Results from the UKThe National Ecosystem Assessment

and its utilisation

Dr. Robert Bradburne

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

May 2013

0

Summary

• Why did we do an Assessment?

• What results did it give us?

• How was it reported?

• How was it incorporated into policy?

• Lessons learned and next steps.

1

Why did we do a National Ecosystem Assessment?

The UK NEA was the first analysisof the UK’s natural environment in terms of the benefits that it provides to people.

The objectives of the UK NEA were to:

1. Produce an independent and peer-reviewed National Ecosystem

Assessment for the whole of the UK.

2. Raise awareness of the importance of the natural environment to

human well-being and economic prosperity.

3. Ensure full stakeholder participation and encourage different

stakeholders and communities to interact and, in particular, to foster

better inter-disciplinary cooperation between natural and social

scientists, as well as economists.

2

Completing the circle – joining environmental policy with social and economic policy

3

Harnessing the power of the UK’s data and expertise

4

Spatially specific evidence

5

Valuation of ecosystem services 1Valuing Ecosystem Services6

Valuing ecosystem services: non-monetary valuation

The value of ecosystems to human health was investigated:1. Direct health benefits – valuable physical and mental health

improvements through interaction with nature;2. Indirect positive effect, due to activity and increased social

engagement facilitated by natural settings;3. Reduction of negative impacts on health, such as air and

noise pollution or disease vectors; and4. Negative health impacts of ecosystems e.g., through

physical threats, disease or contaminants (e.g., pollen).

The “shared value” of the contributions ecosystem services make to human well-being was also investigated:

• looked at value not just to the individual but to groups in the context of social rights and wrongs.• required consideration of ethics and issues of altruism and existence value.

7

Response options – objective evidence

• Constructed in

discussion with

policy makers

• Not prescriptive,

but did give an

assessment of more

integrated management

• Wide ranging but not

comprehensive

• Provides evidence for what sorts of intervention work for different ecosystem services

• Not just about what Government can do – assesses responses across society.

8

UKNEA synthesis – not just a summary9

Mes

sage

s Facts

Figures

The Natural Choice:securing the value of nature

June 2011

Changing national policy:NATURAL ENVIRONMENT WHITE PAPER

10

White Paper builds on the findings of the UKNEA

• Nature is a complex, interconnected system. A healthy, properly functioning natural environment is the foundation of sustained economic growth, prospering communities and personal wellbeing.

• This is why we must properly value the economic and social benefits of a healthy natural environment – as well as nature’s intrinsic value.

• This requires us all to put the value of nature at the heart of our decision-making by:

• Facilitating action to protect and improve nature;

• Creating a green economy, in which economic growth and the health of our natural resources sustain each other;

• Strengthening the connections between people and nature to benefit both.

• Showing leadership in the European Union and internationally, to protect and enhance natural assets globally.

11

Ongoing initiatives where the NEA will continue to have an Impact

12

Mapping ecosystem services across Europe

Natural Capital Committee:Advising on the state of England’s Natural Capital

Ecosystem Markets Task Force:Exploring new markets for ecosystem services

Local Nature Partnerships:Bringing together the ecological and economic objectives of an area

Green Book guidance , planning policy and accounting for natural capital

Expanding markets for ecosystem services

Better data and more integrated reporting.

Building on the UKNEA

• Valuing Nature Network• Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Sustainability• Mapping & Assessment of Ecosystem Services• Intergovernmental platform on Biodiversity and

Ecosystem Services

Economic ValuationWP3: Improved Modelling

& Valuation

Social ValuesWP4: Valuing Cultural ServicesWP5: Assessing Shared Values

ScenariosWP6: Developing Scenarios

WP7: Policy Testing

ApplicationWP8: Cultural Drivers/BarriersWP9: Decision Support Tools

MacroeconomicsWP1: Natural Capital Asset CheckWP2: Macroeconomic Implications

13

Lessons from running the Assessment

1. The UKNEA was seen as directly influential to policy. This encouraged the

participation of a wide range of academics.

2. Secretariat aimed to be inclusive, and several lead authors actively sought a wide

academic input to chapters.

3. Scientists with previous experience of Assessments were helpful.

4. Considerable effort put in to accessing a wide variety of data sets, but most of these

given for free in the end.

5. Having an independent, non-academic, but technically competent secretariat assisted

management, but also having strong, energetic Co-Chairs was also very important.

6. Communication between governance groups was important, especially in later stages

of the Assessment to make sure messages were shared, although there was still a

need for individual meetings.

14

Thankyou

15