Conclusions and recommendations
Findings of the MA
1. The
conclusions of the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) are
clear. Human activity is fundamentally and extensively changing
the world around us, leading to extinction on a massive scale.
The extent of this loss should not be underestimated. It points
to a sixth great extinction, on a par with historic global extinction
episodes caused by asteroid impacts. (Paragraph 11)
2. The ways in which
humans have altered the natural environment have led to significant
benefits to society, but these benefits have been accompanied
by rapidly increasing costs due to ecosystem degradation. These
changes to the natural world have also increased the likelihood
of dramatic and abrupt changes to ecosystems, which could have
devastating and permanent impacts. Human activity is creating
a world that is likely to be degraded substantially for future
generations. (Paragraph 20)
3. The MA established
conclusively that efforts to eradicate poverty will not succeed
where environmental degradation is allowed to continue. This is
of particular concern as environmental degradation is set to significantly
worsen over the next 50 years. It therefore seems unlikely that
the international community will meet its Millennium Development
Goal commitments to reduce poverty and increase development, at
least in the long-term. These changes may also undermine the current
progress that is being made, leading to a worsening of poverty.
(Paragraph 25)
4. If society wishes
to avoid the devastating impact of continued ecosystem degradation
on development and the economy it is clear that substantial changes
will have to be made to the way in which it values and deals with
ecosystem services. These often will be politically controversial,
but the case for concerted and decisive action has now been made.
(Paragraph 30)
The MA's Impact
5. Although
we concede that it is still early days for the MA, we are concerned
that given the scale of the problems identified within it, its
impact so far seems limited. Full and proper engagement with its
findings from local to international levels will be vitally important
if actions to deal with the challenges are to be successful. We
hope that the recommendations made throughout this report will
go someway to ensure that the findings of the MA are adopted far
more widely than they have been so far. (Paragraph 33)
6. Given that a functioning
and healthy environment will be crucial for achieving long-term
success on MDGs, and that the MA provides a framework for the
successful bringing together of development, environment and economic
policies, we are disappointed that governments and development
agencies have been slow to grasp the importance of the MA and
MDG7. Although we accept that developing countries must own and
develop their own strategies for sustainable poverty reduction,
the Government must face up to the fact that these countries do
not have the capacity to adequately incorporate the environment
into their strategies. The UK Government and other developed countries
must seek to ensure, through a Millennium Ecosystem Fund, that
all developing countries are equipped to incorporate the environment
into their development strategies, otherwise the unsustainable
actions that might result may jeopardise the long-term achievement
of MDGs. (Paragraph 40)
7. We are frankly
disappointed that development NGOs have failed to engage more
with the MA findings. Although we understand that these NGOs might
focus on the immediate problems associated with poverty, such
as access to clean water, their failure in the long term also
to focus on the need to maintain ecosystem services will ultimately
unravel their efforts. (Paragraph 43)
8. More needs to be
done to ensure that policy makers are fully aware of the ramifications
of the MA, and what they can do to respond to these challenges.
In order for this to occur, policy-makers need to see the direct
benefits, primarily economic but also social and environmental,
of sustainable ecosystem service management and the adoption of
the MA conceptual framework. This must happen in such a way that
effective national or local response options can be initiated.
Therefore it should be a priority to carry out national assessments
tailored to national needs. As developing countries do not have
the resources needed to undertake such assessments, it is imperative
that the UK Government galvanizes the international community
to establish a Millennium Ecosystem Fund. Not only could this
ensure that the MA findings are more widely communicated but also
that developing countries are equipped to move themselves onto
a sustainable development path. (Paragraph 48)
9. The MA showed that
degradation of ecosystem services is a threat to businesses' bottom
line. The development of robust econometric models for ecosystem
services must be developed with some urgency to enable the internalisation
of the full costs of business' impact on the environment. The
UK Government and international community must act to ensure that
this happens. In line with our previous report Outflanked: The
WTO, international trade and sustainable development, we recognise
that ultimately the full environmental and social costs of products
and services must be reflected in their final price. (Paragraph
52)
10. We commend those
responsible for the MA for producing the most complete and up
to date study of the importance of the environment for human well-being
and the current condition of the Earth. Although inevitably aspects
of the MA were based on incomplete evidence, the assessment still
provides a most robust analysis upon which to base action to tackle
ecosystem degradation. Due to the serious conclusions drawn from
the MA we call for urgent, concerted, research at all levels to
fill the knowledge gaps identified. (Paragraph 58)
11. To enable the
MA knowledge gaps to be filled a new international interdisciplinary
research strategy must be established to help coordinate research
at a number of scales. This could be hosted by the ICSU, or ultimately
within a new body to oversee a rolling programme of MA assessments.
