Report to the Scientific Advisory Committee by the Sub-group reviewing on land monitoring and surveillance by NatureScot

Executive Summary

Scottish Natural Heritage¹ (SNH), (NatureScot from 24th August 2020), is reliant on up to date and accurate monitoring and surveillance data in order to fulfil its statutory role. NatureScot defines surveillance as ‘systematic observation through time to establish the baseline state and track natural heritage change’. It defines monitoring as ‘surveillance against a target’. A major component of NatureScot’s monitoring work is the Site Condition Monitoring (SCM) programme which monitors the condition of features (species, habitats, geological features) on protected areas. In 2019 the third cycle of SCM was completed, and NatureScot’s Surveillance Strategy became due for review. It was recognised that within NatureScot, monitoring and surveillance had been operating under separate work streams. With preparatory work underway to develop the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy 2030, it was timely to review and refresh work in these areas.

Staff proposed combining protected areas’ monitoring and surveillance into a new Monitoring and Surveillance Strategy for NatureScot. The expectation was that this would form the blueprint for the development of a wider Strategy for partners responsible for the delivery of a project to identify and address gaps in biodiversity evidence (known as Project 4) as part of the Scottish Government – NatureScot Programme Board developing the 2030 Strategy Scottish Biodiversity Strategy.

Following advice from NatureScot’s Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC), a Sub-group was formed to advise how NatureScot’s surveillance and monitoring work can:

monitor protected area condition and its responses to management intervention, in particular to comment on a proposed 3-tiered approach to future SCM in on land systems;
adapt to a changing environment, cope with transitions between habitats and losses/gains in species due to climate change;
understand drivers of change (and best indicators for each driver);
enable comparisons between protected areas and the surrounding countryside;
develop indicators (descriptors) to monitor ecosystem health;
make best use of all existing data resources and opportunities from the on land protected areas network; and
identify opportunities to make use of emerging new methods and technologies where these would offer gains in effectiveness and efficiency.

In addition to having SAC and Expert Panel members, the Sub-group was joined by staff with expertise in monitoring from Marine Scotland and Natural England. The focus of the work of the Sub-group’s review was ‘on land’ SCM, but it also considered parallel initiatives in the marine environment. The Scottish MPA monitoring strategy provides the strategic direction for NatureScot’s marine survey activities formerly undertaken as part of the corporate SCM programme (including features in the intertidal zone). Work to implement the MPA monitoring strategy is ongoing. Recommendations from the sub-group review that are applicable to marine monitoring will inform development of NatureScot’s future programme. Work is underway to scope the process that will be used for marine monitoring, including future engagement with the SAC. It is envisaged that a marine implementation plan will be produced in due course.

Recommendations

The Sub-group made nine recommendations:

R1. The Framework required to implement a ‘3-tiered’ approach to on land SCM should be implemented in full

The Sub-group devised a framework to enable a 3-tiered approach to SCM to be clearly implemented, and the success of the trial to be evaluated. This should be implemented in full with training from habitat and species specialists provided to properly deliver the programme. In order to realise savings, additional resources will be required initially to allow staff to fully develop the method and provide the required training.

R2. Ecosystem health needs to be more clearly defined

There is some ambiguity across agencies, and more widely, about the definition and measures of ecosystem health. NatureScot is asked to develop a suite of indicators on land features akin to the approach taken for devising indicators relating to Good Environmental Status (GES) in the marine environment (noting a potential framework provided by Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC)).

R3. Further work is required to define the how transitions between features are accommodated on protected areas, and how this affects ecosystem health

A change in habitat features, e.g. transition between habitats or loss/gain of species, while representing a change in condition of the original feature, does not necessarily constitute a change in ‘ecosystem health’. This issue is especially germane in considering the expansion of woodland features at the expense open heath and grassland features on EC Directive Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas. Work is required to define ecosystem health in this context.

R4. A mechanism is required to determine acceptable transitions on protected areas.

Stemming from R3, due to the dynamic nature of ecosystems and climate change, there needs to be agreement within NatureScot about the transitions between habitats and losses/gains of species that are acceptable/desirable. We expect this to require underpinning by a significant workstream in order to be implemented robustly. Once transitions are agreed this needs to be reflected in the conservation objectives and monitoring of sites.

R5. Better use should be made of existing data sets to be able to compare that status of nature within and outwith protected areas

Monitoring of the wider countryside to compare it with protected areas should be a collaborative effort across sectors/organisations, drawing on the results and experience of partner organisations such as RSPB and utilizing as much existing data as possible. By 2022 an assessment of potential use of existing data should be completed and additional data requirements identified. NatureScot should work with the Terrestrial Surveillance Development and Analysis partnership (TDSA) to develop metrics to compare protected areas against the wider countryside. Future State of Nature reporting should be enhanced by implementing the seven suggested areas for development. This will allow a more robust reporting of the state of nature in Scotland and comparisons of trends and abundance inside and outwith protected areas. This cross sector/organisation approach to monitoring the wider countryside and the State of Nature reporting requires the continued funding of the many different monitoring programmes on which it relies and links to the SBIF report.

R6. Opportunities for the implementation of new technologies and the involvement of citizen science in monitoring and surveillance should be actively pursued

Continued development of NatureScot’s work on remote sensing/earth observation will help deliver on R1 and R5 but ground truthing is required. This in part could be met by encouraging the appropriate data to be collected by citizen scientists, whether through monitoring schemes on in an ad hoc manner. There could also be opportunities to better focus citizen science effort to better align to monitoring and surveillance requirements. DNA based methods offer opportunities for the targeted detection and monitoring of protected and invasive species and applications are being developed for the metabarcoding of multi-species samples. These techniques have the potential to provide new metrics of ecosystem function and health. Staff need to be aware of current limitations when considering their use.

R7. A Long-term Monitoring Network approach should be developed amongst partners

Building on the foundation provided by the Scottish sites within the Environmental Change Network, the development of a Long-term Monitoring Network would allow intensive monitoring to better understand how the five drivers of change identified in the IPBES report are changing, their impacts on biodiversity and allow monitoring of indicators including indicators for Good Environmental Status (R2) and ecosystem health (R3). NNRs and other partner’s Reserves/landholding should be utilized to provide this (R8) but resources would be required.

R8. Further use should be made of NNRs for monitoring, research and demonstration

Greater recognition and use should be made of the existing network of NNRs for monitoring, research and demonstration. NNRs should provide evidence-based conservation and management informed by an adaptive management approach with good documentation and publicity of the integration of monitoring, research and evaluation of management. NNRs should provide a network of sites to identify and monitor the impact of drivers of change in species across different trophic levels, in habitats, in ecosystem functioning, and in processes. Opportunities to link an enhanced role for NNRs to adjacent MPAs should also be explored.

R9. Data flows and management should be maintained and strengthened

NatureScot should continue to collate and hold its own data with appropriate quality controls, metadata and data flows to ensure long-term accessible data that are openly available. NatureScot should support and work with partners to implement elements of the SBIF review.

Introduction to sub-group

As adviser to Scottish Government and in order to fulfil its statutory role in the Planning and other processes, NatureScot is reliant on up to date and accurate monitoring and surveillance data. NatureScot define surveillance as ‘systematic observation through time to establish the baseline state and track natural heritage change’. NatureScot define monitoring as ‘surveillance against a target’. Whilst surveillance can tell us about the direction and rate of change, monitoring tells us whether the result is sufficient and satisfactory. A wide range of data is utilised to provide its evidence needs to deliver its remit, the majority of which is derived from two main sources:

The Site Condition Monitoring (SCM) programme which determines the condition of notified features on protected areas; and
National ‘wider environment’ monitoring schemes (such as the Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS), administered through JNCC’s Terrestrial Evidence Programme and those that underpin reporting on Good Environmental Status (GES) in the marine environment.

As 2019 marked the end of the third cycle of SCM on protected areas and 20 years since its implementation in NatureScot, the decision was taken to review the programme to ensure that the data which was generated remained fit for purpose in order to support NatureScot’s work going forward. At the same time, NatureScot’s Surveillance Strategy became due for an update and refresh with a view to better articulating the organisation's evidence needs outwith protected areas. Early in the review process it was recognised that monitoring and surveillance had operated in separate work streams in NatureScot, one of the results being that obtaining a comprehensive overview of the state of Scotland’s nature was not straightforward. The proposal was therefore made to bring protected areas monitoring together with surveillance through a new Monitoring and Surveillance Strategy for NatureScot. The expectation being that this would form the blueprint for the development of a wider Strategy for the partners responsible for the delivery of Project 4 of the Scottish Government’s and NatureScot’s Programme for the 2030 Scottish Biodiversity Strategy. The priorities for Project 4 are to:

Provide a State of Nature Report capability as the core evidence base for the 2030 Scottish Biodiversity Strategy
Clarify the impacts of indirect and direct IBBES drivers on nature, and identify policy and practice measures to address impacts
Sustain and improve the support for citizen science to provide this evidence
Improve the biodiversity data capture and infrastructure, drawing on the recommendations contained in the Scottish Biodiversity Information Forum review.
Exploit links to health and wellbeing which regular participation in citizen science bring, in order to encourage wider participation

Following a discussion with the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC), and agreement was reached to establish a Monitoring and Surveillance Sub-group, which would draw together experts to discuss the practicalities of developing the Strategy and to make recommendations to enable staff to take the work forward.

A monitoring strategy for Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the seas around Scotland was published in 2017 (Scottish Government, 2017). Developed by Marine Scotland (MS) and Marine Scotland Science (MSS), in partnership with NatureScot and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) the strategy provides direction for monitoring, assessment and reporting on the biodiversity interests of all types of Marine Protected Areas from the intertidal zone to the extent of the UK Continental Shelf. Marine surveillance and monitoring activities formerly undertaken as part of NatureScot’s corporate SCM programme now fall under the auspices of the MPA Monitoring Strategy. Detailed implementation plans are currently under development.

In light of this parallel process, the SAC Sub-group review was largely limited to consideration of on land SCM but with knowledge exchange between the work programmes.

Once the group had been established, it was also asked to respond to Board and Protected Areas Committee’s (PAC) work on ecosystem health. This followed a ‘deep dive’ paper which the Board had considered in June 2019 aimed at:

How best to deliver maximum value from Scotland’s protected area network in line with NatureScot’s statutory responsibilities and within budgetary constraints.

The Board remitted the PAC to investigate the issues raised in the Deep Dive paper around six key areas:

Resourcing
Improving Condition through new and existing mechanisms
The potential of using protected areas as catalysts for the development of ecological networks
How to achieve cultural shifts across the rural sector in the perception of protected areas as being either a constraint on activity or simply a source of funding
Achieving greater public support for protected areas
The implications of climate change; both from the perspective of the role these sites play in reducing the scale and impacts of climate change and in terms of the ability of a ‘static, features based protection mechanism’ through which protected areas currently operate to accommodate ecological response to climatic conditions as systems become more dynamic.

As part of the PAC consideration around defining and monitoring condition, the Sub-group was asked to advise the PAC on a very specific question “does a transition between habitats or loss/gain of species result in a decline in ecosystem health?”.

Remit of Sub-group

Advise on how NatureScot’s surveillance and monitoring can:

monitor protected area condition and its responses to management intervention, in particular to comment on the proposed 3-tiered approach to SCM in terrestrial systems
adapt to a changing environment, cope with transitions between terrestrial habitats and losses/gains in species due to climate change
understand drivers of change (and best indicators for each driver),
enable comparisons between protected areas and the countryside/wider marine environment,
Need for indicators (descriptors) to monitor ecosystem health,
make best use of all existing data resources and opportunities from the terrestrial and marine protected areas network,
identify opportunities to make use of emerging new methods and technologies where these would offer gains in effectiveness and efficiency.

