Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
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,
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
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).
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
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”)
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 11 August 2012
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
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
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 12 August 2012
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).
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 13 August 2012
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 14 August 2012
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
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
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 15 August 2012
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 16 August 2012
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 17 August 2012
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
Stock indicator Area, volume, number etc
Condition indicator Conservation status, age structure etc.
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 18 August 2012
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?
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 Sources of uncertainty (strength of evidence?)
Risks Risks of anticipated damage to NC
Substitutability Is compensation possible?
Liabilities Intergenerational implications?
Uncertainties Sources of uncertainty (strength of evidence?)
What is the demand/supply balance?
Type e.g. Health, security etc.
Beneficiaries Size and location
Measurements 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...
Trade-offs Implications for wider ecosystem services
Synergies Implications for wider ecosystem services
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
Natural asset integrity test
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 19 August 2012
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 20 August 2012
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 21 August 2012
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.
o State of the asset (extent, condition)
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.
o Drivers/threats to asset
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).
o Drivers influencing future services
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 22 August 2012
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.
o Cumulative impacts
Extensive losses of semi-natural grasslands have resulted in fragmentation, which can
make any habitat more vulnerable to threats.
o Uncertainties (missing information)
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.
o Natural asset integrity test
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 23 August 2012
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.
o Sustainability test
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).
o State of the asset (extent, condition)
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.
o Drivers/threats to asset
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 24 August 2012
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.
o Drivers influencing future services
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 25 August 2012
o Thresholds
No details of thresholds in NEA.
o Cumulative impacts
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.
o Uncertainties (missing information)
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.
o Natural asset integrity test
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.
o Sustainability test
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 26 August 2012
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).
o State of the asset (extent, condition)
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 27 August 2012
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.
o Drivers influencing future services
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.
o Conclusions about future services from the asset
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.
o Cumulative impacts
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).
o Uncertainties (missing information)
Uncertainty exists in how the condition of freshwater bodies and connectivity between
them influences ecosystem services levels. Greater understanding of the links between
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 28 August 2012
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.
o Natural asset integrity test
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.
o Sustainability test
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 29 August 2012
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).
o State of the asset (extent, condition)
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.
o Drivers/threats to asset
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.
o Drivers influencing future services
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.
o Conclusions about future services from the asset
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 30 August 2012
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%.
o Cumulative impacts
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.
o Uncertainties (missing information)
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.
o Natural asset integrity test
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.
o Sustainability test
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 31 August 2012
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).
o State of the asset (extent, condition)
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.
o Drivers/threats to asset
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).
o Drivers influencing future services
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 32 August 2012
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 33 August 2012
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).
o Cumulative impacts
The effects of emissions of carbon from UK habitats are compounded by emissions from
anthropogenic sources.
o Uncertainties (missing information)
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.
o Natural asset integrity test
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).
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 34 August 2012
o Sustainability test
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 35 August 2012
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.
o State of the asset (extent, condition)
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)
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 36 August 2012
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.
o Drivers influencing future services
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.
o Conclusions about future services from the asset
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 37 August 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.
o Cumulative impacts
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.
o Uncertainties (missing information)
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.
o Natural asset integrity test
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 38 August 2012
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.
o Sustainability test
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 39 August 2012
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 40 August 2012
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.
o State of the asset (extent, condition)
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 41 August 2012
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.
o Drivers/threats to asset
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.
o Conclusions about future services from the asset
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.
o Cumulative impacts
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 42 August 2012
o Uncertainties (missing information)
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.
o Natural asset integrity test
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.
o Sustainability test
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 43 August 2012
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 44 August 2012
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.
eftec 45 August 2012
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.
o State of the asset (extent, condition)
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.
o Drivers/threats to asset
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?
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 46 August 2012
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.
o Conclusions about future services from the asset
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.
o Cumulative impacts
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 47 August 2012
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?
o Uncertainties (missing information)
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.
o Natural asset integrity test
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 48 August 2012
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.
o State of the asset (extent, condition)
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,
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 49 August 2012
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 50 August 2012
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.
o Drivers/threats to asset
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 51 August 2012
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.
o Conclusions about future services from the asset
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 52 August 2012
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 53 August 2012
o Uncertainties (missing information)
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.
eftec 54 August 2012
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 55 August 2012
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
o Cumulative impacts
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 56 August 2012
Table 4.6: Costs and Benefits from all land brought into forest management, £ million.
1991 to 2010, Present Values
2011 to 2100, Present Values
1991 to 2100, 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.
o Natural asset integrity test
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.
o Sustainability test
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).
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 57 August 2012
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 58 August 2012
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).
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 59 August 2012
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 60 August 2012
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 61 August 2012
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 62 August 2012
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 63 August 2012
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 64 August 2012
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 65 August 2012
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).
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 66 August 2012
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 67 August 2012
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:
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 68 August 2012
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 69 August 2012
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 70 August 2012
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).
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 71 August 2012
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 72 August 2012
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 73 August 2012
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 74 August 2012
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).
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 75 August 2012
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 76 August 2012
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.
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 77 August 2012
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 78 August 2012
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
Scoping of Natural Capital Asset Check – Final Case Studies Report
eftec 79 August 2012
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.