Memorandum submitted by the Natural Environment
Research Council (NERC)
1. The Natural Environment Research Council
(NERC) welcomes the opportunity to comment.
2. NERC is one of the UK's eight Research
Councils. It funds and carries out impartial scientific research
in the sciences of the environment. NERC trains the next generation
of independent environmental scientists. Its priority research
areas are: Earth's life-support systems, climate change, and sustainable
economies.
3. NERC's research centres are: the British
Antarctic Survey (BAS), the British Geological Survey (BGS), the
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) and the Proudman Oceanographic
Laboratory (POL). Details of these and of NERC's collaborative
centres can be found at www.nerc.ac.uk
4. NERC's comments are based on input from
CEH, the British Oceanographic Data Centre (BODC), the National
Oceanography Centre Southampton (NOCS), the Plymouth Marine Laboratory
(PML), and Swindon Office staff.
INTRODUCTION
5. NERC notes the enormous scope of the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) that was called for by the
UN Secretary General and believes the MA draws together a large
body of information into a comprehensive whole. Not everyone will
agree with all the findings and conclusions but the MA, representing
the efforts of over 1,300 people, is the first time information
on the world's ecosystems has been drawn together and the links
to human well-being repeatedly identified. Because of the massive
scope of the MA it is not surprising that global and regional
organisations are taking some time to absorb and respond to messages
that challenge fundamental aspects of the way they appraise the
use being made of natural resources and the ecosystem services
delivered from them.
6. NERC agrees, in large part, with the
findings of the MA and is comfortable that these findings are
based in many instances on the best information available at the
time. It should be noted that the data on which the MA is based
are rapidly dating and that it is therefore possible that some
of the issues raised by the MA are more critical now than they
were a few years ago. Some of the conclusions of the MA appear
to be contentious; for example, some of the points made on fisheries.
There are a number of gaps in the MA and more work needs to be
done to fill them and to develop sustainable resource management
practices that take the vision and messages from the MA on board.
7. More proactive approaches to environmental
monitoring will need to be developed if governments and agencies
around the world are to be able to act on the findings from the
MA. More research, at least some of it directed, will be needed
to ensure that human well-being can be protected and enhanced
by the sustainable use of natural resources and supported by services
that will depend on a range of environmental and ecological processes
operating within the limits of exhaustion and replenishment. Work
in NERC Research Centres is directed towards developing these
approaches and towards gaining the knowledge necessary to properly
link ecosystem process to the delivery of ecosystem services.
NERC is also supporting relevant research in the wider academic
community, for example under the QUEST (Quantifying and Understanding
the Earth SysTem) programme.
8. Effective Knowledge Transfer will be
an important part of action taken on the MA and NERC is already
contributing to developing and using environment-friendly technology
through fundamental research on alternative energy sources and
carbon sequestration. It is also supporting work to improve the
prediction of future environmental conditions, ecosystem structure
and function and environmental processes in general. This will
help to provide the basis for effective strategies to protect
the environment and the ecosystem services it provides, and thus
to support continuing economic and social progress.
RESPONSES TO
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
Question 1: How successful has the MA been
in influencing decision making at UK, EU and international levels?
How can we encourage adoption of the MA response options in countries
that have been slow to do so such as the US, Brazil and India?
9. The MA's conclusions are far-reaching
and it is only now that its impact is beginning to be felt in
various organisations. The UK sustainable development strategy,
Securing the Future, already aligns UK government policy positions
with the overall broad ambitions of the MA. NERC's new strategy
(currently being developed) is expected to help address the need
for fundamental research that will improve the evidence base for
policy makers in the UK and internationally. NERC is also working
with DFID to establish a joint programme in Ecosystem Services
for Poverty Alleviation, which will facilitate adoption of the
MA response options in developing countries. Whether NERC will
be able to follow up its plans depends in good part on the outcome
of the upcoming CSR. NERC has senior staff working on how to make
the best use of the MA's findings.
