The four main findings of the MA
7. The MA came to four main conclusions.[3]
These paint a sobering picture of the current condition and the
future of the planet. Below we present an outline of these findings.
This should by no means be taken as a complete summary of the
MA, which is available free from the MA website, www.millenniumassessment.org.
FIRST FINDING: THE WORLD HAS BEEN DRAMATICALLY ALTERED
BY HUMAN ACTIVITY
Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems
more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of
time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands
for food, fresh water, timber, fibre, and fuel. This has resulted
in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity
of life on Earth.[4]
8. The extent to which the world's ecosystems have
been altered by human activity over the last 50 years is truly
staggering. For example:
- cultivated systems now cover
one quarter of Earth's terrestrial surface
- since the early 20th Century around
20% of coral reefs have been lost and a further 20% degraded.
35% of mangrove areas have also been lost over this same period
- three to six times as much water is now held
in reservoirs as in natural rivers
9. These alterations have led to fundamental changes
in the diversity of life on Earth and a dramatic loss of biodiversity.
Over the past few hundred years humans have increased the natural
extinction rate by as much as 1,000 and now some 10-30% of mammal,
bird and amphibian species are currently threatened, to a medium
to high certainty, with extinction.
10. These changes are a function of increasing demand
for ecosystem services, as, since 1960, the world's population
doubled to 6 billion people and the global economy increased over
6 times. This demand was met by consuming a greater proportion
of the output of certain ecosystem services, such as taking more
fish from the sea. It was also met by increasing the productivity
of certain services through the application of new technologies,
such as fertilisers, as well as though increasing the area managed
for certain services such as crop and livestock production.
11. The conclusions of the MA are clear. Human
activity is fundamentally and extensively changing the world around
us, leading to extinction on a massive scale. The extent of this
loss should not be underestimated. It points to a sixth great
extinction, on a par with historic global extinction episodes
caused by asteroid impacts.
SECOND FINDING: ECOSYSTEM CHANGES HAVE LED TO SUBSTANTIAL
GAINS, AND SUBSTANTIAL LOSSES
The changes that have been made to ecosystems
have contributed to substantial net gains in human well-being
and economic development, but these gains have been achieved at
growing costs in the form of the degradation of many ecosystem
services, increased risks of nonlinear changes, and the exacerbation
of poverty for some groups of people. These problems, unless addressed,
will substantially diminish the benefits that future generations
obtain from ecosystems.[5]
12. Globally, and for most individual countries,
the changes that have been made to ecosystem services have led
to substantial gains to human well-being and national development.
These changes have been required in order to meet the demand for
food, water and other ecosystem services leading to improved human
health and a reduction in the number of people who are malnourished.
13. However, the result of these changes in ecosystem
services, and the degree to which they have been exploited, means
that around 60% (15 out of 24) of the ecosystem services evaluated
in the MA are being degraded or used unsustainably. These include
capture fisheries, water supply, natural hazard protection and
climate regulation. The capture fishery and fresh water ecosystem
services are now so over-exploited that they cannot meet even
current demands, let alone future demands.
14. The substantial gains that humans have experienced
by changing some ecosystem services have been at the expense,
to varying degrees, of other services. For example, increasing
agriculture typically involves an increase in fertilizer and water
use and the expansion into natural lands, leading to a decline
in water quality and availability, loss of biodiversity and a
loss of forest cover (which can have knock-on effects such as
release of greenhouse gases and an increased flood risk).
15. There has been a failure to consider the loss
of certain ecosystem services since most management decisions
are based on those services that enter into markets. This means
that non-market benefits are often not considered, which may lead
to their degradation or loss. The value of these non-market benefits
can be high and may be more valuable than those that register
in the markets. For example, a study in eight Mediterranean countries
found that their forest value in timber and fuel is generally
less than one third the value of the forest in terms of non-market
values from uses such as recreation, hunting, flood protection
and carbon sequestration. This non-wood value of the forests ranged
from between 25%-96% of the total economic value of the forests.
Failure to consider these non-market values can therefore lead
to substantial losses. A further example of those costs can be
found in the case of UK agricultural practice, 9%[6]
of the total earnings from which have to offset the damage caused
to water, air, soil and biodiversity.
