Ｐｒｅｌｉｍｉｎａｒｙ Ｒｅｓｕｌｔｓ ｆｏｒ ＭＡ

AIM Project TeamNational Institute for Environmental Studies
andKyoto University

MA Third Global Scenarios Workshop, San Jose, Costa Rica March 33-7, 2003

Backgroundz MA scenarios are much different from IPCC

scenarios from the following viewpoints:
9 Drivers of ecosystem changes are muchbroader than those of climate change
9 Feed back mechanism of ecosystem tosocioeconomic system is much more complex
and intensive than that of climate

Necessity of new model for
MA scenario quantification

Purpose for AIM/Ecosystem
Developmentz Consistency check between ecosystemchanges and socioeconomic behaviors aswell as among drivers of ecosystem changez Integrated quantification of MA scenarios¾ To prepare and defend MA scenario

quantification¾ To reflect to MA qualitative scenarios¾ To reflect to MA Drivers Cross-Cut Report

Structure of AIM/Ecosystemintermediate,energy,capital, labor
Environmental service/goods

Drivers ofecosystem change

production andservice/goods
sectorproduced
goods andservice

Environmental
service/goods

Environmental
service/goods
production
sectors

intermediate,
energy,Feedback mechanism ofcapital,
ecosystem to socio-economy labor

Natural capitalmaintenance andaugmentation service/goods

importexportmarketabroadcapitallabor

naturalcapitalmaintenancesectors

householdgovernment

final demand
Recreationaland cultural
servicesmaintenance
costs

z

Socio-economic drivers¾ Economic growth, Population, Technological improvement,

Energy efficiency, Energy mix, Globalization, Regionalization,
Households preference (Food demand, Preference ofinvestment)

Impacts

Feedback

Land Use Change
Environmental Pollution
99Air Pollution: Global warming, Energy consumption and pollutant
emission, Pollutant Abatment and environmental investment,
Ecosystem assessment on SOx and NOx emission
Water Pollution: Economic Activity and water pollutant (BOD, N, P)
effluents, Pollutant abatment and environmental investment, BOD loadand degradation of freshwater resource, N and P load and economicdamage

Water demand and supply
9Spectral economic activity and regional water demand, water demand,
climate change and water pollution

Land degradation
Biodiversity

PopGHGs
EmissionGDP
Environmental
Investment

Food

Households

Industry

EnergyConsumption

Service

Agriculture

Livestock
Water
Pollutant
Discharge

Fresh Water

LandDegradation

Land Use
ChangeForest

Selfpurification

Biodiversity

Ecosystem Impact/feedback process

The MA will focus on:
Ecosystem services (the conditions and processes
supported by biodiversity through which ecosystems
sustain and fulfil human life, including through theprovision of goods)• Provisioning: e.g. Food, Water, Fibre, Fuel, Other biological products• Supporting: e.g. Biodiversity, Pollination, Waste Treatment• Cultural: e.g. Cultural, Aesthetic, Social relations

The consequences of changes in ecosystems forhuman well being.
The consequences of changes in ecosystems for otherlife on earthMultiple Users Among Conventions

FCCC
SBSTA

IPCC

CBDSBSTTA

CCD
CST

Ramsar
STRP

MAResearch, UN Data, National and International Assessments

Organization
Board
Assessment Panel
Working Group Chairs

Support Functions

Outreach & Engagement

Director, Administration,Logistics, Data Management

Sub-Global Assessment
Working Group

Condition

Scenarios

Response Options

Global Assessment Working GroupsScenario (Def. @ Workshop Material)

Scenario 1: Economic Optimism(A1B, Global policy focus, Development focus, Development fix)
Scenario 2: Global bridges, local barrier(A2, Fortress, Compartmentalize, Security focus)
Scenario 3: Engineered Ecosystem: Technogarden(B1, Technology focus, Technology fix)
Scenario 4: Local Learning(B2, Cross-scale focus, Varied experiments, Multi-scale focus)
Scenario 5: Rosy

