Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report

12345Maggie Powell, Meenakshi Rathore, Ciara Raudsepp-Hearne, Carolina Katz Reid, WalterReid, Liana Reilly, Philippe Rekacewicz, Carol Rosen, Mariana Sanchez Abregu, AnneSchram, Tang Siang Nee, Henk Simons, Linda Starke, Sara Suriani, Darrell Taylor, ValerieThompson, Jillian Thonell, Tutti Tischler, Elsie Velez Whited, Elizabeth Wilson, MarkZimsky, and Monika Zurek.678910111213141516171819202122We thank the members of the MA Board for the guidance and oversight they provided to thisprocess. In addition to the current Board members (listed earlier), the contributions of pastmembers of the MA Board were instrumental in shaping the MA focus and process and theseindividuals include Philbert Brown, Gisbert Glaser, He Changchui, Richard Helmer, YolandaKakabadse, Yoriko Kawaguchi, Ann Kern, Roberto Lenton, Hubert Markl, Arnulf MüllerHelbrecht, Corinne Lepage, Alfred Oteng-Yeboah, Seema Paul, Susan Pineda Mercado, JanPlesnik, Peter Raven, Cristián Samper, Ola Smith, Dennis Tirpak, and Meryl Williams. Wewish to also thank the members of the Exploratory Steering Committee that designed the MAproject in 1999–2000. This group included a number of the current and past Board members,as well as Edward Ayensu, Mark Collins, Andrew Dearing, Louise Fresco, Madhav Gadgil,Habiba Gitay, Zuzana Guziova, Calestous Juma, John Krebs, Jane Lubchenco, JeffreyMcNeely, Ndegwa Ndiang'ui, Janos Pasztor, Prabhu L. Pingali, Per Pinstrup-Andersen, andJosé Sarukhán. And we would like to acknowledge the support and guidance provided by thesecretariats and the scientific and technical bodies of the Convention on Biological Diversity,the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, the Convention to Combat Desertification, and theConvention on Migratory Species, which have helped to define the focus of the MA and ofthis report.232425262728293031323334353637383940We also want to acknowledge the support of a large number of nongovernmentalorganizations and networks around the world that have assisted in outreach efforts:Professional Council of Environmental Analysts of Argentina, Probioandes (Peru), PeruvianSociety of Environmental Law, Foro Ecológico (Peru), Institute for BiodiversityConservation and Research–Academy of Sciences of Bolivia, Forest Institute of the State ofSão Paulo, WWF-Brazil, Fundación Natura (Ecuador), University of Chile, Resources andResearch for Sustainable Development (Chile), Asociación Ixacavaa (Costa Rica), TerraNuova (Nicaragua), Indonesian Biodiversity Foundation, University of the Philippines, TheNature Conservancy (United States), WWF-US, The Regional Environmental Centre forCentral Asia, Alexandria University, Suez Canal University, European Union of ScienceJournalists’ Associations, Arab Media Forum on Environment and Development, StockholmUniversity, Charles University (Czech Republic), European Environmental Agency, EISAfrica (Burkina Faso), Permanent Inter-States Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel,Regional Center AGRHYMET (Niger), IUCN Regional Offices for West Africa and SouthAmerica, IUCN office in Uzbekistan, World Assembly of Youth, International Alliance ofIndigenous Peoples of the Tropical Forests, Global Development Learning Network, WorldBusiness Council for Sustainable Development, Argentine Business Council for SustainableDevelopment, and Brazilian Business Council on Sustainable Development.41424344454647We are extremely grateful to the donors that provided major financial support for the MA andthe MA Sub-global Assessments: Global Environment Facility; United Nations Foundation;David and Lucile Packard Foundation; World Bank; Consultative Group on InternationalAgricultural Research; United Nations Environment Programme; Government of China;Government of Norway; Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; Swedish International BiodiversityProgramme. We also thank other organizations that provided financial support: Asia PacificNetwork for Global Change Research; Association of Caribbean States; British HighNOT FOR CITATION – Check against final draft on March 30 20056

03132Commission, Trinidad & Tobago; Caixa Geral de Depósitos, Portugal; CanadianInternational Development Agency; Christensen Fund; Cropper Foundation, EnvironmentalManagement Authority of Trinidad and Tobago; Ford Foundation; Government of India;International Council for Science; International Development Research Centre; IslandResources Foundation; Japan Ministry of Environment; Laguna Lake DevelopmentAuthority; Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources; RockefellerFoundation; U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; UNEP Division of EarlyWarning and Assessment; United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and RuralAffairs; United States National Aeronautic and Space Administration; and, Universidade deCoimbra, Portugal. Generous in-kind support has been provided by many other institutions(a full list is available at www.MAweb.org). The work to establish and design the MA wassupported by grants from The Avina Group, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation,Global Environment Facility, Government of Norway, Swedish International DevelopmentCooperation Authority, Summit Foundation, UNDP, UNEP, the United Nations Foundation,United States Agency for International Development, Wallace Global Fund, and World Bank.Finally, we would particularly like to thank Angela Cropper and Harold Mooney, the cochairs of the MA Assessment Panel, and José Sarukhán and Anne Whyte, the co-chairs of theMA Review Board, for their skillful leadership of the assessment and review processes.Dr. Robert T. WatsonMA Board Co-ChairChief Scientist, The World BankDr. A.H. ZakriMA Board Co-ChairDirector, Institute for Advanced Studies, United Nations UniversityDr. Klaus TöpferExecutive Director, United Nations Environment ProgrammeDirector General, United Nations Office in NairobiNOT FOR CITATION – Check against final draft on March 30 20057

