table 4.6.

These data illustrate how it is possible to restore woodland ecosystem services with

substantial values in landscapes with low woodland cover. However, TNF also has relict

areas of ancient woodland, which provide a basis from which to expand areas of high

biodiversity value woodland. This illustrates the likely existence of a threshold minimum

integrity of ancient woodland, which, if not maintained, could preclude future restoration

of woodland biodiversity, which had not been passed in this case.

Note that this „integrity‟ is a function of both the extent and condition of the ancient

woodland, and that condition can change over time, even if the extent is stable.

Therefore, the remaining fragmented ancient woodland which has allowed re-

establishment of habitats in TNF, could have deteriorated in condition over time and could

have passed a threshold where it no longer could support this re-establishment. In other

words, thresholds can change over time.



Table 4.6: Costs and Benefits from all land brought into forest management, £ million.

1991 to 2010, Present Values



1991 to 2100, Total Values

TIMBER 1 9 10 33

RECREATION 186 375 561 1,393

CARBON 9 177 187 872

LANDSCAPE 4 47 51 187

BIODIVERSITY 4 47 50 236

REGENERATION 24 16 39 46

TOTAL 228 680 909 2,767

TOTAL COSTS 89 99 188 336

RATIO OF BENEFITS TO COSTS 2.6 to 1 6.8 to 1 4.8 to 1 8.2 to 1

BENEFITS MINUS COSTS 140 581 721 2,431

The values in Table 4.6 are subject to some uncertainties (as described in eftec 2010b).

The estimated changes in values compared are assumed to capture at least some

opportunity costs related to the preceding land uses in the price of land and the costs of

woodland planting grants, but these tradeoffs are not assessed in detail.

The very high carbon value (higher than those in Table 4.4) is a temporary phenomenon

associated with the growth phase of the forest. It should be compared to Table 4.4,

because that reflects the steady state management of the PFE. The values in Table 4.6 are

more spatially explicit than the values in Table 4.4. For example, for the local-regional

level of analysis of TNF, it is possible to estimate regeneration values.


The overall extent of the natural asset is increasing and supply of British timber products

appears to exceed demand, which is largely met by imports. This means that broadleaved

woodlands are able to provide many other services. However, there are concerns over

potential declines in the asset‟s condition and therefore its ability to provide some

services.

o Values

Woodlands provide value through recreational uses, potential carbon offset schemes, as

well as the wood that can be harvested which provides employment. From a non-use

perspective woodlands support multiple synergistic services.


The main threats to the sustainability of this asset are potential declines in its condition

due to climate change and/or eutrophication, and loss of species richness. A balance of

policy drivers is required to maintain and enhance the extent of the multiple ecosystem

services available from broadleaved woodland, while tackling threats to individual services

(e.g. nature conservation).



Overall, the asset appears to be being used sustainably.

o Success of case study

This case study illustrates that it is difficult to analyse multiple services across one habitat

type. There are interactions between them which are not captured using this method, for

instance often the sum of all services could be greater than the value of the individual

parts (e.g. a woodland is more than a place for recreation, a source of wood, a way of

cycling nutrients - there are interactions between all of these). There is extensive work

analysing multi-functional woodlands, of which only a snapshot is used here, and therefore

the analysis could be expanded.

Countryside Survey (CS) can only report on woodland to a limited extent and this case

study illustrates how several data sources can be usefully combined. The advantages of CS

are that it reports on different types of woodland to those captured by FC and the nature

conservation agencies; smaller patches representing broad habitats and average woodland

rather than large woodlands or priority habitats. This may mean that there are conflicting

results. For example, results from woodland SSSIs suggest that there have been increases

in ancient woodland indicators, whereas in CS woods species richness declined. CS also

provides soils and water data alongside plant diversity and habitat extent which enables

greater understanding of regulating services.

The case study illustrates the potential to apply asset check concepts across different

spatial scales. Data from The National Forest (TNF) are used to illustrate local-regional

reversibility of woodland assets. TNF can be described as restoring the integrity and

sustainability of its woodland capital assets: the overall value of its landscape is judged to

be increasing (both by local perceptions, and through analysis of ecosystem services) and

it is increasing supply of woodland ecosystem services to fulfil unmet demand (e.g. for

recreation, regeneration).

The complexity and multiple source of data mean that putting together a comprehensive

asset check analysis for a diverse natural capital asset like woodland is a complex task,

from which it may be difficult to draw reliable conclusions.



5 Natural Capital Committee Input

Project progress was presented to the Natural Capital Committee (NCC) at Defra on the

18th July 2012. A summary of the initial response by the Committee to the presentation is

detailed below. It draws on more extensive comments from all NCC members.

1. Working definitions of natural capital need to be revisited to ensure they are

consistent with the analysis. Role of ownership may not be relevant to some

analysis in the asset check, but is a part of constructing environmental accounts.

2. Framework presented looks promising and potentially useful as a high level

heuristic tool, but it is currently complex in its presentation. Thought needs to be

given to a simpler output that highlights crucial strategic issues in the next phase.

For example, the issue of cumulative impacts, risk and uncertainty, past and future

temporal trends are all addressed in the case study given, but hidden in the detail,

and thus raised as issues by NCC members.

3. It is currently envisaged that conclusions would be based on the balance between

supply and demand, but it is suggested that performance might be a better

expression of the overall conclusion. Performance of a capital asset can be defined

as its fitness to carry out the role which is required of it within the network of

other assets. This is a term used widely in man-made asset management (e.g.

water industry). If it is adapted for NCAC, the performance would be determined

by the quantity and condition (quality) of a given asset and its interactions with

other assets in the ecosystem. The asset check should summarise current and

future performance of natural capital, risks (risk of performance deteriorating),

thresholds (will performance deteriorate in a non-linear way or cease altogether?)

and uncertainty.

4. There is also a lack of clarity on the purpose of the tool, or indeed whether it

could be considered a tool to provide specific answers (e.g. how would it be

applied to individual investment decisions?). Further development of case studies

should illustrate more clearly how this high level tool can be used to check whether

natural capital is being used unsustainably, and how the conclusions could be used

as an input to CBA, wealth accounting or some other decision making exercise. One

suggestion is that modified output which looks like a balance sheet for all assets

affected by an investment decision (with a linked flow/production account) could

be explored to address this. In some cases it may be that the questions being

pursued cannot be answered with precision due to knowledge gaps.

