Independent verification of the UK’s greenhouse gas report: holding the Government to account

In the early hours of October 15th, negotiators from over 170 countries finalised a legally binding accord, designed to counter the effects of climate change by way of phasing down emissions of Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). These gases, introduced to replace the ozone-depleting CFCs and HCFCs for which the original Montreal Protocol was drafted, are typically used as coolants in air-conditioning systems. Unfortunately, like their predecessors, they are potent greenhouse gases, whose climate forcing effect per molecule is often many thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide. 
The Kigali deal, named after the Rwandan city in which it was struck, is a compromise between rich countries, whose phase-out plan will begin as early as 2019, and poorer nations, for many of whom the relief of air-conditioning has only just become available. India, for instance, will not make its first 10% emissions cut until 2032.

Delegates celebrate the finalisation of the Kigali deal. Credit: COP 22

When the deal was finally completed, there was much celebration and relief. Against the ironic drone of several large air-conditioning units, brought in to maintain a comfortable temperature on a stifling Rwandan night, US Secretary of State John Kerry labelled the deal ‘a monumental step forward’.

However, as with the much lauded Paris Agreement, the success of this landmark piece of legislation will rely heavily on accountability. Each nation reports its greenhouse gas emissions, including HFCs, to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It is from these reports that a nation’s progress in cutting emissions can be assessed.
Here at the University of Bristol’s Atmospheric Chemistry Research Group (ACRG), we use atmospheric measurements of these greenhouse gases, in combination with an atmospheric transport model, to independently estimate emissions. Recently, we have used such an approach to estimate emissions of HFC-134a, the most abundant HFC in the global atmosphere. Observations of this gas were taken from the Mace Head Observatory, which can be found on the rugged West Coast of Ireland.
When we compared our emission estimates with those the UK government reported to the UNFCCC, a significant discrepancy was observed; between 1995 and 2012, the UNFCCC numbers are consistently double those derived independently.

The Mace Head observatory is ideally positioned to intercept air mass from the UK and Europe. Credit – University of Bristol

Via collaboration with DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change), the government body that was previously responsible for the construction of the UKs annual emissions report, we were granted access to the model used to estimate HFC-134a emissions. Analysis of this model uncovered a number of assumptions made about the UK’s HFC markets, which in practice did not add up. Our work has led to a reassessment of the HFC-134a inventory by the government, and a subsequent lowering of the reported emission totals in the 2016 report.

In the wake of the Kigali and Paris agreements, both of which will require accurate reporting of emissions, our work is amongst the first examples of how independent verification can directly influence inventory totals. However, this study represents just the tip of the iceberg. Across the Kyoto ‘basket’ of gases determined to have an adverse effect on climate, inconsistencies between reporting methods are common place. A more concerted effort is therefore required to harmonise inventory reports with independent studies.
In countries such as the UK, where networks capable of measuring these gases already exist, the focus will be on improving the accuracy and reducing the uncertainty of our emission estimates; a step which will likely involve the addition of new sites, new instrumentation and significant investment.
Perhaps more importantly, these methods of independent verification must now be extended to regions where such infrastructure does not currently exist. Emissions from many of these countries are anticipated to rise sharply in the coming years, but are poorly monitored.
In July, researchers from the ACRG returned from Northern India, after two months studying greenhouse gas emissions from the FAAM research aircraft.

The Atmospheric Research Aircraft from the Facility for
Airborne Atmospheric Measurements (FAAM), established by NERC and the Met Office as a facility for the
UK atmospheric science community. Credit – FAAM

The utilisation of different data platforms is likely to play an essential role in enhancing the global network of greenhouse gas observations. It is the responsibility of the research community to ensure continued growth of the measurement network, and improve the availability of independent emission estimates required to verify the success (or otherwise) of climate legislation.



This blog was written for the Policy Bristol Blog by Dan Say, PhD student, Atmospheric Chemistry
Research Group
, School of Chemistry, University of Bristol.

What skills will we need to live in future smart cities?

