Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Overview

1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Overview September 2003

2. Food Water Timber Wood fuel is the only source of fuel for one third of the world’s population. Wood demand will double in next 50 years. Food production must increase to meet the needs of an additional 3 billion people over the next 30 years One-third of the world’s population is now subject to water scarcity. Population facing water scarcity will double over the next 30 years ISSUE: Human demand for ecosystem services is quickly growing around the world…

3. ISSUE: A recent study* shows that the capacity of many ecosystems to provide certain services has been declining… Ecosystem Type Key Grasslands Freshwater Forest Systems Coastal Systems Condition of Ecosystem Agro-ecosystem Services Excellent Food-Fiber Production Good Fair Water Quality Poor Bad Water Quantity Not Assessed Biodiversity Changing Capacity Decreasing Carbon Storage Increasing Mixed *Source: Pilot Assessment of Global Ecosystems. 2000. WRI, IFPRI

4. ISSUE: Despite knowledge of the increasing demand and diminishing or endangered supply, science is not being effectively brought to bear on these challenges… • Existing mechanisms for linking science and policy are highly sectoral whereas the major problems today are increasingly multisectoral. • Such mechanisms include: Forest Resource Assessment, World Water Assessment, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, etc. • Significant issues identified by scientists are not on policy agendas. • E.g., Change in nitrogen and phosphorous cycles receives little attention outside of scientific literature • New data sources, methodologies and models are underutilized in many countries. • E.g., Remote sensing tools and data; Scenarios development

5. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment is: • An international scientific assessment to be completed in 2004 • Designed to meet a portion of the assessment needs of • Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), • Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD), • Ramsar Wetlands Convention, • other partners including the private sector and civil society • Focused on the consequences of changes in ecosystems for human well-being • Undertaken at multiple scales (local to global) • Designed to both provide information and build capacity to provide information • Expected to be repeated at 5-10 year intervals if it successfully meets needs

6. The MA focuses on: • Ecosystem services • The consequences of changes in ecosystems for human well being • The consequences of changes in ecosystems for other life on earth

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

8. The MA considers the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being

9. Climate Change Climate Change Land Cover Change Biodiversity Loss Nutrient Loading Etc. Energy Sector Biodiversity Food Supply Water Health Health Economics Economics Social Social IPCC The MA is an Integrated Assessment IPCC looks at impacts of one driver (climate) on different systems; MA will integrate the effects of multiple drivers on all ecosystems Driver Ecosystems Response Human Impact Millennium Assessment

10. Sub-Global Assessment Working Group Condition Scenarios Response Organizational Structure of the MA 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

11. Status: MA Timeline of Activities 3rd WG Mtgs 2nd Design Mtg Begin Review 2nd WG Mtgs Board Approval Joint WG Mtg Review WG Mtgs 1st Design Mtg 1st WG Mtgs 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Assessment & Synthesis Release & Outreach Conceptual Framework Report Release UN Launch

12. The MA Board and design are reflective of a full spectrum of stakeholder groups: International organizations National and sub-national governments Local communities and civil society • MA has developed a close relationship with the World Business Council on Sustainable Development • Individual companies are represented by Board members • MA findings will be relevant to intermediaries such as credit agencies, institutional investors, and trade organizations • ~180 governments have endorsed the MA through their participation in international conventions • Administrative authorities are also engaged as users at other levels • Traditional knowledge of indigenous groups will be incorporated in the MA • MA has been designed to meet some assessment needs of indigenous and local communities • The MA was featured as a key action in the UN Secretary-General’s “Millennium Report”, April 2000 • The MA was launched by Kofi Annan, June 2001 • 13 international institutions are directly represented on the MA Board Private sector Media and Public • MA will provide information to various news outlets, journals, etc. • Findings may become part of a public information campaign on ecosystems

