Disruption! Rethink the system

A circular economy is one where “the goods of today become the resources of tomorrow at yesterday’s prices”. 

Economic Context: Scotland was the first nation to join Circular Economy 100.  In August 2013, Environment Secretary, Richard Lochhead, issued the statement: “Scotland’s economy will benefit from moving to a more circular model of production and consumption. Our Zero Waste Plan is already delivering important actions to make better use of resources, and we can accelerate progress if we join together with others on a global level.” By 2016, the Scottish Government issued Making Things Last:  A Circular Economy Strategy.

Using a Nature as Teacher where waste=food philosophy, the circular economy rests on three principles, each addressing several of the resource and system challenges. These are becoming increasingly more discussed and adopted, by large scale and SME businesses- aiming to disrupt ‘business as usual’ of the linear economy systems and encourage a rethinking of the status quo.

Principle 1: Preserve and enhance natural capital…by controlling finite stocks and balancing renewable resource flows.

Principle 2: Optimise resource yields…by circulating products, components, and materials at the highest utility at all times in both technical and biological cycles. This means designing for remanufacturing, refurbishing, and recycling to keep components and materials circulating in and contributing to the economy.

Principle 3: Foster system effectiveness..by revealing and designing out negative externalities.

Education Context: Many policies and publications* have nudged the core school curriculum (3-18years old) towards an overall aim to embed Sustainable Development Education in Scottish education.  The most recent construct is Learning for Sustainability, LfS (One Planet School Group, 2012) which comprises sustainable development education, global citizenship and outdoor learning.  The intention is that LfS in the curriculum helps to ‘nurture a generation of children and young people who know and value the natural world……. committed to the principles of social justice, human rights, global citizenship, democratic participation and living within the ecological limits of our planet.’ (One Planet Schools Implementation Group, 2016: 3).  As a contributor to LfS, Circular Economy, through Cradle to Cradle, is incorporated in the school certificate course ’Design and Manufacture’ (SQA, 2013)

University of Edinburgh is working to identify how the principles of the Circular Economy can be embedded into Research, teaching, operations across the whole university (UoE,2016). The university SRS department have been leading the concept of the university as ‘A living Lab’ to progress thinking and actions related to sustainability and social responsibility in all aspects of the university.

Several Professional Institutes have embedded the requirement for education for sustainable development and / or Circular Economy in their professional accreditation processes.

Prompts to explore and cause pause to ponder

Principles:: Values:: Responsibilities:: Practices::

Preparation for the GESA Reading group, please choose from these 2 papers and / or 2 videos

Webster, K (2013)   Missing the wood for the trees: systemic defects and the future of education for sustainable development Curriculum Journal 24:2, 295-315 http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.is.ed.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1080/09585176.2013.802585

The circular economy. By Walter R. Stahel – Nature, 23 March 2016. http://www.nature.com/news/the-circular-economy-1.19594

and / or

Circular Economy: Thomas Rau at TEDxZwolle – ( approx. 20mins) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrb2v_f0ZYY

Rethinking Progress: The Circular Economy  (3 mins 11 secs)

https://www.youtube.com/user/made2bemadeagain

Questions: 

• Are principles such as those of the Circular Economy (Nature as Teacher, Waste = Food, material cascades, made to be made again, regenerative manufacture, sharing economies, nature as capital, design for disassembly, cradle to cradle thinking, bio-nutrients/ technical nutrients and closed loop cycles) considered realistic and feasible concepts to encourage a wide scale rethinking of systems ?

• What are the responsibilities of industry, commerce, business and enterprise in relation to ESD and Circular Economy principles? Who should / could take responsibility?

• Should school aged young people be exposed to Circular Economy principles, the sharing economy, social enterprise and for-profit approaches, or is this something for those entering specialist education at higher levels of study? Should educators display their own ‘frame of mind’ and values in relation to issues of sustainability and sustainable development when working with young people? What should be taught? Who should be responsible for this? Why?

• How should/could the Circular Economy manifest in practice? What needs to be in place to engage society (rich and poor, diverse cultures and communities), encourage innovation, inform and develop practice disrupt and rethink current systems?

Principles:: Values:: Responsibilities:: Practices::

Further links and readings can be made available for follow up for interested readers.

Check out the Disruptive Innovation Festival 7^th Nov- 25^th Nov 2016

https://www.thinkdif.co/

Prof. Mark Rounsevell

Overview

Since the first establishment of the scientific evidence for climate change, there has been a political focus on reducing GHG emissions to mitigate the problem. Increasingly however the realisation has come that the world is already committed to some level of climate change, which leads to the imperative of understanding climate change impacts and planning adaptation strategies to these impacts. The pathways along which governments pass in gathering scientific evidence and negotiating mitigation treaties is tortuous and riddled with potholes.

Assistance in this complex and often fraught process comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in gathering evidence and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in leading the climate negotiations. In this discussion we will explore how effective these institutions are in achieving their different goals, and how alternative models might, or might not, do better. We will do this by exploring the past evolution of these institutions and discussing where we are now, and what is the potential for the future.

The IPCC process

Since it published its first Assessment Report in 1995, the IPCC has been held up as a shining example of how a collective of scientists can inform policy debates affecting the global environment. The 4^th Assessment report even won the IPCC the Nobel Peace prize, jointly with Al Gore. The Assessment reports are commissioned by governments worldwide (hence the Intergovernmental Panel title) to cover climate change science, impacts, adaptation and vulnerability to climate change and climate mitigation. The 4^th Report whilst winning many plaudits, including the Peace prize, was held up to detailed scrutiny and criticism by some. The famous ‘climate-gate’ and ‘glazier-gate’ episodes, and personal attacks on the integrity of contributing scientists, left a stain on the IPCC’s reputation even though the supposed errors or dubious practices were largely subsequently disproven.