Today, the idea that data can play a key role in the design and management of cities is widely recognised. Architects, planners and engineers are already considering how data can improve the planning and operational aspects of cities. However, we believe it’s now time to consider the skills that people will need to live in these smart cities.

The increasing digitisation of information, coupled with the impact of innovations such as the Internet of Things, will have a profound effect on all aspects of city life. This will include anything, from transport planning and energy use reduction, to care provision and assisted living. But it will also include new ways of social innovation, new ways of organising communities, and increased access to political processes. So, familiarity, if not proficiency, in ‘digital era’ skills will be an essential part of future citizenship.

This doesn’t only mean people should have the necessary digital consumption skills to help them make full use of emerging technologies. They should also have digital creation skills such as design, technology awareness, computational thinking and programming skills, as well as a risk-informed perception of data privacy and security. The challenges of delivering such a skillset are many, from designing a 21st century curriculum for schools and universities, to ensuring fair access to digital technology for everyone.

We believe that taking the time to consider these skills issues now is just as important as resolving the design and operational issues of the emerging technologies themselves.

Read the full report: Future of cities: smart cities, citizenship skills and the digital agenda
——————————————————–
This blog is written by Cabot Institute member Dr Theo Tryfonas from the University of Bristol’s Faculty of Engineering and Dr Tom Crick from Cardiff Metropolitan University.  The blog was originally posted on the Future of Cities blog run by the Government Office for Science and has been reproduced with kind permission.

Theo Tryfonas

 

Public opinion: What is it really worth?

I recently attended a session at the House of Commons co-hosted by the All-Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group (APPCCG) and the Centre on Innovation and Energy Demand (CIED). The session tackled the topic of the UK’s “energy efficiency revolution”, and whether the UK is living up to the high standards expected by successive governments.
 
Energy efficiency is what is known as a demand-side measure in the language of energy policymakers. Making devices that use energy more efficient is one way of reducing demand for energy overall, and thus bringing the UK closer to its carbon reduction goals. Indeed, increasing energy efficiency is often regarded as one of the most cost-effective methods of carbon reduction.
 
An area of great interest to researchers in this field is human behaviour; how can people be induced to behave in a way that reduces their carbon emissions?
 
The ‘default’ reaction of governments when attempting to change the behaviour of their citizens is to provide financial incentives to encourage adoption of the desired behaviour. This is based on simple economic theory, and depends on the assumption that the average rational citizen will immediately drop undesirable habits as soon as it becomes financially worthwhile to do so.
 
An alternative view is that people are not swayed as heavily by financial motives as they are by their fundamental beliefs; if somebody is a firm believer in the cause of tackling climate change, they can be relied upon to adopt energy-saving behaviours sooner or later.
 
There is a fundamental tension between these two views of how humans behave. Energy policymakers often find themselves caught between these viewpoints, and this can cause delays and poor policy decisions. This is a question that clearly needs to be addressed by researchers.

Let’s take a closer look at this problem by using a simple mathematical model. Imagine that there is a new behaviour, perhaps a form of recycling, that the government is keen for people to adopt. Since it is brand new, almost nobody has heard of it, and even fewer people have actually adopted it.

In order to make this behaviour the norm, the government allocates some of its limited resources to the problem. These resources can either be spent on advertising, to win people over to the behaviour on ideological grounds, or can be spent on direct financial incentives. The government has to choose what proportion of the resources go towards advertising and incentives, based on the objective of full adoption of the behaviour as quickly as possible.

In our model, a certain proportion of the population choose to adopt the new behaviour each day. That proportion is a function of the number of ideological believers (which I will henceforth refer to as ‘public opinion’) and the financial incentive available. Money spent on incentives therefore provides an immediate boost to the adoption of the new behaviour, whereas advertising has an indirect effect. The effect of advertising is to convert a certain number of people each day into ideological believers, making them far more likely to adopt the new behaviour.

 

 

 

 

So what are the results of this simple model? It’s clear that using financial incentives causes the time needed to reach full adoption to become shorter. Therefore, should the government should always use financial incentives in order to reach its stated objectives as quickly as possible?
 