5. The consideration of risk and uncertainty should be expanded: a) reporting ranges

of values where the probability distribution is known; b) using scenarios and

sensitivity analysis, and instead of computing expected values, reporting a regret

matrix and looking at decision rules such as mini-max regret (minimising the

maximum loss) and maximin (maximising the minimum gain).



6. Unsustainable use of an asset requires the asset check to take account of

remaining stock size: this is implied but not explicit in the current version.

7. An initial indication about how the asset check links to national accounts should

be given in the pilot project, although it is anticipated that this will be followed up

in the NEA2 project.

8. There is a need to link the asset check team with the ONS ecosystems team, to

ensure common approaches.

9. How will the issue of spatial scale be addressed? Certain assets will vary in value

depending upon location; at what spatial scale will an asset check be carried out?

Will it be possible to aggregate up to higher spatial scales? Will it be sufficiently

spatially explicit to help decision makers at a site level or landscape level? These

issues could be explored in NEA2 case studies, with forestry as a particularly

relevant example.

10. To what extent will valuation of assets be part of the check? This is something for

further discussion between the NCC and the asset check team.

11. What will be the frequency of an asset check? This could be variable. One

suggestions is that a risk-based approach is taken where the rate of change,

importance and cost of checking together determine the frequency of the check.

12. Irreplaceability as well as irreversibility should be included: currently

irreversibility and substitutability are included, but irreplaceability (= irreversible

and unsubstitutable) is probably the more useful concept.

13. How does the asset check tool compare and contrast with the current set of

ecosystem service evaluation tools available? It would be useful to set this context

as part of the work for NEA2.

14. A next step would be to consider how this links to global natural capital, but this is

out of the current scope.



6 Lessons learnt

Carrying out the case studies, using the draft natural capital asset tool (v1.2) has provided

a number of lessons for the further development of a natural capital asset check. These

are reported in this Section under four broad headings: the workings in the tool, the

coverage of habitats and ecosystem services, the coverage of natural capital assets and

the result the tool generates.

The Workings of the Tool v1.2:

Through testing and the case studies, a number of specific questions about the design of

the tool have been identified, which can be addressed through small changes to the design

of the tool (e.g. clarifying the purpose of cells):

o Whether there can be drivers, other than policy, biophysical or socio-economic,

(i.e. is there a need for an „other drivers‟ column)?

o The difference between irreversible and irreplaceable – irreplaceability is the

irreversible loss of an asset which has no substitutes.

o The concepts of supply and demand for natural capital assets were differently, and

not always easily, interpreted by those using the tool.

o The trends cells can be completed with arrows, but this is unclear for both the

„limits‟ and „thresholds‟ rows. There is ambiguity as the arrow could be used to

indicate the trend in the level of the limit/threshold, of the trend in the current

status of the natural capital asset relative to the limit/threshold is increasing or

decreasing.

o The difference between the „integrity test‟ and the „sustainability test‟ needs to

be made clear to users of the tool. The integrity test looks at the extent and

condition of the capital asset, whereas the sustainability test looks at whether it

can continue to operate as a capital asset into the future (i.e. to sustain the

services it provides). A capital asset that fails the sustainability test is expect to

fail the integrity test, but one that fails the integrity test might not fail the

sustainability test: The extent and/or condition of, and the services provided by,

an asset may be declining, but not sufficiently to damage its role as a capital asset.

In other words, it may still be able to supply sufficient ecosystem services to meet

demand.

o What is the time scale for trends? This depends on the nature of the asset and the

availability of information, but it needs to be captured in the tool.

Undertaking the case studies drew heavily on some main data sources: the UKNEA, the

Countryside Survey, and fisheries information from experts who had a thorough

understanding of a particular set of evidence (on saltmarsh). These cases show that the

tool v1.2 can be filled out sufficiently to give a check of a natural capital asset based on

these data sources. Each of these cases roughly took between 1 and 2 days of work to

extract evidence in tables and summarise in the write-ups in this chapter.



To be truly comprehensive a much wider use of the literature could be made (but this is

beyond the scope of this study). A more thorough approach would be primary desk

research of the literature (i.e. a systematic review of evidence), but is not generally

considered practical. More practically, the expertise and understanding to answer

questions in the asset check exists within data sets such as the Countryside Survey or

specific parts of the published literature, and (often a small number of) individual experts

who know this knowledge base. The most efficient way to undertake an asset check is to

get these knowledgeable people answering the questions in the tool.

This is not necessarily easy, as finding and engaging these people may not be

straightforward. A major national research effort like the UKNEA had the academic and

political backing to attract inputs from a large number of key experts. The Stern Review

(regarded as a natural capital asset check of the climate – see Section 2.1) had significant

resources available to undertake research and analysis.

The tool tables (see Figure 2.4) and the write-ups in Chapters 3 and 4 are intended to be

complementary: the tables act as a template for organising evidence gathering, but a

write-up is needed to capture and interpret all the information involved (the table does

not have space to present all this clearly) and piece together the story it provides about

the natural capital asset in question. However, the significant repetition of information

between the tool and write-up was a frustrating part of the process of completing them,

and therefore clear guidance is needed about the role of the table and the need for a

clearly written final output.

An issue raised in the woodland case study is that increases in woodland extent may lead

to increasing risks to other habitats. For example, it can lead to increases in deer as pests

(which are shot as part of „crop protection activities‟ in agricultural habitats (UKNEA p

213), but there is no evidence they are impacting on harvests (p 81). This kind of

interaction was not generally captured in tradeoffs, which looked at tradeoffs of services

within the extent of an asset, or due to land use changes from one kind of asset to another

(e.g. farmland to woodland). It may therefore be necessary for tradeoffs to explicitly

consider perverse or unintended affects of a change in the extent and/or condition of a

natural capital asset.

Coverage and Scale of Habitats and Ecosystem Services

It is very complex and time-consuming to undertake a check in relation to several

ecosystem services from a single natural capital asset (e.g. several services from one

habitat). The results of this process in the present asset check tool (v1.2) are also possibly

confusing for the reader. To address this:

o Clearer definition may be needed of the asset that is being checked at the outset

of the process, and

o The way information is captured for multiple ecosystem services may need to be

revised.

