RESPONSES TO THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS
The world has been dramatically altered by human
activity
1. The conclusions of the 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)
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) findings
reinforce the vital importance of protecting biodiversity and
ecosystem services to support human well-being. The UK Government
worked hard to ensure that the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) gave a full and considered response to the MA. The CBD has
noted the new and significant findings of the MA and has urged
Parties to strengthen their efforts to achieve the target of a
significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010
(the 2010 target). The CBD also decided to consider the findings
of the MA in the implementation and the future review of the programmes
of work and cross-cutting issues under the Convention.
Ecosystem changes have led to substantial gains,
and substantial losses
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)
We agree that human impacts on the natural environment
have resulted in both positive and negative outcomes. The MA also
highlights that it is often the poorest communities that depend
most directly on ecosystem services and, therefore, suffer disproportionately
from the loss or degradation of those services. We do not believe
that environmental degradation is an inevitable cost of societal
benefits.
The Government agrees that it is essential to manage
the trade-offs between environment and development more effectively
to enable delivery of sustainable wealth creation and poverty
reduction whilst safeguarding ecosystems services.
The continued damage caused to ecosystem services
will make it harder to eradicate poverty.
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 (MDG) 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)
We agree poverty reduction successes will only be
short term if the services provided by ecosystems are not maintained.
The international community, including the UK, must do more to
respond to the growing weight of evidence that our environment
is under threat. If not addressed, much of our current and future
progress in lifting people out of poverty could be reversed. As
outlined in the DFID response to Trade, Development and the
Environment: The Role of DFID, tackling this means working
for a collective response at a global level, and working with
our multilateral and developing country partners.
Ecosystem damage can be slowed and reversed, but
this will take concerted action
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 Government acknowledges the fundamental importance
of ecosystem services to human wellbeing, and the need for this
to be recognised across sectors and in the full suite of decisions
that impact on the natural environment. Defra is taking forward
work to develop an ecosystems approach to conserving, managing
and enhancing the natural environment. As part of this we are
seeking to develop better tools and methodologies to ensure that
decision making takes full account of the true value of ecosystem
services.
International impact of the MA
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)
We agree that the MA report deserves greater attention
although we also agree with the Committee that it is still early
days. For its part, the UK Government has done a good deal to
promote the MA and to engage decision makers with the findings.
For instance, the presentation on biodiversity and development
to the Environment and Development Ministers meeting during the
UK Presidency of the G8, included material on the MA. The MA was
also the subject of a workshop in 2006, organised by the Global
Biodiversity Sub-Committee (GBSC) of the Government's Global Environment
Change Committee. This workshop explored the strengths and weaknesses
of the MA and the gaps in science which it highlighted.
The MA was reviewed at the eighth CBD Conference
of the Parties (COP8). COP Decision VIII/9 recognised the findings
of the MA and undertook to consider these in the implementation,
and the future review of the programmes of work and cross-cutting
issues under the Convention. It was also reviewed at the United
Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) COP 7, and
by the CCD's Committee on Science and Technology. A COP7 Decision
encouraged the use of the findings of the MA to better address
the objectives of the Convention.
The last Ramsar COP (COP9) agreed a Conceptual Framework
for the wise use of wetlands and the maintenance of their ecological
character. This drew heavily on the work of the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (MA), in particular the MA's Conceptual Framework for
Ecosystems and Human Well-being
We will continue to promote the MA findings both
in domestic policy development and international dealings. See
also our response to paragraph 68.
International poverty eradication
6. How Millennium Development Goals are met
will have a major impact on environmental sustainability and there
is not necessarily a clear framework to ensure that all of the
Goals are met coherently and simultaneously. This may well prove
to be counterproductive in the long term. (Paragraph 37)
DFID recognises that weak progress towards ensuring
environmental sustainability will compromise achievement of the
other MDGs and undermine wider investments in poverty reduction.
