Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Name	Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Formation	2001
Dissolution	2005
Leader title	Coordinating Body
Leader name	United Nations Environment Programme; World Bank; United Nations Development Programme
Headquarters	Washington, D.C.; Nairobi; Geneva

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was a major international scientific appraisal conducted from 2001 to 2005, convened by United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Development Programme, and the World Bank, with support from the Global Environment Facility and the Convention on Biological Diversity. It synthesized knowledge from thousands of authors and contributors, informing processes such as the Convention on Biological Diversity negotiations, the World Summit on Sustainable Development, and policy fora including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the United Nations General Assembly. The Assessment aimed to evaluate the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and to establish a scientific basis for actions by parties including European Commission, national agencies like the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and multilateral institutions like the Food and Agriculture Organization.

Background and Objectives

Conceived following discussions at meetings of United Nations Environment Programme and recommendations from the Millennium Declaration and the Millennium Development Goals process, the Assessment was endorsed by the World Summit on Sustainable Development and launched with funding from the Global Environment Facility and contributions from institutions such as the Rockefeller Foundation and David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Objectives included evaluating status and trends of ecosystem services across regions like Amazon Basin, Congo Basin, and Sundarbans, assessing scenarios tied to actors such as the European Union, United States, and China, and providing policy-relevant options for bodies including the Convention on Biological Diversity and national parliaments. Leadership structures drew on expertise from universities like Harvard University, University of Oxford, and University of Cape Town, and scientific panels mirrored institutions such as the Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences.

Methodology and Assessment Framework

The Assessment adopted a structured framework linking drivers, ecosystems, and human well-being, drawing on scenario analysis methods used by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and modelling approaches from groups including World Resources Institute and International Institute for Environment and Development. Regional, subglobal, and global assessments were coordinated through panels with representatives from organizations such as Conservation International, World Wildlife Fund, and IUCN. Data synthesis integrated remote sensing from missions like Landsat and modeling tools developed at institutions like Stockholm Resilience Centre and International Council for Science. Scenario development employed techniques similar to those used by Millennium Project and consulted stakeholders from bodies including World Bank Group and national ministries such as the Ministry of Environment (Brazil).

Key Findings and Ecosystem Services Results

Major findings documented declines in many provisioning services (e.g., fisheries in the North Sea and Gulf of Thailand), regulating services (e.g., flood protection in the Ganges Delta and carbon sequestration relevant to Kyoto Protocol targets), and cultural services recognized by indigenous institutions like World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium. The Assessment quantified trade-offs between services under scenarios involving actors such as Brazil, India, Russia, and European Union members, and highlighted links to public health concerns addressed by World Health Organization and food security issues monitored by Food and Agriculture Organization. It reported that while some services had been enhanced (e.g., agricultural yields through interventions linked to Green Revolution technologies), overall net degradation of biodiversity was evident in hotspots identified by Conservation International and in inventories akin to those maintained by the IUCN Red List.

Policy Responses and Global Impact

Findings influenced negotiation agendas at the Convention on Biological Diversity and informed policy instruments used by the European Commission and national parliaments, and spurred programs within the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Bank on natural capital accounting. The Assessment catalyzed initiatives such as The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity and informed corporate practices adopted by firms engaging with standards like those from the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. It underpinned funding priorities at multilateral funds including the Global Environment Facility and influenced donor agencies such as the United States Agency for International Development and the Department for International Development (UK).

Criticisms and Limitations

Scholars and practitioners from institutions including University of Cambridge, Yale University, and Princeton University critiqued aspects of the Assessment: debates centered on scale mismatches between global syntheses and local studies referenced by Local Ecological Knowledge proponents, perceived biases toward quantitative modelling over qualitative assessments championed by organizations like IUCN, and challenges in integrating rights issues highlighted by groups such as Amnesty International and International Union for Conservation of Nature. Methodological limits included data gaps in regions like the Sahel and technical critiques leveled by modelling centers including International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Legacy and Subsequent Initiatives

The Assessment’s legacy includes spawning successor efforts and influencing platforms such as Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, national natural capital initiatives in countries like United Kingdom and Norway, and scientific programs at institutions like the Stockholm Resilience Centre and Center for International Forestry Research. It informed academic curricula at universities including Stanford University and Australian National University, inspired project portfolios at NGOs like World Wildlife Fund and Conservation International, and contributed to normative shifts in policy fora such as the United Nations General Assembly and the Convention on Biological Diversity Conference of the Parties.

Category:Environmental assessment