chapter 1 ma conceptual framework

Chapter 1

MA Conceptual Framework

Main Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1.2 What Is the Problem? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1.3 Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191.3.1 Ecosystems and Their Services1.3.2 Human Well-being and Poverty Reduction1.3.3 Drivers of Change1.3.4 Cross-scale Interactions and Assessment

1.4 Values Associated with Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

1.5 Assessment Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

1.6 Strategies and Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

BOXES

1.1 Key Definitions

1.2 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Conceptual Framework

1.3 Reporting Categories Used in the Millennium EcosystemAssessment

1.4 Valuation of Ecosystem Services

FIGURES

1.1 Linkages between Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being

This chapter provides the summary of Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment (IslandPress, 2003), pp. 1–25, which was prepared by an extended conceptual framework writing team of 51 authors and 10 contributing authors.

PAGE 15

15

................. 11474$ $CH1 10-17-05 15:41:21 PS

16 Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Sub-global

Main Messages

Human well-being and progress toward sustainable development are vi-tally dependent upon improving the management of Earth’s ecosystemsto ensure their conservation and sustainable use. But while demands forecosystem services such as food and clean water are growing, human actionsare at the same time diminishing the capability of many ecosystems to meetthese demands.

Sound policy and management interventions can often reverse ecosys-tem degradation and enhance the contributions of ecosystems to humanwell-being, but knowing when and how to intervene requires substantial un-derstanding of both the ecological and the social systems involved. Betterinformation cannot guarantee improved decisions, but it is a prerequisite forsound decision-making.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was established to help providethe knowledge base for improved decisions and to build capacity foranalyzing and supplying this information.

This chapter presents the conceptual and methodological approach thatthe MA used to assess options that can enhance the contribution ofecosystems to human well-being. This same approach should provide asuitable basis for governments, the private sector, and civil society to factorconsiderations of ecosystems and ecosystem services into their own planningand actions.

1.1 IntroductionHumanity has always depended on the services provided bythe biosphere and its ecosystems. Further, the biosphere isitself the product of life on Earth. The composition of theatmosphere and soil, the cycling of elements through airand waterways, and many other ecological assets are all theresult of living processes—and all are maintained and re-plenished by living ecosystems. The human species, whilebuffered against environmental immediacies by culture andtechnology, is ultimately fully dependent on the flow ofecosystem services.

In his April 2000 Millennium Report to the United Na-tions General Assembly, in recognition of the growing bur-den that degraded ecosystems are placing on human well-being and economic development and the opportunity thatbetter managed ecosystems provide for meeting the goalsof poverty eradication and sustainable development, UnitedNations Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated that:

It is impossible to devise effective environmental policy unless itis based on sound scientific information. While major advancesin data collection have been made in many areas, large gaps inour knowledge remain. In particular, there has never been acomprehensive global assessment of the world’s major ecosys-tems. The planned Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, amajor international collaborative effort to map the health of ourplanet, is a response to this need.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was establishedwith the involvement of governments, the private sector,nongovernmental organizations, and scientists to provide anintegrated assessment of the consequences of ecosystem

PAGE 16

change for human well-being and to analyze options avail-able to enhance the conservation of ecosystems and theircontributions to meeting human needs. The Conventionon Biological Diversity, the Convention to Combat Desert-ification, the Convention on Migratory Species, and theRamsar Convention on Wetlands plan to use the findingsof the MA, which will also help meet the needs of othersin government, the private sector, and civil society. TheMA should help to achieve the United Nations MillenniumDevelopment Goals and to carry out the Plan of Implemen-tation of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Develop-ment. It has mobilized hundreds of scientists from countriesaround the world to provide information and clarify scienceconcerning issues of greatest relevance to decision-makers.The MA has identified areas of broad scientific agreementand also pointed to areas of continuing scientific debate.

The assessment framework developed for the MA offersdecision-makers a mechanism to:• Identify options that can better achieve core human devel-

opment and sustainability goals. All countries and com-munities are grappling with the challenge of meetinggrowing demands for food, clean water, health, and em-ployment. And decision-makers in the private and pub-lic sectors must also balance economic growth and socialdevelopment with the need for environmental conser-vation. All of these concerns are linked directly or indi-rectly to the world’s ecosystems. The MA process, at allscales, was designed to bring the best science to bearon the needs of decision-makers concerning these linksbetween ecosystems, human development, and sustain-ability.

• Better understand the trade-offs involved—across sectorsand stakeholders—in decisions concerning the environ-ment. Ecosystem-related problems have historicallybeen approached issue by issue, but rarely by pursuingmultisectoral objectives. This approach has not with-stood the test of time. Progress toward one objectivesuch as increasing food production has often been at thecost of progress toward other objectives such as conserv-ing biological diversity or improving water quality. TheMA framework complements sectoral assessments withinformation on the full impact of potential policychoices across sectors and stakeholders.

• Align response options with the level of governance wherethey can be most effective. Effective management of eco-systems will require actions at all scales, from the local tothe global. Human actions now directly or inadvertentlyaffect virtually all of the world’s ecosystems; actions re-quired for the management of ecosystems refer to thesteps that humans can take to modify their direct or indi-rect influences on ecosystems. The management andpolicy options available and the concerns of stakeholdersdiffer greatly across these scales. The priority areas forbiodiversity conservation in a country as defined basedon ‘‘global’’ value, for example, would be very differentfrom those as defined based on the value to local com-munities. The multiscale assessment framework devel-oped for the MA provides a new approach for analyzing

................. 11474$ $CH1 10-17-05 15:41:22 PS

17MA Conceptual Framework

policy options at all scales—from local communities tointernational conventions.

1.2 What Is the Problem?Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from eco-systems, which the MA describes as provisioning, regulat-ing, supporting, and cultural services. (See Box 1.1.)Ecosystem services include products such as food, fuel, andfiber; regulating services such as climate regulation and dis-ease control; and nonmaterial benefits such as spiritual oraesthetic benefits. Changes in these services affect humanwell-being in many ways. (See Figure 1.1.)

The demand for ecosystem services is now so great thattrade-offs among services have become the rule. A countrycan increase food supply by converting a forest to agricul-ture, for example, but in so doing it decreases the supply ofservices that may be of equal or greater importance, such asclean water, timber, ecotourism destinations, or flood regu-lation and drought control. There are many indications thathuman demands on ecosystems will grow still greater in thecoming decades. Current estimates of 3 billion more peopleand a quadrupling of the world economy by 2050 implya formidable increase in demand for and consumption ofbiological and physical resources, as well as escalating im-pacts on ecosystems and the services they provide.