As outlined in the Government's response to Trade, Development
and the Environment: The Role of DFID, and as reflected by
the Committee in this report, frameworks to achieve sustainable
poverty reduction and the MDGs should be developed and owned by
countries themselves. This includes coherent policies, planning
and programmes, such as poverty reduction strategies. They should
make the links required to achieve the MDGs, including links between
environmental sustainability and the other Goals. The Millennium
Review Summit 2005 called on countries to develop or implement
national plans to help achieve internationally agreed targets
and goals, including the MDGs. The UK encourages this approach and
work by UN Agencies to develop guidance and support to countries
on how best to make the links to the MDG framework that includes
integrating environmental considerations. For example, through
UK Government support to the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), we are helping develop a new UNEP/UNDP Poverty Environment
Initiative (PEI) that will assist countries integrate the environment
into development policies and programmes.
7. 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)
The Government is committed to helping achieve all
the MDGs, including MDG7. For example, the UK played a key role
in developing better international understanding of the relationship
between poverty and environment, by jointly leading work for the
World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). The importance
of ecosystems and their services to the poor was part of this
work. Working with the OECD, we also helped develop tools to
encourage environmental sustainability to be addressed in national
planning processes alongside economic and social considerations.
We continue to highlight the importance of issues
reflected in the MA for development and the relevance of MDG 7.
For example, our commitment was reiterated at the 2005 Millennium
Review Summit. The UK is also supporting current moves in the
UN to include the WSSD 2010 biodiversity target within MDG7.
The 2006 White Paper Eliminating World Poverty:
Making Governance work for Poor People, identified managing
our world sustainably and fairly, as the most important challenge
of a changing world. DFID's policy paper on the environment, published
in 2006, recognises that the achievement of most MDGs depend on
environmental goods and services, and also recognises the connections
between MDG7 and the other MDGs.
The Government agrees that poor countries do not
always have the capacity to adequately incorporate the environment
into their strategies, policies and programmes. That is why we
work with other donors to promote the importance of the integration
of environment into poverty reduction strategies and other development
planning processes. For example, DFID supported the United Nations
Development Programme's (UNDP) PEI and its environmental integration
programmes in Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Vietnam, and Cambodia;
and we will cooperate with the new joint UNDP and United Nations
Environment Programme PEI.
We do not agree that a new Millennium Ecosystem Fund
is the best way to address capacity constraints. We do not support
the proliferation of new global funding mechanisms without clearly
identifying their added value in contrast to the additional international
and partner country bureaucracy and reporting burdens on poor
countries that this will require. It is important to consider
the time and capacity needed by developing countries to access
global funds. Rather than establishing new funds and new bodies,
we should consider how to strengthen existing mechanisms such
as the GEF, UN programmes and in-country donor coordination, to
help poor countries build capacity.
8. 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)
We recognise the need for all NGOs to consider appropriate
environmental issues, but it is not the role of Government to
tell NGOs which topics to focus on. However, Development and Environment
NGOs have worked closely on a number of key issues linked to the
MA. These include the campaigns on Climate Change as well as
joint analysis, incorporating the MA findings, as part of the
consultation process for the recent UK Government White Paper
on international development.
Many development NGOs are taking action on environmental
issues. NGOs such as Christian Aid, Oxfam and Tearfund actively
work on climate change, water and sanitation. DFID continues to
encourage the Development and Environment Group of British Overseas
NGOs for Development (BOND) to build on previous work and strengthen
linkages and joint working with other Development NGOs.
Governments: the need for national assessments
9. 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)
The MA recommended some key steps that governments
can take to reduce the degradation of ecosystem services, many
of which, as highlighted in the introduction, are already consistent
with UK Government policy. For example:
- Defra's work to develop an ecosystems approach
to the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment
in England seeks to apply the MA framework in both policy-making
and delivery;
- The UK is committed to an ecosystem approach
to marine management and is actively taking forward steps to implement
this, including in relation to fisheries management, and the establishment
of marine protected areas as called for by the MA. Defra's consultation
on a Marine Bill fully recognised the vital role of ecosystems
services provided by the marine environment;
- The government has already drawn on the MA conceptual
framework to underpin policy and research development in a number
of areas and we recognise its potential for future application
in the UK and beyond, including in assessing the impacts of future
policies and decisions on the natural environment. It is important
that any future assessments build on existing assessment mechanisms
and are tailored to nationally identified priorities and needs.
