Memorandum submitted by the Royal Society
for the Protection of Birds
1. SUMMARY
1.1 The stark picture painted by the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (MA) is of critical importance to both developed
and developing countries. However, despite the MA's clear and
stark warnings that ecosystem services underpin life on Earth
(i), human prosperity and poverty eradication, our interactions
with the Government suggest that MA findings have not significantly
influenced decision making in the UK to date.
1.2 This seems to be the case internationally
as well and is particularly worrying as the degradation of ecosystems
will be a critical barrier to the achievement the UN Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs). In light of this, the Government and
the international community need to better invest in and manage
environmental assets (such as soil, water and biodiversity). Such
investment is central to cost-effective and efficient long-term
strategies to achieve global goals for poverty, hunger and diseases
and sustained economic prosperity—all depend on restoring
a healthy environment.
1.3 The RSPB believes that the MA provides
a valuable conceptual framework for linking ecosystems and biodiversity
to human well-being which should be used and supported to help
deliver sustainable development. Our specific recommendations
to ensure the MA is not a wasted opportunity include:
(i) Increasing awareness of key policy makers
responsible for decisions that affect natural resources on the
importance of the MA findings and their implications for policy,
institutional design and governance.
(ii) Providing senior-level leadership as
well as financial and technical support towards the development
and effective implementation of tools, methodologies, guidelines
and clear examples to ensure decision makers at all levels in
different disciplines use and mainstream the MA.
(iii) The Government should start a programme,
if necessary beginning with a pilot, to "MA proof" all
government activities and to provide the funding necessary to
make this happen. This should clarify and strengthen accountability
mechanisms and processes for environmental due diligence in all
government departments.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 The RSPB is a leading UK conservation
organisation and the UK Partner of BirdLife International, a network
of over one hundred grass-roots conservation organisations around
the world. We have been engaged with the MA process and participate
in a number of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) such
as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Ramsar Convention.
We also actively engage with DFID on policy issues, including
through the Development and Environment of Group (DEG) of BOND,
which we currently chair.
2.2 The RSPB welcomes the MA as the first
major international assessment of the consequences of ecosystem
change for human well-being, providing vital analysis, options
and stark warnings for conserving ecosystems while enhancing their
contributions to people. Given the fact that ecosystem services
underpin life on Earth (ii) and that Millennium Development Goal
7 (MDG7) "ensuring environmental sustainability" is
off track (iii), we welcome this important inquiry and hope that
it will lead to the Government (and the international community)
taking further urgent action to meaningfully address the problems
and challenges the MA highlight. The RSPB will continue to work,
including in partnership and with Government, to help ensure a
sustainable and bio-diverse future.
3. THE MILLENNIUM
ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT
(MA)—STRENGTHS AND
WEAKNESSES
3.1 The MA is the most comprehensive and
wide reaching analysis of ecosystems and human wellbeing ever
carried out. Involving over 1,300 scientists and experts from
95 countries, it has global resonance and far reaching implications.
One key success of the MA is that it has provided a conceptual
framework that demonstrates explicitly the links between dynamic
ecological processes and human well-being. This approach presents
an effective means to link biodiversity and ecosystems with other
critical agendas—such as poverty reduction, agriculture,
water, climate change and conflict, as well as to the economic
mainstream.
3.2 The MA process has political significance
through its UN origins (it was commissioned by the UN Secretary
General) and its consensual messages. We believe that one of the
biggest benefits of the MA is not so much to do with offering
new information, but with building a universal and robust global
consensus around that information and its implications. We believe
that this consensus should be urgently strengthened at all levels,
and at every opportunity—within and between different stakeholder
groups.
3.3 One obvious benefit of the MA has been
the creation of new collaborations, partnerships and networks
across and between different disciplines—some of which provide
important opportunities to tackle significant challenges. This
has been described as the "social capital" legacy of
the MA. The RSPB, in collaboration with Defra and English Nature,
through its "Valuing Wild Nature" work for example,
is bringing together a range of experts from the fields of policy,
economics and natural science, to address the ways and means of
translating the importance of ecosystem services into practical
policy prescriptions.
