NCWG activities
Update: November 2023 - focus on natural capital in the UK Overseas Territories
The November 2023 meeting of the UKEOF Natural Capital Working Group featured two presentations exploring natural capital monitoring in the UK Overseas Territories (UKOTs). This was one of the themes selected by the group earlier in the year. Apart from the secretariat and Chair there were 13 members participating in the actual meeting including Matt Smith, formerly of UKEOF and JNCC.
Alyssa Fischer from JNCC leads a team of 22 expert scientists to deploy and advise on nature-based solutions for climate resilience in ODA-eligible countries and small island nations, including the UK's Overseas Territories. The team supports local governments in gathering and modelling evidence, developing local capacity, and translating science into policy to support improved disaster resilience, respond to urgent conservation needs, and create opportunities for alternative sustainable livelihoods. Alyssa talked us through the kind of work that has been done in various of the UKOTs and the increasing importance of quantifying and mainstreaming natural capital in policy decisions. She raised the importance of understanding:
- Physical extent and condition of natural capital assets and the services they provide, and
- Risk and vulnerability of assets – sensitivity to pressures – like natural events and human management.
She showed examples from Anguilla of effective modelling to help understand how natural capital assets like reefs protect other forms of capital (e.g., built). She highlighted the need for good validation data (for Earth Observation, EO) in Turks and Caicos. She also talked about the Falkland Isles, where production practices are eroding natural capital assets.
Alan Gray from UKCEH has been working in the UKOTs since 1998 helping to integrate scientific approaches to biodiversity conservation, during his talk he explored some of the problems, successes and opportunities to approaching long term monitoring of biodiversity conservation in the UKOTs to meet global conservation targets. He used some examples, mainly from the South Atlantic where most of his work has been based, but this work was relevant across the UKOTs.
Alan discussed the lack of long-term monitoring approaches in the UKOTs and subsequent use of EO data and other sensors with inherent limitations (resolution, evolution and lack of support). He described the monitoring as having episodic funding difficulties (as has been the case for the UK countries).
The presentations raised the profile of the UKOTs with the Working Group and stressed the importance of monitoring in our most biodiversity-rich territories.
Update: July 2023 - focus on biodiversity net gain
Update: April 2023 - focus on risk registers for NC monitoring
Update: January 2023 - focus on lack of expert field monitoring of natural capital
The idea for the meeting was to hold a debate with deliberately polarised views on the current status of monitoring across the UK countries. Instead, due to a lack of a volunteer to present an opposing view, Lisa Norton provided a deliberately challenging presentation highlighting the ongoing lack of national expert field monitoring across most UK countries and the apparent lack of consideration about the importance of these methods for monitoring change. Lisa challenged the continued emphasis on emerging technologies (e.g. Earth observation) and on citizen science, highlighting the costs of such approaches and their over-emphasis resulting in less money being available to fund expert field monitoring. She concluded that monitoring is more urgent than ever to understand the state of the environment and that we have not argued strongly enough for monitoring systems that will remain in place in the long term and provide us with the data we need to assess our impacts on the environment.
The provocation did its work and a lively debate ensued from all participants present (13 plus Lisa). Attendees felt that Lisa had raised a number of valid points, not least that monitoring does need to be long term in the future and relate directly to existing data. However, some argued that a strong case for monitoring has been made, not least from the perspective of monitoring policy impacts, such as the introduction on ELMS. It was argued that both citizen science and earth observation had a role to play alongside expert monitoring and that citizen science, whilst not ‘cheap’ can offer savings if used in the right way. Savings include lowered mileage and carbon usage. It was also argued that earth observation can provide greater coverage and cover ‘hard to reach’ areas, and could help to screen for the areas most needing expert field data. The use of automated processes to save time, including AI, was raised as a valuable tool for processing monitoring data.
Other issues raised included the extent to which we effectively use the data we do collect – and to what extent we have easy to understand (by policy and public) agreed criteria for measuring natural capital within or across countries. We discussed whether Natural Capital measures need to link to statutory frameworks and to funding, so that Nature Positive can be a measured reality – e.g. Targets developed from the 25 Year Environment Plan.
Whilst there has been a focus on developing monitoring, at the same time there have been declines in monitoring (e.g. the WFD) which are of concern. Soil has been poorly monitored – although Countryside Survey soil sampling (last done in 2007) has now been repeated under UKCEH’s UKSCAPE (final year of the rolling programme 2023). It was widely agreed that woodlands are the best monitored terrestrial habitats and that meteorological monitoring is very successful. Both of these receive fundamental government support because of their strong economic, social and political impacts. Monitoring needs an approach that is sustainable longer term, being able to adapt, and use both old data and new.