The problem posed by the growing demand for ecosys-tem services is compounded by increasingly serious degra-dation in the capability of ecosystems to provide theseservices. World fisheries are now declining due to overfish-ing, for instance, and a significant amount of agriculturalland has been degraded in the past half-century by erosion,salinization, compaction, nutrient depletion, pollution, andurbanization. Other human-induced impacts on ecosystemsinclude alteration of the nitrogen, phosphorous, sulfur, andcarbon cycles, causing acid rain, algal blooms, and fish kills

BOX 1.1

Key Definitions

Ecosystem. An ecosystem is a dynamic complex of plant, animal, andmicroorganism communities and the nonliving environment interactingas a functional unit. Humans are an integral part of ecosystems. Eco-systems vary enormously in size; a temporary pond in a tree hollowand an ocean basin can both be ecosystems.Ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are the benefits people ob-tain from ecosystems. These include provisioning services such asfood and water; regulating services such as regulation of floods,drought, land degradation, and disease; supporting services such assoil formation and nutrient cycling; and cultural services such as recre-ational, spiritual, religious and other nonmaterial benefits.Well-being. Human well-being has multiple constituents, including basicmaterial for a good life, freedom of choice and action, health, goodsocial relations, and security. Well-being is at the opposite end of acontinuum from poverty, which has been defined as a ‘‘pronounceddeprivation in well-being.’’ The constituents of well-being, as experi-enced and perceived by people, are situation-dependent, reflectinglocal geography, culture, and ecological circumstances.

PAGE 17

in rivers and coastal waters, along with contributions to cli-mate change. In many parts of the world, this degradationof ecosystem services is exacerbated by the associated loss ofthe knowledge and understanding held by local communi-ties—knowledge that sometimes could help to ensure thesustainable use of the ecosystem.

This combination of ever-growing demands beingplaced on increasingly degraded ecosystems seriously di-minishes the prospects for sustainable development. Humanwell-being is affected not just by gaps between ecosystemservice supply and demand but also by the increased vulner-ability of individuals, communities, and nations. Productiveecosystems, with their array of services, provide people andcommunities with resources and options they can use asinsurance in the face of natural catastrophes or social up-heaval. While well-managed ecosystems reduce risks andvulnerability, poorly managed systems can exacerbate themby increasing risks of flood, drought, crop failure, or disease.

Ecosystem degradation tends to harm rural populationsmore directly than urban populations and has its most directand severe impact on poor people. The wealthy controlaccess to a greater share of ecosystem services, consumethose services at a higher per capita rate, and are bufferedfrom changes in their availability (often at a substantial cost)through their ability to purchase scarce ecosystem servicesor substitutes. For example, even though a number of ma-rine fisheries have been depleted in the past century, thesupply of fish to wealthy consumers has not been disruptedsince fishing fleets have been able to shift to previously un-derexploited stocks. In contrast, poor people often lack ac-cess to alternate services and are highly vulnerable toecosystem changes that result in famine, drought, or floods.They frequently live in locations particularly sensitive toenvironmental threats, and they lack financial and institu-tional buffers against these dangers. Degradation of coastalfishery resources, for instance, results in a decline in proteinconsumed by the local community since fishers may nothave access to alternate sources of fish and communitymembers may not have enough income to purchase fish.Degradation affects their very survival.

Changes in ecosystems affect not just humans but count-less other species as well. The management objectives thatpeople set for ecosystems and the actions that they take areinfluenced not just by the consequences of ecosystemchanges for humans but also by the importance people placeon considerations of the intrinsic value of species and eco-systems. Intrinsic value is the value of something in and foritself, irrespective of its utility for someone else. For exam-ple, villages in India protect ‘‘spirit sanctuaries’’ in relativelynatural states, even though a strict cost-benefit calculationmight favor their conversion to agriculture. Similarly, manycountries have passed laws protecting endangered speciesbased on the view that these species have a right to exist,even if their protection results in net economic costs. Soundecosystem management thus involves steps to address theutilitarian links of people to ecosystems as well as processesthat allow considerations of the intrinsic value of ecosystemsto be factored into decision-making.

................. 11474$ $CH1 10-17-05 15:41:23 PS


ProvisioningFOODFRESH WATERWOOD AND FIBERFUEL...

RegulatingCLIMATE REGULATIONFLOOD REGULATIONDISEASE REGULATIONWATER PURIFICATION...

CulturalAESTHETICSPIRITUALEDUCATIONALRECREATIONAL...

SupportingNUTRIENT CYCLINGSOIL FORMATIONPRIMARY PRODUCTION...

SecurityPERSONAL SAFETYSECURE RESOURCE ACCESSSECURITY FROM DISASTERS

Basic materialfor good life

ADEQUATE LIVELIHOODSSUFFICIENT NUTRITIOUS FOODSHELTERACCESS TO GOODS

HealthSTRENGTHFEELING WELLACCESS TO CLEAN AIRAND WATER

Good social relationsSOCIAL COHESIONMUTUAL RESPECTABILITY TO HELP OTHERS

Freedomof choiceand action

OPPORTUNITY TO BEABLE TO ACHIEVE

WHAT AN INDIVIDUALVALUES DOING

AND BEING

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

CONSTITUENTS OF WELL-BEING

LIFE ON EARTH - BIODIVERSITY

Low

Medium

High

ARROW’S COLORPotential for mediation bysocioeconomic factors

Weak

Medium

Strong

ARROW’S WIDTHIntensity of linkages between ecosystemservices and human well-being

Figure 1.1. Linkages between Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being. This Figure depicts the strength of linkages between catego-ries of ecosystem services and components of human 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 is possible to purchase a substitute for a degradedecosystem service, then there is a high potential for mediation.) The strength of the linkages and the potential for mediation differ in differentecosystems and regions. In addition to the influence of ecosystem services on human well-being depicted here, other factors—including otherenvironmental factors as well as economic, social, technological, and cultural factors—influence human well-being, and ecosystems are inturn affected by changes in human well-being. (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment)