In this respect, we very much welcome the work by UNEP-WCMC (with
a funding contribution from Defra) to develop an 'MA Methodology
Manual'. We hope that this will strengthen the impact of the MA
by ensuring that a broader audience knows of, and is able to use
the best practices that the MA developed.
It is important that any assessment proposals build
on the many existing assessment mechanisms and are tailored to
nationally identified priorities. The need is to ensure that we
have the principles of ecosystem assessment integrated into the
tools being increasingly applied in development cooperation such
as strategic environmental assessment (SEA).
With respect to international development assistance,
we agree that decision makers should be more aware of the MA findings
and what can be done to respond to the challenges, including improved
awareness of the benefits that arise from better management of
ecosystems. Countries should conduct their own environmental assessments
linked to other country driven development planning. Whilst we
believe that environmental information is important for decision
makers, we believe that MA principles could be integrated into
existing assessment and reporting frameworks rather than establishing
another environmental assessment process. For example, countries
already prepare reports for Multilateral Environmental Agreements
(MEA's), many countries also prepare State of the Environment
Reports, and the World Bank and European Commission amongst others
use country based environmental assessments to inform their dialogue
and funding decisions. The new UNDP/UNEP PEI will be considering
how such methodologies can be used at country level. As explained
in the response to recommendation 40, we do not agree that a new
Fund is the way to address capacity constraints. Instead we should
consider how to strengthen existing mechanisms such as the GEF,
UN programmes including the [enhanced] PEI and in country donor
coordination, to help poor countries build capacity.
The UK is actively engaged in promoting ecosystem
approaches to marine management in international fora, including
through OSPAR and through strengthened and reformed regional fisheries
bodies, which can address key, immediate impacts on sensitive
ecosystems such as destructive bottom fisheries and illegal, unregulated
and unreported (IUU) fishing.
10. The MA showed that degradation of ecosystem
services is a threat to businesses' bottom line. Witnesses
expressed optimism to us that the MA would act as a spur to business
to address its impact on the environment. 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)
It is important to establish robust metrics for ecosystem
services. The MA clearly demonstrated the link from ecosystems
and its services to wide ranging impacts on human well being,
including impacts on the business sector. The value of these ecosystem
services is often not taken into account, resulting in their degradation.
A key requirement is to ensure that the full social costs and
benefits associated with ecosystem services are valued and policy
instruments designed to ensure these costs and benefits are internalised
in the decision making process. As discussed previously, Defra
is prioritising work to improve our understanding of the value
of ecosystem services, and to develop practical tools to use these
values in decision making.
As regards international trade, some preliminary
work is being done on the environmental costs of international
trade including looking at different approaches for different
sectors and developing the evidence base. This work is being done
in the context of Defra's 'One Planet Living' strategy.
11. 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)
The MA explicitly acknowledges the gaps in current
knowledge that limited its ability to fully answer the policy
questions that it sought to address. The Government supported
work to address some of these gaps through a range of initiatives
including those led by the GBSC and the (Defra funded) Biodiversity
Research Advisory Group (BRAG). Defra has also commissioned research
into the status and trends of England's terrestrial ecosystems
and ecosystem services; work to assess the impacts of key drivers
of change to ecosystems, particularly to develop the evidence
base related to climate change; and work to develop tools and
methodologies for valuation of ecosystem services. Future research
strategies will continue to assess and be informed by knowledge
gaps that the MA identified.
The Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC),
the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and DFID, have
agreed in principle, to appraise and design a new research programme
to improve ecosystem management for poverty reduction in developing
countries. The programme will be funded by the three partners.
