# Presentation: 467446

## Millennium Ecosystem

## Largest assessment of the health of Earth’s ecosystems

**Experts and Review Process**
- Prepared by 1360 experts from 95 countries
- 80-person independent board of review editors
- Review comments from 850 experts and governments
**Governance**
- Called for by UN Secretary General in 2000
- Authorized by governments through 4 conventions
- Partnership of UN agencies, conventions, business, non-governmental organizations with a multi-stakeholder board of directors

## MA Board

**Co-chairs**
**Robert T. Watson**, *World Bank*
**A.H. Zakri**, *United Nations University*

**Institutional Representatives **
**Salvatore Arico, ***United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization*
**Peter Bridgewater*****,**** Ramsar Convention on Wetlands*
**Hama Arba Diallo,** *United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification*
**Adel El-Beltagy, ***Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research*
**Max Finlayson, ***Ramsar Convention on Wetlands*
**Colin Galbraith, ***Convention on Migratory Species*
**Erika Harms, ***United Nations Foundation*
**Robert Hepworth, ***Convention on Migratory Species*
**Kerstin Leitner, ***World Health Organization*
**Alfred Oteng-Yeboah, ***Convention on Biological Diversity*
**Christian Prip, ***Convention on Biological Diversity*
**Mario Ramos, ***Global Environment Facility*
**Thomas Rosswall, ***International Council for Science*
**Achim Steiner, ***IUCN–The World Conservation Union*
**Halldor Thorgeirsson, ***United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change*
**Klaus Töpfer, ***United Nations Environment Programme*
**Jeff Tschirley, ***Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations*
**Alvaro Umaña, ***United Nations Development Programme*
**Ricardo Valentini, ***United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification*
**Hamdallah Zedan, ***Convention on Biological Diversity*

## MA Board

**Members at Large**
**Fernando Almeida**, *Business Council for Sustainable Development ­– Brazil*
**Phoebe Barnard,** *Global Invasive Species Programme, South Africa*
**Gordana Beltram**, *Ministry of Environment, Slovenia*
**Delmar Blasco,** *Spain*
**Antony Burgmans,** *Unilever N.V., The Netherlands*
**Esther Camac**, *Asociación Ixä Ca Vaá de Desarrollo e Información Indigena, Costa Rica*
**Angela Cropper** *(ex officio), The Cropper Foundation, Trinidad and Tobago*
**Partha Dasgupta,** *University of Cambridge, U.K.*
**José Maria Figueres,** *Fundación Costa Rica para el Desarrollo Sostenible, Costa Rica*
**Fred Fortier,** *Indigenous Peoples' Biodiversity Information Network, Canada*
**Mohamed H.A. Hassan**, *Third World Academy of Sciences, Italy*
**Jonathan Lash,** *World Resources Institute, United States*
**Wangari Maathai**, *Ministry of Environment, Kenya*
**Paul Maro,** *University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania*

**Harold Mooney ***(ex officio), Stanford University, United States*
**Marina Motovilova**, *Laboratory of Moscow Region, Russia*
**M.K. Prasad, ***Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishad, India*
**Walter V. Reid, ***Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Malaysia and United States*
**Henry Schacht, ***Lucent Technologies, United States*
**Peter Johan Schei, ***The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Norway*
**Ismail Serageldin, ***Bibliotheca Alexandrina, Egypt*
**David Suzuki, ***David Suzuki Foundation, Canada*
**M.S. Swaminathan, ***MS Swaminathan Research Foundation, India*
**José Galízia Tundisi, ***International Institute of Ecology, Brazil*
**Axel Wenblad, ***Skanska AB, Sweden*
**Xu Guanhua, ***Ministry of Science and Technology, China*
**Muhammad Yunus, ***Grameen Bank, Bangladesh*

## Financial and in-kind support(full list available at www.MAweb.org)

**Global Environment Facility **
**United Nations Foundation **
**David and Lucile Packard Foundation**
**World Bank **
**Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research**
**United Nations Environment Programme**
**Government of China**
**Government of Norway**
**Kingdom of Saudi Arabia **
**Swedish International Biodiversity Programme**
- Asia Pacific Network for Global Change Research;
- Association of Caribbean States
- British High Commission, Trinidad & Tobago;
- Caixa Geral de Depósitos, Portugal
- Canadian International Development Agency
- Christensen Fund
- Cropper Foundation

- Environmental Management Authority of Trinidad and Tobago
- Ford Foundation
- Government of India
- International Council for Science
- International Development Research Centre
- Island Resources Foundation;
- Japan Ministry of Environment
- Laguna Lake Development Authority
- Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources
- Rockefeller Foundation
- U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization;
- UNEP Division of Early Warning and Assessment
- United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
- United States National Aeronautic and Space Administration
- Universidade de Coimbra, Portugal

**Notes:**
Cost $17 million over 4 years.  Minimum of $5 million of ‘in kind’ contributions.  Experts volunteered their time.