(Paragraph 61)
12. There appears
to have been a breakdown in the effective communication of the
MA findings which has led, to some extent, to a slow take up of
the MA by stakeholders. The lesson which should be learnt from
this for future assessments of this nature is that inadequate
provision for the communication of findings will ultimately hinder
their integration by stakeholders. More funds will have to be
provided by the MA funding organisations, including DEFRA and
DFID. Failure to do this will negate much of the impact we would
expect from an assessment of this calibre. (Paragraph 66)
13. There is an important
MA communication role for the UK Government, at both national
and international levels. Nationally, departments must engage
with the constituencies they deal with, such as the agricultural
sector for DEFRA and development NGOs for DFID, to produce sectoral
guides to the MA and assess its implications for their work. There
is also the need for civil society and the private sector to be
proactive in engaging with the MA, for their long-term success
will depend on them coming to terms with its findings. This engagement
should include the undertaking of audits of individual businesses
or organisations against the issues identified in the MA. (Paragraph
67)
14. At an international
level, given the importance of the MA's findings for the development
and environmental objectives of DFID and the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (FCO), country staff should be made fully aware of the
implications of the MA. They should refer to the MA and frame
their work with partner countries in light of it. The FCO should
also undertake a seminar programme in partner countries in order
to promote the sustainable use of ecosystem services, the MA conceptual
framework, and the economic and development benefits that such
effective management brings. (Paragraph 68)
15. Given the existence
of evidence demonstrating the substantial economic benefits of
sustainable ecosystem service management we are gladdened to see
that DEFRA is investing in research to quantify and take advantage
of this. As the lack of empirical evidence of this value has made
it difficult to motivate some quarters to engage with the MA,
this research could have international consequences for its uptake.
It is imperative that DEFRA's efforts in this field are adequately
funded and lead to tools which will enable decision makers across
Government to appreciate and account for these non-market benefits.
(Paragraph 75)
16. We consider that
the logical conclusion of research to value ecosystem services
and to identify those factors that actually improve human well-being,
will be the development of an econometric that measures growth
in a way that recognises environmental limits and more accurately
describes human well-being. Growth is, after all, not an end in
itself. The Government must introduce an indicator of economic
growth which incorporates the principles of sustainability and
well-being as early as possible. (Paragraph 79)
The Future of the MA
17. We
are concerned that the failure to establish an ongoing programme
to undertake MA global assessments will result ultimately in the
continued degradation of ecosystem services, which effective regular
monitoring and assessment would help prevent. We strongly urge
the Government to strive for the establishment of a rolling MA
programme, the key features of which should include: (Paragraph
83)
- Global assessments to be conducted at the least
every 8-10 years
- A multi-stakeholder bureau to govern the MA secretariat
to ensure the full participation of scientists, civil society,
the private sector and governments
- A budget adequate to fund research to fill those
gaps identified by the MA, as well as to provide effective monitoring
of ecosystem services
- A focus on the identification and promotion of
effective response options to ecosystem service degradation, including
the development of economic incentives to ensure the full consideration
of non-market ecosystem service values
- A continued focus on the value of sub-global
assessments, between global assessment periods, in providing regional
impetus and justification for better management of ecosystems
18. Although we agree
that there is a need to stem the continued devastating loss of
biodiversity, we are not convinced that the current proposals
to establish an IPCC-like body solely for biodiversity will be
the answer. We argue that biodiversity loss is intricately linked
to economic, development and other environmental factors and therefore
a better solution must be to establish a body to consider these
issues as a whole in a permanent MA body. In addition, the MA's