10. In its 2005 Environment Policy Review,
[1]the
European Commission acknowledged the conclusion of the MA that
"an unprecedented effort would be needed to achieve by 2010
a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss at all
levels". It recognised that "ecosystems provide ecological
services, essential to quality of life and economic prosperity",
and reported that the European Council had stressed the need for
policy integration "given the importance of biodiversity
for certain economic sectors". The Commission "integrated
biodiversity into the thematic strategies"—in particular
those on the Protection and Conservation of the Marine Environment
(adopted in October 2005) and on Air Pollution (adopted in September
2005). Thematic Strategies on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources
and on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste were adopted in December
2005—both clearly relevant to the resource limitation issues
addressed by the MA. A Thematic Strategy on Soil was adopted in
September 2006—acknowledging the role of soil as a substrate,
resource, habitat and gene pool.
11. The rationale for Theme 6 (Environment,
including climate change) of the European Union's 7th Framework
Programme (FP7) will emphasise that research for policy is a fundamental
component. Research in FP7 (2007-13) will address the needs of
EU environmental policies (the Marine Environment, Air Pollution
and Soil Thematic strategies[2]
mentioned above), which in turn have been designed by the Commission
to integrate biodiversity policy needs. Research in FP7 will also
explicitly address EU international commitments. Notably in the
context of the MA, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
is a specific driver.
12. The FP7 Environment work-programme for
2007 will provisionally include three biodiversity/ecosystems
project topics, one of which "Biodiversity values, sustainable
use and livelihoods" will be specifically designed to include
international partners. NERC understands from the Commission that
subsequent FP7 annual work programmes will reflect the fact that
biodiversity will continue to be a priority for the EU.
Question 2: To what extent have MA findings
and processes been incorporated into UK departments? How aware
are departments of the importance of the MA? What steps are being
taken to ensure that the findings of the MA are being considered
and, where relevant, acted upon in the departments? Is there any
evidence of real change in government as an outcome of the MA?
13. Defra and DFID research and evolving
policy positions are taking account of the findings of the MA.
Defra initiatives in natural resource protection and sustainable
consumption and production align well with MA findings.
14. With support from Defra and UK country
executives in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, NERC's Centre
for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) is undertaking another Countryside
Survey in 2007 that will provide information on change in the
rural environment. This should be an important step towards an
evidence-based position on issues raised by the MA for rural parts
of the UK (for example, previous Surveys have provided evidence
about the relative effects of climate change and nitrogen deposition
on biodiversity resources).
15. A number of cross-Council research initiatives
such as the Rural Economy and Land Use programme and the UK Energy
Research Centre include projects relevant to the sustainable delivery
of ecosystem services. NERC's QUEST programme involves "Quantitative
mapping of the risks associated with different degrees of climate
change for ecosystem services related to water supply, food and
fibre production, biodiversity and human health and well-being".
There are also large EU Framework 6 Integrated Projects addressing
relevant issues. For example, ALARM (which involves CEH and a
number of UK universities) is examining risks from alien species,
and risks to pollination in the context of global change. The
Tyndall Centre, a NERC Collaborative Centre established specifically
to address interdisciplinary aspects of climate change (and which
also receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council
and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council), has
recently produced material on interdisciplinary research that
may help encourage the institutional change required if MA conclusions
are to be addressed.
16. NERC believes there is evidence of a
real change in government. The UK has been making substantial
efforts in the directions that any constructive response to the
MA would include. The UK Treasury's Challenges take up several
of the themes that can be found in the MA, eg the 5th Challenge—"Increasing
pressures on our natural resources and global climate from rapid
economic and population growth in the developing world and sustained
demand for fossil fuels in advanced economies". NERC's developing
strategy, with its likely emphasis on prediction and strengthening
the evidence base for choosing sustainable development options,
will try to respond to this and to lead appropriate scientific
developments in both national and international research fora.