In addition, the group organised a workshop to develop our understanding of the impacts of IPBES drivers of change on the State of Nature Report. This workshop is linked to c, d, e, f and g above and is reported in Appendix B.

Throughout, the discussions of the group were set within the context of limited funded being available, hence there was a need for prioritisation rather than developing a gold stand of monitoring everywhere. During the discussion, the group benefitted from insight in to monitoring and surveillance strategies and practice from the marine environment. The intention being that Best practice from the marine environment could be considered and discussed for implementation on land. There was also the recognition that terrestrial experience could be of value in the marine environment should a similar evaluation to this be taken forward.

Site condition Monitoring of On Land sites

NatureScot use a system of Site Condition Monitoring (SCM) to assess the condition of natural features of special interest on protected sites in Scotland. It is part of a wider UK system of Common Standards Monitoring (CSM) that occurs across the UK, although the four nations implement it slightly different ways.

NatureScot’s SCM programme is used to monitor more than 5000 individual natural features of special interest such as habitats (e.g. woodland, marine reef, freshwater loch), species populations (e.g. otter, dotterel, marsh fritillary butterfly) and geological formations (e.g. cave, fossil bed, volcanic exposure). The purpose of SCM is to determine the condition of the natural features within each site and focuses on those aspects of a feature that must be maintained to ensure its long-term survival under the current management and wider environmental conditions. The condition of the features is assessed against the Common Standards Monitoring (CSM) guidance published by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. The monitoring work is carried out by NatureScot staff, volunteers and specialist contractors. How regularly a feature is monitored depends on their sensitivity and vulnerability, with monitoring ranging from between as often as every 6 years for vulnerable habitats such as lowland heaths to as little as every 24 years for less vulnerable features such as earth science features.

The sampling of features to be monitored within the SCM programme was designed to provide a statistically robust sample size across similar features. This enabled NatureScot to provide an estimate of the percentage of each type of feature in favourable/unfavourable condition and hence to meet their national and international reporting requirements. However, the resources required to carrying SCM are considerable and NatureScot no-longer have the necessary resources to complete SCM in its current format.

At the first meeting of the group three options for replacing/modifying/continuing Site Condition Monitoring (SCM), based on existing levels of resourcing, on terrestrial sites were presented by NatureScot to the group:

Option 1: Abandon the statistical basis of SCM and move to a system of identifying sites

and features to be monitored on the basis of local threat/risk, or opportunity for management change. In this way Areas would rank all sites to give them a priority for monitoring using the existing protocols. The programme would then be built up within the resource available. The methodology would remain the same as is currently used, unlike Option 2 where different tiers receive different levels of monitoring.

Option 2: Use local threat/risk/opportunity to rank natural features for monitoring.

However, unlike the existing system and where all features are treated ‘equally’ in terms of the resources allocated for monitoring, a tiered approach to resource requirement for monitoring would be adopted whereby features in different tiers would receive different levels of monitoring.

Option 3: A radical option would be to accept that SCM was of its time and thereby

accept that it represents a ‘luxury’ which can no longer be afforded. A new approach, which is likely to be cheaper, is to move away from condition assessment to focus on drivers for change, such as grazing pressure, invasive non-natives and climate change.

Similar options considered to prioritise future protected areas monitoring in the marine environment were outlined to the sub-group. An important distinction to the proposed future on land SCM approach is that due to the very high costs involved, routine monitoring will not be undertaken in every MPA and that long-term monitoring will encompass specified sites and features only.

Summary of a 3-tiered approach to SCM proposed for pilot implementation

After discussion of the three options during the first meeting of the sub-group, NatureScot staff further developed Option 2, a 3-tiered approach to on land SCM (See Appendix A for full paper).

All features would be assigned to one of three tiers depending on the perceived local risk to the condition that feature. The summary below, text in italics, is a direct quote from the paper provided to the group (see Appendix A for further details about what monitoring is covered under a site check and a site check plus). The Tiers are:

Tier 1 Site Check

Low risk, robust features would be covered by the existing Site Check protocols

Tier 2 ‘Site Check Plus’

Low to medium risk or where pressures or management review needed – an enhanced Site Check Plus would be used through a structured walk, with current SCM attributes/targets in mind to form an overall impression of the feature on which to base an assessment. No quantitative field data is collected, but narrative provided against key existing attributes/targets.

Tier 3 Bespoke Monitoring

Medium to high risk features where pressures are already known, or need further investigation to identify pressures to be addressed – bespoke monitoring such as Herbivore Impact Assessment, Nitrogen deposition, etc.”

The risk-based approach associated with hierarchical monitoring ‘types’ broadly aligns with that proposed for parallel MPA-related monitoring activities.

The proposal stated that the general points for the new approach for on land SCM were (text below in italics, is a direct quote from the paper provided to the group (see Appendix A)):

Feature based -retaining the monitoring of protected area features.
Site based -still covering SSSI, SAC, SPA and Ramsar sites.
Risk based prioritisation of the resources invested in monitoring individual, or groups of, features taking into account local factors such as compatibility and surety of management, vulnerability of feature, etc.
Flexibility, avoiding too rigid a ‘one size fits all’ approach allowing the assessor to again account for local factors in terms of what, when and how to monitor.
Cost effective monitoring, such that the time we use to monitor is used to the best effect.
Change of emphasis from ‘monitoring to meet reporting requirements’ more towards the need to inform local management and drivers for biodiversity loss (recognising that international and national reporting requirements will continue).
Retain continuity of feature condition assessments with the three previous SCM cycles.
Incorporate new requirements where possible such as for example; considering opportunities for more ‘holistic’ monitoring across features, monitoring out with site boundaries, considering ecosystem services and also drivers for change such as climate change and nitrogen deposition.”

A framework to implement and test the proposed 3-tiered approach to SCM

The proposed methodology for the 3-tiered approach (see Appendix A) contained a number of areas which are not fully developed and which, if not resolved, would result in this pilot being unsuccessful and this new approach to SCM failing. In particular the method was lacking clear aims for each of the tiers, methods to validate the classification of features into tiers and methods to assess the success of this pilot. Below we outline the work required to fills the gaps identified in the proposed 3-tiered approach.

Development of aims and minimum standards

Clear aims for each of the 3 tiers of the monitoring need to be developed detailing what the purpose of the monitoring is within each tier. For Tier 2 greater clarity is needed in the methodology as this tier currently covers a wide range of assessments from a Tier 1 to a Tier 3. Minimum standards should be developed.

Training required

Instead of giving Area staff sole responsibility for assigning features to tiers, this assessment should be a combination of national risk assessment and local knowledge. Area staff will require training to correctly assign features to tiers and their needs to be accountability for Tier assignment. Training from habitat and species specialists will be required to properly deliver the programme, particularly for a Tier 2 assessment where a wide range of options are available to the surveyor.

Timescales for monitoring of features

The method sets no timescale over which all features should be assessed. We recommend that all features should be assessed at one of the 3-tiers at least every six years. Some features (those of greatest importance or at most risk) may need to be assessed more frequently.

Methodology to validate the classification of Tiers and risk categories

The current methodology lacks any validation of the classification of the Tiers and risk categories. Features are placed into Tiers based on NatureScot Area staff’s best assessment of the risks to that feature. A sample of features classified as Tier 1 and Tier 2 need to be monitored at the Tier 3 level to validate the allocation of features into the correct Tier and risk category. NatureScot need to be clear over which features are at greatest risk, with evidence of why they are placed in particular Tiers.

Development of an alert system

As some features will not be assessed by a full SCM an alert system should be developed to either bring the assessment of a feature forward (increase the frequency) or move it up a Tier if evidence of a change is detected either at that site using other survey data such as BBS, earth observation data, pollution data from SEPA or based on data from comparable features assigned to Tier 3.

Measuring the success of the pilot

The 3-tiered approach is proposed as a pilot but no indication is given as to how the success of the pilot will be measured or for how long the pilot will run. We recommend that the success of the pilot be assessed after 3 years. The 3-tiered approach should be compared to the previous SCM in terms of:

Numbers of features in favourable or recovering condition – this will assess if the new monitoring programme results in action on the ground to maintain sites in favourable condition or promote recovery. In particular the number of features where action has been prompted as a direct result of monitoring to restore or maintain condition.
Average time since last assessment
Percentage of features assessed

Although not comparable to the previous SCM the success of the pilot 3-tiered approach should also be assessed by:

The percentage of features within each Tier assessed. The overall percentage of features assessed could be high but this could be because a high percentage of the features in Tier 1 (quick, low cost) were assessed but of few of the features in Tier 3, (time consuming, high cost) were assessed. After 3 years 50% of the features in each tier should have been assessed and if there is any imbalance in work between Tiers this should be in favour of Tier 3.

Number of features moved up/down a Tier after initial visit or following an alert (see above) indicating that a feature was assigned to the wrong Tier, and greater guidance on placing features into Tiers is required.
The number of features within the validation programme (section 3.3.3) that were assessed as Tier 1 or 2 but were found to have been assigned to the wrong Tier.
The impact of the 3-tiered approach on indices that use SCM data (see below) should also be considered when assessing the success of the pilot.

Assessing the impact of the change in SCM methodology on indicators that use SCM data

A change in SCM method may have a cascading effect on indicators that use SCM data such as the Natural Capital Asset Index (NCAI). A paper to NatureScot’s SAC on an analysis of influential indicators within the NCAI showed that SCM data provided three of the ten most influential indicators, these were:

Grassland site condition (favourable condition)
Woodland site condition (favourable condition)
Temperate shrub heathland site condition (favourable condition)

The authors stated “In terms of risk assessment for future delivery of the NCAI, we wish to highlight the potential risk posed by any changes to SCM which might in turn influence the ongoing availability in the same format (for example with the same level of recording frequency) of these highly influential indicators. There is a need to have a wider discussion on changes to the SCM approach and the potential impacts this may have on NCAI delivery.” The impact of a move to the 3-tiered approach needs to be assessed on all indicators/indices that use SCM data, specifically: “Can the data from the 3-tiered approached still be used in the indicator to calculate a comparable matrix with the same level of accuracy as the old SCM?” If the answer is no then the relative merits of adjusting the indicator or the SCM method need to be assessed. The impact of a change in SCM methodology is also relevant to on-going discussion within the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (SBS) Science group on whether there has been any change in environmental monitoring effort.

Establishment of a field survey unit within NatureScot

Further efficiencies and gains in terms of consistency of approach may be gained from NatureScot establishing a field survey unit. This would also address concerns over the reduction of skills base in NatureScot for monitoring. The relationship between the field team and the area based staff would need to be established. For example, within Natural England their field unit contains people who have an internal secondment/placement for a year and then return to the area team, to increase skills within the team.

Recommendation 1:

The Framework required to implement a 3-tiered approach to on land site condition monitoring (SCM) should be implemented in full

The subgroup developed a framework to enable the 3-tiered approach to SCM to be clearly implemented, and the success of the trial to be evaluated. This should be implemented in full with training from habitat and species specialists provided to properly deliver the programme. In order to realise savings additional resources will be required initially to allow staff to fully develop the method and provide the required training.

Monitoring of Ecosystem health

Traditional nature conservation action focusses on features: species, habitats and geological formations but more recently ecologists have looked more broadly at the health of the ecosystem, its functioning and processes rather than just the presence/absence of certain features. This approach is developing rapidly in the marine environment. While it was outside the remit of this group to design detailed monitoring protocols, the concepts of ecosystem health were discussed and some broad principles/recommendations were agreed.