However, a check of several ecosystem services from a single natural capital asset is

potentially a very useful aspect of a holistic approach like a natural capital asset check. It

potentially provides a holistic view of levels of ecosystem services from a habitat. This



could lead to better appreciate of the tradeoffs between ecosystem services and better

decision-making to prioritise their management (rather than the tradition prioritisation of

provisioning/market-based service). The analysis of woodland resources illustrates

potential tradeoffs. However, there is a danger that such analysis misses values of

supporting services, leading to flawed conclusions based on partial information.

A possible approach would be to complete part 1 of version 1.2 of the tool for the capital

asset, but then complete part 2 for each service or group of services being checked (see

Figure 2.4). This would make explicit consideration of supporting services in the analysis.

The woodland case study showed how different data (Countryside Survey, ONS national

accounting data, ecosystem services models) can be combined to cover a range of services

in a natural capital asset check. This case study also examined services at different spatial

scales (local/regional/national), illustrating that asset check questions can be answered at

scales smaller than the national level.

The issues covered in the case studies and UK test suggest natural capital asset checks can

be undertaken at a variety of spatial scales, including:

o Decision-making, reflecting geo-political boundaries (e.g. country, or

administrative boundary such as The National Forest or a national park);

o Economic, which can reflect natural capital asset ownership (e.g. water company

catchment boundaries, private landholdings);

o Ecological, reflecting interactions within ecosystems and the scales at which

ecosystem integrity should be judged (e.g. a shellfish stock may be assessed within

a regional inshore area, whereas pelagic fish stocks are assessed across regional

seas), and

o Ecosystem service, which could encompass the area providing, or the populations

benefiting from, the services.

The coverage of assets by the check

Natural capital assets can be classified in many different ways (the term „natural capital‟

is used in many ways in environmental debates. One way of thinking about natural capital

assets, based on the structures of the UKNEA, is across the broad habitat/service matrix

used to summarise ecosystem services (e.g. on page 11 of the synthesis of key findings).

This matrix is reproduced in Figure 6.1 below, with cells highlighted to show the coverage

of some of the test application and case studies in this project. The test and case studies

cover checks of different natural capital assets in terms of different ecosystem services

and/or habitat combinations.

As noted above, a check that deals with a column in the matrix (i.e. multiple ecosystem

services from a habitat) is more complex. However, it potentially provides very powerful

information through a holistic view of ecosystem services tradeoffs.

An assessment along a row of the table for climate regulation services (Section 3.2.5) is

also possible. This assesses the relative importance, and gains and losses from, the

delivery of an ecosystem service from different parts of the UK‟s natural capital assets.



This is a particularly relevant approach for more valuable ecosystem services (such as

climate regulation), so could be prioritised for other high-value services or those

presenting for which risks are changing (e.g. climate hazard regulation).

Checks that fill one or two individual cells (such as the fisheries and salt marsh case in

Section 4.1) appear easier to undertake. In order to cover the cells in this matrix, may be

appropriate to aim to build up a catalogue of thorough checks dealing with only one or

two cells. These may be useful analyses in their own right. Also their conclusions could be

summed in different combinations (a row, column or a group of cells) to analyse individual

services, individuals habitats, or blocks of services/habitats (e.g. provisioning services

from coastal and marine habitats).

Figure 6.1. Coverage of UKNEA Habitats and Services by Selected Tests and Cases in

This Project.

Habitat

Service

MM

H

Sem

i-natu

ral

Gra

ssla

nd

Enclo

sed

Farm

land

Woodla

nds

Fre

shw

ate

rs

Urb

an

Coast

al

Marg

ins

Mari

ne

Provisioning

Crops

* *

Livestock/

Aquaculture

Fish ~

Trees, Veg etc

Water Supply

Wild Species Diversity

Cultural (env.

Settings)

Local places

Land/sea scapes

Regulating

Climate + +* +

Hazard

* *

Disease

Pollination

Noise

Detox. &

purification:

Water

Soil

Air

Red *: Countryside Survey

Yellow +: Carbon storage

Orange *+: Countryside Survey and carbon storage

Purple ~: Fish habitat

Different purposes for which the asset check may be used may require different definition

of an asset. Defining on the basis of environmental assets (e.g. soils) may provide results

that cut across decision-making boundaries and therefore that are challenging to react to.



Defining on the basis of management boundaries (e.g. enclosed farmland, woodland), can

support useful analysis across all the ecosystem services from within these boundaries.

However, it encourages a „silo‟ mentality and avoids holistic consideration of natural

capital assets (e.g. the soil). The tradeoffs between these approaches, and the ability to

define „performance‟ with the different boundaries, requires further investigation.

Results generated and focus of the check

The testing of the tool has generated a range of natural capital asset check results.

Notable contrasts in the results across the cases examined include:

o The tool helps to summarise and interpret important information on natural capital

assets from within the UKNEA, but this information source is not easy to extract

answers from to the tool‟s forward-looking questions;

o The salt marsh/fisheries case gets close to a very interesting conclusion about a

natural capital asset (that it‟s extent a limiting factor on ecosystem service

provision), but only does so for one fish species, albeit an important one. More

information that allowed this question to be answered across a wider range of

species is needed, and

o The Countryside Survey is a strong basis for completing some parts of an asset

check, but key questions are still answered through expert judgement. As the

woodland case study shows, conclusions are strengthened when other data sources

are used, and are possible at different spatial and temporal scales.

The first results from using the natural capital asset check tool (v1.2) give some different

types of conclusions about natural capital assets. For example, the Countryside Survey

case study drew conclusions on the likely future extent and condition of woodland in

England, whereas the fisheries/salt marsh case study drew conclusions on the ability of an

ecological cycle to support future levels of an ecosystem service (provisioning of fish).

These differences reflect the wide definition behind v1.2 of the tool of what natural

capital asset was being „checked‟. There may be a tradeoff between allowing a range of

definitions, and therefore an asset check being applicable to a wider range of issues, and

a tighter definition, which may mean more specific questions are answered.

