1. Greater Manchester a resilient city region U-Score Essential 5 In partnership with: European Commission Humanitarian Aid & Civil Protection Salford United Kingdom Amadora Portugal Stoke-on-Trent United Kingdom Arvika Sweden Jönköping Sweden

2. Essential 5: Safeguard Natural Buffers to Enhance the Protective Functions Offered by Natural Ecosystems Addresses the identification, monitoring and protection of critical ecosystem services that confer a disaster resilience benefit

3. Essential 5: Methodology Completed in discussion between Greater Manchester Ecology Unit (GMEU) and Greater Manchester Civil Contingencies & Resilience Unit GMEU: specialist advice to, and on behalf of, the ten districts of Greater Manchester on biodiversity, nature conservation and wildlife issues Includes: commenting on ecological impact of development proposals designating Sites of Biological Importance Preparing and implementing the Greater Manchester Biodiversity Action Plan

4. Challenges Some of the descriptors are adversely judgemental e.g. 5.1 seriously deficient/omitted from monitoring altogether/ no real attempt to track health over time/less systematic use of metrics Indicative measurement scales at times very broad, at times difficult to distinguish between e.g. generally enforced vs not fully enforced Indicative measurements do not always appear proportionate e.g. score 5 is ‘perfection’ – improved health and performance across the board for critical ecosystem services Definitions and ‘fair’ local application of indicators Building new relationships

5. Outcomes Three items measured

6. 5.1.1 Awareness of the role that ecosystem services may play in the city’s disaster resilience Score 3 - Critical ecosystem services have been identified but only some are monitored annually Other ecosystem services are capable of being monitored annually but currently are not (proportionate to monitor annually?) Ecosystem Services identified and mapped (quantified) – water quality, carbon sequestration and storage, biodiversity, food production, flood management, urban heat island, recreation and active travel greenspace, landscape

7. 5.1.2 Ecosystem health Score 3 – Neutral status on average – some improvements offset by some declines Improvements to peatlands leading to better water storage and improved carbon storage and sequestration Increase in tree and woodland cover leading to evaporative cooling and surface water interception Improvements to water quality More hard surfacing trend Air pollution not improving Some declines in biodiversity

8. 5.1.3 Impact of land use and other policies on ecosystem services Score 3 - Land use policies are in place and broadly supportive but are sometimes not fully enforced Comments sometimes economic imperatives override environmental concerns e.g. inadequate use of SUDS schemes and too much reliance on unmanaged surface water discharge if ecosystems being assessed are those protective against disasters this potential gap in resilience needs understanding and potentially addressing possible lack of clarity about indicative measurement descriptors

9. Future Action Plan UK civil contingencies framework potentially mitigates against good links between climate change work and civil protection risk assessment To build stronger links between the AGMA Civil Contingencies & Resilience Unit and the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit To ensure Civil Contingencies & Resilience Unit is represented on the Natural Capital Group (promotes the natural environment; co-ordinates activity across green infrastructure, waterways and biodiversity; develops ecosystems services across Greater Manchester) A number of major land owners on the Greater Manchester Resilience Forum are interested in applying the scoring to their estates and building greater awareness of the links between disaster resilience and eco-system health and preservation

10. Questions?