## Defining Features

**Demand-driven**
- Providing information requested by governments, business, civil society
**Assessment of current state of knowledge**
- A critical evaluation of information concerning the consequences of ecosystem changes for human well-being
- Intended to be used to  guide decisions on complex public issues
**Authoritative information**
- Clarifies where there is broad consensus within the scientific community and where issues remain unresolved
**Policy relevant not policy prescriptive**

**Notes:**
Similar to (and modeled on) IPCC in basic structure, process, and authorization through governments.  
(But important differences:  sub-global assessments, multi-stakeholder board, links to multiple conventions.)

## Defining Features

**Multi-scale assessment**
- Includes information from 33 sub-global assessments

## Focus:  Consequences of Ecosystem Change for Human Well-being

## MA Framework

## Four Working Groups

**Sub-Global**

- All of the above, at regional, national, local scales

## 1.  Ecosystem Changes in Last 50 Years
2.  Gains and Losses from Ecosystem Change
Three major problems may decrease long-term benefits
Degradation of Ecosystem Services
Increased Likelihood of Nonlinear Changes
Exacerbation of Poverty for Some People
3.  Ecosystem Prospects for Next 50 Years
4.  Reversing Ecosystem Degradation

**2.  Gains and Losses from Ecosystem Change**
*Three major problems may decrease long-term benefits*
- Degradation of Ecosystem Services
- Increased Likelihood of Nonlinear Changes
- Exacerbation of Poverty for Some People
**3.  Ecosystem Prospects for Next 50 Years**
**4.  Reversing Ecosystem Degradation**

- MA Findings - Outline

## Some ecosystem recovery now underway but  high rates of conversion continue

- Ecosystems in some regions are returning to conditions similar to their pre-conversion states
- Rates of ecosystem conversion remain high or are increasing for specific ecosystems and regions

## 1.  Ecosystem Changes in Last 50 Years
2.  Gains and Losses from Ecosystem Change
Three major problems may decrease long-term benefits
Degradation of Ecosystem Services
Increased Likelihood of Nonlinear Changes
Exacerbation of Poverty for Some People
3.  Ecosystem Prospects for Next 50 Years
4.  Reversing Ecosystem Degradation

**2.  Gains and Losses from Ecosystem Change**
*Three major problems may decrease long-term benefits*
- Degradation of Ecosystem Services
- Increased Likelihood of Nonlinear Changes
- Exacerbation of Poverty for Some People
**3.  Ecosystem Prospects for Next 50 Years**
**4.  Reversing Ecosystem Degradation**

- MA Findings - Outline

## Changes to ecosystems have provided substantial benefits

**Rapid growth in demand for ecosystem services between 1960 and 2000: **
- world population 		x2
- global economy 		x6
**To meet this demand:**
- food production 		x2.5
- water use 		x2
- wood harvests 		x3
- timber production 	x1.5
- installed hydropower	x2

## Changes to ecosystems have provided substantial benefits

- Food production has more than doubled since 1960
- Food production per capita has grown
- Food price has fallen

**Notes:**
Over the past 40 years, globally, intensification of cultivated systems has been the primary source (almost 80%) of increased output. But some countries, predominantly found in Sub-Saharan Africa, have had persistently low levels of productivity, and continue to rely on expansion of cultivated area. in sub-Saharan Africa, however, yield increases accounted for only 34% of growth in production 

## Status of Provisioning Services

| Service |  | Status |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Food | crops |  |
|  | livestock |  |
|  | capture fisheries |  |
|  | aquaculture |  |
|  | wild foods |  |
| Fiber  | timber | +/– |
|  | cotton, silk | +/– |
|  | wood fuel |  |
| Genetic resources |  |  |
| Biochemicals, medicines |  |  |
| Fresh water |  |  |

## Examples of nonlinear change 

**Fisheries collapse***** ***
- The Atlantic cod stocks off the east coast of Newfoundland collapsed in 1992, forcing the closure of the fishery
- Depleted stocks may not recover even if harvesting is significantly reduced or eliminated entirely

## Ecosystem services and poverty reduction

**Critical concern:  Dryland systems**
- Dryland systems experienced the highest population growth rate in the 1990s

## Water

- 5 to possibly 25% of global freshwater use exceeds long-term accessible supplies (*low to medium certainty)*
- 15 - 35% of irrigation withdrawals exceed supply rates and are therefore unsustainable (*low to medium certainty)*

## 1.  Ecosystem Changes in Last 50 Years
2.  Gains and Losses from Ecosystem Change
Three major problems may decrease long-term benefits
Degradation of Ecosystem Services
Increased Likelihood of Nonlinear Changes
Exacerbation of Poverty for Some People
3.  Ecosystem Prospects for Next 50 Years
4.  Reversing Ecosystem Degradation

**2.  Gains and Losses from Ecosystem Change**
*Three major problems may decrease long-term benefits*
- Degradation of Ecosystem Services
- Increased Likelihood of Nonlinear Changes
- Exacerbation of Poverty for Some People
**3.  Ecosystem Prospects for Next 50 Years**
**4.  Reversing Ecosystem Degradation**

