Select Committee on Environmental Audit First Report


Improving the MA

IMPROVING THE EVIDENCE BASE

54. The MA was developed to, inter alia: identify priorities for action; provide a baseline for future assessments, develop tools for assessment; planning and management; identify response options for achieving sustainable development; and guide future research. Given this wide-ranging scope and the complexity of the issues, the MA acknowledged that it was difficult to provide definitive information for some of the issues that it sought to address. The MA documents themselves pointed to gaps in knowledge "to help guide research and monitoring that may allow those questions to be answered in future assessments".[42]

55. Witnesses to this inquiry raised concerns about these gaps. The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) accepted that the findings were based on the best available evidence at the time but that more work needs to be done to fill the gaps in the analysis. It stressed that this should not be considered a criticism of the MA, "but an indication of how much else needs to be done to ensure long-term human well-being".[43] In particular, NERC believes that future research should focus on a range of issues including how aims might be achieved through international agreements and an exploration of the importance of biodiversity for securing ecosystem services.

56. DEFRA in its written evidence explained that it had held a workshop, with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), in February 2006 to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the MA. It told us that:

This workshop identified gaps in the coverage and methodologies of the MA. Some identified gaps with regard to biodiversity policy are in the coverage of taxonomic groups (the MA scenarios relied heavily on models of terrestrial plant diversity), generally weaker treatment of marine biodiversity and scenarios that do not relate well to the more immediate context of decision making.[44]

57. The report from the workshop also noted that more information is required on the thresholds of abrupt ecosystem change, the valuation of non-market goods and services and the linking of human well-being and ecosystem services. However, it was thought that the MA provided a stimulus to improve the global evidence base for sustainable ecosystem management.

58. 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.

59. Given the complex interdisciplinary and global nature of the research that is required, effective coordination of this research will be needed. The former director of the MA, Walter Reid, and the director of the UN Millennium Project, Jeffrey Sachs, called for the world scientific community to "chart an interdisciplinary strategy for sustainable development strategy for sustainable development research, backed by increased funding".[45] They went on:

Leading scientific institutions should now coalesce behind a shared agenda on sustainable development and thereby help to draw governments into the challenges of the 21st century.[46]

60. In written evidence to this inquiry, Walter Reid stated that it would be logical that such a strategy for research be developed by the International Council for Science (ICSU), as the MA oversight committee has allocated money to ICSU "so that they can start a process to develop such a research agenda".[47]

61. 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.

COMMUNICATION OF THE FINDINGS

62. The original MA document was comprised of 4 volumes containing over 2,000 pages of technical findings and a summary document over 100 pages long. This was followed by shorter synthesis reports tailored to specific audiences. A number of witnesses felt that the communication of the results had been weak, affecting uptake of the MA. The Royal Society, for example, criticised the "failure to provide resources and funding for the period beyond [the MA's] release", which "undoubtedly affected how widely it has been communicated and implemented".[48]

63. The RSPB stated that the sheer size of the MA proves a "significant challenge" to policy-makers and that for the assessment to be better used by stakeholders its ramifications generally need to be put into clearer and more simple messages with "less technical jargon, a restricted number of key messages and feasible recommendations".[49] It pointed out that even the summary documents produced, the synthesis reports, have proven to some extent unwieldy as some organisations have felt it necessary to create a summary even of them. It added that there must also be a greater focus on the communication of MA findings at the grassroots level in developing countries, and highlighted the fact that on a practical level the MA report is inaccessible to many due to it being stored in an electronic form, and a very large electronic form at that. Paper copies of the five different volumes of the global assessment reports can be ordered from the MA website for between $75-$25. Other than making the report accessible in smaller sections to ease downloading, Ms Phillips and Dr Avery from the RSPB felt that the simple distribution of copies of the report in paper form, and having events, meetings and seminars in developing countries, would go some way to help communicate the MA.[50]

64. Steve Bass from IIED called in evidence to us for more work to communicate the findings of the MA to different stakeholders. He stated that consideration of the MA findings might be accelerated through the production of stakeholder-specific guides. These would be produced for sectors such as forestry, fisheries and business.[51] He clarified that such guides should be produced by people within the sector for which it is being written. He pointed out that he has himself produced such a guide for the development community as there had been a failure to provide a clear and concise summary of the MA from a development agency perspective.

