Memorandum submitted by the Royal Botanic
Gardens, Kew
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew submits that:
The 2010 target adopted by the UK and EU has
been useful in focusing attention on this important issue, as
have other 2010 targets at global level.
The UK Government is not on course to meet its
2010 biodiversity target.
Many species and habitat types in the UK are
still declining.
Some groups, especially fungi, are still so poorly
known that they lack a baseline inventory for the UK, without
which measures of change are problematic.
The UK biodiversity indicators are meaningful
and useful but not sufficient on their own to give a full picture
of progress towards the target.
Some level of success can be claimed for the
policy and institutional frameworks currently in place but there
is much scope for improvement, as evidenced by the fact that some
species targeted by Biodiversity Action Plans are still experiencing
significant decline.
More work is required to incorporate biodiversity
protection into policy-making. In particular, the concept of conserving
biological processes needs to be embedded in policy.
Climate change is already having an impact on
UK biodiversity, but its eventual impact cannot yet be predicted
with any level of precision.
Plant-based solutions are an essential element
of the drive to combat climate change and the environmental challenges
facing us all. RBG Kew and botanic gardens in the UK and UK Overseas
Territories have the potential to make a greatly increased impact
in countering the environmental challenge by saving threatened
plants and habitats, and improving the quality of life for people.
Plant and fungal conservation activities in the
UK and especially in the UK Overseas Territories are severely
under-resourced and far from sufficient to enable achievement
of the 2010 target to halt loss of domestic biodiversity.
Unpredictability and lack of continuity of funding
present formidable challenges for plant conservation initiatives
at a variety of scales, from high throughput seedbanking to implementation
of conservation action plans for individual species endemic to
UK Overseas Territories.
0 INTRODUCTION
0.1 The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (hereafter
RBG Kew) welcomes the Environmental Audit Committee's Inquiry
on this important issue. We will address several of the specific
questions posed by the Committee from the perspective of plant
and fungal diversity in the UK and UK Overseas Territories (UKOTs).
0.2 Our evidence refers not only to the
UK and EU 2010 target of halting domestic biodiversity loss but
also to related 2010 targets which apply at national, regional
and international level. Documentation relating to these complementary
but more detailed targets provides much of the evidence and policy
recommendations on which our submission is based. In particular,
we would draw the attention of the Committee to: the sixteen 2010
targets of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC;
2002), Plant Diversity Challenge (the UK response to GSPC;
PDC; 2004) and Plant Diversity Challenge: 3 Years—16
Targets—1 Challenge (PDC progress report; a progress
report on GSPC/PDC in the UK; 2007)[19].
We submit that the UK and EU 2010 target and the other complementary
2010 targets have been useful in focusing attention on conservation
of plant and fungal biodiversity in the UK and, to a lesser extent
the UKOTs.
0.3 We consider that significant progress
has been made in some areas but that the target of halting loss
of domestic biodiversity presents a considerable challenge which
is unlikely to be met in its entirety given current trends and
resources. In particular we draw the attention of the Committee
to the paucity of resources available for plant and fungal conservation
in the UK and especially in the UK Overseas Territories, the biodiversity
of which is in many ways more significant than that of the UK
itself.
POLICY AND
PROGRESS
1. Is the Government on course to meet its
2010 biodiversity target?
1.1 We submit that the Government is not
on course to meet this target. While progress has been made towards
meeting some aspects of the 2010 target of halting loss of domestic
biodiversity, ample evidence exists that many species and habitat
types in the UK are still declining. For example, Change in
the British Flora 1987-2004 (2006; Botanical Society of the
British Isles) flagged up as particular areas for concern:
— the loss of species from infertile
habitats, including calcareous grassland (species declining include
Gentianella amarella [autumn gentian] and Campanula
rotundifolia [harebell])and dwarf shrub heath (eg Pedicularis
sylvatica [lousewort] and Platanthera bifolia [lesser
butterfly orchid]),
— the role of climate change in increasing
ruderal/invasive species, potentially at the expense of native
species, and
— eutrophication of aquatic environments.
1.2 Change in the British Flora also
contains a wealth of information on individual habitats and species,
including many examples where, even in habitats which are not
declining overall, individual species are declining.
2. How effective is the biodiversity monitoring
and reporting process?
2.1 The biodiversity monitoring and reporting
process is complex and involves a range of different systems and
measures. Together, these allow the assessment of many changes
in biodiversity for well known groups of organisms (including
many flowering plants), but for less well known groups (including
many fungi) the situation is not so positive. Further research
into the species in such groups present in the UK and their distribution
is necessary before we can hope for effective biodiversity monitoring
across the board.
2.2 The biodiversity indicators are only
one way in which biodiversity monitoring and reporting take place,
and it should be noted that many of the other sources of essential
baseline data including New Atlas of the British and Irish
Flora (2002) and Change in the British Flora 1987-2004,
would not have come to fruition without substantial input from
the voluntary/charitable sector.
