This section aims not only to describe the process applied to develop a framework in the context of the UK and at the multi-national scale, but to better understand the drivers behind the choice of applying that type of process. Appendix 1 provides a synthesis of key features underpinning the MA and the SEQ, US and UK processes. Specifically, Column 5 presents key features of the process applied in the UK NEA. As mentioned in Chapters 4 and 5, although these features of the process are discussed in isolation in the following sections they are recognised as interrelated with other features in the table. Outcomes of analysing the UK NEA under the key topics identified in Section 3.1.1, are in Sections 6.1.1 (factors underpinning the initiation of the UK NEA), 6.1.2 (the
coordinating organisation behind the UK NEA), 6.1.3 (the resources invested in developing the UK NEA framework), and Section 6.1.4 (the structure of the UK NEA program).
6.1.1 Factors underpinning the programs initiation
The UK NEA’s Technical and Synthesis Reports describe factors underpinning the program’s initiation (UK NEA 2011a, 2011b). They describe the impact technological developments, especially agricultural intensification and the industrialisation of fishing, have had on productive ecosystems across the UK (UK NEA 2011a, 2011b). Fertiliser (particularly nitrogen and phosphorous) and pesticide use are identified stressors on aquatic ecosystems, landings of fish and the decline of other seafood. The Farmland Bird Index (a key indicator of the state of biodiversity on agricultural lands used in the UK) showed a 43% decline in biodiversity between 1970 and 1998 (UK NEA 2011a). It
is recognised that more recently the UK’s responses to managing biodiversity and agricultural production have been driven by EU policy (UK NEA 2011b). Climate change is said to have had only small impacts on the loss of UK’s biodiversity and ecosystems (UK NEA 2011a).
To determine if other factors outside of those documented in the literature influenced the UK NEA’s initiation, and to better understand motivations underpinning the involvement of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland in the program, six Leads including those representative to the national governments were asked: were there any significant factors underpinning the programs initiation? Climate change and the Stern Report 2006 were identified by two Leads. Two more factors were the
inability of governments to meet the CBD’s 2010 Biodiversity Targets, as well, the need to apply the CBD’s Ecosystem Approach to resource management (which is also
endorsed by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)). Other factors identified or confirmed as influencing the governments’ involvement include:
existing involvement in the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES);
recognition of the need for a stronger evidence base on which to base policy decisions;
the recognition that ecosystems are interconnected across countries;
the need to look at the environment and scientist’s use of the environment in a more integrated and positive way; and
Britain’s involvement with European policy.
Section 6.1.2 discusses the choice of organisation coordinating the development of the UK methodology.
6.1.2 The coordinating organisation
The development of the methodology underpinning the UK NEA was coordinated by the United Nations Environment Program-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC). UNEP-WCMC is the result of collaborations between UNEP the environmental branch of the UN’s system and the world's foremost intergovernmental environmental organisation (UNEP 2013); and WCMC which is UNEP’s specialist
192
biodiversity branch and a UK-based charity (UNEP-WCMC 2013). The official website for UNEP-WCMC (2013) states:
For WCMC ... the collaboration with UNEP allows the charity to increase its access to decision makers and broadens opportunities for collaboration and data access, thereby increasing its ability to achieve its objectives. For UNEP the collaboration with WCMC ... provides access to substantial experience of biodiversity information and its use in providing support to decision making, thereby increasing UNEP’s ability to deliver on its international mandates.
To determine why a non-government agency was chosen to coordinate the UK program rather than a government agency or private organisation, nine Leads were asked: what do you think is the role of government in developing ecosystem services assessment methodologies? The respondents were a broad mix of Leads, including the Co-Chairs, representatives from national governments positioned on the Client Group (i.e. funders of the program), and Leads from the Secretariat. All respondents agreed, in country scale programs national governments need to be involved in the development of such methodologies. However, most respondents also stated the process of developing it should be independent of government and that "this was very clear at the beginning of the process". The three points below are a list of the roles the ‘majority’ of Leads (at least five out of the nine Leads asked) said government should play in the development of a framework:
government should fund the program, their role was described as: “as funders of the program”; “to have a say where money is being spent”; "to have a mechanism for potentially locating more money or for stopping it if it was all proving to be a waste of time";
government should participate “as one of the stakeholders, to have ownership of the program”;
government should “ensure the outcomes have policy relevance” and “the outcomes have traction".
