Roadmap towards the implementation and

Mapping and assessment of marine ecosystem services and link to Good Environmental Status (phase 1) Roadmap for an integrated approach to a marine MAES

Project under Framework contract No ENV.D2/FRA/2012/0019


Delft, May 26th , 2016

Consortium - Lead

Sub-contractors


Dr. A.R.Boon (Deltares) Dr. M.C. Uyarra (AZTI) Dr. A.S. Heiskanen (SYKE) Dr. A. Borja (AZTI) M. van der Meulen, M.Sc. (Deltares) Dr. W. Stolte (Deltares) Dr. I. Galparsoro (AZTI) Dr. M. Viitasalo (SYKE) Dr. J.M. Garmendia (AZTI) Dr. A. Murillas (AZTI)

Deltores Title

Roadmap towards the implementation and development of a regional MAES Client

Project

Reference

Pages

DGENV

1210689-000

1210689-000-ZKS-00 18

63

Keywords

MAES, MSFD, WFD, marine ecosystem services, marine ecosystem condition, assessments, mapping, framework, methodology, marine regions, regional seas. Summary This report called "Roadmap towards the implementation and development of a regional marine MAES" is the final deliverable of the project "Mapping and Assessment of marine ecosystem services and link to good environmental status (phase 1)", a service request carried out under the agreement of the 'Framework contract for services related to development of methodological standards in relation to good environmental status of the seas under Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, ENV.D.2/FRA/2012/0019)'. The consortium for this project consisted of Deltares (project coordinator, The Netherlands), SYKE (Finland) and AZTI (Spain). This Roadmap report describes a framework and a methodology for applying a mapping and assessment exercise of marine ecosystems and their services (MAES) in the marine (sub)regions and linking it to the assessment procedure of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (MSPD), the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Birds and Habitats Directives (BHD). The methodology encompasses 9 steps including linkages to the assessments steps in the above EU marine environmental and nature legislation. It also includes recommendations to improving the applicability of this framework and methodology. Short to long-term recommendations are given: first, a pilot case of the marine MAES methodology should be carried out to test the developed methodology (an example is given), next, the knowledge base for the constituent building blocks of the framework should be improved, and last, the MAES process should be harmonized with the assessment procedures of the MSFD, WFD and BHD. The technical backgrounds for this roadmap can be found in the report "Background document to the Roadmap for an integrated approach to a marine MAES" (Boon et al., 2015). Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility authors and do not represent the official position of the European Commission. Version Date

Author

Initials Review

May.2016 Dr. A.R. Boon Dr. T. Prins (Deltares) (Deltares) Dr. M.C. Uyarra (AZTI) Dr. A.-S. Heiskanen (SYKE) Dr. A. Borja (AZTI)

Initials Approval

r:J 'ij

M. van der Meulen ~ (Deltares) Dr. W. Stolte (Deltares) Dr. I. Galparsoro (AZTI) Dr. M. Viitasalo (SYKE) Dr. J.M. Garmendia (AZTI) Dr. A. Murillas (AZTI)

F.M.J. Hoozemans MSc (Deltares)

r

State

final

Roadmap towards the implementation and development of a regional MAES

\

Initi

of the

1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

Contents

1 Introduction 1.1 The MAES approach 1.2 Objectives 1.3 Approach

1 1 3 3

2 Developing a marine MAES methodology: making the framework work 2.1 The improved MAES framework 2.2 The marine MAES methodology

5 5 10

3 A generalized methodology for a marine MAES 3.1 Step 1: Select the scale of the assessment: identification of a case study area 3.2 Step 2: Identification of the main ecosystem service demand and ecosystem components affected 3.3 Step 3: Select and prioritize the ecosystem services to be included in the analysis 3.4 Step 4: Identify stakeholders and organize stakeholder involvement in the process 3.5 Step 5: Data requirements, availability and sources 3.6 Step 6: Selection of indicators and definitions of criteria and targets 3.7 Step 7: Mapping of ecosystems 3.8 Step 8: Assessment of ecosystem condition and services supply 3.9 Step 9: Evaluation of ecosystem condition and services assessment results

13 13

4 A test case of the methodology: the North–East Atlantic fisheries 4.1 Step 1: Select the scale of the assessment: identification of a case study area 4.2 Step 2: Identification of the main ecosystem service demand and ecosystem components affected 4.3 Step 3: Select and prioritize the ecosystem services to be included in the analysis 4.4 Step 4: Identify stakeholders and organise stakeholder involvement in the process 4.5 Step 5: Data requirements, availability and sources 4.6 Step 6: Selection of indicators and definition of criteria and targets 4.7 Step 7: Mapping of ecosystems 4.8 Step 8: Assessment of ecosystem condition and services 4.9 Step 9: Evaluation of ecosystem condition and services assessment results

15 17 19 20 23 25 27 31 35 35 36 37 37 38 39 40 40 41

5 Recommendations for improving the framework and methodology 43 5.1 Improving the knowledge base for the building blocks on the short to mid-term 44 5.2 Regional Sea Convention timeline: gaining practical experience with regional assessments at the mid-term 49 5.3 Data 52 5.4 Who and how for the short to mid-term recommendations 54 5.5 Aligning assessment approaches in the implementation of the EU marine policies on the mid- to long-term 55 5.6 Long-term recommendations for further harmonizing policy instruments and legislation 59 6 References


61

i

1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

1 Introduction This report is the final deliverable of the “Mapping and Assessment of marine ecosystem services and link to good environmental status (phase 1)” project, a service request carried out under the agreement of the ‘Framework contract for services related to development of methodological standards in relation to good environmental status of the seas under Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, ENV.D.2/FRA/2012/0019)´. This contract was established between the European Commission/DG Environment and Deltares, as lead partner of the consortium in October 2012. The consortium for this project was Deltares (project coordinator, The Netherlands), SYKE (Finland) and AZTI (Spain). This Roadmap document provides a step-wise approach towards conducting marine Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) on a regional scale and includes recommendations for short-, mid- and long-term actions for better integration of MAES and the MSFD. The technical background for the roadmap can be found in the report “Background document to the Roadmap for an integrated approach to a marine MAES” (Boon et al., 2015). In the remainder of this roadmap, it is referred to as the Background report. 1.1

The MAES approach MAES originates from the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020 (BS 2020), which is based on the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD). The goal of the BS 2020 is ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and restoring them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss’. In addition to this, the BS 2020 includes six targets, of which Target 2 on “Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services” includes the following Action 5: “Improve knowledge of ecosystems and their services in the EU”, by which “Member States, with the assistance of the Commission, should have mapped and assessed the state of ecosystems and their services in their national territory by 2014, assessed the economic value of such services, and promote the integration of these values into accounting and reporting systems at the EU and national level by 2020”. The MAES framework can currently be viewed as an important way to integrate different approaches and policies to protect the environment and support its sustainable use. To this end, the working group MAES has produced two reports in which the approach for mapping and assessing ecosystems and their services has been outlined (Maes et al. 2013, 2014). The ecosystem services approach is viewed as the framework for an integral/integrated management of our environment. It is a means to assess and manage our environment in a language that can be understood and shared among policy makers, specialists and laymen. By its very nature, it integrates the natural and social disciplines and it is a platform to discuss the environmental goals, which we (as society) would like to attain. This project aims to improve the existing framework and methodology for a marine MAES as the implementation of the BS 2020, and to do this in the context of the experiences, needs and views of the various stakeholders that may be using the marine MAES framework and methodology in the near future. As explicitly stated in Maes et al. (2013), ‘The information and knowledge base upon which the BS 2020 is developed will integrate and streamline the latest