Lessons from the Marine environment

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive, now implemented through the UK Marine Strategy, uses 11 descriptors to assess Good Environmental Status (GES), similar in concept to ecosystem health. These eleven qualitative descriptors describe what the environment will look like when GES has been achieved: 1. biodiversity is maintained; 2. non-indigenous species do not adversely alter the ecosystem; 3. the population of commercial fish species is healthy; 4. elements of food webs ensure long-term abundance and reproduction; 5. eutrophication is minimised; 6. the sea floor integrity ensures functioning of the ecosystem; 7. permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect the ecosystem; 8. concentrations of contaminants give no effects; 9. contaminants in seafood are below safe levels; 10. marine litter does not cause harm; and 11. the introduction of energy (including underwater noise) does not adversely affect the ecosystem. To serve each descriptor a knowledge-based monitoring strategy is recommended under the directive, where the specific pressures or state variables applicable to each reporting area are considered, and an appropriate monitoring strategy devised. Such variables are used as indicators of GES within each of the 11 descriptors. Ultimately, whether GES is met depends on the performance of these indicators across all 11 GES descriptors when set against previously designated thresholds.

On land monitoring can learn from recent developments in marine monitoring and the GES descriptors concept, noting that:

The development of Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and its 11 descriptors to assess Good Environmental Status (GES) took over 10 years of preparation and considerable resources from marine organisations across the EU, via ICES working groups. If a similar multi-country, multi-disciplinary approach were to be developed for on land monitoring, considerable resources would be required to support implementation.
Whilst the principles of GES are well considered, the practical realities of designing and implementing programmes to monitor and report on the 11 descriptors are incredibly challenging and prohibitively expensive for some receptors. Considerable further work and investment is still required in terms of developing suitably robust indicators for a number of the descriptors. Available information has been used to best effect in Scotland’s Marine Assessment 2020 and this also highlights relevant knowledge gaps.
A good example of a current working group on issues of Ecosystem health is the ‘Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the North Sea’ The latest outputs from this group are available.
The Scottish MPA monitoring strategy broadens sampling beyond presence/absence and the condition of specified features to include exploration of pressure-state relationships and management effectiveness but such studies are resource intensive and will likely only ever be undertaken at a handful of locations.

Summary of discussions

Much of the data collected during SCM could be articulated in the context of ecosystem health, for example groups of species known to be good indicators of the impact of different drivers and these could be used to measure ecosystem health. Thus some measure of ecosystem health may be obtained from current SCM data, without devising a new approach.

Examples where terrestrial species or other parameters are currently being used to monitor ecosystem health include:

Work relating vascular plants to climate and nutrient status (Ellenberg values).
Freshwater biota integrates landscape-scale impacts of erosion, pollution, nutrients etc.
Farmland flora, invertebrates and some birds are sensitive indicators of agricultural intensification.
Wildfowl are indicators of lead pollution and top predators can be important indicators of other persistent pollutants in food chains.
Lichens/bryophytes are sensitive indicators of atmospheric pollution.
Grassland flora and some fungi (eg waxcaps) are sensitive indicators of grassland intensification.
Peatland flora is being used as a good indicator of trajectories of peatland restoration.
Ecosystem Health Indicators covering land cover, protected nature sites, forests, farming and nature, bird species diversity, freshwater, soil carbon, connectivity, invasive non-native species, climate change adaptation, soil sealing, bryophytes (nitrogen summer temperatures).

Ecosystem health may be split into resilience and functionality, the former is likely to be covered using existing data, but functionality may not be. Resilience is the capacity to cope with and recover from perturbation. Ecosystem functions are natural processes that take place in various plant and animal communities (food webs, nutrient and carbon cycling etc). By definition it is not possible to assess ecosystem functionality for an individual species (because each species is just a component of ecosystem function) but it is possible to identify some species which are indicators of function. For some features, largely areas of habitats, it may be possible to identify a few key variables that determines their ecosystem health – e.g. water table levels will be key in determining the functioning and hence health of blanket bogs. If a feature continues to be in favourable condition this indicates it is resilient to the current pressures, and hence in good ecosystem health, however, it provides no indication of the resilience of the feature to new perturbations. Indicators or measures of good ecosystem health provide no information about the how the interaction between features may change as environmental conditions change.

Recommendation 2:

Ecosystem health needs to be more clearly defined

The conflict between a dynamic ecosystem and fixed conservation objectives

Ecological processes and functions are dynamic, yet traditional conservation often aims to conserve a ‘static’ group of specified features, habitats and species within a specific site. Conservation in general is moving from away from a ‘static’ conservation approach to acceptance of the dynamic nature of the natural environment and the concept of a network of habitats supporting species populations in a favourable condition across their range. This in part is a response to the inevitable change as a result of climate change further challenging our ‘fixed’ objectives approach. However, a dynamic approach to conservation can conflict with the current protected areas approach of conserving a fixed set of species and habitats. While there are plenty of examples of ‘dynamic’ conservation within a site and of the existing network of protected sites accommodating important populations of species in ways that reflect dynamic change, there is the potential for sites to be classed as in unfavourable conditions and/or poor ecosystem health if a site loses a species for which it was designated due to dynamic ecological processes such as those due to climate change.

The group specifically discussed the following issue: the conflict between ecological process, function and dynamism vs the ‘static’ conservation of specified features, habitats and species. In particular we were tasked by the Protected Areas committee to discuss a) if a transition between habitats or loss/gain of species within a site automatically resulted in a decline in ecosystem health of the site and b) the measures NatureScot needed to put in place to move towards a more dynamic conservation within terrestrial protected areas while maintaining SCM.

Does a transition between habitats or loss/gain of species equal a decline in ecosystem health?

The group were asked to advise the Protected Areas Committee (PAC) if a transition between habitats or loss/gain of species, particularly due to climate change, resulted in a decline in ecosystem health. While a change in feature from one habitat to another or losses/gains in species will result in the feature being classed as in ‘unfavourable’ condition, the group concluded that this did not necessarily mean a decline in ecosystem health. For example, a move from upland heathland towards native woodland results in the heathland being in unfavourable condition but ecosystem health may be unchanged, or even improved. However, a transition from blanket bog to Sitka/Lodgepole based on seedling establishment from nearly plantations would constitute a negative change in ecosystem health. Whether a transition between habitats and/or losses/grains in species results in a change in ecosystem health depends

a) on the definition used for ecosystem health (R2),

b) the driver causing the change,

c) the scale at which ecosystem health is measured.

Recommendation 3:

Further work is required to define the how Transitions between features are accommodated on protected areas and how this affects ecosystem health

A dynamic ecosystem v fixed conservation objectives

At a site level, particularly within small sites, a dynamic approach to conservation may conflict with the current protected areas approach of conserving a fixed set of species and habitats. Losses of species or changes in habitats within a site, for which that site was designated would result in the site being classed as in unfavourable condition, possibly even de-designated. NatureScot needs to work out how to resolve this tension for Protected Sites given that some change of some features is inevitable due to climate change.

In particular for each feature it needs to identify what transitions are acceptable. Acceptable transitions for features at one site may not necessarily be acceptable for similar features at other sites depending on local site/catchment/regional objectives. Acceptable transitions may also depend on the driver of the change, for example natural successional processes (which can be managed if appropriate), local scale anthropogenic drivers of change (e.g. local pollution, land-use change over which some control may be possible), or climate change which is harder to manage. A protected areas network approach is required. While it is outside the remit of this group to identify which transitions are acceptable this work needs to be done to allow SCM to be adapted to a more dynamic form of conservation. It is thought that this issue primarily relates to on land systems but that it may also be relevant to some intertidal and subtidal marine features.

Once a set of features has been agreed where transition is acceptable the objectives for that protected area need to be revised according to appropriate legislation and SCM needs to be adapted to capture the transition. The monitoring must ensure that the change is within the agreed limits. For example, if transition to native woodland is agreed the monitoring should ensure that it is native tree species that are establishing not non-natives, and take account of expected differences in transitions depending if the woodland is established via natural regeneration or planting. If a change in species composition is agreed as inevitable due to climate change then monitoring should ensure that this species turnover has climate change as its driver and not, for example, local pollution or management over which there is more immediate control.

Recommendation 4:

A mechanism is required to determine acceptable transitions on protected areas

Integrating Protected Areas monitoring with wider countryside monitoring

With the next set of CBD targets likely to include an increase in the area of land and seas in protected areas, it is critical to know if protected areas do deliver their stated objective of enhanced biodiversity conservation. NatureScot wishes to be clearer about the contribution protected areas make to the stock of features in Scotland i.e. understanding the extent and condition of these features within protected sites with respect to the extent and condition of the features overall across Scotland.

Detailed SCM is conducted on protected areas, but similar monitoring is not conducted in the wider countryside to provide comparative data. Wider countryside monitoring schemes do have locations both within and outwith protected areas making comparisons in principle possible, but these schemes may not have the resolution to detect trends in the rarer species or habitats for which protected sites are designated. The data from these schemes is rarely used currently within Scotland to provide comparisons between protected areas and the wider countryside. This means we are unable to answer such questions as:

Are protected areas performing better than the surrounding countryside in terms of protecting species and habitats?
Do protected areas have a beneficial influence on the surrounding countryside?
How does the surrounding countryside influence the condition of the features within the protected areas?

From a reporting perspective for international designations, this also means that there is often insufficient evidence from out with protected areas for make a full assessment of Favourable Conservation Status (ie the condition of features throughout their Scottish range), so expert judgement has to be used. This concept and ‘need’ applies equally to MPAs and the monitoring of Scotland’s wider seas. This is recognised in the MPA monitoring strategy but further work is required to coordinate aspects of wider seas sampling.

A framework to implement the monitoring of the wider countryside against protected areas.

Below we outline the work required to develop a consistent approach to monitoring the wider countryside and developing metrics which allows comparisons between the wider countryside and protected areas.

A collaborative approach to monitoring the wider countryside

Monitoring of the wider countryside will only succeed, given the limited resources available, if it is conducted as a collaborative, across sector/organisation approach. A similar approach to that is used for the State of Nature Report should be developed i.e. a collaborative approach across organisations that uses as much existing data as possible. Many organisations already collect data either directly or via citizen science - this provides a valuable resource that should be used where possible to fulfil this requirement. This approach should link to the appropriate elements of Scottish Biodiversity Information Forum (SBIF) report ‘A Review of the Biological Recording Infrastructure in Scotland‘; that has tackled many of the issues around data sharing and storing across organisations and proposed costed solutions. Marine monitoring and data management pathways were not covered in any detail in the SBIF review. NatureScot will be working with external partners to scope the work required to bring forward comparable proposals for Scottish marine interests. This initial appraisal will be complete in spring 2021.

Use existing data and expanding volunteer monitoring schemes to develop metrics

JNCC’s Terrestrial Surveillance Development and Analysis partnership (TSDA) have access to a wide range of data across taxa from both within and outside protected areas. This data could be used to provide an initial comparison of trends and abundances inside and outside protected areas. Suggested analyses of Breeding Bird Survey / Butterfly Monitoring Scheme data could answer questions such as i) do protected sites support a greater abundance of individual species/ species of conservation concern / habitat specialists than non-protected sites ii) are trends in the abundance of individual species more positive / less negative on protected sites than non-protected sites iii) do changes in community metrics such as habitat specialisation / abundance of protected species differ between protected sites / non-protected sites. Changes in species’ occurrence, such as from atlas data, could be used to examine patterns of colonisation / extinction in relation to protected sites, that have previously been used to consider responses to climate change (see Thomas et al. 2012 PNAS, Gillingham et al. 2015 Biol. J Linn Soc). We recommend that NatureScot discusses with JNCC whether this analysis can be included in their work programme for 2020/21 and/or continues this in 2021/22. Not only will this allow NatureScot to develop a comparison of protected areas versus the wider country but it will allow NatureScot to develop better evidence and reporting on condition and trends in Protected Sites which could contribute to the alert system recommended as part of the new 3-tiered approach to SCM (see R1).

A similar approach to that suggested with the TDSA data could also be developed for marine systems to compare MPAs with the wider oceans and seas. There are suitable data sources such as MEDIN and the National Marine Plan Interactive.