The appraisal and design process will commence with four regional
situation analyses in semi-arid parts of Africa, China, Northern
India and bordering countries and Amazonia/Andes.
12. 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)
We agree on the need for more research and on the
importance of prioritising the most important gaps that need to
be addressed.
There are a number of existing international science
co-ordination programmes which already aim to address some of
the knowledge gaps found in the MA (e.g. Diversitas and
Global Earth Observing System of Systems (GEOSS))
and these are also addressed in the European context by the European
Commission (EC) Framework Programmes 6 & 7 for Research and
Development. The European Environment Agency (EEA) are also developing
proposals for a European-scale assessment.
Within the UK, the GBSC, a Sub-Committee of the Government's
inter-agency Global Environmental Change Committee, is, among
other things, charged with identifying gaps in scientific understanding
of global biodiversity change, and co-ordinating strategic priorities
for UK-science relating to global biodiversity. As already mentioned,
Defra and the JNCC, on behalf of the GBSC organised an event in
February 2006, aimed at developing an overview of the strengths
and weaknesses of the MA. Government departments and agencies
are now working on a mapping exercise to assess current UK action
(both policy and research) in response.
The DFID/NERC/ESRC research programme (see paragraph
58) is anticipated to make a significant contribution to filling
the knowledge gaps. See also our response to paragraph 87.
Communication of the findings
13. 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)
The MA Secretariat made considerable efforts to engage
the international communities through, for example, the international
biodiversity conventions and related fora. The sub-global assessments
have also engaged a wider audience at more local scales. However,
we agree that communications is an important element of any assessment
and that it is important to develop a clear communications strategy
from the outset, with particular attention on how to communicate
the findings and implications to non-specialists.
As the MA Secretariat has now been disbanded, the
UK will continue to work through existing channels and institutions
to promote the messages from the MA.
But non specialists can find it difficult to access
information contained in the MA reports: its messages were not
presented in ways that maximise relevance to other development
issues and, as already mentioned, the direct benefits need to
be more explicit. To help improve dissemination, DFID funded
the preparation of a briefing paper by the International Institute
for Environment and Development (IIED) on the development implications
of the MA. This summarised the main findings and suggested possible
next steps. The briefing is an IIED view, but has been useful
in raising awareness of the MA.
Internationally, other mechanisms are also helping
to disseminate MA findings and the policy implications. For example,
the World Resources Institute (WRI) plans a series of international
workshops on the potential policy implications of the MA.
14. 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)
Defra has put a considerable effort into communicating
the messages from the MA:
- As mentioned in our response to paragraph 61,
in February 2006 the GBSC, with Defra support, held a workshop
to explore the findings of the MA and promote its messages to
a wider audience of government, scientists and NGOs;
- Defra's research agenda and work with the Research
Councils (see responses to paragraphs 58 and 75 ) is helping to
spread the message widely amongst policy makers and scientists;
- The UK was closely associated with the CBD decision
on the MA which made a number of recommendations for action to
promote the findings of the MA and integrate them into policy
development;
- Through its work to develop an ecosystems approach
to conservation, management and enhancement of the natural environment
Defra is engaging other government departments and a broad range
of stakeholders to discuss how their policies and practise could
better take in to account the broad range of goods and services
that the natural environment provides.
The MA produced 5 synthesis reports including one
on opportunities and challenges for businesses. The Government
has no current plans to develop separate guides to the MA beyond
the IIED paper referred to above.
The Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group on Biodiversity
will be debating whether there may be potential future engagement
in more proactive dissemination of MA findings (see also paragraph
95).
15. 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)
DFID will continue to raise awareness across the
organisation of how better environmental management contributes
to long term poverty reduction. DFID takes account of environmental
opportunities and risks for poverty reduction when framing country
programmes, often in cooperation with other donors, such as the
EC and World Bank. Guidance for country assistance plans states
that environmental factors should be taken into account when defining
main obstacles to reducing poverty, including relevant regional
or global issues such as climate change and shared natural resources.