1 of 63

1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

outcomes from the reporting of Member States (MS) under the Birds and Habitats Directives (BHD), the Water Framework Directive (WFD), the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), and other relevant data flows reported under environmental legislation, including spatial data such as the Natura 2000 network, river basins, marine regions, etc.’. While the assessment of the services provided by marine ecosystems is not explicitly requested by the MSFD, this piece of legislation states in Article 1.3 that “Marine strategies shall apply an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities, ensuring that the collective pressure of such activities is kept within levels compatible with the achievement of good environmental status and that the capacity of marine ecosystems to respond to humaninduced changes is not compromised, while enabling the sustainable use of marine goods and services by present”. Therefore, the relationship of the MAES approach with that of the above-mentioned directives is of paramount importance. These EU directives are operational and deliver different assessment products, based on datasets collected by the Member States (MSs). In Maes et al. (2013) these relationships have been explained to some extent, but this has not yet led to a framework that explains why and how the data and assessment products from these directives can be used to come to an assessment of marine ecosystem condition and marine ecosystem services. Without the explicit linking of the assessment of the marine ecosystem condition and services under the MAES framework to the marine legislation, it will not be possible to understand if and how measures in practice lead to halting the loss of biodiversity in the broadest sense of the word, and the desired societal supply of marine ecosystem services. Furthermore, any improved approach will have implications for the implementation of the MSPD (Maritime Spatial Planning Directive as well as for the implementation of the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP). Furthermore, the EU is signatory to the Barcelona Convention’s ICZM protocol. As indicated above, the MAES approach was developed to support Action 5 of the BS 2020, and a timeframe has been established for EU MS to map and assess ecosystems and their services and assess the economic value of those ecosystem services and integrate them into the economic accounting system. The timeline is as follows (Table 1.1): Table 1.1

. Timeframe for the implementation of MAES

Timeframe

Milestone

2014

To map and assess the state ecosystems and their services on their territory (with the assistance of the EC)

2016

To have the bio-physical ecosystem capital accounts (at EU level and some MSs)

2018

To have the accounting for ecosystem services (at the EU level and some MSs)

2020

To have the valuations of ecosystems and their services (at the EU level and some MSs), so they can be integrated into the economic accounting system

During the assessment and mapping of ecosystems and their services, most EU MS have focused this exercise on the terrestrial environment, due to lack of clear guidance on the

2 of 63


1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

implementation of MAES for the marine environment (for more information, see Background report (Boon et al., 2015). Furthermore, the first MAES working paper was developed in 2013, at a time at which most MSs had already started preparing for the 2014 deadline. Therefore, MSs implemented different approaches in the mapping and assessing of ecosystem services, such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, or approaches defined on a national level due to the lack of a common approach for such purpose (for more information, see Background report, Boon et al., 2015). 1.2

Objectives The aim of this roadmap document is three-fold: i) to provide a stepwise methodology for doing marine MAES, based on the improved framework from the background report ii) to provide basic guidance through the steps of the marine MAES methodology providing an example for the short-term recommended pilot for a marine MAES, and iii) to provide further short-, mid- and long-term recommendations based on the knowledge generated in this project.

1.3

Approach Previous experiences in marine MAES highlight the need for further development and guidance in its implementation. In developing a new methodology suited to marine ecosystems, the following questions need addressing first: (i) What are the different steps that need to be taken when carrying out MAES for marine ecosystems? (ii) What is the adequate spatial scale when implementing MAES to marine systems? (iii) Who are the relevant actors and stakeholders for carrying out MAES in the marine environment? (iv) What is feasible now and what should be aimed towards in the mid- and long-term in relation to the implementation of marine MAES? (v) What is the available information and data through the implementation of MSFD, and other relevant directives, and data sources such as fisheries data in the Data Collection Framework? What other information will be needed and are available? To answer the first question, a methodology has been suggested, following the approach developed and used in some previous projects (i.e. MAES, MESEU, MARS). These steps have been derived from the work in this project in chapter 5 of the background document to this roadmap (Boon et al. 2015). Next, the approach was tested by carrying out a pilot and simulating the steps using the North-East Atlantic fisheries case. Part of the approach has been tested in the Gulf of Finland and North-East Atlantic mapping case studies (steps 1, 3, 6 and 7) that are reported in the Background document (Annex H). For the second question, marine (sub)region and smaller (local) scales have been considered. Depending on the objective of the implementation of MAES, different scales will need to be considered. A local scale may be more relevant if the objective is to have a detailed/data-rich MAES implementation. Nevertheless, to a large extent, neither the environmental status of marine waters nor the conditions of ecosystem services are spatially constrained. That is, the assessment of an ecosystem service such as biomass provision (i.e. fish) can only be properly understood in a (sub)region context, where both stocks and activities/pressures are spatially distributed. Also, due to the comparability in biophysical and Roadmap towards the implementation and development of a regional MAES

3 of 63

1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

ecological descriptions of marine (sub)regions, indicators and assessment methods need to be developed at a (sub)region scale, instead of a national or EU scale. Furthermore, MSs should coordinate the activities in preparation of the marine strategies (MSFD Art. 5.2.) including the assessment of the state, pressures and impacts of marine waters, as indicated in the MSFD (Art. 8) at the regional (or sub-region) scale (Art.6). For this purpose, the different Regional Seas Conventions (RSCs) are coordinating the work of the different MSs, encouraged by the European Commission that promotes cooperation among MSs. Therefore it is considered that the implementation of marine MAES should also take the regional approach. With the implementation of marine MAES at a (sub)regional scale, it is important to balance ambition with realism. At the time of writing this report, we are immersed in the second phase of the implementation of MAES, which ends in 2020, when accounting for ecosystem services (at EU level and in (some) MSs) should be completed. In this sense, realism should prevail over ambition, and working with what is currently available is the practical solution. Nevertheless, ambition should not be constrained by the tight deadlines of the MAES implementation. Hence, a series of clear short-, mid- and long-term recommendations (as included in the objectives), are put forward in this roadmap, and the proposed framework would be adaptable to different data availability and accessibility scenarios.

