About Island Press

Island Press is the only nonprofit organization in theUnited States whose principal purpose is the publicationof books on environmental issues and natural resourcemanagement. We provide solutions-oriented informationto professionals, public officials, business and communityleaders, and concerned citizens who are shaping responsesto environmental problems.

In 2005, Island Press celebrates its twenty-first anniver-sary as the leading provider of timely and practical booksthat take a multidisciplinary approach to critical environ-mental concerns. Our growing list of titles reflects ourcommitment to bringing the best of an expanding bodyof literature to the environmental community throughoutNorth America and the world.

PAGE ii

Support for Island Press is provided by the Agua Fund,The Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, Doris Duke Chari-table Foundation, Ford Foundation, The George GundFoundation, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation,Kendeda Sustainability Fund of the Tides Foundation, TheHenry Luce Foundation, The John D. and Catherine T.MacArthur Foundation, The Andrew W. Mellon Founda-tion, The Curtis and Edith Munson Foundation, TheNew-Land Foundation, The New York CommunityTrust, Oak Foundation, The Overbrook Foundation, TheDavid and Lucile Packard Foundation, The WinslowFoundation, and other generous donors.

The opinions expressed in this book are those of theauthors and do not necessarily reflect the views of thesefoundations.

................. 11430$ $$FM 10-21-05 14:07:27 PS

Ecosystems and Human Well-being:Policy Responses, Volume 3

PAGE iii................. 11430$ $$FM 10-21-05 14:07:27 PS

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment BoardThe MA Board represents the users of the findings of the MA process.

Co-chairsRobert T. Watson, The World BankA.H. Zakri, United Nations University

Institutional RepresentativesSalvatore Arico, Programme Officer, Division of Ecological and Earth Sciences,

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganizationPeter Bridgewater, Secretary General, Ramsar Convention on WetlandsHama Arba Diallo, Executive Secretary, United Nations Convention to Combat

DesertificationAdel El-Beltagy, Director General, International Center for Agricultural Research in

Dry Areas, Consultative Group on International Agricultural ResearchMax Finlayson, Chair, Scientific and Technical Review Panel, Ramsar Convention

on WetlandsColin Galbraith, Chair, Scientific Council, Convention on Migratory SpeciesErica Harms, Senior Program Officer for Biodiversity, United Nations FoundationRobert Hepworth, Acting Executive Secretary, Convention on Migratory SpeciesOlav Kjørven, Director, Energy and Environment Group, United Nations

Development ProgrammeKerstin Leitner, Assistant Director-General, Sustainable Development and Healthy

Environments, World Health Organization

At-large MembersFernando Almeida, Executive President, Business Council for Sustainable

Development-BrazilPhoebe Barnard, Global Invasive Species ProgrammeGordana Beltram, Undersecretary, Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning,

SloveniaDelmar Blasco, Former Secretary General, Ramsar Convention on WetlandsAntony Burgmans, Chairman, Unilever N.V.Esther Camac-Ramirez, Asociacion Ixa Ca Vaa de Desarrollo e Informacion IndigenaAngela Cropper, President, The Cropper Foundation (ex officio)Partha Dasgupta, Professor, Faculty of Economics and Politics, University of

CambridgeJose Marıa Figueres, Fundacion Costa Rica para el Desarrollo SostenibleFred Fortier, Indigenous Peoples’ Biodiversity Information NetworkMohammed H.A. Hassan, Executive Director, Third World Academy of Sciences for

the Developing WorldJonathan Lash, President, World Resources Institute

Assessment Panel

Co-chairsAngela Cropper, The Cropper FoundationHarold A. Mooney, Stanford University

MembersDoris Capistrano, Center for International Forestry ResearchStephen R. Carpenter, University of Wisconsin-MadisonKanchan Chopra, Institute of Economic GrowthPartha Dasgupta, University of CambridgeRashid Hassan, University of PretoriaRik Leemans, Wageningen UniversityRobert M. May, University of Oxford

Editorial Board ChairsJose Sarukhan, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de MexicoAnne Whyte, Mestor Associates Ltd.

DirectorWalter V. Reid, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Secretariat Support OrganizationsThe United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) coordinates the MillenniumEcosystem Assessment Secretariat, which is based at the following partner institutions:• Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy• Institute of Economic Growth, India• International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Mexico (until

2002)• Meridian Institute, United States• National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Netherlands

(until mid-2004)

PAGE iv

Alfred Oteng-Yeboah, Chair, Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical andTechnological Advice, Convention on Biological Diversity

Christian Prip, Chair, Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and TechnologicalAdvice, Convention on Biological Diversity

Mario A. Ramos, Biodiversity Program Manager, Global Environment FacilityThomas Rosswall, Executive Director, International Council for Science – ICSUAchim Steiner, Director General, IUCN – World Conservation UnionHalldor Thorgeirsson, Coordinator, United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate ChangeKlaus Topfer, Executive Director, United Nations Environment ProgrammeJeff Tschirley, Chief, Environmental and Natural Resources Service, Research,

Extension and Training Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations

Riccardo Valentini, Chair, Committee on Science and Technology, United NationsConvention to Combat Desertification

Hamdallah Zedan, Executive Secretary, Convention on Biological Diversity

Wangari Maathai, Vice Minister for Environment, KenyaPaul Maro, Professor, Department of Geography, University of Dar es SalaamHarold A. Mooney, Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University

(ex officio)Marina Motovilova, Faculty of Geography, Laboratory of Moscow RegionM.K. Prasad, Environment Centre of the Kerala Sastra Sahitya ParishadWalter V. Reid, Director, Millennium Ecosystem AssessmentHenry Schacht, Past Chairman of the Board, Lucent TechnologiesPeter Johan Schei, Director, The Fridtjof Nansen InstituteIsmail Serageldin, President, Bibliotheca AlexandrinaDavid Suzuki, Chair, Suzuki FoundationM.S. Swaminathan, Chairman, MS Swaminathan Research FoundationJose Galızia Tundisi, President, International Institute of EcologyAxel Wenblad, Vice President Environmental Affairs, Skanska ABXu Guanhua, Minister, Ministry of Science and Technology, ChinaMuhammad Yunus, Managing Director, Grameen Bank

Prabhu Pingali, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsCristian Samper, National Museum of Natural History, United StatesRobert Scholes, Council for Scientific and Industrial ResearchRobert T. Watson, The World Bank (ex officio)A.H. Zakri, United Nations University (ex officio)Zhao Shidong, Chinese Academy of Sciences

• Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), France• UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre, United Kingdom• University of Pretoria, South Africa• University of Wisconsin-Madison, United States• World Resources Institute (WRI), United States• WorldFish Center, Malaysia

................. 11430$ $$FM 10-21-05 14:07:28 PS

Ecosystems and Human Well-being:Policy Responses, Volume 3

Edited by:

Kanchan Chopra Rik Leemans Pushpam Kumar Henk SimonsInstitute of Wageningen University Institute of National Institute of Public Health

Economic Growth Netherlands Economic Growth and the Environment (RIVM)Delhi, India Delhi, India Netherlands

Findings of the Responses Working Groupof the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Washington • Covelo • London

PAGE v................. 11430$ $$FM 10-21-05 14:07:47 PS

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment SeriesEcosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for AssessmentEcosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends, Volume 1Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Scenarios, Volume 2Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Policy Responses, Volume 3Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Multiscale Assessments, Volume 4Our Human Planet: Summary for Decision-makers

Synthesis Reports (available at MAweb.org)Ecosystems and Human Well-being: SynthesisEcosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity SynthesisEcosystems and Human Well-being: Desertification SynthesisEcosystems and Human Well-being: Human Health SynthesisEcosystems and Human Well-being: Wetlands and Water SynthesisEcosystems and Human Well-being: Opportunities and Challenges for Business and Industry

No copyright claim is made in the work by: Tony Allan, Louise Auckland, J.B. Carle, Mang Lung Cheuk, Flavio Comim, David Edmunds, Abhik Ghosh, J.M.Hougard, Robert Howarth, Frank Jensen, Izabella Koziell, Eduardo Mestre Rodriguez, William Moomaw, William Powers, D. Romney, Lilian Saade, MyrleTraverse, employees of the Australian government (Daniel P. Faith, Mark Siebentritt), employees of CIFOR (Bruce Campbell, Patricia Shanley, Eva Wollenberg),employees of IAEA (Ferenc L. Toth), employees of WHO (Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum, Carlos Corvalan), and employees of the U.S. government (T. Holmes).The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the organizations they are employees of.

Copyright � 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means withoutpermission in writing from the publisher: Island Press, 1718 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 300, NW, Washington, DC 20009.

ISLAND PRESS is a trademark of The Center for Resource Economics.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data.

Ecosystems and human well-being : policy responses : findings of theResponses Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment / edited byKanchan Chopra . . . [et al.].

p. cm.—(The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment series ; v. 3)Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 1-55963-269-0 (cloth : alk. paper)—ISBN 1-55963-270-4 (pbk. : alk. paper)1. Human ecology. 2. Ecosystem management. 3. Ecological assessment

(Biology) 4. Environmental policy. 5. Environmental management.I. Chopra, Kanchan Ratna. II. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program).Responses Working Group. III. Series.GF50.E267 2005333.95�16—dc22

2005017304

British Cataloguing-in-Publication data available.

Printed on recycled, acid-free paper

Book design by Maggie PowellTypesetting by Coghill Composition, Inc.

Manufactured in the United States of America10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

PAGE vi................. 11430$ $$FM 10-21-05 14:07:49 PS

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment:Objectives, Focus, and Approach

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was carried out between 2001 and2005 to assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-beingand to establish the scientific basis for actions needed to enhance the conser-vation and sustainable use of ecosystems and their contributions to humanwell-being. The MA responds to government requests for information receivedthrough four international conventions—the Convention on Biological Diversity,the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, the Ramsar Conven-tion on Wetlands, and the Convention on Migratory Species—and is designedalso to meet needs of other stakeholders, including the business community,the health sector, nongovernmental organizations, and indigenous peoples.The sub-global assessments also aimed to meet the needs of users in theregions where they were undertaken.

The assessment focuses on the linkages between ecosystems and humanwell-being and, in particular, on ‘‘ecosystem services.’’ An ecosystem is adynamic complex of plant, animal, and microorganism communities and thenonliving environment interacting as a functional unit. The MA deals with thefull range of ecosystems—from those relatively undisturbed, such as naturalforests, to landscapes with mixed patterns of human use and to ecosystemsintensively managed and modified by humans, such as agricultural land andurban areas. Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosys-tems. These include provisioning services such as food, water, timber, andfiber; regulating services that affect climate, floods, disease, wastes, and waterquality; cultural services that provide recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual bene-fits; and supporting services such as soil formation, photosynthesis, and nutri-ent cycling. The human species, while buffered against environmental changesby culture and technology, is fundamentally dependent on the flow of ecosys-tem services.

The MA examines how changes in ecosystem services influence human well-being. Human well-being is assumed to have multiple constituents, includingthe basic material for a good life, such as secure and adequate livelihoods,enough food at all times, shelter, clothing, and access to goods; health, includ-ing feeling well and having a healthy physical environment, such as clean airand access to clean water; good social relations, including social cohesion,mutual respect, and the ability to help others and provide for children; security,including secure access to natural and other resources, personal safety, andsecurity from natural and human-made disasters; and freedom of choice andaction, including the opportunity to achieve what an individual values doingand being. Freedom of choice and action is influenced by other constituents ofwell-being (as well as by other factors, notably education) and is also a precon-dition for achieving other components of well-being, particularly with respect toequity and fairness.

The conceptual framework for the MA posits that people are integral parts ofecosystems and that a dynamic interaction exists between them and otherparts of ecosystems, with the changing human condition driving, both directly

PAGE vii

vii

and indirectly, changes in ecosystems and thereby causing changes in humanwell-being. At the same time, social, economic, and cultural factors unrelatedto ecosystems alter the human condition, and many natural forces influenceecosystems. Although the MA emphasizes the linkages between ecosystemsand human well-being, it recognizes that the actions people take that influenceecosystems result not just from concern about human well-being but also fromconsiderations of the intrinsic value of species and ecosystems. Intrinsic valueis the value of something in and for itself, irrespective of its utility for someoneelse.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment synthesizes information from the sci-entific literature and relevant peer-reviewed datasets and models. It incorpo-rates knowledge held by the private sector, practitioners, local communities,and indigenous peoples. The MA did not aim to generate new primary knowl-edge but instead sought to add value to existing information by collating, evalu-ating, summarizing, interpreting, and communicating it in a useful form.Assessments like this one apply the judgment of experts to existing knowledgeto provide scientifically credible answers to policy-relevant questions. Thefocus on policy-relevant questions and the explicit use of expert judgmentdistinguish this type of assessment from a scientific review.

Five overarching questions, along with more detailed lists of user needs devel-oped through discussions with stakeholders or provided by governmentsthrough international conventions, guided the issues that were assessed:

• What are the current condition and trends of ecosystems, ecosystem ser-vices, and human well-being?

• What are plausible future changes in ecosystems and their ecosystemservices and the consequent changes in human well-being?

• What can be done to enhance well-being and conserve ecosystems?What are the strengths and weaknesses of response options that can beconsidered to realize or avoid specific futures?

• What are the key uncertainties that hinder effective decision-making con-cerning ecosystems?

• What tools and methodologies developed and used in the MA canstrengthen capacity to assess ecosystems, the services they provide, theirimpacts on human well-being, and the strengths and weaknesses of re-sponse options?

The MA was conducted as a multiscale assessment, with interlinked assess-ments undertaken at local, watershed, national, regional, and global scales. Aglobal ecosystem assessment cannot easily meet all the needs of decision-makers at national and sub-national scales because the management of any

................. 11430$ $MEA 10-21-05 14:07:32 PS

Eigh

teen

asse

ssm

ents

wer

eap

prov

edas

com

pone

nts

ofth

eM

A.An

yin

stitu

tion

orco

untry

was

able

toun

derta

kean

asse

ssm

enta

spa

rtof

the

MA

ifit

agre

edto

use

the

MA

conc

eptu

alfra

mew

ork,

toce

ntra

llyin

volv

eth

ein

tend

edus

ers

asst

akeh

olde

rsan

dpa

rtner

s,an

dto

mee

tase

tofp

roce

dura

lreq

uire

men

tsre

late

dto

peer

revi

ew,m

etad

ata,

trans

pare

ncy,

and

inte

llect

ual

prop

erty

right

s.Th

eM

Aas

sess

men

tsw

ere

larg

ely

self-

fund

ed,a

lthou

ghpl

anni

nggr

ants

and

som

eco

regr

ants

wer

epr

ovid

edto

supp

orts

ome

asse

ssm

ents

.The

MA

also

drew

onin

form

atio

nfro

m16

othe

rsub

-glo

bala

sses

smen

tsaf

filia

ted

with

the

MA

that

met

asu

bset

ofth

ese

crite

riaor

wer

eat

earli

erst

ages

inde

velo

pmen

t.

