A summary of a Eurostat funded project to explore how to produce an asset and risk register relating to the potential for natural capital restoration in the UK, using two pilot areas in England as case studies.

1. Natural Capital
Restoration Costs Project (UK)
Office for National Statistics
ons.org.uk

2. Natural Capital Restoration
Contents
• The Natural Capital restoration project
• Restoration in the ecosystem context
• 2 pilot studies
• Issues
• Recommendations
• Asset & risk register
• Conclusions
• What next?

3. Natural Capital Restoration Project
• Eurostat-funded project
• Work supported by NCC *
• Began 2016 – completed October 2017
• Two objectives:
1. Roadmap - re. register of Nat. Cap. , value lost
over time and cost to restore
2. Two pilot studies – to show applications & issues
* ‘Restoration efforts, therefore, need to be sustained and underpinned
by long term commitment’; and
‘An estimate of the potential restoration costs to maintain natural
capital is essential and the committee is firmly of the view
that this needs to be calculated as part of the
national natural capital accounting framework.’
(NCC, 2014; Helm, 2014)

4. Natural Capital Restoration Project
Who was consulted?
‘Government’
Consultancy
NGO
Academia
Corporate
DfT, Defra, Natural England, Forestry
Commission, Forest England,
Scottish Government, Welsh
Assembly
Government, DAERA-NI
Eftec, AECOM, Pareto, Forest
Carbon
Haines-Young (Nottingham),
Turner (CSERGE, UEA),
Hughes (Anglia-Ruskin)
Exmoor Mires Partnership,
Wicken Fen Vision, CEH
SW Water
International
Eurostat, UNEP-WCMC

5. Where does restoration fit in?
Logic chain for peatland

6. Where does restoration fit in?
Restoration: ‘the process of assisting the
recovery of an ecosystem that has been
degraded, damaged or destroyed’
(SER, 2004)
Restoration effects over time

7. Where does restoration fit in?
‣ ‘Actual’, ‘business as usual’ (bau) accounts
with parallel
‣ ‘Hypothetical’, restoration-based accounts
for comparison

8. Ecosystem condition- ecosystem services &
restoration/maintenance/neglect
Ceteris paribus, Condition (lhs) → Services (present)
and, depending upon management (restoration/maintenance/neglect),
→ Services (future)
Key: Right-hand graph lines show ES flow following different starting condition
categories from left-hand graph. RHS: Black curves/lines – business as
usual (bau); thick dotted lines – restoration; fine dotted lines –
maintenance; grey curve – ES unsustainably extracted.
condition
maintained
restoring
condition
condition
deteriorating

9. Ecosystem condition- ecosystem services – thresholds and
tipping points
Threshold: “The point at which (below which) the decline in status accelerates and/or
becomes difficult to reverse.
A discontinuity whereby a small change in a driver exerts the largest change in an
attribute or state of an ecosystem, typically abrupt.” (NCC, 2014b) .
Tipping point: “a point at which an (ecological) system experiences a qualitative
change, mostly in an abrupt and discontinuous way” (Jax, 2012)
See grey dotted line on previous slide.
Beyond this point, restoration may not be feasible/economically justified

10. Ecosystem restoration – what are we aiming for?
The target level (the level for which we are aiming)
may be based on some reference point (some
past level)
Reference point ranges from ancient past
(pristine?) to the start of the current period
time
present
futurepast
Reference point
Target level
?
?

11. Ecosystem condition- and multiple ecosystem services
As degradation/restoration takes place, the patterns of the different ES may differ

12. Ecosystem condition- and multiple ecosystem services
ES Possibility Frontier (ESPF)
The frontier shows the capacity of the
ecosystem in terms of the different
combinations of ES possible given the current
condition (discounted service flows). X and Y show 2
possible combinations. Inside curve shows technically
inefficient outcomes
Corner solution possible
(and even negatives
possible [e.g. GHG
emissions])
As condition
improves, ESPF
moves out –
showing larger
combinations of ES
But ESPF may not
move uniformly
with improving
condition. (optimum
combination I may not
be more of both vis a
vis point H)
a
b c
d e

13. Restoration activities and costs
Types of activities and costs:
• Initial investments/up-front costs
• Ongoing costs
• Managing and monitoring costs (should
monitoring costs be applied?)
• Periodic maintenance & harvesting costs
• Opportunity costs (only in terms of
Cost:Benefit Analysis?)