4 of 63


1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

2 Developing a marine MAES methodology: making the framework work Understanding the reasons for the delay in the implementation of a marine MAES (in comparison to terrestrial MAES) is crucial for adapting and developing a new operational framework. For this purpose we carried out (i) a careful analysis of existing conceptual frameworks for mapping and assessing ecosystem and their services; (ii) a thorough investigation of the scientific and other literature under this project to the ecosystem services in the marine environment; and iii) an internal workshop with consortium partners for development and testing of the roadmap. Parts (i) and (ii) have been reported in detail in the background report (Boon et al. 2015). The internal workshop (iii) led to the set-up of the methodology as described later on, and the description of the fisheries example as an illustration for the short term recommendation of doing a pilot of the marine MAES methodology. The MAES framework (Maes et al., 2013, 2014) can be considered as the foundation for the different MAES-related frameworks that are currently arising. MESEU (Braat et al., 2014), the State of Europe’s Seas (EEA, 2015), and the MARS project (Grizzetti et al., 2015) and the United Kingdom National Ecosystem Assessment (UKNEA, 2015) have all developed new frameworks. All of them have been carefully analysed which provided the basis for the improved framework and methodology presented in Boon et al. (2015). Adapting the existing frameworks to the marine environment has required specific inputs. These inputs have come from a thorough marine and terrestrial ecosystem service-related literature review (> 50 peer-reviewed articles, see Annex H in the background report), stakeholder consultations (i.e. five interviews, see Annex L in the background report), EU projects consultations (i.e. six EU project coordinators, see Annex L in the background report), attendance at WG MAES and WG ESA meetings and the experience gained through selection and mapping of ecosystem services in two case studies (North-East Atlantic, Gulf of Finland, see Annex F in the background report). Integrating the frameworks and all knowledge generated in this project into a methodology for an operational marine MAES has been performed during a 2-day workshop with the authors of this document in November (2015) in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. However, further consultation with key stakeholders and experts is necessary to be sure the methodology suits end-users needs and to further operationalize the methodology proposed here. Since there was no opportunity to conduct such a workshop during the lifetime of the project, we have proposed it as a step in the methodology (step 4) to ensure involvement and wide acceptance of the outcomes of this project. 2.1

The improved MAES framework As described in our Background report (Boon et al., 2015), several commonalities exist between the MAES framework and its described alternatives (i.e. MESEU, MARS, UKNEA and EEA). In order to be able to map and assess ecosystem services in the marine


5 of 63

1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

environment, several building blocks were identified. Below, these building blocks are described: · Marine ecosystems descriptions. In this building block, the different ecosystem types, habitats and species in the marine environment are described and the hierarchical relationships between the different levels of the ecosystem are given. · Marine ecosystem services. The services that can be derived from marine ecosystems are identified. Ecosystem services can be discerned in (i) services capacity, closely related to the ecosystem components generating ecosystem services, and (ii) ecosystem services demand, closely related to human activities in the marine environment (e.g. fisheries) and human needs for specific ecosystem services (e.g. oxygen production). In the case of linking the ecosystem services to human activities (for a sectorial approach of a regional MAES), the human activities (patterns) involved in the ecosystem services demand can also be described in this step. · Linkages between ecosystems and their services. In order to be able to optimize the use of ecosystem services, the relationships between the ecosystems functions and structures and the services they generate should be understood and where possible quantified. Also linkages between human activities, and pressures and ecosystem services demand should be identified and where possible quantified. It is important that indicator development is based on knowledge from these linkages. See text below for additional information on the description of these linkages. · Assessment of ecosystem condition1 and ecosystem services. This assessment gives an indication of trends, and projected effects of management options in order to further optimize the sustainable use of ecosystem services. This could also provide an assessment of the quantified changes due to the impact of human activities on ecosystem services value when such assessments are used as input for a socio-economic valuation exercise. · Mapping of ecosystems and their services. In this step, a spatial component is added. The outcomes of this building block provide guidance to the different human activities for their spatial planning in the marine environment. An important underlying factor in all these building blocks is the availability and accessibility of environmental and socio-economic data. Such information should be accessible, transparent and of high quality, as well as spatially referenced in order to be able to include all the building blocks in the mapping and assessing of marine ecosystems and their services. Issues of concern with regard to the building blocks described above have been described in detail in our background report, and in short, the main blocks are:

1

Note that we adhere to the terminology used in MAES, which is ecological condition and not ecological or environmental status as used in the WFD and the MSFD. This of course has to do with the applicability of MAES to all ecosystems and not just the marine ones; in terrestrial ecosystems, there often is no environmental or ecological status assessment carried out following a legal assessment procedure; in the marine environment this is the case. Nevertheless, when using the term ecosystem condition, in reality this will be derived from the environmental (MSFD) or ecological (WFD) status. Also the Favourable Conservation Status (BHD) may be used in the marine ecosystems condition assessment.

6 of 63


1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

· The description of the MAES marine ecosystem and habitat/biotopes types is insufficient to be operational. · The classification of CICES for the marine ecosystems in incomplete; there is a further need for common terminology for ecosystem services and their classifications; (i.e. what is exactly meant by different ecosystem services groups and classes). · There are no clear descriptions of how marine ecosystem services derive from the structure and functioning/processes of marine ecosystems. Indicator development and quality depends highly on this knowledge. · There are a number of indicators and targets for marine ecosystem condition (that indicate state), but currently indicators for ecosystem services have not yet been settled on a regional level. · Assessment frameworks are present in legislation for the marine environment, but it is not yet settled how to use these for the assessment of marine ecosystem condition or marine ecosystem services. Tools have been developed, and are included here, on how to aggregate MSFD indicator based assessments (NEAT or other tools) and particularly how to integrate these assessments with ES assessments (see chapter 3 of this document). · Mapping tools for marine ecosystems are in development, and need to be further developed to cover all regional seas and all marine ecosystem types and habitats/biotopes. From our literature review, case studies and stakeholder consultations, also some other general issues became apparent: · More knowledge is needed on mapping resolution/quality and their influence in the integrative assessment. · Need for definitions and methods to perform integrative assessment. · There are quite some data availability (and under which legal framework are reported), accessibility, formats and quality issues. · A general feel for the need for better stakeholder participation. The above issues form the basis for considerations towards improving the framework and its methodology. Below, in Figure 2.1 we give the improved framework based on the different frameworks further detailed in the Background report, and their building blocks.


7 of 63

1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

Figure 2.1 Improved MAES framework, depicting building blocks and their linkages In the rectangles, linkages to data/modelling and ecosystem services supply and demand resulting from MSFD pressure information and MSPD activities information.