The hype and pressure put on the 2009 climate summit in Copenhagen raised awareness of the climate change debate considerably. The release of stolen emails from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the run up to Copenhagen created huge media attention and provided ammunition for “sceptics” who caused mass doubt in the public about climate change science. Moreover, the IPCC fourth assessment report came under fire, notably for their claim, now shown to be wrong, that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035. This corresponded with a large increase in “sceptics” speaking out against climate change in the media and on the web. This clearly had an effect on public opinion about the legitimacy of climate science and even the integrity of climate scientists. A poll conducted by the BBC between November 2009 and February 2010 showed a 10% increase in people who did not believe in climate change and a 6% increase in people who believe that it is happening, but only due to natural causes.

So, now that the IPCC has released its 5^th Assessment report , nearly 20 years after the first report, and with the recent Paris COP21 outcomes, perhaps it’s time to take stock of the IPCC process itself

. To what extent has the IPCC really contributed to climate mitigation policy? Is it still fit for purpose, or are there alternative models that might better achieve the ultimate aim of addressing the climate change problem? The IPCC is likely to continue in some shape or form, but what this should be in supporting the drive to limit the climate change problem is not so clear.

Background reading:

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WG2AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf The IPCC Summary for Policy makers of Working Group 2 of the 5^th Assessment Report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8388485.stm a viewpoint from Prof Mike Hulme (UEA) and Dr. Jerome Ravetz (Innovation and Society (InSIS) at Oxford University)

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100202/full/463596a.html IPCC flooded by criticism

IPCC: Cherish, tweak or Scrap? Nature 463, 730-732 11 February 2010

IPCC Seeks ‘Broader Community Engagement’ to Correct Errors Science 12 February 2010

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5967/780-a Stop Listening to Scientists?

Mark Rounsevell is Professor of Rural Economy and Sustainability within the School of GeoSciences. His research focuses on the effects of environmental change on rural and urban landscapes with an emphasis on the development and application of agent-based, social simulation models. Models are combined with the development of scenarios to explore the response of individuals and society to different environmental change drivers in the future

Dr Annalisa Savaresi

Overview

Since the first establishment of the scientific evidence for climate change, little progress has been made in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to mitigate the problem. The pathways along which governments pass in gathering scientific evidence and negotiating climate change mitigation measures is tortuous and riddled with potholes. Assistance in this complex and often fraught process comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). For several years, this body has gathered evidence aimed to support the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in identifying the causes and projected impacts of climate change, as well as possible action to avert it. In this discussion we will explore how effective the interplay between these institutions has been, and what is the outlook for the future, in the aftermath of the historical adoption of the Paris Agreement at the 21^st Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 21) held in December 2015.

The IPCC process

Since it published its first Assessment Report in 1995, the IPCC has been held up as a shining example of how a collective of scientists can inform policy debates affecting the global environment. The 4^th Assessment report even won the IPCC the Nobel Peace prize, jointly with Al Gore. The Assessment reports are commissioned by governments worldwide (hence the Intergovernmental Panel title) to cover climate change science, impacts, adaptation and vulnerability to climate change and climate mitigation. The 4^th Report whilst winning many plaudits, including the Peace prize, was held up to detailed scrutiny and criticism by some. The famous ‘climate-gate’ and ‘glazier-gate’ episodes, and personal attacks on the integrity of contributing scientists, left a stain on the IPCC’s reputation even though the supposed errors or dubious practices were largely subsequently disproven.

The hype and pressure put on the 2009 climate summit in Copenhagen raised awareness of the climate change debate considerably. The release of stolen emails from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the run up to Copenhagen created huge media attention and provided ammunition for “sceptics” who caused mass doubt in the public about climate change science. Moreover, the IPCC fourth assessment report came under fire, notably for their claim, now shown to be wrong, that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035. This corresponded with a large increase in “sceptics” speaking out against climate change in the media and on the web. This clearly had an effect on public opinion about the legitimacy of climate science and even the integrity of climate scientists. A poll conducted by the BBC between November 2009 and February 2010 showed a 10% increase in people who did not believe in climate change and a 6% increase in people who believe that it is happening, but only due to natural causes.

So, now that the 5^th Assessment report has just been released (see web address), nearly 20 years after the first report, perhaps it’s time to take stock of the IPCC process itself. To what extent has the IPCC really contributed to climate mitigation policy? Is it still fit for purpose, or are there alternative models that might better achieve the ultimate aim of addressing the climate change problem? The IPCC is likely to continue in some shape or form, but what this should be in supporting the drive to limit the climate change problem is not so clear.

Questions:

To what extent has the IPCC really contributed to addressing the problem of climate change?

Is the IPCC still fit for purpose, or are there alternative models that might better achieve its goals?

To what extent do governmental climate negotiations take account of scientific evidence?

Background reading:

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WG2AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf The IPCC Summary for Policy makers of Working Group 2 of the 5^th Assessment Report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8388485.stm a viewpoint from Prof Mike Hulme (UEA) and Dr. Jerome Ravetz (Innovation and Society (InSIS) at Oxford University)

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100202/full/463596a.html IPCC flooded by criticism

IPCC: Cherish, tweak or Scrap? Nature 463, 730-732 11 February 2010 (attached)

IPCC Seeks ‘Broader Community Engagement’ to Correct Errors Science 12 February 2010 (attached)

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5967/780-a Stop Listening to Scientists?

