Table of contents
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58248/HS75
Overview
Contributors to the horizon scan highlighted governance challenges related to a range of interconnected climate and environmental risks.
The Climate Change Committee (CCC) has highlighted the need to address ‘cascading risks’ across interdependent UK infrastructure systems, such as failures in power systems affecting rail infrastructure.[1] The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy has set out the vulnerability of critical national infrastructure systems to cascading risks from extreme weather and other effects of climate change, such as sea level rise.[2] The government’s 2022 resilience framework seeks to strengthen systems and capabilities in order to “better prevent, mitigate, respond to and recover” from interconnected risks.[3]
The CCC has also raised the need for increased UK resilience to complex and cascading international climate risks that spread across borders and through systems to affect the UK, such as the impacts of extreme climate events on food supply chains (PN 680).1,[4],[5],[6],[7],[8] The Dasgupta Review set out how biodiversity losses create systemic nature-related financial risks (PN 677).[9],[10],[11]
Studies suggest there is limited understanding of interconnected risks that are seldom assessed or managed.[12] The CCC has stated the third national adaptation programme “lacks the pace and ambition to address growing climate risks”. The CCC identified issues of governance, investment and monitoring as limiting the responses to climate risks.1 Researchers also highlight the lack of robust measurable indicators for climate adaptation.[13]
Contributors stated that multilateral, inclusive, rules-based global governance is needed if complex climate and environmental risks are to be managed.1 The European Environment Agency state that conventional governance approaches are poorly suited to understanding these complex and multifaceted challenges.[14],[15]
Governance to address complexity could include approaches such as experimentation, systems thinking, participatory mechanisms, precaution and anticipation.[16],[17] For example, addressing the systemic nature of sustainability issues raises ‘just transition’ issues for affected stakeholders and communities (PN 706).
The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs stated that, with over 80 per cent of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) directly linked to climate, it is no longer feasible to treat climate change and sustainable development separately.[18] The SDGs broadly cover the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.
Research suggests achieving one SDG target affects the achievement of others through their intrinsic linkages, either positively or negatively. This can be addressed through an integrated or systems approach that considers interactions between SDGs, including trade-offs, co-benefits and transboundary effects across nations.[19],[20] Only 17% of the SDGs are on track, with progress stalled or regressed on over one-third of the goals.[21]
Researchers state a joint work programme between the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is needed to address the interconnectedness of climate change and biodiversity loss risks.[22] For example, aligning the various strategies and plans agreed under these frameworks to achieve shared objectives.[23]
Challenges and opportunities
Some contributors raised concerns that the complexity of environmental policies and concepts have created barriers to addressing risks across sectors. For instance, in relation to benefits from nature for humans in England, these concepts include: green infrastructure, nature-based solutions, natural capital, ecosystem services, local nature recovery strategies (PN 652), local nature partnerships, high value nature markets and the environmental land management scheme.[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32]
Research has set out the difficulties for translating such complex concepts and terminology across sectors.[33] The Broadway Initiative has argued for a coherent local environmental planning framework to rationalise these approaches and to ensure responsibilities for implementing existing policies lie at the right level.[34] The House of Lords 2022 report, ‘Making the most out of England’s land’, recommended using local nature recovery strategies as a co-ordinating framework.[35],[36]
The Natural Capital and Ecosystem Assessment (NCEA) programme is undertaking a nationwide survey of England’s land, coast, and sea to map natural assets.[37] The 2024 State of Natural Capital Report for England has assessed the state of ecosystems and the risks they face, introducing a new Risk Register method.[38] Contributors suggested the natural capital concept, which seeks to place a value on the benefit that humans obtain from a healthy environment, can inform public participation in addressing interconnected risks.[39],[40]
For example, many of the UK’s communities, cultural heritage sites, protected natural areas and infrastructure are located on coastlines vulnerable to climate-induced extreme events. [41],[42],[43] Although part of existing approaches (PN 647),[44],[45] contributors suggested greater support for coastal communities in using natural assets, such as saltmarshes, to address interconnected climate and environmental risks is needed.[46],[47],[48] The UKRI Resilient Coastal Communities and Seas Programme is developing approaches for building community resilience to interconnected risks.[49]