PAGE viii................. 11430$ $MEA 10-21-05 14:07:40 PS

ECO

SYST

EM T

YPES

SUB-

GLO

BAL

ASSE

SSM

ENT

ECO

SYST

EM S

ERVI

CES

Alta

i-Say

an E

core

gion

San

Pedr

o de

Ata

cam

a, C

hile

Car

ibbe

an S

ea

Coa

stal

Brit

ish

Col

umbi

a, C

anad

a

Bajo

Chi

rripo

, Cos

ta R

ica

Trop

ical

For

est M

argi

ns

Indi

a Lo

cal V

illage

s

Glo

mm

a Ba

sin,

Nor

way

Papu

a N

ew G

uine

a

Vilc

anot

a, P

eru

Lagu

na L

ake

Basi

n, P

hilip

pine

s

Portu

gal

São

Paul

o G

reen

Bel

t, Br

azil

Sout

hern

Afri

ca

Stoc

khol

m a

nd K

ristia

nsta

d, S

wed

en

Nor

ther

n R

ange

, Trin

idad

Dow

nstre

am M

ekon

g W

etla

nds,

Vie

t Nam

Wes

tern

Chi

na

Alas

kan

Bore

al F

ores

t

Araf

ura

and

Tim

or S

eas

Arge

ntin

e Pa

mpa

s

Cen

tral A

sia

Mou

ntai

ns

Col

ombi

a co

ffee-

grow

ing

regi

ons

East

ern

Him

alay

as

Sina

i Pen

insu

la, E

gypt

Fiji

Hin

du K

ush-

Him

alay

as

Indo

nesi

a

Indi

a U

rban

Res

ourc

e

Tafil

alt O

asis

, Mor

occo

Nor

ther

n Au

stra

lia F

lood

plai

ns

Assi

r Nat

iona

l Par

k, S

audi

Ara

bia

Nor

ther

n H

ighl

ands

Lak

e D

istri

ct, W

isco

nsin

CO

ASTA

LC

ULT

IVAT

EDD

RYLA

ND

FOR

EST

INLA

ND

WAT

ERIS

LAN

DM

ARIN

EM

OU

NTA

INPO

LAR

UR

BAN

FOO

DW

ATER

FUEL

and

ENER

GY

BIO

DIV

ERSI

TY-

REL

ATED

CAR

BON

SEQ

UES

TRAT

ION

FIBE

Ran

dTI

MBE

RRU

NO

FF

REG

ULA

TIO

N

CU

LTU

RAL

,SP

IRIT

UAL,

AMEN

ITY

OTH

ERS

●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●

●

PAGE ix................. 11430$ $MEA 10-21-05 14:07:42 PS

x Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Policy Responses

particular ecosystem must be tailored to the particular characteristics of thatecosystem and to the demands placed on it. However, an assessment focusedonly on a particular ecosystem or particular nation is insufficient because someprocesses are global and because local goods, services, matter, and energyare often transferred across regions. Each of the component assessments wasguided by the MA conceptual framework and benefited from the presence ofassessments undertaken at larger and smaller scales. The sub-global assess-ments 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 whichthey were undertaken. The sub-global assessments involved in the MA proc-ess are shown in the Figure and the ecosystems and ecosystem servicesexamined in these assessments are shown in the Table.

The work of the MA was conducted through four working groups, each ofwhich prepared a report of its findings. At the global scale, the Condition andTrends Working Group assessed the state of knowledge on ecosystems, driv-ers of ecosystem change, ecosystem services, and associated human well-being around the year 2000. The assessment aimed to be comprehensive withregard to ecosystem services, but its coverage is not exhaustive. The Scenar-ios Working Group considered the possible evolution of ecosystem servicesduring the twenty-first century by developing four global scenarios exploringplausible future changes in drivers, ecosystems, ecosystem services, andhuman well-being. The Responses Working Group examined the strengthsand weaknesses of various response options that have been used to manageecosystem services and identified promising opportunities for improving humanwell-being while conserving ecosystems. The report of the Sub-global Assess-ments Working Group contains lessons learned from the MA sub-global as-sessments. The first product of the MA—Ecosystems and Human Well-being:A Framework for Assessment, published in 2003—outlined the focus, concep-tual basis, and methods used in the MA. The executive summary of this publi-cation appears as Chapter 1 of this volume.

Approximately 1,360 experts from 95 countries were involved as authors ofthe assessment reports, as participants in the sub-global assessments, or asmembers of the Board of Review Editors. The latter group, which involved 80experts, oversaw the scientific review of the MA reports by governments andexperts and ensured that all review comments were appropriately addressedby the authors. All MA findings underwent two rounds of expert and govern-mental review. Review comments were received from approximately 850 indi-viduals (of which roughly 250 were submitted by authors of other chapters inthe MA), although in a number of cases (particularly in the case of govern-ments and MA-affiliated scientific organizations), people submitted collatedcomments that had been prepared by a number of reviewers in their govern-ments or institutions.

PAGE x

The MA was guided by a Board that included representatives of five interna-tional conventions, five U.N. agencies, international scientific organizations,governments, and leaders from the private sector, nongovernmental organiza-tions, and indigenous groups. A 15-member Assessment Panel of leading so-cial and natural scientists oversaw the technical work of the assessment,supported by a secretariat with offices in Europe, North America, SouthAmerica, Asia, and Africa and coordinated by the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme.

The 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 man-agement;

• to gain foresight concerning the consequences of decisions affecting eco-systems;

• to identify response options to achieve human development and sustain-ability goals;

• to help build individual and institutional capacity to undertake integratedecosystem assessments and act on the findings; and

• to guide future research.

Because of the broad scope of the MA and the complexity of the interactionsbetween social and natural systems, it proved to be difficult to provide definitiveinformation for some of the issues addressed in the MA. Relatively few ecosys-tem services have been the focus of research and monitoring and, as a conse-quence, research findings and data are often inadequate for a detailed globalassessment. Moreover, the data and information that are available are gener-ally related to either the characteristics of the ecological system or the charac-teristics of the social system, not to the all-important interactions betweenthese systems. Finally, the scientific and assessment tools and models avail-able to undertake a cross-scale integrated assessment and to project futurechanges in ecosystem services are only now being developed. Despite thesechallenges, the MA was able to provide considerable information relevant tomost of the focal questions. And by identifying gaps in data and informationthat prevent policy-relevant questions from being answered, the assessmentcan help to guide research and monitoring that may allow those questions tobe answered in future assessments.

................. 11430$ $MEA 10-21-05 14:07:42 PS

Contents

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix

Reader’s Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi

Summary: Response Options and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Part I: Framework for Evaluating ResponsesChapter 1. MA Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Chapter 2. Typology of Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Chapter 3. Assessing Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Chapter 4. Recognizing Uncertainties in Evaluating Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Part II: Assessment of Past and Current ResponsesChapter 5. Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119Chapter 6. Food and Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173Chapter 7. Freshwater Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213Chapter 8. Wood, Fuelwood, and Non-wood Forest Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257Chapter 9. Nutrient Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295Chapter 10. Waste Management, Processing, and Detoxification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313Chapter 11. Flood and Storm Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335Chapter 12. Ecosystems and Vector-borne Disease Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353Chapter 13. Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373Chapter 14. Cultural Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401

Part III: Synthesis and Lessons LearnedChapter 15. Integrated Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425Chapter 16. Consequences and Options for Human Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467Chapter 17. Consequences of Responses on Human Well-being and Poverty Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487Chapter 18. Choosing Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527Chapter 19. Implications for Achieving the Millennium Development Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549

Appendix A. Color Maps and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585Appendix B. Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591Appendix C. Abbreviations and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595Appendix D. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607

PAGE xi................. 11430$ CNTS 10-21-05 14:07:51 PS

PAGE xii................. 11430$ CNTS 10-21-05 14:07:52 PS

Foreword

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was called for by UnitedNations Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2000 in his report tothe UN General Assembly, We the Peoples: The Role of the UnitedNations in the 21st Century. Governments subsequently supportedthe establishment of the assessment through decisions taken bythree international conventions, and the MA was initiated in2001. The MA was conducted under the auspices of the UnitedNations, with the secretariat coordinated by the United NationsEnvironment Programme, and it was governed by a multistake-holder board that included representatives of international institu-tions, governments, business, NGOs, and indigenous peoples.The objective of the MA was to assess the consequences of eco-system change for human well-being and to establish the scientificbasis for actions needed to enhance the conservation and sustain-able use of ecosystems and their contributions to human well-being.

This volume has been produced by the MA Responses Work-ing Group and examines the strengths and weaknesses of variousresponse options that have been used to manage ecosystem ser-vices, as well as identifying promising opportunities for improvinghuman well-being while conserving ecosystems. The material inthis report has undergone two extensive rounds of peer review byexperts and governments, overseen by an independent Board ofReview Editors.

This is one of four volumes (Current State and Trends, Scenarios,Policy Responses, and Multiscale Assessments) that present the tech-nical findings of the Assessment. Six synthesis reports have alsobeen published: one for a general audience and others focused onissues of biodiversity, wetlands and water, desertification, health,and business and ecosystems. These synthesis reports were pre-pared for decision-makers in these different sectors, and they syn-thesize and integrate findings from across all of the workinggroups for ease of use by those audiences.

This report and the other three technical volumes provide aunique foundation of knowledge concerning human dependenceon ecosystems as we enter the twenty-first century. Never beforehas such a holistic assessment been conducted that addresses mul-tiple environmental changes, multiple drivers, and multiple link-ages to human well-being. Collectively, these reports reveal boththe extraordinary success that humanity has achieved in shapingecosystems to meet the need of growing populations and econo-

PAGE xiii

xiii

mies and the growing costs associated with many of these changes.They show us that these costs could grow substantially in thefuture, but also that there are actions within reach that could dra-matically enhance both human well-being and the conservationof ecosystems.

A more exhaustive set of acknowledgements appears later inthis volume but we want to express our gratitude to the membersof the MA Board, Board Alternates, Exploratory Steering Com-mittee, Assessment Panel, Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Au-thors, Contributing Authors, Board of Review Editors, andExpert Reviewers for their extraordinary contributions to thisprocess. (The list of reviewers is available at www.MAweb.org.)We also would like to thank the MA Secretariat and in particularthe staff of the Responses Working Group Technical SupportUnit for their dedication in coordinating the production of thisvolume, as well as the Institute of Economic Growth (India) andthe National Institute of Public Health and the Environment(Netherlands), which housed this TSU.

We would particularly like to thank the Co-chairs of the Re-sponses Working Group, Kanchan Chopra and Rik Leemans, andthe TSU Coordinators, Pushpam Kumar and Henk Simons, fortheir skillful leadership of this working group and their contribu-tions to the overall assessment.

Dr. Robert T. WatsonMA Board Co-chairChief Scientist, The World Bank

Dr. A.H. ZakriMA Board Co-chairDirector, Institute for Advanced Studies,United Nations University

................. 11430$ FRWD 10-21-05 14:08:00 PS

PAGE xiv................. 11430$ FRWD 10-21-05 14:08:00 PS

Preface

The focus of the MA is on ecosystem services (the benefits peopleobtain from ecosystems), how changes in ecosystem services haveaffected human well-being in the past, and what role thesechanges could play in the present as well as in the future. TheMA is an assessment of responses that are available to improveecosystem management and can thereby contribute to the variousconstituents of human well-being. The specific issues addressedhave been defined through consultation with the MA users.Broadly, the MA applies an integrated systems’ approach to evalu-ate trade-offs involved in following alternate strategies and coursesof action to use ecosystem services for enhancing human welfare.

The overall aims of the MA are to:• identify priorities for action;• provide tools for planning and management;• provide foresight concerning the consequences of decisions

affecting ecosystems;• identify response options to achieve human development and

sustainability goals; and• help build individual and institutional capacity to undertake

integrated ecosystem assessments and to act on their findings.The MA synthesizes information from scientific literature,

data sets, and scientific models, and utilizes knowledge held by theprivate sector, practitioners, local communities, and indigenouspeoples. All of the MA findings have undergone two rounds ofexpert and governmental review.

This report of the MA Responses Working Group evaluatesthe current understanding of how human decisions and policiesinfluence ecosystems, ecosystem services, and consequently,human well being. The assessment identifies and critically evalu-ates past, current, and possible future policy and management op-tions for maintaining ecosystems (including biodiversity) andsustaining the flow of ecosystem services. The Responses Work-ing Group is one of four MA working groups, each of whichhas contributed an assessment report. The Condition and TrendsWorking Group reviewed the state of knowledge on ecosystems,ecosystem services, and associated human well-being in the pres-ent, recent past, and near future. The Scenarios Working Groupconsidered the evolution of ecosystem services during the firsthalf of the twenty-first century under a range of plausible narra-tives. The Sub-global Working Group carried out assessments atdifferent levels to directly meet needs of local and regional decision-makers and strengthen the global findings with finer-scale detail.Together, the working group reports provide local, national, re-gional, and global perspectives and information.

In the MA, responses are defined as the whole range of humanactions, including policies, strategies, and interventions, to addressspecific issues, needs, opportunities, or problems. A response typi-cally involves a ‘‘reaction to a perceived problem.’’ It can be indi-vidual or collective; it may be designed to answer one or manyneeds; or it could be focused at different temporal, spatial, or or-ganizational scales. In the context of managing ecosystems or eco-system services, responses may be of legal, technical, institutional,

PAGE xv

xv

economic, or behavioral nature and may operate at local/micro,regional, national, or international level at the time scale of daysto hundred of years. The assessment focuses on responses that areintended to ensure that ecosystems and biodiversity are preserved,that desired ecosystem services accrue, and that human well-beingis augmented. This is one of the major objectives of all conven-tions targeted by the MA, the Millennium Development Goals,and others.

Focus of the Responses Assessment ReportThe Responses assessment report is rooted in the MA conceptualframework, which provides an understanding of the causes andconsequences of changes in ecosystems across scales (local, re-gional, and global) and over time (MA 2003; see also Chapter 1of this volume). Ecosystems, ecosystem services, human well-being, anddirect and indirect drivers initiating the links among them constitute themain elements of the MA conceptual framework. (See Chapter 1 fordefinitions of these concepts.) Human responses are outcomes ofhuman decisions and they influence and change the key connect-ing links between these elements. They determine how individu-als, communities, nations, and international agencies intervene orstrategize, ostensibly in their own interests, to use, manage, andconserve ecosystems. There are many ways to categorize re-sponses, which are often determined by the problem at hand, thedecision-maker/actor associated with, or the tradition of, the dis-cipline.

The organizational scales of responses can be international (forinstance, the U.N. conventions), multilateral and bilateral (impor-tant for transboundary problems), national, state/provincial, com-munity (urban or rural), family, or individual. Decisions taken ateach of these levels can affect ecosystems and ecosystem services.For example, national policies initiated to comply with interna-tional trade treaties can impact local ecosystems. The assessmentmethodology developed by the Responses Working Group iscomprehensive enough to be used to assess responses at all scales,as and when they are relevant to the context of the particularecosystem service being studied. The Responses assessment con-sists of a three-stage approach. The first stage focuses on factorsthat may either rule out a particular response or may define thecritical preconditions for its success. Constraints that render a pol-icy option infeasible are called the binding constraints, which arecontext specific. In the second stage, responses are comparedacross multiple dimensions, identifying compatibility or conflictbetween different policy objectives. Here the acceptable costs as-sociated with the implementation of a response (the acceptabletrade-offs) are identified. Finally, responses are evaluated from dif-ferent perspectives in order to provide guidance that is the bestbalanced from the point of view of decision-making as shown inthe illustration below:

As shown in the illustration, research, assessment, monitoring,and policy-making are all components of a continuing interactive

................. 11430$ PREF 10-21-05 14:07:59 PS

xvi Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Policy Responses

process to support development and implementation of responses.Decision-making starts by identifying a problem, followed by col-lating the research findings to help in defining and choosing pol-icy options. (See Chapter 18 of this volume.) Policies are selected,implemented, and then evaluated for their effectiveness. Theprocess is iterative and involves interaction with all kinds of infor-mation providers. Ideally, the decision-making cycle entails ob-taining feedback from all categories of stakeholders. Similar loopsexist for the research, monitoring, and assessment process, eachwith its characteristic objectives, approaches, and dynamics.Under the best circumstances, research insights should yield ade-quate monitoring networks and indicators of change, to be takenup for assessment toward an informed decision process. Under-standably, the dynamics and timing of each of these cycles donot always evolve in perfect coordination with each other. Thedynamic nature of information exchange and feedback to andfrom these processes and their stakeholders are integral to devel-oping responses.