focus on the benefits that humans receive from ecosystem services
will also help to convince those countries that may be less willing
to subscribe to a solely biodiversity-orientated body to engage
with the more holistic MA approach. (Paragraph 87)
19. In our report,
Outflanked: The World Trade Organisation, international trade
and sustainable development, we highlighted a lack of consideration
of the environment and development in international trade. We
concluded that the current system must be changed to ensure that
environmental issues are adequately accounted for in international
trade. Given the right level of support an MA rolling programme
with secretariat could facilitate this, acting as an interface
between the WTO, Multilateral Environmental Agreements and other
international organisations, as well as providing policy recommendations
on sustainability through trade. (Paragraph 88)
UK Government Response to the MA
20. We
commend the Government for being one of the main donors of this
groundbreaking assessment. Nevertheless, the Government must now
ensure that the findings are fully integrated into its work through
the creation of a cross-departmental Ministerial group. The group
should specifically manage inter-departmental coordination, implementation
and monitoring of policies against the MA and coordination of
MA-related research. (Paragraph 95)
21. As the main tool
for the long-term cross-departmental maintenance of ecosystem
services in the UK is the Sustainable Development Strategy, we
consider it obvious that it must be reviewed to ensure that it
is in line with the MA findings. Such a review should reflect
the need to maintain ecosystem services both in the UK and abroad
and therefore include the adoption of sustainable development
indicators and PSAs that reflect this. Amendment of the SDS, sustainable
development indicators and PSAs will enable incorporation of the
MA findings in a more top-down way. The ultimate goal of this
would be to, in effect, 'MA-proof' all Government activities.
(Paragraph 98)
22. A failing of the
global MA was its lack of focus on the economic valuation of ecosystem
services, as well as a lack of policy proposals directly relevant
to many decision makers. We are therefore very pleased to see
that DEFRA is yet again funding important MA-related work that
should lead to significant benefits to the environment, society
and the economy. Nevertheless, due to the rate and extent of current
ecosystem degradation, and the risk to society that such degradation
causes, it is with some urgency that this research be completed.
DEFRA must ensure that this research includes and takes note of
independent research into policy options and has also led to concrete
and robust policy outcomes, across Government, before the end
of this Parliament. (Paragraph 102)
23. Given that DFID
officials seem to realise increasingly the importance of the environment
in reaching poverty reduction goals, and that DFID is looking
to commission a range of important MA-related research projects,
we are baffled as to why recent DFID White Papers have failed
adequately to account for the role of the environment in development.
This failure indicates to us that knowledge of the importance
of the environment to development objectives has not permeated
all levels of DFID. In its response to our criticism of its insufficient
consideration of the environment, DFID stated that it "fully
recognise[s] the need for action now". Given this recognition,
we expect all future policy documents to account fully for the
MA's findings. (Paragraph 106)
24. As the CSR is
a fundamental and long-term review of Government funding we are
concerned that failure to satisfactorily incorporate the MA's
findings might, in effect, lock in unsustainable practices for
that period. It is therefore extremely important that the CSR
effectively reflect the need to address the MA findings, particularly
in relation to ensuring that the full non-market value of ecosystems
are fully accounted for across all policies. Therefore the research
projects to identify the true value of different ecosystem services
must be completed quickly and fed into the CSR, at least in an
interim form, in order directly to influence its outcome. (Paragraph
109)
25. We greatly welcome
the analysis of long-term opportunities and challenges, commissioned
by the Treasury, to feed into the CSR. The analysis relied greatly
on the MA and highlights that long-term economic prosperity is
dependant upon a healthy and functioning environment. However,
we are concerned that the Treasury concludes that it would be
"important" to manage these environmental pressures.