65. Neville Ash from the UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMP) felt that there is an "enormous" need for on-going and increased communication of the findings of the MA. However he did point to a range of documents intended to provide summaries to help communicate the MA, and added that "there is a really wide range of materials now that can be used for effective communication of the findings".[52] He felt that there should be better communication of effective response options to deal with the problems identified in the MA.

66. 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.

67. 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.

68. 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.

ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE MA

69. The MA made it clear that there are likely to be substantial economic benefits from better management of ecosystem services. However it recognised that these benefits may not be readily assessed in economic terms as they are not market-based. As most ecosystem management decisions are influenced heavily by those ecosystem services entering into markets, the non-market benefits are often lost or degraded.[53] RSPB also highlighted the potential value of non-market benefits of ecosystem services:

The Poverty and Environment Partnership (PEP), which DFID supports, has shown that the returns on environmental investments are multifaceted and extremely significant. 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). 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.[54]

70. The major economic value of such non-market ecosystem services was made clear by the Stern Review. This established that the economic cost of failure to protect the climate ecosystem service from greenhouse gas pollution far outweighs the cost of effective management of the ecosystem service through reducing greenhouse gas emissions:

Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP per year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.

In contrast, the costs of action—reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change—can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.[55]

71. The Stern Review also highlighted the significant importance of the non-market benefits of forest ecosystems, which currently contain more carbon than the atmosphere and also have the capacity to remove carbon from it. The Review also stressed other benefits of forest ecosystems such as for biodiversity and flood protection, and called for 'urgent' action to preserve the world's remaining forests.[56]

72. The MA found that capturing these non-market benefits using economic incentives can improve ecosystem management decisions. However the MA noted that there has been little research in this area. The Stern Review called for such economic incentives including international compensation schemes to be developed to cover the opportunity costs incurred by those who keep forests (i.e. the money they would have made by deforestation), as well as the development of international carbon markets.

73. Witnesses to this inquiry referred specifically to the importance of valuation of ecosystem services. The Royal Society told us that adoption of MA processes in some countries "had been slow because of difficulties in identifying the economic value of ecosystems", and that "significant further work is required to identify appropriate valuation methodologies and to improve collaboration between economists and ecologists".[57] Steve Bass from IIED felt that the MA provides an excellent framework for action but that it has "not yet been described in ways that make the rest of the world pay attention".[58] He stated that if the findings are as significant as they seem to be, the MA needs to be better presented in economic terms.[59]

74. Given the importance of the valuation of ecosystem services, we are heartened to see that DEFRA has included as part of the Natural Environment Policy (NEP) research programme, work "focused on the valuation of ecosystem services and the development of tools and methodologies to make use of these valuations".[60] We also welcome that the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007 (CSR) has recognised as an economic 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.[61]

75. 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.

76. Appropriate valuation of ecosystem services will help to demonstrate the importance to prosperity of our natural assets. Nevertheless, some environmentalists and economists have concluded that, for environmental and social issues to be truly reconciled with economic pressures, different econometrics of wealth to those currently used, such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), must be adopted. This is because current measures ignore the depletion of resources and damage to the environment. Indeed, the MA itself highlighted this issue. Some have also argued that a focus on economic growth in decision making "can give greater weight to short-term economic cost considerations over long term social and environmental sustainability".[62] During a workshop on the MA held by the Global Biodiversity Sub-Committee (GBSC), a group considering the response section of the MA considered it "essential that the current debate on growth was moved beyond received economic views and onto a more appropriately sophisticated level, that recognised the value of natural assets and the costs of their misuse appropriately".[63] An example of a more sophisticated indicator is 'genuine saving' which was used by the World Bank in a recent report. This measure "provides a much broader indicator of natural resources, environmental quality, and human capital, in addition to the traditional measure of changes in produced assets provided by net saving".[64]