Figure 2.1 describes the building blocks of the improved marine MAES and their relationships. Marine ecosystems (structure and functions) are the basis for the marine ecosystems services. These are linked through knowledge on which services are generated by which functional/species groups through specific functions and processes. Assessments for marine ecosystem condition are (mostly) based on the environmental and ecological status assessments in the MSFD and WFD, from which the ecosystem services assessments are derived. Mapping takes place based on the assessments of ecosystems and their services. Data are relevant for the classifications and assessments of the marine ecosystems and their services. The maps of (assessed) ecosystems and their services can be used in comparison with data (and maps) on activities and pressures as taken stock of in the MSPD and the MSFD (and WFD) (see linkages between MAES, MSFD and MSPD in chapter 3 of the Background document). As depicted in Figure 2.1, and following the terminology in e.g. Martín-López et al. (2014), a distinction can be made between assessing the supply of ecosystem services on the one hand and the societal demand of ecosystem services on the other hand. This distinction is relevant, since the ultimate goal is to find a balance between the supply and the demand of ecosystem services. When this report refers to assessments of ecosystem conditions and linking these to ecosystem services, this always refers to the capacity of the ecosystem to supply these services. The distinction between supply and the demand of ecosystem services refers to different domains of ecosystem services framework. This can also be found in the description in the accompanying report for the CICES version 4 (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2013). On the one hand, there is the biophysical domain where the ecosystem functions can be translated into the capacity of the ecosystem to supply ecosystem services. On the other hand, there is the social and economic domain that describes the use, enjoyments and values 8 of 63


1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

by users, which denotes the demand of society for ecosystem services. In the MAES framework, this is depicted in their butterfly figure (see figure 2, page 17 in Maes et al., 2013) in different terminology, but with the same meaning. In our report, we sometimes refer to the societal demand of ecosystem services; it is equivalent to the MAES framework’s ‘benefits’ and the flow that exists from services and goods from the ecosystem (supply) to societal benefits and values in the ‘ecosystem services cascade’. Throughout this document, we mostly refer to this supply side type of ecosystem services. In the few cases when the demand of ecosystem services are being discussed this has been made explicit.


9 of 63

1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

2.2

The marine MAES methodology The general criteria for setting up the MAES methodology are suggested to be the following: · Participatory: stakeholder participation is considered to be very important and their input is required in several steps of the methodology, so their experiences, knowledge and viewpoints can be directly integrated in the marine MAES process. · Acceptability: stakeholders’ willingness to accept and comply with the MAES methodology. Stakeholders should perceive the methodology as effective, fair, transparent, and easy to apply. · Coherent: coherence within and between marine regional seas in their approach to carry out MAES mapping is required. The framework should allow for aligning it to the work carried out under other legal frameworks (e.g. MSFD, CFP, WFD, MSPD, HBD), international conventions (e.g. RSC, CBD) and the functioning of the marine system itself. · Integrative: the marine ecosystem condition and services conditions are equally considered. The methodology brings together different types of information and integrates those into a coherent assessment structure. · Operational: each of the steps of the methodology is clearly explained, and provides guidance towards who, what, and how the outputs link one step to the others. · Replicable: the methodology can be applied to different regional seas and by different teams and stakeholders. · Flexible and adaptive: although the methodology’s implementation can start by defining the ecosystem services to be assessed, the methodology can be adapted to the needs of the project team and the stakeholders. When knowledge improves, both the framework and the methodology may need to be adapted. · Transparent: the methodology has been designed so that different actors can implement the framework by following the roadmap below. In addition, inputs and outputs of the implementation of the methodology should preferably be open access for anybody to be able to consult, use and adapt, if necessary.

10 of 63


1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

Figure 2.2 The methodology proposed here considers the aforementioned criteria, so that it should become more operational, fit better to marine systems and respond to end-users’ needs. An overview of the methodology is presented in above figure.

The steps in the methodology are not strictly sequential running from 1 to 9, but can be carried out in a different order depending on the preferred starting point. For example, one could start with identifying the available data for a specific ecosystem and its services and then work back to the stakeholders and case study area depending on the data requirements and availability. In line with the objectives of the document, the following order to carry out the different steps of the framework is suggested: 1. Select the scale of the assessment: identification of a case study area 2. Identification of the main ecosystem service demand and ecosystem components affected 3. Select and prioritize the ecosystem services 4. Identify stakeholders and organize stakeholder involvement in the process 5. Data requirements, availability and sources 6. Selection of indicators and definitions of criteria and targets 7. Mapping of ecosystems 8. Assessment of ecosystem condition and services 9. Evaluation of ecosystem condition and services assessment results These steps are further explained in the following chapter.


11 of 63

1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

3

A generalized methodology for a marine MAES In this section we describe a stepwise approach and detail a generalized methodology for carrying out a marine MAES at the European regional sea level based on the work described in the background report. As stated in the previous chapters and detailed in the background report, the level of marine (sub)regional sea would be the preferred spatial scale to conduct a pilot to further test this framework. At the moment, mapping and assessing of marine ecosystems and their services has only taken place on a national level. The methodology that is described in this chapter has been set up on the basis of a test example of a case study area and a specific activity, to illustrate what is needed to carry out the different steps of the framework (see chapter 4). This was combined with mapping and assessment experiences from the case study areas of the Gulf of Finland and the North-East Atlantic. Our short-term recommendation is to carry out an assessment and mapping of marine ecosystems and their services in a pilot case based on the generalized methodology described in this chapter. The following groups of people play a role in the execution of the steps: · Pilot Core Team (PCT) – this is the main group of people responsible for carrying out the pilot and is strongly linked to policy implementation. It consists most likely of DG ENV, DG MARE, EEA and regional representatives. · Expert group – this group has more in-depth knowledge on specific ecosystem conditions, ecosystem services, pressures, data and/or the area of focus. They are likely representatives from expert groups in the regions, but also from knowledge institutes and consultants. · Stakeholder group – this group consists of the representatives of specific sectoral activities (e.g. fisheries, tourism) and/or environmental NGOs. This group represents the broader set of ‘users’ and beneficiaries of the ecosystem services. The overall execution of the different steps when applying the methodology is led by the Pilot Core Team (PCT). Such a team typically consists of the key stakeholders in the area under assessment (i.e. DG ENV, DG MARE, EEA, RSCs, etc. depending on the scale of the case study area) from the perspective of management and/or policy implementation. We currently involve the stakeholders at step 4. However, can be seen in Figure 2.2, stakeholders are at the heart of the methodology. Since the PCT should already include the main stakeholders, the key players are already identified prior to step 1 of the methodology. We developed this methodology by applying it to a test case, fisheries in the North-East Atlantic. This test case (as our short-term recommendation example) has been described in chapter 4 of this report.