We believe this understates the fact that it is essential that
these challenges are met, for long-term prosperity to be achievable.
(Paragraph 112)
26. Given the interrelated
nature of instability, terrorism, international poverty and climate
change it is important that the Treasury accepts the need to create
an environment in Government that enables action on these issues
to be dealt with in concert, and provides the funding for this
to occur. We would also like to point out that the UK can make
a significant unilateral contribution to dealing with these issues
such as though its procurement and taxation policies. Indeed,
we have called on a number of occasions for more fiscal incentives
and penalties to encourage more sustainable choices. (Paragraph
113)
27. Although the Treasury
is right to highlight climate change as being a major challenge
in relation to its long-term goals, the importance of other ecosystem
services, such as those provided by biodiversity, should not be
underestimated or forgotten in the CSR. Given that the MA proved
the importance of these other ecosystem services, resources for
effective ecosystem management should not be squeezed in the CSR.
The Treasury must ensure that the CSR reflect this need in the
budgets decided for DEFRA, DFID and the relevant research councils.
(Paragraph 114)
28. Nevertheless,
although we have these concerns, we are encouraged that the Treasury
had the foresight to undertake the long-term trend and challenges
review and the Stern Review, and hope that this reflects an increased
awareness in the Treasury for the need for decisive action on
these issues. We also hope that the Treasury's statement that
it would "work to release resources" to meet the environmental
challenges identified is reflected in the decisive action needed.
(Paragraph 115)
29. Without doubt
the expansion of development into new areas will bring some economic
benefits but, as we have seen earlier, economic growth without
adequate consideration of the environment or social impacts is
unlikely to translate into increased human welfare. Although we
reluctantly accept that development may be required on certain
green field sites, we are not confident that the Barker Review
has attempted to balance economic, environmental and social considerations,
or to consider the full range of policy options that might be
available to reduce land pressure. It has therefore not followed
all the principles espoused by the MA. We hope that the Government
will seek to redress this imbalance upon implementation of the
Review's recommendations. (Paragraph 119)
30. We accept the
Minister's point that integration of the MA findings must be undertaken
in a systematic and coordinated manner and therefore we call for
a Ministerial group to be established to oversee this process.
This group must undertake to assess and evaluate the MA from a
UK perspective, and coordinate the various stands of research
that are being conducted and planned. Ultimately the Government
should conduct a full MA-type assessment for the UK to enable
the identification and development of effective policy responses
to ecosystem service degradation. (Paragraph 125)
31. Considering the
UK Overseas Territories' (UKOTs) lack of capacity, both financial
and human, we find it distasteful that FCO and DFID stated that
if UKOTs are "sufficiently committed" they should support
environmental positions "from their own resources".
The continued threat of the extinction of around 240 species in
the UKOTs is shameful. If the Government is to achieve the World
Summit on Sustainable Development 2010 target to significantly
reduce the rate of biodiversity loss within its entire territory,
the Government must act decisively to prevent further loss of
biodiversity in the UKOTs. (Paragraph 133)
32. We welcome the
DEFRA Minister's recognition of the problems facing the UKOTs,
and their lack of capacity to deal with the environmental challenges
that they face. Given this and our international, not to mention
moral, obligation to prevent biodiversity loss in the UKOTs, the
Government must now move towards increased and more appropriate
funding for conservation and ecosystem management there. The amount
of resources required to undertake this work is miniscule in comparison
to the environmental and social gains that would be expected.
Such funding must be more long-term and strategic to enable the
environmental capacity in the UKOTs to reach the levels required.
DEFRA must be given joint responsibility for delivery of this.
(Paragraph 140)
33. The range of environmental,
social and economic challenges facing UKOTs will be better addressed
by undertaking an MA-type assessment for each UKOT. The UK Government
must work jointly with UKOT governments on an MA to ensure that
their ecosystem services are not damaged further and preserved
into the future. The Inter-departmental Ministerial Group on Biodiversity
should seriously consider this as the route by which they can
achieve their commitments to the UKOTs. (Paragraph 141)
| 