NatureScot should also use its own data to develop comparisons between the wider countryside and PAs, for example development of NatureScot’s existing work on remote sensing/earth observation can be used to place protected areas within the context of the wider countryside particularly in terms of extent and connectivity (R 6).

Existing data may not fulfil all the requirements of comparing protected areas versus wider countryside. For example the data within the TDSA and the analyses proposed above may not be very good at providing data for the species which site were originally designated for. For example, you can’t use the Breeding Bird Survey to test how well the PA network is providing for the needs of dotterel or sustaining oak woodlands in favourable condition. By 2022 an assessment of potential use of existing data should be completed and gaps and additional data requirements identified. Careful consideration should be given to the collection of new data to fill these gaps. If new data is collected it should be done to answer specific questions and collected in such a manner that it is statistically robust.

Biodiversity recording schemes used by volunteers, such as Bird Track or i-Record could be more formally linked to protected areas to encourage a greater frequency of biological recording there, that could be more closely linked to condition recording. For example, apps could be adapted to show recorders that they are near a PA and encourage them to record within the protected area as well. Such data could contribute towards the alert system within R1, and comparison of the wider countryside with PA’s. This approach also links to proposals within the SBIF report.

The Scottish MPA monitoring strategy recognises the significant contribution of existing citizen science initiatives (including numerous long-term studies of marine birds and mammals) noting that ‘supporting current and future citizen science programmes will be essential to maximise the information available for assessment and reporting’ (Marine Scotland, 2017).

To harness enthusiasm and build capacity beyond the well-established Seasearch volunteer diver recording scheme, NatureScot has been working with Fauna & Flora International (FFI), communities, local groups and individuals on a Community-led Marine Biodiversity Monitoring Project. The project has funding support from the William Grant Foundation (WGF) and is looking at practical ways to support and engage communities, local groups and those who use the sea for work or recreation, in marine survey and monitoring. This initiative has the potential to increase both the volume and types of data collected from a broader range of sampling techniques.

Future State of Nature reporting

The State of Nature report (SoN) is a health check on how the UK’s wildlife is faring. It is put together using wildlife data from a group of 50 conservation organisations. There are separate summaries for each of the four UK countries. The report uses information from many data providers, often collected by skilled volunteers, to identify overall change in abundance and distribution for a range of species. The State of Nature report provides an overall summary that includes both protected areas and the wider countryside but does not currently provide separate reporting for areas within and outside protected areas.

There is considerable scope for strengthening the value of future State of Nature reports, particularly within the country specific Scottish report. A number of important areas for development are suggested below.

Making the core metrics of the state of Scottish nature more robust by expanding the representation: improving species representation from poorly monitored taxa (e.g. invertebrates, fungi), realms (marine), habitats (upland) and regions. Some of this may be done by liberating and analysing existing datasets. Scotland’s Marine Assessment 2020 will illustrate relevant examples from the marine environment. Other improvements may require a longer-term investment in data collection, associated training, data flows etc., such as those suggested by the SBIF review.
Investigating possibilities for disaggregating the core State of Nature metrics to help communication and interpretation, e.g. by region, by habitat, by inside/outside protected area. Note that in many cases the available data will limit what is possible.
Refining the presentation and design of the headline State of Nature metrics, in particular by examining alternatives to the current approach of simply showing the average trend to better represent the wide variation between individual species.
Better understanding the relationship between the two currencies available to measure change in species, abundance and occupancy, and how the two measures measure ‘how well’ nature is doing in Scotland.
Improving the understanding of the drivers of the changes shown by the high-level SoN metrics. In part this might be done by appropriate disaggregations of the those metrics, in particular by producing ‘impact indicators’ showing changes in species suites known to be sensitive to specific drivers. This may require work to identify the impact of drivers upon individual species, and could be linked to an assessment of the net impact of drivers upon Scottish biodiversity in the same way as was done at a UK scale for State of Nature 2016 and has proven fundamental for our reporting on changes in the UK’s nature.
Related to improving our understanding of drivers, a vital component of State of Nature reporting that should be strengthened is measuring the impact of conservation interventions, to support a more robust and better evidenced defence of the investment in conservation by all sectors. This might be done by developing counterfactuals – estimating trends in nature in the absence of conservation policies and programmes.
Improving our knowledge of biodiversity change prior to the start of ‘modern’ recording circa 1970, to enable a quantitative (or at least semi-quantitative) approach to reporting this in State of Nature.

Recommendation 5:

Better use should be made of existing data sets to be able to compare that status of nature within and outside protected areas

Monitoring of the wider countryside to compare it with protected areas should be a collaborative effort across sectors/organisations, drawing on the results and experience of partner organisations such as RSPB and using as much existing data as possible. By 2022 an assessment of potential use of existing data should be completed and additional data requirements identified. NatureScot should work with the Terrestrial Surveillance Development and Analysis partnership (TSDA) to develop metrics to compare protected areas against the wider countryside. Future State of Nature reporting should be improved by implementing the seven suggested areas for development. This will allow a more robust reporting of the state of nature in Scotland and comparisons of trends and abundance inside and outside protected areas. This cross sector/organisation approach to monitoring the wider countryside and the State of Nature reporting requires the continued funding of the many different monitoring programmes on which it relies and links to the SBIF report.

New technologies and methods

There are currently a number of new technologies which could revolutionize biological monitoring and surveillance. NatureScot’s Innovative Technologies Programme, is looking to deliver 3 key outcomes:

mainstream the use of new technologies;
provide leadership in using new technologies and
to develop new partnerships to help us do this.

The group reviewed two new technologies: NatureScot’s work on remote sensing/earth observation (including the satellites, and use of autonomous and robotic advances) and DNA.

Summary of discussions

Across all new approaches/techniques NatureScot staff should have a clear rationale and question to be answered by using new technologies rather than just using it because it is available or “going fishing” with it to see what it can do.

The group reviewed much of the ongoing work on remote sensing/earth observation within NatureScot. This work should be used to support activities such as an alert system for the 3-tiered SCM (R1) and the setting of protected areas within the context of the wider countryside particularly in terms of extent and connectivity (R5). The group note that both applications apply equally in the intertidal / marine environment. They also note that remote sensing/earth observation data and the tools developed from it will require some level of ongoing ground truthing and validation, which will require to be resourced.

DNA based methods offer opportunities for the targeted detection and monitoring of protected and invasive species, the survey of communities through metabarcoding and the development of new metrics to describe ecosystem composition and function, both on land and in the marine environment. These techniques allow non-destructive sampling to take place (environmental DNA) without demanding taxonomical skills and have a high degree of accuracy. Some survey applications of this technology are now well developed although there are still barriers to its use, particularly the development of comprehensive barcode reference libraries, the inability to assess when the species was present (i.e. how old the DNA is) and its inability to measure abundance of species.

Recommendation 6:

Opportunities for the implementation of new technologies in monitoring and surveillance should be actively explored

Long-term Monitoring Network

The group reviewed the UK Environmental Change Network (ECN) and Long Term Monitoring Network (LTMN) established by Natural England (NE). These networks provide intensive ‘whole system’ monitoring by carrying out more intensive and standardised monitoring of a range attributes across a network of sites.

The ECN is a multi-agency long-term integrated research programme to record, analyse and predict environmental change in the United Kingdom. The focus of the network is to understand long term air pollution and climate change impacts on biodiversity. All sites operate a uniform system of long-term data collection of physical, chemical and biological variables recorded using strict protocols. There are 11 terrestrial ECN sites across the UK including two in Scotland. NatureScot already support ECN monitoring at Cairngorm. In addition, seven out of the 16 fresh water lake ECN monitoring sites and nine of the 29 river and stream ECN monitoring sites are located in Scotland.

Since 2009 NE has increased the number of sites with long-term monitoring by establishing a Long Term Monitoring Network (LTMN). There are 37 LTMN sites across England covering ten target habitats: broadleaved mixed woodland, heathland (upland and lowland), upland blanket bog, lowland raised bog, lowland fen, calcareous grassland, neutral grassland, sand dune, saltmarsh and montane. Seven monitoring protocols are followed for weather, air quality, land management, vegetation, soil chemistry and communities, bird and butterfly populations in order to allow comparability between sites and over time. The majority (31) of the LTMN are on National Nature Reserves.

The group considered NatureScot’s aims of:

developing a greater understanding of i) changes in drivers of change (cf IPBES drivers of change) and ii) the impact of these drivers on biodiversity
providing a measure of change in PA’s versus the wider countryside.

If the NE approach is followed then the LTMN is largely established on protected areas, thus while providing increased data on PA’s it is not suitable for b). However, there is great potential in using a LTMN approach to understand drivers of change with cause and effect in similar way to much of the marine monitoring is done. The establishment of such a network will require resources, where possible a “state of nature approach” i.e. a collaborative approach across organisations should be developed. Greater utilization of the NNRs would help in the establishment of a LTMN.

Recommendation 7:

A Long-term Monitoring Network approach should be developed amongst partners

Role for National Nature Reserves and Nature Reserves (NNR’s)

Under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 “nature reserve means land managed for the purpose—

(a) of providing, under suitable conditions and control, special opportunities for the study of, and research into, matters relating to the fauna and flora of Great Britain and the physical conditions in which they live, and for the study of geological and physiographical features of special interest in the area, or

(b) of preserving flora, fauna or geological or physio-graphical features of special interest in the area

or for both those purposes.“

Thus research and monitoring were one of the founding principles of NNRs. Many NNRs have a long history of research and monitoring. However, the research is often not strategic, multi-site or driven by NatureScot evidence needs.

In addition, NNRs will play a key role in maintaining the ecological health of the ecosystems and landscapes of which they are a part, and will provide important opportunities for people to engage with, be inspired by, and benefit from wild nature. However, it is critically important that NatureScot also recognises and develops the opportunities that NNRs provide for monitoring, research and demonstration, as discussed below. Some MPAs may offer comparable opportunities for marine monitoring whether specifically developed for demonstration and research purposes (e.g. Fair Isle D&R MPA); where implemented adjacent to existing infrastructure (e.g. Loch Sween MPA and the Taynish Woods NNR; Isle of May marine SAC & NNR; Berwickshire Coast SAC and the St Abbs Voluntary Marine Nature Reserve) or where local community-led monitoring capacity exists (e.g. South Arran MPA).

Summary of discussions

NNRs both individually, as a network, and in conjunction with wider nature reserve networks provide invaluable opportunities to develop monitoring and research programmes which both diagnose the relationships between drivers of change and ecological responses; to rigorously test and evaluate the effectiveness of management interventions within a ‘learn-by-doing’ adaptive management framework; and to provide demonstration sites to showcase exemplars of effective management. The recent history of applying this approach at sites such as Abernethy and Forsinard Flows shows what can be achieved in developing evidence-based approaches to the management of native pinewoods, and blanket bogs respectively, and this philosophy is now the heart of the Endangered Landscapes Programme’s long-term ecological restoration project, Cairngorms Connect. Once established, such platforms can provide the impetus for development of on-site facilities such as the Field Centre at Forsinard Flows, which then support inter-disciplinary and highly collaborative partnerships, in this case focused on the long-term challenges of peatland restoration and management. Overall therefore, greater recognition and use of the existing network of NNR’s as a monitoring, research and demonstration resource could help to tackle many current conservation challenges. Of particular relevance to this group are NatureScot’s aims of developing a greater understanding of i) changes in drivers of change (cf IPBES drivers of change) and ii) the impact of these drivers on biodiversity. The benefits of an LTMN (R7) could be met, a least in part, by greater development of NNRs in this way.

Recommendation 8:

Further use should be made of NNRs for monitoring, research and demonstration

Data management

Good data management and quality control should underpin all surveillance and monitoring otherwise the surveillance and monitoring is useless.

