Bridging Scales and Epistemologies: Linking Local Knowledge with Global Science in MultiScale Assess

1
Bridging Scales and Epistemologies Linking
Local Knowledge with Global Science in
Multi-Scale Assessments

• Assessment of Central Asian Mountain Ecosystems
  features of methodology a multi-scale
• Vladimir Bogachev, CAREC
• Alexandria, Egypt
• March 17-20, 2004

2

• ACAME Program (objectives, tasks)
• Specific of ME assessment methodology
• Transboundary sub-global ME
• Vertical belts, gradients and criteria of
  selection main MEs
• Scales and priority of ecosystem goods
  services
• Interaction between ecological and social
  components MEs
• Scales and governance structures

3
Area of the project ACAME
The total area 3,882 thousand km2 Population
approximately 0.53 mln people (10 of the CA
area)
4
History

• Millennium ecosystem assessment /MA
  (Kofi Annan, June 2001)
• CA Candidate MA Sub-Global Assessment (CAREC,
  2002)
• Development of Programme Assessment of Central
  Asia Mountainous Ecosystems/?????
• (CAREC CA countries, 2003)

5
Assessment of ecosystems and objectives of SD CA
SD Strategy (CA Agenda 21), good governance,
legal base, clear indicators
Objectives of SD
Assessment of consumption
Assessment of ecosystems
Assessment of resources
Public participation
Information, Sciences
Education
6
Connection the Program with CA SD Strategy and
other programs
Convention on Biological Diversity
Convention to Combat Desertification
Central Asian Agenda 21
Regional Strategy of Sustainable Development
Mountain Area for Central Asia
Programme The Aral Sea Basin -2
Assessment Central Asian Mountain Ecosystems
7
Objectives of mountain territories steady
development
The Natural resources of mountain territories
are used by a steady means of ecological, social
and economic interests for optimal benefit of the
population of Central Asia Seminar on
development of Regional strategy and Plan of
Actions (Almaty, April 1, 2001) Goal 1.
Preservation of water basins ecosystems.
Combat to necessary for vital activity ecosystems
degradation Invitation to partnership
(Kiev, May 2003)

8
Main Program Objectives

• To generate the Global Assessment of
  Mountainous Ecosystems
• To develop recommendations for decision- making
  and planning related to conservation and
  restoration of Central Asia mountainous
• ecosystems
• To modify ecosystem assessment methodology based
  on the specific features of the sub-region

9
Similarity of methodologies
Adopted by the ICSD of Central Asia May 17,
2002 METHODOLOGICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CA
AGENDA 21 Prepared by CAREC and SIC ICSD
October 18, 2002 MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT
METHODS  Walter Reid, Neville Ash, Elena Bennett,
Pushpam Kumar, Marcus Lee, Nicolas Lucas, Henk
Simons, Valerie Thompson, Monika Zurek

• Involving of the users and decision makers,
  acceptance of the political obligations
• Multisectoral partnership and wide participation
  of a public
• Multy-scaile assessment
• Capacity building
• Definition of the measurable purposes and
  monitoring of results

10
Assessment scale(intersectoral approach)
Sub- Global/Regional
MA Secretariat, Regional institutions
National
Basin scale
National Governments
Kazakhstan
Local
11
Basin Scale Water ecosystems fresh water
Amu Darya river - water flow about 79.3 km3 per
one year Syr Darya river - water flow about 37.2
km3 per one year
12
The specific features of mountainous areas CA

• Transboundary sub-global mountain ecosystems
• Vertical belts
• Considerable gradients and lateral
  (horizontal) migration of substance and energy
• Livelihood supplies of population in the
  downstream plains/valleys

13
Transboundary sub-global mountain ecosystems
Kazakhstan
Kyrghyzstan
Uzbekistan
Tadjikistan
Turkmenistan
Political boundaries
14
Developing the transboundary aspects of assessment

• The coordination of methodological approaches
  ACAME by the national experts (MEs
  classification, analysis format and etc.)
• Criteria selection of research the main objects
  - priority MEs
• Acceptance uniform indicators of pressures,
  state MEs, impacts and response actions (DPSIR)

15
Vertical belts and EcosystemServices
Nival
Glaciers
Lakes
Climate
Forest
Meadow
Water
Foothill
Water
Ecosystem Services
Recreation tourism
Bio-diversity
- Provisioning - Regulating
- Supporting - Cultural
Soil formation
Foods
Foods
16
Criteria of selection main MEs

• Scope and range of environmental goods and
  services provided to (A)
• mountains community
• plains/valleys
• Scope and effectiveness of regulation services
  (climate change, etc., B)
• Magnitude of disturbance of ME and dangerous to
  loss of their potential (C)

17
Selection of priority ecosystems

Criteria of selection
Priority
18
Central Asia SUB-GLOBAL ASSESSMENT
CA Region
Kazakhstan
Talgar basin
19
Scales and priorities of ecosystem goods and
services (e.g. Forest CA)
LOCAL
NATIONAL SUB-REGIONAL

• Services
• Water regime and runoff formation
• Climate regulation
• Self-reproduction, genetic resources
• Cultural
• Goods
• Food (fresh water)
• Hydraulic power
• Nutrients

• Goods
• 1. Food (resources, producers, consumers)
• 2. Fuel wood (Bioenergy)
• 3. Construction Materials
• 4. Derivatives
• Services
• Supporting human living and livelihood conditions
  
• Cultural

• Services
• Self-restoration of bioproducts
• Supporting
• Flood and other natural disaster protection
• Cultural
• Goods
• 1. Food (resources, producers, consumers)
• 2. Hydraulic power
• 3. Clean air

Number corresponds to a priority of good or
service
20
Interecosystems Communications(multiplicative
effect)
Interecosystems Communications(multiplicative
effect)
LOCAL
NATIONAL SUB-REGIONAL
Economic damage
Natural disasters
Vertical streams of energy and substance
Anthropogenic ecosystems
Social damage
Pollution
Extraction of goods
Increase of morbidity
Degradation of ecosystems (downstream)
21
Interaction between ecological and social
components ME (DPSIR, Local level)
NATURE
Natural resources, including biological
Environment/ habitat
Governance/ policy
SOCIETY
TECHNOSPHERE
Man as a biological species
Social potential
Scientific and technological potential
Scientific and technological potential
Productive potential
- Goods and services
- Hazardous pressure ( - )
-
Management responses ( )
22
Interaction between ecological and social
components ME (DPSIR, National level)
NATURE
Natural resources, including biological
Environment/ habitat
Governance/ policy
SOCIETY
TECHNOSPHERE
Man as a biological species
Social potential
Scientific and technological potential
Productive potential
Scientific and technological potential
- Goods and services
- Hazardous pressure ( - )
-
Management responses ( )
23
Scales and governance structures

• Governance

Tree of the CA problems
Security threats
Regional and interstate agreements, Conventions
Ecological crisis
LOCAL NATIONAL SUB-REGIONAL
Inefficient governance
Ecosystems degradation
Natural resources loses
Laws on preservation MEs
Integrated management of Ecosystems

• Extraction goods use services

Lack of the mechanisms of cooperation
Strategies of the population survival
Local Agenda-21 Local EAP
24
Next steps

• Modification of multi-scale assessment MEs
  methodology, development of transboundary aspects
• Development of model DPSIR for an assessment on
  the main Mes
• Approbation of methodology on the pilot project
• Integration with MA methodology and adaptation
  for GAMA
• Exchange of experience and dissemination of the
  information. Preparation of specialistes

Sub- Global/Regional
National
Basin scale
Local
25
Thank you for attention! www.carec.kz