- MA Findings - Outline

## Direct drivers growing in intensity

**Most direct drivers of degradation in ecosystem services remain constant or are growing in intensity in most ecosystems**

## MA Scenarios

- Not predictions – scenarios are plausible futures
- Both quantitative models and qualitative analysis used in scenario development

## Changes in direct drivers

**Forest Area**

- Changes in crop land and forest area under MA Scenarios

## 1.  Ecosystem Changes in Last 50 Years
2.  Gains and Losses from Ecosystem Change
Three major problems may decrease long-term benefits
Degradation of Ecosystem Services
Increased Likelihood of Nonlinear Changes
Exacerbation of Poverty for Some People
3.  Ecosystem Prospects for Next 50 Years
4.  Reversing Ecosystem Degradation

**2.  Gains and Losses from Ecosystem Change**
*Three major problems may decrease long-term benefits*
- Degradation of Ecosystem Services
- Increased Likelihood of Nonlinear Changes
- Exacerbation of Poverty for Some People
**3.  Ecosystem Prospects for Next 50 Years**
**4.  Reversing Ecosystem Degradation**

- MA Findings - Outline

## Examples of changes in policies and practices that yield positive outcomes

**Global Orchestration**
- Major investments in public goods (e.g., education, infrastructure) and poverty reduction
- Trade barriers and distorting subsidies eliminated
**Adapting Mosaic**
- Widespread use of active adaptive management
- Investment in education (countries spend 13% of GDP on education, compared to 3.5% today)
**TechnoGarden**
- Significant investment in development of technologies to increase efficiency of use of ecosystem services
- Widespread use of ‘payments for ecosystem services’ and development of market mechanisms

## MA Responses Assessment

- The MA assessed 74 response options for ecosystem services, integrated ecosystem management, conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and climate change

## Responses: Economics

*Economic and financial interventions provide powerful instruments to regulate the use of ecosystem goods and services *
**Promising Responses**
- Elimination of subsidies that promote excessive use of ecosystem services (and, where possible, transfer these subsidies to payments for non-marketed ecosystem services)
*Subsidies paid to the agricultural sectors of OECD countries between 2001 and 2003 averaged over $324 billion annually, or one third the global value of agricultural products in 2000*
*Compensatory mechanisms may be needed for poor people who are adversely affected by the removal of subsidies*
*removal of agricultural production subsidies within the OECD would need to be accompanied by actions to minimize adverse impacts on ecosystem services in developing countries *

## Promising Responses
Greater use of economic instruments and market-based approaches in the management of ecosystem services (where enabling conditions exist): 
Taxes or user fees for activities with “external” costs (e.g. include taxes on excessive application of nutrients)
Payment for ecosystem services
For example, in 1996 Costa Rica established a nationwide system of conservation payments under which Costa Rica brokers contracts between international and domestic “buyers” and local “sellers” of sequestered carbon, biodiversity, watershed services, and scenic beauty
Mechanisms to enable consumer preferences to be expressed through markets such as existing certification schemes for sustainable fisheries and forest practices

- Greater use of economic instruments and market-based approaches in the management of ecosystem services (where enabling conditions exist):
*Taxes** or user fees for activities with “external” costs (e.g. include taxes on excessive application of nutrients)*
*Payment for ecosystem services*
- For example, in 1996 Costa Rica established a nationwide system of conservation payments under which Costa Rica brokers contracts between international and domestic “buyers” and local “sellers” of sequestered carbon, biodiversity, watershed services, and scenic beauty
*Mechanisms to enable consumer preferences to be expressed through markets such as existing **certification schemes** for sustainable fisheries and forest practices*

- Responses: Economics

## Responses: Economics

- Market-based approaches
- Creation of markets, including through cap-and-trade systems
- One of the most rapidly growing markets related to ecosystem services is the carbon market. The value of carbon trades in 2003 was approximately $300 million. About one quarter of the trades involved investment in ecosystem services (hydropower or biomass)
- It is speculated that this market may grow to some $44 billion by 2010

**Total Carbon Market Value per Year**

## Summary

- Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fiber and fuel
- The changes that have been made to ecosystems have contributed to substantial net gains in human well-being and economic development, but these gains have been achieved at growing costs in the form of the degradation of many ecosystem services, increased risks of nonlinear changes, and the exacerbation of poverty for some groups of people
- The degradation of ecosystem services could grow significantly worse during the first half of this century and is a barrier to achieving the Millennium Development Goals
- The challenge of reversing the degradation of ecosystems while meeting increasing demands for their services can be partially met under some scenarios that the MA has considered but these involve significant changes in policies, institutions and practices, that are not currently under way

## Visit the MA Website

**All MA reports available to download**
**Access to core data**
**MA ‘outreach’ kit**
- Slides
- Communication tools

*www.MAweb.org*