Summary of discussion

NatureScot needs to continue to ensure good data management and provide the resources to implement this. As the use of data collected by other organisations increases, particularly in respect of monitoring the wider countryside, the development and resourcing of appropriate data holding resources is required. The SBIF review details a framework for infrastructure, support and resources which may be required for the improved recording, managing, sharing and use of wildlife data within Scotland. The SBIF has 24 recommendations which are aimed at

Developing clear data flows to a central data repository, with easy data submission and feedback on use
Creating full coverage for services across Scotland and an online digital first approach
Establishing a lead governance body working in partnership through a network of national and regional hubs
Securing funding in perpetuity for lead governance body, super partner and community activities

The group briefly reviewed NatureScot’s own data management and noted throughout its discussions that work undertaken by SBIF was very relevant, particularly with respect to R5. The group recognised that marine data management was not covered in the initial SBIF review and NatureScot is currently working with external partners to scope work required to generate comparable recommendations.

Recommendation 9:

Data flows and management should be maintained and strengthened

NatureScot should continue to collate and hold its own data with appropriate quality controls, metadata and data flows to ensure long-term accessible data that is openly available. NatureScot should support and work with partners to implement elements of the SBIF review.

Acknowledgements

During the meetings for the Monitoring and Surveillance Sub-group the following provided very helpful inputs: Ben James, Ed Mackey, Pete Rawcliffe, Duncan Stone, Graham Sullivan and Des Thompson. The workshop on ‘Connecting the State of Nature to the IPBES drivers’ run as part of this working group had additional input from Debbie Bassett and David O’Brien. We thank them all for their work.

Appendix A. Full paper on the 3-tiered approach to SCM

Since the Monitoring & Surveillance Sub-group met in September 2019, the focus of the development work has been on re-establishing a programme of protected areas focussed monitoring for 2020/21, following the years hiatus in the Site Condition Monitoring (SCM) programme. The pause to the programme to review the extent to which the investment in SCM was providing the data which SNH requires going forward to better inform our response to the Climate emergency and the drivers of biodiversity loss. The second aspect to the review is to identify elements of the programme where new technologies/techniques can be harnessed either to improve the efficiency of the assessment process and/or to better set protected areas within the context of the landscapes within which they sit and interact.

This should not be seen as the ‘final answer’ for the shape of, and, programme delivery, but more the framework upon which new technologies/techniques will be added as they are tested and rolled out for application nationally. Looking forward to the 2020 fieldseason, there are therefore, two parallel pieces of work being progressed:

the tiered approach to protected areas monitoring resourcing
exploration of the use of new technologies/techniques in monitoring and surveillance.

Tiered Approach to Resource Allocation for Monitoring on Protected areas

This is a follow up to the paper put to the SCM Contacts meeting on 26th November 2019 which set out three options to monitoring protected areas for 2020/21 and proposed ‘option 2’ - a three tier approach. From that paper the three tiers are described as:

Tier 1 Site Check

Low risk, robust features would be covered by the existing Site Check protocols.

Tier 2 ‘Site Check Plus’

Tier 3 Bespoke Monitoring

In addition, the ‘option 2’ proposal included using local threat/risk/opportunity to rank natural features for monitoring.

The aim of this follow up is to expand on these summaries and open the details up for further discussion.

General Points for the proposed new approach for 2020/21:

Feature based -retaining the monitoring of protected area features.
Site based -still covering SSSI, SAC, SPA and Ramsar sites.
Risk based prioritisation of the resources invested in monitoring individual, or groups of, features taking into account local factors such as compatibility and surety of management, vulnerability of feature, etc.
Flexibility, avoiding too rigid a ‘one size fits all’ approach allowing the assessor to again account for local factors in terms of what, when and how to monitor.
Cost effective monitoring, such that the time we use to monitor is used to the best effect.
Change of emphasis from ‘monitoring to meet reporting requirements’ more towards the need to inform local management and drivers for biodiversity loss² (recognising that international and national reporting requirements will continue).
Retain continuity of feature condition assessments with the three previous SCM cycles.
Incorporate new requirements where possible such as for example; considering opportunities for more ‘holistic’ monitoring across features, monitoring out with site boundaries, considering ecosystem services and also drivers for change such as climate change and nitrogen deposition.

The next section provides more details on the three Tiers followed by a section on a risk based prioritisation of features.

Tier 1 more on the Site Check

Any protected area site visit to monitor natural features, management or pressures that does not provide enough information to update feature condition (unless there is clear evidence of deterioration or improvement that does not require further verification).

Tier 1 is the equivalent to Site Check from cycle 3 (existing Site Check guidance)
Applies to planned visits to features deemed ‘low risk’, or other opportunistic visits.

What would be recorded

A Site Check record completed on SCM db with a summary of what was monitored and findings which could include:

- Review of pressures
- Review of existing and future management
- Follow up actions
- Recommendations on risk profile, next monitoring date and type
- Linked documents

Considerations

Consideration should be given to combining Site Checks across features to provide a more holistic overview.
Review the SCM IT system to consider whether Site Checks can be used to record feature condition where required in cases say of clear evidence of deterioration.
On multi-owner sites, consider whether all/the majority to the key landholdings would be visited before a Site Check could be concluded [This is a change to existing Site Check in cycle 3 where a specific visit to part of a site was acceptable].

Tier 2 ‘Site Check Plus’

Tier 2 are planned monitoring events or occasional opportunistic visits that are sufficient to provide enough information to update feature condition.

Applies to planned visits to features deemed ‘low to medium risk’, or where pressures or management changes are reviewed.
Tier 2 makes use of existing SCM attributes/targets to form an overall impression of the feature on which to base an assessment.
Tier 2 could include a subset of existing SCM attributes/targets which are key to determining feature condition. These subsets should be defined through additional guidance from specialists prior to 2020/21.
For some feature types, Tier 2 could remain as the existing SCM assessment, but for many features a reduced subset of attribute targets would be assessed by means of a structured walk. This would not necessarily require the full number of sample points required for cycle 3. No quantitative field data would be collected, but narrative provided against existing attributes/targets.

What would be recorded

A Site Condition Monitoring record completed on SCM db with an assessed condition. This would be supported by one of the following:

A partial SCM condition monitoring form with a limited number of key attributes/ targets.
A ‘feature condition assessment’ MS word document based on a standard template and signed off by an SNH Area Ops Manager.
For some feature types, a full SCM condition monitoring form as in previous SCM cycles.

The assessed condition will therefore be based on the assessor’s evaluation by collecting sufficient ‘robust evidence’ referencing updated guidance documents produced by specialists. This provides more flexibility in 2020/21 to take a more pragmatic approach to the evidence needed to complete feature condition assessments accounting for local factors.

The Tier 2 record will also include any updates as per Tier 1 Site Check:

Review of pressures
Review of existing and future management
Follow up actions
Recommendations on next monitoring date and type
Linked documents

Considerations

Written guidance should be produced by specialists to support Tier 2. This should include whether a subset of existing CSM attributes would be sufficient to assess feature condition (Kate Holl offered to try this out for Woodland). The existing SNH Site Check guidance documents could be used as a starter, with further text added on Tier 2.
SNH will need to ensure that the ‘robust evidence’ is indeed sufficient to provide confidence of the continuity between the existing assessed condition of features and those in 2020/21. There is a risk here of being accused of ‘dumbing down’ SCM.
To allow for the ‘feature condition assessment’ document approach described above, SCM IT system may need to be configured to enable SCM feature condition assessments to be completed without the condition monitoring form.
Consider possibilities of streamlining the recording on SCM of bird surveys such as Webs wader counts.
The proportion of a feature which would need to be ‘assessed’ to enable conclusions to be reached if current assessed condition is to be changed

Tier 3 Bespoke Monitoring

Where further investigation is required to identify pressures, species, management effectiveness or the cause of unfavourable condition. Includes bespoke monitoring such as ‘Herbivore Impact Assessment’, nitrogen deposition, plant species surveys, river surveys or more detailed SCM assessments on for example uplands, coastal or marine sites.

Applies to planned visits to features deemed ‘medium to high risk’.

What would be recorded

As per Tier 2, a Site Condition Monitoring record completed on SCM db with an assessed condition.
A link to the more detailed monitoring report documents.

The Tier 3 record will also include any updates as per Tier 1 Site Check:

Review of pressures
Review of existing and future management
Follow up actions
Recommendations on next monitoring date and type
Linked documents

Considerations

Consider opportunities to also include other additional survey types in 2020/21- Nitrogen deposition is an example where SNH could trial a new methodology that has already been developed.

Overall Considerations for all three Tiers

Documentation

We should consider documenting the appropriate monitoring methods for the three Tiers for each feature type and creating guidance for this. This could be achieved by starting with each Site Check feature type document and adding further sections on each Tier including reference to the types of monitoring suitable, and identifying key attributes/targets appropriate to be able to assess feature condition.

IT Systems

We need to review IT systems such that they can support the above with minimum IT changes. Includes considering whether we can publish on Sitelink the last visit to each feature for all three Tiers. At the moment only SCM dates are published on Sitelink etc but that is missing the full picture with Site Check currently and also for the future for the three Tiers.

Process

Part of the flexibility in the programme will be the ability to move features between tiers, likely to be as a result of a Tier 1, 2 or 3 assessment. A process will need to be agreed to validate and agree proposed changes in order to embed them in to the rolling programme.

Prioritisation of features to monitor in 2020/21 and beyond

In SCM cycle 3, features were allocated an assessment frequency based on their feature category (e.g. woodland every 18 years, invertebrates every 6 years - more details from cycle 3 in Annex 1). Features were then randomly selected to provide statistical confidence that sufficient features of each category were being monitored through SCM within the cycle

However a downside of this approach was that it failed to take into account local risk/opportunity factors such as development near protected areas, changes in local land management or local staff knowledge of the robustness and sensitivities of their sites and features.

The proposed process for 2020/21 is to rank features based on a number of factors including these local risks such that we are best able to direct our resources towards sites and features with the highest priorities, risk or opportunities.

A ‘safety net’ is also proposed to ensure that every feature is visited by one of the monitoring Tiers within a set time period – and 6 to 10 years has been suggested.

It is also an aim that technology will assist in the future such as to provide more frequent early warnings of potential damage or decline. For example Earth Observation has potential to flag changes in habitats and to trigger follow ups. Relevant EO requirements and solutions will need be investigated (2020?) which will likely need piloting and ‘ground proofing’.

Factors relevant to feature ranking

Factor	Comment
Feature category general risk	Similar to SCM cycle 3
Time since site/feature was last monitored	Include SCM and Site Check
Ease and cost of monitoring
Feature condition	Favourable declining, unfavourable recovering and other unfavourable features being potentially higher priority
Development	Planned or having taken place local to the site
Management requirements	Such as expiries, need for review or to check efficacy
Other local site sensitivities	Where known by Area staff or Specialists
Pressures

Proposed prioritisation process

Task	Comments	Who
Define risk method	Risk categories, priorities and maximum time between visits.	Protected Areas team
Define Tier 1, 2 and 3 monitoring methods	Per feature type	Specialists
Feature risk spreadsheet – set up centrally	Include the ‘non local’ and data risk factors: Feature category risk, Time since last SCM/Site Check, Condition, Ease or cost of monitoring, Management expiries, Pressures	Protected Areas team
Feature risk spreadsheet – add local risk factors	E.g. Development, Management requirements, other site sensitivities	Area staff
Produce prioritised list of features	This will include a ranked list of features along with a Tier method for each feature	Protected Areas team Verified by Area staff and Specialists
Produce 2020/21 feature monitoring plan	Will need to either; come up with planned features, then estimate Area and specialist resources needed to deliver or request Area/Specialist resources available for monitoring and match to priorities.	All

Appendix b. Connecting the State of Nature to the IPBES drivers: report on workshop

Chaired by Ruth Mitchell (The James Hutton Institute and Chair of the SNH SAC surveillance and monitoring Sub-group).
Facilitated by Brian Eardley, Debbie Basset, David O’Brien (SNH)
Held 3rd March 2020 at the Royal Society of Edinburgh

Summary of Key points from IPBES drivers workshop

The Monitoring & Surveillance Sub-group organised a workshop to assess the methods we currently have, or could develop, to monitor changes in the IPBES drivers of change (both the five direct drivers and the indirect drivers) and their impacts on biodiversity.