Sustainable development (SD) is central to foreign
policy and the work of the FCO. It underpins, and will help to
achieve, many of the Government's international priorities, which
are driven forward by the FCO. The FCO's recently published SD
Action Plan highlights the areas for action where FCO can contribute
to the UK's efforts on sustainable development. The network of
SD Attache's in FCO Posts helps build support for UK objectives;
maintains the engagement of host governments; develops and manages
projects to address specific sustainable development challenges;
reports on progress and developments in host countries; and identifies
areas where the UK can offer or develop expertise on sustainable
development issues.
We agree that FCO's network of posts would find the
MA's findings useful in providing support, rationale and inspiration
for their work on SD. The FCO holds an Annual SD Attache's conference
to brief attachés on priorities and receive feedback from
them about their work and the support they need. We included a
session in the 2007 conference introducing them to the MA and
seeking ways in which they could use the MA to further their SD
work. FCO will also include information on the MA on SD Net, an
intranet site for Attache's and other government departments which
provides information and briefings on key issues, policy developments,
events and meetings in relation to SD.
16. 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 nonmarket benefits. (Paragraph 75)
The Government is pleased to see the support in this
report for Defra's research in this area. As well as funding specific
targeted research Defra is taking steps to ensure that research
programmes across the Department draw on and take account of the
methodologies and evidence presented by the MA, and to ensure
that existing research and monitoring initiatives (e.g. the Countryside
Survey) develop in such a way as to contribute to the quantification
and improved understanding of the dynamics and spatial distribution
of ecosystem services.
Defra is working with others, particularly the research
councils, to promote interdisciplinary research to underpin future
delivery of ecosystem services, including in development of the
new NERC/ERSC research initiative Living with Environmental
Change, which draws heavily on the fundamental concepts of
the MA.
17. 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 UK Government's sustainable development indicators
measure trends in environmental, social and economic wellbeing.
The indicators help review progress of the sustainable development
strategies for the UK and devolved administrations, and highlight
where the challenges are. They also help people to understand
what sustainable development means globally, nationally, locally
and for them as individuals.
The 2005 UK Sustainable Development Strategy recognised
the need for the Government to get a better understanding and
focus on wellbeing. To address this, Defra commissioned in 2006
a number of research projects to review existing research and
international experience and to explore how policies might change
with an explicit wellbeing focus[1].
The research included a review of existing research on the social,
economic and environmental factors influencing wellbeing, in addition
to reviewing a range of wellbeing measures. It focussed on subjective
wellbeing - how people think and feel about their lives - which
had been little explored within Government, in order to develop
a better grasp how policy can genuinely make a difference to people's
lives. The research results have provided evidence to support
the expansion of the existing sustainable development indicators
to give a more complete picture of wellbeing trends. A specialist
cross-Government group has been established to develop wellbeing
indicators to add to the existing sustainable development indicator
set. A provisional set of wellbeing indicators will be published
in July 07.
The future of the MA
18. 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:
- 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
(Paragraph 83)
The MA has been valuable in highlighting the importance
of ecosystem services and the implications for human well being
of their current rate of degradation. These messages do not depend
on repeated assessments for their impact. The MA itself took 5
years to complete and a rolling programme of repeated assessments
every 5-10 years would, as the Committee propose, effectively
mean a permanent secretariat (allowing also for communications
of the findings). It would be important to consider whether any
such body would duplicate the roll of existing bodies such as
UNEP, a key role of which is monitoring, assessment and early
warning on the global state of the environment. There are ongoing
efforts to strengthen UNEP, in particular its role in monitoring
and assessment. In this regard it is essential that we have coherence
in the UN's environment activities, making full utilisation of
the mechanisms we already have in place rather than developing
new ones. We will reflect further on this in relation to related
proposals for an International Mechanism of Science and Expertise
in Biodiversity (IMoSEB) on which we comment below.