Are the biodiversity indicators meaningful?
2.3 The biodiversity indicators provide
a useful "broad brushstroke" assessment of where we
are with regard to different aspects of biodiversity conservation.
Some caveats relating to plants are:
— Indicator 2 (Plant Diversity) looks
at broad habitat types only and does not appear to take account
of declining species within these habitats.
— Indicators 3 and 4 (UK BAP Priority
Species and Habitats) are useful, but by definition do not take
account of all species/habitats.
— Indicator 5 (Genetic Diversity) recognises
that "genetic diversity is an important component of biodiversity"
but only deals with livestock breeds and collections of cultivated
plants which themselves conserve only a very narrow genetic base.
In the context of the 2010 biodiversity target, we believe that
genetic diversity in wild species is more significant and that
studies of genetic diversity in declining species are urgently
needed to assess the effect on genetic diversity of loss of peripheral
populations etc.
Is there adequate data upon which to define targets
and to assess progress?
2.4 As mentioned under 2.1 above, data are
available for some groups eg many flowering plants (largely through
the voluntary sector), but for some other groups the necessary
baseline data are largely lacking. We do not yet have a full inventory
of the fungi of the UK—many native species await discovery
and documentation, but at current rates of progress, with declining
resources for UK mycology, completion of the inventory cannot
be anticipated this century. Even for the flowering plants, some
habitats have not been monitored in sufficient detail (see comments
in Change in the British Flora 1987-2004 pertaining to
montane and aquatic habitats, for example).
3. Are the policy and institutional frameworks
effective at protecting biodiversity? Is biodiversity protection
addressed effectively at local and regional levels? How successful
has the UK Biodiversity Action Plan been? Does Conserving biodiversity—the
UK approach address the need to have a joined-up approach to biodiversity
protection with the devolved administrations?
3.1 There are multiple frameworks and there
has been some success as a result of these in protection of biodiversity.
However, the declines in species and habitats discussed indicate
that the frameworks are not fully effective. Likewise, the UK
BAP process has seen some successes, but not all species are included
and even some that are included are still declining. Given increased
levels of devolution, Conserving biodiversity—the UK
approach is an appropriate document, but its identification
of priority species and habitats (rather than all species and
habitats) appears to be a step down from the 2010 biodiversity
target. See also our comments about the biodiversity indicators
proposed in Conserving biodiversity—the UK approach
under 2.2-2.4 above.
4. How well is biodiversity protection incorporated
into the policy-making process? How well will the Ecosystem Approach
Action Plan address this issue? Has there been enough progress
in ensuring that the value of ecosystem services are reflected
in decision-making?
4.1 There is scope for biodiversity protection
to be better incorporated into the policy-making process. Recommendation
3 of the PDC progress report states "Undertake a review of
the mechanisms available to conserve important plants and fungi
(the protected area network, agri-environment and forestry schemes)
and where necessary focus these schemes to ensure they are working
to stop plant and fungal diversity loss and to increase ecological
resilience in the wider landscape".
4.2 The importance of understanding and
conserving biological process in addition to named taxa has been
identified by the Plant Conservation Genetics Working Group of
the interagency Plant Conservation Working Group and others. This
is particularly relevant in complex groups such as Sorbus,
Hieracium and Euphrasia in which hybridisation, changes
in ploidy etc. are ongoing processes. Preserving ecosystem function/services
in the habitats where these taxa grow will be essential in allowing
these natural processes to continue, and we believe that the concept
of process needs to be embedded in policy.
KEY THREATS
7. What impact will climate change have on
UK biodiversity? How might the impacts of climate change be reduced?
How can potential conflict between climate change mitigation and
adaptation measures and biodiversity protection be effectively
managed?
7.1 The impact of climate change on UK biodiversity
is not possible to predict with any certainty, but Box 3 in Conserving
biodiversity—the UK approach reports on worrying scenarios
with climate change posing a significant risk to 5-25% of UK BAP
species targets. Despite the lack of certainty, it is clear that
climate change is already having an impact, with many ruderal/alien
species extending out from their historical strongholds and, conversely,
native species with narrow habitat requirements being further
marginalised.
7.2 Recommendation 3 of the PDC progress
report states "Support large, landscape-scale conservation
initiatives that allow for the conservation of plants and fungi
and their habitats in the face of climate change. Focus specifically
on those that link up important places for plant and fungal diversity
in the UK—thus optimising population size and extent of
critical species, conserving genetic diversity, improving habitat
condition and restoring resilient and functioning ecosystems".
To our knowledge this has yet to be implemented.
