Measuring biodiversity: research into approaches

Results: Assessment of criteria

Workshop outcomes were summarised for the three categories of assessement criteria (Habitats and Species, Effort and Ease of Use and Usability and Comparability). Below is a brief overview of the key findings with more detailed information provided in Annex 3.

Habitats and species

There are a wide variety of ways that tools can account for biodiversity and these typically are based on habitat or species based measurements, with expansion to include ongoing monitoring of habitats and species or account for current and future pressures. With the exception of the Conservation and Biodiversity Monitoring sector, there was a preference for habitat-based metrics over species-based metrics. Habitat-based metrics that combine habitat extent, condition and distinctiveness were prioritised over simple measure that just take into account habitat extent. Genetic diversity was also given a low priority across three areas (i.e. excluding Conservation and Biodiversity Monitoring).

The presence of irreplaceable habitats (e.g. ancient woodland), habitat connectivity, ecosystem health and functional diversity were added in the steering group workshop. Across our four policy areas, these criteria were rated as medium to high priority, with ecosystem health universally rated as high priority. These reflet the key issues of resilience and habitat sustainability from a climate and nature perspective.

Effort and ease of use

Criteria relating to Effort and ease of use were typically rated as high or medium priority, with open access, given a high priority across policy areas. Expertise in terms of ecological knowledge was also a high priority across three of the policy areas. Resource requirements in terms of cost and time were high priority for Agriculture. Scalability either spatially or financially was of high priority for the Conservation and Biodiversity Monitoring and Natural Capital Markets areas.

No additional criteria were added during the initial steering group workshop, however, adaptability over time and additionality were added during the stakeholder workshop. Analogous to carbon markets, additionality relates to governance to ensure that improvements in biodiversity or ecosystem health would not have occurred without intervention.

Useability and comparability

With respect to criteria relating to useability and comparability (i.e. the ability of a metric to meet end-user needs in a comparable way across sectors) Clear, concise and transparent was the only criterion rated as highest priority across all policy areas. Scientifically robust in terms of measurability was given the highest priority in three of the policy areas (i.e. excluding Conservation and Biodiversity Monitoring).

The steering group workshop identified the need to differentiate Saleable (i.e. the ability to commercialise biodiversity) and Tradeable (i.e. trading biodiversity gains in one habitat or area for loss elsewhere – as in BNG calculations). The Planning and Development and Natural Capital Markets groups put a higher priority on both tradeable and saleable than the Agriculture and Conservation and Biodiversity Monitoring groups.

Assessment Criteria: Summary and recommendations

The assessment of criteria revealed both consensus and divergencies in priorities across the four policy areas and there were no obvious options to reduce or consolidate the list of criteria (Table 2). To meet the needs of all four sectors results indicate that a biodiversity measurement approach or metric will need both common features and some degree of flexibility in its application. This could potentially involve developing a framework of metrics that can address different user or policy needs. It also suggests that bespoke approaches developed for a specific policy area or application may not be directly transferable to use in other areas without some degree of adjustment. The extent to which this is the case should become clearer as we undertake the assessment of identified metrics against the criteria.

The draft template for the assessment of metrics based on the criteria is presented in Table 1. The specific responses were refined as the assessment progressed with the aim of using easily comparable and concise descriptions.

Table 2 Summary of assessment criteria prioritisation across policy areas Shading indicates the priority as high (H), medium (M), or low (L) priority, and blank entries are where additional criteria was suggested by participants for specific policy areas so not evaluated by others.