House of Commons - Environmental Audit

Select Committee on Environmental Audit First Report

MA action in the UK

The implications of the MA for the UK

89. The MA gave evidence of the economic argument for more integrated management of ecosystem services. It also gave an insight into the extent of ecosystem degradation currently taking place and looked at ways in which the UK could respond to this. Bearing in mind the earlier critique of the MA in terms of evidence gaps, lack of economic analysis and poor communication to policy-makers, the evidence is nonetheless compelling as to the extent of ecosystem degradation and the implications it may have for our economy and long-term welfare.

UK Government action on the MA

90. We asked witnesses for their view on how successfully the UK Government had followed-up on the MA and incorporated its findings. The RSPB was critical of the Government's response so far:

Our interaction with Government suggests that the MA findings have not successfully influenced decision making in the UK to date. While understanding of ecosystem services has grown within the Government, it is occurring at a glacial pace and has yet to be reflected in macroeconomic planning for which GDP growth remains the dominant, overriding objective. Ecosystem services are still not systematically incorporated into policy and planning decisions.[79]

91. Witnesses were, in the main, of the opinion that the findings of the MA were starting to influence the Government's thinking, particularly in DEFRA and DFID, but that as yet this had not fully translated into any real policy action. In written evidence to us, DEFRA stated that it is "keen to promote the findings of the MA. This awareness and promotion extends up to Ministerial level".[80] It pointed to a range of activities within DEFRA as well as "increasing use of the language of ecosystem services" as evidence of the MA's integration into Government. It also highlighted an event it held with the JNCC in February 2006 to develop an overview of the strengths and weaknesses from the MA, an outcome of which was that "Government departments and agencies are currently taking part in a mapping exercise to assess current UK action in response to the MA".[81]

92. In order to galvanise greater uptake of the MA's findings across Government, the JNCC believes that an "internal government mechanism, such as [the Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group on Biodiversity (IDMGB)], is vital if the findings of the MA are to penetrate within and between departments and are to lead to coherent policy formulation which is then sustained in European and other international fora".[82] It stated that a range of departments would have to contribute to such a group including the DTI. This recommendation is similar to one made by RSPB which called for a Ministerial Committee or Task Force to ensure that "necessary actions are being implemented in a timely manner… to ensure the MA recommendations are effectively linked to the UK sustainable development strategy and core UK policy across Government".[83]

93. The importance of cross-departmental action on MA findings is key in that the indirect and direct drivers of ecosystem degradation, according to the MA's analysis, are rarely in the environmental field but are a function of wider political and economic issues. They are therefore controlled by departments without a primary focus on effective ecosystem management, such as DEFRA. The MA found that as a result of this division of management "there is seldom the political will to develop effective ecosystem management strategies, and competition among the ministries can often result in policy choices that are detrimental to ecosystems". It therefore called for the "development of institutional frameworks that promote a shift from highly sectoral resource management approaches to more integrated approaches".[84]

94. Barry Gardiner MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Biodiversity, Landscape and Rural Affairs) in oral evidence to the Committee asserted that many of the key steps that the MA identified as being important to reduce the degradation of ecosystems "are already part of the Government's agenda and, in some cases, we have taken a leadership internationally on them, but we need to build on this in light of the MA". Indeed, prior to the publication of the MA, the Government had already sought to better address the consideration of environmental issues in non-environment departments through, for example, the establishment of the Sustainable Development Commission to scrutinise all departments as to their action on sustainable development, and the production of Sustainable Development Action Plans by departments. Nevertheless the Minister conceded that the "key challenge for us is to mainstream the findings of the MA into policy and into decision making right the way across Government".[85]

95. 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.

96. WWF in written evidence called for the Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS) to be re-evaluated to ensure that it is in line with the MA. The NGO pointed out the SDS is the "main tool for addressing ecosystem services in the UK", and that it "cuts across Government departments, and requires reporting against sustainable development indicators".[86] The SDS was published around the same time as the MA, so was not able to draw upon it in its production. WWF believes that the SDS should be amended to report against the MA on ecosystem services.