Unfortunately it isn’t that simple. While it is true that the objective of full adoption is met quicker by using mostly financial incentives, the gap between ‘economic’ and ‘ideological’ adopters is large; it’s possible that many of the people who have adopted the behaviour will return to their old ways as soon as the incentives are taken away. It’s also worth considering the possibility that ideological adopters might also be easier to convince when it comes time to introduce the next energy-saving behaviour, whereas economic adopters would need to be paid off from scratch.
 
I should say at this point that this model is meant as a means of communicating a concept, and is an oversimplification of the way technology and belief adoption actually works. I’ve also chosen parameters for the model arbitrarily – choosing a different set of parameters or tweaking the model could result in radically different outcomes.

Nonetheless, the underlying tension remains; should we invest in changing people’s opinions, even if it’s a longer, costlier process? What is public opinion really worth?

It’s my sincere hope that researchers, be it from CIED, Cabot Institute or elsewhere, will be able to answer these questions in the years to come.
 
This blog is written by Cabot Institute member Neeraj Oak, the Chief Analyst and Energy Practice Lead at Shift Thought.

 

Neeraj Oak
 

Enabling the future we want: A manifesto on Education for Sustainable Development in the UK

 
What is the future we want, and what role does education have to play in its development?  
The Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC) has gone some way toward answering these questions by way of a Manifesto for dialogue, collaboration and action Post Rio+20.  Following its UK-wide consultation held between November 2012 and May 2013, the EAUC has released a Manifesto in response to the Rio+20 outcome document, ‘The Future We Want’.  The Manifesto serves as a call to action across the UK, seeking cross-sectoral collaboration for the strengthening of education within sustainable development.
The Manifesto suggests seven mechanisms for government and civil society by which they can strengthen UK delivery of educational commitments towards The Future We Want.  These are proposed within four areas:  governmental responsibilities, formal learning, informal learning, and emphasising the connection between ESD and the economy. Most focus on improved dialogue, collaboration and coordination between government, NGOs, educational institutions, community groups and businesses.

Manifesto’s 7 mechanisms for government and civil society

 Governmental responsibilities

  • Better coordination of efforts and collaboration between governments and across government departments on formal and informal learning for sustainable development
  • Improvement of dialogue between the education sector, civil society and government departments
  • Enabling education sectors to develop an appropriate curriculum to meet current and future sustainability challenges through a realignment of funding with The Future We Want in mind

Formal learning (education and training sectors)

  • Six curriculum change recommendations including: teacher training, incentives from education quality enhancement bodies, national curricula objectives, Natural Environment White Paper implementation, student involvement in curriculum design and interdisciplinary learning opportunities
  • Three institutional change recommendations including: institutional leadership in SD, strengthened links between education institutions and local communities, support for young people not engaged in formal further education

 Informal learning

  • Increased collaboration between NGOs and formal education providers
  • ESD and Economy Connections
  • Increased collaboration between governments, NGOs, business and education sectors to ensure young people are sufficiently prepared for the opportunities and challenges of a Green and Fair Economy
At the launch on 17 December, 2013 at the House of Commons, more than 80 people from these different sectors, and representing all forms of education, gathered for an event hosted by Joan Walley MP, Chair of the Environmental Audit Select Committee.  Speakers included the Shadow Schools Minister, Kevin Brennan MP, and a number of individuals providing ‘witness accounts’ of ways that education can support sustainable development.  These ranged from primary school pupils and NGO representatives to university youth ambassadors and a Director from HEFCE. During this portion of the launch, the University of Bristol’s Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) Coordinator Aisling Tierney  gave a presentation.  Aisling presented ways in which the ESD unit helps support University lecturers and professors to incorporate aspects of ESD into their teaching.  Following the witness accounts, all attendees participated in a round table discussion about how and why they can commit to taking the agenda forward.
Cabot Institute at Big Green Week
educating the public about overfishing
and climate change
The Cabot Institute can do its part in the fulfilment of the Manifesto through the Informal Learning route, which calls upon Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to support community learning about sustainable development.  Cabot pursues continued engagement with the public to share the university’s latest research on risks and uncertainty in a changing environment. Examples include Cabot’s participation the Festival of Nature and planned activities surrounding Bristol’s position as the 2015 European Green Capital.  Such initiatives continue to help to raise awareness within the wider Bristol area on topics including climate change, natural hazards, food and energy security and human impacts on the environment.