International climate change negotiations

Ever since 1992, Parties to the UNFCCC have attempted to agree on measures to deal with GHG emissions in a way to prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system. According to the IPCC, such a level requires keeping the increase in global average temperature below 2° C, as compared with pre-industrial times. The UNFCCC, however, has struggled to keep the world within the limits indicated by the IPCC. The main instrument adopted to stabilize GHG concentrations under the Convention, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, imposed emission reduction targets only on developed countries. With growing emissions in developing countries, like China and India, however, scientists have warned that only reducing emissions in developed countries is not enough. Since 2007, therefore, UNFCCC Parties have been entangled in difficult negotiations on further measures to reduce global GHG emissions.

In December 2015, COP21 brought to a conclusion this long cycle of negotiations, by adopting a new climate treaty, the Paris Agreement. The agreement enshrines a reference to the 2°C goal identified by the IPCC, and even an aspirational reference to a 1,5°C goal. In order to achieve this outcome, the agreement requires all Parties, and not just developed ones, to make efforts to reduce their emissions and to submit information on the details. In doing so, the Paris Agreement consolidates a bottom-up pledge and review approach to climate change action. This approach entails that Parties unilaterally declare action they intend to undertake to reduce their emissions, to be subjected to an international review process, both at the individual and at the aggregate level. Implementation of the agreement will furthermore be assisted by an expert-based, facilitative compliance mechanism. And while it is already clear that Parties’ pledged action remain far from consistent with the 2° C goal, in theory at least there will be means to revise and increase the level of ambition.

Though not perfect, the Paris Agreement can be regarded as an expression of political will to tackle climate change in a way that brings together actors at all levels, in conformity with the all-encompassing nature of efforts required to address this epochal problem. In this regard, the Paris Agreement seemingly marks the emergence of a cooperative spirit that breaks away from the rancorous rhetoric that has long characterized international climate diplomacy. Whether the Paris Agreement will prove fit for purpose, and how it will be implemented, remains to be seen. In this regard, the adoption of the agreement is just the beginning of a new regulatory season in which States will flesh out the rules for its implementation. This new regulatory season will begin in 2016 and will reveal whether COP21 has indeed marked a new beginning. At least for the time being, however, the outlook for international climate governance is certainly the most hopeful it has been for quite some time.

Questions:

Is the Paris Agreement a success?

What are its main advantages and disadvantages?

What questions does it leave undressed?

Background reading:

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Outcomes of the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris (2015) http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/cop-21-paris-summary-12-2015-final.pdf

Daniel Bodansky Reflections on the Paris Conference (2015)

http://opiniojuris.org/2015/12/15/reflections-on-the-paris-conference/

The Economist, The Paris Agreement Marks an Unprecedented Political Recognition of the Risks of Climate Change (2015) http://www.economist.com/news/international/21683990-paris-agreement-climate-change-talks

UK Committee on Climate Change, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of the Paris Agreement (2015) https://www.theccc.org.uk/2015/12/21/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-the-paris-agreement/

David Victor, Why Paris Worked: A Different Approach to Climate Diplomacy (2015) http://teachingclimatelaw.org/compendium-of-commentary-on-the-paris-agreementcop21/

Dr Meriwether Wilson

Dr Meriwether Wilson

Over 100 years ago, a fierce philosophical debate circled the salons, cafes, balls and bars of intellectuals and pioneers alike – often known as the ‘American wilderness’ debate. The legendary icons of this debate included: John Muir (originally from Dunbar, Scotland), founder of the Sierra Club and pivotal in establishing globally famous wilderness areas such as Yosemite National Park in western California; and Gilbert Pinchot, who took the view that these same vast areas of seemingly infinite forest and water resources, were ideal for logging, providing timber for America’s growing cities and towns.

Muir mused about humanity’s primal need for wild places to ponder, enjoy, protect, even if very little was known about these areas; while Pinchot extolled the virtues of potential for economic growth and civic prosperity. We debate these same concepts and positions today, but increasingly within a lexicon of ‘ecosystem services’, with economic growth still assumed to be potentially ‘sustainable’ and as well as catalytic to human well being and social equity. Perhaps when it comes to terrestrial reaches of our planet we have given up on the protection argument, as remotely sensed images fill our minds revealing the certainty of our degradation. We hope that innovative engineering and restoration will recover the green we once associated with the our planet, for future generations.

Yet, what imaginations mentally surface when we reflect on the 70% of our planet that is ocean – upwellings of blueness, deep, dark, mysterious…untapped resources? Are we in the middle of an intellectual confluence of values and technological prowess with regard to the oceans, as we once were with untouched realms of North America? Conversations about land-based environmental resources and strategies increasingly use the word security (e.g. water security, food security, energy security) rather than opportunity, suggesting a sense of urgency. Yet with the ocean, concepts about blue growth and blue economies abound, suggesting a new frontier.

A quick scan of recent position papers and international leadership reinforce this posture, and interestingly blur the line between blue and green, with ‘green’ being a metaphor for ‘sustainable’ while ‘blue’ still suggesting solutions and potential. For example, UNEP’s 2012 report Green Economy in a Blue World states that the ocean is a “cornucopia for humanity”, suggesting and endless bounty for our perusal. The report goes on to note that “creating a green economy in the blue world, can improve human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities; and create sustainable jobs with lasting economic value” (UNEP, 2012, p. 7). A recent 2014 EU communication is entitled Innovation in the Blue Economy: realizing the potential of our seas and oceans for jobs and growth (EU COM(2014) 254 final/2), proposes that with sufficient and open transfer of technically acquired marine knowledge (e.g. seabed mapping), coupled with marine spatial planning, goals such as those proposed by UNEP above are achievable. A vision of enlightened access and benefit sharing of marine resources for all sectors of humanity, with extraction conduced in some magical non-species/ecosystem harming way is compelling and seductive. Is this naïve?

