Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill - target indicator recommendations: Scientific Advisory Committee sub-group review

SAC Sub-group Meeting 30 April 2024 - notes

SAC Biodiversity Monitoring Subgroup met on 30th April to discuss the proposed suite of indicators, and any additional indicators that could be considered including filling gaps identified.

General reflections

• The process and methodology under which the PAG had arrived at the indicator set was generally clear but it became clear that in some of the subsequent discussion the rationale why a particular indicator on the long list had been excluded was needed. This hindered some of the debate. Generally, the sub-group are content with process however, discarding an index which gives conflicting results to other indices raises scientific concerns.
• There was also some discussion around the role for composite indicators, e.g. three indicators combined into one. The sub-group considered that it would be best to keep them single and report individually. It is difficult to use a single composite measure when looking at differential policy actions or interventions, since it is not clear what is driving any change. There was some discussion about using meta or composite indicators. It is possible that there could be 7 composite measures created from the separate individual indicators. The NatureScot sub-group, were not enthusiastic about meta indicators in many circumstances. There were three reasons for this: (1) the statistics surround the use of meta-analyses are complex meaning that their use could be challenged if NS present them without proper statistical consideration, (2) the risk of double counting, and most important 3) a lack of clarity about exactly what the meta indicator mean in terms of management required to improve biodiversity.
• The sub-group noted that the agreed indicators will require to be consistently reviewed to accommodate new technologies as and when they become available (eDNA, LIDAR, etc.).
• The sub-group also urged that thought should be given to how a set of indicators is updated (see point above). Undertaking a piece of work on how you create, maintain and develop indicators in an evolving situation would be valuable at this stage.
• The timetable of when the indicators are going to be developed by is key, many of the indicators were flagged as under development, or incomplete. There is a risk of spending too long developing indicators and not being able to record the baseline.
• There are instances where several indicators sit in the intersections between the themes, there will need to be care given to the narrative since it may be possible that actions/interventions increase one and decrease another.
• There was no indication of the temporal frequency needed for a) the monitoring and b) the indicators to be updated.
• The PAG document makes no reference to the confidence we have or need in the indicators, there should be sentence acknowledging confidence we aim to have or require.
• There was also some discussion about positive feedback, rather than an assumption that we are always measuring a negative. For example, there may not need to be so much investment in nature in the future as it is doing well. While this may not affect the construction of the indicator, it will affect the narrative associated with the indicator.
• The sub-group noted that in many cases, the indicators reflect only a component of the topic, and are proxy measures in which context, enhancing 17 indicators by 1 or 2 more could be useful and does not increase the overall number greatly.

The subsequent discussion then focused on the 7 topics, and the selected indicators.

1. Ecosystem integrity and health

• There are a number of indicators which could be used but they may simply reflect on a component of ecosystem health. Sub-group are unclear whether the proposed indices sufficiently cover ecosystem integrity.
• It was suggested that SE link list of ecosystems could be used for SBS and SBL, as those are the ecosystems which are going to be assessed. Another option could be IUCN hierarchy of ecosystems through habitats; IUCN would be preference as majority of other countries will use this. It was noted that there is a good correspondence between these two lists
• The Ecosystem Integrity Index first published a couple years ago by Samantha Hill, has three components of structure, composition and function and was developed for national governments to measure and report back on their biodiversity targets. The sub-group suggested this index is worth consideration for inclusion.
• It was noted that CBD also proposing measures of ecosystem integrity (attached in email) – e.g. Geo Bon Species Habitat Index could also be considered.

2. Habitats condition and extent

• Three indicators listed here, two which are already established and available for use and one of which is being trialed - ecosystem red list.
• The red list is updated every ten years, but there are no suggestions concerning the temporal frequency needed for this topic. It should be clear about temporal frequency which the indicators will be updated on.
• Habitats directive reporting, reliant on NS condition assessment reporting, which is limited, and will be even more limited with funding cuts. Habitats are extrapolated from small areas to larger ones, so the subgroup suggested that care be taken with the statement that there is already indicator when in fact it is just extrapolated from small areas measured every 5-10 years.
• Gaps - The group suggested links to other discussions on research agenda for NS and research list for SBS should be made.

