The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment—A work in progress

1. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment—A work in progress Harold Mooney June 14, 2004

2. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment • An international scientific assessment of the consequences of ecosystem changes for human well-being • Launched in 2001, reports due in 2005 • Providing information requested by: • Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) • Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD) • Ramsar Convention on Wetlands • Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) • other partners including the private sector and civil society • With the goals of: • stimulating and guiding action • building capacity

3. Political legitimacy Key design features of the MA MA  Authorized by four conventions and UN Scientific credibility Follows IPCC procedures  Utility Focus strongly shaped by audience Strong sub-global features  CMS CCD CBD Ramsar FCCC SC SBSTTA STRP CST SBSTA IPCC MA Research, UN Data, National and International Assessments

4. Who governs the assessment? Board represents “Users” of the MA findings • Conventions • CBD, UNCCD, UNFCCC, Ramsar, CMS • UN Agencies • UNEP, UNDP, FAO, WHO, UNESCO • Donors • GEF, UN Foundation • International science organizations • CGIAR, ICSU, IUCN • At large representation • Private sector • NGOs • Scientists • indigenous people

5. Sub-Global Assessment Working Group Condition Scenarios Response Organizational Structure Committees: Executive Budget Communications MA Board Review Board Chairs Assessment PanelWorking Group Chairs Support Functions Director, Administration, Logistics, Data Management Outreach & Engagement Chapter Review Editors Global Assessment Working Groups

6. Who is conducting the assessment? Technical work overseen by a 13-member Assessment Panel Co-chairs: Hal Mooney (USA), Angela Cropper (Trinidad) Members: • Bob Scholes (South Africa) • Rashid Hassan (South Africa) • Prabhu Pingali (FAO, Rome) • Steve Carpenter (USA) • Rik Leemans (Netherlands) • Kanchan Chopra (India) • Cristian Samper (USA) • Doris Capistrano (Indonesia) • Bob May (UK) • Partha Dasgupta (UK) • Zhao Shidong (China)

7. Who is conducting the assessment? • More than 700 Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, and Chapter Review Editors from ~90 countries • ½ natural scientists; ½ social scientists • Hundreds of additional experts involved in sub-global assessments • Expect more than 1000 expert reviewers

8. Launch and design Core assessment work Review process Board approval 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Release of Assessment Reports Release of Conceptual Framework report UN Launch Timeline

9. Assessment Focus: Ecosystem Services The benefits people obtain from ecosystems Regulating Benefits obtained from regulation of ecosystem processes • climate regulation • disease regulation • flood regulation Provisioning Goods produced or provided by ecosystems • food • fresh water • fuel wood • genetic resources Cultural Non-material benefits from ecosystems • spiritual • recreational • aesthetic • inspirational • educational Supporting Services necessary for production of other ecosystem services • Soil formation • Nutrient cycling • Primary production

10. Security Freedoms and Choice Basic Material for Good Life Supporting Services Provisioning Services Health Regulating Services Good Social Relations Cultural Services Consequences of Ecosystem Change for Human Well-being Ecosystem Services Constituents of Well-being

11. Human Wellbeing and Poverty Reduction Indirect Drivers Of Change Life on Earth: Biodiversity Ecosystem Services Direct Drivers Of Change MA Framework • Human Wellbeing and • Poverty Reduction • Material minimum for a good life • Health • Good Social Relations • Security • Freedom and Choice • Indirect Drivers of Change • Demographic • Economic (globalization, trade, market and policy framework) • Sociopolitical (governance and institutional framework) • Science and Technology • Cultural and Religious • Direct Drivers of Change • Changes in land use or land cover • Species introductions or removals • Technology adaptation and use • External inputs (e.g., irrigation, fertilizer use, pest control) • Harvest and Resource Consumption • Climate Change • Natural physical and biological drivers (e.g., volcanoes, evolution)

12. Sub-Global Assessment Working Group All of the above… at sub-global scales MA Working Groups Condition Working Group • What is the current condition and historical trends of ecosystems and their services? • What have been the consequences of changes in ecosystems for human well-being? Scenario Working Group • Given plausible changes in primary drivers, what will be the consequences for ecosystems, their services, and human well-being? Responses Working Group • What can we do to enhance well-being and conserve ecosystems?