For example, checking environmental assets can be interpreted as a general check on the

state of the environment. Check natural capital assets could be interpreted as looking at

the performance of natural capital in relation to the role that is required of it. However,

this distinction is not always clear-cut because sometimes data on the state of natural

assets is the best proxy for their performance. Also, many natural capital assets hold



existence or bequest values9, and so a check on their state indicates at least part of their

required performance.

Furthermore, natural assets can be defined: an individual tree, a location, a habitat, a

process, landscape. These are natural capital assets in the sense that they produce

something that contributes to human welfare. They do this in many ways – fundamentally

they all contribute to human welfare through their very existence (existence value, as

above), but different assets and combinations of assets also provide a variety of the

ecosystem services.

The key points from this for a natural capital asset check are that the check is not of

natural assets per se (although they will often be the proxy measure used). It is of how

these assets are combined as natural capital, in other words how they jointly produce

services that benefit people. Therefore a natural capital asset check should aim to

examine the ability of the natural environment to continue to provide certain services in

the future.

This leads to the distinction between:

o A „Natural asset check‟: this is a check that an asset‟s existence and

possibly of how it is functioning, and

o A „Natural capital asset check‟: this is a check on whether an asset or assets

will be able to continue to provide certain services into the future.

For example, a natural asset check for soil could assess the extent of soils suitable for

arable production and their nutrient content (condition). A natural capital asset check for

soil‟s contribution to producing food would assess whether the extent and condition of

soils would be sufficient to support current, or future required, volumes of food

production.

It is clear that the wording of questions in the natural capital asset check tool and

presentation of the Tables in v1.2 and the written analysis can be improved. A revised

version of the tool will be presented in project‟s draft final report in September 2012.

9 Bequest value: Non-use benefit associated with the knowledge that natural resources will be

passed on to future generations. Existence value: Non-use value derived from knowing that a

resource continues to exist, regardless of use made of it by oneself or others now or in the future

(eftec, 2010c).



7 Next Steps

This chapter outlines the next stages of work for the project. It discusses how the natural

capital asset check can be revised, and outlines the timetable for the remaining work.

7.1 Revised terminology – asset performance

Section 6 summarised the finding from the case study as to how the definition of the

„asset‟ being checked leads to different outcomes from using the tool v1.2. The intention

in designing the tool is to draw conclusions on the integrity and sustainability of the

management of natural capital assets. Part of this conclusion was based on comparisons of

the „supply‟ and „demand‟ for the services supported by the natural capital asset.

This issue of definitions and what is being checked could be resolved if the term „(asset)

performance‟ is introduced as it gives an opportunity to combine different purposes for

which NCAC could be undertaken and the different approaches of all the disciplines that

should be used. The term „performance‟ also has the advantage of being a common term

in man-made asset management. For example in the water industry, performance is

measured for assets (e.g. a pump) within the water supply network. The performance is

both relative to the role required of the asset, and its ability to undertake that role. Thus

an asset which is under-sized (e.g. a pump which has a capacity that it too low to move

sufficient water through the network) scores poorly on performance, even if it is in good

condition (i.e. it is pumping at its full capacity).

The performance of a natural capital asset is assessed through its quantity and condition

(quality) and how it contributes to the ecosystems to function to produce the services that

are needed and wanted. In other words, the measurement of an asset‟s performance

shows whether the supply of services will meet the demand for them. It also shows

whether the quantity and quality are near „thresholds‟ (e.g. where supply may have a non-

linear response to a pressure) and whether a given asset has a substitute within the

ecosystem so that the ecosystem function could still be maintain even when the asset is

replaced with something else („substitutability‟).

The question that follows is that what is a sufficient level of ecosystem function that

should be maintained? It is one that does not cross thresholds and meets society‟s

demands. In other words, a level of ecosystem function that is sustainable. Understanding

what level performance is at and how it is likely to change in the future also requires an

analysis of factors such as connectivity, cumulative impacts on the asset over time and

thresholds such as fragmentation of the resource (e.g. through which point populations of

species are no longer viable).

Such performance checks can be performed at different geographical scales. For example,

it can be defined for a unit of a natural capital asset (e.g. can a block of ancient woodland

designated as a SSSI continue to support the range of species it is protected for?), or for

the aggregate quantity of a natural capital asset (e.g. is the amount of protected ancient



woodland in the UK able to maintain its biodiversity and cultural values into the future?).

At the national scale, it could help interpret environmental accounts. These can indicate

if the stock (quantity) of an asset is increasing or decreasing or maintained at a sufficient

level.

Thus, thinking about the performance of an asset has some potential advantages as a way

of drawing conclusions. Firstly, it may be a more accessible language. Secondly, the

performance concept brings in the idea of function within an interconnected set of assets.

This reflects the natural world, in which ecosystems, their functions and services, even

though separately defined for ecosystem services analysis, are interrelated. Thirdly, it

explicitly requires thinking about what society wants from natural capital assets. The

latter point can help define exactly what a natural capital asset check is checking – to

anticipate the future performance of a natural capital asset in providing services that are

beneficial to society.

In the sense that the Stern Report was an asset check of the climate (as described in

Section 2.1), it can help illustrate the concept of a natural capital asset‟s performance:

o It defines the desired future performance of the asset (maintaining relative

climate stability), this „desired‟ performance is justified through cost

benefit analysis through showing the cost of not delivering the desired

performance;

o It identifies thresholds above which risks of not achieving this performance

are high (i.e. the need to limit global greenhouse gas concentrations to

certain levels in order to limit temperature increases to 2 degrees C - a

target defined through climate science), and

o Describes uncertainties in the assessment made.

In the context of the climate, the extent of the asset is not expected to change, but its

condition (i.e. concentration of greenhouse gases) are changing and are potentially

affecting its integrity in terms of its ability to perform a role society relies on.

Target performance needs also to account for exogenous change (e.g. can be woodland

maintain its conservation value in the face of climate change?), and mostly challengingly,

society‟s demand, both now and in the future, for the services it provides. A further

dynamic is that the performance of the asset in optimal or pristine conditions might be

defined, but this still may not be sufficient to meet society‟s demand (unsurprisingly given

that wants are defined in economics as infinite). This then points towards a need for

consideration of demand management (e.g. carbon emissions reductions in order to reduce

demand for climate regulation services) and tradeoffs between resources.