The CBD decided to consider at its next COP (Bonn
2008) the need for another integrated assessment of biodiversity
and ecosystems.
19. 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)
We consider that scientific evidence is crucial in
raising political awareness and devising effective solutions to
global biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation. We note the
Committee's view on proposals for an IPCC-like body and agree
that we need to think carefully about the need for and
form of any new mechanism; we do not want to duplicate efforts
of established bodies or erode their competence. It may be that
a number of mechanisms are needed, or that we need to build on
and strengthen those that already exist. We support the ongoing
consultation process on IMoSEB and will be taking a view on proposals
as the consultation develops.
20. 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)
As stated in the joint-government response to the
report, Outflanked: The World Trade Organisation, international
trade and sustainable development, the government does not
believe consideration of the environment and development is lacking
in trade policies. The UK Government's support for the inclusion
of the environment as a dossier in the Doha Development Agreement
(DDA) and for the EC's development of the Trade Sustainable Impact
Assessment process reflects the importance attached to environmental
issues in developing Government policy.
We do, however, recognise that there is more that
could be done and we continue to consider how trade and environment
policies can be made more complementary and mutually supportive.
For this reason we strongly support the EC's position in the
WTO Committee on Trade and Environment negotiations, in seeking
to define a set of principles to guide the relationship between
the WTO and MEAs, to facilitate mutual complementarity.
An MA rolling programme could be one other such way
to facilitate and encourage the mutual supportiveness of trade
and environment, though we would need to assess what extra expertise
it would contribute and whether it would duplicate the role of
existing institutions such as UNEP (see also our response to paragraph
83). Its success would be dependent on whether such a programme
could provide a clearer perspective on the discussions, through
providing scientific input and evidence of the impact trade has
on ecosystems, as well as the impact ecosystems could have on
trade and trading opportunities.
MA action in the UK - UK Government action on
the MA
21. 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)
We agree that there is a challenge in ensuring that
the findings of the MA are mainstreamed in policy and decision
making across Government but consider that there may be a great
deal of scope for this to be achieved through existing mechanisms
including the ministerial sub-committee on sustainable development
in government; the inter-departmental ministerial group on biodiversity
and the cross-Whitehall working group on wellbeing. Government
departments are already working together to respond to the MA
(see also our response to paragraph 61). Defra is engaging a broad
range of delivery partners, including other government departments,
in its work to develop an ecosystem approach to the natural environment
in England; and the UK biodiversity strategy is based on partnership,
including between government departments. The Inter-departmental
Ministerial Group on biodiversity, which provides a forum for
discussion of international biodiversity issues, is currently
considering an assessment of the UK's obligations and commitments
with respect to international biodiversity, using the MA findings
on the drivers and trends in biodiversity loss. This assessment,
including a study of indirect drivers of biodiversity loss funded
by DFID, will be used to discuss options for potential future
engagement in tackling biodiversity loss internationally
22. 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. (Paragraph 98)
Protecting natural resources and enhancing the environment
nationally and internationally are already priorities under the
UK Government's 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy Securing
the Future, and arising from WSSD, the DDA of the WTO, the
Monterrey Consensus on Financing for Development and the MDGs.
In the context of the Comprehensive Spending Review
2007, HM Treasury has identified natural resource protection as
one of the long-term challenges that all Government Departments
need to address through their objectives, targets and activities.
The MA forms an important part of the available evidence-base
for this activity and for any future review of the Government's
Sustainable Development strategy. It will be taken into account
in any future review of the Government's SD strategy
Action by departments - Defra
23. 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.
(Paragraph 102)
Defra is working towards publication, in late 2007,
of an action plan to embed an ecosystems approach to conservation
and enhancement of the natural environment in England. This, and
its implementation, will be informed by a research programme that
targets particular needs for policy development, including the
need to better value ecosystem services; to assess the cumulative
impacts of pressures on the natural environment, and to take decisions
at all levels that work within environmental limits.