"to understand and communicate the information to their Ministers and then the Ministers can talk to the other Ministers";
“overseeing the program”;
data collection, including providing access and consistency of data and information; and
they should “contribute to agenda setting and developing the major questions”.
Also provided in response to this question were many reasons why the program should be coordinated independent of government, such as:
"the need for it [the program] to be an independent review" was discussed by nearly all Leads;
a number of Leads said "it [the program] requires independent scientific
leadership"; that the "leader needs scientific credibility (which usually is not held in government or their position in government taints their credibility)";
two Leads mentioned that "an individual leading it from one specific agency, isn’t so favourable to the other agencies";
one Lead said "it [the program] needs to be kept at arm’s length of Politicians";
another Lead noted "if the government itself did it, its legitimacy is less in the eyes of many other stakeholders";
one of the Co-Chairs stated that "UNEP was most attractive to them [the British Government] as they are actually one step outside the normal UK institutions", so are less bias to politics and stakeholder agendas;
two Leads said that collaborating is easier for non-government organisations, "... they have greater flexibility".
One respondent described the effects of diverging interests between governments and other stakeholders involved in developing the UK methodology and the need for “balance” across information:
... I think there were sometimes tensions between what the Client Group [government] wanted and maybe what the Expert Panel [independents] thought that they should be doing – nothing you couldn’t resolve - but whereas the Expert Panel was saying “This is our focus and we balance everything up like this” – some of the individual funders specifically looking
194
after, for example, the rivers, they would have a particular focus on “We really need to move flooding up the agenda”. It’s another impact that ecosystem services have, but maybe not the one the Expert Panel wanted to pull out as any different to any of the other ones.
Section 6.1.3 describes the resources provided to UNEP-WCMC to develop the UK methodology in terms of time, money and expertise.
6.1.3 The resources invested
The UK NEA has a pair of Co-Chairs with "complimentary experience, not
substitutable". When asked separately about their role in the UK NEA their combined response was, “we have extensive experience on large scale environmental projects”; “were heavily involved in the conceptual framework development”; “we liaised
between the coordinating organisation and the scientists”; and “helped the coordinating organisation put the science teams together for the different chapters suggesting Lead Authors and other Co-Authors who could contribute".
As noted in Section 3.2.3.2, the UK NEA is part of the Living with Environmental Change (LWEC) initiative that includes 22 public sector organisations that fund, carry out and use environmental research and observations with the aim of ensuring decision makers in government, business and society have the knowledge, foresight and tools to mitigate, adapt to and benefit from environmental change (UK NEA 2011b). From LWEC, “the UK NEA received approximately £1.3 million [in funding] over the two- year duration”. As responsibility for developing components of the methodology were delineated to a wide range of organisations it is difficult to account for all paid
individuals involved in the development of the framework. However, “it is estimated over 500 professionals paid and voluntary were involved overall”.
To determine the resources in terms of the skill base (qualifications and disciplines) supporting the UK NEA, all 17 Leads interviewed were asked: what are your
professional qualifications and training? Column 4 in Appendix 3 shows the university level qualifications (degree, graduate diploma, masters or PhD) held by these Leads and the number of Leads holding each qualification. Across all Leads, 31 tertiary
maximum of three. Although Leads held a diverse range of qualifications the most common were zoology and biology, the natural sciences and economics closely followed. Similar to the SEQ and US, the social sciences were the least prevalent. Section 6.1.4 describes the structure of the UK NEA program providing information on the multi-scale process, who was involved in the program, and their role.
6.1.4 The structure of the program
The UK NEA (2011b, p. 2) aimed ‘to provide an analysis of the UK’s natural
environment in terms of the benefits it provides to society and the nation’s continuing prosperity’. To do this, the framework developed to conduct the assessment was structured in a way that allowed the status and trends of ecosystems and ecosystem services to be assessed at multiple spatial scales. Terrestrial, freshwater and marine habitats are assessed at the national scale and the outcomes are captured in four separate individual syntheses (UK NEA 2011b). At the local scale, a series of case studies were conducted to better capture the context dependency of communities on ecosystem services. Recognising that not all ecosystem services delivered to the UK people will be derived from within the UK itself, trends in the dependence of the UK population on ecosystem services derived from outside the UK were also assessed (UK NEA 2011b).
