Lionel provided a working definition for ecosystem services derived
from
http://www.maweb.org/ and, if there is agreement, I propose that
IPBES accept their definition. On the other hand, the management of
ecosystems is implicated in all services of the reports of MA because,
for the most part, the status of our ecosystems has been the direct
result of human affects. Services and management are inextricably
intertwined, but for the purpose of founding IPBES with working
definitions, I can accept that management is the coordinated task of
humans acting on an ecosystem.
Management of ecosystems is difficult because borders are not
necessarily delineable; borders, it turns out, are a convenience.
This is because Nature is interactive. She is the original
multitasker and, in particular, when it comes to water, an array of
ecosystems may be undergoing change. Ecologists, sociologists,
politicians, investors, zoologists, botanists, microbiologists,
agronomists, oceanographers, visionaries and the general public each
have different views of how they characterize ecosystems. Therefore,
it may be important to develop a taxonomy (Forgive me for the
terminology, but I am a botanist speaking of how to order things and
my roots are in plant taxonomy...) of ecosystems to be certain that we
are speaking of the same things.
Lionel referred to the nomenclature of ecosystems based on habitats
and I referred to bio-named ecosystems. Additionally, there are
service, function, climate, and regional taxons for ecosystems. Have
I missed anything? I am not suggesting that we consolidate or change
names of ecosystems, instead, it is important to understand with what
we are working.