This implies that decision-making processes are liable tochange over time to improve effectiveness. A number of mecha-nisms can facilitate this. Ecosystem dynamics will never be com-pletely understood, socioeconomic systems will continue tochange, and drivers can never be fully anticipated. It is importanttherefore that decision-making processes incorporate, whereverpossible, procedures to evaluate outcomes of actions and assimi-late lessons learned from experience. Debate on exactly how togo about doing this continues in discussions on adaptive manage-ment, social learning, safe minimum standards, and the precau-tionary principle. But the core message of all approaches is thesame: acknowledge the limits of human understanding, give spe-cial consideration to irreversible changes, and evaluate the multi-ple impacts of decisions as they unfold.

Organization of this VolumeThis assessment report has a large canvas to cover. Various re-sponse options are selected on the basis of the impact they haveon a set of ecosystems and ecosystem services. The report exam-

PAGE xvi

ines these different societal responses and evaluates them by usingdiverse methodologies. The results are analyzed from diverse per-spectives to draw key conclusions regarding their impact onhuman well-being.

To facilitate the analysis, this report is divided into three parts.Part I (that is, Chapters 1 through 4) introduces responses andfocuses mainly on conceptual and methodological issues. Chapter1 summarizes the MA conceptual framework and defines someimportant concepts. Chapter 2 discusses alternative typologies ofpossible responses. It differentiates responses by, actors, disciplines,drivers, and scales, and further characterizes them in terms of theinstruments for intervention—such as economic, institutional,governance, and technological—thus highlighting the multi-dimensional nature of responses.

Chapter 3 elaborates on alternate methods of assessing re-sponses. It sets up a framework that can be used to evaluatewhether particular responses are effective and desirable from so-cial, political, and economic perspectives. It indicates how social,political, and economic factors and their actors can act as con-straints to the ability of responses or strategies to meet intendedgoals and avoid unintended consequences.

Chapter 4 highlights specific decision-making criteria in theabove context. It also focuses on the role of uncertainty in assess-ing the effectiveness of responses. This uncertainty is partly afunction of the methodology and tools applied but also an inher-ent characteristic of decision-making that is always a leap into thefuture.

Part II consists of ten chapters (5 through 14), each focusingon one or more ecosystem service. These chapters relate specificcase studies from the literature and the sub-global assessments tothe response typology and evaluation methodology outlined inPart I. Chapter 5 focuses on responses concerning biodiversity,which underlies all other ecosystem services. This chapter has astrong spotlight on ecosystem management and conservation.

Chapters 6, 7, and 8 dwell on the provisioning ecosystem ser-vices. Different responses at all major decision-making levels,which alter ecosystems providing these services, are presented andassessed. Special emphasis is laid upon the trade-offs and synergiesbetween specific responses and their consequences. Responsesthat contribute to the sustainable use of these ecosystems are high-lighted. In a similar vein, Chapters 9 through 13 focus on regulat-ing services, and Chapter 14 assesses cultural ecosystem services.These chapters correspond to chapters pertaining to ecosystemservices presented by the Condition and Trends Working Group.Together, the ecosystem services chapters in this volume and inMA Current State and Trends provide a complete overview of thecurrent understanding of where, how, and why ecosystem ser-vices are changing; in what way the selected responses are havingan impact on drivers, ecosystems, ecosystem services; and the dif-ferent constituent parts of human well-being.

Taking an ecosystem service approach proved difficult forsome of the chapters in Part II. For instance, few responses focusdirectly on managing ecosystems services toward climate regula-tion or waste management. Additionally, there has been no orlittle experience in treating the topics in some chapters (for exam-ple, waste management and climate regulations) as ecosystem ser-vices. Adhering too strongly to an ecosystem services approachcould, in some cases, lead to too narrow a focus while the useraudiences expect a broader treatment. This became apparent afterthe first review. We have therefore permitted a more user-oriented treatment of certain ecosystem services to allow for morecomprehensive discussions of responses related to areas such asclimate regulation, waste management, and disease control.

................. 11430$ PREF 10-21-05 14:08:30 PS

xviiPreface

Chapter 15 deals with responses that address (provision of )ecosystem services across a number of systems simultaneously, ex-plicitly including objectives to enhance human well being. Suchintegrated responses occurring across different scales could beoriented at different actors, generally employing a range of instru-ments for implementation. The assessment of sustainable manage-ment strategies and trade-offs between different responses iscentral here. The responses always integrate different aspects ofecosystems. Examples include integrated water, forest, or coastalmanagement. Such responses may be at the international level inthe form of framework conventions or at local levels in the formof concrete resource management projects. This chapter providesa comprehensive evaluation of such integrated responses.

Part III (Chapters 15 through 19) synthesizes the lessonslearned from earlier chapters and provides an overarching evalua-tion of the interlinkages among drivers, ecosystems, ecosystemservices, and ultimately, human well-being. Chapter 15 deals withresponses that address (provision of ) ecosystem services across anumber of systems simultaneously, explicitly including objectivesto enhance human well-being. Such integrated responses occur-ring across different scales could be oriented at different actors,generally employing a range of instruments for implementation.The assessment of sustainable management strategies and trade-offs between different responses is central here. The responses al-ways integrate different aspects of ecosystems. Examples includeintegrated water, forest, or coastal management. Such responsesmay be at the international level in the form of framework con-ventions or at local levels in the form of concrete resource

PAGE xvii

management projects. This chapter provides a comprehensiveevaluation of such integrated responses.

The other chapters within Part III take on a specific aspect ofhuman welfare for analysis such as material and social security,health, freedoms, and choice. Chapter 16 takes a strong humanhealth perspective, while Chapter 17 emphasizes poverty reduc-tion. The central questions in these chapters are:• How have responses that were aimed at protecting ecosystems

and their services, impacted the different constituents and de-terminants of human well-being?

• Did policies initiated at national levels for promoting well-being have negative impacts on ecosystems or on the accrualof ecosystem services?

These two chapters thus strongly emphasize the trade-offs andsynergies between different responses.

Chapter 18 provides general ‘‘guidelines’’ for choosing re-sponses, assessing the required information and decision-tools bydiscussing the relative strengths and weaknesses of alternatesources of information. Chapter 19 evaluates the Millennium De-velopment Goals from a responses perspective. Sustainable use ofecosystems and thereby accrual of ecosystem services for humanwell-being is central to these chapters as in all others.

Kanchan Chopra Rik LeemansIEG, India Wageningen University, Netherlands

Pushpam Kumar Henk SimonsIEG, India RIVM, Netherlands

................. 11430$ PREF 10-21-05 14:08:31 PS

PAGE xviii................. 11430$ PREF 10-21-05 14:08:31 PS

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere thanks to all authors of theResponses Working Group for their untiring enthusiasm duringthe entire process and for their efforts to ensure that all state-of-the-art knowledge is indeed assessed. It was a sheer pleasure towork with this extremely motivated group of social and naturalscientists from across the globe.

This volume could not have been written without the veryvaluable guidance from the Board and Panel members of the Mil-lennium Ecosystem Assessment. Dr. Walter V. Reid, Prof. HaroldMooney, and Dr. Angela Cropper were especially pivotal to theprocess and strongly contributed to the assessment as a wholethrough their many suggestions, penetrating comments, targetedstyles, and constructive attitudes. We thank the MA Board and itschairs, Robert Watson and A.H. Zakri, and the members of theMA Review Board and its chairs, Jose Sarukhan and AnneWhyte, for their guidance and support for this working group.The wisdom and insights of all these individuals kept us focused,and their input was essential to harmonize the assessments of thedifferent working groups.

Reviewers provided numerous constructive comments on, forexample, structure, general content, specific statements, and in-consistencies between chapters. We greatly appreciate their effortsbecause these comments were instrumental in improving theoverall quality of all chapters and the assessment as a whole. Wefurther appreciate the daunting task of the review board to ensurethat all comments, suggestions, and criticisms were addressed in acredible manner.

Finally, we are thankful to the Institute of Economic Growth(IEG), Delhi, and the Dutch Institute of Public Health and theEnvironment (RIVM) for supporting the chairs, hosting theTechnical Support Unit (TSU) and facilitating the assessment ingeneral. We are indebted to Meenakshi Rathore for her crucialsupport to the TSU at the IEG. In the last stage of the work,Shreemoyee Patra helped in editorial work for the volume andwe are also thankful to her.

Special thanks are due to the other MA Secretariat staff whoworked tirelessly on this project:

AdministrationNicole Khi—Program CoordinatorChan Wai Leng—Program CoordinatorBelinda Lim—Administrative OfficerTasha Merican—Program Coordinator

Sub-globalMarcus Lee—TSU Coordinator and MA Deputy DirectorCiara Raudsepp-Hearne—TSU Coordinator

Condition and TrendsNeville J. Ash—TSU CoordinatorDalene du Plessis—Program AssistantMampiti Matete—TSU Coordinator

PAGE xix

xix

ScenariosElena M. Bennett—TSU CoordinatorVeronique Plocq-Fichelet—Program AdministratorMonika B. Zurek—TSU Coordinator

Engagement and OutreachChristine Jalleh—Communications OfficerNicolas Lucas—Engagement and Outreach DirectorValerie Thompson—Associate

Other StaffJohn Ehrmann—Lead FacilitatorKeisha-Maria Garcia—Research AssistantLori Han—Publications ManagerSara Suriani—Conference ManagerJillian Thonell—Data Coordinator

InternsEmily Cooper, Elizabeth Wilson

Kanchan Chopra Rik LeemansIEG, India Wageningen University, Netherlands

Pushpam Kumar Henk SimonsIEG, India RIVM, Netherlands

Acknowledgment from the Co-chairs of theAssessment Board, Co-chairs of theAssessment Panel, and the DirectorWe would like to acknowledge the contributions of all the au-thors of this book and the support provided by their institutionsthat enabled their participation. We would like to thank the hostorganizations of the MA Technical Support Units—WorldFishCenter (Malaysia); UNEP–World Conservation MonitoringCentre (United Kingdom); Institute of Economic Growth(India); National Institute of Public Health and the Environment(Netherlands); University of Pretoria (South Africa); Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations (Italy); WorldResources Institute, Meridian Institute, and Center for Limnol-ogy of the University of Wisconsin–Madison (all in the UnitedStates); Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment(France); and International Maize and Wheat Improvement Cen-ter (Mexico)—for the support they provided to the process.

We thank several individuals who played particularly criticalroles: Rosemarie Philips for editing the report; Hyacinth Billingsand Caroline Taylor for providing invaluable advice on the publi-cation process; Maggie Powell for preparing the page design and

................. 11430$ $ACK 10-21-05 14:08:06 PS

xx Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Policy Responses

all the figures; and Julie Feiner for helping to proof the figuresand tables. And we thank the other MA volunteers, the adminis-trative staff of the host organizations, and colleagues in other orga-nizations who were instrumental in facilitating the process:Mariana Sanchez Abregu, Isabelle Alegre, Adlai Amor, Emmanu-elle Bournay, Herbert Caudill, Habiba Gitay, Helen Gray, SherryHeileman, Norbert Henninger, Toshi Honda, Francisco Ingou-ville, Humphrey Kagunda, Brygida Kubiak, Nicolas Lapham, LizLeavitt, Christian Marx, Stephanie Moore, John Mukoza, Arivu-dai Nambi, Laurie Neville, Carolina Katz Reid, Liana Reilly,Philippe Rekacewicz, Carol Rosen, Anne Schram, Jeanne Sedg-wick, Tang Siang Nee, Darrell Taylor, Tutti Tischler, Dan Tun-stall, Woody Turner, Mark Valentine, Elsie Velez-Whited, andMark Zimsky.

We also thank the current and previous Board Alternates: IvarBaste, Jeroen Bordewijk, David Cooper, Carlos Corvalan, NickDavidson, Lyle Glowka, Guo Risheng, Ju Hongbo, Ju Jin, Kagu-maho (Bob) Kakuyo, Melinda Kimble, Kanta Kumari, StephenLonergan, Charles Ian McNeill, Joseph Kalemani Mulongoy,Ndegwa Ndiang’ui, and Mohamed Maged Younes. We thank thepast members of the MA Board whose contributions were instru-mental in shaping the MA focus and process, including PhilbertBrown, Gisbert Glaser, He Changchui, Richard Helmer, YolandaKakabadse, Yoriko Kawaguchi, Ann Kern, Roberto Lenton, Co-rinne Lepage, Hubert Markl, Arnulf Muller-Helbrecht, SeemaPaul, Susan Pineda Mercado, Jan Plesnik, Peter Raven, CristianSamper, Ola Smith, Dennis Tirpak, Alvaro Umana, and MerylWilliams. We wish to also thank the members of the ExploratorySteering Committee that designed the MA project in 1999–2000.This group included a number of the current and past Boardmembers, as well as Edward Ayensu, Daniel Claasen, Mark Col-lins, Andrew Dearing, Louise Fresco, Madhav Gadgil, HabibaGitay, Zuzana Guziova, Calestous Juma, John Krebs, Jane Lub-chenco, Jeffrey McNeely, Ndegwa Ndiang’ui, Janos Pasztor,Prabhu L. Pingali, Per Pinstrup-Andersen, and Jose Sarukhan. Wethank Ian Noble and Mingsarn Kaosa-ard for their contributionsas members of the Assessment Panel during 2002.

We would particularly like to acknowledge the input of thehundreds of individuals, institutions, and governments who re-viewed drafts of the MA technical and synthesis reports. We alsothank the thousands of researchers whose work is synthesized inthis report. And we would like to acknowledge the support andguidance provided by the secretariats and the scientific and tech-nical bodies of the Convention on Biological Diversity, theRamsar Convention on Wetlands, the Convention to CombatDesertification, and the Convention on Migratory Species, whichhave helped to define the focus of the MA and of this report.

We also want to acknowledge the support of a large numberof nongovernmental organizations and networks around theworld that have assisted in outreach efforts: Alexandria University,Argentine Business Council for Sustainable Development, ArabMedia Forum for Environment and Development, Asociacion Ix-acavaa (Costa Rica), Brazilian Business Council on SustainableDevelopment, Charles University (Czech Republic), Chinese

PAGE xx

Academy of Sciences, European Environmental Agency, Euro-pean Union of Science Journalists’ Associations, EIS-Africa (Bur-kina Faso), Forest Institute of the State of Sao Paulo, ForoEcologico (Peru), Fridtjof Nansen Institute (Norway), FundacionNatura (Ecuador), Global Development Learning Network, In-donesian Biodiversity Foundation, Institute for Biodiversity Con-servation and Research–Academy of Sciences of Bolivia,International Alliance of Indigenous Peoples of the Tropical For-ests, IUCN office in Uzbekistan, IUCN Regional Offices forWest Africa and South America, Northern Temperate Lakes LongTerm Ecological Research Site (USA), Permanent Inter-StatesCommittee for Drought Control in the Sahel, Peruvian Societyof Environmental Law, Probioandes (Peru), Professional Councilof Environmental Analysts of Argentina, Regional CenterAGRHYMET (Niger), Regional Environmental Centre forCentral Asia, Resources and Research for Sustainable Develop-ment (Chile), Royal Society (United Kingdom), Stockholm Uni-versity, Suez Canal University, Terra Nuova (Nicaragua), TheNature Conservancy (United States), United Nations University,University of Chile, University of the Philippines, WinslowFoundation (USA), World Assembly of Youth, World BusinessCouncil for Sustainable Development, WWF-Brazil, WWF-Italy,and WWF-US.