Contributors raised concerns around the lack of capacity, funding and power for environmental regulators and advisory bodies to hold the government and stakeholders to account for actions that increase environmental risks. Similar concerns have been raised by the Office for Environmental Protection.[50] However, they also stated more effective domestic governance could lead to exporting impacts to other countries. For example, a joined-up approach may be needed to ensure that high environmental and animal health and welfare standards do not lead to food and fibre imports from countries with lower standards.[51],[52]
Contributors to the scan suggested growing interest in governance of these supply chain sustainability risks.[53] For example, they suggested the environmental impacts on exporting countries should be assessed through approaches such as calculating ‘virtual water’ in agricultural goods (PN 385).[54] This would measure the impact on water resources in the producer country and require due diligence by businesses and states in relation to water resources and progress towards the SDG on clean water and sanitation. [55],[56],14
Energy production also has an impact on freshwater resources as well as biodiversity that developed countries displace along international supply chains.[57],[58] Studies also suggest consumer spending in high-income countries, especially those in the G7, drive nature loss in emerging markets and low-income nations (PN 617).[59],[60],[61],[62],[63]
Multiple frameworks to address and report on interdependencies and impacts of nature loss are being developed, including the UK’s green taxonomy and the market-led Taskforce for Nature-related Financial Risks (PN 667). The 25 Year Environment Plan set out an international obligation on biodiversity,[64] with CBD commitments to ensure businesses assess, disclose and reduce biodiversity-related risks and negative impacts.[65] In December 2024, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) will publish two reports:
- a thematic assessment of the interlinkages among biodiversity, water, food and health (nexus assessment, PN 543)[66]
- a thematic assessment of the underlying causes of biodiversity loss, determinants of transformative change and options for achieving the 2050 vision for biodiversity[67]
Other governance examples include the proposed New York state Fashion Bill,[68],[69] and the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive,[70],[71] which require businesses to disclose their impacts on the environment and human rights. The EU Eco-design for Sustainable Products Regulation (PN 646) introduced a Digital Product Passport requirement, a digital identity card for products, components, and materials, which stores relevant information to support products’ sustainability, including their circularity and legal compliance.[72] Contributors to the scan highlighted the opportunity this provides for UK fashion businesses that are small local employers that often source locally and have lower environmental impacts per garment than larger businesses.[73]
Key uncertainties/unknowns
- Contributors to the scan highlighted that communities and places will not be resilient to risks if they are not economically, environmentally and socially sustainable. However, they suggested the definition, scope and implementation of the concepts of sustainability and sustainable development remain contested. For example, within the context of circular, green and blue economy approaches (PN 408, PN 536, PN 646, PN 702),[74],[75],[76],[77],[78],[79],[80],[81],[82] and the challenges of managing system-wide interdependencies and trade-offs (PN 724).[83][84],[85],[86]
- Understanding of how interconnected climate, biodiversity loss and sustainability risks propagate through systems and networks to inform assessments remains limited.[87],[88],[89],7,[90],[91],[92] This includes whether current policy approaches will be sufficient to provide resilience and address the justice issues likely to arise for different groups of stakeholders.[93]
- There is also uncertainty around the impact of divergence between UK and EU regulatory environments around product sustainability, and whether this may create barriers for UK companies seeking to trade with the EU.[94],[95] For example, the EU deforestation regulation will, from 30 December 2025, require companies selling soy, beef, coffee, palm oil and other products in the EU to prove their supply chains do not contribute to the destruction of forests.[96]
Key questions for parliament
- What impact does the complexity of environmental policies and concepts have on effective governance? How effectively are current governance approaches addressing interconnected environmental risks, both in the UK and internationally, and how can understanding of these risks be improved?
- What progress has the UK made in achieving meeting international targets such as the UN SDGs?[97]
- What direct policy and regulatory action such as due diligence responsibilities may be required if international impacts on nature, climate and the environment are to be addressed?[98] What monitoring is required to assess progress on tackling these risks?
