Transcript An introduction to ‘Natural Capital’ and the work of the

Measuring and monitoring natural capital
Stewart Clarke
Natural England & Natural Capital Committee Secretariat
Outline
• What is natural capital and why does it matter?
• The Natural Capital Committee
• Measuring and monitoring natural capital
• Data gaps and recommendations
Defining Natural Capital
Natural Capital : the stock of our physical natural assets (such as soil, forests, water
and biodiversity) which provide flows of services that benefit people (such as
pollinating crops, natural hazard protection, climate regulation or the mental
health benefits of a walk in the park) (Natural Environment White Paper, 2011)
1) produced or manufactured capital (roads,
buildings, machines)
2) human capital (health, knowledge, culture
and institutions)
3) natural capital (available from nature)
http://www.forumforthefuture.org/project/five-capitals/overview#sthash.Xmo2hc70.dpuf
Stocks and flows
capital stock of soil and trees
flows from stock
benefits or services
timber
drugs
clean water
aesthetics
shelter
The problem: state of natural capital stocks
There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that natural
capital stocks have been and continue to be degraded:
MEA 2005: Nearly two thirds of the services provided by
nature to humankind are in decline worldwide. ‘In effect, the
benefits reaped from our engineering of the planet have been
achieved by running down natural capital assets’
UK National Ecosystem Assessment concluded that although
UK ecosystems are currently delivering some services well,
others are in long-term decline
What has the NCC been set up to do?
NCC
1
Provide advice on
when, where and
how natural assets
are being used
unsustainably
Independent Advisory Body to
Government
2
Advise the Government
on how it should
prioritise action to
protect and improve
natural capital, so that
public and private activity
is focused where it will
have greatest impact on
improving wellbeing in
our society.
3
Advise the
Government on
research priorities
to improve future
advice and decisions
on protecting and
enhancing natural
capital.
AUDIENCE: Senior ministers and civil servants, reports to Economic Affairs
Committee of the Cabinet
Who is on the Committee?
Dieter Helm
(Chair)
Giles Atkinson
Kerry ten Kate
NCC
Secretariat
Ian Bateman
Georgina Mace
Rosie Hails
Robin Smale
Colin Mayer
7
Outputs and timeline...
Second State
of Natural
Capital
report to EAC
First State of
Natural Capital
report to EAC
Advice to
SoS on CAP
reform
May 12
Advice to SoS
on valuing
non-market
benefits from
woodlands
Research
Priorities
advice
Advice to SoS
on biodiversity
offsets
Jan 13
Advice to
SoS on Habs
Regs review
Advice to
SoS on CAP
reform
Third State of
Natural Capital
report to EAC
Jan 14
Working paper:
metrics for
natural capital
Case studies on
corporate
accounting
Research report
on metrics and
risk register
Jan 15
Working paper:
economic
growth?
8
An illustration – Lower Yangtze Basin
RS = Regulating services index – biodiversity, sediment regulation, soil stability,
sediment quality, water quality, air quality
(Dearing et al., 2012)
Dispersed,
interconnected
& dynamic
Goods
Food
Fibre (inc. Timber)
Energy
Clean water
Clean air
Recreation
Aesthetics
Hazard protection
Wildlife
Equable climate
Ideally we need metrics linking assets
directly to changes in goods and benefits
but data gaps on status of assets are
significant. No metrics exist.
Benefits (Values)
Species
Ecological Communities
Soils
Freshwater
Land
Atmosphere
Minerals
Sub-soil Assets
Coasts
Oceans
Ecosystem Services
Natural
Assets
Major land-use categories
(NEA Broad Habitat Types)
Other
capital
inputs
Thresholds, targets and limits
Threshold
Safe
Limit
Target
Reference level
Target
Benefit
Value
(£)
Benefit
Value
(£)
Safe limit
Threshold
Natural asset condition
time
Tracking natural capital changes
Data on natural capital
Asset
Composite
Indicator

Species
Ecological
communities
Soils
Data Quality
A
()
A

A
Land
()
A
Minerals and subsoil assets
Freshwater
()
A
Coasts
()
2
Oceans
3
Atmosphere