3.4 We believe that major weaknesses of
the MA are to do with communication and follow-through, and resourcing
of that. Related to this is a lack of key policy-maker buy-in
to the MA, a major weakness. The MA is an extensive assessment,
it comprises more than 3,000 pages and 81 chapters, addressing
multiple questions. For policy makers, this presents a significant
challenge. To put research ramifications into direct and practical
use they generally require clear, simple messages, less technical
jargon, a restricted number of key messages and feasible recommendations.
In the case of the Water and Wetlands Synthesis, despite concepts
of "Summaries for Decision-Makers", Ramsar felt it necessary
to generate its own summary of the wetland report (a synthesis
of the synthesis)—which was then approved at political level
at Ramsar COP9 in November 2005. Policy makers should be provided
with clear case studies showing that economic and social benefits
of sound ecosystem and environmental management are multifaceted
and extremely significant to different sectors such as health,
education etc. This could be done through written briefings, meetings
and events such as seminars, conferences, and receptions as well
as focused media campaigns.
Recommendation 1
We believe that there is a pressing need to
develop methodologies, guidelines and clear examples to help decision
makers at all levels in different disciplines use and mainstream
the MA.
3.5 More practically, MA reports are sometimes
difficult to down-load from the MA website. This is particularly
worrying given that internet speed in most developing countries
is painfully slow. Better ways of making the MA reports more accessible
and available to decision-makers and researchers should be explored
and implemented.
3.6 Whilst the scientific component of the
MA is no doubt strong and robust, we feel that the product has
been under-valued through lack of foresight and investment in
its public relations (PR) and out-reach, which seemed an under-resourced
bolt-on dimension. This point offers a lesson-learned for future
exercises. One of many missed opportunities was the lack of one
major headline grabbing launch. This could have enrolled a high
profile "ambassador" (eg a celebrity or individual with
global respect) to help kick start a media and awareness raising
campaign to increase the profile and application of the MA.
Recommendation 2
That lessons are learned from all aspects of
MA process to inform any further work nationally or internationally,
particularly to ensure it is relevant and accessible to key decision
makers.
4. THE MA AND
ITS IMPORTANCE
TO DECISION
MAKERS IN
THE UK, EU AND
INTERNATIONALLY
4.1 Part of the MA's remit was to address
policy responses, and not just to present scientific findings.
One key conclusion was that: "The challenge of reversing
the loss of biodiversity while meeting increasing demands for
ecosystem services involve significant changes in policies (on
investment, trade, subsidy, taxation and regulation, among other),
institutions and practices. These are not currently under way".
(iv) This leaves no room for complacency and puts a huge onus
on governments to ensure their policies and actions guarantee
environmental sustainability at home and abroad. However, according
to Sachs and Reid (2006), the world under invests in ecosystem
management, and rich and poor country governments routinely overlook
the policy links between poverty reduction, well-being and the
environment (v).
4.2 In the UK, this has been recently illustrated
by cuts to Natural England even before it is operational. The
new chairman of Natural England, Sir Martin Doughty, in a recent
letter to David Miliband, the Secretary of State for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs, raised concerns that proposed budget cuts
imposed by DEFRA "threaten to cripple [the Agency] before
it starts" (vi). Such budget cuts make it difficult to achieve
environmental targets and give negative messages about the importance
of investing in environmental assets. Resources and capacity are
needed to deliver the necessary policy change and action in all
departments and regions. At least, budgets for the Departments
with major responsibility for tackling key problems highlighted
by the MA should be increased, not cut.
4.3 RSPB research has shown clear economic
benefits to investing in biodiversity. In the UK, our publication
"Healthy, Wealthy and Wise" (vii) demonstrates the a
broad range of services it yields whilst globally, the RSPB coordinated
research working with Cambridge University and leading economists—"Valuing
Wild Nature" which estimated that each year ecosystem services
estimated at US$250 billion are lost because of habitat conversion
globally (Balmford et al, 2002) (viii).
4.4 The Department for International Development
(DFID), as recently highlighted by the Environmental Audit Committee's
report (August 2006), is currently failing to meet the challenge
of incorporating the environment and sustainability into all its
international development work. This is despite the fact that
the environment represents a vital asset in poor communities and
poor people themselves highlight that the environment matters
to themix and an "Approach to the Environment" paper
by DFID (February 2006) that articulates this.