Relevant documents
Climate change and security, POSTnote 680
Local nature recovery strategies, POSTnote 652What is a just transition for environmental targets? POSTnote 607
Designing a Circular Economy, POSTnote 536
Measuring sustainable environment-food system interactions, POSTnote 702
Reducing plastic waste, POSTnote 724
Coastal management, POSTnote 647
Seeking sustainability, POSTnote 408
Water in production and products, POSTnote 385
The Water-Energy-Food Nexus, POSTnote 543
Climate change-biodiversity interactions, POSTnote 617
Regulating product sustainability, POSTnote 646
Financial risks of nature loss, POSTnote 667
References
[1] Climate Change Committee. (2021). Independent Assessment of UK Climate Risk: Advice to Government For The UK’s Third Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA3).
[2] Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. (2022). Readiness for storms ahead? Critical national infrastructure in an age of climate change
[3] Cabinet Office. (2022). The UK Government Resilience Framework. GOV UK
[4] Carter, T., et al. (2021). A conceptual framework for cross-border impacts of climate change. Global Environmental Change, Volume 69, 102307
[5] Mosoni, C., et al. (2024). Cross-border dimensions of Arctic climate change impacts and implications for Europe. WIRES Climate Change, Volume 15, Issue5, e905
[6] Challinor, A., et al. (2021). Climate Change Risk Assessment 3 Chapter 7 – International dimensions. UK Climate Risk
[7] Anisimov A., et al. (2023). The global transboundary climate risk report. The Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations & Adaptation Without Borders.
[8] IPCC. (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
[9] POST. (2021). Systemic risks arising from escalating biodiversity loss
[10] The Royal Society. (2024). How does ecological risk relate to commercial risk?
[11] Dasgupta, P. (2021), The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review
[12] Townend, R., et al. (2023). Cascading climate risks: strategic recommendations for European resilience. Chatham House.
[13] Grantham Institute. (2024). Climate change adaptation: priority research areas
[14] European Environment Agency. (2024). Europe’s sustainability transitions outlook Short-term action, long-term thinking. EEA Report 06/2024
[15] Lawrence, M. et al. (2022). What Is a Global Polycrisis? And how is it different from a systemic risk? Cascade institute.
[16] European Environment Agency. (2024). Governance in complexity: Sustainability governance under highly uncertain and complex conditions. EEA Report 05/2024
[17] European Environment Agency. (2023). Transformative resilience: the key to governing Europe’s sustainability transitions in the polycrisis. EEA Report 10/2023
[18] UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2024). Synergy Solutions for Climate and SDG Action: Bridging the Ambition Gap for the Future We Want
[19] Trucco, S., et al. (2021). The reporting of sustainable development goals: is the integrated approach the missing link? SN Business and Economics, Volume 1, article number 35
[20] European Environment Agency. (2020). Chapter 15 State of the Environment Report 2020. Sustainability through a system lens.
[21] United Nations. (2024). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2024.
[22] Boran, I., et al. (2024). The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the Paris Agreement need a joint work programme for climate, nature and people. Journal of Applied Ecology, Volume 61, Issue 9, Pages 1991-1999
[23] Pettorelli, N., et al. (2024). Letter to the Parties and Presidents of the Conference of the Parties (COP 16) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, COP29)
[24] Scott, A. et al. (2020). Understanding our growing environmental vocabulary in England Connecting Green Infrastructure, Natural Capital, Ecosystem Services and Net Gain(s) within the English Planning System. Mainstreaming Green Infrastructure
[25] Natural England. (2023). Introduction to the Green Infrastructure Framework – Principles and Standards for England.
[26] Defra. (2023). Local nature recovery strategy: what to include. GOV UK
[27] Planning Advisory Service. Planning for a Better Environment. Local Government Association.
[28] Defra. (2012). Role of Local Nature Partnerships: an overview. GOV UK
[29] Defra. (2024). Nature Markets Framework progress update March 2024. GOV UK
[30] Defra. (2023). Environmental Land Management (ELM) update: how government will pay for land-based environment and climate goods and services. GOV UK
[31] WWF. (2024). What are nature-based solutions and how can they help us address the climate crisis?
