6. Temporal coverage Data are not sufficient to generate one year assessments but more data will become available and at high resolution Data are only available every 10 years and at a lower resolution than B1 7. Capacity for disaggregation Methodology 8. Transparency and soundness Disagreed with the options paper that the methodology published and peer reviewed; a peer review is in progress but this has not been published Disagreed with the options paper and states that there are data available which has been published in the peer-reviewed literature 9. Precision Indicator Characteristics 10. Policy relevance: progress towards Biodiversity 2020 targets (CBD, EU, UK, country) Disagreed with the options paper that it relates directly to progress towards 2020 targets, and felt instead that there is no relationship unless green spaces are taken into account in which case there would be an indirect relationship Indicator is an indirect measure of the service but directly measures the target delivered by the service Indicator is an indirect measure of the service but directly measures the target delivered by the service Disagreed with the option paper, stating there is an indirect, rather than a direct, relationship to progress towards 2020 targets. Adds that there is a lack of knowledge as to how much carbon is sequestered by different types of forests – native vs conifers or mixed vs monocultures for example; and that generally the more forest the better but the relationship needs to be fully understood
13. Sensitive to change Disagreed with the options paper and instead felt that the Indicator does not detect changes in systems within timeframes and spatial scales that are relevant to Whilst the indicator would be sensitive to change, it is a poor indicator because of a lack of cause-effect relationship, therefore changes are not relevant to the questions and not appropriate for 14. Human-induced vs natural changes Indicator could potentially discriminate between human-induced and natural changes with further analysis. Possibly needs more research – more analysis on the links Indicator could potentially discriminate between human-induced and natural changes with further analysis. Possibly needs more research – more analysis on the links Disagreed with the options paper that the indicator cannot discriminate between and natural changes. It was felt that it is possible to distinguish changes in dieback and reforestation (i.e. changes in either direction), thus for the indicator to potentially discriminate
Business – Assessment against evaluation criteria Criterion Indicator A Indicator B Indicator C Indicator D Indicator Characteristics 10. Policy relevance: progress towards Biodiversity 2020 targets (CBD, EU, UK, country) Disagreed with the option paper, stating there is a relationship with the targets, but that this is indirect. costs are a proxy for reducing impacts of natural resource use Audit is considered to be a good proxy for awareness, whereas sourcing is considered to be a proxy for change or action 11. Biodiversity relevant None of the criterion levels were considered to be applicable This is a proxy for awareness but not change With the split of audit and sourcing, sourcing could be seen as a proxy biodiversity change None of the criterion levels were considered to be applicable 12. Cause-effect relationship Disagrees with options paper in that there will be an accepted theory of relationship between indicator and issue of concern (rather than an unknown relationship) provided in-house expenditure presented as a percentage of total operating cost Felt that none of the criterion levels were applicable. That there is a need to tweak the wording of the indicator, because the number of companies with a policy won’t change even if the business impact does; thus either reword ‘policy’ to capture SMEs or restrict sampling to large companies (noting there is a risk that they all have a policy that may or may not be implemented for biodiversity) Suggested a tweak to the indicator by stating ‘how much’ sourcing is taking place, in order to demonstrate a relationship. A questionnaire could capture three levels of information: Is there a policy that requires an audit? Is there a policy that requires Sourcing? Is there information about actual turnover of certified goods? A list of biodiversity-relevant standards would need to be compiled Theoretically there is a relationship, but it can’t be quantified (unlike Indicator A), and companies may identify an issue but not necessarily be acting upon it. BSI does not have a list of certified companies, but UKAS possibly could
Workshop Participants Awareness Sarah Thomas ZSL (Facilitator) Pippa Gibson Defra Karen Haysom Bat Conservation Trust Mary Jeavans Defra Sue Marrs Scottish Natural Heritage Steve Whitbread National Biodiversity Network James Williams JNCC Ecosystem Services Louise McRae ZSL (Facilitator) Judith Annett Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group Lynn Dicks Cambridge University Alistair McVittie Scottish Agricultural College Diana Mortimer JNCC Lisa Norton Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Deborah Proctor JNCC Mark Tibbett Cranfield University Megan Tierney UNEP-WCMC Helen Ward Defra Duncan Williams Defra Business Liz Clarke ZSL (Facilitator) Zoe Balmforth Fauna and Flora International Adam Dutton RSPB Amanda Kiely BSI Marta Maireles ISEAL Mark Stevenson Defra Matthew Wenban-Smith OneWorldStandards Clare Winton Defra Agenda