16. The MA notes that while the degradation of some
services may, overall, be justified by increases in well-being,
often more degradation takes place than is in society's interests.
It points out that one reason for this is that the services being
degraded are held in common, so no one person feels an incentive
to maintain the service. This also means that where degradation
may harm specific individuals, there is no market mechanism available
to compensate them.
17. Despite dramatic increases in global human well-being
from the exploitation of ecosystem services, levels of poverty
remain high, inequities are growing and many people do not have
adequate access to ecosystem services. Degradation of ecosystem
services accentuates this by exacerbating poverty, and can also
be the principal factor in causing poverty.
18. Not only are changes in ecosystem services exacerbating
poverty in certain groups of people, these changes also increase
the risk of causing abrupt and potentially irreversible changes
in ecosystems, which could have significant consequences for overall
human well-being. This is as opposed to natural changes in ecosystems
which generally tend to be gradual. These so-called non-linear
changes mean that gradual damage can be caused to an ecosystem
up to a threshold, after which it may suddenly change. These changes
can be large, happen abruptly and can be difficult, expensive
or impossible to reverse. Although our knowledge of such thresholds
is improving, and science can provide some warning of an increased
risk of change, it cannot currently predict the point at which
a change will occur.
19. Examples of such a non-linear ecosystem change
include the Newfoundland cod fishery collapse in 1992. In this
case fish landings in tonnes increased dramatically from 1850
until the 1970s as technology enabled more fish to be caught leading
to a strong decline in the actual number of fish remaining. The
fishery then collapsed abruptly. After 10 years of a moratorium
on fishing in the area, stocks have still not recovered and some
predict that they may never do so due to fundamental changes in
the ecosystem which occurred when the fish were lost.[7]
20. The ways in which humans have altered the
natural environment have led to significant benefits to society,
but these benefits have been accompanied by rapidly increasing
costs due to ecosystem degradation. These changes to the natural
world have also increased the likelihood of dramatic and abrupt
changes to ecosystems, which could have devastating and permanent
impacts. Human activity is creating a world that is likely to
be degraded substantially for future generations.
THIRD FINDING: THE CONTINUED DAMAGE CAUSED TO ECOSYSTEM
SERVICES WILL MAKE IT HARDER TO ERADICATE POVERTY
The degradation of ecosystem services could grow
significantly worse during the first half of this century and
is a barrier to achieving the Millennium Development Goals[8].
21. The MA developed four scenarios, based on development
and ecosystem management options, to explore the future for ecosystems
and human well-being. Under all four of these scenarios the pressures
on ecosystems is expected to continue to grow over the next 50
years or so. The most important direct drivers of this pressure
are habitat change, overexploitation (especially over-fishing),
invasive alien species, pollution and climate change. The scenarios
suggest that over the next 50 years:
- Demand for food crops will
grow 70-85%; demand for water will grow 30-85%
- Food security will not be achieved nor child
malnutrition eradicated despite increased food supply
- Ecosystem services provided by freshwater resources
will deteriorate, especially where policies are adopted react
to problems, rather than policies that proactively avoid problems
- Habitat loss and other ecosystem changes are
projected to lower biodiversity, with a high certainty, by 2050.
The number of plant species could decline by roughly 10-15% by
2050 as a result of habitat loss alone. Other drivers, such as
over exploitation, will add to the number of extinctions
22. These increasing pressures will make it harder
to tackle poverty. For example in tackling hunger, ecosystem condition
(particularly in relation to climate, soil degradation and water
availability) is particularly important in terms of its influence
on crop yields and the availability of wild sources of food.
23. Ecosystem service degradation therefore poses
a significant barrier to the achievement of Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs) and MDG targets for 2015 to reduce poverty. The MDGs
were agreed at the United Nations Millennium Summit in September
2000, to set out what the international community hopes to achieve
by 2015 in reducing poverty and increasing development. The goals
are to:
1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2. Achieve universal primary education
3. Promote gender equality and empower women
4. Reduce child mortality
5. Improve maternal health
6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
7. Ensure environmental sustainability
8. Develop a global partnership for development
24. The MA recognises that without significant improvement
in the management of ecosystem services many of the MDG goals
are unlikely to be achieved. This is particularly true for tackling
poverty, hunger, child mortality, disease and environmental sustainability.
