Assessment of Central Asian Mountain Ecosystems : features of methodology a multi-scale

1. Bridging Scales and Epistemologies: Linking Local Knowledge with Global Science in Multi-Scale Assessments Assessment of Central Asian Mountain Ecosystems: features of methodology a multi-scale Vladimir Bogachev, CAREC Alexandria, Egypt March 17-20, 2004

2. ACAME Program (objectives, tasks) • Specific of ME assessment methodology • Transboundary sub-global ME • Vertical belts, gradients and criteria of selection main MEs • Scalesand priority of ecosystem goods & services • Interaction between ecological and social components MEs • Scalesandgovernance structures

3. Area of the project ACAME The total area = 3,882 thousand km2 Population approximately 0.53 mln people (10% of the CA area)

4. History • Millennium ecosystem assessment /MA(Kofi Annan, June 2001) • CA –Candidate MA Sub-Global Assessment(CAREC, 2002) • Development of Programme «Assessment of Central Asia Mountainous Ecosystems/АСАМЕ» • (CAREC& CA countries, 2003)

5. Assessment of ecosystems and objectives of SDCA SD Strategy (CA Agenda 21), good governance, legal base,clear indicators Objectives of SD Assessment ofconsumption Assessment ofecosystems Assessment ofresources Public participation Information, Sciences Education

6. Connection the Program with CA SD Strategy and other programs Convention on Biological Diversity Convention to Combat Desertification Central Asian Agenda 21 Regional Strategy of Sustainable Development Mountain Area for Central Asia Programme The Aral Sea Basin -2 Assessment Central Asian Mountain Ecosystems

7. Objectives of mountain territories steady development “The Natural resources of mountain territories are used by a steady means of ecological, social and economic interests for optimal benefit of the population of Central Asia” Seminar on development of Regional strategy and Plan of Actions (Almaty, April 1, 2001) “ Goal 1. Preservation of water basins ecosystems. Combat to necessary for vital activity ecosystemsdegradation ” Invitation to partnership (Kiev, May 2003)

8. Main Program Objectives: • To generate the Global Assessment of Mountainous Ecosystems • To develop recommendations for decision-making and planning related to conservation and restoration of Central Asia mountainous • ecosystems • To modify ecosystem assessment methodologybased on the specific features of the sub-region

9. Similarity of methodologies Adopted by the ICSD of Central Asia May 17, 2002 METHODOLOGICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CA AGENDA 21 Prepared by CAREC and SIC ICSD October 18, 2002 MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT METHODS Walter Reid, Neville Ash, Elena Bennett, Pushpam Kumar, Marcus Lee,Nicolas Lucas, Henk Simons, Valerie Thompson, Monika Zurek • Involving of the users and decision makers, acceptance of the political obligations • Multisectoral partnership and wide participation of a public • Multy-scaile assessment • Capacity building • Definition of the measurable purposes and monitoring of results

10. Global Assessment: Conditions, Scenarios, Responses Users Central Asia Local Community Talgar Assessment scale(intersectoral approach) Sub- Global/Regional MA Secretariat, Regional institutions National Basin scale National Governments Kazakhstan Local

11. Basin Scale Water ecosystems: fresh water Amu Darya river - water flow about 79.3 km3 per one year Syr Darya river - water flow about 37.2 km3 per one year

12. The specific features of mountainous areasCA • Transboundary sub-global mountain ecosystems • Vertical belts • Considerable gradients and lateral («horizontal») migration of substance and energy • Livelihoodsupplies of population in the downstream plains/valleys

13. Transboundary sub-global mountain ecosystems Kazakhstan Kyrghyzstan Uzbekistan Tadjikistan Turkmenistan Political boundaries

14. Developing the transboundary aspects of assessment • The coordination of methodological approaches ACAME by the national experts (MEs classification, analysis format and etc.) • Criteria selection of research the main objects - priority MEs • Acceptance uniform indicators of pressures, state MEs, impacts and response actions (DPSIR)

15. Nival Vertical belts and EcosystemServices Glaciers Lakes Climate Forest Meadow Water Foothill Water Bio-diversity Recreation tourism Ecosystem Services: - Provisioning- Regulating - Supporting- Cultural Foods Soil formation Foods

16. Criteria of selectionmainMEs • Scope and range of environmental goods and services provided to (A) • mountains community • plains/valleys • Scope and effectiveness of regulation services (climate change, etc., B) • Magnitude of disturbance of ME and dangerous to loss of their potential (C)

17. Selection of priority ecosystems Criteria of selection Priority

18. Central Asia: SUB-GLOBAL ASSESSMENT CA Region Kazakhstan Talgar basin

19. Scalesand priorities of ecosystem goods and services (e.g. Forest CA) LOCAL NATIONAL SUB-REGIONAL • Services: • Water regime and runoff formation • Climate regulation • Self-reproduction,genetic resources • Cultural • Goods: • Food (fresh water) • Hydraulic power • Nutrients • Goods: • 1. Food (resources, producers, consumers)* • 2. Fuel wood (Bioenergy) • 3. Construction Materials • 4. Derivatives • Services: • Supporting human living and livelihood conditions • Cultural • Services: • Self-restoration of bioproducts • Supporting • Flood and other natural disaster protection • Cultural • Goods: • 1. Food (resources, producers, consumers) • 2. Hydraulic power • 3. Clean air *Number corresponds to a priority of good or service

20. Interecosystems Communications(multiplicative effect) Interecosystems Communications(multiplicative effect) LOCAL NATIONAL SUB-REGIONAL Economic damage Vertical streams of energy and substance Natural disasters Anthropogenic ecosystems Social damage Pollution Extraction ofgoods Increase of morbidity Degradation of ecosystems(downstream)

21. Interaction between ecological and social components ME (DPSIR, Local level) NATURE Natural resources, including biological Environment/ habitat Governance/ policy SOCIETY TECHNOSPHERE Man as a biological species Social potential Productive potential Scientific and technological potential Scientific and technologicalpotential - Goods and services - Hazardous pressure ( - ) - Management responses ( + )

22. Interaction betweenecological and social components ME (DPSIR, National level) NATURE Natural resources, including biological Environment/ habitat Governance/ policy SOCIETY TECHNOSPHERE Man as a biological species Social potential Productive potential Scientific and technological potential Scientific and technologicalpotential - Goods and services - Hazardous pressure ( - ) - Management responses ( + )

23. Governance Extractiongoods& use services Scalesandgovernance structures Tree of the CA problems Security threats Regional and interstate agreements, Conventions Ecological crisis LOCAL NATIONAL SUB-REGIONAL Inefficient governance Ecosystems degradation Natural resources loses Laws on preservation MEs Integrated management of Ecosystems Lack of the mechanisms of cooperation Strategies of the population survival Local Agenda-21 Local EAP

24. Next steps • Modification of multi-scale assessment MEs methodology, development of transboundaryaspects • Development of model DPSIR for an assessment on the main Mes • Approbation of methodology on the pilot project • Integration with MA methodology and adaptation for GAMA • Exchange of experience and dissemination of the information. Preparation of specialistes Sub- Global/Regional National Basinscale Local

25. Thank you for attention! www.carec.kz