3.1

Step 1: Select the scale of the assessment: identification of a case study area The first question to answer when starting the implementation of the proposed framework is ‘Where to start with mapping and assessing ecosystems and their services at the marine


13 of 63

1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

(sub)regional scale?’ and what is the objective of the exercise?’ The objective may be to have the best example to be able to perform the complete framework and gain full understanding of the process, so in that case, a data rich sub-region could be considered. Understanding the process of mapping and assessment was the objective when performing the two pilot case studies for mapping, one in the North-East Atlantic and the other in the Gulf of Finland, Baltic Sea (see Background report). In the North-East Atlantic, habitat mapping was completed and available for the whole region, and the Gulf of Finland is a data rich area. Alternatively, the objective may be to focus on specific economic activities (and their related ecosystem services), which may only be present at some of the marine regions. In such a case, mapping data availability may be different (e.g. more limited). Reflection and selection on what the objective of the exercise is should be carried out by the PCT. Note that at this point, the focus may shift from the supply of ecosystem services to the societal demand of ecosystem services, which will need to be taken into account in the assessment procedure. Indicators for societal demand of ecosystem services may or may not be proxies for the supply of ecosystem services. This distinction needs to be identified at this stage of the assessment. The selection of the case study area can be linked to the assessment scales of the different marine policies (e.g. MSFD marine (sub)regions that are defined in Art. 4, see Table below). Also the assessment scales depend on the service to be in focus / assessed (e.g. the assessment scale for provisioning ecosystem service ‘(sea)food’ is different from the scale for coastal protection, or recreation, etc.). Rather than moving directly into mapping ecosystems, as suggested in the MAES framework, the economic drivers and activities that act in or affect the regional sea of concern need to be identified. These drivers are directly related to the societal demand of ecosystem services, either as (non-human) driving forces or as (human) pressures affecting or depending on the marine ecosystem services. Linking pressures to societal demand of ecosystem services can be used to identify which of the pressures are manageable (using the regulatory framework of the relevant management scale) and which are not (i.e. exogenic and non-manageable pressures sensu Elliot 2011) and to evaluate the potential magnitude of the combined effects of those pressures on ecosystem services. Following on the selection of manageable pressures against the backdrop of non-human driving forces of the ecosystem, such insight can be used to prioritize pressures to be dealt with further along in the pilot (see the next step). These may be economic activities or pressures at the transboundary level. Therefore, a list of maritime and land-based activities that directly interact with the marine system should be compiled for the area. Identifying the socio-economic relevance of the activity and their potential trends may help in selecting the activity on which to focus (i.e. information from the MSFD initial assessment Art. 8 (1c) Analysis of uses of marine environment (economic and social)). If the choice is made to look at a specific activity, for example fisheries, key experts should be involved at this stage to aid the PCT in determining the optimal scale of the case study area.

14 of 63


1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

This step can be summarized as:

The linkages between MAES and the relevant directives in Step 1 are summarized as: Roadmap step

MSFD

MSPD

WFD WFD Art. 2. Annex II

MSFD marine waters and sub-regions in Step 1: Select the case study area

Art. 4, of the MSFD. Articles 8, 9 and 10, Member states’ GIS data for boundaries of marine waters

MSPD planning areas in marine waters cover coastal waters, territorial sea and EEZ.

(1) “Identification of boundaries for water bodies (coastal and transitional)”. reported as part of River basin management plans (RBMP)

3.2

BHD

Delineation of marine biogeographical regions. Art. 4 marine and coastal Natura 2000 areas essential for conservation of valuable habitats and species.

Step 2: Identification of the main ecosystem service demand and ecosystem components affected Having selected the case study area, the next step in the methodology is to identify the ecosystem service demand that will be focused on. Identifying this demand is related to the economic drivers and activities that act in or affect the regional sea of concern in the former step. The reason to identify the ecosystems service demand is to start at the service level, since not all ecosystem service demands are directly connected to a human activity, such as storm protection, or oxygen production. The reasoning here should be to start at the manageable, relevant and prioritized pressures, affecting the targeted (=desired) and nontargeted supply of ecosystem services. When describing drivers, activities or pressures and the effects they produce in marine ecosystems, the DPSIR approach (EEA, 1999) is a useful tool to analyse them. In the typical DPSIR analysis, the driver (D) can produce pressures (P) and impacts (I). This framework is completed with identification of activities (A) that are related to ecosystem services producing human welfare (W) (i.e. D(A)PSI(W)R(M), Barnard and Elliott, 2015). Therefore, a list of maritime and land-based activities that directly interact with the marine systems should be obtained for the area. This can be obtained for instance from the national MSFD article 8 (1C analysis of uses of marine environment (economic and social)) reports or from the regional sea conventions records. Likewise, identifying the socio-economic relevance of the activity and their potential trends may help in selecting the activities. Note that there are two options on how to approach this step. Either the assessment is done from the perspective of a human activity or a pressure. This can for example be fisheries or


15 of 63

1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

eutrophication. These are the societal demands of ecosystem services that need to be related to the ecosystem components affected. Or the step is approached from the perspective of the ecosystem components affected. For example, the benthic ecosystem impacted by trawling, eutrophication, extraction and mining activities. The latter is a broader and more holistic analysis directed at the supply-side ecosystem services that then need to be related to the pressures affecting them). The objective of this step is to identify the main activities and/or pressures that can compromise the delivery of the suite of ecosystem services that are impacted by these activities and pressures. This identifies, in other words the non-targeted ecosystem services), together with the identification of the main ecosystem components which deliver these ecosystem services. To do this work, an expert group should be established. Ideally, this expert group should consist of regional managers, especially RSCs national experts and “DPSIR”-specialized scientists, selected by the PCT. Key experts in the case study area and/or service demand should be consulted at this stage (i.e. as in step 1). The main tasks of the PCT and the expert group should be to: (i)

Identify the main ecosystem service demands based on activities, pressures or changes in management actions (A) in the study area (e.g. wind farms, protected areas, etc.). (ii) Identify the pressures (P, in the approach) produced by the activities (iii) Identify the impacts (I) generated by the pressures (iv) Identify the main ecosystem components (i.e. habitats, species, functional groups, structures, processes and functions) affected by the activities and also those of which the activities are dependent on. In the steps above, the data, indicators and assessment products from the MSFD should be used (see Annex J and E, and Chapter 3, in the background document). The selection of points i-iv above can be an iterative process, where the suggestions prepared by the PCT can be presented and discussed in a series of expert group meetings. A number of alterations and additions can be made through an iterative process. The output from this step must be a list of activities, pressures, impacts, ecosystem services and ecosystem components, as derived from the Member States’ reporting under the requirements of the different directives (i.e. MSFD, MSPD, WFD and BHD). See Table below and Chapter 3 in the background report, for a description of the linkages between the MAES process and those of the MSFD, MSPD, and other directives, and the Table below.

16 of 63


1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

This step can be summarized as:


MSFD

MSPD

WFD

BHD

River Basin MS reporting for Art. Step 2: Identification

8, 1a, b, Analysis of

of the ES demand

human activities and

and the ecosystem

the major users of

components

marine goods and

affected

services (Art 8.1c, Table 2 of Annex III)

MS reporting for Art.

management plans

8: Setting up of

(RBMP; Art.11, Annex

maritime spatial

VII) human activities

plans: “identifying the

causing pressures to

spatial and temporal

coastal and

distribution of relevant

transitional waters

existing and future

and Art. 5 Annex II

activities and uses”).

(1.5) Assessment of

Art. 12 and 17: main threats and pressures affecting species and habitats in the marine region;

impacts of pressures.

