Ecosystems and Sustainability

Ecosystems and Sustainability
last revision - Feb 29, 2008
click here to return to earthmodal home

Source
World Resources Institute (new window, website)

"The World Resources Institute's mission is to move human society to live in ways that protect Earth's environment and its capacity to provide for the needs and aspirations of current and future generations.

Because people are inspired by ideas, empowered by knowledge, and moved to change by greater understanding, WRI provides -- and helps other institutions provide -- objective information and practical proposals for policy and institutional change that will foster environmentally sound, socially equitable development."

Operations note: This following report is the forerunner to Millennium Ecosystem Assessment which is in the Assessment section of this site. Nevertheless it has much introductory material and covers five important ecosystems. Including it here is somewhat redundant but it does have original material which is helpful in understanding the status of the environment and programmes that are created to manage ecosystem health and sustainability.

AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO ASSESSING ECOSYSTEM GOODS AND SERVICES

Ecosystems provide humans with a wealth of goods and services, including and food, building and clothing materials, medicines, climate regulation, water purification, nutrient cycling, recreation opportunities, and amenity value. At present, we tend to manage ecosystems for one dominant good or service, such as grain, fish, timber, or hydropower, without fully realizing the trade-offs we are making. In so doing, we may be sacrificing goods or services more valuable than those we receive — often those goods and services that are not yet valued in the market, such as biodiversity and flood control. An integrated ecosystem approach considers the entire range of possible goods and services a given ecosystem provides and attempts to optimize the benefits that society can derive from that ecosystem and across eco-systems. Its purpose is to help make trade-offs efficient, transparent, and sustainable. Such an approach, however, presents significant methodological challenges. Unlike a living organism, which might be either healthy or unhealthy but cannot be both simultaneously, ecosystems can be in good condition for producing certain goods and services but in poor condition for others. PAGE attempts to evaluate the condition of ecosystems by assessing separately their capacity to provide a variety of goods and services and examining the trade-offs humans have made among those goods and services. As one example, analysis of a particular region might reveal that food production is high but, because of irrigation and heavy fertilizer application, the ability of the system to provide clean water has been diminished. Given data inadequacies, this systematic approach was not always feasible. For each of the five ecosystems, PAGE researchers, therefore, focus on documenting the extent and distribution of ecosystems and changes over time. We develop indicators of ecosystem condition — indicators that inform us about the current provision of goods and services and the likely capacity of the eco-system to continue providing those goods and services. Goods and services are selected on the basis of their perceived importance to human development. Most of the ecosystem studies examine food production, water quality and quantity, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration. The analysis of forests also studies timber and woodfuel production; coastal and grassland studies examine recreational and tourism services; and the agroecosystem study reviews the soil resource as an indicator of both agricultural potential and its current condition.

A Global Synthesis of Current Information

The first objective of PAGE was to review existing environmental assessments and compile available data into a globally comprehensive package. PAGE researchers synthesized information from dozens of sources:

national, regional, and global data sets on food and fiber production;
sectoral assessments of agriculture, forestry, biodiversity water, and fisheries;
national state-of-the-environment reports;
national and global assessments of ecosystem extent and change;
biological assessments of particular species or environments.
scientific research articles; and
various national and international data sets.

For each of the five ecosystem types, PAGE researchers first assembled the best information available on the extent of the ecosystem and any modifications to the ecosystem, such as conversion to agriculture or urban areas. PAGE researchers asked:

Where is the ecosystem located?
What are its dominant physical characteristics?
How has it changed through time?
What pressures and changes is it experiencing today?

They then concentrated on assembling the best indicators of production and condition of the various goods and services produced by each ecosystem:

What is the quantity of the service being produced (and its value, where possible)?
Is the capacity of the ecosystem to provide that service being enhanced or diminished through time?

Essentially, for each good and service, the PAGE study asked: Why is it important? and What shape is it in? To the extent possible, researchers also included information about the plausible future condition of the ecosystem. The results of the PAGE study were subjected to a thorough peer review by more than 70 scientific experts around the world.

World Resources 2000-2001: People and ecosystems: The fraying web of life (new window, webpage)

operations note: save these to your ../wr2000 subdirectory

(all the following are new window)
People and ecosystems: The fraying web of life (Executive summary, full text) (1,214 KB, pdf)
Table of contents(61 KB, pdf)
Chapter 1: Linking people and ecosystems (full text)(1,402 KB, pdf)
Chapter 2. Taking stock of ecosystems (full text)(3,021 KB, pdf)
Chapter 3. Living in ecosystems (full text)(3,160 KB, pdf)
Chapter 4. Adopting an ecosystem approach (full text)(685 KB, pdf)
Acronyms(80 KB, pdf)
Acknowledgements(70 KB, pdf)
Notes(125 KB, pdf)
Index(90 KB, pdf)

Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems (PAGE)
(see Assessment this site for more on ecosystems)

Introduction to the Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems

PEOPLE AND ECOSYSTEMS The world’s economies are based on the goods and services derived from ecosystems. Human life itself depends on the continuing capacity of biological processes to provide their multitude of benefits. Yet, for too long in both rich and poor countries, development priorities have focused on how much humanity can take from ecosystems, and too little attention has been paid to the impact of our actions. We are now experiencing the effects of ecosystem decline in numerous ways: water shortages in the Punjab, India; soil erosion in Tuva, Russia; fish kills off the coast of North Carolina in the United States; landslides on the deforested slopes of Honduras; fires in the forests of Borneo and Sumatra in Indonesia. The poor, who often depend directly on ecosystems for their livelihoods, suffer most when ecosystems are degraded.

The Current State of Ecosystems

The PAGE reports show that human action has profoundly changed the extent, distribution, and condition of all major ecosystem types. Agriculture has expanded at the expense of grasslands and forests, engineering projects have altered the hydrological regime of most of the world’s major rivers, settlement and other forms of development have converted habitats around the world’s coast-lines. The picture we get from PAGE results is complex. Ecosystems are in good condition for producing some goods and services but in poor condition for producing others. Overall, however, there are many signs that the capacity of eco-systems to continue to produce many of the goods and services on which we depend is declining. Human activities have significantly disturbed the global water, carbon, and nitrogen cycles on which all life depends. Agriculture, industry, and the spread of human settlements have permanently converted extensive areas of natural habitat and contributed to ecosystem degradation through fragmentation, pollution, and increased incidence of pest attacks, fires, and invasion by non-native species. The following paragraphs look across ecosystems to summarize trends in production of the most important goods and services and the outlook for ecosystem productivity in the future.

A Unique Approach

The PAGE study is unique in that it evaluated the state of five ecosystems by examining the condition of a range of goods and services these ecosystems produce:

food and fiber production,
provision of pure and sufficient water,
maintenance of biodiversity,
storage of atmospheric carbon, and
provision of recreation and tourism opportunities.

This "goods and services approach" makes explicit the link between the biological capacity of ecosystems and human well-being.

Notably, the PAGE analysis considered not just the current level of production of goods and services, but also the capacity of the ecosystem to continue to produce these goods and services in the future. For example, in evaluating food production in the coastal and marine assessment, PAGE researchers looked not only at the current marine fish catch, but also at trends in the condition of the fish stocks that contribute to this catch. In this way, the PAGE study—to the extent possible—addressed the question of the sustainability of current patterns of ecosystem use (Box 2.1 The Difficulty of Assessing Ecosystems).

operations note: although the revue of five ecosystems given below is already covered in the report "World Resources 2000-2001: People and ecosystems: The fraying web of life," these following five documents have greater technical detail. They were the precursors.

WORLD Resources 2000–2001, CHAPTER 2 - TAKING STOCK OF ECOSYSTEMS

To help fill this information gap, this chapter presents the results of a first-of-its-kind assessment: the Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems (PAGE). The PAGE study assessed five of the world’s major ecosystem types.

Agricultural ecosystems or "agroecosystems" cover 28 percent of the land surface (excluding Antarctica and Greenland) and account for $1.3 trillion in output of food, feed, and fiber and for 99 percent of the calories humans consume.
Coastal ecosystems (including marine fisheries) cover approximately 22 percent of the total land area in a 100-km band along continental and island coastlines, as well as the ocean area above the continental shelf. The coastal zone is home to roughly 2.2 billion people or 39 percent of the world’s population and yields as much as 95 percent of the marine fish catch.
Forest ecosystems cover 22 percent of the land surface (excluding Antarctica and Greenland) and contribute more than 2 percent of global GDP through the production and manufacture of industrial wood products alone.
Freshwater systems cover less than 1 percent of Earth’s surface but they are the source of water for drinking, domestic use, agriculture, and industry; freshwater fish and mollusks are also a major source of protein for humans and animals.
Grassland ecosystems (including shrublands) cover 41 percent of the land surface (excluding Antarctica and Greenland) and are critical producers of protein and fiber from livestock, particularly in developing countries. Together these five ecosystem types, which overlap in some places, cover the bulk of Earth’s land area and a significant portion of the ocean area. They are also home to much of the world’s population. Other ecosystems, such as polar zones, high mountains, ocean areas beyond the continental shelves, and even urban ecosystems account for the remainder of the area and are important in their own right (see the Appendix to this Chapter).

But the condition of the goods and services produced by these five major ecosystems will largely determine how well Earth’s living systems meet human needs today and in the future.