1Preface2345678910The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was carried out between 2001 and 2005 to assess theconsequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and to establish the scientific basisfor actions needed to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems and theircontributions to human well-being. The MA responds to government requests forinformation received through four international conventions—the Convention on BiologicalDiversity, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, the Ramsar Conventionon Wetlands, and the Convention on Migratory Species—and is designed to also meet needsof other stakeholders, including the business community, the health sector, nongovernmentalorganizations, and indigenous peoples.11121314151617181920212223The assessment focuses on the linkages between ecosystems and human well-being and, inparticular, on “ecosystem services.” An ecosystem is a dynamic complex of plant, animal,and microorganism communities and the nonliving environment interacting as a functionalunit. The MA deals with the full range of ecosystems—from those relatively undisturbed,such as natural forests, to landscapes with mixed patterns of human use, to ecosystemsintensively managed and modified by humans, such as agricultural land and urban areas.Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These includeprovisioning services such as food, water, timber, and fiber; regulating services that affectclimate, floods, disease, wastes, and water quality; cultural services that provide recreational,aesthetic, and spiritual benefits; and supporting services such as soil formation,photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling. (See Figure A.) The human species, while bufferedagainst environmental changes by culture and technology, is ultimately fully dependent onthe flow of ecosystem services.242526272829303132333435The MA examines how changes in ecosystem services influence human well-being. Humanwell-being is assumed to have multiple constituents, including the basic material for a goodlife, such as secure and adequate livelihoods, enough food at all times, shelter, clothing, andaccess to goods; health, including feeling well and having a healthy physical environment,such as clean air and access to clean water; good social relations, including social cohesion,mutual respect, and the ability to help others and provide for children; security, includingsecure access to natural and other resources, personal safety, and security from natural andhuman-made disasters; and freedom of choice and action, including the opportunity toachieve what an individual values doing and being. Freedom of choice and action isinfluenced by other constituents of well-being (as well as by other factors, notably education)and is also a precondition for achieving other components of well-being, particularly withrespect to equity and fairness.36373839404142434445The conceptual framework for the MA assumes that people are integral parts of ecosystemsand that a dynamic interaction exists between them and other parts of ecosystems, with thechanging human condition driving, both directly and indirectly, changes in ecosystems andthereby causing changes in human well-being. (See Figure B.) At the same time, social,economic, and cultural factors unrelated to ecosystems alter the human condition, and manynatural forces influence ecosystems. Although the MA emphasizes the linkages betweenecosystems and human well-being, it recognizes that the actions people take that influenceecosystems result not just from concern about human well-being but also from considerationsof the intrinsic value of species and ecosystems. Intrinsic value is the value of something inand for itself, irrespective of its utility for someone else.NOT FOR CITATION – Check against final draft on March 30 20058

123456789The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment synthesizes information from the scientific literatureand relevant peer-reviewed datasets and models. It incorporates knowledge held by theprivate sector, practitioners, local communities, and indigenous peoples. The MA did notaim to generate new primary knowledge, but instead sought to add value to existinginformation by collating, evaluating, summarizing, interpreting, and communicating it in auseful form. Assessments like this one apply the judgment of experts to existing knowledgeto provide scientifically credible answers to policy-relevant questions. The focus on policyrelevant questions and the explicit use of expert judgment distinguish this type of assessmentfrom a scientific review.101112Five overarching questions, along with more detailed lists of user needs developed throughdiscussions with stakeholders or provided by governments through international conventions,guided the issues that were assessed:1314151617181920212223 What are the current condition and trends of ecosystems and human well-being? What are the plausible future changes in ecosystems and their ecosystem services and242526272829303132333435The MA was conducted as a multiscale assessment, with interlinked assessments undertakenat local, watershed, national, regional, and global scales. A global ecosystem assessmentcannot easily meet the needs of decision-makers at national and sub-national scales becausethe management of any particular ecosystem must be tailored to the particular characteristicsof that ecosystem and to the demands placed on it. However, an assessment focused only ona particular ecosystem or particular nation is insufficient because some processes are globaland because local goods, services, matter, and energy are often transferred across regions.Each of the component assessments was guided by the MA conceptual framework andbenefited from the presence of assessments undertaken at larger and smaller scales. The subglobal assessments were not intended to serve as representative samples of all ecosystems;rather, they were to meet the needs of decision-makers at the scales at which they wereundertaken.3637383940414243444546The work of the MA was conducted through four working groups, each of which prepared areport of its findings. At the global scale, the Condition and Trends Working Group assessedthe state of knowledge on ecosystems, drivers of ecosystem change, ecosystem services, andassociated human well-being around the year 2000. The assessment aimed to becomprehensive with regard to ecosystem services, but its coverage is not exhaustive. TheScenarios Working Group considered the possible evolution of ecosystem services during thetwenty-first century by developing four global scenarios exploring plausible future changes indrivers, ecosystems, ecosystem services, and human well-being. The Responses WorkingGroup examined the strengths and weaknesses of various response options that have beenused to manage ecosystem services and identified promising opportunities for improvinghuman well-being while conserving ecosystems. The report of the Sub-global Working the consequent changes in human well-being?What can be done to enhance well-being and conserve ecosystems? What are thestrengths and weaknesses of response options that can be considered to realize oravoid specific futures?What are the key uncertainties that hinder effective decision-making concerningecosystems?What tools and methodologies developed and used in the MA can strengthen capacityto assess ecosystems, the services they provide, their impacts on human well-being,and the strengths and weaknesses of response options?NOT FOR CITATION – Check against final draft on March 30 20059