Are there lessons learned from terrestrial development and resource sharing where knowledge and access are stunningly transparent and easy compared with marine environments? Do eminent oceanographers and marine scientists of recent generations offer prescient insights? Carlton Ray, in 1970 wrote a seminal paper entitled Ecology, Law and the Marine Revolution pondering the interactions of ecological dynamics and human dynamics, with the yet to be formalized Law of the Sea envisaged as a beacon to rationalize our goals within the limits and finiteness of the ocean. Nearly 30 years later, JBC Jackson writes in his 2008 paper Ecological extinction and evolution in the brave new ocean that the synergistic impact of our human footprint (largely from overexploitation, pollution and climate change) on marine ecosystems and species is similar to, perhaps greater than, impacts of previous mass extinctions. Only three months ago, in November 2014, the Global Oceans Commission launched a report with the prescient title From Decline to Recovery – A rescue package for the global ocean, focusing largely on the high seas where legal peculiarities and complexities have resulted in 64% of the ocean being unprotected, unstewarded in any real way. As nation states progress in paradoxically parallel races to both protect and exploit seas and within their EEZs (notionally out to 200 nautical miles), it is sobering that this report framed the ocean not as one of bountiful “cornucopia” but as one in need of rescue, requiring our human ingenuity to restore, rather than destroy, the ocean as we know it.

In the debates proposed for this upcoming “Global Environment Society Academy” MSc reading week, we encourage you to read, and reflect on the philosophical concept – the precautionary principle – and if can be better applied to address the inevitably intertwined goals of protection and exploitation for the ocean in this century, than we did for terrestrial realms in the past century.

References:

EU 2014. Innovation in the Blue Economy: realising the potential of our seas and oceans for jobs and growth.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=COM:2014:254:REV1&from=EN

Global Oceans Commission, 2014. From Decline to Recovery: A Rescue Package for the Global Ocean

http://www.globaloceancommission.org

http://missionocean.me

Jackson, JBC, 2008. Ecological extinction and evolution in the brave new ocean. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), August 12, 2008, vol 105, suppl 1 (11458-11465)

Ray, C., 1970. Ecology, Law and the “Marine Revolution”. Biological Conservation, Vol 3, No. 1, October 1970 (7-17)

UNEP, 2012. Green economy in a Blue World – Synthesis Report.

http://unep.org/pdf/green_economy_blue.pdf

Dr. Wilson is a Lecturer in Marine Science and Policy at the University of Edinburgh focusing on the science-policy-society intersections of transboundary marine ecosystems and services, in particular  international waters.  Her current research explores emerging challenges in coastal-marine governance and marine ecology regarding infrastructure establishments in nearshore and offshore marine areas.  This research builds upon two decades of experience with international organizations (World Bank, UNESCO, UNDP, IUCN, NOAA) on the establishing marine protected areas globally across diverse ecological scales, cultures and economies

Dr Laura Jeffery

Dr Laura Jeffery

Until the end of the 20^th century, most Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) were relatively small-scale conservation zones in coastal waters. The past decade has seen a proliferation in the designation of ever larger MPAs. Mega MPAs measuring over 100,000km² now already comprise the vast majority of the total area covered by MPAs worldwide. But why are the world’s powerful leaders – including Clinton, Bush, and Obama – competing to create ever larger MPAs?

The states party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have agreed on a target to protect 10% of the world’s oceans by 2020. Mega MPAs clearly help governments as they seek to reach this (repeatedly deferred) target, but do they offer effective protection? Proponents argue that the smaller border-to-area ratio of mega MPAs means that the area of well-protected ocean in the middle is increased while the border zones exposed to external threats are reduced. But critics point to a range of problems associated with mega MPAs:

Challenges to surveillance and enforcement: Size and remoteness pose particular challenges for effective surveillance and enforcement of mega MPAs, where surveillance vessels cannot effectively patrol such large areas, and remote sensing technologies cannot track illegal fishing vessels that do not have satellite tags. Environmental NGOS (eNGOs) have reported widespread illegal fishing within numerous MPAs, including illegal shark fishing in the Galapagos Marine Reserve (Ecuador).

Diverting attention from real challenges: Most mega MPAs have been designated in remote areas with little human habitation, but this means they are not ideally located to address the real challenges facing the world’s oceans, such as overfishing, tourism, and pollution. A good example of this is the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument designated around the uninhabited and relatively unexploited northwest Hawaiian Islands (USA).

Vulnerability to commercial interests: Seeking to meet ambitious targets without threatening economic growth, governments are likely to protect areas that already have low economic value. Australia’s Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve, for instance, covers deep water that sees little fishing activity at present, and leaves the most valuable commercial fishing areas unrestricted.

Undermining social justice: By banning resource use within vast areas, mega MPAs risk undermining social justice in terms of equitable access to economic livelihoods. The UK’s Chagos Marine Protected Area, for example, seems to have been designed to entrench UK sovereignty over an Indian Ocean territory also claimed by Mauritius, safeguard the security of the US military base on Diego Garcia, and harm the displaced islanders’ campaign for their right of return to the Chagos Archipelago.