Summary

Overall, there is a need to develop methods to monitor the success of measures to reduce or reverse the impacts of the five IPBES drivers (land/marine use, pollution, exploitation, climate change, INNS). The workshop identified the following priorities for action -

Much of the monitoring/surveillance data is centred on the current situation, but there is a need for horizon scanning to anticipate the changes which are coming to ensure we are well prepared to detect the start of change, effectiveness of management response and how it develops.
Recognising the increased dynamism in the environment, caused by these drivers, means that modelling and monitoring data need to be brought closer together so that predicted change can be mapped out and models adapted as a result of the monitoring results showing changes on the ground.
There needs to be more work carried out across taxa, including the interaction between taxa in a changing environment. This will require improved infrastructure and resources to access and share the data, and also to support the combination of data sets, analysis and reporting.

Delivery of these priorities will require people to be better connected to nature and hence for society to value it.

Meeting findings

Overarching issues across drivers

Horizon scanning of ‘issues for the future’ which may require to be monitored.
Methods/approaches to separate out the different interacting effects of the 5 drivers and their relative influence.
Data streams available are only one part of the process – ultimately these are only of value if they can be collated, brought together with other relevant data, analysed and interpreted, and ultimately visualised [all within a short enough period of time to be available to influence management decisions] – that means that the processing capacity of the information is just as important as what data collection consists of.
Development methods to monitor the success of measures to reduce or reverse the impacts of the five IPBES drivers.

Indirect drivers

Develop methods and indictors to monitor indirect drivers of change (e.g. economic, demographic, governance, technological and cultural). Particular attention should be given to patterns of production, supply and consumption on nature and on nature’s contributions to people and their quality of life. It was recognised that NatureScot’s portrayal of the IPBES indirect drivers as how ‘connected people are with nature’, and how ‘people value nature’ should be revisited to better reflect the significance of these factors.

Landuse

Maps of landuse are largely static and not suitable for monitoring
Lack of monitoring linking landuse change to changes in biodiversity in terrestrial systems
Better monitoring required of the biodiversity outcomes of agri-environment schemes
Better integration of earth observation, drones and hyperspectral imagery with field data and land management boundaries for habitat quality/condition
Improved understanding of landuse impacts on soil biodiversity and soil health

Climate

Monitoring of ‘new’ notified features on protected areas in response to more dynamic ecosystems
Understanding of how new communities formed as a result of climate change function
Genetics for functional diversity/ DNA methods for biodiversity monitoring
Linking species traits to disentangle drivers of change
Most of the monitoring of climate change impacts on biodiversity is around phenology and range expansion.
A greater understanding of the ecological mechanisms behind climate change required

Exploitation

Data on exploitation is largely lacking in the terrestrial environment. Need to use an ecosystem based approach to management to measure exploitation.

Pollution

Development of pollution monitoring using satellite imagery
Need better understanding of pollution movement through food chains
Need better understanding of non-lethal impacts of pollution

Non-natives/INNS

Remote sensing/ Drones for INNS – non native aquatic species, beech, giant hogweed and effects of pathogens
Development of improved eDNA for INNS/ metabarcoding
Probability modelling of INNS and pathogens in light of climate predictions
A study comparing pairs of native/non-native species to determine cause and effect
Development of an INNS indicator to show changes in range/prevalence and/or impact on economy, biodiversity, ecosystem service provision, habitat modification.

Background and purpose

The State of Nature Report (SoN) identifies trends in biodiversity within the UK. At an international level IPBES have identified 5 direct drivers of change on biodiversity (changes in land and marine use, exploitation, climate change, pollution and INNS) as well as identifying the indirect effects of human values and behaviours on biodiversity which have been summarized by NatureScot as ‘connecting people and nature’, and ‘valuing nature’. This workshop aimed to bring these two reports together to assess the methods we currently have, or could develop, to monitor changes in these drivers and their impacts on biodiversity.

The purpose of the workshop was defined as “To discuss the methods and practices we put in place to develop our understanding of the impacts of the five direct and two indirect (5+2) IPBES drivers on the state of nature. This will consider monitoring, modelling, analytical, AI and ‘large data’ approaches which could be developed.”

Over 30 people attended the workshop including representatives from Aberdeen University, BTO, Cambridge University, DAERA-NI, JNCC, Marine Scotland, Natural England, NatureScot, RBGE, RESAS, RSPB and Scottish Government. Following the workshop input to the tables identifying current methods and potential new methods were received from RZSE, SASA, SEPA and SRUC as these organisation were not able to attend. Scottish Land and Estates were also asked for comment, but none were received.

Specific questions given to the workshop participants were:

What methods and data do we currently use to monitor changes in the 5+2 drivers? (noting limitations)
Do we need indicator(s) of the drivers of change? If so what are these, and at what level spatially/temporally are they used?
How do we monitor impacts of drivers on the state of nature versus ‘just’ monitoring the drivers?
Importantly, can we arrive at a view on the Methods we need to employ

The Workshop was divided in to two session, the first a series of presentations to set the scene and general discussion (pre-workshop material was provided), followed by a workshop session. The workshop session grouped the 5+2 drivers into split three groups a) changes in land and marine use, direct exploitation and climate change; b) pollution and INNS; c) indirect drivers. For each group of drivers the participants were asked to identify:

Methods/data we currently have to monitor changes in the drivers
New methods/techniques we could develop to monitor changes in the drivers

Methods/data we currently have to monitor the impact of the drivers on biodiversity
New methods/techniques we could develop to monitor the impact of the drivers on biodiversity
Existing indicators of the drivers
New indicators we could develop.

Following the workshop the information for each group of drivers were assigned to individual drivers and assessed as to whether the information referred to terrestrial habitats, marine habitats or to both, see final tables in Part 2.

Part 1: discussion following presentations

The discussions following the presentations could be broken in to six headings

Evidence

How much discussion was there through compilation of the State of Nature (SoN) report over the baseline to be used against which change was judged? This was largely dictated by the data which was available
Can we better identifying when changes have happened, in order to be able to bring the story to life?
Rather than looking at baselines to assess current trends, would we be better to establish what are sustainable populations for different taxa?
Scientists tend to want robust data, but the ‘owners’ of the drivers of change are looking for a narrative to respond to – how can SoN look to bridge the gap?
Are there lessons which can be learnt from considering ‘functional’ ecosystems, rather than the ‘traditional approach’ of plant and other species communities? This would allow consideration of the role of species within the food chain and whether they are unique, so need to be sustained through management intervention or can be replaced by other species without affecting the functioning of the ecosystem.
Much of the focus of discussion has been around ‘effects and actions‘ rather than response. Need to have more evidence to evaluate outcomes – albeit that this could be challenging where responses are anticipated to be in time horizons longer than the useful lifespan of policies.
Is there a question of current work being too safe and that we should be looking at funding more risky activity.
We seem to be missing a robust ‘theory/hypothesis’ of how biodiversity is likely to change if no intervention is taken. From this a measures of success could be developed, informed by indicators.
Need to be clear where we don’t have sufficient evidence and work to improve it, before we embark on filling gaps.

Data and Supporting Infrastructure

Habitats in their own right are not included in the SoN – is this something which needs to be addressed by the partnership?
All the presentations were focussed on the data which we have now, but we need to look across other sectors to get a better picture of what is happening to biodiversity and the drivers of change.
Looking at current data on the Drivers, it would seem that we have good modelling data available for climate change, but land use change data is patchy at best and exploitation data is even worse
For identifying gaps or new evidence/data which is needed, we need to do some horizon scanning now to ensure we have the right monitoring/evaluation/modelling in place to give us a better understanding of where policy changes may be required and/or be better placed to understand what we are getting out of any investment made in tackling the Drivers or biodiversity enhancement.
Data collected needs to be accessible to a wide range of partners to start to realise the benefits of big data.
Need to recognise that new technologies (eg. Earth Observation) tend to be data hungry, the supporting infrastructure needs to be in place to store it and make it accessible for analysis.
The availability of data can be an issue – it can be patchy for the Drivers and whilst general biodiversity data is readily available from the SoN Partnership, it can be difficult to source outwith that group.
There can be difficulties combining data from different sectors as interpretation is often needed. Where possible the custodians of the different data sets should be part of the analysis.

Partnerships Required

As we move forward we may need to explore partnerships with organisations we haven’t worked closely with in the past.

Indicators

We need to consider the Indicators we currently use and identify those which have the most leverage with the ‘Owners’ of the drivers of change in order to provide them with a persuasive argument for change.
One gap we seem to have is indicators covering functional biodiversity.
How often are the Indicator suite reviews and updated? This tends to be done on the basis of need.
Are there lessons to be learnt from the recently developed Scottish Biodiversity Indicator, which can inform the discussion on new Indicators which are needed? This Indicator considers abundance, occupancy, marine and terrestrial biodiversity, but is at too high a level for practical decision making.
Need to think about who the audience is for indicators – they tend not to hold resonance with the public, as narrative/interpretation needed. Need therefore to develop the right indicator for the right purpose to meet the needs of the appropriate audience.

Public Perception/Support & Communication

We need to be more streetwise in how we present the headline narrative from the evidence we analyse – need to be much better in distilling down the key messages and getting them across to the intended audience. Indicators can be a way of providing the evidence to support hard hitting messages – eg. the Farmland Bird Indicator (in place since the 1990s) has been very powerful in highlighting the changes to farmland bird populations with agricultural intensification.
Indicators might not always be the best tool, as there may be differences in the evidence/data required to inform management decisions as compared to that needed to engage people with nature.
There could be a danger of fostered a collective feeling of ‘what difference can we make’ if there are relentless stories of what is being lost and few where positive differences are being made – a balance is required to foster action in the wider public without being demotivating.

Administrative/Obligations

The SoN could be more explicit in linking the reduction in public sector funding for nature to the reduction in biodiversity.
What timeline are we operating to in putting in place a more robust evidence base and suit of indicators? The target is to anticipate discussion at the next COP in Kunming , which will set targets to be achieved by 2030 for biodiversity.
We have to recognise that there is unlikely to significant new resource to fill evidence gaps, so we have to get better at identifying what we currently do is crucial and what should be stopped to divert the resource elsewhere.

Part 2: Workshop

The post workshop editing tables, including information from organisations not present at the workshop but who contributed subsequently are shown below.

Changes in land and sea use: Methods in hand and to be developed:
Relevant to terrestrial, marine, or both terrestrial and marine

Terrestrial: across habitats

Monitoring of land and seas use

Methods/data we currently have:

Countryside survey (last survey 2007)
Land Cover Map
Living England Map
Soil risk maps (JHI)

New methods we could develop, new techniques

Integrated earth observation, drones and hyperspectral imagery with field data and land management boundaries for habitat quality/condition
Bare peat/wildfire/ muirburn monitoring system based on Sentinel data
EUNIS Level 2 map
Green infrastructure
Better understanding of how land being managed
Consistent data collected from reserves and wider countryside.
Access to data collected during planning process e.g. submitted during application or post-works monitoring)
Make better use of data in Town & Country Planning portal data; Local Development Plans; Regional Land Use Strategies & Partnerships
Regular updating of landuse maps that are currently static e.g. Native Woodland Survey of Scotland, Habitat Map of Scotland
Common (hierarchical) framework to support land use strategy delivery by monitoring outcomes of decisions for change taken through the Strategy

Monitoring of impacts of land and seas use on biodiversity

Methods/data we currently have

Site Condition Monitoring
Environmental Change Network and Long Term Monitoring Network (very limited geographically: implications for conclusions that can be drawn)

New methods we could develop, new techniques

Make connection between biodiversity monitoring data and land use change data
Method to monitor soil biodiversity

Indicators of land and sea use

Development of new ones

Land ownership and distribution
LIDAR – eg for peat bog quality (incl. links for biodiversity)

Terrestrial: Agricultural habitats

Monitoring of land and seas use:

Methods/data we currently have

June Agricultural census
Payments
Outputs
Farm Business/ Practice Survey
IACS
Agri-environment monitoring & evaluation programme

New methods we could develop, new techniques

Improved evaluation of Agri-environment monitoring and evaluation.