4.5 The Poverty and Environment Partnership
(PEP), which DFID supports, has shown that the returns on environmental
investments are multifaceted and extremely significant (x). For
example, investment in soil conservation greatly enhances sustainable
agricultural practices, especially in dry-land regions. A 15-year
programme to combat land degradation, costed at between £9
billion and £21 billion, is estimated to yield benefits 1.5
to 3.3 times higher in terms of avoided agricultural production
losses alone (Martin-Hurtado, 2002) (xi). Further benefits have
also been shown—improved food security, education, environment
and access to finance. A specific challenge for the international
community is to assist developing countries to integrate environmental
and ecosystem issues into their national development plans such
as Poverty Reduction Strategies.
4.6 The UK Government is committed to achieving
a target of transferring 0.7% of GDP as overseas development assistance
by 2013. Achieving this target will necessitate a substantial
increase in financial resources available for international development.
It is essential that these resources are used, in part, to guarantee
the maintenance of ecosystem services, on which many of the poorest
and most marginalised people depend. It is also imperative, if
sustainable poverty eradication is to be achieved, to ensure resources
to enhancing the natural capital base of poor communities.
4.7 The Government is committed, under the
CBD and WSSD to provide new and additional resources to developing
countries to protect biodiversity as part of this. These are enshrined
in PSA targets. We believe current funds, allocated though Global
Environment Facility, World Bank, and the UK Government are wholly
inadequate to achieving these goals.
4.8 In the UK, according a UK Biodiversity
Action Plan Cost Summary Report, there is currently a £337.9
million shortfall for UK Biodiversity Action Plan targets (xii).
The UK also has responsibility for its overseas territories (UKOTs),
which are hugely important for biodiversity. We estimate about
£10 million a year is all that would be needed to meet the
conservation needs in all territories. Conservation in the UKOT's
provides essential services, not in the least for nature-based
industries on which many livelihoods, there depend (eg tourism
and fishing).
Recommendation 3
The Government needs to ensure that adequate
financial resources are channelled towards achieving UK Biodiversity
Action Plan targets and to its commitments to conservation in
the UKOTs. Globally, the Government needs to continue its support
for the Global Environment Facility, increase commitment to the
Darwin Fund, and help ensure adequate resources to meet international
environmental commitments and targets, including the work programmes
of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.
Recommendation 4
The Government is well placed to lead in encouraging
the EU, the G8 and developing countries to use environmental information
effectively and to help ensure sustainable development is at the
heart of their domestic and international deliberations and policy
making, including through leading by example.
5. THE IMPACT
OF THE
MA SO FAR
ON DECISION
MAKING IN
THE UK
5.1 Our interaction with government suggests
that the MA findings have not successfully influenced decision
making in the UK to date. While understanding of ecosystem services
has grown within the Government, it is occurring at a glacial
pace and has yet to be reflected in macroeconomic planning for
which GDP growth remains the dominant, overriding objective. Ecosystem
services are still not systematically incorporated into policy
and planning decisions.
5.2 We understand however that DEFRA is
carrying out research into taking an ecosystem approach, giving
a more sophisticated and comprehensive understanding of the relationship
between economic and environmental importance. We also understand
that DFID has research planned within the ecosystem service field.
This is important and welcomed—and we hope joined up across
Government. Nonetheless, we believe that planned research should
not delay action to incorporate key MA recommendations as best
as is possible now. There are sufficient examples worldwide of
sound ecosystem management for continued inaction to be inexcusable.
5.3 We were also pleased to be invited to
attend a meeting of the Global Biodiversity Sub-Committee in February
2006. The purpose of this meeting (workshop) was to "Evaluate
the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: messages, knowledge gaps
and policy implications", bringing together key government
stakeholders as well as representatives from the science, research
and NGO communities. We understand that this Sub-Committee is
tasked with taking forward the recommendations to government from
the meeting and we would be keen to see progress on this, including
in relation to the current Comprehensive Spending Review.