Diverting resources from existing MPAs: Promoting mega MPAs may divert attention and resources from improving the management and effectiveness of existing or smaller MPAs. On the other hand, however, mega MPAs such as the Chagos MPA and South Georgia and Sandwich Islands (UK/Argentina) were designated alongside a network of smaller coastal MPAs around the UK mainland; Australia’s Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve was designated alongside smaller MPAs in areas of high resource use.

Discussion Questions

• Can national solutions such as mega MPAs effectively address global challenges?
• How can remote mega MPAs be effectively monitored and enforced?
• Does vulnerability to commercial interests undermine mega MPAs?
• Do remote mega MPAs divert attention from the real issues?
• Do mega MPAs undermine social justice?
• Do mega MPAs divert resources from smaller MPAs and MPA networks?
• Can MPA networks and Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) offer effective solutions?

Indicative Readings:

• MPA News. International news and analysis on marine protected areas published by the University of Washington.
• De Santo, E.M. 2013. Missing marine protected area (MPA) targets: How the push for quantity over quality undermines sustainability and social justice. Journal of Environmental Management 124: 137-146.
• Leenhardt, P, B. Cazalet, B. Salvat, J. Claudet & F. Feral. 2013. The rise of large-scale marine protected areas: conservation or geopolitics? Ocean & Coastal Management 85, A: 112-118.
• Singleton, R.L. & C.M. Roberts. 2014. The contribution of very large marine protected areas to marine conservation: giant leaps or smoke and mirrors? Marine Pollution Bulletin 87: 7-10.

Dr Laura Jeffery is Lecturer in Social Anthropology in the School of Social and Political Science at the University of Edinburgh, and has research interests in island ecologies, human–environment relations, and the politics of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). She has recently published on WikiLeaks evidence in judicial review of the Chagos MPA, debates about environmental guardianship of the Chagos Archipelago, and ‘coconut chaos’ and the politics of restoration ecology.

Last Wednesday along with six other PhD students, I met Sir John Beddington former chief scientific adviser to Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government. Sir John was a very pleasant and down to earth academic who showed genuine enthusiasm for the work which the different PhD students presented to him.

Despite a diverse group of subjects, ranging from human rights law to carbon consumption taxes, Sir John seemed to grasp the main points of the research and made helpful contributions.

My own PhD is focussed on the demand for low carbon food products with regards to how a carbon consumption tax may help to achieve this. Sir John offered the useful advice of incorporating into my thesis how alcohol taxes are essentially too low based on the evidence of the associated problems high consumption of alcohol can cause. Sir John emphasised that quality academic research is what should influence government policy and not evidence based on hearsay. I was pleased that Sir John’s reaction to the taxes was not negative (as might be expected from certain former pop stars) but instead he asked very reasonable questions which one would expect from such an accomplished academic.

His evening lecture: “Legacies of the 20th Century and Challenges for the 21st” highlighted the challenges for the 21st century of climate change, increased global population and increased demand for natural resources.  The element of hope that the world can potentially adapt to these challenges through the use of science and technology differentiated this lecture from the dogma which is often peddled in the media. His quote borrowed from Nobel Prize winner Peter Agre succinctly summed up the lecture: “Those nations which invest in science are investing in the future. Those that cut science are hoping for the best”.

Neil Chalmers

Abstract

This economics based PhD is investigating the demand for low carbon food products, due to food based carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (CO2e) being a major contributor to Scotland’s overall total greenhouse gas emissions. The hypothetical policy of a carbon consumption tax and the likely effects of the tax on the demand for food products are modelled. The method is mainly based on using an almost ideal demand system (AIDS) model in order to calculate price elasticities. The AIDS model uses both scanner price data (years 2006-2011) and carbon footprint data. Each food group is then studied and the preliminary results suggest that if a tax is applied to only meat products (the largest emitter of CO2e emissions within the Scottish food chain) then Scottish household carbon footprints are likely to reduce by 296,376.98 t/ CO2e/y. This translates into 12.6% of meat emissions being reduced from the Scottish meat chain.

Biography

Neil Chalmers has recently entered third year of his PhD titled “Demand for low carbon food products” at the University of Edinburgh. He was educated at the University of Stirling where he received a BA (Hons) in Economics. He then moved to Denmark and received an MSc in Agricultural Economics from the University of Copenhagen. While at the University of Copenhagen, he developed an interest in modelling the likely effects of agricultural and environmental policy. This led him to complete an internship with the Scottish Agricultural College focussing on modelling policy implications for Scotland. His main interests are the economics of consumer behaviour and policy.

PhD Supervisors

Dr. Revoredo-Giha (SAC)
Dr. Simon Shackley

Indeed, there are jokes in PhD-land that only a very small number of people will ever read your final dissertation – your supervisors, your examiners, and maybe a very generous family member who is willing to read a bit further than the acknowledgements page.

Posed with this question of impact, I reflected on how I might define PhD research that has ‘impact’: are there people out there whose PhDs will lead to significant reductions in carbon emissions in sectors such as food or transport? Will one of my colleagues take renewable energy technologies a significant step further? What about my research, a study about the motivations for, and practices of, community-based action on climate change in Scotland? If research impact is about making a ‘demonstrable contribution to society’, what will be the contribution of my research?

In a research impact masterclass with Sir John Beddington, chair of the Global Academies at the University of Edinburgh and who previously held the position of Chief Science Adviser to the UK Government, I was struck by the diversity of PhD topics in the room, and the possibilities for impact in so many ways. As colleagues, we discussed issues such as the demand for low-carbon food products in Scotland, mental health in female prisoners in Latin America and the safe disposal of plastic and electronic waste from solar products in Kenya. We considered how impact can include consumer-level behaviour change in order to reduce carbon emissions or input and change to local or national policies. I reflected on how my research about people’s motivations for community-level action on climate change could have impact in terms of how we influence and motivate a greater number of people, communities and companies to take action on climate change and how values drive climate action.