97. The Government is committed to using the SDS as the basis for "integrating sustainable development into the 2006 spending review and later spending reviews which set Public Service Agreement targets and allocate resources".[87] The Minister told us that DEFRA is reviewing its Public Service Agreements (PSA) to see how they can be improved in response to the MA.[88]

98. Given that 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.

Action by departments

DEFRA

DEFRA is the lead department responsible for delivery of the Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS), and holds a Public Service Agreement for its delivery. DEFRA appears to have very much led in Government on MA follow-up activities. Much of the evidence received for this inquiry indicated that the MA had been incorporated into the thinking of DEFRA and DFID, but that the level of action required to reverse the degradation identified by the MA is not being implemented. For example, WWF stated that "the MA has had little direct influence on policy at either DEFRA or DFID, though there is some evidence that it has been discussed in broad terms in both departments".[89]

99. RSPB agreed that DEFRA has started to internalise aspects of the MA, and pointed as evidence of this to David Miliband's, Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, references to "one planet living".[90] Dr Avery from the RSPB elaborated on this:

Defra are in the middle of a strategy refresh at the moment, so they are looking at what their priorities are and how Defra should operate. I think they have got as far as "one planet, one climate"—which is a good first step—to recognise that this is a shared responsibility around the world in terms of what our climate looks like. I am not sure that we have got very far with "one planet farming" or "one planet house-building" or "one planet development". We would be a bit worried at the moment that there is not much sign that Defra recognise that there is one planet but millions of species living on it, and that the loss of biodiversity is a big issue. So I think that Defra has only got part of the way in internalising some of the messages, which may be why they have cut Natural England's budget—although it is a little unclear to us at the moment by quite how much that budget will be cut finally. The Environment Agency's budget has been cut as well, which is relevant to the way that we manage the land in a more sustainable way. So neither of these impacts on important agencies, which should be helping to deliver some of the more joined-up thinking, is very positive.[91]

100. The RSPB did concede that DEFRA and DFID have started to undertake important research which will better enable the environment to be incorporated into economic and development decisions. However, it felt that this planned research "should not delay action to incorporate key MA recommendations as best as possible now. There are sufficient examples worldwide of sound ecosystem management for continued inaction to be inexcusable".[92]

In its evidence to us, DEFRA outlined a range of actions that it was coordinating including:

A Natural Environment Policy (NEP) programme to fund research into creating an ecosystems approach for England's terrestrial ecosystems, drawing on the MA. The programme emphasises the MA conceptual framework for enabling decision-making across sectors.
Part of the NEP will deliver "practical tools, guidelines and methodologies to enable policy and decision makers to take account of limits, values and cumulative pressures". This includes work on the valuation of ecosystem services.
Work to integrate climate change into biodiversity policy making, as well as an assessment of the economic value and cost effectiveness of the England Biodiversity Strategy.
Use of the MA as evidence for the natural resource protection aspects of the Comprehensive Spending Review.[93]

101. In oral evidence to us the Minister, Barry Gardiner MP, said that he believes the Government's obligation now is "to try and see how we can use [the MA] to inform policy making and to inform decision making both within DEFRA and by developing tools that will help other Government departments make better policy decisions on the back of that ecosystem services approach and having a metric that enables them to do that".[94] He went on that "we have a heck of a job of work to do already trying to integrate into our thinking what the MA has already come up with and I think that we do have to take this in a systematic way".[95] He told us that the MA and the ecosystem services approach is feeding into a "strategy refresh" of the department.[96]

102. Given that 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 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.