The degradation of ecosystem services has many causes,including excessive demand for ecosystem services stem-ming from economic growth, demographic changes, andindividual choices. Market mechanisms do not always en-sure the conservation of ecosystem services either becausemarkets do not exist for services such as cultural or regula-tory services or, where they do exist, because policies andinstitutions do not enable people living within the ecosys-tem to benefit from services it may provide to others whoare far away. For example, institutions are now only begin-ning to be developed to enable those benefiting from car-bon sequestration to provide local managers with aneconomic incentive to leave a forest uncut, while strongeconomic incentives often exist for managers to harvest theforest. Also, even if a market exists for an ecosystem service,the results obtained through the market may be socially orecologically undesirable. Properly managed, the creation ofecotourism opportunities in a country can create strongeconomic incentives for the maintenance of the cultural

PAGE 18

services provided by ecosystems, but poorly managed eco-tourism activities can degrade the very resource on whichthey depend. Finally, markets are often unable to addressimportant intra- and intergenerational equity issues associ-ated with managing ecosystems for this and future genera-tions, given that some changes in ecosystem services areirreversible.

The world has witnessed in recent decades not just dra-matic changes to ecosystems but equally profound changesto social systems that shape both the pressures on ecosystemsand the opportunities to respond. The relative influence ofindividual nation-states has diminished with the growth ofpower and influence of a far more complex array of institu-tions, including regional governments, multinational com-panies, the United Nations, and civil society organizations.Stakeholders have become more involved in decision-making. Given the multiple actors whose decisions nowstrongly influence ecosystems, the challenge of providinginformation to decision-makers has grown. At the same

................. 11474$ $CH1 10-17-05 15:41:26 PS


time, the new institutional landscape may provide anunprecedented opportunity for information concerningecosystems to make a major difference. Improvements inecosystem management to enhance human well-being willrequire new institutional and policy arrangements andchanges in rights and access to resources that may be morepossible today under these conditions of rapid social changethan they have ever been before.

Like the benefits of increased education or improvedgovernance, the protection, restoration, and enhancementof ecosystem services tends to have multiple and synergisticbenefits. Already, many governments are beginning to rec-ognize the need for more effective management of thesebasic life-support systems. Examples of significant progresstoward sustainable management of biological resources canalso be found in civil society, in indigenous and local com-munities, and in the private sector.

1.3 Conceptual FrameworkThe conceptual framework for the MA places human well-being as the central focus for assessment, while recognizingthat biodiversity and ecosystems also have intrinsic valueand that people take decisions concerning ecosystems basedon considerations of well-being as well as intrinsic value.(See Box 1.2.) The MA conceptual framework assumes thata dynamic interaction exists between people and other partsof ecosystems, with the changing human condition servingto both directly and indirectly drive change in ecosystemsand with changes in ecosystems causing changes in humanwell-being. At the same time, many other factors indepen-dent of the environment change the human condition, andmany natural forces are influencing ecosystems.

The MA focuses particular attention on the linkages be-tween ecosystem services and human well-being. The as-sessment deals with the full range of ecosystems—fromthose relatively undisturbed, such as natural forests, to land-scapes with mixed patterns of human use and ecosystemsintensively managed and modified by humans, such as ag-ricultural land and urban areas.

A full assessment of the interactions between people andecosystems requires a multiscale approach because it betterreflects the multiscale nature of decision-making, allows theexamination of driving forces that may be exogenous toparticular regions, and provides a means of examining thedifferential impact of ecosystem changes and policy re-sponses on different regions and groups within regions.

This section explains in greater detail the characteristicsof each of the components of the MA conceptual frame-work, moving clockwise from the lower left corner of theFigure in Box 1.2.

1.3.1 Ecosystems and Their Services

An ecosystem is a dynamic complex of plant, animal, andmicroorganism communities and the nonliving environ-ment interacting as a functional unit. Humans are an inte-gral part of ecosystems. Ecosystems provide a variety ofbenefits to people, including provisioning, regulating, cul-tural, and supporting services. Provisioning services are the

PAGE 19

products people obtain from ecosystems, such as food, fuel,fiber, fresh water, and genetic resources. Regulating servicesare the benefits people obtain from the regulation of ecosys-tem processes, including air quality maintenance, climateregulation, erosion control, regulation of human diseases,and water purification. Cultural services are the nonmaterialbenefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritualenrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation,and aesthetic experiences. Supporting services are those thatare necessary for the production of all other ecosystem ser-vices, such as primary production, production of oxygen,and soil formation.

Biodiversity and ecosystems are closely related concepts.Biodiversity is the variability among living organisms fromall sources, including terrestrial, marine, and other aquaticecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they arepart. It includes diversity within and between species anddiversity of ecosystems. Diversity is a structural feature ofecosystems, and the variability among ecosystems is an ele-ment of biodiversity. Products of biodiversity include manyof the services produced by ecosystems (such as food andgenetic resources), and changes in biodiversity can influ-ence all the other services they provide. In addition to theimportant role of biodiversity in providing ecosystem ser-vices, the diversity of living species has intrinsic value inde-pendent of any human concern.

The concept of an ecosystem provides a valuable frame-work for analyzing and acting on the linkages between peo-ple and the environment. For that reason, the ‘‘ecosystemapproach’’ has been endorsed by the Convention on Bio-logical Diversity, and the MA conceptual framework is en-tirely consistent with this approach. The CBD states thatthe ecosystem approach is a strategy for the integrated man-agement of land, water, and living resources that promotesconservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. Thisapproach recognizes that humans, with their cultural diver-sity, are an integral component of many ecosystems.

In order to implement the ecosystem approach,decision-makers need to understand the multiple effects onan ecosystem of any management or policy change. By wayof analogy, decision-makers would not make a decisionabout financial policy in a country without examining thecondition of the economic system, since information on theeconomy of a single sector such as manufacturing would beinsufficient. The same need to examine the consequencesof changes for multiple sectors applies to ecosystems. Forinstance, subsidies for fertilizer use may increase food pro-duction, but sound decisions also require information onwhether the potential reduction in the harvests of down-stream fisheries as a result of water quality degradation fromthe fertilizer runoff might outweigh those benefits.