We are extremely grateful to the donors that provided majorfinancial support for the MA and the MA Sub-global Assessments:Global Environment Facility, United Nations Foundation, Davidand Lucile Packard Foundation, World Bank, ConsultativeGroup on International Agricultural Research, United NationsEnvironment Programme, Government of China, Ministry ofForeign Affairs of the Government of Norway, Kingdom of SaudiArabia, and the Swedish International Biodiversity Programme.We also thank other organizations that provided financial support:Asia Pacific Network for Global Change Research; Association ofCaribbean States; British High Commission, Trinidad and To-bago; Caixa Geral de Depositos, Portugal; Canadian InternationalDevelopment Agency; Christensen Fund; Cropper Foundation,Environmental Management Authority of Trinidad and Tobago;Ford Foundation; Government of India; International Councilfor Science; International Development Research Centre; IslandResources Foundation; Japan Ministry of Environment; LagunaLake Development Authority; Philippine Department of Envi-ronment and Natural Resources; Rockefeller Foundation; U.N.Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; UNEP Divi-sion of Early Warning and Assessment; United Kingdom Depart-ment for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs; U.S. NationalAeronautic and Space Administration; and Universidade deCoimbra, Portugal. Generous in-kind support has been providedby many other institutions (a full list is available at www.MAweb-.org). The work to establish and design the MA was supported bygrants from The Avina Group, The David and Lucile PackardFoundation, Global Environment Facility, Directorate for NatureManagement of Norway, Swedish International DevelopmentCooperation Authority, Summit Foundation, UNDP, UNEP,United Nations Foundation, U.S. Agency for International De-velopment, Wallace Global Fund, and World Bank.

................. 11430$ $ACK 10-21-05 14:08:07 PS

Reader’s Guide

The four technical reports present the findings of each of the MAWorking Groups: Condition and Trends, Scenarios, Responses,and Sub-global Assessments. A separate volume, Our HumanPlanet, presents the summaries of all four reports in order to offera concise account of the technical reports for decision-makers. Inaddition, six synthesis reports were prepared for ease of use byspecific audiences: Synthesis (general audience), CBD (biodiver-sity), UNCCD (desertification), Ramsar Convention (wetlands),business and industry, and the health sector. Each MA sub-globalassessment will also produce additional reports to meet the needsof its own audiences.

All printed materials of the assessment, along with core data and alist of reviewers, are available at www.MAweb.org. In this volume,Appendix A contains color maps and figures. Appendix B lists allthe authors who contributed to this volume. Appendix C lists the

PAGE xxi

xxi

acronyms and abbreviations used in this report and Appendix Dis a glossary of terminology used in the technical reports.Throughout this report, dollar signs indicate U.S. dollars and tonmeans tonne (metric ton). Bracketed references within the Sum-mary are to chapters within this volume.

In this report, the following words have been used where ap-propriate to indicate judgmental estimates of certainty, based onthe collective judgment of the authors, using the observationalevidence, modeling results, and theory that they have examined:very certain (98% or greater probability), high certainty (85–98%probability), medium certainty (65%–58% probability), low cer-tainty (52–65% probability), and very uncertain (50–52% proba-bility). In other instances, a qualitative scale to gauge the level ofscientific understanding is used: well established, established butincomplete, competing explanations, and speculative. Each timethese terms are used they appear in italics.

................. 11430$ READ 10-21-05 14:08:13 PS

PAGE xxii................. 11430$ READ 10-21-05 14:08:13 PS

Ecosystems and Human Well-being:Policy Responses, Volume 3

PAGE xxiii................. 11430$ HFTL 10-21-05 14:08:17 PS

PAGE xxiv................. 11430$ HFTL 10-21-05 14:08:17 PS

Summary: Response Options and Strategies

Core Writing Team: Kate Brown, Bradnee Chambers, Kanchan Chopra, Angela Cropper, Anantha K.Duraiappah, Dan Faith, Joyeeta Gupta, Pushpam Kumar, Rik Leemans, Jens Mackensen, Harold A.Mooney, Walter V. Reid, Janet Riley, Henk Simons, Marja Spierenburg, and Robert T. Watson.

Extended Writing Team: Nimbe O. Adedipe, Heidi Albers, Bruce Aylward, Joseph Baker, JayantaBandyopadhyay, Juan-Carlos Belausteguigotia, D.K. Bhattacharya, Eduardo S. Brondizio, DiarmidCampbell-Lendrum, Flavio Comim, Carlos Corvalan, Dana R. Fisher, Tomas Hak, Simon Hales, RobertHowarth, Laura Meadows, James Mayers, Jeffrey McNeely, Monirul Q. Mirza, Bedrich Moldan, IanNoble, Steve Percy, Karen Polson, Frederik Schutyser, Sylvia Tognetti, Ferenc Toth, Rudy Rabbinge,Sergio Rosendo, M. K. C. Sridhar, Kilaparti Ramakrishna, Mahendra Shah, Nigel Sizer, Bhaskar Vira,Diana Wall, Alistair Woodward, and Gary Yohe.

CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Characteristics of Successful Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Coordination across Sectors and across ScalesParticipation and TransparencyTrade-offs and SynergiesMainstreaming

Choosing Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Promising Responses for Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being . . . . 6Institutions and GovernanceEconomics and IncentivesSocial and Behavioral ResponsesTechnological ResponsesKnowledge and Cognitive Responses

Appendix R1. Effectiveness of Assessed Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

BOXES

R1 Enabling Conditions for Designing Effective Responses

TABLES

R1 Applicability of Decision Support Methods and Frameworks

PAGE 1

1

................. 11430$ $SUM 10-21-05 14:08:20 PS

2 Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Policy Responses

IntroductionThe Millennium Ecosystem Assessment examines the conse-quences of changes to ecosystem services for human well-being. Itassesses the conditions and trends in ecosystems and their services,explores plausible scenarios for the future, and assesses alternativeresponse options. The assessment of the Condition and TrendsWorking Group affirms that, in the aggregate, changes to ecosys-tems have contributed to substantial gains in human well-beingover the past centuries: people are better nourished and livelonger and healthier lives than ever before, incomes have risen,and political institutions have become more participatory. How-ever, these gains have been achieved at growing costs, includingthe degradation of many ecosystem services, increased risks ofnonlinear changes, and the exacerbation of poverty for somegroups of people. Persistent and significant local, national, andregional disparities in income, well-being, and access to ecosys-tem services continue to exist. The assessment of the ScenariosWorking Group shows that the degradation of ecosystem servicescould grow significantly worse during the first half of this centuryand represents a barrier to achieving the Millennium Develop-ment Goals.

The question arises: What kind of action can we take? Whatpolicies can be developed and implemented by societies to enablethem to move in chosen directions? In this report, we define‘‘responses’’ to encompass the entire range of human actions, in-cluding policies, strategies, and interventions, to address specificissues, needs, opportunities, or problems related to ecosystems,ecosystem services, and human well-being. Responses may be in-stitutional, economic, social and behavioral, technological, orcognitive in nature. Response strategies are designed and under-taken at local, regional, or international scales within diverse insti-tutional settings. This report assesses how successful variousresponse strategies have been and identifies the conditions thathave contributed to their success or failure. Additionally, it deriveslessons that can be applied to the design of future responses.

The MA conceptual framework (MA 2003) posits that peopleare integral parts of ecosystems and that a dynamic interactionexists between them and other parts of ecosystems, with thechanging human condition driving, both directly and indirectly,changes in ecosystems and thereby causing changes in humanwell-being. (See Chapter 1, Box 1.2.) Direct and indirect driversoperate at different spatial, temporal, and organizational scales.Responses affect the direct and indirect drivers of change in eco-systems and thereby the services derived from ecosystems. In thisframework, human–ecosystem interactions are dynamic processesand, as a result, drivers and responses co-evolve over time. Expan-sion of cultivated systems, for instance, was initially a responseto the growing demand for food. Over time, this expansion ofcultivation became a driver of change altering other ecosystemservices, particularly as a result of habitat conversion, use of waterfor irrigation, and the excessive use of nutrients. A full assessmentof the effectiveness of various responses must thus include theexamination of the historical and contemporary contexts withinwhich interactions between drivers and responses developed. Thechoice of the most effective set of response options needs to beinformed not just by the impact of the response on a particulardriver, but also by the interactions among different drivers them-selves.

The effectiveness and impact of any response strategy dependsfurthermore on the interactions between the people who initiatethe response and others who have a stake in the outcomes at local,regional, and global levels. Strategies initiated at the global level,such as through international conventions, for example, may have

PAGE 2

consequences on ecosystem services and human well-being at thelocal level.

The Responses Working Group assessed a wide range ofresponses and interventions undertaken by different decision-makers in many different economic, social, and institutional set-tings. In the sections that follow, this summary describes severalkey characteristics of successful responses, discusses methods forchoosing responses, and reviews some of the more promising oreffective responses. It also discusses some of the barriers to imple-menting promising responses; one barrier that deserves particularemphasis involves the limited number of trained people in manycountries who are able to analyze response options and to developand implement programs of action to address these problems. Thisassessment demonstrates the tremendous scope for actions that canhelp to enhance human well-being while conserving ecosystems;but without investment in the necessary human and institutionalcapacity, many countries will not be able to effectively pursuethese options.

Characteristics of Successful ResponsesResponses to environmental problems tend to be more successfulwhen: a) there is effective coordination among the different levelsof decision-making; b) transparent participatory approaches areused; c) the potential trade-offs and synergies among responsestrategies and their outcomes are factored into their design; andd) considerations of impacts on ecosystems and the potential con-tributions of ecosystem services are mainstreamed in economicpolicy and development planning.

Coordination across Sectors and across Scales

Effective action to address problems related to ecosystem servicesrequires improved coordination across sectors and scales. [See es-pecially 5, 17, 19]

Almost any action affecting an ecosystem has consequences formany different services provided by that ecosystem. For example,a response designed to enhance the production of one ecosystemservice, such as crop production, could harm other services suchas water quality, fisheries production, or flood control. Thesetrade-offs cannot be adequately addressed through traditional sec-toral management approaches. Moreover, they cannot be ade-quately addressed through actions undertaken at a single scale,whether international, national, or local. Effective ecosystemmanagement thus requires effective coordination, both amonggovernmental institutions directly responsible for the environ-ment and between those institutions and other sectors. [17]

Coordination among International Institutions

The cooperation among multilateral environmental agreementshas improved in recent years, but considerable scope remains toincrease the coordination and consistency among their objectivesand actions. [17] To date, however, there has been relatively littleeffective coordination between MEAs and the politically strongerinternational economic and social institutions such as the WorldBank (except in its role as an implementing agency of the GlobalEnvironment Facility), the International Monetary Fund, and theWorld Trade Organization. Despite their profound influence onthe environment, economic and trade-related agreements haveshown minimal commitment to environmental issues; neitherhave the poverty reduction strategies prepared by countries forthe World Bank. Given the central importance of ecosystem ser-vices in achieving many Millennium Development Goals (in par-

................. 11430$ $SUM 10-21-05 14:08:22 PS

3Summary: Response Options and Strategies

ticular, the goals and targets related to poverty, hunger, disease,children’s health, water, and environmental sustainability), theMDG process could in principle provide a means to better incor-porate the environment into these other sectors, but little progresshas yet been observed. [19]

Coordination across Decision-making Levels

International agreements are more likely to be translated into na-tional policy if they include precise obligations, sanctions for vio-lation, and monitoring provisions, and if they provide financialassistance for national implementation. While most MEAs meetsome of these criteria, relatively few have sanctions for violation;in almost all cases, there is considerable scope for the agreementsto be strengthened if the criteria were met more effectively. [17]For example, financial mechanisms such as the Global Environ-ment Facility enable assistance to be provided through some eco-system-related MEAs, but across the board these agreementswould be more effective if greater assistance were available. Simi-larly, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention toCombat Desertification, and the Ramsar Wetlands Conventioncould be strengthened if countries assumed additional outcome-focused obligations in addition to the more common planningand reporting obligations. The CBD, for example, has now estab-lished a specific outcome-focused target—the ‘‘2010 Target’’ tosignificantly slow the rate of biodiversity loss—but this target isnot binding on individual countries.

Some steps have been taken by the ecosystem-focused MEAsto promote greater national implementation. For example, thenational biodiversity strategies and action plans form a central im-plementation mechanism of the CBD and have resulted in someaction at the national and local levels.[5] The CCD has encour-aged the development of national action programs to combat de-sertification; 50 of these programs are now receiving internationalfunding. While the CBD national biodiversity strategies and theCCD national action programs have stimulated and guided someactions and policy reforms, their primary impact has been withinthe environmental sector; they have been less effective in influ-encing action in other sectors. The overall effectiveness of theimplementation of these and other MEAs could be strengthenedif these planning processes were more effectively integrated intoother processes such as decentralization and land reform, whichgenerally have major effects on land use and desertification.

In general, international agreements dealing with ecologicalresources tend to be less successful than those concerning defenseor trade because of the less obvious nature of reciprocal benefits tocontracting parties, the major driving force in other agreements.Success of international legal instruments depends on the percep-tion of the need for longer term cooperation. The design of theagreement and the manner in which the agreement was negoti-ated both play a role. Given the complexity of some negotiatingprocesses and the lack of resources to enable the full participationof many developing countries in negotiations, some countries faceserious challenges in ensuring adequate representation of their in-terests and perspectives in international agreements; this in turnundermines the effectiveness of the agreements. [17] Clearly,there exists an urgent need to augment developing-country ca-pacity to participate in international negotiations.

Coordination at National and Sub-national Levels

At national and sub-national levels, effective responses to eco-system degradation are constrained by the same weakness ofcross-sectoral coordination and even coordination within the en-vironmental sector. The implementation of many environmental

PAGE 3

conventions at a national level, for example, could be strength-ened through more effective coordination among the national of-fices responsible for implementing different internationalagreements. More generally, at the national and sub-national lev-els successful response interventions often involve situation-driven integration across decision-making agencies. This type ofintegration tends to be found in situations where communitiesand lower level governments are given management and deci-sion-making flexibility within broad enabling frameworks.

Participation and Transparency

Insufficient participation and transparency in planning and decision-making have been major barriers to the design and implementa-tion of effective responses. [3, 4, 5, 7, 14, 15, 17]

The importance of stakeholder participation is now widely recog-nized, although generally poorly implemented, at the interna-tional scale, as well as at the national and local scales. Althoughstakeholder participation can result in a slower and more costlyprocess, it creates ownership in the policy being developed, com-mitment to successful implementation, and increased societal ac-ceptance of the policy. Among international conventions, forexample, the CBD states ‘‘management should be decentralizedto the lowest appropriate level, and boundaries for managementshall be defined by indigenous and local peoples, among others.’’The 1999 Ramsar Convention Conference of Parties adoptedguidelines for the inclusion of local and indigenous people in themanagement of Ramsar wetlands. The problems associated withinadequate stakeholder participation are most apparent in the areaof biodiversity conservation. Because local people are de facto theprimary resource managers in most regions, working with localcommunities is essential to conserving biodiversity in the longerterm. The establishment of protected areas, for example, is moreeffective when local communities have ‘‘bought in’’ to the pro-tected area and have alternative livelihood opportunities or re-ceive direct payments so that they are not harmed by creation ofthe proteced area. [5] This often requires the establishment ofprotected areas designed to support multiple uses of natural andcultural resources. Bottom-up decision-making processes rootedin a local and site-specific context have also enabled the negotia-tion of water agreements to become a catalyst for peace and coop-eration. Note, for instance, that nation states belonging to verydifferent political persuasions confirm water treaties such as theNile treaty and the Indus Waters treaty. [7]

Important as stakeholder participation is, the financial costsand time needed for elaborate stakeholder processes can some-times outweigh the benefits. Moreover, there is also the risk that‘‘participation’’ can be co-opted into what are, at their core, cen-trally determined plans. This kind of ‘‘centralized decentraliza-tion’’ may well lead to the exclusion of disadvantaged groups eventhough they have been ‘‘consulted’’ in the decision process. Oftenthis is the consequence of policies that do not take into accountdifferences among stakeholders in preexisting situations. Examplesare found in the watershed programs and the water user associa-tions in India.