13. Conceptual Framework Report completed 500 Authors, 80 countries 2-3 meetings of each Working Group Cross-cut meetings: Biodiv, Drivers, Health, Food, Marine, Water Zero order draft chapters for ~all chapters except Sub-Global 10 Sub-global assessments approved 12 additional ‘candidates’ Review Board established Core datasets available On-line data catalog and exploration tool Cross-check against user needs Status: Development of Content

14. Status: Process of User Engagement • Strengthened CBD and Ramsar Authorization and CCD links • CMS new authorizing convention • Country strategies underway in 25 countries (e.g., national user forums during 2003 involving ~700 people) • Private sector industry group briefings + WBCSD workshops • Board communications committee • 20 National Academies as partners

16. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) First MA Product, published September 2003

17. Conceptual Framework Report: “Ecosystems and Human Well-Being” Purpose: • To provide a unified approach, rationale, and terminology for the assessment • All members of the assessment panel and CLAs from all Working Groups were engaged in writing • To inform MA users as well as the scientific community of the nature of the product to come and its foundation • To provide information to those interested in applying elements of the MA in other assessment activities

18. Conceptual Framework

19. Sub-Global Assessment Working Group All of the above… at sub-global scales Using the Conceptual Framework as a guide, MA Working Groups will try to answer core questions Conditions and Trends 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? Scenarios 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 about it?

20. Condition and Trends Assessment Report I Introduction • CF, Methods, Drivers, Biodiversity, Human Well-Being and Vulnerability II Ecosystem Services • Analysed by major ecosystem services IIICondition and Causality – Analyzed by Ecosystems • Multiple services from various systems IVSynthesis

21. MA Reporting Categories or “Systems” examples

22. Goal: Develop scenarios that embrace a useful range of plausible futures of the world’s ecosystem services • Our vision of scenarios • Embrace plausible outcomes of unpredictable and ambiguous drivers (as well as predictable ones) • Emphasize surprises, not central tendencies • Consistent with state-of-the-art ecological information • Quantitative and qualitative • To the year 2050 (slices looking at years between now and then)

23. More Positive Rosy More Neutral More Negative Joint Development with Responses Working Group Retrospective Based on Millennium Development Goals No new modeling Varied Expt Techno Fix Develop Fix Developed by Scenarios Working Group Prospective Quantified Fortress

24. Scenarios Framework Relationships and Interactions of People and Nature connected Global institutions Technological fix Development Fix Varied Experiments Fortress disaggregated responsive proactive Approach to cross-scale feedbacks

25. Executive Summary Preface Chapter 1. History of global scenarios Chapter 2. Ecology in global scenarios Chapter 3. Driving forces Chapter 4. Assessment of quantification and modeling approaches Chapter 5. Methods Chapter 6. Preamble to the scenarios Chapter 7. Storylines Chapter 8. Ecosystem goods and services across the scenarios Chapter 9. Human well-being across the scenarios Chapter 10. Trade-offs among ecosystem services Chapter 11. Synthesis: Lessons learned Chapter 12. Synthesis: Policy implications Scenarios Assessment Report Outline

26. Responses Working Group Timeline • 1st WG Meeting: New Delhi, June 2002 • Zero Order Drafts: March 2003 • 2nd WG Meeting: Frankfurt, May 2003

27. Responses in the MA Responses are defined as the range of policies or measures that impact the state and functioning of ecosystems: • Measures that impact eco-systems directly or indirectly • Initiated by decision makers at global, regional or local levels • Legal, economic, financial, institutional, technological, social or cognitive interventions • Planned to affect indirect drivers, direct drivers, or human well-being

28. Responses Assessment Report Structure Part I: Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Responses Part II: Assessment of Past and Current Responses Part III: Synthesis: “Ingredients for successful responses”

29. Global Assessment Users Regional Development Banks, etc. Regional National Government National Local Community Local Multiple ScalesThe MA is a multi-scale assessment - it is expected that findings at any scale of a multi-scale assessment will differ from those of a single-scale assessment as a result of information and perspectives from other scales Why undertake a multi-scale assessment? • Permit social and ecological processes to be assessed at their characteristic scale • Allow greater spatial, temporal, causal detail to be considered as scale becomes finer • Allow independent validation of larger-scale conclusions • Permit reporting and response options matched to the scale where decision-making takes place