For the purpose of analysis and assessment, a pragmaticview of ecosystem boundaries must be adopted, dependingon the questions being asked. A well-defined ecosystem hasstrong interactions among its components and weak inter-actions across its boundaries. A useful choice of ecosystemboundary is one where a number of discontinuities coin-cide, such as in the distribution of organisms, soil types,

................. 11474$ $CH1 10-17-05 15:41:26 PS


BOX 1.2

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Conceptual Framework

Changes in factors that indirectly affect ecosystems, such as population, These interactions can take place at more than one scale and can crosstechnology, and lifestyle (upper right corner of figure), can lead to changes scales. For example, a global market may lead to regional loss of forestin factors directly affecting ecosystems, such as the catch of fisheries or cover, which increases flood magnitude along a local stretch of a river.the application of fertilizers to increase food production (lower right cor- Similarly, the interactions can take place across different time scales. Ac-ner). The resulting changes in the ecosystem (lower left corner) cause the tions can be taken either to respond to negative changes or to enhanceecosystem services to change and thereby affect human well-being. positive changes at almost all points in this framework (black cross bars).

Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

drainage basins, and depth in a waterbody. At a larger scale,regional and even globally distributed ecosystems can beevaluated based on a commonality of basic structural units.The global assessment being undertaken by the MA reportson marine, coastal, inland water, forest, dryland, island,mountain, polar, cultivated, and urban regions. These re-

PAGE 20

gions are not ecosystems themselves, but each contains anumber of ecosystems. (See Box 1.3.)

People seek multiple services from ecosystems and thusperceive the condition of given ecosystems in relation totheir ability to provide the services desired. Various meth-ods can be used to assess the ability of ecosystems to deliver

................. 11474$ $CH1 10-17-05 15:41:32 PS


BOX 1.3

Reporting Categories Used in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

The MA used 10 categories of systems to report its global findings. (See differ across categories. Because these reporting categories overlap, anyTable.) These categories are not ecosystems themselves; each contains place on Earth may fall into more than one category. Thus, for example,a number of ecosystems. The MA reporting categories are not mutually a wetland ecosystem in a coastal region may be examined both in the MAexclusive: their areas can and do overlap. Ecosystems within each cate- analysis of ‘‘coastal systems’’ as well as in its analysis of ‘‘inland watergory share a suite of biological, climatic, and social factors that tend to systems.’’

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Reporting Categories

Category Central Concept Boundary Limits for Mapping

Marine Ocean, with fishing typically a major Marine areas where the sea is deeper than 50 meters.driver of change

Coastal Interface between ocean and land, Area between 50 meters below mean sea level and 50 meters above the high tide level orextending seawards to about the extending landward to a distance 100 kilometers from shore. Includes coral reefs, intertidalmiddle of the continental shelf and zones, estuaries, coastal aquaculture, and seagrass communities.inland to include all areas stronglyinfluenced by the proximity to theocean

Inland water Permanent water bodies inland from Rivers, lakes, floodplains, reservoirs, and wetlands; includes inland saline systems. Note thatthe coastal zone, and areas whose the Ramsar Convention considers ‘‘wetlands’’ to include both inland water and coastal catego-ecology and use are dominated by ries.the permanent, seasonal, or inter-mittent occurrence of flooded condi-tions

Forest Lands dominated by trees; often A canopy cover of at least 40% by woody plants taller than 5 meters. The existence of manyused for timber, fuelwood, and non- other definitions is acknowledged, and other limits (such as crown cover greater than 10%, astimber forest products used by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) are also reported. In-

cludes temporarily cut-over forests and plantations; excludes orchards and agroforests wherethe main products are food crops.

Dryland Lands where plant production is lim- Drylands as defined by the Convention to Combat Desertification, namely lands where annualited by water availability; the domi- precipitation is less than two thirds of potential evaporation, from dry subhumid areas (rationant uses are large mammal ranges 0.50–0.65), through semiarid, arid, and hyper-arid (ratio �0.05), but excluding polarherbivory, including livestock graz- areas; drylands include cultivated lands, scrublands, shrublands, grasslands, semi-deserts, anding, and cultivation true deserts.

Island Lands isolated by surrounding Islands of at least 1.5 hectares included in the ESRI ArcWorld Country Boundary dataset.water, with a high proportion ofcoast to hinterland

Mountain Steep and high lands As defined by Mountain Watch using criteria based on elevation alone, and at lower elevation,on a combination of elevation, slope, and local elevation range. Specifically, elevation �2,500meters, elevation 1,500–2,500 meters and slope �2 degrees, elevation 1,000–1,500 metersand slope �5 degrees or local elevation range (7 kilometers radius) �300 meters, elevation300–1,000 meters and local elevation range (7 kilometers radius) �300 meters, isolated innerbasins and plateaus less than 25 square kilometers extent that are surrounded by mountains.

Polar High-latitude systems frozen for Includes ice caps, areas underlain by permafrost, tundra, polar deserts, and polar coastalmost of the year areas. Excludes high-altitude cold systems in low latitudes.

Cultivated Lands dominated by domesticated Areas in which at least 30% of the landscape comes under cultivation in any particular year.plant species, used for and substan- Includes orchards, agroforestry, and integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems.tially changed by crop, agroforestry,or aquaculture production

Urban Built environments with a high Known human settlements with a population of 5,000 or more, with boundaries delineated byhuman density observing persistent night-time lights or by inferring areal extent in the cases where such

observations are absent.

PAGE 21................. 11474$ $CH1 10-17-05 15:41:33 PS


particular services. With those answers in hand, stakeholdershave the information they need to decide on a mix of ser-vices best meeting their needs. The MA considers criteriaand methods to provide an integrated view of the conditionof ecosystems. The condition of each category of ecosystemservices is evaluated in somewhat different ways, althoughin general a full assessment of any service requires consider-ations of stocks, flows, and resilience of the service.

1.3.2 Human Well-being and Poverty Reduction

Human well-being has multiple constituents, including thebasic material for a good life, freedom of choice and action,health, good social relations, and security. Poverty is alsomultidimensional and has been defined as the pronounceddeprivation of well-being. How well-being, ill-being, orpoverty are experienced and expressed depends on contextand situation, reflecting local physical, social, and personalfactors such as geography, environment, age, gender, andculture. In all contexts, however, ecosystems are essentialfor human well-being through their provisioning, regulat-ing, cultural, and supporting services.