3.3

Step 3: Select and prioritize the ecosystem services to be included in the analysis The output from step 2 will be used to make a selection and prioritization of ecosystem services to be included in the next steps. In this step, the complete suite of ecosystems services affected by the activity/pressure from step 2 should be identified, including those directly related with the activities but also the cross-links and trade-offs with other intermediate ecosystem services (see Annex E of the Background report for a guidance on cross-links). Here, both the supply of ecosystem services and the demand of ecosystem services need to be addressed. In our case study of the North-East Atlantic ecosystem services mapping, the classification (and the quantification) of the ecosystem services was based on Salomidi et al. (2012), which, in turn, classified them based on an adaptation of the categories proposed by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2003) and Beaumont et al. (2007). Although it is possible to include all ecosystem services for mapping, as done in the case studies presented in the background document, selection and prioritization is important as it enables the gathering of information on the most relevant services for the study area, from the socio-economic point of view of the stakeholders, and allows for informed decisions, especially when resources are limited. Depending on the complexity of the analysis, step 2 and step 3 can be combined into one step. To undertake this step, the following selection criteria should be used:


17 of 63

1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

(i)

The socio-economic relevance (e.g. people employment/ enjoyment dependency) of the ecosystem services demand. At this stage the potential Blue growth trends should be taken into account (e.g. increased production of marine renewable energy). (ii) Dependency of the ecosystem services supply on the living part of the marine ecosystem (e.g. how marine biodiversity as structure is supporting the service provision, as well as processes and functioning of the ecosystem). (iii) The importance and intensity of existing pressures on marine ecosystem components and the flow of ecosystem services supplied by these ecosystem components as well as the sustainability of these ecosystem components. (iv) Data availability to develop the assessment of the ecosystem services. The description of linkages between services and ecosystem structures (e.g. functional groups of species linked to habitats), processes and functions (state-service relationships) will also be needed during the first identification of data requirements on the indicators that are being assessed in the environmental legislation (see our Background report for an overview of the current data availability). The selection of prioritized ecosystem services is likely to be an iterative process, where the suggestions prepared by the PCT can be presented and discussed in a series of stakeholder meetings. These stakeholders may overlap with the expert group, but if the prioritization of the ecosystem services leads to a potential effect on other stakeholder groups, the latter should also be involved. Per service and/or activity a stakeholder group can be created that can aid in the prioritization. Selected ecosystem services will be put in a marine region specific MAES matrix (See example Maes et al. 2013, 2014). The output of this step should be a list of prioritized ecosystem services. This can also be useful for a first identification of general data needs. An example is the selection and prioritization of relevant ecosystem services to be in focus of the assessment, which was applied in the Swedish2 MSFD Art. 8 initial assessment (Söderqvist et al. 2012). Also in the HELCOM HOLASII process, selection and prioritization of ecosystem services is suggested to be a starting point. See also the Baltic Sea example in the Background report (Annex to Chapter 3, on MAES- MSFD linkages) This step can be summarized as:

2

An

ecosystem

service

approach

for

analyzing

marine

human

activities

in

Sweden

(report

2012:8)

https://www.havochvatten.se/en/swam/our-organization/publications/swam-publications/2013-12-03-an-ecosystemservice-approach-for-analyzing-marine-human-activities-in-sweden-report-20128.html; See also example in the Background document (Annex to Chapter 3, on linking MSFD GES with ecosystem services

18 of 63


1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

See also the example in the background document (Annex G to Chapter 3), on linking MSFD GES with ecosystem services

The linkages between MAES and the relevant directives in Step 3 are summarized as: Roadmap step Step 3: Select and prioritize the ecosystem services to be included in the analysis

3.4

MSFD

MSPD

WFD

BHD

Identification of the most important ecosystem services based on the information from the previous step (Art. 8 (a,b,c), Annex III)

MS’s maritime spatial plans (Art. 8; overview of marine ecosystems, and major human activities and sectors using marine environment, and pressures

Identification of ecosystem services in the coastal and transitional waters, and linking those with the pressures the major human activities and sectors (RBMP, Art. 11)

Identify HD habitats and, if relevant, species listed in the HD Annexes that are important in the production of specific Ecosystem Services.

Step 4: Identify stakeholders and organize stakeholder involvement in the process As commented in the Introduction, the marine MAES methodology should follow a participatory approach. It is likely that by this stage in the methodology, stakeholders are already involved either as experts or in aiding in the prioritization of the ecosystem services (either from the demand or the supply side). If the previous steps have mainly been carried out by the PCT and expert group, stakeholders should be identified and included in the process here to verify steps 1-3. The objective of this step is to identify the main stakeholders that can provide useful inputs to the mapping and assessment process, related to the activity or the pressure in focus. In addition, the ecosystem services to be assessed will be identified by the stakeholders and these will be involved in the various phases of the process. The stakeholders can be grouped in: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)

Policy makers and managers at EU and international level (these are likely already included as members of the PCT) Industry: depending on the economic activity or activities selected, sector representation may vary. Research community: national and international research institutes and networks. Nature conservation: main national, regional and/ or international NGOs: main conservation organizations. National policy: National experts on marine monitoring and assessment, including marine experts and socio-economists as well as policy makers on a national level. Regional policy: when performing the analysis at regional sea scale, the correspondent regional sea convention.

After the identification of main stakeholders, they can be involved in the various steps of the process, acting as a reference group and participating in informed discussions of stakeholder workshops. Participatory methods should be used. Some of the activities/decisions of the stakeholders will be: (i)

Checking and validating the ecosystem services selected for mapping and assessment (i.e. prioritization made in Step 3).


19 of 63

1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

(ii) Identify the relevant scales of the ecosystem services in focus (both spatial and temporal scales on which they are provided) for mapping and assessment (iii) Identify the trade-offs and benefits provided by the selected ecosystem services (iv) Identify and inform on data needs and sources The output should be a broadly accepted list of prioritized ecosystems, services, scales, trade-offs and benefits, and clear understanding of data needs (and sources). This step can be summarized as:

The linkages between MAES and the relevant directives in Step 4 are summarized as: Roadmap step Step 4: Identify stakeholders and organize stakeholder involvement in the process

3.5

MSFD

MSPD

WFD

BHD

Art. 7, Annex II. Regional institutional cooperation structures (Art.6,).

MS’s plans for the Art. 9 Public participation, relevant stakeholders and authorities, and the public concerned.

Each RBMP include summary of stakeholders’ participation and public consultations (Art. 14 Public participation).

Public participation is not considered in HBD. From Step 2, identify specific sectors and stakeholders in relation to conservation

Step 5: Data requirements, availability and sources The main objective of this step is to identify the data requirements from the steps above, and to see what the availability, sources and quality of the required data is to carry out the marine MAES (also see our Background report, Annex J). Data can be held by research institutes or dedicated data centres, national data centres, Regional Sea Conventions, or data repositories that have been initiated by the European Commission, such as EMODnet. Data flows are often established from national to regional or European data holders by conventions or directives such as the MSFD and the WFD. The harmonization and standardization of data from different data sources is currently mostly done via regional data repositories (such as those at ICES), or in EMODnet (e.g. EMODnet Human Activities). Also the reader is referred to the data project under this framework contract (Tsangaris et al., 2015). It is anticipated that the full implementation of INSPIRE will contribute to harmonization of environmental data in the future, and data will be available from the INSPIRE portal. The first tests of marine data harmonization is taking place through the INSPIRE marine pilot. This step (i.e, data requirements identification, availability, sources and quality) should be carried out by the PCT, and stakeholders identified in step 4.

