Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Name

Maha Abdel Karim

Date On Time

You are to evaluate two different MEA. First go to

http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Index-2.html. From the menu bar
select REPORTS, Subglobal Assessment. From this menu select your two
areas.
In your report you must include the Countries you selected, the area in the
country, and a summary of the main findings. Next compare and contrast the
findings of the two countries. Finally evaluate the pros and cons of the MEA.
Summary for Argentina:
To begin, in the Pampas in Argentina four increasing geographical scales,
(farm, major agro ecosystems, the whole Pampas, and the Del Plata basin) their
relation to the supply of ecosystem services and their impact on human wellbeing in the Pampas will be reviewed. The first subject to be discussed is food
production, the current production is still far from the biophysical potential of
ecosystems and productivity can be increased in two ways. The first way
includes the conversion of natural and cultivated grazing lands into croplands
and the second is to increase use of external outputs. Secondly, soil erosion
control and carbon sequestration capacity has been hard to control due to land
use conversion for increasing food production. Other factors that affect this
include; the persistent conversion of natural grasslands into cultivated lands,
the extensive use of fire for managing rangelands and grasslands, the
introduction of ruminant grazing cattle and the spreading of non-conservative
tillage operations for more than 80 years. These practices triggered frequent
soil erosion episodes and transformed a carbon sequestering region into a
carbon-emitting region. However recently, the declines soil erosion and carbon
emission have stopped and been slightly reversed due to the extensive
application of no-tillage practices, which are driving both a re-accumulation of
soil organic carbon and a drastic reduction in fossil fuel consumption.
To continue, freshwater provision is not a limiting factor for human wellbeing in the Pampas but, the increasing utilization for chemical inputs
especially fertilizers and pesticides, due to the expansion of the cropping area
is affecting water quality in various areas of the region. A study found that
because of multiple surface and groundwater connections, contamination at
the farm scale spreads to broader scales. Regarding habitat provision, the
expansion of cultivation is causing rapid simplification of the rural landscape,
especially in continuously cropped lands. Practices like using pesticides, the
utilization of conventional tillage and the application of pesticides have been
consistent causes of decline in habitat provisioning which means that wildlife

biodiversity is persistently declining over the whole region. Lastly, the

expansion of croplands during the last 20 years has caused rapid depletion of
the soil nutrient endowment and a growing use of inorganic fertilizers thus the
disruption of nutrient cycles not only affects the on-site maintenance of soil
fertility, but also puts at risk the off-site provisioning of good-quality fresh
water.

Summary for Canada:

The regions ecosystems provide supporting and regulating services that
are essential for human well-being. And looking at the economy many
economic services are provision of resources for fisheries and food production,
logging and wood production, and tourism. Also, increasing risk to rare
ecosystems and species is evidence of damage to ecological integrity that may
not affect economic and cultural services but could impair supporting and
regulating services. Research has also found that over the past decade
(regarding human well0being) ; excessive population fluctuations, inadequate
employment income, high proportions of low-income households, weak
economic foundations (poor access to resources and limited business diversity),
mediocre knowledge and education, insecure access to cultural places, lack of
power over decisions that affect local livelihoods, low expectations of local
governance, and social problems manifested by a high proportion of deaths
from self-destructive behavior (drugs, alcohol, suicide) and high rates of
domestic violence have all worsened. Although conditions like education levels
and crime rates have improved. Lastly as taken from the website directly six
sets of responses are proposed; increased ecological protection;
-

Assured cultural security by guaranteeing access to places needed for

sustenance and protecting places needed for other values (such as
heritage and non-consumptive recreation);
Improved economic development by concentrating on areas with the
highest potential for economic gain from timber, tourism, non wood forest
products, fisheries, and minerals;
Combined ecosystem and cultural conservation and economic
development through ecosystem-based management planning;
Regular monitoring and periodic assessment of plan implementation,
together with a research program to fill major knowledge gaps and reduce
uncertainty;
Better governance through new institutions and policy instruments,
including sub-regional decision-making bodies, an independent regional
science body, making EBM objectives legally binding, public and private
conservation financing, and an independent dispute resolution body.

Compare & Contrast:

Argentina and Coastal British Columbia both have their similarities in
agriculture. In the sense that a lot of damage to the ecosystems in both places
are caused by increased extraction of agriculture. Also, one of the main causes
for this is that part of their countries economy relies on the agriculture that
they utilize which leads to over utilization. It looks like fresh water provision
does not seem to be a problem in both countries, there is a risk of lack of
biodiversity as well. . Chemicals are causing some contamination or slight
disturbance in both countries but there are preservation methods being slightly
enforced to help the problem however not completely. In contrast however, the
Pampas in Argentina are not more reliant on the economy as Coastal British
Columbia in Canada. Further more the Coastal British Columbia MEA has
responses while the Argentina MEA does not.

Pros & Cons:

A pro of these MEAs is that they give the faults of what the regions are
doing which is good because by doing this, ecologists can target the problem
directly and then respond appropriately. The Argentina MEA has specific
sections such as; habitat provisions, fresh water provisions and many more
sections. Which is good because being specific leads to a faster solution. A con
however in both MEAs is that they dont say what specific region that you can
find resources such as fresh water and where exactly are resources being
polluted.