From the MillenniumEcosystem Assessment to

IPBES

Hal MooneyStanford University

Sept 13, 2010

Issues I will discuss

1. A very brief history of the MA1. Believers and critics2. The missing pieces

2. The struggles to get a follow up process-IPBES

3. The other piece of the puzzle—GEO-BON4. The Convention on Biological Diversity

1. The 2020 target debate2. The Satoyama initiative

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

millenniumassessment.org

The Millennium Ecosystem The Millennium Ecosystem AssessmentAssessment

Brought together natural and social scientists

Viewed ecosystems, and hence biodiversity, in terms of benefits (ecosystem services) delivered to society

Provided a typology of these services

Assessed the direct and indirect drivers of changes to ecosystem services

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Human Wellbeing and

Poverty Reduction

Indirect DriversOf Change

Direct DriversOf ChangeLife on Earth:

Biodiversity

Ecosystem Services

Indirect Drivers of Change Demographic Economic (globalization, trade,

market and policy framework) Sociopolitical (governance and

institutional framework) Science and Technology Cultural and Religious

Direct Drivers of Change Changes in land use or land cover Species introductions or removals Technology adaptation and use External inputs (e.g., irrigation,

fertilizer use, pest control) Harvest and Resource

Consumption Climate Change Natural physical and biological

drivers (e.g., volcanoes, evolution)

Human Wellbeing and Poverty Reduction Material minimum for a good

life Health Good Social Relations Security Freedom and Choice

MA Framework

The MA structure

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Ecosystem Services The benefits people obtain from ecosystems

RegulatingBenefits obtained from regulation of

ecosystem processes

• climate regulation• disease regulation

• flood regulation

ProvisioningGoods produced or

provided by ecosystems

• food • fresh water• fuel wood

• genetic resources

CulturalNon-material benefits

from ecosystems

• spiritual • recreational

• aesthetic• inspirational• educational

SupportingServices necessary for production of other ecosystem services

• Soil formation• Nutrient cycling

• Primary production

The ecosystem services approach brought environmental and business communities together

The developing linkages between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and services is an important new tool for biodiversity conservation strategies

The explicit linkages made among services and human well being and poverty reduction brings new coalitions among scientists and development community

The Power of the MA framework

The main messages

We are having increasingly larger impacts on ecosystems and their services

Many segments of society have benefited from the mining of ecosystem services but the sustainability of these services is at risk

Scenarios of the future show do not show substantial abatement of degradation

But we have options to build but more favorable trajectories but these will take substantial new actions

Some indicators of high demand

• Conservation Community-Foundations and NGO’s putting new programs forward for MA type implementation

• Governments embedding ES concepts into research and policy decisions

• Business communities investing in ecosystem service markets (water, carbon, etc)

• International development funders embracing ES concepts (Sweden , UK and elsewhere)

• International policy and science communities promoting follow-on activities (current effort plus, UNEP, EU, MAII/IMOSEB)

What was the simple message that engendered such attention?

“Ecosystems provide services to society that promotes human well-being”

Policy makers; society, our constituencyBusiness community; new marketsDevelopment community; livelihoods for

poorConservation community; a new toolScientists; important new challenges

Some conservationists

Some developmental community spokespersons

Those who liked the products noted however that they were not linked to committed actions by governments

The Critics

The new players in conservation

Selling out on nature

“With scant evidence that market-based conservation works”, argues Douglas J. McCauley, the time is ripe for returning to the protection of nature for nature’s sake.

“In my view, several steps need to be taken in order to make the Ecosystem Service Concept work----”

(Casten F. Dormann. 2009. The rise of ecosystem services concept into politics and ecology: a provocation. British Ecologic al Society Bulletin. June, 2009

“The four main unresolved research areas need to be addressed - openly and transparently:

1. valuation of non-market goods;

2. uncertainty of each service's quantification;

3. data coverage for 'uncommon' ecosystem services;

4. unifying modelling approaches.”

Dormann. 2009

“Policy makers need to be actively disillusioned that the 'new' concept will not be the silver bullet to all the problems remaining unresolved for decades. “

“Scientific proposals for policy action, based on ESS quantification (and possibly valuation) are only to support decision making, not substitute for it.”