14. Restoration activities and cost information
Cost estimates:
• Substantial number of published sources
• Range from review studies to ‘manuals’
But
• Not all ecosystems
• Less on actual costs
• May not be publicly available (archived, private business, accounting system doesn’t
separate, not published)
• Often not disaggregated
• May be averages only
• Grant rates – proxy for costs to operator
• Timings rare
• Some ‘broad brush’
manuals
of costs
reviews with
detailed annexes
journal articles
mentioning costs
site studiesreviews with no
cost data

15. Pilot study 1 – Exmoor Mires Partnership
• Aim: to restore degraded peatland and vegetation
• ES - GHG, water quality, flood prevention, biodiversity,
grazing, recreation
• Since 2006 3000 ha.

16. Pilot study 1 – Exmoor Mires Partnership
Gathered information to produce:
 Summary asset and risk register
 Ecosystem accounts
 Cost:Benefit analysis

17. Pilot Study 1 – EMP -Asset & Risk Register

18. Pilot study 1 – Exmoor Mires Partnership
B:C ratio: 8.9 (100 yrs); 12.2 (300 yrs)
Sensitivity:
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
base - sloped
changes
base -
stepped
changes
base - no
monitoring
costs
50%
reduction in
GHG benefits
20 yrs to
moderate
double years
to next
category
halve years to
next category
double years
to next
category/no
monitoring
maintenance
costs
continue
throughout
Benefit:Costratio
100 yrs 300 yrs

19. Pilot study 2 - Wicken Fen Vision
• Aims: to encourage beneficial wildlife habitats, provide access
(local involvement), influence policy.
• ES – GHG, flood prevention, biodiversity, grazing,
recreation, education
• Since 1999 5300 ha. vision
(analysed 479 ha. of former cropland)

20. Gathered information to produce:
 Summary asset and risk register
 Ecosystem accounts
 Cost:Benefit analysis

21. Pilot Study 2 – Wicken Fen -Asset & Risk Register

22. Pilot study 2 - Wicken
B:C ratio: 6.3 (100 yrs); 9.0 (300 yrs)
Sensitivity:

23. Where do restoration costs fit in
ecosystem accounts?
Actual or hypothetical?
• UN (2003) and Mayer (2013)
- use restoration costs if restoration is underway
- if not, use restoration costs if this is less than the NPV
•UN (2012) and Technical Rec. (2017)
- only use restoration costs if restoration is underway
- otherwise, parallel accounts can be produced to
compare bau with restoration
Conclusion:
• More work and discussion needed
• Useful with accounts either way

24. Issues
• Ecosystem condition - ecosystem services - restoration activities links
• Restoration costs information.
• Monitoring of ecosystem services
• Scaling up is possible, but uncertainty -insufficiency of data.
• Time
• Ecosystem accounts and restoration costs
• The quality of the planning and implementation of policies
• People should be central

25. Restoration costs - recommendations
 Better understand:
 ecosystem condition,
 ecosystem services, and
 restoration activities (& other influences)
 Establish database – ONS/Defra, Eurostat
 Scaling up – asset & risk register
- acknowledge uncertainty, improve over time
 Ecosystem accounts – restoration costs
- in parallel or mainstream? (and what about disservices?)
 Time!
Also
 Better policy (& sociocentric)
`
 Collaboration

26. Asset and
risk register
Summary, but based on
aggregation of site data

27. Asset and risk register
• Parallel with NC Roadmap
• Based on ‘value’, ‘risk’ (asset quality and direction of
change), and ‘facility’ (availability and ease of obtaining
data)
• 4 key elements:
– Overview/reviews
– Broad habitat coverage
– Database (& guidelines)
– Overall UK asset and risk register
• Overall coverage, but may need to focus - target

28. Evaluation for
Roadmap
by broad habitat
according to:
 existing accounts,
 value,
 risk
and
 facility

29. Restoration Roadmap

30. Restoration costs – what next?
 What to publish from this work?
 Roadmap for asset and risk register
- linked to NCA work
- focussing where high ‘value’/‘risk’/ ‘facility’
 Eurostat funding facilitates work on MMH &
peatland
 Work can begin on a database and guidelines
 How much progress is made will depend on
funding support – is it worthy?

31. Conclusions
• Project objectives met - two pilot studies* & roadmap completed.
* restoration seems worthwhile
• A national (and European) database bringing together restoration, ES
and state of ecosystem data from disparate sources is recommended.
• ONS and Defra to lead in putting the roadmap into effect (parallel to NCR)
• Time - wide range of implications - must be woven into thinking about
ecosystem restoration.
• Ecosystem accounts - restoration costs - supplementary information or a
place ‘mainstream’ accounts . Further debate is needed (& on disservices too)
• Restoration policies need careful design and implementation (with
agency collaboration and good stakeholder engagement - losers as well as winners
considered). The CAP and Brexit provide opportunities.
• Progress can be made on habitat-based, asset and risk registers and
database to 2020+ - with collaboration and support