Read the ManifestoLearn more about ESD at the University of Bristol

This blog was written by Terra Sprague, Research Fellow, Graduate School of Education.

 

Terra Sprague

My week in Westminster: Part 2

Wednesday 4 December 2013

Alan Pitt

After two days of being in the ‘classroom’ learning about science in Parliament and Government it was time to go and shadow my civil servant, Alan Pitt, the Secretary to the Council for Science and Technology (S&T) who advise the Prime Minister directly on science related issues.  Alan is based in the Government Office for Science (Go-Science), which is located in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills! My morning began by visiting Portcullis House to hear the Government Chief Scientific Advisor, Sir Mark Walport, be quizzed by the House of Commons S&T Select Committee, which consists of cross-party MPs. Their job is to scrutinise Government on S&T to ensure the policy making process is robust.  Mark Walport, gave an overview of his vision for Science in the UK which included infrastructure in terms of energy and climate, qualitative and quantitative scientific evidence used in Government and a prominent leadership role for science.  This session was followed by an inquiry on Horizon Scanning including what this entails and how it operates!

Sir Mark Walport

Next stop was BIS where I was introduced to various members of Go-Science who explained their roles as civil servants including defence and resilience, coordinating all the different scientific committees, groups etc.  I learnt about the complexity of science organisation in the civil service.  For example, every department bar one has a Chief Scientific Advisor and a team beneath them. They report to Ministers who report to the Prime Minister.

Alan was particularly busy organising the CST quarterly meeting to be held at the Royal Society! Mid-afternoon I went with him over to the Royal Society building to help set up for the evening meeting and dinner.  The CST consists of members appointed by the Prime Minister who have extremely impressive credentials.  Chaired by the Government Chief Scientific Advisor, other members include Vice Chancellors, the President of the Royal Society, and prominent scientists in business.

After a busy but thoroughly enjoyable day it was time to go and see a show in the West-End!

Thursday 5 December 2013
On my final day of shadowing I was lucky enough to be able to sit on the CST meeting and hear what they get to discuss and consequently some of the content that goes into a letter directly written for the Prime Minister! It was a fascinating if little surreal experience!  I finished my time in London by having a tour of the Royal Society with the opportunity to see the original scribblings of Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke.

The Royal Society Pairing scheme has been an action-packed and fun experience and a real eye-opener to how science is used in Parliament and Government.  Everything is far more scrutinised then I ever envisaged and I hope that the scheme will help to enhance this process by building relationships between the policy makers and the scientists.
—–

This blog has been written by Dr Emma J Stone, Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol.
Emma is visiting civil servant Alan Pitt, secretary to the Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology, at the House of Commons for a ‘Week in Westminster’ commencing Monday 2 December as part of a unique pairing scheme run by the Royal Society.  Read more.

My week in Westminster – Part 1

Monday 2 December 2013
36 scientists were up bright and early in London for a tour around the Palace of Westminster as part of the Royal Society science and parliament pairing scheme.  We got to visit both Chambers as well as learning about the history of the UK parliament and the interactions between the Monarch, House of Lords and House of Commons. Did you know that to reserve a seat in the House of Commons the MP has to personally place a hand-written green card in a slot above their seat?!

After coffee and biscuits in Portcullis House we were introduced to the scheme and heard from previous participants about their experiences and the forging of relationships between scientists and MPs/civil servants. Discussion ensued about the the lack of scientists in Parliament (apparently not as bas as we thought!), as well as the intricacies of the House of Lords such as there being no cap currently on the number of peers invited to join!

