APPENDIX 5
Memorandum submitted by the Royal Society
This document is the Royal Society response
to the UK House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee's Inquiry
into the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) 1. It has been
approved on behalf of the Royal Society Council by Professor David
Read, the Vice-President and Biological Secretary. Our response
has been prepared in consultation with members of the Society's
Environment and Marine Advisory Networks, the Global Environment
Research Committee and other experts in the field.
SUMMARY
— We are supportive of the MA process
and its findings, and believe that the MA Framework provides a
useful mechanism for enabling the implementation of the ecosystems
approach to policy.
— The MA framework and conclusions
have had an impact on environment and biodiversity policy and
science in the UK, EU and internationally, but they have had little
impact on other areas of policy and science. To maximise impact
the MA must influence sectors like the international development
cooperation, trade, and financial sectors.
— The real impact of the MA will become
evident in the coming years when governments have had an opportunity
to incorporate the MA's findings into their policy strategies.
— A UK Assessment report could be a
useful exercise for testing the assumptions of the MA models and
current knowledge of UK drivers of ecological change, and could
provide a helpful model for other countries.
— The UK government Global Environmental
Change Committee has successfully reviewed the current gaps and
weaknesses of the MA at a workshop hosted by its biodiversity
sub-committee in early 2006.
— We believe that the priorities for
international and UK follow up to the MA should include:
— internationally coordinated funding and
resources for the MA's long-term implementation, communication,
development, monitoring and review;
— the continuation of an appropriately
funded MA Secretariat (or equivalent body) to co-ordinate the
above;
— the production of successive MAs in the
future with the possibility of inter-governmental efforts to standardise
the production of future assessments;
— an increase in internationally coordinated
funding for research into the role of biodiversity in ecosystem
functioning, and the linkages between biodiversity, ecosystems,
and human well-being;
— funding and resources to improve the
links between ecological and economic research, improve ecosystem
valuation methodologies, and to improve dialogue between economists,
ecologists and social scientists;
— the full integration of MA processes
into existing national policy processes, such as implementation
programmes for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (with a
higher priority given to MDG7), and national sustainable development
strategies; and
— prioritisation of the MA into UK cross-cutting
policy, and high level political support for the MA processes.
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. The Royal Society is supportive of the
MA process and its findings and believes that it provides the
most complete and up to date expert summary of the links between
ecosystems and human well-being and the status of biological diversity.
It identifies the variety of ways in which biodiversity and ecosystem
goods and services have contributed to human wellbeing over the
last century and highlights the importance of including this information
in the economic analyses of climate change and sustainable development
plans for the future. The MA framework provides a useful mechanism
for enabling the implementation of the ecosystems approach to
policy.
2. The Royal Society is aware of only two
assessments carried out to date on the strengths and weaknesses
of the MA and its implementation. The first was a report on the
initial impact of the MA from the Director of the MA, Professor
Walter Reid (Reid 2006); and the second was a report produced
by the UK Government Global Environmental Change Committee's (GECC)
Biodiversity Sub-Committee (GBSC) following a workshop held in
London in February 2006 to evaluate the MA and identify priorities
for future implementation (GECC 2006).
3. We welcome the Committee's inquiry into
the MA which we believe will help to increase the profile of the
MA and add momentum to its implementation in UK Government. However
it is difficult for us to comment on the impact in detail at this
stage because of its relatively recent release (the Technical
Assessment volumes were published in January 2006, and the last
synthesis report on Marine and Coastal Systems was published in
June 2006). The real impact of the MA will become evident in the
coming years when governments have had an opportunity to incorporate
the MA findings into their policy strategies.
RESPONSES TO
THE EAC INQUIRY
QUESTIONS
4. In our submission we have chosen to respond
only to questions 1, 2, 4 and 9.
Inquiry 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?
5. There is a general feeling amongst the
scientific community that although the MA framework and conclusions
have had a relatively high profile in the environment and biodiversity
policy and science sectors in the UK, EU and internationally,
it has as yet had little impact on other areas of policy and research.