DFID

103. We highlighted in two recent reports DFID's failure adequately to act upon evidence as to the role of the environment in long-term poverty eradication.[97] Therefore it is not surprising to us that witnesses to this inquiry have criticised DFID for failing adequately to respond to the MA. The RSPB argued that DFID's 2006 White Paper on International Development "fails to prioritise the need to invest in a healthy environment for poverty eradication … even if it may not be a DFID role to lead on MA follow-up per se".[98] It pointed out that although the MA had "stark warnings and vital messages" for DFID, only one reference was made to the MA in the White Paper, and this was in the endnotes.[99] The Royal Society agreed that although DFID officials appear to have been influenced by the MA, this does not appear to be reflected in either DFID's Approach to the Environment (2006), or its White Paper on International Development (2006).[100]

104. However, other witnesses were more upbeat about how the department has started to act upon the findings of the MA, specifically in relation to its research programme. Steve Bass from IIED thought that DFID was still considering the implications of the MA and what it might most usefully do in relation to it. He thought that this would include work looking at how economic incentives might be used to maintain ecosystem services.[101] NERC elaborated on DFID's current thinking by highlighting that it is working with the department and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) on:

… a proposal for quite a significant project on ecosystems and poverty alleviation. This is to look at what is driving the degradation of a number of key services and using that scientific information as evidence as to how it can help with poverty alleviation. DFID are taking a strong role on this. They have already announced a major involvement with ESRC, and I think that quite a lot can be traced back to the Millennium Assessment and what it said about the degradation of services and the impact on the developing world.[102]

105. Neville Ash from the UNEP-WCMC also highlighted to us that DFID had commissioned a study from the UNEP-WCMC on the role of biodiversity and the supply of ecosystem services. He went on that "they are interested at the moment in the UK impact on international biodiversity as related to ecosystem services as well".[103] In response to our recent Report on DFID, in which we criticised its failure fully to consider the environment in its policy documents, DFID stressed that "we agree that the international community—including the UK—must do more to respond to the growing weight of evidence that our environment is under threat". It went on:

If not addressed, much of our current and future progress in lifting people out of poverty—the mission of the Department for International Development—could be reversed. Tackling this means working for a collective response at a global level, getting UK policy right, and working with our multilateral and developing country partners. We fully recognise the need for action now.[104]

106. 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.

HM TREASURY

107. HM Treasury is currently conducting a Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) that will "represent a long-term and fundamental review of Government expenditure", and give departmental allocations for 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11.[105] The outcome of the CSR will have implications for the resources available for environmental research and management. Indeed, NERC also pointed out to us that its ability to undertake MA follow-up research will depend a "good part" on the outcome of the upcoming CSR.[106] Dr Avery from RSPB was optimistic that the Treasury would look positively upon the MA findings and cautioned that progress might be slow if it did not:

I think that the Treasury would be keen to make progress on this. I said earlier that we pretend we live in an economic world when actually we live in an ecological world, by which I mean that we depend on things that grow and the water that we can drink, not on bits of money. […] Because the Treasury is in charge of the money and is in many ways—certainly they would think so—the intellectual powerhouse of a lot of government policy, I suppose we would see that if we could get the Treasury more hooked on the ecosystem services, the value of wild places to people, and to some extent to the economy, then that would be a way of cracking this problem. While it remains something for other government departments to pick up if they think it is a good idea, it will be rather slow progress.[107]

108. In its written evidence DEFRA stated that it had used the MA as an evidence base for its discussions with the Treasury on natural resource protection as part of its contribution to the CSR.[108] The Minister also told us that his department is looking at how research currently being conducted to quantify and value environmental impacts could feed into the CSR.[109] We asked the Minister to clarify whether the MA was being drawn upon more widely in the CSR, outside of traditional DEFRA policy areas and into other departments. He told us that this is "precisely [what] I want to see", and that the research projects to value ecosystems would enable other departments to take such better policy decisions.[110] When asked how involved the Treasury is with this process, the Minister said:

I am delighted to tell you that Treasury economists and Defra economists and World Bank economists are all engaging on this. I do not feel in any sense that this is something where Defra is waving a little flag in the air and saying, "We've got a good idea, is anybody out there prepared to take notice of us?" […] This is something that has been identified by the MA as one of the gaps that they want to see us move to fill. […] This is not something that is just confined to one area of government. That is not to say that we yet have the tool: we have not managed to develop it but we are all working together to try to achieve that because we see the potential benefits.[111]

109. 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.