So, what do you think? How might your research have impact in 2025? Whether at Masters or PhD level, in what ways are you developing and carrying out your research so that the results will have an impact on society?

For more information about how the ESRC defines impact, see http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding-and-guidance/impact-toolkit/what-how-and-why/what-is-research-impact.aspx

Alice Hague

Abstract

The overall aim of my research is to investigate the ways in which communities are involved with the issue of climate change at a local and national level in Scotland; to discover the underlying reasons and motivations for their engagement; and to investigate whether issues of temporality can play an important role in motivating action. Temporality is of particular interest because of the dominance of short-termism in western society in particular (economic quarters, financial years, 5 year election cycles) set against the long-term challenges of climate change (mitigation targets ‘by 2050’ and climate change impacts ‘in the latter half of the century’, for example). The working title of my PhD is “Faithful Advocates: What are the motivations, values and practices of faith-based climate activists, with particular regard to temporality?”

Biography:

Alice has a background in science communication and previously worked as a diplomat for the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office. As Head of Science and Innovation for the Nordic region, she was also responsible for climate change, environment and energy policy issues at the British Embassy in Stockholm from 2003-2008. She was seconded to the Climate Change Unit at the Swedish Ministry for the Environment in 2008-2009 (operating fully in Swedish) and was a delegate to the UNFCCC climate change meetings during this period.

Alice holds a BSc (Hons) in Environmental Biology from the University of York, an MSc in Science Communication from the University of Glamorgan, and completed an MDiv (theology/divinity) at North Park Theological Seminary, Chicago, prior to starting her PhD in September 2013. Given this somewhat interdisciplinary background, she is delighted to be doing an interdisciplinary PhD (politics/divinity).

Dr Annalisa Savaresi

The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has been ratified by virtually all states in the world. The Convention acknowledges that the adverse effects of global climate change are a common concern of humankind, and undertakes to achieve ‘stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.’

Such a level should be achieved ‘within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.’ Therefore, the Convention does not set out to halt climate change altogether, but to contain its impact and allow human and natural systems to adapt to its effects. Over twenty years after its adoption, however, the UNFCCC has achieved little in the way of concrete results. Greenhouse gas emissions are higher than ever and parties are far from being on a path to reaching the objective of the Convention. So what went wrong?

The main instrument adopted to achieve the objective of the UNFCCC, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, has been riddled with controversy. With the Protocol, a relatively small group of developed countries undertook binding emission reduction targets that were to be reviewed over time. After the elapse of the first commitment period in 2012, however, it has proven impossible to negotiate new targets for some important players, such as Japan, New Zealand and the Russian Federation, whereas others, like Canada and the US, are not parties to the Protocol. This situation has left the European Union and a few other developed countries, like Australia, Norway and Switzerland, in the uncomfortable position of being the sole parties with emission reduction targets under the climate regime. Emission reductions in these countries alone, however, are greatly inadequate to achieve the objective of the Convention. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has on several occasions clarified that to achieve such an objective, both developed and developing countries need to reduce their emissions.

With political will behind the Kyoto Protocol faltering, and in the hope to bring the US and Canada back to the negotiation table, UNFCCC parties have embarked upon the difficult process of negotiating a new climate agreement. This process has suffered numerous set-backs, most notably, at the 2009 climate conference in Copenhagen, where it almost collapsed. Negotiations continue to this day and are expected to conclude in Paris in 2015. The road to Paris is nevertheless laden with obstacles and limited progress has so far been made towards the elaboration of a text for the new agreement. With yet another disappointing inter-sessional meeting just concluded in Bonn, it seems timely to reflect on how climate negotiations could be made more effective.

Some authors have come up with suggestions. In a 2011 paper, Bodansky suggests that some aspects of the climate change issue, such emissions in the transport sector, be addressed in other international fora, such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The advantage of relying upon these fora lies in that they already count the states that most matter in these sectors amongst their members, and also have specialist expertise enabling to address technical questions in a more efficient and expeditious way than the UNFCCC. Isolating certain sources of emissions and delegating the adoption of internationally coordinated measures to specialist international fora therefore definitely sounds like a promising approach. So far, however, experiments with this strategy have delivered mixed results. While the IMO has already adopted standards on energy efficiency of international shipping, the ICAO is struggling to develop a global market-based mechanism to addressing international aviation emissions. Thus reaching agreement in these specialist fora is not necessarily easier than under the UNFCCC. Much anticipation presently surrounds the consideration of proposals to phase down hydrofluorocarbons (which are major of greenhouse gases) under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

Another approach to increase efficiency in international climate governance is proposed by Vihma and Kulovesi, who suggest to improving the UNFCCC process with procedural reforms. Procedural wrangling has characterized the history of the UNFCCC and even blocked meetings of the Convention’s bodies. One matter that has attracted much attention is that of majority voting. Presently decision-making under the climate regime is carried out on the basis of consensus, as no agreement could be reached on the adoption of rules on voting. While UNFCCC parties have shown little political appetite for addressing the matter of voting, the UNFCCC Secretariat has recently been asked to prepare a paper evaluating options on the frequency and organization of sessions. This largely technical debate on how frequently the Convention’s bodies meet and where may have some important implications for how its parties will work in future.