A/G
A

A/R

A
England Biodiversity Indicators –Trend
(Indicator Reference No. in brackets)
1
 BAP Species (4a)
 EU Protected Species(4b)
() () () Farmland (5)
() () () Woodland (5)
() () Wetlands (5)
() () Marine (5)
() Invasives (20)
 Protected Areas (1)
 EU Protected Habitats(2b)
() Invasives (20)
n/a
n/a
n/a
 Water quality (21)
n/a
 Fisheries (23)
 Invasives (20)
 Pollution (19)
 Sulphur deposition (19)
 Nitrogen deposition (19)
Key
Composite Indicator:  good data and composite indicator appropriate for purpose; () some data
appropriate for purpose and potential indicator available;  no composite indicator and data insufficient to
determine status and trends across all components
Data quality: Indicative assessment of state of knowledge for natural asset: Red = limited suitable data,
Amber = some data, inconsistently collected across components, time or space, Green = good data at
appropriate spatial or temporal scales
England Biodiversity Indicators:  upward trend (improving);  downward trend (deteriorating); 
no real change; multiple arrows indicate multiple indicators for the asset/pressure. Indicator reference
number in brackets.
UK Species Data
Marine
Terrestrial & Freshwater
Species Group
Abundance
Distribution
Trend
Microorganisms
Fungi
Algae
Lichens
Bryophytes
Higher plants
Invertebrates (freshwater)
1
Invertebrates (terrestrial)
Fish (freshwater)
Amphibians
Reptiles
Birds
Mammals
2
Plankton (phyto- and zoo- )
Algae
Invertebrates
3
Fish
Seabirds
Mammals
Key: Red – limited suitable data; Amber – data inconsistently collected across components, time or space;
Green – good data at appropriate spatial or temporal scales
Current status of natural assets
Summary of findings
Asset
Species
Ecological
communities
Soils
Land
Minerals and
sub-soil assets
Freshwater
Coasts
Oceans
Atmosphere
Significant monitoring issues or data gaps
Current focus is on rare species or certain groups. Uncharismatic and difficult to
identify taxa are currently underrepresented (many of these are important for key
ecological processes).
Current focus is on habitats which may be a good proxy for the structural
components of ecological communities but our understanding of the link to
processes and interactions is less well developed.
Currently no systematic soil survey across the UK. Data on soil depth limited and
biological elements poorly represented.
Monitoring is confounded by poor definition and delineation of this asset. Some
aspects may combine elements of built capital (landscape).
As non-renewable assets a different approach is required to determine status.
Current data are for production volumes and estimates of the size of asset base.
Small water-bodies (ponds, lakes, ditches and headwaters) are currently
underrepresented in the current monitoring network.
Current monitoring focuses on the aquatic elements of the coastal system, habitat
data provides some information on more terrestrial components but has limitations
(see ecological communities).
Large areas of sea-bed are unmapped.
Current emphasis is on monitoring air pollution i.e. impact upon the asset rather than
overall status.
Aggregation and Composite Indicators
• Reporting on status and trend can be complex – we need
simple records of change
• Need to be able to aggregate assets and components of assets
• Composite metric: a single measure which combines a range
of condition measures to provide an overall summary of state
or condition
• Simple and ideal for communication but can hide problems or
trends in specific components
• How do you combine different components? What weights
should be applied?
Conclusions
• Long history of data collection in UK – voluntary and statutory
• To monitor and make informed decisions about natural capital
may require different types of data
• We have enough data to give some indication of status/trend;
for most assets this generally only provides a partial picture
• Tendency to measure structural aspects of assets rather than
processes and underlying functions. (Many benefits are driven
by those processes)
• In addition to plugging data gaps, we need to be able to
aggregate measures for different assets and components to
provide an overall status assessment.
Acknowledgements
Natural Capital Committee members (Georgina Mace, Rosie
Hails)
Julian Harlow (Natural Capital Committee Secretariat)
The review of existing data sources was led by Lindsay Maskell
(Centre for Ecology and Hydrology); the results of this review can
be viewed on the Natural Capital Committee website.
www.naturalcapitalcommittee.org