3. Threatened species status

• The sub-group noted that there are many links to workshop outputs at SBS – the species at risk list is being put together as part of that process – the PAG may have already considered the linkages between the two processes, and this linkage should also include indicators.
• The sub-group were not clear about the role of eDNA. How could this be used to monitor species? It may tell you it was there at some point, but it does not say much about abundance or distribution.
• There was discussion around the impacts e.g. of climate change. As an example, a Butterfly indicator going up, the interpretation could be that due to longer summers as a result of climate change, more and potentially new butterfly species are appearing. At the same time, other species seem likely to be lost such as montane species. The sub-group discussed the role of protection for such montane species while recognizing that climate change is a global change which is out with our control. The discussion reflected that the appropriate response depends on global distribution of these species, some may be internationally important we have responsibility for, there may be others that are rare in Scotland but common elsewhere. The narrative around indicators in such cases will be challenging and the sub-group suggested that a flow chart to help think this through on a case-by-case basis might be helpful.
• The sub-group suggest the PAG should reconsider including a connectivity indicator

4. Civil society understanding, benefitting from and contributing to nature

• The sub-group noted the test is worded in way to suggest we cannot cover this topic completely, some of the indicators suggested give certain features but there is no completeness for the theme and new indicators will be needed.
• Two indicators from the list are access to blue and green space and visit to the outdoors, it is recognised that these are not sufficient, and additional indicators will be needed on other elements
• PAG suggested indicators around education be explored – the sub-group agree with this, e.g. delivery of education programmes, number of participants, number of graduates going on to work in sector, are typical data available from universities and colleges.
• The sub-group suggested that incorporating indicators of land ownership and amount of community owned land/ gardens/ woodlands would also be beneficial.
• The sub-group noted both indicators are terrestrial, incorporating marine element would be welcomed. information from Royal Yachting Association, fishing and sailing clubs could also be added to form a potential indicator.
• An indicator on citizen science projects (numbers, involvement etc.) could be useful in this theme.
• An additional source of data for this topic could potentially come from social media (though care would be needed in interpretation given the potential biases).

5. Investment in nature

• The PAG had noted that half of the target topic is covered by existing indicators. Only 1 indicator that would be readily available and one which is still to be developed.
• Gap is private investment; an indicator is being developed but may need to be modified to be Scottish specific.
• The sub-group notes that the indicator text mentions nature restoration, while the document which detailed this target suggested it would include investment in nature through communities and skills as well as restoration. The sub-group suggests that an additional indicator be considered to include this aspect.

6. Enhancing environmental status for nature

• The sub-group considered that the indicators here are mostly ready - a good range of indicators already exist, particularly around both freshwater and marine pollution pressures, but the key gaps are on INNS and grazing impacts.
• The sub-group expressed a concern that the 4 indicators suggested are also associated with ecosystem integrity and health, which would suggest the PAG may not have sufficiently differentiated unique aspects to enhancing environmental status.
• The sub-group noted that pesticide usage was discounted as an indicator – they considered this could be important if the topic includes freshwater pollution. If pesticides included, the sub-group noted there is Danish gov methodology which looks at impacts on three levels: human health, biodiversity species and persistence of the environment which could be considered.
• The sub-group considered that the description of this theme could be clearer. The key point is that the indicators for this topic measure the responses to pressures rather than the pressures themselves. The sub-group suggested other indicators such as the amount of land under hard standing. There are others for the freshwater environment, such as number of discharge consents, number of consents breached etc. which could be included.
• Invasive species should be described as spread of invasive species (as opposed to current wording of rate of invasion of alien species) and should also include plant pests and pathogens.
• There was general agreement in the sub-group that we need an indicator about habitat condition e.g. in terms of grazing, and that e.g. the number of deer is not a useful indicator.

7. Positive outcomes for biodiversity in public sector and government policy

• The sub-group noted this is partly ready - biodiversity duty reporting process was deemed a potentially suitable mechanism but would need updating to be an indicator for the target topic.
• Classifying biodiversity duty reporting as partly ready was perhaps optimistic, the sub-group did not think it is near to turning into an indicator.
• The sub-group noted that JNCC indicator was originally developed for marine environment, based around protected areas, there are 4 criteria including whether governance mechanisms are in place that will deliver some kind of biodiversity outcomes. It takes into account whether monitoring has taken place and whether outcomes are being achieved, as well as picking up what confidence there is in the outcomes. The sub-group suggested it should be added to list and potentially modified to be more general.