Finally, coalitions of willing state and non-state actors are increasingly establishing transnational initiatives, bypassing the stalemate affecting international climate negotiations with bottom-up climate governance endeavours. In this vein, the recent UN Climate Summit saw the launch of a flurry of bottom-up initiatives, including:

• Global Mayors Compact to fight climate change, a coalition of more than 2,000 cities;
• Global Energy Efficiency Acceleration Platform, supported by several national and subnational governments and businesses;
• Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, established under the auspices of the World Bank with the support of governments and businesses;
• New York Declaration on Forests, whereby a coalition of developed and developing countries, subnational governments, companies, indigenous peoples’ and civil society organizations pledged to halve global loss of natural forests by 2020 and reduce it to zero by 2030;
• Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture, a multi-stakeholder coalition of states, civil society and international and scientific organisations for the incorporation of climate change considerations in food and agriculture systems.

Thus, while climate negotiations continue at a glacial pace, other international fora and coalition of willing state and non-state actors show some timid signs of progress. The underlying question, however, is whether these alternatives are capable of delivering adequate action to tackle the climate problem.

Background reading:

Vihma, A. and K. Kulovesi. Strengthening global climate change negotiations: improving the efficiency of the UNFCCC process (2012), available at: http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:701694/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Bodansky, D. Multilateral climate efforts beyond the UNFCCC (2011) available at: http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/Regime-brief.pdf

Bodansky, D. and Rajamani, L. Evolution and governance architecture of the climate regime (2012) available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2168859

The Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, Institutions for International Climate Governance (2010) available at: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/HPCA-Policy-Brief-2010-01-Final.pdf

The Economist, Climate change: theatre of the absurd (2012) http://www.economist.com/news/21567342-after-three-failures-years-un-climate-summit-has-only-modest-aims-theatre-absurd

GRIST, Is there any hope for international climate talks? (2014) http://grist.org/climate-energy/is-there-any-hope-for-international-climate-talks/

New York Times, Climate realities (2014) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/opinion/sunday/climate-realities.html?_r=0

Dr Annalisa Savaresi specialises in European, international and comparative environmental law. Her research interests include climate change, forestry, environmental liability and the relationship between human rights and the environment. She is member of the IUCN World Commission on Environmental Law and writer for the Earth Negotiation Bulletin, published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development. Since 2013, she has been Research Fellow to the BENELEX project, responsible for legal research in the areas of climate change and forest biodiversity.

Who are we?

The Global Environment and Society Academy (GESA) is a network of experts collaborating to develop innovative solutions for the world’s most challenging problems.

Led by Professor Dave Reay and Dr Elizabeth Bomberg GESA operates as one of four University of Edinburgh Academies, including Global Health, Global Justice and Global Development. The Academies were developed to find innovative solutions by bringing together experts from many different academic fields. We have faculty and student members across Geosciences, Informatics, Law, Art, Landscape Architecture, Business and Education, with teaching responsibilities and research interests in environment and society.

What do we do?

We tackle the nasty issues! We do this creatively, we collaborate, we look through many lenses as we set out to tackle global environmental challenges. This approach of multidisciplinary collaboration means we develop and encourage collegiality across the University and beyond; an approach that builds a vibrant Global community of talented people at the forefront of addressing environmental issues.

What can GESA do for you?

Whether you are continuing from Undergraduate study or returning to full time study, this will be an intense year of study and personal and academic development. Of course you’ll have your MSc programme group but wouldn’t it be good to have a place where you can meet Postgraduates from other disciplines, explore the multiple perspectives and work together?

Through our GESA Masters Network, we encourage and develop just that kind of collegiality across the University and beyond. We have a very active community. Some of the events you can attend as a GESA member include Reading Groups where you can hear the views of our expert speakers and meet our PhD Facilitators who come from a range of disciplines.

We host events that look at developing your research ideas, often putting you in touch with the right people to advise on topics. We can offer help with presentations skills, networking, employability skills, internships or work -based projects, particularly those with an interdisciplinary focus. As our network extends we find that many of these post-Masters opportunities are supported by a GESA alumni network that continues to build lifelong connections

While you are here with us in Edinburgh we are really interested in helping develop your projects and we can sometimes provide funding for these. Since taking up my post in June I’ve been helping some of our Masters Network students with their GESA supported projects such as our online discussion platform where students can develop ideas, share and discuss news items or write blogs. Another student project is the GESA Legacy Forest, which hopes to offer the chance for every GESA student to plant a tree when they graduate, truly an initiative in the GESA spirit.

I’ve also enjoyed working to provide seminars, photography competitions and Keynote speeches from some of the most prominent and respected experts within their fields.

What can you do for GESA?

Bring your enthusiasm, bring your discussions, bring your ideas and projects. Turn up, take part, make lifelong connections and really get the most out of this year. This is your Academy; it is what you make it.

Best of luck for this exciting year ahead, please do get in touch, I’m looking forward to our year ahead.

Rachel

Rachel Chisholm

Academic Facilitator for GESA

global-environment-society@ed.ac.uk

All living things depend on their environment for energy and for the basic requirements that sustain life – air, water, food and habitat. This simple dynamic is not in dispute. However there is a growing body of evidence that suggests the relationship between environment and human health is in fact a reciprocal one, each having complex effects on the other. According to the UN Environment Programme, every human being has the right to a safe, healthy and ecologically-balanced environment…….but what exactly are these complex relationships, and how can we ensure that human rights to a safe and healthy environment are delivered, even under conditions of rapid global environmental change?