Redefining the natural capital asset check tool to incorporate the concept of performance

will lead to an adjustment of the definition of an asset check. A suggested new working

definition of an „asset check‟ for use in the next stages of this project is:



An assessment of the current and future performance of natural capital assets, with

performance measured in terms of their ability to support a specific contribution to

human well-being.

Thus, the purpose of a natural capital asset check is to assess changes to the quantity

and/or condition (quality/integrity) of an asset to understand future changes to its

performance. Performance of an asset is defined in terms of the flows of services it can

produce, and the implications of this for human wellbeing.

Our approach at present assumes that an asset needs to have some physical measurement,

and defines natural capital assets as:

…natural assets that provide, through their existence and/or some combination of

their functions, a positive economic or social value.



References

Arnason R, Kelleher K & Willman R (2009) The Sunken Billions. The World Bank.

Washington.

Arrow, K. J., Dasgupta, P., Goulder, L.H., Mumford, K.J. and Oleson, K. (forthcoming)

“Sustainability and the Measurement of Wealth”, Environmental and Development

Economics.

Arrow, K.J., P. Dasgupta, et al. (2003) “Evaluating Projects and Assessing Sustainable

Development in Imperfect Economies”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 26(4):

647-685.

Atkinson and Hamilton (2007) “Progress Along the Path: Evolving Issues in the

Measurement of Genuine Saving”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 37: 43-61.

Atkinson G, Gundimeda, H,(2006) Accounting for India's forest wealth. Ecological

Economics, 59, 462-476.

Attrill M.J., Bilton D.T., Rowden A.A., Rundle S.D. & Thomas R.M. (1999) The impact of

encroachment and bankside development on the habitat complexity and supralittoral

invertebrate communities of the Thames Estuary foreshore. Aquatic Conservation – Marine

and Freshwater Ecosystems 9, 237–247.

Bateman, I.J., Mace, G.M., Fezzi, C., Atkinson, G. and Turner, R.K. (2011) “Economic

Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments”, Environmental and Resource Economics,

48(2): 177-218..

Boyd and Banzaff (2007)

Certain, G and Skarpaas, O (2010) Nature Index: General framework, statistical method and data collection for Norway – NINA Report 542. 47 pp. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seeaLES/egm/NINA542_bk.pdf

Certain G, Skarpaas O, Bjerke J-W, Framstad E, Lindholm M, et al. (2011) The Nature

Index: A General Framework for Synthesizing Knowledge on the State of Biodiversity. PLoS

ONE 6(4): e18930. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0018930

Colclough S, Fonseca L, Watts W & Dixon M (2010) High tidal flats, salt marshes and

managed realignments as habitats for fish. Paper to 12th International Waddensea

Symposium. Environment Agency.

Coleby, A. M., D. van der Horst, et al. (2012). "Environmental Impact Assessment,

ecosystems services and the case of energy crops in England." Journal of Environmental

Planning and Management 55(3): 369-385.Costanza (2008)

DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) (2009) Carbon valuation in UK policy

appraisal: a revised approach. Departmant of Energy and Climate Change, London.

Defra (2010a) An introductory guide to valuing ecosystem services.

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seeaLES/egm/NINA542_bk.pdf



Defra (2010b) Improving the use of environmental valuation in policy appraisal: A Value

Transfer Strategy. A joint publication by Defra, Environment Agency, Natural England and

Forestry Commission.

EEA (2006) Land Accounts for Europe 1990-2000: Towards integrated land and ecosystem

accounting. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, EEA Report No 11/2006.

Authored by Haines-Young, R. and J.-L. Weber.

http://reports.eea.europa.eu/eea_report_2006_11/en

EC (2004): Guidance on the application of the ecosystem approach to the management of

human activities in the European marine Environment. In: Stakeholder Conference

(Rotterdam 10-12 Nov 2004). Eds Directorate General Environment: Directorate D, p 1-44.

eftec (2006) Valuing our Natural Environment. Report to Defra.

eftec (2010a) The Economic Contribution of the Public Forest Estate in England. Report to

Forestry Commission England.

eftec (2010b) Initial Assessment of the Costs and Benefits of the National Forest. For

Defra and The National Forest Company.

eftec (2010c) Valuing Environmental Impacts: Practical Guidelines for the Use of Value

Transfer in Policy and Project Appraisal. Report to Defra.

Elliott M. & Taylor C.J.L. (1989) The Structure and Functioning of an Estuarine/marine

Fish Community in the Forth estuary, Scotland. Proceedings of the 21st European Marine

Biology Symposium, Gdansk, September 1986. Gadansk: Polish Academy of Sciences,

Institute of Oceanology, pp. 227–240.

Fish, R., Burgess, J., Chilvers, J. Footitt, A., Haines-Young, R. Russel, D., Winter, D.M.

(2011a) Participatory and deliberative techniques to embed an Ecosystems Approach into

decision making: an introductory Guide. (Defra Project Code: NR0124)

Fish, R., Burgess, J., Chilvers, J. Footitt, A., Haines-Young, R. Russel, D., Winter, D.M.

(2011b) Participatory and deliberative techniques to support the monetary and non-

monetary valuation of ecosystem services: supplementary guidelines. (Defra Project Code:

NR0124)

Fonseca, L. (2009) Fish utilisation of managed realignment areas and saltmarshes in the

Blackwater Estuary, Essex, S. E. England. PhD thesis, Queen Mary University of London.

Hamilton, K. and Clemens, M. (1998) “Genuine Savings in Developing Countries”, The

World Bank Economic Review, 13 (2):333-56.

Haines-Young, R.H. (1999) Environmental accounts for land cover: Their contribution to state of the environment reporting. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 24; 441-456.

Haines-Young, R. Watkins, C. Bunce, R. G. H. Hallam, C. J. (1996) Environmental accounts

for land cover. Eastcote, Department of the Environment, 124pp. (Countryside 1990

Series, 8).

http://reports.eea.europa.eu/eea_report_2006_11/en



Hecht, J. (2005) National Environmental Accounting, Resources for the Future Press,

Washington DC.

McLusky D.S., Bryant D.M. & Elliott M. (1992) The impact of land-claim on macrobenthos,

fish and shorebirds on the Forth estuary, eastern Scotland. Aquatic Conservation: Marine

and Freshwater Ecosystems 2, 211–222.