Dormann. 2009

A little history

Bolin versus Woodwell

Broecker versus Woodwell

Follow up to the MA

InstitutionalIPESICSU-UNU-UNESCO

PECSSubglobals (Satoyama)Diversitas

WRIOut There

Natural Capital

http://www.icsu.org/Gestion/img/ICSU_DOC_DOWNLOAD/2350_DD_FILE_ICSU-UNESCO-UNU_Ecosystem_Report.pdf

Science priorities follow up from the MA, 2008

Carpenter et al, 2009

Program on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS)

A 10-year Research Project of ICSU

The overarching goal of PECS is to understand transitions toward or away from sustainable development

The Subglobal Assessments led to the Satoyama Initiative to be presented at Nagoya this October

Another Direct Folllow-up

http://www.cbd.int/sustainable/doc/satoyama-initiative-en.pd

http://www.biodic.go.jp/biodiversity/kobetaiwa/2-2-2_Y-Natori.pdf

The Satoyama issue is global—loss of diverse landscapes (biotic and social) due to intensification and urbanization

“Multifunctional agriculture is recognized as crucial for maintaining the viability of rural areas in Europe and has particular significance for resource and nature conservation”

This systems have co-evolved with society over centuries and are resilient to interannual climate variability

Sal and Garcia, 2007

http://zapico.aminus3.com/image/2009-03-26.html

Spanish Dehesa landscape

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dehesa_Pigs

The Natural Capital Program

More

Less

Mapping change

Willamette Valley, Natural Capital Project ,Polasky

Once ecosystem services are mapped then landscape level

valuation can be made—lots of activity in the valuation arena

One attempt to address the valuation issue—get a group of

scientists together that represent different starting points and

published positions to agree on a common position---5 years later

came the following:

On Valuation

EPA, 2009

IPBES-Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and

Ecosystem Services

So what’s next

Biodiversity: Science & Biodiversity: Science & GovernanceGovernance

• Paris declaration on biodiversity• Call by the French President for a new international

mechanism for biodiversity “similar to IPCC”, for climate (Jan 05)

• Call supported by the DIVERSITAS Oaxaca declaration (Nov 05)

• Launch of a consultation on a new International Mechanism of Scientific Expertise on Biodiversity (IMoSEB; Feb 06, ISC meeting, Paris)

How could it possibly go wrong with such strong leadership from UNEP?

Angela CropperAchim Steiner

IPBES Kuala Lumpur, Nov 08

Scientists get into the room and learn about the complexities of coming to obvious conclusions

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://whatwilliweartoday.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/800px-haggling_for_sheep.jpg

Making policy is a messy process

http://www.iisd.ca/ymb/ipbes/

Both the science and policy communities move very slowly

• Most nations were in favor of a new science-policy interface but asked to see what we already have (gap analysis)

The resistance of a couple of countries related to government control of the process –back to CBD issue—sovereignty. This battle is actually not over not over.

First intergovernmental meeting in Malaysia in November, 2008

2nd meeting, Nairobi, 2009

• Much progress since 1st meeting (Putrajaya)

• Constructive atmosphere

• Broad agreement on need for IPBES

• Discussions went much further, and included governance & need for a secretariat.

• Overall agreement that discussions need to end in 2010.

• Next step: 3rd and final meeting (April 2010?)

i)i) The assessment landscape for biodiversity The assessment landscape for biodiversity and ecosystem services (UNEP/IPBES/3/INF/1)and ecosystem services (UNEP/IPBES/3/INF/1)ii)ii) Current and future status of biodiversity and Current and future status of biodiversity and ecosystem service indicators (UNEP/IPBES/3/INF/2)ecosystem service indicators (UNEP/IPBES/3/INF/2)iii)iii) Option and criteria for selection of secretariat Option and criteria for selection of secretariat (UNEP/IPBES/3/INF/3)(UNEP/IPBES/3/INF/3)iv)iv) Capacity Development for Biodiversity Capacity Development for Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Services Conservation and Ecosystem Services (UNEP/IPBES/3/INF/4(UNEP/IPBES/3/INF/4v)v) Background document on the Background document on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UNEP/IPBES/3/INF/5) (UNEP/IPBES/3/INF/5)

“Since we weren’t prepared for Nairobi we need the following for the third (and final) meeting”

3rd intergovernmental negotiation mtg on IPBES

• Busan, Rep of Korea,

• 7-11 June 10

• 90 countries

• Science community represented by ICSU, DIVERSITAS & IHDP

• 3rd (final) negotiation

ICSU DIVERSITAS IHDP

Things weren’t going so well

Luckily the supporters had a contingency plan

Early warning, early lessons: monitoring trends and new scientific findings and proactively alert organizations and governments to emerging issues

Undertake regular independent integrated assessments of changes in biodiversity and ecosystem services at multiple scales and rapid targeted assessment on specific issues that are linked with, build on or inform other relevant assessment processes and prepare for a second global assessment;

Policy support and outreach: assist monitoring and reporting on biodiversity and ecosystem services changes; and package and disseminate scientific information in a manner that responds to relevant stakeholders needs.