An hour later having been filled up on what was a very nice lunch we learnt about the different scientific committees in Parliament (note not Government, these are very separate things!) including being introduced to the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology by the Director Dr Chris Tyler,  The House of Lords Science and Technology committee by Lord Robert Winston, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (Victoria Charlton), Parliamentary & Scientific Committee by Professor Alan Malcom, and the House of Commons Library.  I never knew there were so many committees but they are integral to the policy making process by scrutinising parliament and using evidenced based research as much as possible – something we scientists are very keen on!

Tuesday 3 December 2013
So the week continues in Westminster today with our location for talks being in Westminster Hall.  After passing through security we settled in for a day of talks concerned with science and Government.  The day began with an informative presentation by Jill Rutter (from the Institute of Government) on science at Whitehall. The largest proportion of permanent secretaries in charge of departments come from Economics backgrounds (26%) with only 11% from maths and far few from science effectively reflecting a ‘Science Free Zone’.  She offered insights such as the fact scientists need to explain scientific evidence but understand that it is politicians who make the decisions and therefore need to be clear about the role.

Following Jill we had an entertaining talk by David McKay, the Chief Scientific Advisor at the Department for Environment and Climate Change who succinctly outlined the various conflicts that can exist between objectives of the Department e.g. an increase in renewable energy is is needed but this could conflict with the need to maintain energy security.  He was also keen to provide us with back of the envelope calculations to make us think about the problems policy makers can face: e.g an average road of cars fuelled by biofuel would require an  ~8km verge on which to grow this source of energy! (making assumptions about speed, engine efficiency etc).

We finished a packed morning with a talk by Oliver Grant from the Horizon Scanning Centre who examine longer-term strategy beyond the length of fixed term Parliaments and how policy might adapt/change.

The afternoon began with Chris Fleming from the Government Office of Science providing the top ten tips for academics which included building relationships with policy makers in Government, try to keep in mind the differences between lobbying and giving advice and hold realistic expectations!

This was followed by an interactive session on Science supporting UK Emergency Response (SAGE) and its interaction with COBR.  We formed several small groups and were asked to imagine that we were giving advice as members of SAGE to COBR on two scenarios involving sub-zero temperatures and snow in the UK and the escape of a Flu virus from Myanmar!

The afternoon was finished by a talk from Alexandra Saxon at the RCUK which resulted in a very heated debate about funding science and impact, and a proposal by Dr Natalia Lawrence on producing a UK Evidence Information Service (effectively a database of science specialist who could be called on to give evidence).

After so many interesting talks we were already for a well-deserved drink at Walkers of Whitehall!

Tomorrow the shadowing begins!
—–

This blog has been written by Dr Emma J Stone, Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol.
Emma is visiting civil servant Alan Pitt, secretary to the Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology, at the House of Commons for a ‘Week in Westminster’ commencing Monday 2 December as part of a unique pairing scheme run by the Royal Society.  Read more.

Do we care too much about nature?

Over 80% of British adults believe that the natural environment should be protected at all costs. Yet, a recent report suggests that “government progress on commitments to the natural environment has been largely static” (1). Indeed, the budget for DEFRA, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has been slashed by 10% (£37m) and a reduction in green levies is likely as the government attempts to reduce domestic energy bills.