77. Proponents of alternative measures of wealth often point out that increases in GDP do not necessarily lead to improvements in human well-being and, due in part to the potential negative environmental impacts, may actually lead to a decline in well-being. Research commissioned by DEFRA described the complex nature of the factors influencing individual well-being, leading the authors to conclude, for example, that income offers "an incomplete picture of individual well-being".[65] Attempts have been made to create indicators that reconcile economic growth with environmental sustainability and measures of happiness. The New Economics Foundation (NEF), for example, has proposed the Measure of Domestic Progress (MDP) which incorporates additional factors such as the costs of crime and the breakdown of families.[66] The Sustainable Development Commission has called for the Government to introduce such an indicator, to be considered "alongside GDP by 2008".[67] The SDC stated:

We see a society and a Government whose primary objective is still the achievement of economic growth as conventionally understood and measured, with as much social justice and environmental protection as can be reconciled with that central goal. We envisage a society whose primary goal should be the wellbeing of society itself and of the planetary resources and environment that sustains us all, with economic objectives shaped to support that central goal rather than the other way around.[68]

78. We asked the Minister whether the Government was considering the use of a different measure of economic growth that accounts better for natural resources and their finite nature:

[I think this] is exactly the flipside, if you like, of what I said about moving to a metric and trying to get a proper system of valuation. Only if we do that, only if we can actually begin to quantify the value of ecosystem services and the cost of their degradation, are we going to be in a position then to start talking in the way that you have of measuring economic growth in this way.[69]

79. He said that this is a "very attractive vision" but "first of all we have to [have a] basic agreement on a valuation system".[70] He stressed that they have renewed research efforts in this area. 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.


42   Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being Synthesis (Washington 2005) Back

43   Ev23 Back

44   Ev39 Back

45   Jeffrey D. Sachs & Walter V. Reid, "Investments Toward Sustainable Development", Science, vol 312 (2006), p 1002 Back

46   Jeffrey D. Sachs & Walter V. Reid, "Investments Toward Sustainable Development", Science, vol 312 (2006), p 1002 Back

47   Ev55 Back

48   Ev58 Back

49   Ev2 Back

50   Q27 [Dr Avery] Back

51   Q49 [Mr Bass] Back

52   Q68 [Mr Ash] Back

53   Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being Synthesis (Washington 2005) Back

54   Ev3 Back

55   Sir Nicholas Stern, Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change, October 2006 Back

56   ibid Back

57   Ev57 Back

58   Q47 [Mr Bass] Back

59   Q47 [Mr Bass] Back

60   Ev36 Back

61   "CRS07: Reviews", HM Treasury, www.hm-treasury.gov.uk Back

62   Environmental Audit Committee, Thirteenth Report of 2003-04,The Sustainable Development Strategy: Illusion or Reality?, HC624-11, Ev163 Back

63   "Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Workshop held 3 February 2006, London", UK Global Environmental Change Committee, www.ukgecc.org Back

64   "Where is the Wealth of Nations?: Measuring Capital for the XXI Century", The World Bank, 2006, www.worldbank.org Back

65   "Review of research on the influences on personal well-being and application to policy making: Final report for DEFRA", published by Sustainable Development Commission, August 2006, www.sustainable-development.gov.uk Back

66   "Chasing Progress: Beyond measuring economic growth", New Economics Foundation, 2004, www.neweconomics.org Back

67   "On the move: Review 2005-2006", Sustainable Development Commission, www.sd-commission.org.uk Back

68   "Redefining prosperity: resource productivity, economic growth and sustainable development (SDC report)" Sustainable Development Commission, June 2003, www.sd-commission.org.uk Back

69   Q101 Back

70   Q101 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 3 January 2007