Phelan N, Shaw A & Baylis A (2009) The extent of Salt marsh in England and Wales: 2006–

2009. Environment Agency. Peterborough.

POST (2011) Living with Environmental Limits. Report 370, January 2011. Parliamentary

Office of Science and Technology, London. 159p.

Price et al. (2010) Review of the Economics of. Sustainable Development. Final Report.

Government Economics Service Paper.

Natural Economy North West (undated) Building natural value for sustainable economic

development. The green infrastructure valuation toolkit user guide.

www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/resources/Green_Infrastructure_Valuation_Toolkit_Use

rGuide.pdf

Nottage A & Robertson P (2005) The Saltmarsh Creation Handbook: A Project Manager's

Guide to the Creation of Saltmarsh and Intertidal Mudflat. RSPB, Sandy.

Scheffer, M., S. Carpenter, J. A. Foley, C. Folke and B. Walkerk (2001): Catastrophic shifts

in ecosystems. Nature 413: 591-596.

Scheffer, M. and S. R. Carpenter (2003): Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems: linking

theory to observation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18(12): 648-656.

Slootweg, R., A. Kolhoff, R. Verheem, and R. Höft. 2006. 2006 Biodiversity in EIA and SEA.

Background Document to CBD Decision VIII/28: Voluntary Guidelines on Biodiversity-

Inclusive Impact Assessment. Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment.

Available at: http://www.cbd. int/doc/publications/imp-bio-eia-and-sea.pdf (last access:

08/12/2011).

Stevenson, J. (2001) The application of a production function model to estimate the

indirect use value of salt marshes in Scotland: linkages to the fishing industry. MSc Thesis,

Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, University of Edinburgh

Symes N. & Day J. (2003) A practical guide to the restoration and management of Lowland

Heathland. RSPB. Sandy.

Turner, R.K. (2011) “A Pluralistic Approach to Ecosystem Assessment and Evaluation”,

Defra, London.

UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011) The UK National Ecosystem Assessment. UNEP-

WCMC, Cambridge.

UN (United Nations, 2008) System of National Accounts 2008, United Nations Statistical

Office, New York.

http://www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/resources/Green_Infrastructure_Valuation_Toolkit_UserGuide.pdf

http://www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/resources/Green_Infrastructure_Valuation_Toolkit_UserGuide.pdf



UN (United Nations, 2003) Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting 2003,

United Nations Statistical Office, New York.

Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, 2008. Accounting for Nature: A model for

building the national environmental accounts of Australia. www.wentworthgroup.org

World Bank (2010) The Changing Wealth of Nations, The World Bank, Washington DC.



ANNEX 1: Background on Countryside Survey

The Countryside Survey (CS) is a globally-unique project to monitor ecological and land

use change in great detail over the whole nation (http://www.countrysidesurvey.org.uk).

The sample design is based on a series of stratified, randomly selected 1 km squares,

which numbered 256 in the 1978 survey, 500 in the 1990 survey, 569 in the 1998 survey

and 591 in the 2007 survey (Figure A1.1). Stratification of sample squares was based on

predefined strata referred to as ITE land classes. These have been derived from a

classification of all 1 km squares in Britain based on their topographic, climatic and

geological attributes obtained from published maps (Bunce et al., 1996, Firbank et al.,

2003).

Figure A.1: Sampling strategy of Countryside Survey

Within each 1km Countryside Survey sample square the land cover was mapped including

physiographic features, vegetation types, forestry features, boundaries, built-up land and

land use. This data has been used subsequently to assign each land parcel to a Broad

Habitat for the preceding surveys. In 2007 the surveyor determined the Broad Habitat in

the field, based on a vegetation key and also recorded additional information on habitats

and species.

Sample square

resurveyed

New sample

square in 2007

http://www.countrysidesurvey.org.uk/



The methods used for vegetation monitoring have been described in detail in Smart et al

(2003). A series of vegetation plots were located within each 1 km square using a

restricted randomisation procedure designed to reduce aggregation (Figure A1.2). Linear

plots (road verges, watercourse banks, hedges, arable margins and field boundaries) and

area plots (fields, unenclosed land and small semi-natural biotope patches) were sampled.

Linear plots were 1 x 10 m laid out along a feature whilst unenclosed land and small

biotopes were sampled using 2 m x 2 m plots. Larger randomly-placed plots were nested

14 m2 plots with an inner nest of 2 m x 2 m.

Figure A1.2: Distribution of vegetation plots within a 1km square. Colour coding of the

text is as follows; red=plot types first established in 1978; brown=first established in 1990;

green=1998; blue=2007.

Data recorded in CS vegetation plots is analysed to provide a series of condition indicators

(Table A1.1) which can be calculated by habitat. These have been developed over a long

period in consultation with stakeholders. Results from the CS2007 survey reporting on

changes in extent and condition of habitats can be found in Carey et al (2008).

As well as Land use and vegetation water (sampled from headwater streams) and soil are

also surveyed in Countryside Survey. Since 1990 a single headwater stream has been

surveyed in those sample squares that contained one or more such streams (in 2007 this

was 373 squares). Data on various aspects of within-channel and adjacent habitat

condition were also collected. Measures recorded and reported on from headwater

streams can be found in Dunbar et al (2010).

Four soil (0-15cm) samples were collected from each of five random locations (i.e. Field

(x) Plots) within each sample square. The exact sampling points varied between survey

years to avoid both disturbance to the plot and sampling soil disturbed in previous

Countryside Surveys. In 2007 soil (0-15cm) was collected from all sample squares, in 1978

and 1998 soil was collected only from the squares surveyed in 1978. Information on the

methodology and results from soil sampling can be found in Emmett et al (2008) and

Emmet et al (2010).



Currently, because of the way that Countryside Survey has evolved in close consultation

with the policy makers there are similarities between reporting results from CS and an

asset check. To some extent CS was established as an asset check in that it is required to

report on the extent and condition of most ecosystem/habitat types in Britain. A lot of

thought has gone into the indicators that are used. The integrated assessment which

followed on from CS2007 was an attempt to extend the use of the indicators to report on

ecosystem services (Smart et al. 2010). Table A1.2 shows relationships between CS metrics

and ecosystem services. Some of the additional detail described in the asset check

methodology is not currently in the baseline (CS) i.e. determining thresholds, limits,

reversibility, value and this would be an extension of current methods.