Has the government lost interest in the environment? Or do we care too much about nature?
To discuss this further, the Cabot Institute hosted a public recording of BBC Radio 4′s Shared Planeta show which explores the complex relationship between the human populations and wildlife. John Burton, CEO of the World Land Trust (WLT), was the first panellist and is a well known journalist and conservationist who has raised £19m for nature conservation in Africa, Asia and Central and Southern America. He believes that we should think about policy on “the life scale of an oak tree” and that further measures are required to protect the environment, both at home and abroad. The second panellist, Hannah Stoddart, is the head of the economic justice policy team at Oxfam GB and believes that fairer redistribution of wealth is more important than wildlife conservation.
Do we care about nature?
A new report, by the Environmental Funders Network, suggests that one in ten UK adults are now a member or supporter of Britain’s environmental and conservation groups (2). This equates to nearly 4.5 million people, with 81 organisations protecting species and 78 working on climate change. Although 44% of funding is allocated to biodiversity and nature protection, only 7.3% of total funds have been allocated to the climate and the atmosphere. This suggests we are more interested in ‘traditional’ environmental issues than climate change. A recent research project by the RSPB indicates that four out of five UK children are no longer connected with nature (3). Dr Mike Clarke, the chief executive of the RSPB, explains that “…nature is in trouble, and children’s connection to nature is closely linked to this”. At a time where UK species are in decline, are we doing enough to engage young people in the natural world?
An alternative to conservation
Both John Burton and Hannah Stoddart agree that nature is important and that conservation can help protect endangered landscapes. However, many conservation sites are maintained in ”favourable condition”. In other words, they are kept in the condition they were found when designated as conversation sites. A alternative concept, known as rewilding, attempts to reverse the destruction of nature by standing back and allowing nature to control its own destiny.
Currently, farmers have to prevent the development of foreign or exotic vegetation on their land. This results in the development of bare land, lacking in biodiversity. Removal of the ‘agricultural condition’ rule and the introduction of rewilding may allow this land to flourish once again. George Monbiot, author of Feral, is particularly interested in the reintroduction of megafauna, large animals that existed at the end of the last glacial period (>11ka) (4). It seems hard to believe, but over ten thousand years ago, elephants, rhinoceri and camels roamed Europe while other animals, such as bison, wolves and wildcats, were particularly widespread throughout the UK.
Indeed, the re-introduction of missing species can have a profound effect on wildlife. In 1995, grey wolves were reintroducedto Yellowstone National Park for the first time in 50 years (5). The elk population, who were now at risk of predation by wolves, began to redistribute. This allowed willow and aspen trees to flourish and increased the habitat for certain bird species, small mammals, beavers, and moose. This effect, known as a trophic cascade, suggests that careful reintroduction of megafauna into the wild can allow ecosystems to flourish. However, rewilding can backfire. In 2008, endangered Mallorcan toads were reintroduced into the natural population but were infected with Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, a well-known fungus that can threaten amphibians (6). As a result, the Mallorcan toads are now in danger of being wiped out once again. Despite this, I believe that rewilding in the UK is feasible and could allow the public, especially children, to reconnect with nature in new and exciting ways.
  1. Nature Check 2013. http://www.wcl.org.uk/docs/Link_Nature_Check_Report_November_2013.pdf
  2. Passionate Collaboraton. http://www.greenfunders.org/wp-content/uploads/Passionate-Collaboration-Full-Report.pdf
  3. RSPB Connecting with Nature. http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/connecting-with-nature_tcm9-354603.pdf
  4. Monbiot, G. Feral: searching for enchantment on the frontiers of rewilding. Allen Lane.
  5. Ripple et al,. 2001. Trophic cascades among wolves, elk and aspen on Yellowstone National Parks’s northern range.Biological Conservation102. 227-234
  6. Walker et al, 2008. Invasive pathogens threaten species recovery programs. Current Biology18. R853-R854

Discussing Rio+20 at the House of Lords

Last month I went to the House of Lords for a meeting of the All party group for international development and the environment.  The morning’s question was: Where next for sustainable development after Rio+20?  I’ll give a brief resume of who said what, with some of my thoughts following over the next weeks….

Joan Walley, MP for Stoke-on-Trent North opened the morning’s reflections on Rio.  She chairs the Environmental Audit Committee which monitors action across different government departments. At the top level, Rio lacked vision and clear objectives. Her select committee really tried to engage with government, but there was no commitment from the PM that he was going, and no clear vision from them.  She felt the process needs to be reinvigorated – connecting, collaborating, and understanding the details – e.g. how the proposed Sustainable Development Goals will link with the Millennium Development Goals.