Human intervention in ecosystems can amplify the ben-efits to human society. However, evidence in recent dec-ades of escalating human impacts on ecological systemsworldwide raises concerns about the spatial and temporalconsequences of ecosystem changes detrimental to humanwell-being. Ecosystem changes affect human well-being inthe following ways:• Security is affected both by changes in provisioning ser-

vices, which affect supplies of food and other goods andthe likelihood of conflict over declining resources, andby changes in regulating services, which could influencethe frequency and magnitude of floods, droughts, land-slides, or other catastrophes. It can also be affected bychanges in cultural services as, for example, when theloss of important ceremonial or spiritual attributes ofecosystems contributes to the weakening of social rela-tions in a community. These changes in turn affect ma-terial well-being, health, freedom and choice, security,and good social relations.

• Access to basic material for a good life is strongly linkedto both provisioning services such as food and fiber pro-duction and regulating services, including water purifi-cation.

• Health is strongly linked to both provisioning servicessuch as food production and regulating services, includ-ing those that influence the distribution of disease-transmitting insects and of irritants and pathogens inwater and air. Health can also be linked to cultural ser-vices through recreational and spiritual benefits.

• Social relations are affected by changes to cultural ser-vices, which affect the quality of human experience.

• Freedom of choice and action is largely predicated on theexistence of the other components of well-being and arethus influenced by changes in provisioning, regulating,or cultural services from ecosystems.Human well-being can be enhanced through sustainable

human interactions with ecosystems supported by necessary

PAGE 22

instruments, institutions, organizations, and technology.Creation of these through participation and transparencymay contribute to freedoms and choice as well as to in-creased economic, social, and ecological security. By eco-logical security, we mean the minimum level of ecologicalstock needed to ensure a sustainable flow of ecosystem ser-vices.

Yet the benefits conferred by institutions and technologyare neither automatic nor equally shared. In particular, suchopportunities are more readily grasped by richer thanpoorer countries and people; some institutions and technol-ogies mask or exacerbate environmental problems; respon-sible governance, while essential, is not easily achieved;participation in decision-making, an essential element of re-sponsible governance, is expensive in time and resources tomaintain. Unequal access to ecosystem services has oftenelevated the well-being of small segments of the populationat the expense of others.

Sometimes the consequences of the depletion and deg-radation of ecosystem services can be mitigated by the sub-stitution of knowledge and of manufactured or humancapital. For example, the addition of fertilizer in agriculturalsystems has been able to offset declining soil fertility inmany regions of the world where people have sufficienteconomic resources to purchase these inputs, and watertreatment facilities can sometimes substitute for the role ofwatersheds and wetlands in water purification. But ecosys-tems are complex and dynamic systems and there are limitsto substitution possibilities, especially with regulating, cul-tural, and supporting services. No substitution is possible forthe extinction of culturally important species such as tigersor whales, for instance, and substitutions may be eco-nomically impractical for the loss of services such as erosioncontrol or climate regulation. Moreover, the scope for sub-stitutions varies by social, economic, and cultural condi-tions. For some people, especially the poorest, substitutesand choices are very limited. For those who are better off,substitution may be possible through trade, investment, andtechnology.

Because of the inertia in both ecological and human sys-tems, the consequences of ecosystem changes made todaymay not be felt for decades. Thus, sustaining ecosystem ser-vices, and thereby human well-being, requires a full under-standing and wise management of the relationships betweenhuman activities, ecosystem change, and well-being overthe short, medium, and long term. Excessive current use ofecosystem services compromises their future availability.This can be prevented by ensuring that the use is sustain-able.

Achieving sustainable use requires effective and efficientinstitutions that can provide the mechanisms through whichconcepts of freedom, justice, fairness, basic capabilities, andequity govern the access to and use of ecosystem services.Such institutions may also need to mediate conflicts be-tween individual and social interests that arise.

The best way to manage ecosystems to enhance humanwell-being will differ if the focus is on meeting needs of thepoor and weak or the rich and powerful. For both groups,ensuring the long-term supply of ecosystem services is es-

................. 11474$ $CH1 10-17-05 15:41:34 PS


sential. But for the poor, an equally critical need is to pro-vide more equitable and secure access to ecosystem services.

1.3.3 Drivers of Change

Understanding the factors that cause changes in ecosystemsand ecosystem services is essential to designing interventionsthat capture positive impacts and minimize negative ones.In the MA, a ‘‘driver’’ is any factor that changes an aspectof an ecosystem. A direct driver unequivocally influencesecosystem processes and can therefore be identified andmeasured to differing degrees of accuracy. An indirectdriver operates more diffusely, often by altering one ormore direct drivers, and its influence is established by un-derstanding its effect on a direct driver. Both indirect anddirect drivers often operate synergistically. Changes in landcover, for example, can increase the likelihood of introduc-tion of alien invasive species. Similarly, technological ad-vances can increase rates of economic growth.

The MA explicitly recognizes the role of decision-makers who affect ecosystems, ecosystem services, andhuman well-being. Decisions are made at three organiza-tional levels, although the distinction between those levelsis often diffuse and difficult to define:• by individuals and small groups at the local level (such as

a field or forest stand) who directly alter some part ofthe ecosystem;

• by public and private decision-makers at the municipal,provincial, and national levels; and

• by public and private decision-makers at the interna-tional level, such as through international conventionsand multilateral agreements.The decision-making process is complex and multidi-

mensional. We refer to a driver that can be influenced by adecision-maker as an endogenous driver and one overwhich the decision-maker does not have control as an ex-ogenous driver. The amount of fertilizer applied on a farmis an endogenous driver from the standpoint of the farmer,for example, while the price of the fertilizer is an exogenousdriver, since the farmer’s decisions have little direct influ-ence on price. The specific temporal, spatial, and organiza-tional scale dependencies of endogenous and exogenousdrivers and the specific linkages and interactions amongdrivers are assessed in the MA.

Whether a driver is exogenous or endogenous to adecision-maker is dependent upon the spatial and temporalscale. For example, a local decision-maker can directly in-fluence the choice of technology, changes in land use, andexternal inputs (such as fertilizers or irrigation), but has littlecontrol over prices and markets, property rights, technologydevelopment, or the local climate. In contrast, a national orregional decision-maker has more control over many fac-tors, such as macroeconomic policy, technology develop-ment, property rights, trade barriers, prices, and markets.But on the short time scale, that individual has little controlover the climate or global population. On the longer timescale, drivers that are exogenous to a decision-maker in theshort run, such as population, become endogenous sincethe decision-maker can influence them through, for in-

PAGE 23

stance, education, the advancement of women, and migra-tion policies.