Recommendation 5
A high level cross-departmental Ministerial
Committee or Task Force should be identified to ensure necessary
actions are being implemented in a timely manner to work with
the Biodiversity Sub-Committee and to ensure the MA recommendations
are effectively linked to the UK sustainable development strategy
and core UK policy across government. The Government's Sustainable
Development Task Force could be resurrected and work with the
Inter-Ministerial Biodiversity Group to fulfil this role
5.4 At the Global Biodiversity Sub-Committee
workshop, it was highlighted that the MA was used to illustrate
the complexity of ecosystem functioning and the effects on the
environment and society during a meeting to discuss the upcoming
Comprehensive Spending Review (xiii). A central feature of the
ecosystem services approach is the recognition that they are,
to varying degrees, public goods. Without Government intervention
ecosystem services will continue to be undervalued and over exploited.
The RSPB believes that the onus is therefore on government to
ensure the full incorporation of the importance of these ecological
values in all policies which have land or marine use implications
in the UK or externally.
Recommendation 6
There has been much talk (though little articulation)
of "climate proofing" government policy and actions—we
believe that the Government should go beyond this to seriously
consider "MA proofing" all government activities. Effectively
operationalising an ecosystem approach to policy and development
could show real UK leadership. The Government must provide the
funding necessary to make this happen.
5.5 Despite the fact that the MA explicitly
made the links between ecosystem services and human well-being,
this has been poorly reflected in UK international development
policy (see paragraph 4.2 above). This is of particular concern
as ecosystem services are declining most rapidly in developing
countries. The 2006 White Paper on International Development,
fails to prioritise the need to invest in a healthy environment
for poverty eradication as recognised by the Environmental Audit
Committee's report (August 2006), even if it may not be a DFID
role to lead on MA follow up per se.
5.6 As part of the recent DFID consultation
process on the International Development White Paper, some 46
environment and development organisation came together through
the Development and Environment Group (DEG) of BOND and emphasised
the need for the White Paper to address environmental issues coherently
and effectively—"otherwise gains [eradicating poverty]
would be transitory and inequitable" (xiv). DEG's input drew
specific attention to the MA and its recommendations. However,
DFID gives little or no emphasis to the stark warnings and vital
messages from the MA (xv). In fact, there is only one reference
to it in the White Paper, and this is in the endnotes (Chapter
7 endnote 6, page 93). The small free booklet on the White Paper
makes no environmental reference, beyond climate change, at all.
5.7 The International Institute for Environment
and Development (IIED), with DFID and Irish Aid support, recently
published a briefing paper analysing the development implications
of the MA (xvi). A key message of the paper is that "development
is achieved through growing and managing the "portfolio of
assets" available to a household or a nation such a soils,
plants, water and animals" (xvii). Although the views
expressed in the paper do not necessarily reflect those of DFID
or Irish Aid, we strongly encourage DFID to address the papers
recommendations.
5.8 The UK has, through both the Prime Minister
and the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered some impressive
rhetoric, but this has not delivered action on the ground. It
is damning that the UK is off track to meet its own 2010 CO2 target,
when climate change could do more to undermine ecosystems and
human well-being globally and will compound the damage done through
habitat conversion and pollution.
6. THE IMPACT
OF THE
MA ON DECISION
MAKING AT
THE EU AND
INTERNATIONAL LEVEL
6.1 Evidence of the influence of the MA
in influencing strategic decision on the future of the European
countryside is not apparent in current EU legislation. However,
we welcome the Commission's Biodiversity Communication, which
makes key references to the MA and its findings. The forth-coming
review of the EU's 6th Environmental Action Programme also offers
another important opportunity to further incorporate the MA into
EU policy and practice.
Recommendation 7
The Biodiversity Communication needs to be endorsed
at the highest level (Council of Ministers) and given effect by
all Member States. This could be spearheaded by the UK Government.
Progress in implementation needs to be regularly reviewed and
publicly reported if its goals are to be achieved.
6.2 Progress towards meeting our national
and international biodiversity targets should be a consideration
of the ongoing reform of the EU Common Agricultural Policy. Despite
EU agreement that some rural development measures deliver environmental
benefits, the new EU Financial Perspective for 2007-13 (agreed
under the UK presidency at the end of 2005) has dramatically decreased
funds available for environment related programmes across Europe,
therefore jeopardising all the conservation targets they have
committed to.