20 of 63


1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

Data required for undertaking the MAES can be grouped in the following large groups: (i)

Socio-economic data: EU (e.g. Eurostat) data linked to socio-economic activities and the reporting framework. Currently Regional Sea Conventions usually do not hold socioeconomic data. On a national level, detailed information is available, but this information may have limited access and lack of harmonization.

(ii) Environmental data: these can include a. Data to determine the environmental status in the area. b. Biological data linked to the identified activities (step 2) which are often held at different scales. c. Spatial Data on habitat and/or habitat complexes (biotopes) d. Data that can be linked to the quantification of (the capacity for) ecosystem services supply. (iii) Data of impacts (descriptors D1, D4, D3, D6 from MSFD). The output of this step should be a list of relevant data sources that can be ranked depending on agreed criteria of data quality. An important aspect of the data quality is interoperability, i.e. its usability in different platforms/databases. For interoperability of datasets, it is required that data comply to regulated or de-facto standards. Datasets that are maintained at a regional and European level have normally complied with a standard in order to be able to ingest data from different countries. The transformation of national to international standards may, however, result in loss of information, and sometimes loss of quality. So, ranking of datasets upon quality will include a trade-off between interoperability and data detail. As an example, in our case studies from the North-East Atlantic and for the Gulf of Finland, we obtained data from the following sources: - EMODnet-Hydrography portal provides hydrographic data collated for a number of sea regions in Europe. Bathymetric information was available as Digital Elevation Model at 500 m (c.a. 0.0042º) grid resolution. - EUSeaMap—Mapping European seabed habitats (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6266): which is a broad-scale modeled habitat map built in the framework of MESH (Mapping European Seabed Habitats) and BALANCE (Baltic Sea Management—Nature Conservation and Sustainable Development of the Ecosystem through Spatial Planning) INTERREG IIIB-funded projects. It covers over 2 million km 2 of European seabed. - MeshAtlantic project (www.meshatlantic.eu; Atlantic Area Transnational Cooperation Program 2007–2013 of the European Regional Development Fund). It covers over 356,000 km 2 of seabed habitats of the European North Atlantic Ocean produced 250 m (c.a. 0.0027º) grid resolution. - Ecosystem service assessment inputs from Salomidi et al. (2012), a peer-reviewed article.


21 of 63

1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

The above steps can be summarized as:


MSFD

MSPD

5. Data

Art. 11).

requirements,

Regional sea

availability and

conventions/ ICES:

sources

MS’s monitoring and assessment data. EMODNET

22 of 63

BHD

National data

MS’s reporting to the EC and EEA (Art. 8

WFD sources for MS’s

Art. 10: data use &

RBMPs including

sharing rules;

reporting on

Art. 8; b) marine

characterization (Art.

physical data about

5) and monitoring

marine waters.

programs (Art. 8) MS’s reporting to EC/

MS’s surveillance reporting on the conservation status of the natural habitats and species (Art. 11).

EEA in WISE


1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

3.6

Step 6: Selection of indicators and definitions of criteria and targets The objective of this step is to have a list of ecosystem conditions3 and ecosystem service indicators (or proxies) which can be linked to and used in the assessment of the ecosystem services. An important part of this step is related to the range value of each selected indicator, the reference condition or target of the indicators, and the threshold values between GE(n)S and non-GE(n)S. These indicators and targets should be related to those from relevant directives (such as the MSFD and WFD indicator targets for GE(n)S; see table below). The PCT should undertake this task, likely with stakeholders identified in step 4. Note that the steps of data requirements and indicator selection and target setting may need some iterative steps as well, since the indicator selection depends on the data available, but should not solely depend on it. If needed, new indicators may be developed, or existing indicators may need to be improved. Furthermore, proxies can be chosen, based on expert judgement and/or in combination with modelling efforts. The following indicator types can be selected: (i)

Ecosystem condition indicators: to be selected based on the ecosystem components and the descriptors that are most related to the activity or pressure and ecosystem service in focus, as identified in Steps 2 and 3. MSFD descriptors and indicators recommended by the European Commission (EC 2011), together with those selected by OSPAR 4 and HELCOM5 could be used. Furthermore, several European projects which have undertaken pilot case studies which can be useful for the identification of suitable indicators (with targets) for the selected ecosystem services in focus (e.g. a DEVOTOOL indicator database, developed by the FP7 project DEVOTES; www.devotes-project.eu). Reference conditions and targets for ecosystem service indicators are far from being defined, and therefore extensive research is needed in this field to be able to fulfil this requirement of the MAES approach. Valuable information on reference conditions, boundaries and ranges, can also be obtained from the Nested Environmental status Assessment Tool (NEAT), also developed in the framework of DEVOTES project. (ii) Ecosystem service indicators: Maes et al. (2016) have recently assigned specific indicators to marine ecosystem services, but also the suggested indicators by Liquete et al. (2013) can be used. Further information on indicators (and measuring units) is provided in Hattam et al. (2015). The focus should be on using indicators for ecosystem services capacity and not for ecosystem demand, since the goal of this step is to link the impact of the activity or pressure to the ecosystems services generated by the ecosystem components. Note that at this point indicators for the societal demand of ecosystem services (such as fish catches) may be used as proxies for supply-side indicators (if data are not available, such as Maximum Sustainable Yield), as long as there is a strong agreement among the stakeholders on the indicator for the societal

3

Please note that at this point there is no technical difference between environmental and ecological status on the one hand and ecological condition on the other hand. We prefer the latter terminology, since this is the terminology used in MAES. This also allows for inclusion of other status assessments such as those under OSPAR, HELCOM or IUCN.

4

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/Special%20requests/OSPAR_3-2013.pdf

5

http://www.helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP136.pdf


23 of 63

1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

demand of ecosystem services and the risks involved of using a proxy (overfishing in this case. Tasks in this step are: · Identification of each indicator based on the indicators available from the EU directives assessment products (such as MSFD and WFD) as well as from the Regional Sea Conventions (identification of common/joint environmental/ecological indicators). · Evaluation of the relevance of available ecosystem and ecosystem service indicators on the basis of those selected/ prioritized in Step 3 for their relation with the activity/pressure of concern. · Identify the spatial scale on which the indicator would be applicable. This should match the scale identified by stakeholders. · Identification of the range values (and targets if possible) of each selected indicator. The output of this step is a list of relevant indicators and targets (qualitative or quantitative) which should be used both environmental and ecosystem service assessments (in step 8). The above step can be summarized as:

The linkages between MAES and the relevant directives in step 6 are summarized as: Roadmap step

Step 6: Selection of indicators and definition of targets and criteria

24 of 63

MSFD MS reporting on: Art. 8.1 (a) “Analysis of the essential features and characteristics, and current environmental status of their marine waters (following the indicative list of characteristics (components of the marine ecosystems) in Annex III, Table 1). Link those with ecosystem services indicators (e.g. Maes et al. 2014, 2016)

MSPD

WFD

BHD

The MSPD requires use of other and existing or future legislation, including Commission Decision 2010/477/EU and the Commission’s Marine Knowledge 2020 initiative (recital 18). Thus the indicators from MSFD and WFD would be applicable also for MSPD purposes.