17. The concepts of protecting natural resources
and ecosystem services are well embedded in the thinking of the
NERC-led scientific community, eg the Oceans 2025 proposal from
the marine science laboratories, and proposals arising from a
2005 joint study (for NERC, Departments and Agencies) on sustainable
marine bioresources. [3]The
latter were conceived with the vision and findings of the MA in
mind. Knowledge will become available to researchers in other
parts of the world through international collaborations and NERC's
Knowledge Transfer and science-to-policy activities. This should
influence thinking internationally as well as in the UK and EU.
18. The planned emphasis in NERC's developing
strategy on the evaluation of ecosystem services should result
in important research outputs for policy makers. Although the
outputs won't directly alter the economic background to decision
making, they should help policy makers integrate services that
currently have no readily recognised marketable value into their
thinking, alongside those traditionally associated with economic
benefits.
19. A serious obstacle to success could
be the pressure on funding being experienced by some departments
that are leaders in MA-related policy-relevant research. NERC
understands the difficulties that Defra is going through at present.
NERC believes the issues raised by the MA are sufficiently serious
to be given high priority in government. The nation's health and
economic well-being are, as the MA points out, underpinned by
the ecosystem services the environment delivers.
20. The change to the funding position within
DFID research is very welcome and provides renewed opportunities
to address international development opportunities with science
that will facilitate decision making on sustainable development
in some of the world's poorer regions.
21. NERC looks forward to discussing these
matters with other members of the Environment Research Funders'
Forum and working with them to address issues raised by the MA.
Question 3: How has the MA been used to ensure
that there is adequate policy coherence, placing adequate weight
on non-financial impacts and environmental limits in policies?
Are the issues raised in the MA adequately addressed by UK policy
appraisal through Regulatory Impact Assessments? Can departments
document examples where the MA has resulted in a change in the
preferred policy option to one which is more sustainable?
22. NERC knows that Defra (a sponsor of
the MA) is conducting research, some of it in conjunction with
NERC research centres, university groups and consultancies, that
is exploring the links between environmental limits and the delivery
of ecosystem services.
23. Joint work between Defra and bodies
supported by NERC is already organising the base environmental
data into formats that make us more aware of the stock of natural
resources and their current status (which may provide information
on how close current use of natural resources is to the limits
of exploitation). More work is undoubtedly needed to establish
rates of use and rates of replenishment of basic natural resources.
24. NERC's view is that Regulatory Impact
Assessments are currently not primarily intended to take on board
the issues raised by the MA. NERC believes that some form of strategic
environmental assessment might be the best way of determining
whether the policies, plans and programmes of government are consistent
with the type of social and economic development the MA indicates
should be adopted. A consistent framework is needed internationally—but
this need not stop the UK moving ahead. There may be benefits
in giving a lead to partners in Europe and the Commonwealth based
on the approaches used in the MA. Defra is already funding appropriate
research, albeit at a relatively low level.
Question 4: Should the UK develop its own
assessment report and would it be relevant to include external
UK impacts?
25. NERC believes there would be advantages
to the UK having its own ecosystem assessment and that this should
include external impacts. For a trading nation to do otherwise
would undermine the basic principles advocated by the MA. NERC
and Defra are supporting relevant research. One prime requirement
would be provision of data regarding natural resources and the
pressures on them that might compromise the ability to deliver
ecosystem services. A start has been made on this. Defra and NERC
funds have contributed to an important report on marine resources
(see the Defra report Charting Progress: An Integrated Assessment
of the State of UK Seas[4]).
Substantial work on terrestrial systems is also in hand but needs
bringing together, perhaps using Charting Progress a model.
26. There is a good case for starting on
small relatively easily managed and well understood ecosystems
to test approaches and principles and develop sound management
practices. One key issue is whether there are enough basic data
on natural resources and the rates at which ecosystem processes
(eg for the supporting services) can support replenishment of
provisioning or regulating services. This is an important issue,
for, if rates of replenishment and rates of use or service delivery
are out of balance, then there is a risk that environmental limits
will be exceeded and problems such as non-linear effects will
come into play that could undermine human well-being. To test
MA approaches, economists and social scientists would need to
be able to attach values of some kind to both natural resources
(as capital) and to the services. Environmental scientists would
have to improve predictive and process knowledge about the quantitative
links between resources and services. All groups would have to
put more weight on the supporting ecosystem services (eg biogeochemical
cycles) than the MA does. NERC is endeavouring to do this in its
developing strategy.