There are additional service indicators that we may be able to calculate with further

research. These include ANPP which can be estimated from abundance-weighted leaf

traits. For example Specific Leaf Area is a fundamental leaf trait which characterises the

gradient from slow-growing, less-productive vegetation with low less readily decomposed

litter through to rapidly-growing species with high lower C:N and higher decomposibility.

Previous work has shown that abundance-weighted SLA correlates well with ANPP. The

increasing availability of SLA data for plant species thus allows ANPP to be approximated

from knowledge of plant species abundance. Recently submitted work also improves on

this approach by including a species diversity index alongside abundance-weighted SLA. It

would also be possible to employ remote sensing datasets to derive additional estimates of

ANPP for comparison with the trait-based approach. The key difference is resolution. Data

and estimates from MODIS and LCM would be more coarsely scaled than estimates from

fixed vegetation plots. Analysis of the plot level estimates plus remote sensed results

would contribute to a more robust estimate of ANPP overall, while the variation between

plot-level values within a remotely sensed pixel usefully estimates the loss of accuracy

that follows from using more coarsely scaled but more widely available products that

average out the within-pixel variation.

Another additional indicator developed since the CS 2007 report was published is a

variation of species richness: the number of common standard monitoring species (positive

or negative indicators) present in a habitat, in the case of Bog habitat both negative and

positive indicators have been extracted from the Priority habitat report. This is a useful

measure because an increase in species richness may not be a desirable outcome in a low

nutrient low diversity habitat, it may indicate the incursion of undesirable species and not

be a positive indicator of condition. For woodland habitats the number of ancient

woodland indicator species could be used and for arable habitats the number of arable

weeds.

Spatial and temporal scales

CS was designed to report at regional (each country divided into 3 environmental zones,

lowland, marginal uplands and uplands), country, GB and UK levels (although there are

some differences in the Northern Ireland survey). Results can be reported at finer spatial

scales and data provided according to spatial masks such as national parks and joint

character areas but sample size may be small and confidence intervals large so results



may not be reliable. Work is ongoing to use the Land Cover Map to extrapolate CS field

survey results outside of the squares.

Predictive modelling

There is potential to use CS data to predict future trends in individual condition or service

indicators according to potential policy decisions or biophysical/socio-economic drivers.

There is an example of this work in the CS Integrated assessment report (Smart et al.

(2010). Bateman et al (2011) and Fezzi et al (2011) have developed predictive modelling

for agricultural landuse based on climate change scenarios.

Table A1.1: Measures of vegetation condition used in Countryside Survey

Condition measure Explanatory Notes

Species Richness Number of species per plot (counting only consistently identified species), includes

native or non-native species as stated in the text. This is a simple measure of plant

diversity. Increases in plant diversity may not always be beneficial for habitats.

pH score An indirect measure of soil pH. It reflects the abundance of plants known to be

associated with different levels of pH based on the Ellenberg value for soil reaction of

each species1, 2.

Fertility score An indirect measure of soil fertility. It reflects the abundance of plants known to be

associated with different levels of nutrient availability based on the Ellenberg value

for fertlity of each species1,2.

Soil moisture score An indirect measure of soil wetness. It reflects the abundance of plants known to be

associated with degrees of wetness, based on the Ellenberg value for soil moisture of

each species1,2.

Light score An indirect measure of light availability at ground level. It reflects the abundance of

plants that either tolerate shade or cast shade (e.g. woodland plants) through to

weeds found in open, often disturbed situations, where there is much less shade,

based on the Ellenberg value for light of each species1,2.

Competitor score Plant stratgey theory predicts that under conditions of high fertility and minimal

disturbance, tall perennials well adapted to out-compete other plants for light will

eventully dominate plant communities. The resulting vegetation may be species-poor.

The competitor score is the proportion of competitive species in each plot3,4,5 and is

relative to both the Stress tolerator and Ruderal scores described below.

Stress-tolerator score Stress-tolerant plants are typically well adapted to harsh environmental conditions

such as extremes of temperature and shortages of nutrients or light. They are often

slow growing and vulnerable to disturbance or increased fertility. The stress tolerator

score is the proportion of such species in each plot3,4,5 and is relative to both the

Competitor and Ruderal scores described above and below.

Ruderal score Ruderals comprise all those plants often thought of as weeds. They are adapted to

take advantage of the often short-lived opportunities for growth and reproduction

provided by disturbance. As a result they are often small, fast-growing and produce a

lot of seed. The ruderal score is the proportion of such species in each plot3,4,5 and is

relative to both the Competitor and Stress-tolerator scores described above.

Number of lowland

farmland bird food

plants

The number of plant species in each vegetation plot that are known to be important

in the diet of a range of declining farmland birds4,6.



Table A1.1: Measures of vegetation condition used in Countryside Survey (contd)

Condition measure Explanatory Notes

Number of butterfly

food plants

The number of plant species in each vegetation plot that are known to provide food

for butterfly larvae (caterpillars)4.

Grass: Forb ratio The ratio of the number of grass species present to the number of forb species.

Forbs: “all plant species that are a) not woody, such as trees and shrubs; b) not

grass-like; or c) not mosses, lichens or liverworts.

The term is most frequently applied in grasslands where the conservation value of the vegetation is considered to be higher if grass cover is accompanied by high cover of other meadow herbs such as buttercups, hay rattle, red clover and birdsfoot trefoil.

An increase in grass species results in an increase in the grass:forb ratio'

1 Hill, M.O., Mountford, J.O., Roy, D.B., Bunce, R.G.H.(1999) Ellenbergs’ indicator values for British plants.

ECOFACT Volume ll,Technical annex: ITE Monkswood, Huntingdon.

2 Ellenberg, H., Weber, H.E., Dull, R., Wirth, V., Werner, W., Paulissen, D. (1991) Zeigerwerte von Pflanten in

Mitteleuropa.Scripta Geobotanica 18, 1-248.

3 Thompson, K (1994) Predicting the fate of temperate species in response to human disturbance and global

change. Biodiversity, Temperate Ecosystems and Global Change (eds T.J.B. Boyle & C.E.B. Boyle), pp.61-76.

Springer-Verlag:Berlin.