The MA Board in its statement stressed the importance of the link
between environmental degradation and poverty. It stated that
development policies aimed at reducing poverty may well be 'doomed'
to failure if the natural environment is not protected.[9]
It also found that without adequate consideration of the environment,
gains in MDGs will be 'transitory and inequitable'.[10]
25. The MA established conclusively that efforts
to eradicate poverty will not succeed where environmental degradation
is allowed to continue. This is of particular concern as environmental
degradation is set to significantly worsen over the next 50 years.
It therefore seems unlikely that the international community will
meet its Millennium Development Goal commitments to reduce poverty
and increase development, at least in the long-term. These changes
may also undermine the current progress that is being made, leading
to a worsening of poverty.
FOURTH FINDING: ECOSYSTEM DAMAGE CAN BE SLOWED AND
REVERSED, BUT THIS WILL TAKE CONCERTED ACTION
The challenge of reversing the degradation of
ecosystems while meeting increasing demands for their services
can be partially met under some scenarios that the MA has considered,
but these involve significant changes in policies, institutions,
and practices that are not currently under way. Many options exist
to conserve or enhance specific ecosystem services in ways that
reduce negative trade-offs or that provide positive synergies
with other ecosystem services.
26. In order to guide the MA, a conceptual framework
was created to describe the interactions between the environment
and humans, and how changes to these interactions may lead to
an impact on human well-being, biodiversity and ecosystems. The
MA conceptual framework focused particularly on the relationships
between ecosystem services and human well-being, over different
temporal and spatial scales. The framework can be adapted better
to reflect the needs and concerns of specific countries, or even
local communities, in order to help identify solutions to environmental
problems.[11]
27. This conceptual framework fed also into a modelling
exercise to assess future trends and the options that might be
taken to avoid environmental degradation. It was found that in
order to mitigate the negative consequences of growing pressures
on ecosystems, significant changes in policies, institutions and
practices are required on a large scale. These changes are not
currently underway. These so-called 'response options' include
"significant investments in environmentally sound technology,
active adaptive management, proactive action to address environmental
problems before their full consequences are experienced, major
investments in public goods (such as education and health), strong
action to reduce socioeconomic disparities and eliminate poverty,
and expanded capacity of people to manage ecosystems adaptively".[12]
There are a number of barriers to the introduction of these options,
such as market failures and inappropriate institutional arrangements.
28. Even with these interventions, under all MA scenarios,
biodiversity will continue to be lost. It concluded that the "long-term
sustainability of actions to mitigate degradation of ecosystem
services is uncertain".[13]
Although the report acknowledged that past actions to slow or
reverse ecosystem decline have proven successful, such as the
use of protected areas, it concluded that generally this action
has failed to keep pace with growing pressures and demands.
29. The MA also found that ecosystem degradation
can rarely be reversed without addressing one or more of the five
indirect drivers of ecosystem change: population change (including
growth and migration), changes in socioeconomic activity (including
economic growth and trade patterns), socio-political factors (including
presence of conflict and participation in decision making), cultural
factors, and technological change. These factors influence the
production and consumption of ecosystem services, and how sustainable
this is. The MA found that action to reduce ecosystem service
degradation, often fails to address these indirect drivers.
30. If society wishes to avoid the devastating
impact of continued ecosystem degradation on development and the
economy it is clear that substantial changes will have to be made
to the way in which it values and deals with ecosystem services.
These often will be politically controversial, but the case for
concerted and decisive action has now been made.
3 Except where otherwise referenced, this section is
adapted from: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and
Human Well-being Synthesis (Washington 2005) Back
4
ibid Back
5
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being
Synthesis (Washington 2005) Back
6
$2.6 billion in 1996, or 9% of average yearly gross farm receipts
for the 1990s Back
7
"For cod's sake, act now; Drastic action is needed if we
want the sea to go on feeding us", New Scientist,
11 November 2006 Back
8
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being
Synthesis (Washington 2005) Back
9
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Board, Living beyond our means;
Natural Assets and Human Well-being; Statement from the Board
(Washington, 2005) Back
10
ibid Back
11
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being
Synthesis (Washington 2005) Back
12
ibid Back
13
ibid Back
| 