123Group contains a synthesis of the key findings of the MA sub-global assessments. The firstproduct of the MA—Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment,published in 2003—outlined the focus, conceptual basis, and methods used in the MA.4567891011121314Approximately 1,360 experts from 95 countries were involved as authors of the assessmentreports, as participants in the sub-global assessments, or as members of the Board of ReviewEditors. (See Appendix C for the list of authors and review editors.) The latter group, whichinvolved 85 experts, oversaw the scientific review of the MA reports by governments andexperts and ensured that all review comments were appropriately addressed by the authors.All MA findings underwent two rounds of expert and governmental review. Reviewcomments were received from approximately 850 individuals (of which roughly 250 weresubmitted by authors of other chapters in the MA), although in a number of cases(particularly in the case of governments and MA-affiliated scientific organizations), peoplesubmitted collated comments that had been prepared by a number of reviewers in theirgovernments or institutions.151617181920The MA was guided by a Board that included representatives of five internationalconventions, five U.N. agencies, international scientific organizations, and leaders from theprivate sector, nongovernmental organizations, and indigenous groups. A 13-memberAssessment Panel of leading social and natural scientists oversaw the technical work of theassessment, supported by a secretariat with offices in Europe, North America, SouthAmerica, Asia, and Africa and coordinated by the United Nations Environment Programme.212223242526272829The MA is intended to be used: to identify priorities for action; as a benchmark for future assessments; as a framework and source of tools for assessment, planning, and management; to gain foresight concerning the consequences of decisions affecting ecosystems; to identify response options to achieve human development and sustainability goals; to help build individual and institutional capacity to undertake integrated ecosystemassessments and act on the findings; and to guide future research.3031323334353637383940414243Because of the broad scope of the MA and the complexity of the interactions between socialand natural systems, it proved to be difficult to provide definitive information for some of theissues addressed in the MA. Relatively few ecosystem services have been the focus ofresearch and monitoring and, as a consequence, research findings and data are ofteninadequate for a detailed global assessment. Moreover, the data and information that areavailable are generally related to either the characteristics of the ecological system or thecharacteristics of the social system, not to the all-important interactions between thesesystems. Finally, the scientific and assessment tools and models available to undertake across-scale integrated assessment and to project future changes in ecosystem services are onlynow being developed. Despite these challenges, the MA was able to provide considerableinformation relevant to most of the focal questions. And by identifying gaps in data andinformation that prevent policy-relevant questions from being answered, the assessment canhelp to guide research and monitoring that may allow those questions to be answered infuture assessments.NOT FOR CITATION – Check against final draft on March 30 200510

12345678910Figure A. Linkages between Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being. This figuredepicts the strength of linkages between categories of ecosystem services and components ofhuman well-being that are commonly encountered, and includes indications of the extent towhich it is possible for socioeconomic factors to mediate the linkage. (For example, if it ispossible to purchase a substitute for a degraded ecosystem service, then there is a highpotential for mediation.) The strength of the linkages and the potential for mediation differ indifferent ecosystems and regions. In addition to the influence of ecosystem services onhuman well-being depicted here, other factors—including other environmental factors as wellas economic, social, technological, and cultural factors—influence human well-being, andecosystems are in turn affected by changes in human well-being. (See Figure B.)1112NOT FOR CITATION – Check against final draft on March 30 200511

1234567891011Figure B. Framework of interactions between biodiversity, ecosystem services, humanwell-being, and drivers of change. Changes in drivers that indirectly affect biodiversity

1 2 3 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis 4 Report 5 Draft 9: 1 March 2005 6 7 Note to reader: This is the unedited penultimate draft of the MA General 8 Synthesis Report. The contents of this draft may change before its final 9 release on March 30. The material in this draft should not be quoted or cited. 10 Information from this