110. Better to inform the CSR the Treasury undertook a review involving a number of stakeholders to examine a number of long-term trends and challenges, including "demographic and socio-economic change, globalisation, climate and environmental change, global uncertainty and technological change".[112] This review, published 27 November 2006, drew heavily on the MA and the Stern Review in its analysis of global trends. It also drew upon the MA in a brief discussion on how its concept of ecosystem services can "improve established cost-benefit techniques for policy appraisal and evaluation, aiding understanding of the ongoing relationship between economies and the environment, in particular by recognising that changes to the environment may reduce or enhance its ability to perform these functions in future".[113] The review concluded that:

If the pressures associated with projected population and economic growth are not well managed there will be a range of stresses on resource provision, and existing regulatory and protective mechanisms. Climate change, as the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change made clear, represents an urgent challenge. If left unchecked, the burning of fossil fuels and land use changes will lead to dangerous climate change with high economic costs… In terms of more localised environmental issues, pressures on waste and water will need to be carefully managed in the coming decades and continued action to prevent loss of biodiversity and make more efficient use of land will be needed too. [114]

111. The Treasury said that in response to these challenges it would "work to release resources to meet [them]", and that its priorities would also have to evolve if it is to achieve its four long-term goals.[115] The MA has particular relevance to two of these long-term goals, sustainable growth and employment and a secure and fair world. The Treasury discussed further how these goals might be affected by the environmental challenges identified by the review. For sustainable growth and employment it said that it would be "important" to manage pressures on the environment "so that they do not undermine long-term prosperity".[116]

112. 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.

113. In relation to a secure and fair world the Treasury concluded that the UK alone would not be able to deal with "many" of the challenges identified. It stated that "[a]chieving focused UK engagement in multilateral efforts and the most effective use of the UK's security, defence and development budgets will therefore be a key part of the Government's response".[117] 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.

114. 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.

115. 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.

THE BARKER REVIEW OF LAND USE PLANNING

116. The Treasury published the Barker Review of Land Use Planning in December 2006, shortly after our last evidence session with the Minister. In light of the Treasury's focus on the challenge of environmental degradation in the CSR, we were disappointed to see that the Review failed to give sufficient weight to the environmental or social consequences of the proposed changes to the planning system. The Review itself stated that its focus was on economic issues, albeit that "the recommendations have also sought to advance environmental goals".[118] The Review appears therefore to have failed to address one of the key findings of the MA, that ecosystem management must be fully integrated into other sectors. The MA pointed out that "the most important public policy decisions affecting ecosystems are often made by agencies and in policy arenas other than those charged with protecting ecosystems".[119]

117. Although some recommendations are welcome, the Review focuses on the need to meet future demand for land without considering fully whether it might be possible to reduce this demand. Therefore, in MA terminology, it did not seek to address the indirect drivers of the proposed ecosystem changes, such as demographics or cultural factors. For example the Review establishes that the number of residential properties required will increase greatly due in part to increasing numbers of single occupancy households, and therefore calls for increased land to be provided for their construction. However, the Review neglected to consider fully how higher occupancy households could be encouraged, or how the impact of single occupancy households could be lowered. Bearing in mind that 72% of projected growth in households to 2026 will be a result of such single person households, this issue should have been better addressed[120].

118. The indirect negative impacts of a policy to expand development could be severe and need to be weighed up against the predicted benefits. An example of these potential impacts can be found in the UK CO₂ emissions projections to 2020, which have recently been updated to account for the increased population and household number forecasts. The projections indicate that an extra 1.22 million tonnes of carbon will be emitted each year by 2020 as a result.[121]

119. 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.