Recommendation 8
The Birds and Habitats Directives must be implemented
fully in order to help safeguard vital ecosystem services in the
European Union. The EU should allocate sufficient funding to nature
conservation measures, particularly NATURA 2000 and agri-environmental
schemes, in order to halt biodiversity loss and to preserve ecosystem
services. The review of the EU's Budget in 2008-09 presents a
unique opportunity to boost funding for such measures.
6.3 Despite biodiversity objectives being
integrated in the Sustainable Development Strategy, the pace and
extent of implementation has been insufficient. It is very apparent
that the Lisbon Strategy dominates despite rhetoric about sustainable
development. The MA presents a case for seeing natural assets
as a vital to prosperity. A debate is needed on how this concept
can be reconciled with the current growth model, leading to economic
outcomes that also deliver social and environmental well-being.
Recommendation 9
The Sustainable Development Strategy adopted
by the European Council in June must be implemented in full, particularly
the commitment to halt the loss of biodiversity and to contribute
to a significant reduction in the worldwide rate of biodiversity
loss by 2010. The EU is currently way off track in terms of this
progress towards this objective.
6.4 One problem seems to be that interest
and knowledge about the MA has remained in DG Environment, despite
it's obvious relevance to other DGs. MA findings should be integrated
into the work of all relevant Commission DGs, including DG Agriculture,
DG Trade, DG Development and DG Regional Policy.
6.5 Regarding the EU's external dimension,
we welcome that the new European Consensus for Development Cooperation
specifically includes environment and sustainable management of
natural resources, and the need for Country Environmental Profiles
linked to EU Country and Regional Strategy Papers. However, a
recent European Court of Auditors Special Report (No 6/2006: The
environmental aspects of the Commissions' development co-operation)
is highly critical of the Commission for its failure to effectively
address environmental concerns in development cooperation. It
lists institutional failures, failings in implementing strategies
and project management failings, as well as suggests recommendations
for change. Many of the conclusions echo those of the EAC's inquiry
into DFID and the environment. With up to a third of DFID's budget
going to the EU, this gives further evidence that decision makers
are not heeding the warnings of the MA.
Recommendation 10
EU Thematic Programme for the Environment and
sustainable management of Natural Resources and Energy (ENRTP)
needs to be sufficiently resourced. This is in line with the EU
Commission's Communication on Policy Coherence for Development
which specifies the EU should enhance funding earmarked for biodiversity
and strengthen measures to mainstream biodiversity in development
assistance, and could help support developing countries to respond
themselves to the MA.
Recommendation 11
Recommendations from the European Court of Auditors
Special report (6/2006) should be addressed as a matter of urgency,
and in line with the principles and objectives of the Paris Declaration
on Aid Effectiveness, the EU and Member States should support
the integration of environmental considerations within development
support and ensure that there is clear lead-donor country responsibility
for this.
6.6 Globally, the MA has helped build a
more universal and robust global consensus about ecosystem service
decline and the implications for humanity. This helped raise the
environment up the political agenda at the 2005 World Summit (review
of the Millennium Development Goals)—but outcomes still
fell far short of addressing the challenges the MA highlights.
As part of the UN Reform agenda, environmental governance and
its significance to global challenges seems to be gaining some
momentum. In fact, our own Chancellor, Gordon Brown, can be commended
for prioritising the environment in a recent speech that he gave
to the UN. However, it is vital that these words are translated
into action.
Recommendation 12
Government involvement in the process of UN
Reform should reflect the urgency and importance of the MA's findings.
Sustainable development needs to be articulated as the overarching
aim of UN and its members to address global challenges, such as
peace and security, long-term poverty eradication and economic
and social wellbeing. International environmental governance mechanisms
need to be improved and strengthened to ensure greater coherence
and a stronger institutional structure to the UN's environment
work.