13. Northern Wisconsin

14. MA is a Multi-scale Assessmente.g., Southern Africa Millennium Assessment SADC region 3 drainage basins Local assessments Zambezi Gariep Source: Reyers, B., SAfMA Lessons Learned (Panama, June 2002)

15. Global Assessment Users Regional Development Banks, etc. Regional National Government National Local Community Local Why a Multi-Scale Assessment?Expect that findings at any scale of a multi-scale assessment will be improved by information and perspectives from other scales Rationale • Characteristic scale of processes • Greater resolution at smaller scales • Independent validation of conclusions • Response options matched to the scale where decision-making takes place

16. What will the MA publish? (150 Pages) Plus: Sub-global assessments, methods, tools

17. First MA Report What will the MA publish? • Provides framework for linking ecosystems and development • Presents methods and approaches for undertaking an integrated ecosystem assessment

18. Technical chapters examine current status and trends of ecosystem services across ecosystem types A) Provisioning Chapter 8. Freshwater Chapter 9. Food Chapter 10. Timber, Fiber, Fuel Chapter 11. Novel Products and Industries from Biodiversity B) Supporting and Regulating Chapter 12. Biodiversity regulation of ecosystem services Chapter 13. Nutrient cycling Chapter 14. Air quality and climate regulation Chapter 15. Human infectious disease agents Chapter 16. Waste processing and detoxification Chapter 17. Natural Hazard regulation C) Cultural Chapter 18. Cultural and amenity services

19. Then examine the status of different ecosystems in providing these ecosystem services Ch. 19 Cultivated Systems Ch. 20 Dryland systems Ch. 21 Forest systems Ch. 22 Urban systems Ch. 23 Inland Water systems Ch. 24 Coastal systems Ch. 25 Marine systems Ch. 26 Polar Systems Ch. 27 Mountain systems Ch. 28 Island systems

20. Approach to quantifying the MA scenarios Storylines Global Orchestration, Techno-garden, etc. Model Outputs Provisioning Services - Food (meat, fish, grain production) - Fiber (timber) - Freshwater (renewable water resources & withdrawals) - Fuel wood (biofuels) Regulating - Climate regulation (C flux) - Air quality (NOx, S emissions) Supporting primary production AIM Global change WaterGAP World water resources IMAGE 2 Global change Model Inputs Demographic Economic Technological IMPACT World food production

21. MA will provide:Foresight regarding consequences of decisions MA Scenarios: • Global Orchestration • focus on macro-scale policy reform for environmental sustainability • Order from Strength • retreat from global institutions, focus on national regulation and protectionism • Adapting Mosaic • retreat from global institutions, focus on strengthened local institutions and local learning • Technogarden • emphasis on development of technologies to substitute for ecosystem services

22. Regional level National level Local level Legal interventions Forest management issues Response options Economic interventions Institutional interventions Food security Fresh water management Biodiversity conservation Urban planning Climate change Regulation & compliance Information dissemination & education Regional cooperation & policy integration Response options Inventory matrix of response options Synergies Trade-offs

23. The CF focuses on decision makers and processes

24. The caveats “Decision-making concerning ecosystems and their services can be particularly challenging because different disciplines, philosophical views, and schools of thought conceive of the value of ecosystems differently. Ecosystem values in terms of services provided are only one of the bases on which decisions on ecosystem management are and should be made. Many other factors, including notions of intrinsic value and other objectives that society might have, such as equity among different groups or generations, will also feed into the decision framework.”

25. Pg 154

26. Pg 155

28. Government and Expert Review

29. Visit the MA Website www.millenniumassessment.org