The introduction of participatory approaches in settingswhere people are not accustomed to such approaches must beaccompanied by capacity-building among stakeholders if it is tosucceed. The capacity created in this way must also be sustained.Key interventions include both public education and steps takento strengthen social networks in order to facilitate the inclusionof all relevant forms of knowledge and information, includinglocal and indigenous knowledge, in decision-making.

................. 11430$ $SUM 10-21-05 14:08:23 PS

4 Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Policy Responses

For participatory approaches to succeed, the stakeholders in-volved need access to information on both the resources beingmanaged and the decision-making process. Effective monitoring,assessment, and reporting is therefore a key to success in allocatingecosystem services and implementing response options. Given theheterogeneity, constant change, and site-specific characteristics ofecosystem services and the human institutions through whichthey are managed, a fundamental but often overlooked need is foran independent and transparent process of assessment. Monitoringand assessment are critical components of pro-active adaptivemanagement, as they can provide the feedback necessary to de-velop and continually improve implementation strategies as newinformation becomes available, constraints are identified, and en-abling institutional structures put in place. Although considerabledebate continues about the most effective mechanisms for stake-holder involvement in decision-making processes, all approachesagree on the same core elements: acknowledge the limits ofhuman understanding, recognize knowledge gaps explicitly, givespecial consideration to irreversible changes, and evaluate the im-pacts of decisions as they unfold.

Trade-offs and Synergies

Trade-offs and synergies among human well-being, ecosystems,and ecosystem services are the rule rather than the exception andthis implies that informed choices must be made to achieve thebest possible outcomes. [5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17]The following categories of trade-offs are involved in managingecosystem services:• Trade-offs between the present and future. For example, some

technologies developed to increase food production, such asthe replacement of traditional cultivars with high yielding va-rieties or the excessive application of fertilizers and pesticides,have reduced the capacity of land and water systems to pro-vide food in the future. [6] Similarly, some resource manage-ment practices yield economic benefits in the present, butdefer costs to the future. Forest harvest, for example, providesimmediate economic returns but may result in future costs inthe form of degraded water quality or increased frequency offloods.

• Trade-offs among ecosystem services. The majority of responsestrategies have given priority to increasing the allocation ofprovisioning services, such as food production and water sup-ply, often at the expense of regulating and cultural ecosystemservices. For example, water has been impounded to enableincreased irrigation and increased food production, but thisreduces downstream water supplies, harms freshwater bio-diversity, and degrades some cultural and recreational benefitsprovided by free-flowing rivers.

• Trade-offs among constituents of human well being. Responses areoften directed at improving the material well-being constit-uent of human well-being to the neglect of other constituentsof human well-being such as health and security. For example,increased use of pesticides can increase the production of food,but harm the health of farmworkers and consumers.

• Trade-offs among stakeholders. Ecosystems and their services areused differently by different groups of stakeholders: the needsof vulnerable groups are often marginalized in this process.For example, large scale commercial exploitation of forests fortimber harvest often comes at the expense of the use of forestsby local communities as a source of non-wood forest prod-ucts. [8] Similarly, the conversion of mangrove forests toshrimp aquaculture benefits the farmers who have resourcesto invest in aquaculture operations, but harms the local fish-

PAGE 4

erfolk who depend on capture fisheries associated with themangroves.Although negative trade-offs are common, positive synergies

are also possible, and responses can be identified that create syner-gies and help in achieving multiple objectives. The long-termsuccess of conservation strategies in areas where local people aredependent on the use of biological resources, for example, de-pends on meeting the needs of these communities. The exactnature of the synergy is more easily identified in specific ecologi-cal and societal contexts through an appropriate understandingof linkages between ecosystems and human well-being. Similarly,among the growing number of people who face health problemsassociated with obesity, reducing consumption of food wouldbenefit both human health and reduce demand for ecosystem ser-vices.

Some potential and emerging synergies can only be realised ifenabling institutions are created. For example, afforestation, re-forestation, improved forest, cropland and rangeland managementand agroforestry provide a range of opportunities to increase car-bon sequestration. Similarly, slowing deforestation provides anopportunity to reduce carbon emissions. Such activities have thepotential to sequester about 10 to 20% of projected fossil emis-sions up to 2050. [13] However, only a small part of this potentialcan be delivered with the institutions, technologies, and financialarrangements now in place. A large number of these issues remainundecided and prevent the use of forestry as a carbon manage-ment option.

Mainstreaming

The quantity and quality of ecosystem services available are oftendetermined to a greater extent by macroeconomic, trade, and otherpolicies than by policies within the environmental sector itself. [5,6, 8, 17, 19]

Some of the most significant drivers of change in ecosystem ser-vices and their use originate outside the sectors that have responsi-bility for the management of ecosystem services. For example, theavailability of fish in coastal waters can be strongly influencedby government policies related to crop production or food pricesupports, since this will influence the amount of fertilizer andwater used in crop production and hence the potential harmfulimpacts associated with nutrient pollution or changes in riverflows. Similarly, trade policies can have significant impacts on for-est product industries and thus on the management of forests. In-deed, this assessment finds that policies outside the forest sectorare often more important than policies within the sector in deter-mining the social and ecological sustainability of forest manage-ment. While inappropriate policies in other sectors can harmecosystem services, changes in those policies can often also pro-vide one of the most effective means for improving managmentof ecosystem services. For example, reforms to the Common Ag-ricultural Policy in Europe to incorporate environmental dimen-sions could significantly reduce pressures on some ecosystemservices. [6]

In general, potential threats to ecosystem services and the po-tential contributions of ecosystem services to economic develop-ment and poverty reduction are not taken into account indevelopment plans and trade policies. Very few macroeconomicresponses to poverty reduction have considered the importanceof sound management of ecosystem services as a mechanism tomeet the basic needs of the poorest. The poverty reduction strate-gies that many developing countries are now preparing for theWorld Bank and other donors can be most effective if they in-clude an emphasis on the links between ecosystems and human

................. 11430$ $SUM 10-21-05 14:08:24 PS

5Summary: Response Options and Strategies

well-being, but few of the strategies incorporate these issues. [17]More generally, the failure to incorporate considerations of eco-system management in the strategies being pursued to achievemany of the eight Millennium Development Goals will under-mine the sustainability of any progress that is made toward thegoals and targets associated with poverty, hunger, disease, childmortality, and access to water, in particular. [19]

Choosing Responses

Decisions affecting ecosystems and their servicescan be improved by changing the processes used toreach those decisions. [18]

The context of decision-making about ecosystems is changingrapidly. The new challenge to decision-making is to make effec-tive use of information and tools in this changing context in orderto improve the decisions. At the same time, some old challengesmust still be addressed. The decision-making process and theactors involved influence the intervention chosen. Decision-mak-ing processes vary across jurisdictions, institutions, and cultures.Even so, this assessment has identified the following elements ofdecision-making processes related to ecosystems and their servicesthat tend to improve the decisions reached and their outcomesfor ecosystems and human well-being:• use the best available information, including considerations of

the value of both marketed and nonmarketed ecosystem ser-vices;

• ensure transparency and the effective and informed participa-tion of important stakeholders;

• recognize that not all values at stake can be quantified, andthus quantification can provide a false objectivity in decision-making processes that have significant subjective elements;

• strive for efficiency, but not at the expense of effectiveness;• consider equity and vulnerability in terms of the distribution

of costs and benefits;• ensure accountability and provide for regular monitoring and

evaluation; and• consider cumulative and cross-scale effects and, in particular,

assess trade-offs across different ecosystem services.A wide range of tools can assist decision-making con-

cerning ecosystems and their services. [3, 4] The use of deci-sion-making methods that adopt a pluralistic perspective isparticularly pertinent, since these techniques do not give undueweight to any particular viewpoint. Examples of tools that canassist decision-making at a variety of scales, including global, sub-global, and local, include:• Deliberative tools (which facilitate transparency and stakeholder par-

ticipation). These include neighborhood forums, citizens’ ju-ries, community issues groups, consensus conferences,electronic democracy, focus groups, issue forums, and ecosys-tem service user forums.

• Information-gathering tools (which are primarily focused on collectingdata and opinions). Examples of information-gathering tools in-clude citizens’ research panels, deliberative opinion polls, en-vironmental impact assessments, participatory rural appraisal,and rapid rural appraisal.

• Planning tools (which are typically used to evaluate potential policyoptions). Some common planning tools are consensus partici-pation, cost-benefit analysis, multicriteria analysis, participa-tory learning and action, stakeholder decision analysis, trade-off analysis, and visioning exercises.

PAGE 5

Some of these methods are particularly well-suited fordecision-making in the face of uncertainties in data, pre-diction, context, and scale. [4] Such methods include cost-benefit or multicriteria analyses, risk assessment, the precautionaryprinciple, and vulnerability analysis. (See Table R1.) All thesemethods have been able to support optimization exercises, butfew of them have much to say about equity. Cost-benefit analysiscan, for example, be modified to weight the interests of somepeople more than others. The discount rate can be viewed, inlong-term analyses, as a means of weighting the welfare of futuregenerations; and the precautionary principle can be expressed interms of reducing the exposure of certain populations or systemswhose preferential status may be the result of equity considera-tions. Multicriteria analysis was designed primarily to accommo-date optimization across multiple objectives with complexinteractions, but this can also be adapted to consider equity andthreshold issues at national and sub-national scales.

Scenario-building exercises provide one way to copewith many aspects of uncertainty, but our limited under-standing of ecological and human response processesshrouds any individual scenario in its own characteristicuncertainty. [4] The development of a set of scenarios providesa useful means to highlight the implications of alternative assump-tions about critical uncertainties related to the behavior of humanand ecological systems. In this way, they provide one means tocope with many aspects of uncertainty in assessing responses. Therelevance, significance, and influence of scenarios ultimately de-pend on the assumptions made in their development. At the sametime, though, there are a number of reasons to be cautious in theuse of scenarios. First, individual scenarios represent conditionalprojections based on specific assumptions. Thus to the extent thatour understanding and representation of the ecological andhuman systems represented in the scenarios is limited, specificscenarios are characterized by their own uncertainty. Second,there is uncertainty in translating the lessons derived from scenar-ios developed at one scale—say, global—to the assessment of re-sponses at other scales—say, sub-national. Third, scenarios oftenhave hidden and hard-to-articulate assumptions. Fourth, environ-mental scenarios have tended to more effectively incorporatestate-of-the-art natural science modeling than social science mod-eling.

Effective management of ecosystems requires coordi-nated responses at multiple scales. [15, 17] Responses thatare successful at a small scale are often less successful at higherlevels due to constraints in legal frameworks and government in-stitutions that prevent their success. In addition, there appear tobe limits to scaling up, not only because of these higher-levelconstraints, but also because interventions at a local level oftenaddress only direct drivers of change rather than indirect or un-derlying ones. For example, a local project to improve livelihoodsof communities surrounding a protected area in order to reducepressure on it, if successful, may increase migration into bufferzones, thereby adding to pressures. Cross-scale responses may bemore effective at addressing the higher-level constraints and leak-age problems and simultaneously tackling regional and national aswell as local-level drivers of change. Examples of successful cross-scale responses include some co-management approaches to natu-ral resource management in fisheries and forestry and multistake-holder policy processes.

Active adaptive management can be a particularlyvaluable tool for reducing uncertainty about ecosystemmanagement decisions. [17] The term ‘‘active’’ adaptive man-agement is used here to emphasize the key characteristic of theoriginal concept (which is frequently and inappropriately used to

................. 11430$ $SUM 10-21-05 14:08:25 PS

6 Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Policy Responses

Table R1. Applicability of Decision Support Methods and Frameworks

Key: ++ � direct application of the method by design+ � possible application with modification or (in the case of uncertainty) the method has already been modified to handle uncertainty� � weak but not impossible applicability with significant effort

Scale of Application

Method Optimization Equity Thresholds Uncertainty Mic

ro

Natio

nal

Regi

onal

and

Glo

bal

Cost-benefit Analysis + + � � � �

Risk Assessment + + ++ ++ � � �

Multicriteria Analysis ++ + + + � �

Precautionary Principle* + + ++ ++ � � �

Vulnerability Analysis + + ++ + � �

*The precautionary principle is not strictly analogous to the other analytical and assessment methods but still can be considered a method for decisionsupport. The precautionary principle prescribes how to bring scientific uncertainty into the decision-making process by explicitly formalizing precaution andbringing it to the forefront of the deliberations. It posits that significant actions (ranging from doing nothing to banning a potentially harmful substance oractivity, for instance) may be justified when the degree of possible harm is large and irreversible.

mean ‘‘learning by doing’’): the design of management programsto test hypotheses about how components of an ecosystem func-tion and interact, in order to reduce uncertainty about the systemmore rapidly than would otherwise occur. Under an adaptivemanagement approach, for example, a fisheries manager mightintentionally set harvest levels either lower or higher than the‘‘best estimate’’ in order to gain information more rapidly aboutthe shape of the yield curve for the fishery. Given the high levelsof uncertainty surrounding coupled socioecological systems, theuse of active adaptive management is often warranted.

Promising Responses for Ecosystem Servicesand Human Well-beingPast actions to slow or reverse the degradation of ecosys-tems have yielded significant benefits, but these improve-ments have generally not kept pace with growing pressuresand demands. Although most ecosystem services assessed in theMA are being degraded, the extent of that degradation wouldhave been much greater without responses implemented in pastdecades. For example, more than 100,000 protected areas (includ-ing strictly protected areas such as national parks as well as areasmanaged for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems such as tim-ber harvest or wildlife harvest) covering about 11.7% of the ter-restrial surface have now been established. These protected areasplay an important role in the conservation of biodiversity andecosystem services, although important gaps remain in their distri-bution and management, particularly in marine and freshwatersystems. Many protected areas lack adequate resources for man-agement. Protected areas will not be completely effective untilthey are fully integrated into an ecosystem or landscape approachto management. [5]

An effective set of responses to ensure the sustainablemanagement of ecosystems would address the indirect anddirect drivers that lead to the degradation of ecosystemservices and overcome a range of barriers. The barriers to beovercome include:• inappropriate institutional and governance arrangements, in-

cluding the presence of corruption and weak systems of regu-lation and accountability;

PAGE 6

• market failures and the misalignment of economic incentives;• social and behavioral factors, including the lack of political and

economic power of some groups (such as poor people,women, and indigenous groups) who are particularly depen-dent on ecosystem services or harmed by their degradation;

• underinvestment in the development and diffusion of tech-nologies that could increase the efficiency of use of ecosystemservices and reduce the harmful impacts of various drivers ofecosystem change; and

• insufficient knowledge (as well as the poor use of existingknowledge) concerning ecosystem services and management,policy, technological, behavioral, and institutional responsesthat could enhance benefits from these services while conserv-ing resources.All these barriers are compounded by weak human and insti-

tutional capacity related to the assessment and management ofecosystem services, underinvestment in the regulation and man-agement of their use, lack of public awareness, and lack of aware-ness among decision-makers of the threats posed by thedegradation of ecosystem services and the opportunities that moresustainable management of ecosystems could provide.