A UK Millennium Assessment

120. The former director of the MA, Walter Reid, told us that, rather than conducting another global MA (which would be better in 3-4 years), the focus should now be on "efforts to catalyze national, regional, and local assessments around the world".[122] He thought that it would be "extremely valuable" for the UK to undertake a national assessment, as "what is needed is the application of the general MA approach at national (or even sub-national) levels since these are the scales where decisions influencing ecosystems are actually made. Once there is more experience with the utility at these scales then the case will be stronger for periodic global assessments of this nature".[123] Other witnesses agreed that a UK assessment would be useful, particularly for validating the MA methodologies as the UK is unique globally in terms of the quality of data available.[124]

121. Dr Osborn from NERC felt that much of the work required to undertake a UK assessment had already been done and that future information such as the Countryside Survey would add to this over the next couple of years. He felt that "there are some very promising ways in which we could do an MA but it is probably more for departments to decide whether they want to have that type of information available in the round or whether they want to make progress on specific ecosystems and make more rapid progress across a narrower front".[125] Dr Osborn stated that he does see the value in bringing together information in this way to form an MA-type assessment.[126]

122. The JNCC, however, called instead for an assessment of the MA from a UK perspective rather than a full MA. It stressed that as the MA did not undertake more local assessments, other than the use of individual research projects to stress certain points, it is difficult for MA findings to be effectively used at more local scales "without further work to assess the relevance or appropriateness of its findings at this scale".[127] It therefore recommended that work already conducted by the Global Environmental Change Committee's Global Biodiversity Sub-Committee (GBSC) to appraise the MA from a UK perspective should be continued:

This is an essential step in trying to integrate the findings of the MA into UK policies and practices. It should not be a laborious and time-consuming replication of the MA process for the UK, but rather a consideration of the MA to identify the key issues for the UK. The recommendations made by the GBSC usefully outline the work necessary to undertake this type of UK assessment report.[128]

123. Neville Ash from UNEP-WCMC told us that he believes that the research DEFRA is already conducting is, essentially, an MA-type assessment for England. He said that this was because "of the activities underway in terms of looking at data availability for ecosystem services, looking at trends of ecosystem services, looking at the evaluation of ecosystem services through time, and doing that at an England scale, and in this case four sub-England scales".[129] He recognised that there are some key differences between DEFRA's research and what might be considered a full assessment, such as a lack of the development of scenarios and responses and the participation of stakeholders, but argued that many sub-global assessments were similar to DEFRA's research. He concluded by saying that "in terms of the on-going follow-up and co-ordination and sharing of lessons learnt within a sub-global assessment within UNEP, we are seeing this England and sub-England assessment very much as one of the sub-global activities of the MA".[130]

124. The Minister, Barry Gardiner MP, told us that he does not consider the DEFRA research to be an MA assessment, specifically due to the lack of inclusion of scenarios. He did argue however that "it is a comprehensive assessment and it will advise on how we could achieve a full national assessment if that is the road that we then want to go down if we think that is the best thing that we could do at that stage".[131] He stressed that the research being conducted is "working to develop a strategic approach to conservation and enhancement of the environment and that will include the development of a framework for looking at whole ecosystems that draws on the whole approach of the MA".[132] He argued that it is the Government's obligation now "to try and see how we can use the research that has been done through the MA to inform policy making and to inform decision making […] within DEFRA".[133] He also stressed that this obligation extended to the development of "tools that will help other Government departments make better policy decisions on the back of that ecosystem services approach and having a metric that enables them to do that".[134] The Minister did not rule out a full MA assessment for the UK in the future, accepting that it may enable better identification of effective policy responses. He stressed that the Government is trying to integrate the MA's findings in a "systematic way".[135]

125. 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.

79 Ev3 Back

80 Ev37 Back

81 Ev37 Back

82 Ev52 Back

83 Ev4 Back

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

85 Q88 Back

86 Ev65 Back

87 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy, Cm 6467, March 2005 Back

88 Q103 Back

89 Ev65 Back

90 Q29 Back