Indicators of land and sea use

Existing ones

Uptake of agri-environment

Development of new ones

Outcomes achieved by agri-environment funding

Terrestrial: Habitat specific but non-agricultural habitats

Monitoring of land and seas use:

Methods/data we currently have

National Forest Inventory
Recent woodland planting data
Coastal survey – Scottish sand dune & saltmarsh surveys

Monitoring of impacts of land and seas use on biodiversity

Methods/data we currently have

SEPA freshwater ecology monitoring
Data from catch and release in rivers

New methods we could develop, new techniques

Adopting new approaches to designing freshwater monitoring networks- e.g. GRTS

Marine

Monitoring of impacts of land and seas use on biodiversity

Methods/data we currently have

Marine sampling protocol poorly suited to rare species as compared to fish metrics
Grab sampling very localised

New methods we could develop, new techniques

Additional data from marine environment in and out of protected areas
eDNA in marine environment:
- palegic/fish (rare species)
- benthic species
Better understanding of the use of Acoustic Deterrent Devices and the implication of use on marine birds, mammals and fish
Better understanding of impacts on marine communities supported on hard substrate from aquaculture and knock on effects for birds and mammals through effects on prey species

Indicators of land and sea use

Existing ones

Marine impact models based on:
- pressures (expert opinion)
- pressure population dynamic models calibrated from low pressure sites
- infaunal diversity
- stock assessment

Development of new ones

Marine - eDNA based biodiversity monitoring

Terrestrial and Marine

Monitoring of land and seas use

Methods/data we currently have

Sentinel 2 data
Planning data re: applications

New methods we could develop, new techniques

Taxonomy of management actions to provide options in dealing with particular pressures
Horizon scanning of ‘issues for the future’ which may require to be monitored

Monitoring of impacts of land and seas use on biodiversity

Methods/data we currently have

Commission on the Favourable Conservation Status of key habitats and species populations.

New methods we could develop, new techniques

Biodiversity monitoring (current CRF bid and Defra CoE looking at this)
New methods for analysis of unstructured data
Monitoring of ‘new’ notified features on protected areas in response to more dynamic ecosystems
Curated data resource as per Metadata.com
Biodiversity net gain/ environmental net gain
Use of IoT/5G sensor technology – not just in terms of establishing sensor networks but just as importantly in term of how to subsequently obtain, analyse, interpret and visualise data-streams from multiple sensor sources in an area

Indicators of land and sea use

Development of new ones

Back-casting to recognise change now

Direct exploitation: Methods in hand and to be developed.

Terrestrial

Monitoring of impact

Methods/data we currently have (plus a note of their limitations)

Beef efficiency scheme – link to cattle genetic data
Data from catch and release in rivers

Marine

Monitoring of the drivers

Methods/data we currently have (plus a note of their limitations)

Marine sampling protocol poorly suited to rare species as compared to fish metrics
Grab sampling very localised
SEPA/industry data on monitoring of impact of aquaculture on soft sediment seabed
SEPA/Fisheries Trust monitoring of sealice on farm and wild salmon

New methods we could develop, new techniques

Effects of some fisheries (eg. creels or razor shells) on wider biodiversity
eDNA in marine environment:
- palegic/fish (rare species)
- benthic species

Indicators

Existing ones

Marine impact models based on
- pressures (expert opinion)
- pressure population dynamic models calibrated from low pressure sites
- infaunal diversity
- stock assessment

Development of new ones

Better Access to and use of Fisheries data

Both terrestrial and marine

Monitoring of the drivers

New methods we could develop, new techniques

For exploitation, move to ecosystem based approach to management
Data on hunted species released for hunting and taken

Indicators

Development of new ones

Back-casting to recognise change now

Climate change: Methods in hand and to be developed

Terrestrial

Monitoring of the drivers

Methods/data we currently have (plus a note of their limitations)

Environmental Change Network met data
SEPA hydrometric monitoring of abstraction and irrigation
SEPA morphology survey information
Freshwater temperature monitoring and modelling (Marine Scotland)
Climate Change Vulnerability Mapping
Drought prediction maps

New methods we could develop, new techniques

Increased use of sensors to monitor and manage irrigation
Bare peat/wildfire/ muirburn monitoring system based on Sentinel data

Monitoring of impact

Methods/data we currently have (plus a note of their limitations)

Site Condition Monitoring
SEPA freshwater ecology monitoring
Impacts of climate change on phenology distribution, abundance and communities for well monitored taxa and distribution range of taxa under records centres.
Environmental Change Network and Long Term Monitoring Network (but very localised, limiting conclusions)
SASA/Rothamsted insect monitoring includes SASA Suction Trap Network for Insect Monitoring – aphid data continuous from 1967 [very localised by finding give some assessment of insect abundance and phenology during each year]
Phenology data sets, e.g. RBGE dates of flowering (Prof Fred Last’s data)
Crop planting dates

New methods we could develop, new techniques

SEPA Flood Risk opportunity mapping in progress to identify where natural flood management would be most effective.
Earth observation data on water table depth and saturation of peatlands, plus generally to assess soil condition
Extend SASA Suction Trap monitoring to wider range of taxa and into non-arable sites. Implement new diagnostic methods to track a wider range of taxa.

Indicators

Existing ones

Met Office data eg. temperature, extreme weather
SEPA – flooding
River flows

Development of new ones

LIDAR – eg for peat bog quality (incl. links for biodiversity)

Marine

Monitoring of the drivers

Methods/data we currently have (plus a note of their limitations)

Marine Hydrological Institutes – temperature sea surface and column

Monitoring of impact

Methods/data we currently have (plus a note of their limitations)

Salmon smolt success rate

Indicators

Existing ones

Marine impact models based on
- pressures (expert opinion)
- pressure population dynamic models calibrated from low pressure sites
- infaunal diversity
- stock assessment

Both terrestrial and marine

Monitoring of the drivers

Methods/data we currently have (plus a note of their limitations)

Met Office UKCP18
Met Office Annual State of UK Climate

New methods we could develop, new techniques

Coastal change earth observation

Monitoring of impact

New methods we could develop, new techniques

Understanding of how new communities formed as a result of climate change function
More work around attribution to climate changes as compared to other drivers
Genetics for functional diversity/ DNA methods for biodiversity monitoring (current CRF bid and Defra CoE looking at this)
Decoupling of the effects of climate change from that of other drivers to get better understanding of drivers behind range change
Monitoring of ‘new’ notified features on protected areas in response to more dynamic ecosystems

Indicators

Existing ones

Climate change:
- range change
- community temperature thresholds

Development of new ones

Climate change adaptation (see Morecroft et al 2019 Science)
Back-casting to recognise change now

Pollution: Methods in hand and to be developed

Monitoring of the drivers

Methods/data we currently have (plus a note of their limitations)

SEPA – dioxins, furans (near EfW plants), Scottish Pollutant Release Inventory
Local authority urban N oxides and particulate matter
CEH UKEAP and other networks for nitrogen compounds, ozone nitrogen and acid deposition
Upland Waters Monitoring Network
Pesticides – mass/ha applied (DEFRA)
Particulate matter in:
- water
- air
In situ monitoring on the ground for pollution
Harmful Algal Blooms
Veterinary data in imported animals

New methods we could develop, new techniques

Notification of where organic waste is being applied to land, how much, when and what method
Analysis of pollution/residue by ‘drying water’ and soil samples
Analysis of air samples and leaf residues
Improvement to Harmful Algal Blooms data
Road kill
Splatometer for insects
Freshwater plastics
Pig & Poultry numbers

Monitoring of impact

Methods/data we currently have (plus a note of their limitations)

Nitrogen impact on bryophytes
Bryological Lichen Society surveying
Downstream water quality impact on ecology (eg for invertebrates
Predatory bird monitoring scheme looks for ecotraits

New methods we could develop, new techniques

Still don’t know enough on the impact of bryophytes or downstream water quality effects
Use of AI to better understand relationship between pressure and impact on freshwater invertebrates.
Bio-indicators for nitrogen deposition to supplement APIS
Burning (eg. muirburn) for:
- invertebrates
- drinking water

Indicators

Existing ones

Bryophyte Ecosystem Health Indicator
Freshwater invertebrates
Ellenberg-type approach beyond plant
Biological Records Centre analysis of change (eg. fresh water invertebrates)
Environmental Change Network
- fresh water
- Terrestrial
OPAL
Ellenberg scores:
- National plant Monitoring Scheme
- Countryside survey

Development of news ones

Terrestrial/fresh water surveillance data (eg. breeding birds survey, Wetland Bird Survey) to look at
- freshwater pollution effects on invertebrates and knock on effect for birds
- productivity of raptors/owls
Indicators of success, eg. reduction in pollution leading to positive response
- fresh water invertebrates
- bryophytes

Terrestrial

Monitoring of the drivers

Methods/data we currently have (plus a note of their limitations)

Plastic/micro-plastic monitoring in marine environment stratified survey

New methods we could develop, new techniques

Notification of where organic waste is being applied to land, how much, when and what method
Analysis of pollution/residue by ‘drying water’ and soil samples
Analysis of air samples and leaf residues
Improvement to Harmful Algal Blooms data
Road kill
Splatometer for insects
Freshwater plastics
Pig & Poultry numbers

Monitoring of impact

Methods/data we currently have (plus a note of their limitations)

Nitrogen impact on bryophytes
Bryological Lichen Society surveying
Downstream water quality impact on ecology (eg for invertebrates)
Predatory bird monitoring scheme looks for ecotraits

New methods we could develop, new techniques

Still don’t know enough on the impact of bryophytes or downstream water quality effects
Use of AI to better understand relationship between pressure and impact on freshwater invertebrates.
Bio-indicators for nitrogen deposition to supplement APIS
Burning (eg. muirburn) for:
- invertebrates
drinking water

Indicators

Existing ones

Bryophyte Ecosystem Health Indicator
Freshwater invertebrates
Ellenberg-type approach beyond plants
Biological Records Centre analysis of change (eg. fresh water invertebrates)
Environmental Change Network
- fresh water
- Terrestrial
OPAL
Ellenberg scores
- National plant Monitoring Scheme
- Countryside survey

Development of new ones

Terrestrial/fresh water surveillance data (eg. breeding birds survey, Wetland Bird Survey) to look at:
- freshwater pollution effects on invertebrates and knock on effect for birds
- productivity of raptors/owls
Indicators of success, eg. reduction in pollution leading to positive response:
- fresh water invertebrates
- bryophytes

Marine

Monitoring of the drivers

Methods/data we currently have (plus a note of their limitations)

Plastic/micro-plastic monitoring in marine environment stratified survey

Monitoring of impact

Methods/data we currently have (plus a note of their limitations)

Pollution dispersion modelling (eg for fish farms)
mposex in dog whelk Marine Animal Stranding Scheme

Indicators

Existing ones

Marine plastic distribution maps
Marine pollution limits

Both terrestrial and marine

Monitoring of the drivers

Methods/data we currently have (plus a note of their limitations)