These ecosystems account for about 90 percent of the earth’s land surface, excluding Greenland and Antarctica. PAGE results are being published as a series of five technical reports, each covering one ecosystem. Electronic versions of the reports are posted on the Website of the World Resources Institute [http://www.wri.org/wr2000] and the agroecosystems report also is available on the Website of the International Food Policy Research Institute [http://www.ifpri.org].

People and Ecosystems: the Fraying Web of Life
Executive summary

Primary Goods and Services Provided by Ecosystems

The outlines provide a quick summary of ecosystem extent, condition, productivity, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration, and other information concerning sources of data.

Ecosystem	Goods	Services
Agroecosystems (outline)	Food crops Fiber crops Crop genetic resources	Maintain limited watershed functions (infiltration, flow control, partial soil protection) Provide habitat for birds, pollinators, soil organisms important to agriculture Build soil organic matter Sequester atmospheric carbon Provide employment
Forest Ecosystems (outline)	Timber Fuelwood Drinking and irrigation water Fodder Nontimber products (vines,bamboos, leaves, etc.) Food (honey, mushrooms, fruit, and other edible plants; game) Genetic resources	Remove air pollutants, emit oxygen Cycle nutrients Maintain array of watershed functions (infiltration, purification, flow control, soil stabilization) Maintain biodiversity Sequester atmospheric carbon Moderate weather extremes and impacts Generate soil Provide employment Provide human and wildlife habitat Contribute aesthetic beauty and provide recreation
Freshwater Systems (outline)	Drinking and irrigation water Fish Hydroelectricity Genetic resources	Buffer water flow (control timing and volume) Dilute and carry away wastes Cycle nutrients Maintain biodiversity Provide aquatic habitat Provide transportation corridor Provide employment Contribute aesthetic beauty and provide recreation
Grassland Ecosystems (outline)	Livestock (food, game, hides, fiber) Drinking and irrigation water Genetic resources	Maintain array of watershed functions (infiltration, purification, flow control, soil stabilization) Cycle nutrients Remove air pollutants, emit oxygen Maintain biodiversity Generate soil Sequester atmospheric carbon Provide human and wildlife habitat Provide employment Contribute aesthetic beauty and provide recreation
Coastal Ecosystems (outline)	Fish and shellfish Fishmeal (animal feed) Seaweeds (for food and industrial use) Salt Genetic resources	Moderate storm impacts (mangroves; barrier islands) Provide wildlife (marine and terrestrial) habitat Maintain biodiversity Dilute and treat wastes Provide harbors and transportation routes Provide human and wildlife habitat Provide employment Contribute aesthetic beauty and provide recreation

operations note: save these to your ../page subdirectory

Quick glance at Table of Contents (new window, html, this site)

1. Pilot analysis of global ecosystems: Agroecosystems ( 5.78MB, zip file)

2. Pilot analysis of global ecosystems: Forest ecosystems (new window, 10.74MB, pdf)

3. Pilot analysis of global ecosystems: Grassland ecosystems (4.221MB, zip file)

4. Pilot analysis of global ecosystems: Freshwater systems (new window, 1.63MB, pdf)

5. Pilot analysis of global ecosystems: Coastal ecosystems (new window, 1.04MB, pdf)

Our Human Planet
(Summary for Decision Makers)

Our Human Planet summarizes the findings of the four working groups and serves as a reference guide to the four volumes in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment series. It presents the key findings of each working group and meets the needs of policy-makers and other professionals.

The summary also provides an overview of the framework used by the assessment, and will serve as a guide for assessment, planning, and management for the future. It also gives the nonspecialist the means of navigating the detailed findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

01. MA Conceptual Framework [pdf, 415 KB]

If, however, economic valuation indicates that the value of converting the ecosystem outweighs the aggregate value of its services, its ascribed intrinsic value may be deemed great enough to warrant a social decision to conserve it anyway. Such decisions are essentially political, not economic. In contemporary democracies these decisions are made by parliaments or legislatures or by regulatory agencies mandated to do so by law.

1.4 Values Associated with Ecosystems

ecoservices

Current decision-making processes often ignore or underestimate the value of ecosystem services. Decision-making concerning ecosystems and their services can be particularly challenging because different disciplines, philosophical views, and schools of thought assess the value of ecosystems differently. One paradigm of value, known as the utilitarian (anthropocentric) concept, is based on the principle of humans’ preference satisfaction (welfare). In this case, ecosystems and the services they provide have value to human societies because people derive utility from their use, either directly or indirectly (use values). Within this utilitarian concept of value, people also give value to ecosystem services that they are not currently using (non-use values). Non-use values, usually known as existence values, involve the case where humans ascribe value to knowing that a resource exists even if they never use that resource directly. These often involve the deeply held historical, national, ethical, religious, and spiritual values people ascribe to ecosystems— the values that the MA recognizes as cultural services of ecosystems.