The indirect drivers of change are primarily:• demographic (such as population size, age and gender

structure, and spatial distribution);• economic (such as national and per capita income, mac-

roeconomic policies, international trade, and capitalflows);

• sociopolitical (such as democratization, the roles ofwomen, of civil society, and of the private sector, andinternational dispute mechanisms);

• scientific and technological (such as rates of investmentsin research and development and the rates of adoptionof new technologies, including biotechnologies and in-formation technologies); and

• cultural and religious (such as choices individuals makeabout what and how much to consume and what theyvalue).The interaction of several of these drivers, in turn, affects

levels of resource consumption and differences in consump-tion both within and between countries. Clearly these driv-ers are changing—population and the world economy aregrowing, for instance, there are major advances in informa-tion technology and biotechnology, and the world is be-coming more interconnected. Changes in these drivers areprojected to increase the demand for and consumption offood, fiber, clean water, and energy, which will in turn af-fect the direct drivers. The direct drivers are primarily phys-ical, chemical, and biological—such as land cover change,climate change, air and water pollution, irrigation, use offertilizers, harvesting, and the introduction of alien invasivespecies. Change is apparent here too: the climate is chang-ing, species ranges are shifting, alien species are spreading,and land degradation continues.

An important point is that any decision can have conse-quences external to the decision framework. These conse-quences are called externalities because they are not part ofthe decision-making calculus. Externalities can have posi-tive or negative effects. For example, a decision to subsidizefertilizers to increase crop production might result in sub-stantial degradation of water quality from the added nutri-ents and degradation of downstream fisheries. But it is alsopossible to have positive externalities. A beekeeper mightbe motivated by the profits to be made from selling honey,for instance, but neighboring orchards could produce moreapples because of enhanced pollination arising from thepresence of the bees.

Multiple interacting drivers cause changes in ecosystemservices. There are functional interdependencies betweenand among the indirect and direct drivers of change, and,in turn, changes in ecological services lead to feedbacks onthe drivers of changes in ecological services. Synergeticdriver combinations are common. The many processes ofglobalization lead to new forms of interactions betweendrivers of changes in ecosystem services.

1.3.4 Cross-scale Interactions and Assessment

An effective assessment of ecosystems and human well-being cannot be conducted at a single temporal or spatial

................. 11474$ $CH1 10-17-05 15:41:35 PS


scale. Thus the MA conceptual framework includes both ofthese dimensions. Ecosystem changes that may have littleimpact on human well-being over days or weeks (soil ero-sion, for instance) may have pronounced impacts over yearsor decades (declining agricultural productivity). Similarly,changes at a local scale may have little impact on some ser-vices at that scale (as in the local impact of forest loss onwater availability) but major impacts at large scales (forestloss in a river basin changing the timing and magnitude ofdownstream flooding).

Ecosystem processes and services are typically moststrongly expressed, are most easily observed, or have theirdominant controls or consequences at particular spatial andtemporal scales. They often exhibit a characteristic scale—the typical extent or duration over which processes havetheir impact. Spatial and temporal scales are often closelyrelated. For instance, food production is a localized serviceof an ecosystem and changes on a weekly basis, water regu-lation is regional and changes on a monthly or seasonalbasis, and climate regulation may take place at a global scaleover decades.

Assessments need to be conducted at spatial and tempo-ral scales appropriate to the process or phenomenon beingexamined. Those done over large areas generally use dataat coarse resolutions, which may not detect fine-resolutionprocesses. Even if data are collected at a fine level of detail,the process of averaging in order to present findings at thelarger scale causes local patterns or anomalies to disappear.This is particularly problematic for processes exhibitingthresholds and nonlinearities. For example, even though anumber of fish stocks exploited in a particular area mighthave collapsed due to overfishing, average catches across allstocks (including healthier stocks) would not reveal the ex-tent of the problem. Assessors, if they are aware of suchthresholds and have access to high-resolution data, can in-corporate such information even in a large-scale assessment.Yet an assessment done at smaller spatial scales can helpidentify important dynamics of the system that might other-wise be overlooked. Likewise, phenomena and processesthat occur at much larger scales, although expressed locally,may go unnoticed in purely local-scale assessments. In-creased carbon dioxide concentrations or decreased strato-spheric ozone concentrations have local effects, for instance,but it would be difficult to trace the causality of the effectswithout an examination of the overall global process.

Time scale is also very important in conducting assess-ments. Humans tend not to think beyond one or two gen-erations. If an assessment covers a shorter time period thanthe characteristic temporal scale, it may not adequately cap-ture variability associated with long-term cycles, such as gla-ciation. Slow changes are often harder to measure, as is thecase with the impact of climate change on the geographicdistribution of species or populations. Moreover, both eco-logical and human systems have substantial inertia, and theimpact of changes occurring today may not be seen foryears or decades. For example, some fisheries’ catches mayincrease for several years even after they have reached un-sustainable levels because of the large number of juvenilefish produced before that level was reached.

PAGE 24

Social, political, and economic processes also have char-acteristic scales, which may vary widely in duration and ex-tent. Those of ecological and sociopolitical processes oftendo not match. Many environmental problems originatefrom this mismatch between the scale at which the ecologi-cal process occurs, the scale at which decisions are made,and the scale of institutions for decision-making. A purelylocal-scale assessment, for instance, may discover that themost effective societal response requires action that canoccur only at a national scale (such as the removal of a sub-sidy or the establishment of a regulation). Moreover, it maylack the relevance and credibility necessary to stimulate andinform national or regional changes. On the other hand, apurely global assessment may lack both the relevance andthe credibility necessary to lead to changes in ecosystemmanagement at the local scale where action is needed. Out-comes at a given scale are often heavily influenced by inter-actions of ecological, socioeconomic, and political factorsemanating from other scales. Thus focusing solely on a sin-gle scale is likely to miss interactions with other scales thatare critically important in understanding ecosystem deter-minants and their implications for human well-being.

The choice of the spatial or temporal scale for an assess-ment is politically laden, since it may intentionally or unin-tentionally privilege certain groups. The selection ofassessment scale with its associated level of detail implicitlyfavors particular systems of knowledge, types of informa-tion, and modes of expression over others. For example,non-codified information or knowledge systems of mi-nority populations are often missed when assessments areundertaken at larger spatial scales or higher levels of aggre-gation. Reflecting on the political consequences of scale andboundary choices is an important prerequisite to exploringwhat multi- and cross-scale analysis in the MA might con-tribute to decision-making and public policy processes atvarious scales.

