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) ACAME Program (objectives, tasks) Specific of ME assessment methodology Specific of ME assessment methodology Transboundary sub-global ME Transboundary sub-global ME Vertical belts, gradients and criteria of selection main MEs Vertical belts, gradients and criteria of selection main MEs Scales and priority of ecosystem goods & services Scales and priority of ecosystem goods & services Interaction between ecological and social components MEs Interaction between ecological and social components MEs Scales and governance structures 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/АСАМЕ» (CAREC & CA countries, 2003)

5. Assessment of ecosystems Public participation Information, Sciences Assessment of resources Assessment of consumption Education SD Strategy (CA Agenda 21), good governance, legal base, clear indicators Objectives of SD Assessment of ecosystems and objectives of SD CA

6. Central Asian Agenda 21 Convention to Combat Desertification Convention on Biological Diversity Regional Strategy of Sustainable Development Mountain Area for Central Asia Programme The Aral Sea Basin -2 Connection the Program with CA SD Strategy and other programs Assessment Central Asian MountainEcosystems

7. “ 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) Objectives of mountain territories steady development

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) MA Secretariat, Regional institutions National Governments Talgar Central Asia Users Local Community Global Assessment: Conditions, Scenarios, Responses Local Sub- Global/Regional National Kazakhstan Basin scale

11. Amu Darya river - water flow about 79.3 km 3 per one year Syr Darya river - water flow about 37.2 km 3 per one year Basin Scale Water ecosystems: fresh water

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 Uzbekistan Turkmenistan Kyrghyzstan Tadjikistan 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 Ecosystem Services Nival Forest Foothill Meadow Glaciers Lakes - Provisioning - Regulating - Supporting - Cultural Ecosystem Services: Climate Water Recreation tourism Soil formation Foods Water Bio- diversity

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 Central Asia Mountain ecosystems KazakhstanKyrgyzstanTajikistanTurkmenistanUzbekistan ABCABCABCABCABC Glaciers Forests ecosystems Steppe ecosystems Not significant Significant Paramount A Scope and range of environmental goods and services provided to B Scope and effectiveness of regulation services C Magnitude of disturbance of mountainous ecosystems Criteria of selectionPriority

18. Central Asia: SUB-GLOBAL ASSESSMENT CA RegionKazakhstanTalgar basin

19. Scales and priorities of ecosystem goods and services (e.g. Forest CA) LOCAL NATIONAL SUB-REGIONAL Goods: 1. Food (resources, producers, consumers)* 2. Fuel wood (Bioenergy) 3. Construction Materials 4. Derivatives Services: 1.Supporting human living and livelihood conditions 2.Cultural Services: 1.Self-restoration of bioproducts 2.Supporting 3.Flood and other natural disaster protection 4.Cultural Goods: 1. Food (resources, producers, consumers) 2. Hydraulic power 3. Clean air Services: 1.Water regime and runoff formation 2.Climate regulation 3.Self-reproduction, genetic resources 4.Cultural Goods: 1.Food (fresh water) 2.Hydraulic power 3.Nutrients * Number corresponds to a priority of good or service

20. Interecosystems Communications (multiplicative effect) Extraction of goods Degradation of ecosystems (downstream) Pollution Natural disasters Economic damage Social damage Increase of morbidity Vertical streams of energy and substance Anthropogenic ecosystems LOCAL NATIONAL SUB-REGIONAL Interecosystems Communications (multiplicative effect)

21. Interaction between ecological and social components ME (DPSIR, Local level) Scientific and technological potential Environment/ habitat Natural resources, including biological Man as a biological species Social potential Productive potential TECHNOSPHERE Governance/ policy SOCIETY NATURE - Goods and services - Hazardous pressure ( - ) - Management responses ( + )

22. Scientific and technological potential Environment/ habitat Natural resources, including biological Man as a biological species Social potential Productive potential TECHNOSPHERE Governance/ policy SOCIETY NATURE - Goods and services - Hazardous pressure ( - ) - Management responses ( + ) Interaction between ecological and social components ME (DPSIR, National level) Scientific and technological potential

23. Scales and governance structures Governance Extraction goods & use services LOCAL NATIONAL SUB-REGIONAL Lack of the mechanisms of cooperation Strategies of the population survival Local Agenda-21 Local EAP Ecosystems degradation Natural resources loses Ecological crisis Security threats Tree of the CA problems Laws on preservation MEs Integrated management of Ecosystems Regional and interstate agreements, Conventions Inefficient governance

24. Next steps Local Sub- Global/Regional National Basin scale 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

25. Thank you for attention! www.carec.kz