Stephen Hale from Oxfam  asked how do we accelerate the pace of global change on sustainable development and increase the scale of national change? This is beyond Rio, of which he had very low expectations (and was still disappointed). Why were the outcomes so poor? His thesis was we are living in a period where multilateralism is weak – the G20 also had very poor outcomes.  The breadth of issues – the triple line of economy, ecology and equity – is understood by the Rio community but the multilateral process is too weak to deliver change. He put forward:

  1. Understanding the concept of sustainable development does not itself deliver change
  2. Change comes by confronting vested interests and shifting power. Need to build coalitions. Don’t need unifying  concept
  3. Multilateralism matters hugely but we need to pick our battles. Be selective
  4. Business conversation was in a parallel universe. NGOs highlighting how terrible Rio was while business was much more bullish
  5. We need a new set of clear and ambitious global goals to follow the MDGs.

Steve Waygood is the Head of Sustainability Research and Engagement, Aviva Investors.  Companies like Aviva know that the economy is on an unsustainable footing. Aviva worked with Forum for the Future to outline a vision for a sustainable economy by 2040 – http://www.forumforthefuture.org/project/framework-sustainable-economy/overview.  Aviva’s goal is that every company over £2 Bn should be thinking about sustainability and report their achievements in their annual reports.  At Rio, Aviva proposed a Convention on Corporate Sustainability Accounting, which wasn’t accepted overall but elements were included in the final agreement.  Steve highlighted the massive need for good data in the area of sustainability – 90% of what Bloomberg needs to report in this area is missing.

Lord Julian Hunt was part of the GLOBE world summit of legislators at Rio, which had representatives from 180 countries.  One of the major questions was how parliaments should participate in international work and legislation – they are complementary to each other and we need progress on both. Lord Hunt highlighted how rarely the work of UN Agencies such as the WHO is debated in parliament – only once in the House of Lords.  Population was an issue that barely featured at Rio in 1992, but was discussed much more this year, especially by the developing nations.  He mentioned that South India now has a static population, and highlighted the importance of understanding local context and perspective (rather than a ‘western NGO’ view).  Sustainability, for example, means very different things in different parts of the world.

Andrew Scott is a research fellow at the Overseas Development Institute, and was happy to see an agreement in principle to idea of sustainable development goals and initiation of a process to develop these.  He queried how energy would feature in these goals, and questioned the level of agreements that can be realistically reached at international level when national governments ultimately make the decisions.  He highlighted case studies from the ODI development progress programme that show how much progress is being made at the national level – for example in Costa Rica where payments for ecosystem services have been used to tackle deforestation.

Miguel Pestana is the Vice President for Global External Affairs at Unilever.  He reflected that from a business perspective there was a lack of specificity and ambition, although Unilever are committed to integrating sustainability with their  business and there were 1000+ CEOs at Rio.  But with 60% of the world’s governments in election cycles in this year, he was not surprised at level of political commitment and ambition.  Nonetheless, there were some significant commitments – e.g. on deforestation involving Walmart, Telco and Unilever.  He highlighted the critical role of the UK government in shaping the process and engaging business – the UK is hosting the G8 and G20 meetings, and David Cameron is co-chairing the review of the MDGs.  He called for specificity – the SDGs need to include nutrition, sanitation and hygiene – as Jeffrey Sachs eloquently outlines in his recent Lancet article.

David Nussbaum, Director of WWF, compared what was politically possible at Rio (given that Brazil removed anything controversial from the text) with what is scientifically necessary. The stifled official process meant that more interesting things happened in the fringe – UK watercourses convention, disclosure by quoted companies of their emissions.

He saw much positive action from the private sector and questioned how to encourage more and to help, strengthening links between the economy and the environment.  He cited work on natural capital, of which UK Govt Chief Scientist Sir John Beddington has been a good supporter, and the ways that fossil fuel subsidies, and agriculture and fisheries practices damage this.

Questions from the floor included how the MDG and SDG processes will relate to each other, and highlighted a need for a framework to clarify how this will happen.  The role of pressure from the bottom up, and an engaged and informed citizenry were seen as central to aligning political will and scientific imperative.  Miguel Pestana hoped to see a co-creation approach for the SDGs, with less emphasis on the word ‘goal’ in a highly volatile and changeable situation.