Much of our society’s development has depended upon technological advancements in our environment; improvements in agriculture, sanitation, water treatment, and hygiene have had revolutionary effects on health, well being and longevity. While our environment and the natural resources within in it sustain human life, it can also be the limiting factor in improving health, as well as being a primary source of disease and infection. Lack of basic necessities are a significant cause of human mortality. Approximately 1.1 billion people currently lack access to safe drinking water, and 2.6 billion do not have proper sanitation¹, so while advancements in managing the productivity of our environment has resulted in access to surplus quantities of food, water and services, for many, this development has not occurred equally across the world.

Our environment can also be a major source of infection. It is estimated that almost one quarter of global disease and 23% of all deaths can be attributed to environmental factors².  Pollution and other environmental hazards such as food contaminants, over-exposure to sunlight, algal blooms, flooding and drought increase the risk of a myriad of health concerns that include cancer, heart disease, asthma and respiratory diseases, anxiety, stress and depression as well as many other illnesses.   Environmental factors influence 85 out of the 102 categories of diseases and injuries listed in the World Health Report and in 2012, 7 million deaths worldwide were attributed to exposure to air pollution – now the world’s largest single environmental health risk³.   However social and political aspects that affect our environment such as housing conditions, access to education, access to green space and poverty are major influencing factors in the relationship between health, well-being and environment.

On the other hand, policies and processes that are undertaken with the aim of promoting health and well-being can have significantly detrimental effects on ecosystems as well as our human environments. For example, food production requires unsustainably large volumes of fresh water and causes environmental damage from pesticides and fertilizers, soil erosion, animal wastes and carbon emissions from food manufacture and transportation. Disease prevention can also drastically alter environments. For example, malaria was eradicated in many developed nations in the 1950s by draining wetlands and spraying DDT to kill mosquitoes. The destruction of these ecosystems to control malaria, and the addition of persistent and toxic chemicals into the soils and watercourses has had long-term detrimental impacts on these ecosystems at a regional scale. Wide-spread disease prevention on a global scale creates additional consequences for the environment as the subsequent increase in longevity and reduction in human mortality creates further pressures from overpopulation, increased use of fossil fuels, increased land-clearing, water use and agriculture, as well as generating high volumes of pollution and waste.

Recently, a socio-economic approach to evaluating the benefits and services provided by ecosystems has provided insight into the threats and challenges that may lie ahead. The ecosystems services approach provides a framework for decision making, and for valuing the ‘products, functions and services’ ecosystems provide, to ensure that society can maintain a healthy and resilient natural environment, now, and for future generations. For example, The UK National Ecosystem Assessment indicates that the United Kingdom relies on it’s ecosystems for a range of services that include climate regulation, waste removal, pest control, flood protection, food supply, potable water, natural medicine, aesthetics, recreation and tourism, among many others. However, this innovative approach recognises and strives to promote the philosophy that our environment provides much more than material benefits. It states clearly that ecosystems contribute to national security, resilience, social justice, health and well-being, and freedom of choice and action⁴. Therefore, the degradation of our environment, and the ecosystems it supports can have seriously harmful and far-reaching impacts on society, its governance and the economy.   Primary impacts of ecosystem degradation relate specifically to human well-being:

‘significant and detrimental human health impacts can occur if ecosystem services are no longer adequate to meet social needs’ World Health Organisation

Secondary impacts that may result from a decline in ecosystem function can affect jobs, income, local migration and, on occasion, may even cause political unrest and conflict. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity report estimates that globally, the degradation of our planet’s ecosystems is costing us €50 billion each year.   This figure does not take into account the resultant impacts on national security and social justice, which have wide-ranging impacts on well-being, and the availability and access to food, water and healthcare provisions.

Of great concern is the way that the complex relationship between health and environment is evolving due to a culmination of global-scale changes including rapid changes in climate, flooding, drought and fluctuations in temperature, not to mention population growth and urbanisation. The World Health Organisation Global Forum on Urbanisation and Health in 2010 highlighted that for the first time in history more people live in urban settings than rural, and that conditions in cities will be among the most important health issues of the 21^st century⁵. Greater urbanisation puts ever increasing pressure on services such as housing and health. Understanding the surrounding environment, the impact that an ever increasing population has on it and how we can develop and increase services with the least impact is key.

The use of our natural environment has provided human civilisation with many benefits, but the costs to our ecosystems have been severe and extensive.   As our population continues to grow and our demands for food, fresh water, healthcare, fuel and building materials soar, we must ask ourselves what price we are prepared to pay. What legacy do we want to leave for future generations? Both the Convention on Biological Diversity and the World Health Organisation have made clear that unless we come to understand the relationship between environment and health and address they way we use and manage our environment, then we will substantially diminish the benefits and well-being that future generations can acquire from ecosystems, and severely compromise their ability to meet their basic human rights to a safe and healthy environment.

The Year of Environment and Health is a collaboration between the University of Edinburgh’s Global Health Academy and its Global Environment and Society Academy. It endeavors to examine the key issues in the relationship between Environment and Health through the lens of Global Change.

Join us in a series of public lectures exploring some of the themes discussed above:-

• Urbanisation and Health
• Pollution and Health
• Ecosystem Services and Health
• Extreme Weather and Health

References

1. UNESCO http://www.unesco.org/bpi/wwap/press/pdf/wwdr2_chapter_2.pdf

2. WHO http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/publications/preventingdisease.pdf

3. WHO http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/environmental_health/environmental_health_facts/en/index7.html

4. Convention on Biological Diversity http://www.cbd.int/

5. WHO Global Forum on Urbanisation & Health 2010