Simulation casez Global: Global Policy focus (economicoptimism) scenarioz Technology: Technology focus (technogarden) scenario
z Cross-scale : Cross-scale management
focus (learning) scenario

Forest area (World)World
4000000
3950000
Cross-scale

3900000
3850000

Technology

1000ha3800000

Global3750000
3700000
3650000
3600000
3550000
3500000
1990

2000

2010

2020
Year

2030

2040

2050

Forest areaAFRICA

FSU
680000940000
Cross-scaleTechnology930000

Cross-scale

670000Technology920000

660000890000880000Global650000Global9000001000ha1000ha910000640000630000870000620000860000610000850000840000
1990

2010

2030
Year2050

600000
1990

2010

2030
Year2050

Emission (CO2, SO2)
CO2(W orld total)

SO2(W orld total)

18

250

16

Global

14

Cross-scale

200

Gt-C

Technology

108

Mt-SO2

12150
Global100

Cross-scale

6Technology

4

50

20
1990

2010

2030
Year

2050

0
1990

2010

2030
Year2050

Suggestions based on the preliminary
AIM/Ecosystem run
I.

II.

III.

“Global Policy focus (economic optimism)
scenario” would protract ecosystemdegradation“Technology focus (techno-garden)
scenario” would polarize regional
ecosystem conditions into two extreme“Cross-scale management focus (learning)
scenario” would sustain high regional
incentives for ecosystem conservation

Globalization

High ineconomic
growthCompetitions would
increase incentives to
R&D investment inbiomass and crop
production sectors,
which could increase
their productivities andreduce the shifting ratefrom forest land toarable land

Biomass demand
increase

Shift diet pattern
to meat

Land competition
increase
Investment increase
Environmental technology

Production technology

Land productivity
increase
Land competition
decrease

Productivity improvements would
reduce the land use competition, andin turn, would decrease incentives to
the R&D investment in these sectors.
As a consequence, it is very difficult
to stop the shift from forest land toarable land.

Global policy focus

Investment decrease
Environmental
technology

Production
technology

Slow in technological advanceGlobalization

High ineconomic
growthAdoption ofsubstitution strategy
of natural ecosystemwith artificial systems
Necessity of hugeinvestment
Select investment into
profit-earning ecosystem

Face to acute shortage of funds
because of so wide ecosystemarea to be invested, and then,fund would be selectively invested
into profit-earning ecosystems.
This situation could polarize
regional ecosystem conditions
into two extremes, those are,rapid environmental degradationsin poor regions as well as in low
profit-earning ecosystem, andadequate ecosystem conservationin developed countries and urban
areas.

Technology focus

Less Investment
Environmental
technology

Production
technology

Large Investment
Environmental
technology

Production
technology

Small progress intechnologicaladvance

Large progress intechnologicaladvanceLand productivity
decrease

Land productivity
increase

Regionalization

Domestic supply of
biomass and crops

Restricted international trade
increase the regional land use
competitions between
biomass/crop productions andecosystem conservation

Land competition
increase
Huge R&D investment for theproductivity improvements could
be decreased by regional market
reform as well as regional
production reform toward
environmental friendly systems,
because this scenario assumes
cross-scale learning in a world
where regional markets andproduction systems reform more
rapidly than global ones. As aconsequence, this scenario could
sustain regional ecosystemconservation.

Sustaining regional incentives toR&D investment and social reforms

Regional
marketreformRegional
investment inR&D

Regional
production
processreformCost effective management ofregional ecosystem

Cross scale management system

Consistency check of previous
assumptions(e.g. Technological change)z “Global Policy focus”

high►►► high then low

z “Technology focus”

high►►► regional divergentz “Cross-scale management focus”

intermediate ►►► highFiled Trip to La SelvaTime Table
Mid, April
Climate)Harmonization (Drivers,End, June First Calculation
End, Aug. Model Group Meeting
Sep.

Drafting ReportOct.

MA Plenary (Plague)

Dec. Experts)

Review (Governments,