Annex
The following points were raised by members
of the NERC community about various aspects of the MA. These concern
aspects of the MA not necessarily covered by the Inquiry questions.
1. THE MA BOARD
STATEMENT
(a) Various aspects of the MA Board statement summarising
the MA findings probably need to be expanded. For example, amongst
the demands people make on the environment is that for land. Such
demands are in addition to those for "food, fresh water,
fibre, and energy" quoted by the MA Board. The impacts of
these "land" demands are currently more evident perhaps
in developed than developing economies and include demands for
infrastructure as well as demand for housing. On a related point,
the pressures on ecosystem services should have included an explicit
reference to habitat loss.
(b) Concerns persist in some circles about
the development of economic models based on the private ownership
of common resources. However, there is a growing recognition that
for a meaningful dialogue to take place between economists, and
social and natural scientists, some common approaches to valuation
of natural capital and ecosystem services need to be developed.
This might be done alongside the development of indices of environmental
resource use and service delivery. NERC staff have developed two
relevant indices in recent years, the Water Poverty Index, and
the Climate Vulnerability Index.
2. MAJOR ISSUES
RAISED BY
THE MA IN
VARIOUS DOCUMENTS,
SUMMARISED IN
THE MA'S
LIVING BEYOND
OUR MEANS
Biodiversity
The MA perhaps underplayed the complexity of
the causes of declines in biodiversity and thereby may have underestimated
the overall challenge facing the world or particular regions.
For example, the marine environment is struggling with two processes,
linked to changes in the climate:
— phenological changes, such as phytoplankton
occurring before the zooplankton "needs" them, thus
disrupting ocean food-webs; and
— displacement/replacement of species
due to changes in temperature and governing circulation patterns
(for example in the North Sea).
Complex interactions can also result in increases
in biodiversity. Some argue that increases in seabird numbers
around the UK coast over the past 50 years may have resulted from
pressure on the structure of marine food webs caused by fisheries.
Basically there have been more fish of a size taken by seabirds
in recent times because of overfishing of larger fish. The feedbacks
in such a system are uncertain and there is now evidence that
the position is unsustainable as climate and increasing fisheries
pressures on smaller fish combine to cause, in some years, complete
breeding failures at some seabird colonies.
Phenological changes are also very evident in
the terrestrial environment with evidence already available on
the importance of maintaining synchrony between bird breeding
cycles and the availability of insect food for their young. Mounting
evidence suggest migratory species are not doing well—whether
this is due to climatic effects or habitat loss is unclear.
Fisheries
Elements of the MA account of fisheries are
contestable. There are clear differences of view some of which
may reflect the need to develop more sophisticated ways of solving
problems for the people affected by declines in fisheries (however
this is caused). For example:
The summary statement on fisheries contained
in Living Beyond Our Means may reflect the view of the
lead author of MA sections on fisheries. Other scientists, including
the FAO Fisheries Department, would argue that fisheries yield
has remained constant or only slightly declined, in the last decade;
albeit at a time of increased capture efficiency. It seems likely
that provision of protein in the future must be secured through
better and more efficient utilisation of fish rather than through
increasing catches. The declines in stocks are likely to deprive
communities of protein, but this has not been demonstrated at
the global scale (specific examples may well have been identified
as illustrated by some examples in the MA reports).
The consequences of overfishing are probably
more complex than the summary statements from the MA imply. For
example, the Canadian cod fishery is one of the very few fisheries
to have collapsed through human activity. And yet, the fishery
for crabs and shrimps that replaced it provides more national
revenue than the cod fishery ever produced. It just feeds different
pockets and communities. Therefore the report's implication that
capture fisheries should necessarily be reduced (thus putting
fishermen out of commission) may require further examination.
Some of the other statements on fisheries may
not be fully balanced. For example, if 25% of stocks are overexploited,
75% are not, but the impression is given that the situation is
globally very bad. The statement that current catches are less
than 10% of what was historically available is heavily contested
in some circles. Data are extremely patchy and the analyses leading
to that conclusion have been criticised in scientific circles.
The view may be correct but it is far from proven.
October 2006
| 