7. SHOULD THE
UK DEVELOP ITS
OWN ASSESSMENT
AND WOULD
IT BE
RELEVANT TO
INCLUDE EXTERNAL
UK IMPACTS
7.1 The UK already has adequate information
to know what needs doing—or at least what direction to head
in—for many conservation issues, for example through the
extensive work on biodiversity indicators. The UK should combine
this existing information with the conceptual framework and methods
of the MA to conduct a UK level assessment. Such a study could
be used to design a uniquely formulated UK approach to ecosystem
management, to improve knowledge of trends in biodiversity and,
in particular, the values that our society derives from biodiversity,
including its role in the provision of ecosystems services. This
should be resourced from additional funds and not draw down resources
necessary for current environment commitments. It should be in
addition to existing and important biodiversity indicators work
linked to UK sustainable development and quality of life.
7.2 Availability of good quality data about
biodiversity and ecosystem services in the UK can then provide
a test-bed to validate the MA models, to identify key drivers
and measure their relative importance and to identify predominant
pressures, inter-relationships and important interactions. This
work would be valuable as part of the UK assessment and could
inform other national and future global assessments.
7.3 Ecosystem service trends are inextricably
linked with economic activity and we know most of the UK population's
consumption impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems overseas. We
believe a rigorous quantitative examination of the UK's global
footprint will be very useful in supplementing our understanding
of global impacts. The inclusion of UK global footprint should
provide the basis for policies to address the sustainability of
the UK's patterns of production and consumption and their impacts
on conditions of ecosystems at home and abroad.
Recommendation 13
The Government should begin to seriously apply
MA concepts, information, and people-connections to the task of
tracking progress against the 2010 biodiversity target (and what
to do if or when we fail to meet it). A new robust assessment
of UK's global footprint and tracking achievement of UK sustainability
targets are appropriate. However, further UK assessment should
not delay initiatives for government action in this area now.
8. THE MA AND
ITS IMPACTS
ON NGOS:
DEVELOPMENT AND
POVERTY REDUCTION
NGOS
8.1 To date, there is no clear evidence
of any impact of the MA on NGOs focused on development and poverty
reduction in their own individual work. However, as stated previously,
DEG-BOND did unite several influential development NGOs including
Oxfam, Action Aid, Christian Aid, World Development Movement (WDM)
and Tearfund in a strong submission to the International Development
White Paper consultation which highlighted the MA. Disappointingly,
though, DFID has pointed out to us that none of the individual
submissions from the big development NGOs featured the MA—or
environmental concerns beyond climate change.
8.2 There is clearly much work to be done
both with government, but also by the wider development and environment
communities to properly link these important agendas—crucial
to addressing so many global challenges. It is important to keep
emphasising the main messages of the MA—that the delivery
of the MDGs, even the primarily economic development ones, are
better achieved with strategies that include maintenance of ecosystems
than strategies that simply prioritise economic development per
se.
9. THE USEFULNESS
OF THE
MA IN ADDRESSING
THE ASSESSMENT
NEEDS OF
MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL
AGREEMENTS (MEAS)
SUCH AS
THE CONVENTION
ON BIOLOGICAL
DIVERSITY (CBD)
9.1 Several MEAs and international organisation,
inter alia, FAO, IUCN, UNEP, UNDP, United Nations Foundations,
Global Environmental Facility, Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD), Ramsar, World Resources Institute played an active role
in the whole MA process. As a result, we hope that the time and
resources they invested met their needs.
9.2 The Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) responded to the findings of the MA at the Eighth Conference
of the Parties (COP 8) in Curitiba, Brazil (March 2006) in a decision
which highlighted key findings and urged parties and others to
take the measures necessary to slow biodiversity loss (COP Decision
VIII/9). The COP invited the Global Environment Facility to identify
funding gaps and needs for meeting the unprecedented additional
efforts required to achieve a significant reduction in the rate
of loss of biodiversity by the year 2010 and maintain provision
of ecosystem goods and services. The COP's recognition that financial
support is crucial to achieving the 2010 target is welcome. The
MA framework made it clear that biodiversity is responsible for
the organisation and operation of ecosystems. Its vital role is
highlighted in a recent consensus paper on biodiversity and ecosystem
functioning (xviii). Therefore, the RSPB would have preferred
a much more robust response, including urgent action under the
Convention to begin strengthening responses to biodiversity loss
per se given the fundamental role it plays in determining
and supporting the ecosystem services a specific region, habitat
or ecosystem actually supplies.