The MA assessed 78 response options for ecosystemservices, integrated ecosystem management, conservationand sustainable use of biodiversity, waste management,and climate change. Many of these options hold significantpromise for conserving or sustainably enhancing the supply ofecosystem services; a selected number of promising responses thataddress the barriers just described are discussed here. (The full listof response options is presented in Appendix R1.) These re-sponses in turn often require that the proper enabling conditionsare in place. (See Box R1.) The stakeholder groups that wouldneed to take decisions to implement each response are indicatedas follows: G for government, B for business and industry, and Nfor nongovernmental organizations and other civil society organi-zations (including community-based and indigenous peoples’ or-ganizations and research institutions).

Institutions and Governance

Changes in institutional and environmental governanceframeworks are sometimes required in order to create the

................. 11430$ $SUM 10-21-05 14:08:25 PS

7Summary: Response Options and Strategies

BOX R1

Enabling Conditions for Designing Effective Responses

Some examples of conditions that must be met in order to design andimplement some of the response options identified in this assessmentinclude:

• supportive insurance and financial markets are needed to ensurethat economic value of ecosystem services is taken into account;

• better information on who benefits and is harmed by changes inspecific ecosystem services is needed to enable the establish-ment of effective systems of payments for ecosystem services;

• greater involvement of concerned stakeholders in decision-making is required to ensure transparency and effective function-ing of regulatory mechanisms;

• appropriate forms of property rights (mostly common propertyarrangements) need to be established to encourage private-pub-lic or community-state partnerships for resource conservation;

• innovative partnerships among different knowledge-based institu-tions need to be established to foster the integration of local andindigenous knowledge in decision-making processes; and

• human and institutional capacity for assessing and acting on as-sessments needs to be enhanced for decision-makers to haveaccess to information they need concerning the management ofecosystem services.

enabling conditions for effective management of ecosys-tems; in other cases, existing institutions could meet theseneeds but face significant barriers. [2, 7, 11, 12, 15, 17]Many existing institutions at both the global and the national levelhave the mandate to address the degradation of ecosystem servicesbut face a variety of challenges in doing so related to the need forgreater cooperation across sectors and the need for coordinatedresponses at multiple scales (see the discussion above on Charac-teristics of Successful Responses). However, since a number of theissues identified in this assessment are recent concerns and werenot specifically taken into account in the design of today’s institu-tions, changes in existing institutions and the development of newones may sometimes be needed, particularly at the national scale.

In particular, existing national and global institutions are notwell designed to deal with the management of open access re-sources, a characteristic of many ecosystem services. Issues ofownership and access to resources, rights to participation in deci-sion-making, and regulation of particular types of resource useor discharge of wastes can strongly influence the sustainability ofecosystem management and are fundamental determinants of whowins and who loses from changes in ecosystems. Corruption—amajor obstacle to effective management of ecosystems—alsostems from weak systems of regulation and accountability.

Promising interventions include:• Development of institutions that devolve (or centralize) decision-mak-

ing to meet management needs while ensuring effective coordinationacross scales (G, B, N). Problems of ecosystem managementhave been exacerbated by both overly centralized and overlydecentralized decision-making. For example, highly central-ized forest management has proved ineffective in many coun-tries, and efforts are now being made to move responsibilityto lower levels of decision-making either within the naturalresources sector or as part of broader decentralization of gov-ernmental responsibilities. At the same time, one of the mostintractable problems of ecosystem management has been the

PAGE 7

lack of alignment between political boundaries and units ap-propriate for the management of ecosystem goods and ser-vices. Downstream communities may not have access to theinstitutions through which upstream actions can be influ-enced; alternatively, downstream communities or countriesmay be stronger politically than upstream regions and maydominate control of upstream areas without addressing up-stream needs.

• Development of institutions to regulate interactions between marketsand ecosystems (G). The potential of policy and market reformsto improve ecosystem management is often constrained byweak or absent institutions. For example, the potential of theClean Development Mechanism established under the Frame-work Convention on Climate Change to provide financialsupport to developing countries in return for greenhouse gasreductions, which would realize climate and biodiversity ben-efits through payments for carbon sequestration in forests, isconstrained by unclear property rights, concerns over the per-manence of reductions, and lack of mechanisms for resolvingconflicts. Moreover, existing regulatory institutions often donot have ecosystem protection as a clear mandate. For exam-ple, independent regulators of privatized water systems andpower systems do not necessarily promote resource use effi-ciency and renewable supply. [7] The role of the state in set-ting and enforcing rules continues to be important even in thecontext of privatization and market-led growth.

• Development of institutional frameworks that promote a shift fromhighly sectoral resource management approaches to more integratedapproaches (G, B). In most countries, separate ministries are incharge of various aspects of ecosystems (such as ministries ofenvironment, agriculture, water, and forests) and drivers ofchange (such as ministries of energy, transportation, develop-ment, and trade). Each of these ministries has control overdifferent aspects of ecosystem management. As a result, thereis seldom the political will to develop effective ecosystemmanagement strategies, and competition among the ministriescan often result in policy choices that are detrimental to eco-systems. Integrated responses intentionally and actively addressecosystem services and human well-being simultaneously,such as integrated coastal zone management, integrated riverbasin management, and national sustainable developmentstrategies. Although the potential for integrated responses ishigh, numerous barriers have limited their effectiveness: theyare resource-intensive, but the potential benefits can exceedthe costs; they require multiple instruments for their imple-mentation; and they require new institutional and governancestructures, skills, knowledge, and capacity. Integrated re-sponses at local levels have been successful in using the linksbetween human well-being and ecosystems to design effectiveinterventions, particularly where supportive higher levelstructures exist.

Economics and Incentives

Economic and financial interventions provide powerful in-struments to regulate the use of ecosystem goods and ser-vices. [2] Because many ecosystem services are not traded inmarkets, markets fail to provide appropriate signals that mightotherwise contribute to the efficient allocation and sustainable useof the services. Even if people are aware of the services providedby an ecosystem, they are neither compensated for providingthese services nor penalized for reducing them. In addition, thepeople harmed by the degradation of ecosystem services are oftennot the ones who benefit from the actions leading to their degra-

................. 11430$ $SUM 10-21-05 14:08:26 PS

8 Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Policy Responses

dation, and so those costs are not factored into management deci-sions. A wide range of opportunities exists to influence humanbehavior to address this challenge in the form of economic andfinancial instruments. Some of them establish markets; otherswork through the monetary and financial interests of the targetedsocial actors; still others affect relative prices.

Market mechanisms can only work if supporting insti-tutions are in place, and thus there is a need to build insti-tutional capacity to enable more widespread use of thesemechanisms. [2, 6, 7, 8, 17] The adoption of economic instru-ments usually requires a legal framework, and in many cases thechoice of a viable and effective economic intervention mecha-nism is determined by the socioeconomic context. For example,resource taxes can be a powerful instrument to guard against theoverexploitation of an ecosystem service, but an effective taxscheme requires well-established and reliable monitoring and taxcollection systems. Similarly, subsidies can be effective to intro-duce and implement certain technologies or management proce-dures, but they are inappropriate in settings that lack thetransparency and accountability needed to prevent corruption.The establishment of market mechanisms also often involves ex-plicit decisions about wealth distribution and resource allocation,when, for example, decisions are made to establish private prop-erty rights for resources that were formerly considered commonpool resources. For that reason, the inappropriate use of marketmechanisms can further exacerbate problems of poverty.

Promising interventions include:• Elimination of subsidies that promote excessive use of ecosystem ser-

vices (and, where possible, transfer of these subsidies to payments fornonmarketed ecosystem services) (G). Many countries provide sig-nificant agricultural production subsidies that lead to greaterfood production in countries with subsidies than global mar-ket conditions warrant; that promote the overuse of water,fertilizers, and pesticides; and that reduce the profitability ofagriculture in developing countries. [7] Subsidies increase landvalues, adding to landowners’ resistance to subsidy reductions.Similar problems are created by fishery subsidies. Althoughremoval of production subsidies would produce net benefits,it would not occur without costs. The farmers and fishers ben-efiting directly from the subsidies would suffer the most im-mediate losses, but there would also be indirect effects onecosystems both locally and globally. In some cases, it may bepossible to transfer production subsides to other activities thatpromote ecosystem stewardship, such as payment for the pro-vision or enhancement of regulatory or supporting services.Compensatory mechanisms may be needed for the poor whoare adversely affected by the immediate removal of subsidies.Reduced subsidies within the OECD may lessen pressures onsome ecosystems in those countries, but they could lead tomore rapid conversion and intensification of land for agricul-ture in developing countries and would thus need to be ac-companied by policies to minimize the adverse impacts onecosystems there.

• Greater use of economic instruments and market-based approaches inthe management of ecosystem services (G, B, N). Economic instru-ments and market mechanisms with the potential to enhancethe management of ecosystem services include:� Taxes or user fees for activities with ‘‘external’’ costs (trade-offs

not accounted for in the market). These instruments createincentives that lessen the external costs and provide reve-nues that can help protect the damaged ecosystem services.Examples include taxes on excessive application of nutri-ents or ecotourism user fees.

PAGE 8

� Creation of markets, including through cap-and-trade systems.Ecosystem services that have been treated as ‘‘free’’ re-sources, as is often the case for water, tend to be usedwastefully. The establishment of markets for the servicescan both increase the incentives for their conservation andincrease the economic efficiency of their allocation if sup-porting legal and economic institutions are in place. How-ever, as noted earlier, while markets will increase theefficiency of the use of the resource, they can have harmfuleffects on particular groups of users who may be inequita-bly affected by the change. The combination of regulatedemission caps, coupled with market mechanisms for trad-ing pollution rights, often provides an efficient means ofreducing emissions harmful to ecosystems. For example,one of the most rapidly growing markets related to ecosys-tem services is the carbon market [13]; in another exam-ple, nutrient trading systems may be a low-cost way toreduce water pollution in the United States [9].

� Payment for ecosystem services. Mechanisms can be estab-lished to enable individuals, firms, or the public sector topay resource owners to provide particular services. For ex-ample, in New South Wales, Australia, associations offarmers purchase salinity credits from the State ForestsAgency, which in turn contracts with upstream landhold-ers to plant trees, which reduce water tables and storecarbon. Similarly, in 1996, Costa Rica established a na-tionwide system of conservation payments to induce land-owners to provide ecosystem services. Under thisprogram, the government brokers contracts between in-ternational and domestic ‘‘buyers’’ and local ‘‘sellers’’ ofsequestered carbon, biodiversity, watershed services, andscenic beauty. These interventions are found to succeed,typically when a high degree of certainty exists with regardto the accrual of ecosystem services over time.

� Mechanisms to enable consumer preferences to be expressedthrough markets. Consumer pressure may provide an alter-native way to influence producers to adopt more sustain-able production practices in the absence of effectivegovernment regulation. For example, certification schemesthat exist for sustainable fisheries and forest practices pro-vide people with the opportunity to promote sustainabilitythrough their consumer choices. Within the forest sector,forest certification has become widespread in many coun-tries and forest conditions; thus far, however, most certi-fied forests are in temperate regions, managed by largecompanies that export to northern retailers. [6] Certifica-tion and labeling is also being used at smaller scales. Forexample, the Salmon Safe initiative in Oregon, UnitedStates, certifies and promotes wines and other agriculturalproducts from Oregon farms and vineyards that have ad-hered to management practices designed to protect waterquality and salmon habitat. [7]

Social and Behavioral Responses

Social and behavioral responses—including populationpolicy, public education, civil society actions, and empow-erment of communities, women, and youth—can be in-strumental in responding to ecosystem degradation. [2, 5,6] These are generally interventions that stakeholders initiate andexecute through exercising their procedural or democratic rightsin efforts to improve ecosystems and human well-being.

Promising interventions include:

................. 11430$ $SUM 10-21-05 14:08:27 PS

9Summary: Response Options and Strategies

• Measures to reduce aggregate consumption of unsustainably managedecosystem services (G, B, N). The choices about what individualsconsume and how much they consume are influenced not justby considerations of price but also by behavioral factors relatedto culture, ethics, and values. Behavioral changes that couldreduce demand for degraded ecosystem services can be en-couraged through actions by governments (such as educationand public awareness programs or the promotion of demand-side management), industry (such as improved product label-ing or commitments to use raw materials from sources certi-fied as sustainable), and civil society (such as public awarenesscampaigns). Efforts to reduce aggregate consumption, how-ever, must sometimes incorporate measures to increase the ac-cess to and consumption of those same ecosystem services byspecific groups such as poor people.

• Communication and education (G, B, N). Improved communi-cation and education are essential to achieve the objectivesof the environmental conventions, the Johannesburg Plan ofImplementation, and the sustainable management of naturalresources more generally. Both the public and decision-makers can benefit from education concerning ecosystems andhuman well-being, but education more generally providestremendous social benefits that can help address many driversof ecosystem degradation. For example, the Haribon Founda-tion in the Philippines has used communication, education,and mobilization of networks to motivate fishers and theircommunities to create marine sanctuaries to allow for fishpopulations to revive and restore declining catches; over 1,000reserves have now been established. [5] Barriers to the effec-tive use of communication and education include a failure touse research and apply modern theories of learning andchange. While the importance of communication and educa-tion is well recognized, providing the human and financialresources to undertake effective work is a continuing barrier.

• Empowerment of groups particularly dependent on ecosystem servicesor affected by their degradation, including women, indigenous people,and young people (G, B, N). Women, indigenous people, andyoung people are all important ‘‘stakeholders’’ in the manage-ment of ecosystem services but, historically, each group hastended to be marginalized in decision-making processes. Forexample, despite women’s knowledge about the environmentand the potential they possess to improve resource manage-ment, their participation in decision-making has often beenrestricted by social and cultural structures. Similarly, the casefor protecting young people’s ability to take part in decision-making is strong as they will experience the longer-termconsequences of decisions made today concerning ecosystemservices. Greater involvement of indigenous peoples in deci-sion-making can also enhance environmental management,although the primary justification for it continues to be basedon human and cultural rights.

Technological Responses

Given the growing demands for ecosystem services andother increased pressures on ecosystems, the developmentand diffusion of technologies designed to increase the ef-ficiency of resource use or reduce the impacts of driverssuch as climate change and nutrient loading are essential.[2, 6, 7, 13, 17] Technological change has been essential formeeting growing demands for some ecosystem services, and tech-nology holds considerable promise to help meet future growth indemand. Technologies already exist for reducing nutrient pollu-tion at reasonable costs—including technologies to reduce point

PAGE 9

source emissions, changes in crop management practices, and pre-cision farming techniques to help control the application of fertil-izers to a field, for example—but new policies are needed forthese tools to be applied on a sufficient scale to slow and ulti-mately reverse the increase in nutrient loading (recognizing thatthis global goal must be achieved even while increasing nutrientapplications in relatively poor regions such as sub-Saharan Africa).Many negative impacts on ecosystems and human well-beinghave resulted from these technological changes, however. Thecost of ‘‘retrofitting’’ technologies once their negative conse-quences become apparent can be extremely high, so careful assess-ment is needed prior to the introduction of new technologies.

Promising interventions include:• Promotion of technologies that increase crop yields without any harm-

ful impacts related to water, nutrient, and pesticide use (G, B, N).Agricultural expansion will continue to be one of the majordrivers of biodiversity loss well into the twenty-first century.Development, assessment, and diffusion of technologies thatcould increase the production of food per unit area sustainablywithout harmful trade-offs related to excessive use of water,nutrients, or pesticides would significantly lessen pressure onother ecosystem services.

• Restoration of ecosystem services (G, B, N). Ecosystem restorationactivities are now common in many countries and includeactions to restore almost all types of ecosystems, includingwetlands, forests, grasslands, estuaries, coral reefs, and man-groves. Ecosystems with some features of the ones that werepresent before conversion can often be established and canprovide some of the original ecosystem services (such as pollu-tion filtration in wetlands or timber production from forests).The restored systems seldom fully replace the original systems,but they still help meet needs for particular services. Yet thecost of restoration is generally extremely high in relation tothe cost of preventing the degradation of the ecosystem. Notall services can be restored, and those that are heavily degradedmay require considerable time for restoration.