7.3 RBG Kew submits that plant-based solutions
are an essential element of the drive to combat climate change
and the environmental challenges facing us all. Over ten years,
through this Programme, Kew and its global partners will make
a greatly increased impact in countering the environmental challenge
by saving threatened plants and habitats, and improving the quality
of life for people. This represents a major step-change in the
scale of activity and delivery of conservation outcomes.
7.4 RBG Kew plans to work with Defra, and
other partners and supporters, both nationally and internationally,
to develop and deliver the Breathing Planet Programme which comprises
seven key actions:
1. discovering, collating and accelerating global
access to essential information on the variety and distribution
of the world's plant and fungal species through fundamental science,
enhanced collection programmes, systematics, data capture, GIS
science and novel identification tools such as web-based floras
and DNA barcoding;
2. identifying plant and fungal species and regions
of the world most at risk of losing their wild diversity, by applying
cutting-edge IT and GIS approaches to enable priority setting
for conservation programmes targeted at saving the most vulnerable
areas first;
3. helping implement global plant and fungal
conservation programmes such as creation of new sustainably managed
areas through established and new partnerships in countries richest
in diversity and geographical extent of remaining wild vegetation;
Together these actions will help retain the
Earth's major remaining carbon sinks.
4. extending the Millennium Seed Bank's global
partnership programmes to secure in safe storage 25% of the world's
plants by 2020, targeting species and regions most at risk from
climate change such as alpine endemics, coastal species and those
endemic to desertifying lands;
5. establishing a global network of scientists
and practitioners in restoration ecology to use seed banks for
the urgent repair and re-establishment of damaged native vegetation;
These two actions will help recover lost
plant productivity and carbon sequestration.
6. expanding plant and fungal diversity knowledge
and Kew's innovative science programmes to the identification
and successful growth of locally-appropriate plant species under
changing climatic regimes on agricultural, urban and suburban
lands;
This action will help plant-based adaptation
to climate change to succeed.
7. using the high public visitation, web and
media opportunities provided by Kew and partner botanic gardens
to deliver enjoyable, inspiring experiences that inform people
world-wide about plant-based mitigation and adaptation strategies
to cope with climate change and other significant environmental
challenges facing us all.
RESOURCES
9. Are there adequate resources for biodiversity
protection and enhancement? Has the Government addressed the need
to provide additional support for biodiversity protection in the
UK Overseas Territories?
9.1 Plant and fungal conservation activity
in the UK is dependent to a large degree on the voluntary/charitable
sectors, where resources are limited and restrict the level of
activity undertaken. The importance of providing resources to
these sectors and of training sufficient people in the necessary
skills is flagged up in Recommendations 9 and 10 of the PDC progress
report.
9.2 RBG Kew and partner organisations in
the voluntary/charitable sector have invested substantial resources
into banking the seed of the UK flora. Kew's Millennium Seed Bank
holds c. 96% of the UK's plant species diversity (the highest
proportion of the native flora banked of any country in the world),
and many rare and threatened species from the UKOTS. However,
enhanced government support is now urgently required to enable
the seed bank to continue to operate at a scale proportionate
to the severity of the threat posed by habitat loss and climate
change. Priorities include further banking of UKOTs flora and
expanded UK collection programmes to ensure that adequate genetic
diversity is conserved in the bank.
9.3 Activity in the UK Overseas Territories
is still at a remarkably low level, given the global significance
of the biota in some of the UKOTs. Many taxa are only known from
a single UKOT or have populations of global significance in the
UKOTs. Already there are documented extinctions of endemic taxa
of plants (and other major groups of organisms) in the UKOTs.
St Helena, where only fragments of native vegetation survive and
many of the endemic species are on the verge of extinction, is
an example of the parlous state of biodiversity in the OTs (Fay
et al. 2007, Curtis's Bot. Mag. 25: 243-250).
9.4 RBG Kew is active in plant and fungal
conservation work in the UK and the UKOTs, providing scientific
expertise to support effective conservation management as well
as engaging in training and capacity building activities to enable
local staff and other stakeholders to develop sustainable biodiversity
action plans. Such work forms part of Kew's statutory obligations
and is an institutional priority. However, demand for these services
greatly exceeds our ability to deliver, in the context of year-on-year
decreases in grant-in-aid from Defra.
9.5 Our work with partners in the UKOTs
has given us a broad understanding of the resource levels and
needs of these communities with respect to plant and fungal conservation.
RBG Kew recently submitted evidence on this subject to the House
of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology in the course
of their Inquiry into Taxonomy and Systematics. The main points
of our evidence are outlined below in some detail, as we consider
the needs of the UKOTs as among the highest priorities to be addressed
by Government if the challenge presented by the 2010 target is
to be taken seriously.
9.6 UKOTs plant diversity—context
9.6.1 UK Overseas Territories support critically
important UK biodiversity. The diversity and endemism of plants
and fungi found in the UK Overseas Territories is far greater
and more biologically important than that of metropolitan UK.