9.3 The CBD has its own assessment process
in the Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO). GBO 2, which assessed
status and trends of biodiversity and key drivers of biodiversity
loss, including progress towards the 2010 target, was launched
in March 2006 in Brazil.
9.4 In the case of the Ramsar Convention
on Wetlands, probably the main new added value was in the conceptual
models that came out of the MA (to the design of which Ramsar
itself contributed). These give an important 21st Century update
to the way people should be encouraged to think about things like
ecosystem services and drivers of change. We believe it is as
important to promote messages about this as it is to promote the
factual findings about the status and trends of ecosystems. As
a result, Ramsar has made important moves to overhaul and align
its own policy frameworks and guidance materials to fit the new
global consensus offered by the MA on such things; this is a significant
outcome.
9.5 As far as we are aware, impacts of the
MA on other conventions that we work with—the Convention
on Migratory Species, and the World Heritage Convention—have
been minimal, although the organisations, under whose auspices
they work, UNEP and UNESCO respectively, have actively responded.
Recommendation 14
Any decisions regarding possible follow-up of
the MA need to take into account risks of duplication and opportunities
for making use of existing assessment processes.
September 2006
ENDNOTES
(i) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005.
Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World
Resources Institute, Washington DC.
(ii) Ibid 2005.
(iii) DFID.2005. Fact Sheet on Environmental
Sustainability. Available at: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/mdg-factsheets/environmentalfactsheet.pdf
(iv) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005.
Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World
Resources Institute, Washington DC.
(v) Sachs, J D Sachs and Reid, W V 2006.
Environment: Investments Toward Sustainable Development. Policy
Forum Science 19 May 2006: Vol 312. No 5776, p 1002.
(vi) The Independent. Environment:
"New wildlife agency in jeopardy after cutbacks". Environment.
Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor. Published: 27 July 2006
Available at: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1199360.ece
(vii) RSPB.2005. Healthy, Wealthy and
Wise. Sustaining Communities: Creating the right environment.
RSPB.
(viii) Balmford et al (2002) Economic
reasons for conserving wild nature. Science Vol 297.
(ix) House of Commons Environmental Audit
Committee 2006. Trade, Development and Environment: The Role of
DFID. 10th Report of Session 2005-06.
(x) Poverty-Environment Partnership (2005).
Investing in Environmental Wealth for Poverty Reduction.
UNDP/UNEP/IIED/IUCN/WRI. http://www.undp.org/pei/pdfs/InvestingEnvironmentalWealthPoverty
Reduction.pdf
(xi) Martin-Hurtado, R (2002) Costing
the 7th Millennium Development Goal: Ensure Environmental Sustainability.
World Bank Environment Department, World Bank, Washington DC.
(xii) GHK Consultant Ltd 2006. UK Biodiversity
Action Plan: Preparing Costs for Species and Habitat Action Plan.
(xiii) Global Biodiversity Sub-Committee
2006. Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Workshop.
Evaluating the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: messages, knowledge
gaps and policy implications, 3 February 2006.
(xiv) UN Task Force on Environmental Sustainability
(2005). Environment and human well-being: a practical strategy
[New York: UN Millennium Project] http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/Environment-chapter1.pdf
(xv) There is only one reference to the
MA in the White Paper—in Chapter 7 endnote 6, page 93, plus
a graph showing extreme weather is happening more often.
xvi Baas, S. 2006. Making Poverty Irreversible: development
implications of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Environment
for MDGs. IIED: London.
(xvii) Ibid, 2006.
(xviii) Hooper, D U, F S Chapin, III,
J J Ewel, A Hector, P Inchausti, S Lavorel, J H Lawton, D Lodge,
M Loreau, S Naeem, B Schmid, H Setälä, A J Symstad,
J Vandermeer, and D A Wardle. (2005). Effects of biodiversity
on ecosystem processes: Implications for ecosystem management.
A position statement for the Ecological Society of America. ESA
Report. Ecological Monographs 75(1) pp3-35.
| 