1.4 Values Associated with EcosystemsCurrent decision-making processes often ignore or under-estimate the value of ecosystem services. Decision-makingconcerning ecosystems and their services can be particularlychallenging because different disciplines, philosophicalviews, and schools of thought assess the value of ecosystemsdifferently. One paradigm of value, known as the utilitarian(anthropocentric) concept, is based on the principle of hu-mans’ preference satisfaction (welfare). In this case, ecosys-tems and the services they provide have value to humansocieties because people derive utility from their use, eitherdirectly or indirectly (use values). Within this utilitarianconcept of value, people also give value to ecosystem ser-vices that they are not currently using (non-use values).Non-use values, usually known as existence values, involvethe case where humans ascribe value to knowing that a re-source exists even if they never use that resource directly.These often involve the deeply held historical, national,ethical, religious, and spiritual values people ascribe to eco-systems—the values that the MA recognizes as cultural ser-vices of ecosystems.

................. 11474$ $CH1 10-17-05 15:41:36 PS


A different, non-utilitarian value paradigm holds thatsomething can have intrinsic value—that is, it can be ofvalue in and for itself—irrespective of its utility for someoneelse. From the perspective of many ethical, religious, andcultural points of view, ecosystems may have intrinsic value,independent of their contribution to human well-being.

The utilitarian and non-utilitarian value paradigms over-lap and interact in many ways, but they use different met-rics, with no common denominator, and cannot usually beaggregated, although both paradigms of value are used indecision-making processes.

Under the utilitarian approach, a wide range of method-ologies has been developed to attempt to quantify the bene-fits of different ecosystem services. These methods areparticularly well developed for provisioning services, butrecent work has also improved the ability to value regulat-ing and other services. The choice of valuation techniquein any given instance is dictated by the characteristics of thecase and by data availability. (See Box 1.4.)

Non-utilitarian value proceeds from a variety of ethical,cultural, religious, and philosophical bases. These differ inthe specific entities that are deemed to have intrinsic valueand in the interpretation of what having intrinsic valuemeans. Intrinsic value may complement or counterbalanceconsiderations of utilitarian value. For example, if the ag-gregate utility of the services provided by an ecosystem (as

BOX 1.4

Valuation of Ecosystem Services

Valuation can be used in many ways: to assess the total contributionthat ecosystems make to human well-being, to understand the incen-tives that individual decision-makers face in managing ecosystems indifferent ways, and to evaluate the consequences of alternativecourses of action. The MA uses valuation primarily in the latter sense:as a tool that enhances the ability of decision-makers to evaluate trade-offs between alternative ecosystem management regimes and coursesof social actions that alter the use of ecosystems and the multipleservices they provide. This usually requires assessing the change inthe mix (the value) of services provided by an ecosystem resultingfrom a given change in its management.

Most of the work involved in estimating the change in the value ofthe flow of benefits provided by an ecosystem involves estimating thechange in the physical flow of benefits (quantifying biophysical rela-tions) and tracing through and quantifying a chain of causality betweenchanges in ecosystem condition and human welfare. A common prob-lem in valuation is that information is only available on some of thelinks in the chain and often in incompatible units. The MA can make amajor contribution by making various disciplines better aware of whatis needed to ensure that their work can be combined with that of othersto allow a full assessment of the consequences of altering ecosystemstate and function.

The ecosystem values in this sense are only one of the bases onwhich decisions on ecosystem management are and should be made.Many other factors, including notions of intrinsic value and other objec-tives that society might have (such as equity among different groupsor generations), will also feed into the decision framework. Even whendecisions are made on other bases, however, estimates of changes inutilitarian value provide invaluable information.

PAGE 25

measured by its utilitarian value) outweighs the value ofconverting it to another use, its intrinsic value may thenbe complementary and provide an additional impetus forconserving the ecosystem. If, however, economic valuationindicates that the value of converting the ecosystem out-weighs the aggregate value of its services, its ascribed intrin-sic value may be deemed great enough to warrant a socialdecision to conserve it anyway. Such decisions are essen-tially political, not economic. In contemporary democraciesthese decisions are made by parliaments or legislatures or byregulatory agencies mandated to do so by law. The sanc-tions for violating laws recognizing an entity’s intrinsicvalue may be regarded as a measure of the degree of intrin-sic value ascribed to them. The decisions taken by busi-nesses, local communities, and individuals also can involveconsiderations of both utilitarian and non-utilitarian values.

The mere act of quantifying the value of ecosystem ser-vices cannot by itself change the incentives affecting theiruse or misuse. Several changes in current practice may berequired to take better account of these values. The MAassesses the use of information on ecosystem service valuesin decision-making. The goal is to improve decision-making processes and tools and to provide feedback regard-ing the kinds of information that can have the most influ-ence.

1.5 Assessment ToolsThe information base exists in any country to undertakean assessment within the framework of the MA. That said,although new data sets (for example, from remote sensing)providing globally consistent information make a global as-sessment like the MA more rigorous, there are still manychallenges that must be dealt with in using these data atglobal or local scales. Among these challenges are biases inthe geographic and temporal coverage of the data and inthe types of data collected. Data availability for industrialcountries is greater than that for developing ones, and datafor certain resources such as crop production are morereadily available than data for fisheries, fuelwood, or biodiv-ersity. The MA makes extensive use of both biophysical andsocioeconomic indicators, which combine data into policy-relevant measures that provide the basis for assessment anddecision-making.

Models can be used to illuminate interactions amongsystems and drivers, as well as to make up for data deficien-cies—for instance, by providing estimates where observa-tions are lacking. The MA makes use of environmentalsystem models that can be used, for example, to measurethe consequences of land cover change for river flow orthe consequences of climate change for the distribution ofspecies. It also uses human system models that can examine,for instance, the impact of changes in ecosystems on pro-duction, consumption, and investment decisions by house-holds or that allow the economy-wide impacts of a changein production in a particular sector like agriculture to beevaluated. Finally, integrated models, combining both theenvironmental and human systems linkages, can increas-ingly be used at both global and sub-global scales.

