Robert T. Watson

Bringing Ecosystem Services into Economic Decision-Making: Land Use in the United Kingdom

Monitoring Land Use Land-use decisions are based largely on agricultural market values. However, such decisions can lead to losses of ecosystem services, such as the provision of wildlife habitat or recreational space, the magnitude of which may overwhelm any market agricultural benefits. In a research project forming part of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment, Bateman et al. (p. 45) estimate the value of these net losses. Policies that recognize the diversity and complexity of the natural environment can target changes to different areas so as to radically improve land use in terms of agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions, recreation, and wild species habitat and diversity. The value of using land for recreation and wildlife, not just for agriculture, can usefully factor into planning decisions. Landscapes generate a wide range of valuable ecosystem services, yet land-use decisions often ignore the value of these services. Using the example of the United Kingdom, we show the significance of land-use change not only for agricultural production but also for emissions and sequestration of greenhouse gases, open-access recreational visits, urban green space, and wild-species diversity. We use spatially explicit models in conjunction with valuation methods to estimate comparable economic values for these services, taking account of climate change impacts. We show that, although decisions that focus solely on agriculture reduce overall ecosystem service values, highly significant value increases can be obtained from targeted planning by incorporating all potential services and their values and that this approach also conserves wild-species diversity.

Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making

Monitoring Land Use Land-use decisions are based largely on agricultural market values. However, such decisions can lead to losses of ecosystem services, such as the provision of wildlife habitat or recreational space, the magnitude of which may overwhelm any market agricultural benefits. In a research project forming part of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment, Bateman et al. (p. 45) estimate the value of these net losses. Policies that recognize the diversity and complexity of the natural environment can target changes to different areas so as to radically improve land use in terms of agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions, recreation, and wild species habitat and diversity. The value of using land for recreation and wildlife, not just for agriculture, can usefully factor into planning decisions. Landscapes generate a wide range of valuable ecosystem services, yet land-use decisions often ignore the value of these services. Using the example of the United Kingdom, we show the significance of land-use change not only for agricultural production but also for emissions and sequestration of greenhouse gases, open-access recreational visits, urban green space, and wild-species diversity. We use spatially explicit models in conjunction with valuation methods to estimate comparable economic values for these services, taking account of climate change impacts. We show that, although decisions that focus solely on agriculture reduce overall ecosystem service values, highly significant value increases can be obtained from targeted planning by incorporating all potential services and their values and that this approach also conserves wild-species diversity.

Turning science into policy: challenges and experiences from the science–policy interface

This paper discusses key issues in the science–policy interface. It stresses the importance of linking the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity to the Millennium Development Goals and to issues of immediate concern to policy-makers such as the economy, security and human health. It briefly discusses the process of decision-making and how the scientific and policy communities have successfully worked together on global environmental issues such as stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change, and the critical role of international assessments in providing the scientific basis for informed policy at the national and international level. The paper also discusses the drivers of global environmental change, the importance of constructing plausible futures, indicators of change, the biodiversity 2010 target and how environmental issues such as loss of biodiversity, stratospheric ozone depletion, land degradation, water pollution and climate change cannot be addressed in isolation because they are strongly interconnected and there are synergies and trade-offs among the policies, practices and technologies that are used to address these issues individually.

Assessing nature’s contributions to people

Recognizing culture, and diverse sources of knowledge, can improve assessments A major challenge today and into the future is to maintain or enhance beneficial contributions of nature to a good quality of life for all people. This is among the key motivations of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a joint global effort by governments, academia, and civil society to assess and promote knowledge of Earths biodiversity and ecosystems and their contribution to human societies in order to inform policy formulation. One of the more recent key elements of the IPBES conceptual framework (1) is the notion of natures contributions to people (NCP), which builds on the ecosystem service concept popularized by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2). But as we detail below, NCP as defined and put into practice in IPBES differs from earlier work in several important ways. First, the NCP approach recognizes the central and pervasive role that culture plays in defining all links between people and nature. Second, use of NCP elevates, emphasizes, and operationalizes the role of indigenous and local knowledge in understanding natures contribution to people.