For example, the MA findings have been considered and taken into
account to varying degrees by the Conventions responsible for
its establishment: the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),
the Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the Ramsar Convention
on Wetlands, and the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS).
6. The Royal Society believes that to have
any real impact the principles of the MA need to be implemented
outside of the environment sector, for example in the international
development, trade, and financial sectors. This however will be
dependent on whether or not funding and resources are made available
for further communication of the MA's findings, for further development
and implementation of the MA framework, and for future monitoring
and reporting (further clarification is provided in paragraphs
17-19).
7. Within the scientific community there
appears to be a growing use of the frameworks and ideas put forward
in the MA, and evidence that they are beginning to influence research
agendas. On an international level, the International Council
for Science (ICSU) has adopted the MA conceptual framework as
the basis for its environmental program. In July 2006, ICSU also
set up a joint UNESCO, ICSU, and United Nations University (UNU)
scoping group of experts to assess the gaps in scientific knowledge
identified through the MA and to produce a report before mid-2007
on the priority research gaps that need to be filled in order
to improve any future global or sub-global Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment.
8. On a European level, the European Academies
Science Advisory Council (EASAC) recently launched a project to
investigate the importance of biodiversity for certain priority
European ecosystems defined using the MA framework. The aim of
this work is to build on, and contribute to the evidence base
provided by the MA process. At the UK level, we are aware that
the UK Biodiversity Research Advisory Group (BRAG) is currently
developing a strategy for research on the role of biodiversity
in ecosystem function. This draft strategy draws heavily on the
MA framework and conclusions in identifying research priorities
for the UK.
9. Some of our Fellows felt that adoption
of the MA processes in some countries including the US, Brazil
and India had been slow because of difficulties in identifying
the economic value of ecosystems. Although the MA went some way
towards identifying the linkages between ecosystem services and
human wellbeing, significant further work is required to identify
appropriate valuation methodologies and to improve collaboration
between economists and ecologists. This is essential if the economic
contributions of ecosystems to society are to be identified and
communicated to policy makers.
10. Furthermore, the current momentum behind
the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
in developing countries could be a useful mechanism for communicating
and implementing the MA framework. This however requires that
strategies aimed at delivering the MDG's be revised to ensure
that they are compatible with the MA framework. In particular
we believe that it is important that more emphasis is placed on
the importance of MDG7 (to ensure sustainability) in international
development cooperation policy.
Inquiry 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?
11. Although there has been little evidence
of the incorporation of the MA findings and processes into UK
departmental strategies, we have observed a growing appreciation
in both the academic and policy communities of the achievements
and utility of the MA.
12. The Royal Society is aware that Defra
has been proactive in communicating and implementing the results
of the MA in addition to the GBSC workshop referred to in paragraph
2 and the ongoing work of this group. Defra has for example used
the MA methodology to develop draft environmental reporting guidelines
for UK companies. In a recent speech to delegates attending a
meeting held at the Royal Society, hosted by the Foundation of
Science and Technology (July 2006), the UK Minister for Biodiversity,
Landscape and Rural Affairs noted that Defra was developing "a
more holistic approach to natural environment policy". This
approach is based on the findings of the MA with an emphasis on
the development of an ecosystems approach, integrating
policy making around the conservation and enhancement of entire
ecosystems. The programme of work includes the funding of research
and improved dialogue between Defra and the research councils
and aims to improve the coherence and consistency of research
funding to develop the evidence base on the condition and value
of ecosystems. Similarly, we are aware that some of the Defra
bodies (eg the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and
Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS))
have been using the MA to guide their corporate work programmes
and research strategies.
13. Although one of our respondents noted
that The Department for International Development (DfID) officials
appear to have been influenced by the MA we note that the principles
of the MA do not appear to be reflected in either DFID's approach
to the environment (DFID 2006a) or its White paper on International
Development (DFID 2006b).