[32] Natural England. (2023). Nature Returns Programme
[33] Scott, A. et al. (2022). Mainstreaming the Environment: Exploring pathways and narratives to improve policy and decision-making. People and Nature, Volume 4, Issue 1, pg. 201-217
[34] The Broadway Initiative. (2019). Environment Bill: Local Environmental Improvement Plans.
[35] House of Lords Library. (2023). Making the most out of England’s land: Land Use in England Committee report.
[36] House of Lords Land Use in England Committee (2022). Making the most out of England’s land.
[37] Defra. (2022). Natural Capital and Ecosystem Assessment Programme. GOV UK
[38] Lusardi, J., et al. (2024). State of Natural Capital Report for England 2024: Risks to nature and why it matters. Natural England Research Report Number NERR137
[39] Seymour, V., et al. (2022). Incorporating citizen science to advance the Natural Capital approach. Ecosystem Services, Volume 54, 101419
[40] Hinson, C. et al. (2024). Using natural capital and ecosystem services to facilitate participatory environmental decision making: Results from a systematic map. People and Nature, Volume 4, Issue 3, pg. 652-668
[41] House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. (2018). Brexit: Trade in food. Third Report of Session 2017–19
[42] Barnard, P.L., Dugan, J.E., Page, H.M., Wood, N.J., Hart, J.A.F., Cayan, D.R. et al. (2021). Multiple climate change-driven tipping points for coastal systems. Scientific Reports 11(1), 15560
[43] United Nations Environment Programme (2023). Adaptation Gap Report 2023: Underfinanced. Underprepared. Inadequate investment and planning on climate adaptation leaves world exposed. Nairobi.
[44] UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Sustainable Development Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
[45] HM Government. (2023). The Third National Adaptation Programme (NAP3) and the Fourth Strategy for Climate Adaptation Reporting.
[46] https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1507701112
[47] Adapting to coastal climate risks also relates to the SDGs: 13 Climate Action: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts and 15. Life on Land: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.
[48] Haasnoot, M., Lawrence, J. and Magnan, A.K. (2021). Pathways to coastal retreat. Science 372, 1287–1290
[49] https://www.ukri.org/news/24-3-million-to-boost-uk-environmental-resilience-and-decision-making/
[50] The Office for Environmental Protection. (2024). A review of implementation of the water framework directive regulations and river basin management planning in England.
[51] House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. (2018). Brexit: Trade in Food. Third Report of Session 2017–19
[52] House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee. (2023). Environmental change and food security. Second Report of Session 2023–24
[53] Schneider, D., et al. (2024). Sustainability risk assessment in manufacturing: A Life Cycle Assessment-based Failure Mode and Effects Analysis approach. Sustainable Production and Consumption. Volume 47, Pages 617-631
[54] Orr, S., et al. (2008). UK Water Footprint: the impact of the UK’s food and fibre consumption on global water resources. Volume two: appendices. WWF
[55] Mirumachi, N., et al. (2021). The Human Right to Drinking Water: Impact of large-scale agriculture and industry. Policy Department for External Relations. Directorate General for External Policies of the Union
[56] Holland, R. et al. (2015). Global impacts of energy demand on the freshwater resources of nations. PNAS, 112 (48) E6707-E6716
[57] Holland, R. et al. (2019). The influence of the global electric power system on terrestrial biodiversity. PNAS, 116 (51) 26078-26084
[58] Holland, R et al. (2015). Global impacts of energy demand on the freshwater resources of nations. PNAS, 112 (48) E6707-E6716
[59] UNEP. (2024). Global Resources Outlook 2024.
[60] Sun, Z., et al. (2022). Global Human Consumption Threatens Key Biodiversity Areas. Environ. Sci. Technol., 56, 12, 9003–9014
[61] Petersen, I, et al. (2020). The Ecological Cost Of Consumption. Research Square
[62] Hickel, J., et al. (2022). National responsibility for ecological breakdown: a fair-shares assessment of resource use, 1970–2017. Lancet Planet Health, 6: e342–49
[63] Wiedmann, T. et al. (2020). Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nature Communications volume 11, Article number: 3107
[64] HM Government. (2018). A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment. GOV UK
[65] Convention on Biological Diversity. (2024). Target 15 Businesses Assess, Disclose and Reduce Biodiversity-Related Risks and Negative Impacts. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
[66] IPBES. (2024). Nexus Assessment.
