Generic
Action
Download
the Generic Action in full
4 Ecological
Monitoring
Introduction
It is important that progress in conserving London's biodiversity
should be monitored. This is not only to inform the review
and refinement of the individual action plans and actions,
but also to measure whether or not the action plans are
delivering improvements in our quality of life.
There is national advice on biodiversity indicators for
sustainable development and quality of life. Locally, the
London Planning Advisory Committee collated indicators for
the State of the Environment Report, and many Local Agenda
21 partnerships have suggested indicators. Much of this
work was reviewed by the London Ecology Unit in 1996, and
that report should be consulted for a fuller account of
the subject.
The London Biodiversity Action Plan is designed to include
all the most important wildlife habitat and most individual
species are covered through these habitat plans, rather
than through individual species plans. Wildlife habitat
is, by definition, indicative of biodiversity in general.
The first priority, therefore, is the monitoring of wildlife
habitat.
Habitat survey
The best way to monitor most habitat is through comprehensive
ground survey of the habitats, as was undertaken by the
GLC in 1984/85 and in re-survey of many individual London
Boroughs since then. When areas are re-surveyed, the results
provide a detailed account of losses and gains. However,
such work is expensive and time-consuming, and is likely
to be undertaken on a rolling programme, in which each area
is revisited at intervals of several years. Some habitats,
such as gardens, cannot be surveyed in this way, but can
be done by involving members of the public.
Wildlife sites Changes in the number
and area of Sites of Importance for nature conservation
form one of the indicators in the State of the Environment
Report. Without systematic re-survey, however, this indicator
is biased · losses are more readily detected than the gains.
To help avoid difficulties, this indicator should be compiled
by an expert group.
Priority and opportunity habitat If
resources for habitat survey are limited, priority may be
given to the irreplaceable habitats, described by English
Nature as 'critical natural capital'. In London, the priority
would be to monitor Sites of Metropolitan Importance for
nature conservation. Where habitats are already monitored
by a statutory agency there is an opportunity to develop
an indicator at little extra cost. The prime example of
this is the river water quality monitoring undertaken by
the Environment Agency.
Trees A special case is the monitoring
of trees that is undertaken by some London Boroughs, and
the possible repetition of the 'Task Force Trees' study
of the early 90s. Unfortunately these data do not provide
a complete, unbiased inventory of trees and so they cannot
be recommended as an indicator of wildlife habitat.
Monitoring the direct effect of the
actions
It is considerably easier to monitor the state of the habitat,
or of particular target species, in the places where actions
have been undertaken. This is useful for measuring whether
or not the actions are locally effective, and so is a desirable
detail of biodiversity action.
Monitoring species groups for surveillance
A group of species can be studied with an efficient census.
Changes in numbers or abundance of particular species draw
our attention to the need to check what is going on.
Such surveillance is best done through organising the efforts
of interested individuals. There is a spectrum of methods
ranging from widespread public participatory schemes, like
the garden wildlife monitoring undertaken by London Wildlife
Trust with postcards and on their website. Another such
scheme might be based upon amphibia in London's garden ponds.
At the other end of the spectrum are schemes like the Breeding
Birds Survey, butterfly transects, Wetland Bird Survey and
the 'Standard Walk' being piloted in London; schemes designed
for use by dedicated amateur naturalists. Surveillance schemes
are a cost-effective way of monitoring.
Atlas work The repetition of
work for distribution atlases documents large scale and
long-term changes in species distribution. The method is
unsuitable, however, for smaller changes in abundance and
changes occurring between the repetitions of atlas studies.
Monitoring schemes for individual species
Some individual species are suitable subjects for monitoring.
The traditional methods for this again involve trained amateurs
undertaking standardised methods. London examples include
the long-running heronries survey and the pilot
pipistrelle bat survey. Care is needed, however, that multiplication
of such single species efforts does not dissipate the resources
of London's trained amateurs and detract from the priority
for surveillance.
Individual and inadvertent monitoring
Biological recording schemes collect data for reasons
other than monitoring, indication or surveillance (see the
section on biological records). Much of this information
is difficult to employ for monitoring, because the essential
requirement, that the effort can be repeated with confidence
at some later date, is not met. There are exceptions to
this, however, most of which are for species that are readily
found if present and are popular with recorders (generally
the rarer species in popular groups like birds, butterflies,
amphibia, reptiles, bats and higher plants).
Participation Participation in monitoring
schemes is an excellent way of involving the public in the
action plan process. This participation can be organised
so that the results provide a repeatable measure, as in
the advice above. Surveys can be designed purely to educate
and raise awareness; these should not be sold as monitoring.
Objectives, Actions, Targets
Objective: To employ, encourage, develop and maintain long-term
monitoring schemes for London's wildlife habitats and species,
to indicate the state of London's biodiversity and monitor
progress on the individual action plans
Target: Begin implementing various monitoring schemes and
methods by 2002
References
Cannon, A. 1998. Garden Birdwatch
Handbook. British Trust for Ornithology.
Countryside Commission (1993). Action
for London's trees (CCP 433).
Dawson, DG (1999). London bird
survey · instructions for participants. Standard walk, pilot study
1999-2000. London Ecology Unit & London Biodiversity Partnership.
English Nature (1994). Planning
for environmental sustainability.
Institute of Terrestrial Ecology
(1991). Butterfly monitoring scheme. Instructions for independent
recorders.
London Bat Group (2000). London
pipistrelle bat survey. Standard walk pilot study (2000).
London Ecology Unit (1996). Indicators
of biodiversity for London Boroughs.
London Planning Advisory Committee
(1995 and subsequent revisions). State of the environment report
for London.
Noble, DG, Bashford, RI & Baillie,
SR (2000). The breeding bird survey 1999. BTO Research Report
247.
Next
The Action
Plans Home