Stratified Chemical Survey of Scottish marine and fresh waters (SEPA now risk based)
APIS data on national atmospheric emissions for 6 pollutants

Monitoring of impact

New methods we could develop, new techniques

More horizon scanning to allow monitoring to be put in place for an early response
Understanding of pollution movement through food chains
Attribution of response in record/trend data to Drivers
Nitrogen bio-indicators
Use of IoT/5G sensor technology – not just in terms of establishing sensor networks but just as importantly in term of how to subsequently obtain, analyse, interpret and visualise data-streams from multiple sensor sources in an area

Indicators

Development of new ones

Non-lethal impacts
Ecosystem level impacts of pollutants and INNS similar to the freshwater indicator

INNS - IPBES Drivers and their impacts – Methods in hand and to be developed

Terrestrial

Monitoring of the drivers

Methods/data we currently have (plus a note of their limitations)

Plant Tracker / citizen science apps & projects
SEPA INNS monitoring data
Terrestrial Surveillance of INNS
SISI
Native Woodland Survey
New Planting and Forestry Grants

New methods we could develop, new techniques

Remote Sensing/ Drones for INNS – non native aquatic species, beech, giant hogweed and effects of pathogens
Road kill

Monitoring of impact

Methods/data we currently have (plus a note of their limitations)

SISI
Impacts of INNS (eg. mink/rat on ground nesting birds)

Indicators

Existing ones

Non-native regeneration (eg. sitka)

Marine

Monitoring of the drivers

Methods/data we currently have (plus a note of their limitations)

Fisheries Trusts
Marine site survey of INNS

Indicators

Existing ones

INNS distribution maps marine

Both terrestrial and marine

Monitoring of the drivers

Methods/data we currently have (plus a note of their limitations)

INNS watch list
INNS Alert System
eDNA INNS
CITES data
ZIMS/Species 360 data for Zoological Collections
NBN Atlas of Living Scotland

New methods we could develop, new techniques

eDNA for INNS/ metabarcoding
- marine
- freshwater
- terrestrial
- microbiome
- ports of/points of entry
Pairing of species to determine cause and effect
- mink & water vole
- Muntjac and nightingale
- red and grey squirrel
- rhododendron and grazed flora
- native and American signal crayfish
- hedgehogs and ground nesting birds

Monitoring of impact

New methods we could develop, new techniques

Trade flow data on INNS
Probability modelling of INNS and pathogens in light of climate predictions
Triggers from benign non-natives to INNS
INNS impacts along trophic layers
More horizon scanning to allow monitoring to be put in place for an early response
Increased role for citizen science
Attribution of response in record/trend data to Drivers
Inclusion of hybridisation status on NBN atlas for species of relevance
Use of IoT/5G sensor technology – not just in terms of establishing sensor networks but just as importantly in term of how to subsequently obtain, analyse, interpret and visualise data-streams from multiple sensor sources in an area

Indicators

Existing ones

NatureScot Genetic score card for natives hybridising with non-natives
RBMP classification

Development of new ones

Ecosystem level impacts of pollutants and INNS
- similar to the freshwater indicator
INNS indicator
- range
- prevalence
- behaviour with climate change
INNS Impacts
- economy
- displacement
- vector of disease
- hybridisation/ introgression
- habitat modification
INNS provision of ecosystem services
Targeted data to link INNS effects on monitored taxa

Indirect drivers: Methods in hand and to be developed

Monitoring of the drivers

Methods/data we currently have (plus a note of their limitations)

People engagement data
Scottish Nature Omnibus – similar in Wales
People & Nature England
Land values close to green space
You.gov
Scottish Social Attitudes Survey
Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation
Scottish Household Survey
NGO data from members (numbers and demographics)
Omnibus surveys
Fisheries landing data/ deer cull returns
Growing up in Scotland 3 to 4 Cohorts
Tourism data and recreational data eg number of visits to paying = attractions with outdoor/nature component e.g Zoos & adventure parks or number of visits to FLS land
Data from Wildlife and Adventure tourism?
Memberships of eNGOs
Memberships of recreational out door groups e.g. Mountaineering Scotland / MBA/ Ramblers/ Cycling groups etc ect
Numbers participating the THE AWARD/ scouts etc
Online /TV engagement with nature???

New methods we could develop, new techniques

Sustained Education in the Environment
Supermarket data on customer preference (eg. use of plastic)
Internet search data (from Google, etc)
Ecosystem Service values – spatial dimension of flows
Benefits from nature to people
Number of objections to planning applications (public agency data – how many are advised for refusal but LA approve)
Big Data

Monitoring of impact

Methods/data we currently have (plus a note of their limitations)

Health theory of change
Biodiversity theory of change
Example – plastics in the marine environment – what caused this huge change?
Number of indicators
Consumer behaviour
Garden plants/peat
Garden birds/feeding
Gardens & Pollination
Risk
of greater connection nature leading to reduction in biodiversity (management of impact)
virtual reality – people can experience nature anywhere
automation potentially reduces contact but could be opportunities
Other social policy drivers
poverty
anti-social behaviour

New methods we could develop, new techniques

Impact of volunteering on biodiversity (BTO have quantified this in financial terms)
Management stories
Species in relation to monitoring/spend/
Action
Wider biodiversity & societal (?) benefits from focus on specific species eg. Capercaillie

Indicators

Existing ones

Visitor records – Agencies/NGOs/ membership recreational groups membership (e.g Mountaineering Scotland/BMC/MBA/ Watersports/Cycling/ huting/fishing/gardening etc)
Post project survey
Big garden survey
Visits to outdoors through education/ the award/ John Muir trust award/scouts &guides/ocean youth trust ect
Government statistics on trends/ demographics
Greenspace data – proximity mapping
Living landscapes – ecosystem mapping
Political opinion survey
Forest Schools
Numbers gaining outdoor qualifications from National training agencies?
agencies?
Numbers gaining ecological monitoring qualifications?
NCAI/NNR accounts
- challenging the economic norm
Treasury review – value of biodiversity
100 schools project outputs
Immersive experiences in nature
Eco churches (mindfulness, growing)
Eco-schools – need better inclusion of biodiversity
Extinction rebellion
Nature prescriptions data -NHS?

Development of new ones

Phone data
Trends in activity
Trends different areas
Strava – physical activity
Instagram photos from outdoors
Marine Instagram images
Influencers in social media for nature
GCSE in natural history.

Overarching issues across drivers

Horizon scanning of ‘issues for the future’ which may require to be monitored
Methods/approaches to separate out the different interacting effects of the 5 drivers and their relative influence
Data streams available are only one part of the process – ultimately these are only of value if they can be collated, brought together with other relevant data, analysed and interpreted, and ultimately visualised [all within a short enough period of time to be available to influence management decisions] – that means that the processing capacity of the information is just as important as what data collection consists of
Development methods to monitor the success of measures to reduce or reverse the impacts of the five IPBES drivers.

Next steps

The discussion at the workshop will directly feed in to Project 4 of recently formed Scottish Programme for Biodiversity. The priorities for Project 4 are to:

make better use of existing data
Bring together disparate data to better our understanding of the state of nature and the effects of the drivers of biodiversity loss
Develop Indicators to provide evidence around an issue or driver, rather than focussing on single species or taxa
Identify the changes we know with some certainty are going to happen and identify an appropriate response
Encourage the development of a reliable land use change system at an appropriate resolution and robust methodologies
provide the evidence base on responses to responses to intervention taken to better target management incentive resource
be better placed to provide an overview of management intervention in Scotland by ensuring data is comparable and thereby make it easier to identify the good news stories
sustain and improve the support for citizen science
push forward improving the biodiversity data capture and infrastructure, drawing on the recommendations contained in the Scottish Biodiversity Information Forum review.
exploit the links to health and wellbeing which regular participation in citizen science can bring, in order to encourage further participation

The suggestions for development of new monitoring methods will contribute to NatureScot’s discussions with RESAS about the next Scottish Government Strategic Research Programme. We suggest specific key questions are developed (e.g. impact of climate change on X?, impact of land use change on Y? etc) and then new methods/techniques are developed and tested to assess their effectiveness in monitoring the impact of the driver on biodiversity.

[1] We have used SNH and NatureScot interchangeably in the report.

[2] The IPBES report sets how the impact of people’s disconnection with nature and the resulting lack of value and importance placed on nature (and ultimately biodiversity) has resulted in the prevalence of five main drivers that are causing the loss of biodiversity (Land use change, overexploitation of natural resources, climate change, invasive non-native species and pollution) and substantially reducing what nature can provide for people.

When published, this report should be cited as:

Mitchell, R.J., Blake, D., Boulcott, P., Pearce-Higgins, J., Nisbet, A., Scott, B., Wilson, J., Woodin, S., and Eardley, B. (2020). Report to the Scientific Advisory Committee by the Sub-group reviewing on land monitoring and surveillance by NatureScot. NatureScot, Inverness.

Report to the Scientific Advisory Committee by the Sub-group reviewing on land monitoring and surveillance by NatureScot

Contents

Executive Summary

Recommendations

Introduction to sub-group

Remit of Sub-group

Site condition Monitoring of On Land sites

Summary of a 3-tiered approach to SCM proposed for pilot implementation

A framework to implement and test the proposed 3-tiered approach to SCM

Development of aims and minimum standards

Training required

Timescales for monitoring of features

Methodology to validate the classification of Tiers and risk categories

Development of an alert system

Measuring the success of the pilot

Assessing the impact of the change in SCM methodology on indicators that use SCM data

Establishment of a field survey unit within NatureScot

Recommendation 1:

Monitoring of Ecosystem health

Lessons from the Marine environment

Summary of discussions

Recommendation 2:

The conflict between a dynamic ecosystem and fixed conservation objectives

Does a transition between habitats or loss/gain of species equal a decline in ecosystem health?

Recommendation 3:

A dynamic ecosystem v fixed conservation objectives

Recommendation 4:

Integrating Protected Areas monitoring with wider countryside monitoring

A framework to implement the monitoring of the wider countryside against protected areas.

A collaborative approach to monitoring the wider countryside

Use existing data and expanding volunteer monitoring schemes to develop metrics

Future State of Nature reporting

Recommendation 5:

New technologies and methods

Summary of discussions

Recommendation 6:

Long-term Monitoring Network

Recommendation 7:

Role for National Nature Reserves and Nature Reserves (NNR’s)

Summary of discussions

Recommendation 8:

Data management

Summary of discussion

Recommendation 9:

Acknowledgements

Appendix A. Full paper on the 3-tiered approach to SCM

Tiered Approach to Resource Allocation for Monitoring on Protected areas

Tier 1 Site Check

Tier 2 ‘Site Check Plus’

Tier 3 Bespoke Monitoring

Tier 1 more on the Site Check

Tier 2 ‘Site Check Plus’

Tier 3 Bespoke Monitoring

Overall Considerations for all three Tiers

Prioritisation of features to monitor in 2020/21 and beyond

Factors relevant to feature ranking

Proposed prioritisation process

Appendix b. Connecting the State of Nature to the IPBES drivers: report on workshop

Summary of Key points from IPBES drivers workshop

Summary

Meeting findings

Background and purpose

Part 1: discussion following presentations

Part 2: Workshop

Changes in land and sea use: Methods in hand and to be developed: Relevant to terrestrial, marine, or both terrestrial and marine

Terrestrial: across habitats

Monitoring of land and seas use

Methods/data we currently have:

New methods we could develop, new techniques

Monitoring of impacts of land and seas use on biodiversity

Methods/data we currently have

New methods we could develop, new techniques

Indicators of land and sea use

Development of new ones

Terrestrial: Agricultural habitats

Monitoring of land and seas use:

Methods/data we currently have

New methods we could develop, new techniques

Indicators of land and sea use

Existing ones

Changes in land and sea use: Methods in hand and to be developed:
Relevant to terrestrial, marine, or both terrestrial and marine