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

The utilitarian and non-utilitarian value paradigms overlap and interact in many ways, but they use different metrics, with no common denominator, and cannot usually be aggregated, although both paradigms of value are used in decision-making processes.

Under the utilitarian approach, a wide range of methodologies has been developed to attempt to quantify the benefits of different ecosystem services. These methods are particularly well developed for provisioning services, but recent work has also improved the ability to value regulating and other services. The choice of valuation technique in any given instance is dictated by the characteristics of the case and by data availability. (See Box 1.4.)

frame

Non-utilitarian value proceeds from a variety of ethical, cultural, religious, and philosophical bases. These differ in the specific entities that are deemed to have intrinsic value and in the interpretation of what having intrinsic value means. Intrinsic value may complement or counterbalance considerations of utilitarian value. For example, if the aggregate utility of the services provided by an ecosystem (as measured by its utilitarian value) outweighs the value of converting it to another use, its intrinsic value may then be complementary and provide an additional impetus for conserving the ecosystem. If, however, economic valuation indicates that the value of converting the ecosystem outweighs the aggregate value of its services, its ascribed intrinsic value may be deemed great enough to warrant a social decision to conserve it anyway. Such decisions are essentially political, not economic. In contemporary democracies these decisions are made by parliaments or legislatures or by regulatory agencies mandated to do so by law. The sanctions for violating laws recognizing an entity’s intrinsic value may be regarded as a measure of the degree of intrinsic value ascribed to them. The decisions taken by businesses, local communities, and individuals also can involve considerations of both utilitarian and non-utilitarian values.

The mere act of quantifying the value of ecosystem services cannot by itself change the incentives affecting their use or misuse. Several changes in current practice may be required to take better account of these values. The MA assesses the use of information on ecosystem service values in decision-making. The goal is to improve decision-making processes and tools and to provide feedback regarding the kinds of information that can have the most influence.

BOX 1.4 Valuation of Ecosystem Services

Valuation can be used in many ways: to assess the total contribution that ecosystems make to human well-being, to understand the incentives that individual decision-makers face in managing ecosystems in different ways, and to evaluate the consequences of alternative courses of action. The MA uses valuation primarily in the latter sense: as a tool that enhances the ability of decision-makers to evaluate tradeoffs between alternative ecosystem management regimes and courses of social actions that alter the use of ecosystems and the multiple services they provide. This usually requires assessing the change in the mix (the value) of services provided by an ecosystem resulting from a given change in its management.

Most of the work involved in estimating the change in the value of the flow of benefits provided by an ecosystem involves estimating the change in the physical flow of benefits (quantifying biophysical relations) and tracing through and quantifying a chain of causality between changes in ecosystem condition and human welfare. A common problem in valuation is that information is only available on some of the links in the chain and often in incompatible units. The MA can make a major contribution by making various disciplines better aware of what is needed to ensure that their work can be combined with that of others to allow a full assessment of the consequences of altering ecosystem state and function.

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

1.6 Strategies and Interventions

The MA assesses the use and effectiveness of a wide range of options for responding to the need to sustainably use, conserve, and restore ecosystems and the services they provide. These options include incorporating the value of ecosystems in decisions, channeling diffuse ecosystem benefits to decision-makers with focused local interests, creating markets and property rights, educating and dispersing knowledge, and investing to improve ecosystems and the services they provide. As seen in Box 1.2 on the MA conceptual framework, different types of response options can affect the relationships of indirect to direct drivers, the influence of direct drivers on ecosystems, the human demand for ecosystem services, or the impact of changes in human well-being on indirect drivers. An effective strategy for managing ecosystems will involve a mix of interventions at all points in this conceptual framework.

Mechanisms for accomplishing these interventions include laws, regulations, and enforcement schemes; partnerships and collaborations; the sharing of information and knowledge; and public and private action. The choice of options to be considered will be greatly influenced by both the temporal and the physical scale influenced by decisions, the uncertainty of outcomes, cultural context, and the implications for equity and trade-offs. Institutions at different levels have different response options available to them, and special care is required to ensure policy coherence.

Decision-making processes are value-based and combine political and technical elements to varying degrees. Where technical input can play a role, a range of tools is available to help decision-makers choose among strategies and interventions, including cost-benefit analysis, game theory, and policy exercises. The selection of analytical tools should be determined by the context of the decision, key characteristics of the decision problem, and the criteria considered to be important by the decision-makers. Information from these analytical frameworks is always combined with the intuition, experience, and interests of the decision-maker in shaping the final decisions.

Risk assessment, including ecological risk assessment, is an established discipline and has a significant potential for informing the decision process. Finding thresholds and identifying the potential for irreversible change are important for the decision-making process. Similarly, environmental impact assessments designed to evaluate the impact of particular projects and strategic environmental assessments designed to evaluate the impact of policies both represent important mechanisms for incorporating the findings of an ecosystem assessment into decision-making processes.