4 Smart, S.M., Firbank, L.G., Bunce, R.G.H., Watkins, J.W. (2000) Quantifying changes in abundance of food

plants for butterfly larvae and farmland birds. Journal of Applied Ecology 37, 398-414.

5 Grime, J.P. (1979) Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. Wiley and Sons, Chichester.

6 Wilson, J.D., Arroyo, B.E., Clark, S.C. (1996) The Diet of Bird Species of Lowland Farmland: A Literature

Review. Dept. of the Environment and English Nature: London



Table A1.2: Ecosystem service indicators with the corresponding biophysical variables measured in Countryside Survey.

Ecosystem compartment

Biophysical measurement

Ecosystem process or Intermediate

Ecosystem service Final Service

Comments on link between biophysical measurements and services

Scale

Headwater streams

Average Score per Taxon for macro-

invertebrates (OE/ASPT)

Water quality Clean water

provision Freshwater macro-invertebrates have been well studied as

indicators of freshwater quality stream stretch

(~20m)

Headwater streams

CCI Index for macroinvertebrates

Freshwater Biodiversity,

(Nutrient cycling)

Clean water provision

Reflects an aggregate conservation value of a macro-invertebrate sample

stream stretch (~20m)

Soil Soil invertebrate taxa

diversity

Soil Biodiversity,

(Nutrient cycling)

Soil purification, Provisioning

Various papers indicate importance of soil biota for plant growth and contaminant removal

soil core (0-8cm)

Soil Carbon storage LOI Soil Carbon storage Climate regulation Soils well accepted as important global carbon store soil core (0-15cm)

Plants Total plant taxon

diversity Plant Biodiversity

Wild species diversity,

(Provisioning, Cultural)

Total species pool in each plot from which subsets of other culturally significant or functionally important taxa and

traits are drawn.

vegetation plots

(200m2)

Plants Bee nectar sources Pollination,

(Biodiversity)

Pollination, (Provisioning, Wild species

diversity)

Measures diversity of nectar-providing plants (changes have been correlated with changes in wild bee diversity in NW Europe). The link with crop pollination is correlative but a

functionally critical component of pollinator foodwebs.

vegetation plots

(200m2)

Plants Butterfly nectar

sources

Pollination,

(Biodiversity)

Pollination, (Wild species diversity;

Cultural)

Less important as contributor to fruit set and crop productivity but important for maintenance of wild butterfly

diversity

vegetation plots (200m2)

Plants Specific Leaf Area Above-ground NPP Provisioning Based on the positive correlation between ANPP and the abundance-weighted trait within each plant assemblage.

vegetation plots (200m2)

Landscape Water, trees, coast, altitude and relief

Charismatic landscapes-Cultural

Cultural Collaboration with researchers for Natural England who

found that areas of woodland, water, coastline and altitudinal variation enhanced people's cultural experience

1km2



References for Annex 1

Bunce, R. G. H., Barr, C. J., Clarke, R. T., Howard, D. C. & Lane, M. J. (1996) ITE

Merlewood Land Classification of Great Britain. Journal of Biogeography, 23, 625-634.

Carey, P.D.; Wallis, S.; Chamberlain, P.M.; Cooper, A.; Emmett, B.A.; Maskell, L.C.;

McCann, T.; Murphy, J.; Norton, L.R.; Reynolds, B.; Scott, W.A.; Simpson, I.C.; Smart,

S.M.; Ullyett, J.M.. 2008 Countryside Survey: UK Results from 2007. NERC/Centre for

Ecology & Hydrology, 105pp. (CEH Project Number: C03259).

Dunbar, M., Murphy, J., Clarke, R., Baker, R., Davies, C., Scarlett, P. 2010 Countryside

Survey: Headwater Streams Report from 2007. Technical Report No. 8/07 NERC/Centre

for Ecology & Hydrology 67pp. (CEH Project Number: C03259).

Emmett, B.A., Frogbrook, Z.L., Chamberlain, P.M., Griffiths, R., Pickup, R., Poskitt, J.,

Reynolds, B., Rowe, E.,Spurgeon, D., Rowland, P., Wilson, J., Wood, C.M. 2008. CS

Technical Report No.3/07 Soils Manual, NERC/Centre for Ecology & Hydrology 192pp.

(CEH Project Number: C03259).

Emmett, B.A., Reynolds, B., Chamberlain, P.M., Rowe, E., Spurgeon, D., Brittain, S.A.,

Frogbrook, Z., Hughes, S., Lawlor, A.J., Poskitt, J., Potter, E., Robinson, D.A., Scott,

A., Wood, C., Woods, C. (2010) Countryside Survey: Soils Report from 2007. Technical

Report No. 9/07 NERC/Centre for Ecology & Hydrology 192pp. (CEH Project Number:

C03259).

Firbank, L. G., Smart, S. M., Barr, C. J., Bunce, R. G. H., Furse, M. T., Haines-Young, R.,

Hornung, M., Howard, D. C., Sheail, J., & Sier, A. (2003b) Assessing stock and change in

land cover and biodiversity in GB: an introduction to Countryside Survey 2000. Journal of

Environmental Management, 67, 207-218.

Smart, S. M., Maskell, L. C., Clarke, R. T., van de Poll, H. M., Robertson, E. J., Shield, E.

R. & Bunce, R. G. H. (2003) National-scale vegetation change across Britain; an analysis of

sample-based surveillance data from the Countryside Surveys of 1990 and 1998. Journal of

Environmental Management, 67, 239-254.

Smart, S., Dunbar, M.J., Emmett, B.A., Marks, S., Maskell, L.C., Norton, L.R., Rose, P.,

Simpson, I.C. 2010a. An Integrated Assessment of Countryside Survey data to investigate

Ecosystem Services in Great Britain. Technical Report No. 10/07 NERC/Centre for Ecology

& Hydrology 230pp. (CEH Project Number: C03259).

Smart, SM, Henrys, P, et al (2010b) Impacts of pollution and climate change on ombrotrophic sphagnum species in the UK: analysis of uncertainties in two empirical niche models. Climate Research.45, 163-177.

Documents

SCOPING STUDY TO DEVELOP UNDERSTANDING OF A NATURAL …randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=10833_N... · This is the final case studies report for a study to scope the use of