31. 2002 2003 2004 Condition Scenarios Responses Sub-Global Drivers Biodiversity Food Drylands Health Coastal Marine Water MA Cross-cutting Issues Seven issues were identified that cut across all working groups. Special meetings have been held to address these “cross-cutting” issues. Prague Combined WG

32. What are the Outputs of the Global Assessment? 2003 • People and Ecosystems: A Framework for Assessment • Release: September • MA Data Catalog • Datasets being used in the MA 2004 • Conference Proceedings: Bridging Scales and Epistemologies in Multi-scale Assessments 2005 • Technical Assessment Reports (300-800 pages ea.) and Summaries for Decision-makers (SDMs) • Sub-global Assessment • Condition/Trends Assessment • Scenario Assessment • Response Options Assessment • Summary Volume (SDMs of 4 reports)

33. Assessment Outputs: Global (continued) 2005 • Synthesis Reports (30-50 page) • Ecosystems and Human Well-being • Biodiversity (CBD) • Desertification (CCD) • Wetlands (Ramsar) • Private Sector • Health and Ecosystems (tentative) • Food and Cultivated Systems (tentative) • Board Summary of Key Messages (10 p.) • Other Products • Reports available over internet (multiple language for summary docs) • Interactive web-based MA indicator exploration capability • Partnerships for expanded outreach: radio, theatre, documentaries, film (tentative) • Partnerships for capacity-building/training outreach (tentative)

34. What are the Outputs of the Sub-Global Assessments? • India • Pilot Assessment (2000) • Final Assessment (2005) • Southern Africa Assessment • Pilot Assessment (2002) • Final Assessment (2005) • Norway Pilot Assessment (2002) • Coastal British Columbia (Final 2004) • Small Islands of Papua New Guinea (Final 2005) • Laguna Lake Basin Philippines (Final 2005) • Northern Range Trinidad (Final 2005) • Sweden Local Assessments (Final 2005) • Salar de Atacama, Chile (Final 2005) • Mekong Wetlands, Vietnam (Final 2005) • Sinai Peninsula (Final 2005) • Western China (Final 2006)

35. Capacity Building A Central Objective of the MA, capacity building will occur through multiple outlets: • Access to Data/Information • Sub-Global Assessments • Training Materials • Young Fellows Program • Scenarios and Modeling Training Course • Partnerships for Distance Learning The Secretariat remains open to the identification and development of other capacity building opportunities during the course of the assessment.

36. Distributed SecretariatIndividuals andOrganizations around the world support the entire process Condition TSU UNEP-WCMC, U.K. (& South Africa) Scenarios TSU SCOPE, France (& Italy, United States) Response Options TSU Institute for Economic Growth, India (& RIVM, Netherlands) Director’s Office The World Fish Center (ICLARM), Malaysia Sub-Global TSU, ICLARM, Malaysia GEF, UNF Grant Administration UNEP,Kenya Meeting Support Meridian Institute, USA Outreach & Engagement WRI & Meridian Institute, USA TSU: Technical Support Unit . Organizations/countries listed in parentheses provide or host additional support and technical staff

37. MA receives financial and in-kind contributions from a variety of sources FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS (~ $17 MILLION) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS (~ $6 MILLION) • Sponsors • Global Environment Facility • United Nations Foundation • Packard Foundation • World Bank • United Nations Environment Program • Other Donors • Government of Norway • Kingdom of Saudi Arabia • Rockefeller Foundation • NASA • ICSU • Swedish International Biodiversity Programme • Christensen Fund • Norway • China • India • Japan • Germany • Netherlands • United States (NASA, USGS, ORNL, USDA) • European Commission • FAO, UNDP, WHO, UNESCO, UNEP • ICRAF, ICLARM • Numerous other countries, NGOs, Universities and other institutions are supporting travel costs of experts

38. www.millenniumassessment.org Visit the MA Website