Question 5: How have international institutions
adopted the findings and processes of the MA? Why has the World
Bank been slow to respond to the MA? How should the findings of
the MA be incorporated into the World Bank's work?
27. There is substantial evidence that the
World Bank has been engaged in the MA process. Its lead scientist,
Bob Watson, has been a major player in the development of the
MA. The MA challenges the current economic status quo by pointing
to the need for environmental accounting procedures of some kind.
This raises serious issues for organisations like the World Bank
where internationally accepted economic metrics, such as GDP,
would need substantial modification. This could lead to dramatic
changes in the way the wealth of nations and progress on social
and economic development was perceived.
28. It would be wrong to single out the
World Bank. The MA challenges all large organisations (government
and Research Councils amongst them) to examine their own practices
to see how to respond. In implementing its new strategy, NERC
expects to take at least some account of the MA.
Question 6: Are NGOs acting on the MA's recommendations,
particularly those involved in development and poverty reduction?
29. NERC knows that some NGOs are responding
positively to the MA. Organisations such as the British Ecological
Society are advocating adoption of the MA's conclusions in the
area of biodiversity and ecosystem processes. Much of its last
annual meeting (Oxford 2006) concerned relevant issues and a member
of the MA Board closed the conference (Prof Dasgupta FBA FRS,
Cambridge).
Question 7: How has business risen to the
challenges identified in the MA? Has the MA been used in strategic
business planning?
30. NERC was pleased to note the engagement
of business with the MA. UK-based multi-nationals seem to be responding
favourably. The energy sector is responding to the need for more
sustainable forms of energy production and NERC's British Geological
Survey (BGS) is active in the area (eg in carbon sequestration
and storage in conjunction with the UK Energy Research Centre).
31. NERC is responding in terms of its own
business by a policy of "greening" and all the larger
NERC Centres have staff with responsibilities for reducing the
size of their organisation's environmental footprints. NERC accounts
include items designed to help quantify and offset the environmental
impacts of its operations.
Question 8: How useful was the MA in addressing
the assessment needs of a number of Multilateral Environmental
Agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity?
32. The more exact question might be how
useful is the MA in such respects.
33. The MA was grounded in a number of Environmental
Agreements, so it is natural to expect that those active in the
implementation of a number of international treaties and Conventions
will take note of the MA. The MA rightly emphasises the central
role that biodiversity plays in planetary processes and in aspects
of human well-being. As such, the MA demonstrates the importance
of meeting the needs of Multilateral Environmental Agreements
because it points to the interconnectedness of a range of physical
and biological environmental resources and how these linkages
are vital for the delivery of services to people.
Question 9: Were there any gaps or weaknesses
in the MA? How should the MA be followed up? Are the mechanisms
and expertise which were developed to create the MA now being
lost due to a lack of confirmation of a formal follow up procedure?
34. The MA does contain gaps and weaknesses.
This should not be considered a criticism but an indication of
how much else needs to be done to ensure long-term human well-being
on a planet that, in certain ways, has to be considered as a closed
and finite system. As indicated in the introduction, the MA could
only be based on the best information available to it at the time,
inevitably incomplete. The MA has begun a debate that needs to
continue.
35. The MA documents themselves point to
gaps in knowledge. Although there is a lot of information available
on environmental changes and the pressures driving these, new
data and knowledge will be needed to manage the relationships
between ecosystem service delivery and environmental processes.
36. The MA has concentrated very much on
the provisioning and regulating ecosystems services. This has
been done to avoid double counting since the provisioning and
regulating services are dependent on the supporting ones. However,
if the supporting ones collapse or are distorted (say, because
of nitrogen pollution) then the state of the provisioning or regulating
services may be imperilled in ways that might be difficult to
predict. The lack of a full consideration of the supporting services
is a major weakness but serves to illustrate how much more needs
to be done. As an example of the importance of supporting services
one has only to consider the positive feedback of widespread tundra
melt on climatic conditions (because the melt would release large
amounts of methane a potent "greenhouse" gas).