The island of St Helena alone has 50 endemic plant species recorded
from a native flora of about 60 species of vascular plants. In
many cases the endemic species is the sole member of their genus
(monospecific), thus representing unique phylogenetic lines.
9.6.2 In most UKOTs we still have not fully
documented the flora and so do not know the full extent of their
plant diversity and endemism. A best guess is that across all
16 UKOTs there are at least 180 endemic species of vascular plants—orders
of magnitude more than metropolitan UK where most of the endemism
is taxonomically below the species level.
9.6.3 UKOTs also support critical assemblages
of plant species at habitat and ecosystem level which provide
important ecological services, contributing to human well-being,
local economies and climate amelioration including forests, mangroves,
coral reefs, sea grass beds.
9.7 UKOTs Capacity needs
9.7.1 The most critical issue for UKOTs
is their lack of in-Territory botanical conservation expertise.
Most Territories do not have any locally-based, trained botanical
expert who can lead the documentation and conservation of their
unique flora. Instead, most Territories are heavily reliant on
international partnerships and external funding. In those Territories
that do have a degree of locally-based expertise (eg St Helena,
Cayman, Turks and Caicos Islands, Bermuda) it usually comprises
one person—often a private individual not formally linked
to the local agency responsible for biodiversity. Most local people
do not see attractive career options in botanical and related
environmental professions.
9.7.2 It is vital that we build on systems
to encourage young locals to train for and to see career opportunities
in botany, horticulture, and environment. There is a huge need
to build local capacity.
9.8 Access to information housed in metropolitan
UK
9.8.1 Most of the information and materials
needed by UKOTs to document and conserve their flora are not available
locally. They are housed in biodiversity institutes largely in
the metropolitan UK eg RBG, Kew, Natural History Museum, London
and RBG, Edinburgh. They include herbarium specimens and botanical
literature.
9.8.2 RBG Kew has a programme of repatriating
electronic data to the UK Overseas Territories. Herbarium specimens
from UKOTs are being located, digitised and made available both
on the Web and on DVD to be sent to UKOTs. However, this is largely
being done by volunteers and as project budgets allow and so is
relatively slow-paced.
9.9 Development of in-Territory Reference Collections
9.9.1 Virtually none of the UKOTs has active,
functioning herbaria. In some cases there are small collections
which are inadequately stored in rooms lacking climate control
and which are not actively curated eg Montserrat, Cayman. These
collections are deteriorating. Falkland Islands has a small herbarium
but no curator. As part of a recently completed Darwin Initiative
project, a small herbarium was established in the British Virgin
Islands and housed in an air-conditioned room in the J.R.O'Neal
Botanic Garden, managed by the BVI National Parks Trust, the agency
responsible for terrestrial biodiversity management. Sadly, just
as this was being implemented the botanic garden manager died
suddenly. All developments have stopped until a suitable replacement
can be found. The delay in filling this post is due to the lack
of local capacity.
9.9.2 RBG Kew has an active programme of
collaborative plant diversity documentation in many of the UKOTs
eg Montserrat, TCI, St Helena, Falkland Islands, BVI, and Ascension.
In all cases, plant material is collected in duplicate with one
set retained at Kew until local facilities are established and
the reference collection can be repatriated to each Territory.
9.9.3 Training is required for those staff
that will run the herbarium. Kew offers a Diploma Course in Herbarium
Techniques, both at Kew and in regional centres, depending on
demand. Several people from UKOTs have attended one of these courses.
9.10 Inadequate access to funding
9.10.1 Because of their status, Overseas
Territories of the UK, are ineligible for many of the funds available
for biodiversity conservation. In the UK the only dedicated fund
is the small grants Overseas Territories Environment Programme
(OTEP). Defra's Darwin Initiative has also provided significant
funds to projects based in the UKOTs. However the stop-start nature
of endeavours supported by such short-term funding sources is
particularly problematic in the UKOTs context, where continuity
of effort often depends on a single committed individual. The
extinction of at least one endemic plant species (Nesiota elliptica
in St Helena) can be ascribed to lack of continuity in conservation
efforts in UKOTs.
9.11 The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation
9.11.1 The UK Overseas Territories were
not included in Plant Diversity Challenge, the UK's response to
the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation, adopted by the CBD.
9.11.2 In order for UKOTs to implement the
Global Strategy for Plant Conservation and halt loss of their
domestic plant diversity, each Territory needs easy access to
reference specimens and literature housed in a fully functional
herbarium that is adequately staffed and financed, together with
facilities and expertise in in situ conservation, seed banking
and habitat restoration.
2 June 2008
19 The PDC progress report is available at: http://www.plantlife.org.uk/portal/assets/News%20Sue%20Nottingham/PDC.pdf.
The 10 recommendations in that report (q.v.) are all pertinent
to the questions posed by the Committee. Back
| 