................. 11474$ $CH1 10-17-05 15:41:36 PS


The MA incorporates both formal scientific informationand traditional or local knowledge. Traditional societieshave nurtured and refined systems of knowledge of directvalue to those societies but also of considerable value toassessments undertaken at regional and global scales. Thisinformation often is unknown to science and can be an ex-pression of other relationships between society and naturein general and of sustainable ways of managing natural re-sources in particular. To be credible and useful to decision-makers, all sources of information, whether scientific, tradi-tional, or practitioner knowledge, must be critically assessedand validated as part of the assessment process through pro-cedures relevant to the form of knowledge.

Since policies for dealing with the deterioration of eco-system services are concerned with the future consequencesof current actions, the development of scenarios of medi-um- to long-term changes in ecosystems, services, anddrivers can be particularly helpful for decision-makers. Sce-narios are typically developed through the joint involve-ment of decision-makers and scientific experts, and theyrepresent a promising mechanism for linking scientific in-formation to decision-making processes. They do not at-tempt to predict the future but instead are designed toindicate what science can and cannot say about the futureconsequences of alternative plausible choices that might betaken in the coming years.

The MA uses scenarios to summarize and communicatethe diverse trajectories that the world’s ecosystems may takein future decades. Scenarios are plausible alternative futures,each an example of what might happen under particularassumptions. They can be used as a systematic method forthinking creatively about complex, uncertain futures. Inthis way, they help us understand the upcoming choices thatneed to be made and highlight developments in the present.The MA developed scenarios that connect possible changesin drivers (which may be unpredictable or uncontrollable)with human demands for ecosystem services. The scenarioslink these demands, in turn, to the futures of the servicesthemselves and the aspects of human welfare that dependon them. The scenario building exercise breaks new groundin several areas:• development of scenarios for global futures linked ex-

plicitly to ecosystem services and the human conse-quences of ecosystem change,

• consideration of trade-offs among individual ecosystemservices within the ‘‘bundle’’ of benefits that any partic-ular ecosystem potentially provides to society,

• assessment of modeling capabilities for linking socioeco-nomic drivers and ecosystem services, and

• consideration of ambiguous futures as well as quantifi-able uncertainties.The credibility of assessments is closely linked to how

they address what is not known in addition to what isknown. The consistent treatment of uncertainty is thereforeessential for the clarity and utility of assessment reports. Aspart of any assessment process, it is crucial to estimate theuncertainty of findings even if a detailed quantitative ap-praisal of uncertainty is unavailable.

PAGE 26

1.6 Strategies and InterventionsThe MA assesses the use and effectiveness of a wide rangeof options for responding to the need to sustainably use,conserve, and restore ecosystems and the services they pro-vide. These options include incorporating the value of eco-systems in decisions, channeling diffuse ecosystem benefitsto decision-makers with focused local interests, creatingmarkets and property rights, educating and dispersingknowledge, and investing to improve ecosystems and theservices they provide. As seen in Box 1.2 on the MA con-ceptual framework, different types of response options canaffect the relationships of indirect to direct drivers, the in-fluence of direct drivers on ecosystems, the human demandfor ecosystem services, or the impact of changes in humanwell-being on indirect drivers. An effective strategy formanaging ecosystems will involve a mix of interventions atall points in this conceptual framework.

Mechanisms for accomplishing these interventions in-clude laws, regulations, and enforcement schemes; partner-ships and collaborations; the sharing of information andknowledge; and public and private action. The choice ofoptions to be considered will be greatly influenced by boththe temporal and the physical scale influenced by decisions,the uncertainty of outcomes, cultural context, and the im-plications for equity and trade-offs. Institutions at differentlevels have different response options available to them, andspecial care is required to ensure policy coherence.

Decision-making processes are value-based and com-bine political and technical elements to varying degrees.Where technical input can play a role, a range of tools isavailable to help decision-makers choose among strategiesand interventions, including cost-benefit analysis, gametheory, and policy exercises. The selection of analyticaltools should be determined by the context of the decision,key characteristics of the decision problem, and the criteriaconsidered to be important by the decision-makers. Infor-mation from these analytical frameworks is always com-bined with the intuition, experience, and interests of thedecision-maker in shaping the final decisions.

Risk assessment, including ecological risk assessment, isan established discipline and has a significant potential forinforming the decision process. Finding thresholds andidentifying the potential for irreversible change are impor-tant for the decision-making process. Similarly, environ-mental impact assessments designed to evaluate the impactof particular projects and strategic environmental assess-ments designed to evaluate the impact of policies both rep-resent important mechanisms for incorporating the findingsof an ecosystem assessment into decision-making processes.

Changes also may be required in decision-making proc-esses themselves. Experience to date suggests that a numberof mechanisms can improve the process of making decisionsabout ecosystem services. Broadly accepted norms for deci-sion-making process include the following characteristics.Did the process:• bring the best available information to bear?• function transparently, use locally grounded knowledge,

and involve all those with an interest in a decision?

................. 11474$ $CH1 10-17-05 15:41:37 PS


• pay special attention to equity and to the most vulnera-ble populations?

• use decision analytical frameworks that take account ofthe strengths and limits of individual, group, and organi-zational information processing and action?

• consider whether an intervention or its outcome is irre-versible and incorporate procedures to evaluate the out-comes of actions and learn from them?

• ensure that those making the decisions are accountable?• strive for efficiency in choosing among interventions?• take account of thresholds, irreversibility, and cumula-

tive, cross-scale, and marginal effects and of local, re-gional, and global costs, risk, and benefits?The policy or management changes made to address

problems and opportunities related to ecosystems and their

PAGE 27

services, whether at local scales or national or internationalscales, need to be adaptive and flexible in order to benefitfrom past experience, to hedge against risk, and to consideruncertainty. The understanding of ecosystem dynamics willalways be limited, socioeconomic systems will continue tochange, and outside determinants can never be fully antici-pated. Decision-makers should consider whether a courseof action is reversible and should incorporate, wheneverpossible, procedures to evaluate the outcomes of actions andlearn from them. Debate about exactly how to do thiscontinues in discussions of adaptive management, sociallearning, safe minimum standards, and the precautionaryprinciple. But the core message of all approaches is thesame: acknowledge the limits of human understanding, givespecial consideration to irreversible changes, and evaluatethe impacts of decisions as they unfold.

................. 11474$ $CH1 10-17-05 15:41:38 PS

chapter 1 ma conceptual framework

Documents