Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-45)
DR MARK
AVERY AND
MS JOANNA
PHILLIPS
25 OCTOBER 2006
Q40 Mr Caton: Some other people who
have provided evidence to us were concerned that a full MA-type
assessment might consume too many resources. They prefer a simple
appraisal of the MA from a UK point of view, identifying key issues
for this country. What do you say to that?
Dr Avery: I would come back to
my example of the uplands. I think that is an example of where
we need quite a detailed study of all the different ecosystem
services that we could get from what is, after all, about 40%
of the UK upland areas. Those things need to be pulled together
in a way that they never have been before, so that we can look
at what the impacts over a wide range of issues would be of taking
different directions in management perhaps. So maybe we ought
to end up saying that we are not going to have any sheep in the
uplands for the next 20 years, because it does not make sense
to fund that type of farming, and society might—I am not
saying it would—benefit more from that area reverting to
a more natural habitat and woodland. The benefits we get as a
society from that might be greater than we get from over-grazing
it at the moment. That is the type of question that we really
ought to look at. I have not heard anyone in government posing
that type of question, which is the type of question that would
come out of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
Ms Phillips: I also think that,
learning from the lessons as to where sub-global assessments have
been undertaken, if we can work cross-government to ensure that
you have Treasury, DTI, engaged with developing and understanding
the implications of the results of these types of pieces of work,
and have their buy-in and commitment to it, we are more likely
to see the changes that are necessary to ensure that we are getting
the right policies and the right actions coming out at the end
of the day. If it is just a simple appraisal from one department,
it is less likely to have the impact that it really needs to have
for the changes that are necessary.
Q41 Mr Caton: Have you made any estimate
of what a full UK-wide assessment would cost?
Dr Avery: I do not think we have,
no. Turning it on its head, however, nobody has made a full estimate
of how much in economic terms we are losing by not understanding
what we are doing. It is therefore slightly difficult to know
whether the money would be well spent until you spend it and get
the answer.
Q42 Mr Caton: Fair point.
Dr Avery: But the answer from
that type of analysis at a global level has always been that we
are losing more in terms of the ecosystem services than we are
getting in the short term from trashing the planet, and I would
be surprised if that is not the case at least in some areas of
the UK.
Q43 Mr Caton: In your submission
you stressed that a UK assessment would provide a useful test-bed
to validate the MA models which you thought could go on to inform
future national and international assessments. Are you aware of
any work in other countries, looking at the application and validation
of the MA on a national scale and, if so, what have they found?
Ms Phillips: Not specifically.
Just to say that the World Resource Institute has been doing a
lot of work and is due to publish a report very shortly on the
Millennium Assessment and how it can be used more effectively.
Q44 Mr Caton: You called in your
evidence for more consideration of the UK's global ecological
footprint. Would you like to see the adoption of a sustainable
development indicator reflecting the UK's ecological footprint?
Ms Phillips: Yes, I think that
would be extremely helpful. Anything that can communicate to a
wide audience in simple terms the impact that we have on the rest
of the world is incredibly important. To understand our consumption
and production patterns more effectively, to be able to recognise
when we are living beyond our means and what that means in global
terms for the rest of the planet is incredibly important.
Dr Avery: It is really necessary
to understand what we are doing in this country as well. We cannot
make decisions in this country to reduce our footprint in this
country and merely export those problems, through our actions,
to elsewhere in the world. So we have to have both sides of the
picture of the UK's activity to know whether we are really a force
for good or ill in the world.
Ms Phillips: One of the things
that the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment shows us is that the
planet as a whole is very much a mosaic of systems, providing
people and nature with different bundles of ecosystem services
and disservices. To manage those effectively we need to be able
to measure them and understand them, which is why a UK assessment
would be useful. However, we also have to understand the trade-offs
between them, both temporally and spatially, and we have to understand
who is benefiting from them. That would be an important part of
an ecosystem footprint-type analysis. From that, you can then
consider a range of policies, incentives, technologies and regulation
that could help encourage and lead to better management and sharing
of the benefits.
Q45 Mr Caton: You mentioned ecological
footprint analysis, and indeed you call for more of that in your
written submission. We have been told that WWF has been involved
in a project on this and that has led to a software tool called
Resource and Energy Analysis Programme, to help decision-makers
test the environmental impacts of policies. Do you know this project,
and does it fill the ecological footprint knowledge gap that you
identify?
Ms Phillips: Colleagues are aware
of the tool and they do see it as a useful analytical tool to
help identify the environmental impacts of our consumption decisions.
We have also been working with and have endorsed the Regional
Economy Environment Input-Output model, REEIO, which was developed
for REWARD, the Regional and Welsh Appraisal of Resource Productivity
and Development project. It focuses very much on resource productivity
as a means of achieving sustainable production and consumption
at the regional level. Together, these tools have strong practical
applicability and can be used for the "what if?" questions.
For example, what happens to CO2 emissions if a region increases
its rate of GDP growth by 1%; what happens to domestic water consumption
if new houses are built to BRE "very good" standard
as opposed to "excellent" standard. However, what neither
of them do or can indicate exactly, as far as we are aware, is
what a sustainable development pathway actually looks like, or
how to address the overall environmental quality of a region,
or locally. So they are very useful but do not necessarily address
the existing footprint gap.
Chairman: Thank you very much for your
evidence today. I am sure that it will be very useful to us.
| 