• Promotion of technologies to increase energy efficiency and reducegreenhouse gas emissions (G, B). Significant reductions in netgreenhouse gas emissions are technically feasible due to anextensive array of technologies in the energy supply, energydemand, and waste management sectors. Reducing projectedemissions will require a portfolio of energy production tech-nologies ranging from fuel switching (coal/oil to gas) and in-creased power plant efficiency to increased use of renewableenergy technologies, complemented by more efficient use ofenergy in the transportation, buildings, and industry sectors.[13] It will also involve the development and implementationof supporting institutions and policies to overcome barriersto the diffusion of these technologies into the marketplace,increased public and private-sector funding for research anddevelopment, and effective technology transfer.

Knowledge and Cognitive Responses

Effective management of ecosystems is constrained bothby a lack of knowledge and information concerning differ-ent aspects of ecosystems and by the failure to use ade-quately the information that does exist in support ofmanagement decisions. [2, 14] Although sufficient informa-tion exists to take many actions that could help conserve ecosys-tems and enhance human well-being, major information gapsexist. In most regions, for example, relatively little is known aboutthe status and economic value of most ecosystem services, andtheir depletion is rarely tracked in national economic accounts.

................. 11430$ $SUM 10-21-05 14:08:28 PS

10 Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Policy Responses

At the same time, decision-makers do not use all of the relevantinformation that is available. This is due in part to institutionalfailures that prevent existing policy-relevant scientific informationfrom being made available to decision-makers. But it is also dueto the failure to incorporate other forms of knowledge and infor-mation, such as traditional knowledge and practitioners’ knowl-edge, which are of considerable value for ecosystem management.

Promising interventions include:• Incorporate both the market and nonmarket values of ecosystems in

resource management and investment decisions (G, B). Most re-source management and investment decisions are strongly in-fluenced by considerations of the monetary costs and benefitsof alternative policy choices. In the case of ecosystem manage-ment, however, this often leads to outcomes that are not inthe interest of society, since the nonmarketed values of ecosys-tems may exceed the marketed values. As a result, many exist-ing resource management policies favor sectors such asagriculture, forestry, and fisheries at the expense of the use ofthese same ecosystems for water supply, recreation, and cul-tural services that may be of greater economic value. Deci-sions can be improved if they include the total economic valueof alternative management options and involve deliberativemechanisms that bring to bear noneconomic considerations aswell.

• Use of all relevant forms of knowledge and information in assessmentsand decision-making, including traditional and practitioners’ knowl-edge (G, B, N). Effective management of ecosystems typicallyrequires ‘‘place-based’’ knowledge—information about thespecific characteristics and history of an ecosystem. Formal sci-entific information is often one source of such information,but traditional knowledge or practitioners’ knowledge held bylocal resource managers can be of equal or greater value.While that knowledge is used in the decisions taken by thosewho have it, it is too rarely incorporated into other decision-making processes and is often inappropriately dismissed.

• Enhance and sustain human and institutional capacity for assessingthe consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and actingon such assessments (G, B, N). Greater technical capacity isneeded for agriculture, forest, and fisheries management. Butthe capacity that exists for these sectors, as limited as it is inmany countries, is still vastly greater than the capacity for ef-fective management of other ecosystem services. Becauseawareness of the importance of these other services has onlyrecently grown, there is limited experience with assessing eco-system services fully. Serious limits exist in all countries, butespecially in developing countries, in terms of the expertiseneeded in such areas as monitoring changes in ecosystem ser-vices, economic valuation or health assessment of ecosystemchanges, and policy analysis related to ecosystem services.

PAGE 10

Even when such assessment information is available, however,the traditional highly sectoral nature of decision-making andresource management makes the implementation of recom-mendations difficult. This constraint can also be overcomethrough increased training of individuals in existing institu-tions and through institutional reforms to build capacity formore integrated responses.

Appendix R1. Effectiveness of AssessedResponsesA response is considered to be effective when its assessment indi-cates that it has enhanced the particular ecosystem service (or, inthe case of biodiversity, its conservation and sustainable use) andcontributed to human well-being without significant harm toother ecosystem services or harmful impacts to other groups ofpeople. A response is considered promising either if it does nothave a long track record to assess but appears likely to succeed orif there are known means of modifying the response so that it canbecome effective. A response is considered problematic if its histori-cal use indicates either that it has not met the goals related toservice enhancement (or conservation and sustainable use of bio-diversity) or that it has caused significant harm to other ecosystemservices. Labeling a response as effective does not mean that thehistorical assessment has not identified problems or harmful trade-offs. Such trade-offs almost always exist, but they are not consid-ered significant enough to negate the effectiveness of the re-sponse. Similarly, labeling a response as problematic does not meanthat there are no promising opportunities to reform the responsein a way that can meet its policy goals without undue harm toecosystem services.

The typology of responses presented here is defined by thenature of intervention, classified as follows: institutional and legal(I), economic and incentives (E), social and behavioral (S), tech-nological (T), and knowledge and cognitive (K). The actors whomake decisions to implement a response are governments at dif-ferent levels, such as international (GI) (mainly through multilat-eral agreements or international conventions), national (GN), andlocal (GL); the business/industry sector (B); and civil society,which includes nongovernmental organizations (NGO), commu-nity-based and indigenous peoples’ organizations (C), and re-search institutions (R). The actors are not necessarily equallyimportant.

The table includes responses assessed for a range of ecosystemservices—food, fresh water, wood, nutrient management, floodand storm control, disease regulation, and cultural services. It alsoassesses responses for biodiversity conservation, integrated re-sponses, and responses addressing one specific driver: climatechange.

................. 11430$ $SUM 10-21-05 14:08:29 PS

11Summary: Response Options and Strategies

Response Effectiveness Notes

Effe

ctiv

e

Prom

isin

g

Prob

lem

atic

Type

ofRe

spon

se

Requ

ired

Acto

rs

Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use

Protected areas PAs are extremely important in biodiversity and ecosystem I GIconservation programs, especially in sensitive GNenvironments that contain valuable biodiversity GLcomponents. At global and regional scales, existing PAs NGOare essential but not sufficient to conserve the full range of Cbiodiversity. PAs need to be better located, designed, and Rmanaged to ensure representativeness and to deal with theimpacts of human settlement within PAs, illegal harvesting,unsustainable tourism, invasive species, and climatechange. They also need a landscape approach thatincludes protection outside of PAs. [5]

Helping local people capture Providing incentives for biodiversity conservation in the E GNbiodiversity benefits form of benefits for local people (e.g., through products GL

from single species or from ecotourism) has proved to be Bvery difficult. Programs have been more successful when NGOlocal communities have been in a position to make Cmanagement decisions consistent with overall biodiversityconservation. ‘‘Win-win’’ opportunities for biodiversityconservation and benefits for local communities exist, butlocal communities can often achieve greater benefits fromactions that lead to biodiversity loss. [5]

Promoting better management of More effective management of individual species should T GNwild species as a conservation enhance biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. S Ctool, including ex situ ‘‘Habitat-based’’ approaches are critical, but they cannot NGOconservation replace ‘‘species-based’’ approaches. Zoos, botanical R

gardens, and other ex situ programs build support forconservation, support valuable research, and providecultural benefits of biodiversity. [5]

Integrating biodiversity into Integrated regional planning can provide a balance among I GNregional planning land uses that promotes effective trade-offs among GL

biodiversity, ecosystem services, and other needs of NGOsociety. Great uncertainty remains as to what componentsof biodiversity persist under different management regimes,limiting the current effectiveness of this approach. [5]

Encouraging private sector Many companies are preparing their own biodiversity action I GNinvolvement in biodiversity plans, managing their landholdings in ways that are more Bconservation compatible with biodiversity conservation, supporting NGO

certification schemes that promote more sustainable use, Rand accepting their responsibility for addressing biodiversityissues. The business case that has been made for largercompanies needs to be extended to other companies aswell. [5]

Including biodiversity issues in More diverse production systems can be as effective as T GNagriculture, forestry, and low-diversity systems, or even more effective. Strategies Bfisheries based on more intensive production rather than on the

expansion of the area allow for better conservation. [5]

PAGE 11................. 11430$ $SUM 10-21-05 14:08:29 PS

12 Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Policy Responses

Response Effectiveness Notes

Effe

ctiv

e

Prom

isin

g

Prob

lem

atic

Type

ofRe

spon

se

Requ

ired

Acto

rs

Designing governance Decentralization of biodiversity management in many parts I GIapproaches to support of the world has had variable results. The key to success GNbiodiversity is strong institutions at all levels, with secure tenure and GL

authority at local levels essential to providing incentives for Rsustainable management. [5]

Promoting international MEAs should serve as an effective means for international I GIcooperation through multilateral cooperation in the areas of biodiversity conservation and GNenvironmental agreements sustainable use. They cover the most pressing drivers and

issues related to biodiversity loss. Better coordinationbetween conventions would increase their usefulness.[5,15]

Environmental education and Environmental education and communication programs S GNcommunication have both informed and changed preferences for GL

biodiversity conservation and have improved NGOimplementation of biodiversity responses. Providing the Chuman and financial resources to undertake effective workin this area is a continuing challenge. [5]

Food

Globalization, trade, and Government policies related to food production (price E GIdomestic and international supports and various types of payments, or taxes) can GNpolicies on food have adverse economic, social, and environmental effects. B

[6]

Knowledge and education Further research can make food production socially, S GNeconomically, and environmentally sustainable. Public K GLeducation should enable consumers to make informed NGOchoices about nutritious, safe, and affordable food. [6] C

Technological responses, New agricultural sciences and effective natural resource T GNincluding biotechnology, management could support a new agricultural revolution to Bprecision agriculture, and meet worldwide food needs. This would help Rorganic farming environmental, economic, and social sustainability. [6]

Water management Emerging water pricing schemes and water markets E GNindicate that water pricing can be a means for efficient GLallocation and responsible use. [6] B

NGO

Fisheries management Strict regulation of marine fisheries is needed, both I GNregarding the establishment and implementation of quotas E GLand steps to address unreported and unregulated harvest. BIndividual transferable quotas also show promise for cold NGOwater, single-species fisheries, but they are unlikely to beuseful in multispecies tropical fisheries. Given the potentialdetrimental environmental impacts of aquaculture,appropriate regulatory mechanisms need to supplementexisting policies. [6]

PAGE 12................. 11430$ $SUM 10-21-05 14:08:30 PS

13Summary: Response Options and Strategies

Response Effectiveness Notes

Effe

ctiv

e

Prom

isin

g

Prob

lem

atic

Type

ofRe

spon

se

Requ

ired

Acto

rs

Livestock management Livestock policies need to be reoriented in view of problemsconcerning overgrazing and dryland degradation,rangeland fragmentation and loss of wildlife habitat, dustformation, bush encroachment, deforestation, nutrientoverload through disposal of manure, and greenhouse gas T GNemissions. Policies also need to focus on human health Bissues related to diseases such as bird flu and BSE. [6]

Recognition of gender issues Response policies need to be gender-sensitive and S GNdesigned to empower women and ensure access to and NGOcontrol of resources necessary for food security. This Cneeds to be based on a systematic analysis of genderdynamics and explicit consideration of relationshipsbetween gender and food and water security. [6]

Fresh Water

Determining ecosystem water In order to balance competing demands, it is critical that I GNrequirements society explicitly agrees on ecosystem water requirements T GL

(environmental flows). [7] NGOR

Rights to freshwater services Both public and private ownership systems of fresh water, I GNand responsibilities for their and of the land resources associated with its provision, Bprovision have largely failed to create incentives for provision of C

water services. As a result, upland communities havegenerally been excluded from access to benefits,particularly when they lack tenure security, and haveresisted regulations regarded as unfair. Effective propertyrights systems with clear and transparent rules canincrease stakeholders’ confidence that they will haveaccess to the benefits of freshwater services and,therefore, willingness to pay for them. [7]

Increasing the effectiveness of Degradation of freshwater and other ecosystem services I GNpublic participation in decision- has a disproportionate impact on those excluded from GLmaking participation in decision-making. Key steps for improving NGO

participatory processes are to increase the transparency of Cinformation, improve the representation of marginalized Rstakeholders, engage them in the establishment of policyobjectives and priorities for the allocation of freshwaterservices, and create space for deliberation and learningthat accommodates multiple perspectives. [7]

River basin organizations RBOs can play an important role in facilitating cooperation I GIand reducing transaction costs of large-scale responses. GNRBOs are constrained or enabled primarily by the degree NGOof stakeholder participation, their agreement on objectivesand management plans, and their cooperation onimplementation. [7]

PAGE 13................. 11430$ $SUM 10-21-05 14:08:30 PS

14 Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Policy Responses

Response Effectiveness Notes

Effe

ctiv

e

Prom

isin

g

Prob

lem

atic

Type

ofRe

spon

se

Requ

ired

Acto

rs

Regulatory responses Regulatory approaches based on market-based incentives I GN(e.g., damages for exceeding pollution standards) are GLsuitable for point-source pollutants. Regulatory approachesthat simply outlaw particular types of behavior can beunwieldy and burdensome, and may fail to provideincentives for protecting freshwater services. [7]

Water markets Economic incentives can potentially unlock significant E GIsupply- and demand-side efficiencies while providing cost- GNeffective reallocation between old (largely irrigation) and Bnew (largely municipal and instream) uses. [7]

Payments for watershed Payments for ecosystem services provided by watersheds E GNservices have narrowly focused on the role of forests in the B

hydrological regime. They should be based on the entire Cflow regime, including consideration of the relative valuesof other land cover and land uses, such as wetlands,riparian areas, steep slopes, roads, and managementpractices. Key challenges for payment schemes arecapacity-building for place-based monitoring andassessment, identifying services in the context of the entireflow regime, considering trade-offs and conflicts amongmultiple uses, and making uncertainty explicit. [7]

Partnerships and financing There is a clear mismatch between the high social value of I GIfreshwater services and the resources allocated to manage E GNwater. Insufficient funding for water infrastructure is one Bmanifestation of this. Focusing only on large-scale NGOprivatization to improve efficiency and cost-recovery has Cproven a double-edged strategy—price hikes or controlover resources have created controversy and, in somecases, failure and withdrawal. Development of waterinfrastructure and technologies must observe bestpractices to avoid problems and inequities. The re-examination and retrofitting/refurbishment of existinginfrastructure is the best option in the short and mediumterm. [7]

Large dams The impact of large dams on freshwater ecosystems is T GNwidely recognized as being more negative than positive. Inaddition, the benefits of their construction have rarely beenshared equitably—the poor and vulnerable and futuregenerations often fail to receive the social and economicbenefits from dams. Pre-construction studies are typicallyoverly optimistic about the benefits of projects andunderestimate costs. [7]

Wetland restoration Although wetland restoration is a promising management T GNapproach, there are significant challenges in determining GLwhat set of management interventions will produce a NGOdesired combination of wetland structure and function. It is Bunlikely that created wetlands can structurally andfunctionally replace natural wetlands. [7]

PAGE 14................. 11430$ $SUM 10-21-05 14:08:31 PS

15Summary: Response Options and Strategies

Response Effectiveness Notes

Effe

ctiv

e

Prom

isin

g

Prob

lem

atic

Type

ofRe

spon

se

Requ

ired

Acto

rs

Wood, Fuelwood, and Non-wood Forest Products

International forest policy International forest policy processes have made some I GIprocesses and development gains within the forest sector. Attention should be paid to GNassistance integration of agreed forest management practices in B

financial institutions, trade rules, global environmentprograms, and global security decision-making. [8]