A new intergovernmental platform

Busan outcome: Functions of IPBES

-Legal basis

IPBES will be established as an Independent Intergovernmental body administered by one or more existing UN org (UNEP/UNESCO/FAO/UNDP)

-Governance

The Plenary is the decision making body: only governments can vote (others: observers/no vote)

-Clients

IPBES will respond primarily to requests from govts, including MEAs (CBD, etc.); others (UN, private sectors, Scient. Org., NGOs) can submit requests to the Plenary .

Characteristics of IPBES

Busan outcome: Functions of IPBES1. Catalyzing the generation of knowledge

Identify and prioritize knowledge gaps and facilitate dialogue to generate new knowledge (but not undertake new research)

2. Performing regular and timely assessmentsGlobal, regional, sub-regional, thematic, new topics (i.e. emerging issues)

3. Supporting policy formulation and implementationIdentify tools and methodologies, and catalyse their use and further

development

4. Building capacityPrioritize capacity building needs, provide and call for funding for the

highest priorities, and catalyze financing by providing a forum with funders

Functions of IPBES

Busan outcome: Functions of IPBES

-Sept-Nov 2010: 65th session of UN GA should approve establishment of IPBES

-2011: First IPBES Plenary (Programme of Work, Secretariat, Governance, Funding, etc.)

IPBES: Next steps

IPBES plus GEOBON make a necessary package

Observations: GEOSS

An integrated biodiversity observation system

specimen•Species•Location•Date•Source

population•Species•Location•Date•Abundance

ecosystem•Name•Polygon•Date•Attributes

Remotelysensedimages

Tabula-tions

Attributemaps

abioticclimate•substrate•Topography•Disturbance

models

GIS

uses•product•offtake•value•users

gene•Species•Location•Date•Genes

community•Location•Date•Species 1•Species n

taxonomy•Species•Genus•Family•Class etc

species

•binomial•authority•synonyms

gazeteer

•Location•Polygon

interactions•type•intensity•from•to

Supporting information

ObservationsObservation

products

Resourcetrends

Conservationplans

Changehotspots

Biodiversityindicators

Ecosystemservices

Researchoutputs

User-definedneeds

Core of the biodiversity observation network

GEO

BO

N portal

feedbackfeedback

specimen•Species•Location•Date•Source

specimen•Species•Location•Date•Source

population•Species•Location•Date•Abundance

population•Species•Location•Date•Abundance

ecosystem•Name•Polygon•Date•Attributes

ecosystem•Name•Polygon•Date•Attributes

Remotelysensedimages

Tabula-tions

Attributemaps

abioticclimate•substrate•Topography•Disturbance

abioticclimate•substrate•Topography•Disturbance

models

GIS

uses•product•offtake•value•users

uses•product•offtake•value•users

gene•Species•Location•Date•Genes

gene•Species•Location•Date•Genes

community•Location•Date•Species 1•Species n

community•Location•Date•Species 1•Species n

taxonomy•Species•Genus•Family•Class etc

taxonomy•Species•Genus•Family•Class etc

species

•binomial•authority•synonyms

species

•binomial•authority•synonyms

gazeteer

•Location•Polygon

gazeteer

•Location•Polygon

interactions•type•intensity•from•to

interactions•type•intensity•from•to

Supporting information

ObservationsObservation

products

Resourcetrends

Conservationplans

Changehotspots

Biodiversityindicators

Ecosystemservices

Researchoutputs

User-definedneeds

Core of the biodiversity observation network

GEO

BO

N portal

feedbackfeedbackfeedbackfeedback

Finally---the coming Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity

Nagoya. October, 2010

The red targets

“The red targets, addressing dangerous biodiversity change, involve the identification of thresholds above or below which we suffer significant harm in terms of lost or degradation of ecosystem services”

Perrings from Mace

The green targets

The green targets, addressing landscape, ecosystem and species conservation goals, reflect a more value-based process – since it would depend on the array of services motivating those conservation goals.

Perrings from Mace

The blue targets

• The blue targets address the enabling conditions for the achievement of the red and green targets. These include the socio-economic and institutional conditions required for target actions to be effective

Perrings from Mace

In summary

It has only been a decade since the MA was initiated and five years since it was completed. It brought a new paradigm to bear on conservation issues which has been widely accepted although there are critics. There is much work to be done to build a firmer foundation for the ecosystem service concept and to make it more useful to decision makers at all levels from the household to the globe.

We still need to develop a better appreciation of the role that biodiversity plays in the welfare of humans everywhere

What good is biodiversity anyway?

We need to answer this question for society as a whole

Thank you