DFID
24. 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)
As in the response to the EAC report Trade, Development
and the Environment: The Role of DFID, we are disappointed
that the Committee has failed to recognise the emphasis we have
placed on the environment in the new White Paper. The White Paper
states the centrality of the environment and sustainable management
of natural resources to our mission of poverty reduction. In his
Preface, the Secretary of State says that managing our world sustainably
is the most important challenge for a changing world. The Government
has every intention of fulfilling the commitments set out in the
White Paper.
DFID policy documents set out approaches to development
in support of developing countries' own processes. We agree that
policies should take account of cross-cutting issues, including
the environment.
HM Treasury
25. 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)
Departmental submissions for the 2007 Comprehensive
Spending Review (CSR07) will be made in the light of the analysis
of long-term opportunities and challenges published in November
2006, with Departments setting out their strategies for dealing
with the most relevant long-term issues that confront them. HM
Treasury has identified natural resources protection as one of
the long term challenges that all government departments need
to address. As noted by the Committee, the analysis of long-term
opportunities and challenges commissioned by the Treasury relied
greatly on the MA.
Treasury Green Book guidance already sets out a framework
for ensuring that non-market values feed into policy, programme
and project decisions. Defra work on environmental valuation is
intended to support that framework.
26. 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)
The analysis states (paragraph 7.49) that "long-term
economic prosperity, both in the UK and globally, will depend
on the healthy functioning of the environment". While the
document was not intended to provide a policy response to the
trends identified, it does make clear the close link with the
Government's goal of sustainable growth and employment.
27. 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". 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)
The revised Government performance management framework
being established through the CSR will see Government as a whole
sharing a much more focused set of public service agreements.
These will reflect the Government's collective priorities and
will assist concerted action on challenges that in practice cut
across Departmental boundaries.
The Government's response to the Sustainable Procurement
Task Force's report will be published shortly.
The Chancellor keeps all fiscal measures under review
through the Budget and Pre-Budget Report processes.
28. 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)
Departments are being asked to consider the long-term
challenges they face and their strategy for dealing with them
in their submissions for the CSR07. Settlements will reflect competing
cross-Government priorities.
29. 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)
Resource allocations will be made through the CSR.
The Barker Review of Land Use Planning
30. 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)
The purpose of the Barker review of land-use planning
was to consider how, in the context of globalisation, and building
on recent reforms already put in place in England, planning policy
and procedures can better deliver economic growth and prosperity
alongside other sustainable development goals. Kate Barker has
made wide ranging recommendations and a response to those will
be set out in the Planning White Paper.
More generally, Government planning policy, in PPS3,
aims to encourage regional planning bodies and local planning
authorities to plan for housing on the basis of evidence of the
level and type of need and demand, taking into account, amongst
other things, likely future demographic trends and household formation
patterns. The Government has a target that at least 60% of new
housing should be provided on previously developed land. Currently
performance against the target is being exceeded as some 77% of
new housing is being provided on previously developed land. We
want to see this success continuing.
A UK Millennium Assessment
31. 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)
The proposal for a Ministerial Group is addressed
in our response to paragraph 95. We are aware that there is a
level of support amongst the UK research community for a full-MA
type assessment for the UK. But we must also take into account
the risks of duplication of resources and opportunities for making
use of existing assessment processes. There may prove to be value
in a national assessment which pulls together existing initiatives
for a more coherent approach to monitoring the status of and trends
in ecosystem services, and predicting future impacts of drivers
of change, but we would need to establish whether and how such
an assessment would be useful to inform our policy and decision
making in the future.
Defra's ecosystem approach research programme is
funding work on status and trends in England's terrestrial ecosystems,
and the goods and services they provide, and will draw on a wide
range of current assessments of the natural environment. These
include the Countryside Survey, biodiversity classifications and
assessments, Countryside Quality Counts, and many others. It
will also link with other MA related initiatives across the EU.
Although this is not a full MA for the UK, it will be a comprehensive
assessment and will advise on what more would be needed in order
to achieve a full national assessment.