Trade liberalization Forest product trade tends to concentrate decision-making E GIpower on (and benefits from) forest management, rather GNthan spreading it to include poorer and less powerfulplayers. It ‘‘magnifies’’ the effect of governance, makinggood governance better and bad governance worse. Tradeliberalization can stimulate a ‘‘virtuous cycle’’ if theregulatory framework is robust and externalities areaddressed. [8]

National forest governance Forest governance initiatives and country-led national I GNinitiatives and national forest forest programs show promise for integrating ecosystem GLprograms health and human well-being where they are negotiated by

stakeholders and strategically focused. [8]

Direct management of forests by Indigenous control of traditional homelands is often I GLindigenous peoples presented as having environmental benefits, although the C

main justification continues to be based on human andcultural rights. Little systematic data exist, but preliminaryfindings on vegetation cover and forest fragmentation fromthe Brazilian Amazon suggest that an indigenous-controlarea can be at least as effective as a strict-use protectedarea. [8]

Collaborative forest Government–community collaborative forest management I GNmanagement and local can be highly beneficial but has had mixed results. GLmovements for access and use Programs have generated improved resource management Bof forest products and access of the rural poor to forest resources, but have NGO

fallen short in their potential to benefit the poor. Local Cresponses to problems of access and use of forestproducts have proliferated in recent years. They arecollectively more significant than efforts led bygovernments or international processes but require theirsupport to spread. [8]

Small-scale private and public- Small-scale private ownership of forests can deliver more I GLprivate ownership and local economic benefits and better forest management than Bmanagement of forests ownership by larger corporate bodies where information, C

tenure, and capacity are strong. [8]

Company–community forestry Company–community partnerships can be better than I GLpartnerships solely corporate forestry, or solely community or small- B

scale farm forestry, in delivering benefits to the partners Cand the public at large. [8]

PAGE 15................. 11430$ $SUM 10-21-05 14:08:31 PS

16 Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Policy Responses

Response Effectiveness Notes

Effe

ctiv

e

Prom

isin

g

Prob

lem

atic

Type

ofRe

spon

se

Requ

ired

Acto

rs

Public and consumer action Public and consumer action has resulted in important forest S NGOand trade policy initiatives and improved practices in large Bforest corporations. This has had an impact in ‘‘timber- Cconsuming countries’’ and in international institutions. Theoperating standards of some large corporations andinstitutions, as well as of those whose non-forest activitieshave an impact on forests, have been improved. [8]

Third-party voluntary forest Forest certification has become widespread; however, mostcertification certified forests are in industrial countries, managed by

large companies and exporting to Northern retailers. Theearly proponents of certification hoped it would be an I Beffective response to tropical deforestation. [8] E

Wood technology and Wood technology responses have focused on industrial T GNbiotechnology plantation species with properties suited for manufactured R

products. [8] B

Commercialization of non-wood Commercialization of NWFP has had modest impacts on E NGOforest products local livelihoods and has not always created incentives for B

conservation. An increased value of NWFPs is not always Ran incentive for conservation and can have the oppositeeffect. Incentives for sustainable management of NWFPsshould be reconsidered, including exploration of jointproduction of timber and NWFP. [8]

Natural forest management in To be economic, sustainable natural forest management in T GIthe tropics the tropics must focus on a range of forest goods and GN

services, not just timber. The ‘‘best practices’’ of global GLcorporations should be assessed, exploring at the same Btime ‘‘what works’’ in traditional forest management and the NGOwork of local (small) enterprises. Considerable interest has Cdeveloped in the application of reduced impact logging,especially in tropical forests, which lowers environmentalimpacts and can also be more efficient and cost effective.[8]

Forest plantation management Farm woodlots and large-scale plantations are increasingly T GNbeing established in response to growing wood demand GLand declining natural forest areas. Without adequate Bplanning and management, forest plantations can be NGOestablished in the wrong sites, with the wrong species and Rprovenances. In degraded lands, afforestation may delivereconomic, environmental, and social benefits tocommunities and help in reducing poverty and enhancingfood security. [8]

Fuelwood management Fuelwood remains one of the main products of the forest T GLsector in developing countries. If technology development Bcontinues, industrial-scale forest product fuels could Cbecome a major sustainable energy source. [8]

PAGE 16................. 11430$ $SUM 10-21-05 14:08:32 PS

17Summary: Response Options and Strategies

Response Effectiveness Notes

Effe

ctiv

e

Prom

isin

g

Prob

lem

atic

Type

ofRe

spon

se

Requ

ired

Acto

rs

Afforestation and reforestation Although many early initiatives were based on forest T GIfor carbon management conservation or management, afforestation activities now E GN

predominate, perhaps reflecting the international decisions Bin 2001 to allow only afforestation and reforestationactivities into the Clean Development Mechanism for thefirst commitment period. [8]

Nutrient Cycling

Regulations Mandatory policies, including regulatory control and tax or I GIfee systems, place the costs and burden of pollution control GNon the polluter. Technology-based standards are easy toimplement but may discourage innovation and aregenerally not seen as cost-effective. [9]

Market-based instruments Market-based instruments, such as financial incentives, E GNsubsidies, and taxes, hold potential for better nutrient Bmanagement, but may not be relevant in all countries and Rcircumstances. Relatively little is known empirically aboutthe impact of these instruments on technological change.[9]

Hybrid approaches Combinations of regulatory, incentive, and market-based I GImechanisms are possible for both national and watershed- E GNbased approaches and may be the most cost-effective and GLpolitically acceptable. [9] NGO

CR

Flood and Storm Regulation

Physical structures Historically, emphasis was on physical structures/measures T GNover natural environment and social institutions. This Bchoice often creates a false sense of security, encouragingpeople to accept high risks. Evidence indicates that moreemphasis needs to be given to the natural environment andnonstructural measures. [11]

Use of natural environment Flood and storm impacts can be lessened through T GNmaintenance and management of vegetation and through GLnatural or human-made geomorphological features (natural NGOriver channels, dune systems, terrace farming). [11] C

Information, institutions, and These approaches, which emphasize disaster S GNeducation preparedness, disaster management, flood and storm I GL

forecasting, early warning, and evacuation, are vital for Breducing losses. [11] C

Financial services These responses emphasize insurance, disaster relief, and E GNaid. Both social programs and private insurance are Bimportant coping mechanisms for flood disaster recovery.They can, however, inadvertently contribute to communityvulnerability by encouraging development within floodplainsor by creating cultures of entitlement. [11]

PAGE 17................. 11430$ $SUM 10-21-05 14:08:32 PS

18 Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Policy Responses

Response Effectiveness Notes

Effe

ctiv

e

Prom

isin

g

Prob

lem

atic

Type

ofRe

spon

se

Requ

ired

Acto

rs

Land use planning Land use planning is a process of determining the most I GNdesirable type of land use. It can help to mitigate disastersand reduce risks by avoiding development in hazard proneareas. [11]

Disease Regulation

Integrated vector management Reducing the transmission of infectious diseases often has I GNeffects on other ecosystem services. IVM enables a NGOcoordinated response to health and the environment. Ituses targeted interventions to remove or control vectorbreeding sites, disrupt vector lifecycles, and minimizevector-human contact, while minimizing effects on otherecosystem services. IVM is most effective when integratedwith socioeconomic development. [12]

Environmental management/ Environmental management interventions can be highly I GNmodification to reduce vector cost-effective and entail very low environmental impacts. Band reservoir host abundance [12] C

R

Biological control/natural Biological interventions can be highly cost-effective and T GNpredators entail very low environmental impacts. Biological control B

may be effective if breeding sites are well known and Rlimited in number, but less feasible where these arenumerous. [12]

Chemical control Insecticides remain an important tool and their selective T GNuse is likely to continue within IVM. However, there are Bconcerns regarding the impacts of insecticides, especially Rpersistent organic pollutants, on the environment and onhuman populations, particularly insecticide sprayers. [12]

Human settlement patterns The most basic management of human-vector contact is T GNthrough improvements in the placement and construction NGOof housing. [12] C

Health awareness and behavior Social and behavioral responses can help control vector- S Cborne disease while also improving other ecosystemservices. [12]

Genetic modification of vector New ‘‘cutting-edge’’ interventions, such as transgenic T GNspecies to limit disease techniques, could be available within the next 5–10 years. Btransmission However, consensus is lacking in the scientific community NGO

on the technical feasibility and public acceptability of such Ran approach. [12]

Cultural Services

Awareness of the global Awareness of the planet working as a system has led to an S GIenvironment and linking local integrated approach to ecosystems. This process has I GNand global institutions emphasized the ‘‘human environment’’ concept and the GL

discussion of environmental problems at a global scale.Local organizations also take advantage of emerging globalinstitutions and conventions to bring their case to widerpolitical arenas. [14]

PAGE 18................. 11430$ $SUM 10-21-05 14:08:33 PS

19Summary: Response Options and Strategies

Response Effectiveness Notes

Effe

ctiv

e

Prom

isin

g

Prob

lem

atic

Type

ofRe

spon

se

Requ

ired

Acto

rs

From restoring landscapes to Landscapes are subject to and influenced by cultural S GLvaluing cultural landscapes perceptions and political and economic interests. This K NGO

influences decisions on landscape conservation. [14] C

Recognizing sacred areas While linking sacred areas and conservation is not new, S GLthere has been an increase in translating ‘‘the sacred’’ into NGOlegislation or legal institutions granting land rights. This Crequires extensive knowledge about the link among thesacred, nature, and society in a specific locale. [14]

International agreements and Increased exploitation and awareness concerning the I GIconservation of biological and disappearance of local resources and knowledge has GNagropastoral diversity highlighted the need to protect local and indigenous

knowledge. Some countries have adopted specific laws,policies, and administrative arrangements emphasizing theconcept of prior informed consent of knowledge-holders. [14]

Integrating local and indigenous Local and indigenous knowledge evolves in specific K GNknowledge contexts and good care should be taken to not de- I B

contextualize it. Conventional ‘‘best-practices’’ methods NGOfocusing on content may not be appropriate to deal withlocal/indigenous knowledge. [14]

Compensating for knowledge Compensation for the use of local and indigenous E GNknowledge by third parties is an important, yet complicated K Bresponse. The popular idea that local and indigenous Cknowledge can be promoted by strengthening ‘‘traditional’’authorities may not be valid in many cases. [14]

Property right changes Communities benefit from control over natural resources I GNbut traditional leadership may not always be the solution. GLLocal government institutions that are democratically Celected and have real authority over resources in somecases may be a better option. There is a tendency to shiftresponsibilities back and forth between ‘‘traditional’’authorities and local government bodies, without giving anyof them real decision-making powers. [14]

Certification programs Certification programs are a promising response, but many I GIcommunities do not have access to these programs or are S GNnot aware of their existence. In addition, the financial costs Binvolved reduce the chances for local communities toparticipate independently. [14]

Fair trade Fair trade is a movement initiated to help disadvantaged or E GIpolitically marginalized communities by paying better prices S GNand providing better trading conditions, along with raising GLconsumers’ awareness of their potential role as buyers. NGOFair trade overlaps in some cases with initiatives focusing Con the environmental performance of trade. [14]

PAGE 19................. 11430$ $SUM 10-21-05 14:08:34 PS

20 Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Policy Responses

Response Effectiveness Notes

Effe

ctiv

e

Prom

isin

g

Prob

lem

atic

Type

ofRe

spon

se

Requ

ired

Acto

rs

Ecotourism and cultural tourism Ecotourism can provide economic alternatives to E GLconverting ecosystems; however, it can generate conflicts Bin resource use and the aesthetics of certain ecosystems. CDifferent ecosystems are subjected to different types andscales of impact from tourism infrastructure. Furthermore,some ecosystems are easier to market to tourists thanothers. The market value of ecosystems may varyaccording to public perceptions of nature. Freezing oflandscapes, conversion of landscapes, dispossession, andremoving of human influences may result, depending onviews of what ecotourism should represent. Yet whenconservation receives no budgetary subsidy, tourism canprovide revenues for conservation. [14]

Integrated Responses

International environmental Environmental policy integration at the international level is I GIgovernance almost exclusively dependent on governments’ E GN

commitment to binding compromises on given issues. KMajor challenges include reform of the international Tenvironmental governance structure and coherence Bamong international trade and environment mechanisms.[15]

National action plans and Examples include national conservation strategies, national I GNstrategies aiming to integrate environmental action plans, and national strategies for E GLenvironmental issues into sustainable development. Success depends on enabling K Bnational policies conditions such as ownership by governments and civil T NGO

society, broad participation, both across sectors within the Cgovernment and with the private sector, and at the sub-national and local scales. National integrated responsesmay be a good starting point for cross-departmentallinkages in governments. [15]

Sub-national and local integrated Many integrated responses are implemented at the sub- I GNapproaches national level; examples include sustainable forest E GL

management, integrated coastal zone management, K NGOintegrated conservation and development programs, and T Cintegrated river basin management. Results so far havebeen varied, and a major constraint experienced by sub-national and multiscale responses is the lack ofimplementation capacity. [15]

Waste Management

Technologies for waste These practices have enhanced ecosystem services, T GNreduction, re-use, recovery, and improved aesthetic conditions, restored habitats for human GLdisposal use and for biodiversity, increased public health and well- B

being, created jobs, and reduced poverty. [10] C

Compliance with waste Communities and industries are willing to comply with laws L GNmanagement laws and and regulations if there is clear understanding of the GLregulations benefits and if all stakeholders are involved in the

formulation of such laws. [10]

PAGE 20................. 11430$ $SUM 10-21-05 14:08:35 PS

21Summary: Response Options and Strategies

Response Effectiveness Notes

Effe

ctiv

e

Prom

isin

g

Prob

lem

atic

Type

ofRe

spon

se

Requ

ired

Acto

rs

Environmental awareness and Environmental awareness and education have succeeded in S GLeducation allowing consumers and resource users to make informed C

choices for minimizing waste. Employers have introduced Bprograms to encourage communities to reduce waste. [10]

Indicators and monitoring Industries and governments need to select indicators and S GNstandardize methods to monitor the sources, types, and Bamounts of all wastes produced. The practice of NGOtransparent, participatory, and accountable decision-making for ecosystem sustainability and human well-beingis lacking in many countries. [10]

Climate Change

U.N. Framework Convention on The ultimate goal of the UNFCCC is stabilization of I GIClimate Change and Kyoto greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a GNProtocol level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic

interference with the climate system. The Kyoto Protocolcontains binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions onindustrialized countries that agreed to reduce theiremissions by an average of about 5% between 2008 and2012 relative to the levels emitted in 1990. [13]

Reductions in net greenhouse Significant reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions are T GNgas emissions technically feasible, in many cases at little or no cost to B

society. [13] C

Land use and land cover change Afforestation; reforestation; improved forest, cropland, and T GNrangeland management; and agroforestry provide GLopportunities to increase carbon uptake, and slowing Bdeforestation reduces emissions. [13] NGO

C

Market mechanisms and The Kyoto Protocol mechanisms, in combination with E GIincentives national and regional ones, can reduce the costs of GN

mitigation for developed countries. In addition, countries Bcan reduce net costs of emissions abatement by taxingemissions (or auctioning permits) and using the revenuesto cut distortion taxes on labor and capital. In the nearterm, project-based trading can facilitate the transfer ofclimate-friendly technologies to developing countries. [13]

Adaptation Some climate change is inevitable and ecosystems and I GNhuman societies will need to adapt to new conditions. GLHuman populations will face the risk of damage from NGOclimate change, some of which may be countered with Ccurrent coping systems; others may need radically new Rbehaviors. Climate change needs to be factored intocurrent development plans. [13]

PAGE 21................. 11430$ $SUM 10-21-05 14:08:36 PS