[67] IPBES. (2024). Transformative change assessment.
[68] The New York State Senate. (2023). Senate Bill S4746A
[69] Cernansky, R. (2022). Deconstructing New York’s Fashion Act. Vogue Business
[70] European Commission. (2024). Corporate sustainability due diligence
[71] Council of the European Union. (2023). Corporate sustainability due diligence: Council and Parliament strike deal to protect environment and human rights.
[72] European Commission. (2024). Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation
[73] Fashion Revolution. (2023). 2023 Edition Fashion Transparency Index.
[74] European Parliament. (2023). Circular economy: definition, importance and benefits. Topics.
[75] World Bank Group. (2017). What is the Blue Economy?
[76] UNEP. Sustainable Blue Economy.
[77] McBain, D. (2023). What is the blue economy? LSE and Grantham Research Institute.
[78] Cisneros-Montemayor, A., et al. (2022). A primer on the “blue economy:” Promise, pitfalls, and pathways. Volume 5, Issue 9, pg 982-986
[79] OECD. (2024). The Blue Economy in Cities and Regions: A Territorial Approach
[80] Georgeson, L. et al. (2017). The global green economy: a review of concepts, definitions, measurement methodologies and their interactions. Geo, Volume4, Issue1, e00036
[81] Green Economy Coalition. (2020). The 5 Principles of Green Economy
[82] Telukdarie, A., et al. (2024). Exploring the green economy – A systems thinking modelling approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 436, 140611
[83] Ruggerio, C. (2021). Sustainability and sustainable development: A review of principles and definitions. Science of The Total Environment, Volume 786, 147481
[84] Unal, E, et al. (2023). Sustainability trade-offs in the circular economy: A maturity-based framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, Volume 32, Issue 7, pg 4662-4682
[85] Sperling, F., et al. (2020). Systems-based Approaches for Development Co-operation to Meet Diverse Needs and Aspirations in an Interdependent World. In: Systemic thinking for policy making, OECD/IIASA 2020
[86] Renaud, F., et al. (2022). Synergies and trade-offs between sustainable development goals and targets: innovative approaches and new perspectives. Sustainability Science, Volume 17, pg 1317–1322
[87] World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2024). Integrating Nature: Assessing Interconnected Risks in the Food Retail Ecosystem.
[88] UNIDIR. Interconnected Global Risks.
[89] Lawrence, J., et al. (2020). Cascading climate change impacts and implications. Climate Risk Management, Volume 29, 100234
[90] Cradock-Henry, N., et al. (2020). Elaborating a systems methodology for cascading climate change impacts and implications. MethodsX, Volume 7, 100893
[91] Lawrence, J., et al. (2018). Climate Change: The Cascade Effect. Cascading impacts and implications for Aotearoa New Zealand. Wellington: Deep South Challenge.
[92] Estoque, R., et al. (2022). Climate impact chains for envisaging climate risks, vulnerabilities, and adaptation issues. Regional Environmental Change, Volume 22, article number 133
[93] European Environment Agency. (2024). Delivering justice in sustainability transitions.
[94] Lovegrove, S. (2024). How the EU and UK regulatory approaches to sustainability vary. Thomson Reuters.
[95] Institute for European Environmental Policy. (2024). New analysis shows EU-UK divergence on environmental protection.
[96] European Commission. (2024). Guidance on EU Deforestation Regulation
[97] Including SDG 7 affordable and clean energy, SDG 12 responsible consumption and production, SDG 13 climate action, SDG 14 life below water and SDG 16 peace, justice and strong institutions
[98] House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee. (2021). The UK’s footprint on global biodiversity. Second Report of Session 2021–22
Photo by: Roger Bradshaw via Unsplash