UK Overseas Territories
32. Considering the 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)
The responsibility for environment management has
been devolved to the Overseas Territories governments. Funding
from the Overseas Territories Environment Programme (OTEP) is
available to assist the Overseas Territories (OTs) to deliver
their Environment Charter commitments. The Committee referred
to a proposal in an IIED paper for funding additional capacity,
including staff. OTEP has a limited budget and it does not support
permanent salaried positions because they would be unsustainable
beyond the life of an individual project. However, OTEP does
offer short-term technical assistance for approved projects.
Territories in receipt of bilateral development assistance
from DFID (currently only Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands and St
Helena), may include bids for long-term technical assistance posts
in negotiations for budgetary aid.
The UK also supports the self-regulatory framework
of the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators
(IAATO), an organisation set up to ensure safe and environmentally
responsible tourism.
Defra have provided funding to a number of programmes.
Through the Darwin Initiative we have contributed in excess of
£1.5m on projects in Overseas Territories since 1993. We
have supplemented our Darwin support indirectly through voluntary
contributions made to international agreements, in particular,
the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP),
of which the UK was a founding member. We have given £110K
as voluntary contributions to ACAP in the last few years. We
also plan to contribute towards the costs of an officer later
this year, who will co-ordinate ACAP activities in the South Atlantic
territories.
33. 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)
DFID and FCO have each allocated £1.5 million
for the OTEP for the period 2003/4 - 2006/7. FCO has approved
a further £469,000 per annum for OTEP for 07/08. Future
FCO allocations to OTEP will be dependent upon the outcome of
the CSR. DFID has allocated an additional £1.5 million to
OTEP for the period 2007/8 - 2009/10. This represents approximately
30% of DFID/OTD's budget for regional programmes (competing priorities
being disaster management, child protection, human rights and
HIV/AIDS).
DFID and FCO agree that a longer-term funding commitment
would enable a more strategic approach to be taken, but are currently
providing resources to the Overseas Territories for environmental
management to the fullest extent it is able. FCO and DFID consult
Defra as appropriately in the delivery of OTEP projects and welcomes
Defra's representation on the annual OTEP assessment panel.
The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) is
enhancing its support for biodiversity conservation in the Overseas
Territories, in part due to increased resources from Defra through
its financial settlement. JNCC has recently recruited a new post
to work on Overseas Territories issues. Key areas of work for
JNCC will include:
- developing environmental economics tools:
- in collaboration with relevant Overseas Territory
administrations, establishing a post based in the Falklands to
support implementation of the Agreement on Albatrosses and Petrels
in the South Atlantic Territories;
- building on the recent audit of non-native species
in the Overseas Territories to advise on strategic priorities
for eradicating, controlling and preventing the establishment
of non-natives;
- advising on the impacts of climate change on
biodiversity and supporting the development of adaptation strategies.
The UK's scientific polar work also directly benefits
biodiversity and conservation and ecosystem management.
The UK plays a leading role within the Antarctic Treaty System
in order to ensure the continued protection of the Antarctic environment.
For example, in 2006 the UK was instrumental in the development
of new Site Guidelines for tourist visits to key Antarctic sites.
Similarly, the Environmental Management Plan for South Georgia
seeks to set out a sustainable policy framework which conserves,
manages and protects the island's rich natural environment, whilst
at the same time allowing for human activities and for the generation
of revenue which enables this to be achieved. The 2007 surveillance
report of the South Georgia toothfish fishery (recognised by the
Marine Stewardship Council as a sustainably managed fishery) highlighted
the specific environmental progress being made and, in particular,
the significant reduction of bird bycatch to zero in 2006.
34. 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)
MA-type assessments would be eligible for funding
under the joint FCO/DFID Overseas Territories Environment Programme
(OTEP), subject to availability of resources and competing priorities.
1 Links to published research can be found on the
Government's sustainable development website:
http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/what/priority/wellbeing.htm Back
| 