37. In the UK the ecosystem services delivered
by the water and soils ecosystems might be ripe for study. For
example, the forthcoming CEH water programme will address a number
of the interactions needed to make use of MA findings and conclusions
within the UK.
38. Other gaps or weaknesses include:
— There are no specific proposals for
how the aims might be achieved through international agreements,
national bodies or practitioners (be these economists, scientists
or politicians).
— Although natural hazards are referred
to, the need for the world to prepare to cope with these is probably
underplayed in the MA documents. The voice of geology probably
needs to be heard more clearly.
— Relatively little attention seems
to be paid to services delivered by mineral resources.
— There is inadequate understanding
of links between ecosystem change and human well-being, and of
the importance of biodiversity for securing ecosystem services.
— The models used in the scenarios
would be strengthened by integration of more faunal as well as
floral data and through development of more dynamic approaches.
— There is a tendency to treat the
marine environment as a mass, often alongside coastal matters,
and to value it mostly from a fisheries perspective. In contrast,
the terrestrial environment is considered in more detail, with
finer divisions being made. This is perhaps not surprising, given
that the MA focused mostly on provisioning and regulating services.
39. The MA should be followed-up by each
country or region and needs wider exposure in a more readily digestible
form and in specialist academic journals. Internationally, there
probably needs to be an assessment of each ecosystem service.
However, as the MA points out, information is lacking in many
areas. This presents a substantial research challenge requiring
co-operation amongst many disciplines and engagement with government
and business. There is much scope for challenging research if
we are to ensure the delivery of ecosystem services. Research
is needed on the following topics and questions amongst others:
— Developing better measures of biodiversity
decline—eg the relationship between floral and faunal declines.
These types of questions need to be answered: What is the size
of the stocks of natural resources and at what rate are they being
used and replenished? Can these rates be managed and monitored?
— Improving understanding of implications
of biodiversity loss for ecosystems—Which ecosystems provide
which services and what ecosystem processes underpin delivery
of these services? What links exist between ecosystem services,
biodiversity and livelihoods (socio-economic issues).
— What gearing mechanisms do people
use (such as fertilisers) to increase the rate or size of yields
from ecosystem services and what negative mechanisms (such as
pollution) are in play with respect to such mechanisms or the
underlying processes themselves?
— What diagnostic and prognostic monitoring
can be put in place to ensure ecosystem services are being delivered
sustainably without approaching the limits of natural resource
provision?
— How can prognostic monitoring and
predictive process modelling be best linked together?
— Better understanding of non-linear
systems—step changes, thresholds, complex systems and positive
(and negative) feedback.
40. Lack of confirmation of a formal response
procedure will tend to slow uptake of the MA's findings and conclusions.
This should not stop individual countries taking appropriate action.
There will be a considerable requirement for institutional change.
41. The expertise assembled to do the MA
still exists in the international community and a range of responses
are developing. As ever, these need to be encouraged, by appropriate
funding where necessary, else the pool of expertise and interest
will dissipate. NERC is working with various government bodies
on a number of fronts, eg marine bioresources, to draw together
the putative interdisciplinary research teams needed to address
MA findings and conclusions.
42. Some further points of detail on various
aspects of the MA Board Statement and the MA summary findings
set out in Living Beyond our Means are included in the attached
Annex. These points illustrate some of the more contentious aspects
of the MA.
October 2006
1 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2006/com2006_0070en01.pdf
and http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pdf/policy_rev_2005_en_annex.pdf Back
2
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/newprg/strategies_en.htm Back
3
"Science for Sustainable Marine Bioresources" www.nerc.ac.uk/research/emergingops/bioresources/scopingstudy.asp Back
4
www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/marine/uk/stateofsea/chartprogress.pdf Back
| 