Appendix 4 presents the structure of the UK program (and the MA, SEQ and US programs) in terms of who was engaged in the framework’s development (and
conducting the assessment) and the roles they played. Section 6.1.2 introduced UNEP- WCMC the organisation who coordinated the development of the UK methodology. Within UNEP-WCMC 11 persons formed the UK NEA Secretariat (2011b, p. v). When four Leads from UNEP-WCMC were individually asked, what is your specific role in the UK NEA?, collectively their responses were:
“budget management”;
“work plan management”;
“liaising with the Co-Chairs”;
“ensuring deadlines are kept”;
“sorting out any User Group grievances because they felt that they weren’t having a voice”;
196
“a lot of talking to the Expert Panel and getting their opinion and then going to the relevant people and getting them to implement that”;
“coordinating the peer review process”;
“pulling together everyone’s comments and remarks”; and
“developing communication products and mapping”.
One Lead from UNEP-WCMC captured well the organisation’s role in the development of the UK framework, they said:
… essentially it was to set up the process, the timelines, the programs, talk with the Co-Chairs about who’s going to be on the Expert Panels,
contacting everyone who’s going to be responsible for writing the different components of it and tying it altogether. Then we oversaw the running of everything else, arranging the different meetings and the workshops and review processes and then basically stringing it all together.
Funders of the UK NEA had their own group, the Client Group, through which they could contribute to the program. One UK Lead said the “aim of this was to separate organisational mandates and political agendas from the design of the assessment
methodology and type of information produced”. Funders of the UK NEA and therefore the organisations included in the Client Group were: representatives of the Welsh, English, Northern Ireland and Scottish Governments; the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC 2013) - ‘UK's largest organisation for funding research on economic and social issues’; NERC (2012); and DEFRA (UK Government 2013b). Both ESRC and NERC are non-departmental organisations who receive most of their funding from the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills which is the ministerial department for economic growth in the UK.
Twenty-seven of the UK’s leading natural and social scientists and economists formed the UK NEA’s Expert Group. The primary role of the Expert Group was to design the framework, approve the final chapters of the UK NEA Technical Report (Section 6.3.4.1), define key messages, and to conduct an actual ecosystem services assessment for the UK. This group was comprised mostly of researchers and academics from UK universities, however, representation also included those from other independent
organisations and programs particularly in the fields of marine science, forestry, and agriculture and horticulture.
A group of 22 proposed users of the information derived from the UK NEA were invited to form the User Group (UK NEA 2011b). This group involved a broad mix of representatives from UK Treasury, national government environment agencies, national health organisations, energy and mineral agencies, farmer’s federations, national water agencies, local government organisations, biodiversity groups, forestry organisations, department of communities, architecture and built environments, and heritage groups (UK NEA 2011b). Their primary role was to ensure the outputs of the applied
framework were relevant to different audiences.
Two Leads said the information developed under the UK program was peer reviewed by invited independent reviewers on an as needed basis. As well, in the UK NEA Technical Report each chapter begins with a set of key findings that are rated for its ‘level of certainty’. The method to rate for certainty under the UK NEA was adopted from the MA and the IPCC (in which one of the UK NEA Co-Chairs was also the Co-Chair of both these programs).
Over 300 Authors in 26 teams worked across a matrix structure to develop the framework (and conduct assessments). The matrix consisted of the four ecosystem service categories and eight habitat types. Coordinating Lead Authors oversaw the teams collecting and developing the cross-cutting information and knowledge to support the framework (and conduct assessments and write chapters of the UK NEA Technical Report). One of these Authors was positioned to specifically collect and develop the knowledge base underpinning the conceptual framework which aimed to “coordinate research across internal and external stakeholders” (Section 6.3.1). According to the UK NEA Technical Resort (UK NEA 2011b), Lead Author positions and teams were also developed to focus on:
biodiversity;
the three types of valuations (Section 6.2.5);
scenario analysis; and
198
Through using the UK framework both multi-national and national assessments were conducted. One Lead Author was established to oversee each of the assessments for England, Wales, North Ireland and Scotland. As well, one Lead Author was dedicated to assessing the UK’s dependence on ecosystem services derived from outside UK boundaries (UK NEA 2011b).
This completes the analysis into the type of process applied to develop an ecosystem services framework under the UK NEA, and the drivers influencing the choice of process applied. It described the factors underpinning the initiation of the program; the reason for adopting UNEP-WCMC as the coordinating agency (rather than a
government agency); the resources invested in the development of the framework; and the structure of the program. The following section describes the output of the process applied in terms of the information included to support the framework (Line of Enquiry 2).