Inquiry Question 4. Should the UK develop
its own assessment report and would it be relevant to include
external UK impacts?
14. The Royal Society is aware that there
has been some debate about the development of a UK assessment
report in the scientific community. However, the conclusion of
Royal Society discussions has been that a UK assessment report
could be a useful exercise. The UK is unique globally in terms
of the quality of biodiversity and ecosystems information available.
Therefore the application of the MA framework to the UK could
provide a useful model for other countries. A country level study
using MA methodologies could be useful to the future development
of the MA by testing the methodologies and identifying any issues
relating to scaling up and scaling down processes. Smaller case
study assessments to investigate specific issues within a designated
area could also be useful for testing the assumptions of the models
and current knowledge of key drivers of change in the UK.
15. There was general agreement that external
UK impacts would have to be considered for a UK MA assessment
to be useful. It was also felt that the UK overseas territories
could provide useful case studies for the application of the MA
framework as an alternative to an assessment of the UK as these
are generally the UK's biodiversity hotspots.
Inquiry 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?
16. The strengths and weaknesses of the
MA were reviewed at the GBSC workshop held in February 2006 "Evaluating
the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: messages, knowledge gaps,
and policy implications" where scientific and policy
gaps and priorities were identified. Fellows and staff of the
Royal Society were involved in this workshop. Rather than repeating
the results of this meeting we refer you to the meeting report
(GECC 2006).
17. The Royal Society believes that one
of the greatest weaknesses of the MA was the failure to provide
resources and funding for the period beyond its release. This
has undoubtedly affected how widely it has been communicated and
implemented and many of our Fellow's recently voiced concerns
that despite having established how vital ecosystem services are
to the global economy the MA will cease to be relevant unless
funding is provided for further development, implementation, monitoring
and reporting. We believe that the absence of a formal and coordinated
monitoring and review process is a major shortcoming and that
this will compromise the ability of the MA process to achieve
its objectives.
18. We suggest that development, implementation,
monitoring and reporting will require coordination at the global,
regional and national levels. An MA secretariat if appropriately
resourced could provide this coordination function. The CBD secretariat
or the proposed International Mechanism of Scientific Expertise
on Biodiversity (IMOSEB) body may be suitable alternatives, however
these bodies would also need to be appropriately resourced and
their biodiversity focus taken into account.
19. In terms of future development and implementation
of the MA some of our respondents felt that inter-governmental
efforts should be made to standardise the production of successive
global and sub-global assessments to ensure a continuity of effort
in the future. It was felt that this would help to encourage and
channel scientific work on ecosystem services in a globally coordinated
manner and that this would have the additional benefit of encouraging
the development of the production of high quality science in the
world's poorest countries. We believe this should be accompanied
by a significant increase in research funding from governments
and international agencies to improve understanding of ecosystems
and biodiversity, and the linkages between biodiversity, ecosystem
functioning and human well-being.
20. There are obvious mechanisms for the
integration of MA processes into national policy. These include
strategies for the implementation of the Millennium Development
Goals (MDG's), national sustainable development strategies, poverty
reduction strategies, and national biodiversity strategies. In
the UK, government policy must encourage more basic and applied
environmental research. Our Fellows have voiced concerns about
the reduction in government support for biodiversity and ecosystems
research, particularly following the recent restructuring of the
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and the announcements regarding
the Defra budget.
October 2006
REFERENCES
1 DFID (2006a) DFID's Approach to the
Environment. DFID: London
Available online at www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/approach-environment.pdf
DFID (2006b) White Paper on International
Development, eliminating world poverty: making governance work
for the poor. DFID: London
Available online at: www.dfid.gov.uk/wp2006/default.asp
GECC (2006) Evaluating the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment: Messages, knowledge gaps and policy implications.
Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment GBSC Workshop
3 February 2006 HM
Government: London
Available online at www.ukgecc.org/dvl—Biodiversity.htm
Reid W (2006) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Survey of Initial Results. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment:
USA.
Available online at www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Article.aspx?id=75
| 