Environmental health implications of global climate change

This paper reviews the background that has led to the now almost-universally held opinion in the scientific community that global climate change is occurring and is inescapably linked with anthropogenic activity. The potential implications to human health are considerable and very diverse. These include, for example, the increased direct impacts of heat and of rises in sea level, exacerbated air and water-borne harmful agents, and--associated with all the preceding--the emergence of environmental refugees. Vector-borne diseases, in particular those associated with blood-sucking arthropods such as mosquitoes, may be significantly impacted, including redistribution of some of those diseases to areas not previously affected. Responses to possible impending environmental and public health crises must involve political and socio-economic considerations, adding even greater complexity to what is already a difficult challenge. In some areas, adjustments to national and international public health practices and policies may be effective, at least in the short and medium terms. But in others, more drastic measures will be required. Environmental monitoring, in its widest sense, will play a significant role in the future management of the problem.

The science–policy interface: the role of scientific assessments—UK National Ecosystem Assessment

This paper discusses the science–policy interface, emphasizing the role of evidence and scientific assessments. It then presents the key findings from the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA), which provided much of the evidence for the Natural Environment White Paper for England as a case study. It also influenced the development of the biodiversity strategy for England. The NEA demonstrates the importance of a multi-disciplinary team of experts to prepare and peer review assessments and the importance of input from funding agencies and relevant stakeholder groups in co-designing and reviewing. Much of the text and all of the figures in the NEA section are taken from the Synthesis Report of the NEA, which I drafted as co-chair of the NEA.1

Environment: challenges and opportunities

There is little doubt that the Earth’s environment is changing on all scales from local to global, in large measure due to human activities. The climate is warming at a rate faster than at any time during the last 10 000 years, biodiversity is being lost at an unprecedented rate, fisheries are in decline in most of the world’s oceans, air pollution is an increasing problem in and around many of the major cities in the world, large numbers of people live in water stressed or water scarce areas, and large areas of land are being degraded. Much of this environmental degradation is due to the unsustainable production and use of energy, water, food and other biological resources and is already undermining efforts to alleviate poverty and stimulate sustainable development, and worse, the future projected changes in the environment are likely to have even more severe consequences. The major indirect drivers of change are primarily demographic, economic, sociopolitical, scientific and technological, and cultural and religious. These

Assessing nature's contributions to people: recognizing culture, and diverse sources of knowledge, can improve assessments

Recognizing culture, and diverse sources of knowledge, can improve assessments A major challenge today and into the future is to maintain or enhance beneficial contributions of nature to a good quality of life for all people. This is among the key motivations of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a joint global effort by governments, academia, and civil society to assess and promote knowledge of Earths biodiversity and ecosystems and their contribution to human societies in order to inform policy formulation. One of the more recent key elements of the IPBES conceptual framework (1) is the notion of natures contributions to people (NCP), which builds on the ecosystem service concept popularized by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2). But as we detail below, NCP as defined and put into practice in IPBES differs from earlier work in several important ways. First, the NCP approach recognizes the central and pervasive role that culture plays in defining all links between people and nature. Second, use of NCP elevates, emphasizes, and operationalizes the role of indigenous and local knowledge in understanding natures contribution to people.

The social sciences and the humanities in the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES)

The role of the social sciences (including economics) and humanities is of paramount importance in the work of the Intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES), along with the natural sciences and technology. Too often national and international assessments have been dominated by natural scientists. The IPBES has recognized this weakness and has actively encouraged governments and scientific organizations to nominate social scientists and scholars from the humanities to be involved in IPBES activities, especially scientific assessments. The assessment of the past, present and projected plausible future states of biodiversity and of nature’s contributions to people (which includes ecosystem services), along with the implications for a good quality of life, requires a transdisciplinary approach. This approach must involve all relevant stakeholders (including scientists, governments, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations) in the co-design, co-production and co-communication of all of its activities, including thematic, spatial (regional and global) and methodological assessments, policy support tools, capacity-building and the stimulation of new research. Governments have fully recognized that human activities are adversely affecting biodiversity and the Earth’s climate, and have in the past few years negotiated three major international agreements, the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, the Paris climate agreement and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Loss of biodiversity and degradation of ecosystems and their services, just like humaninduced climate change, are not just environmental issues, but economic, social, security and development issues. Indeed, most of the seventeen United Nations Sustainable Development Goals cannot be met unless the twenty Aichi Targets and the goals embedded in the Paris climate agreement are met and vice versa. Governments and other stakeholders do not need to be told how severe the situation is. What they primarily need to know is: what can be done to address the issues of loss of biodiversity and climate change? Given the emphasis on response options in all of the IPBES assessments, the social sciences and humanities have a very critical role to play. The IPBES conceptual framework explicitly highlights the central role of drivers, anthropogenic assets and institutions, and implicitly the concept of economic and social values, which are clearly the domain of the social sciences and humanities.