WFD ecological status classifications are reported in RBMP using indicators for biological and supporting quality elements (Annex V, transitional 1.1.3 & coastal waters 1.1.4). Link those with ecosystem services indicators (e.g. Maes et al. 2014, 2016)

No specific indicators. In Art. 1 (i) definition of favourable conservation status based on species population dynamics and distribution range of the species and habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis.


1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

3.7

Step 7: Mapping of ecosystems The objective of this step is to make the maps available or to create new maps prior to the assessment of the ecosystem condition and the ecosystem services. The PCT should select the different maps already available and update or build new ones when necessary. The most important maps to be collated (see our background document and the previous step) are: (i)

Marine ecosystems/habitat/biotopes distribution maps: these maps would provide the basis for further work on mapping environmental status and ecosystem service provision, and establishing the linkages between state and the service it provides. Note that Ubach et al. (2014) have developed EU-wide mapping of seabed habitat maps based on EUSeaMap and CLC for EU-wide mapping of sea bed habitats. These can be compared and further integrated with maps based on EMODnet for the MAES marine ecosystem types, based on crosswalks between the MSFD PHT (that aggregate into MAES marine ecosystem types level 2 and 3). With the crosswalks in place, and a mapping level for the marine environment that is covering all EMODnet habitats in the northeast Atlantic and the Baltic, mapping of MAES should be feasible (again see step 6). Where spatial information is not available, but some background data is, some tools can be used to cover those areas which are not available yet. Examples are habitat modelling and species distribution modelling, such as JNCC map for the UK shelf (EUNIS habitat map). Other sources of information for habitat maps may be available through EU funded projects, such us MESH Atlantic, Perseus, etc., and databases from relevant organization (e.g. ICES database for certain fish stocks).

(ii) Maps on socio-economic indicators of the human activities are displayed by the EU “the European Atlas of the Seas (http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/atlas/index_en.htm). In addition, the MARNET Interreg project Atlas provides very detailed socio-economic indicators (more than 200 indicators) for human activities across the Atlantic Area (http://marnet.locationcentre.co.uk/). For maritime activities in the Mediterranean region, spatially referenced maps have been developed in the context of other EU projects such as PERSEUS, MESMA, ODEMM, CoCoNET and BENTHIS. Eventually, this step can be reviewed during an expert and/or stakeholder workshop, as done in Step 4. The output of this step are a series of maps, so a spatial representation of the data (Figure 3.1).


25 of 63

1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

Figure 3.1 Mapping example of benthic habitats in the North Eastern Atlantic (Galparsoro et al., 2014).

The above step can be summarized as:


Step 7: Mapping of ecosystems and ecosystem services

6

MSFD 1) Mapping of ecosystems and habitats: MSFD predominant habitat 6 types (EC 2011), (Art. 8, Table 1 of Annex III) 2) Mapping of species distribution: (Art. 8, Table 1 of Annex III), and

MSPD MS’s maritime spatial plans (Art. 8) should include an overview of marine ecosystems, cultural heritage, and landscapes, as well as major human activities and sectors using marine environment. The

WFD Ecosystem services linked with particular uses of coastal and transitional waters (RBMP), and specific water body types or biological quality elements can be mapped using national data sources

HBD Ecosystem services (such as fish production) can be mapped by linking them to specific habitats mentioned in the HD Annex I, such as Coastal lagoons, Estuaries, Underwater sandbanks and

SEC(2011) 1255 final, COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER, Relationship between the initial assessment of marine waters and the criteria for good environmental status

26 of 63


1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

ecosystem services (supply side) linked to those species. 3) Mapping the use of ecosystem services (demand): users of marine goods and services (Art 8, 1a, b);

3.8

MSFD Art. 8 reporting can feed into this, with spatial data linked to information from MSFD Art. 8 reporting.

Reefs, etc..

Step 8: Assessment of ecosystem condition and services supply The purpose of this step is to carry out the assessment of the ecosystem condition and ecosystem services supply that are selected to be in focus. This is based on the outputs from the previous steps as well as existing ecosystem condition assessments, where available. The assessment can be undertaken by the expert group, aided by the stakeholder groups. The level of assessment (e.g. on indicator level or aggregated using several indicators) depends on the ecosystem service in focus, and which ecological components have been identified to be relevant (i.e. outputs from Steps 2, 3, and 6). Assessments should be carried out in a separated manner for the ecosystem condition and the ecosystem services, for further integration in next steps. Regarding the MSFD assessments, the current environmental status assessments undertaken by MS’s is far from complete. However, there are several European projects which have undertaken pilot case studies which can be useful for the identification of tools to perform such assessments. As an example, the FP7 project DEVOTES (www.devotesproject.eu) has selected 10 case studies across all regional seas. For the NE Atlantic there are four (Portuguese Coast, Bay of Biscay, North Sea, and Barents Sea). This project has developed a Nested Environmental status Assessment Tool (NEAT) that can be used in this assessment. The following tasks need to be carried out: (i)

Identification of existing ecosystem condition assessments: a. If assessments already exist they can be used. For example there are ecological status assessments done by MS’s on a national level and collated by the EEA within the State of the Environment report, for the WFD (as an example, EEA (2012, 2015); also the environmental status assessment reports from MS’s under the MSFD (Art 8); and the conservation status assessments of habitat types and species, under the BHD. b. If assessments do not exist, then different approaches can be undertaken. For example to assess the environmental status/condition following the methods proposed by different MS’s, RSCs (including roof reports), or use tools developed by European projects, such as DEVOTES, using NEAT. c. Environmental status assessment integration: if the status assessment is going to be done at different geographical scales and using different descriptors, the aggregation at higher levels can be done using existing assessment tools (available from Regional Sea Conventions, or NEAT. (ii) Supply-side ecosystem services assessment:


27 of 63

1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

a.

Decide on the time scales for assessment periods. It is advisable to undertake the assessments over multiple years, which is necessary to detect the change of condition, both in the status and the services supply. b. Identify existing assessment approaches and methodologies (see background document section 4.2 and 4.4.3 for examples) c. Different from the assessment of the ecosystem condition, there are no assessments carried out for ecosystem services at the regional scale (the HELCOM HOLASII is planning the first regional assessment of ecosystem services), although several local ecosystem service assessments exist (e.g. Natural capital project; Rova et al. 2015, etc.). In all these local cases, assessments may not necessarily involve a judgement against a specific standard (such as GES), but a quantification or comparison with trends in supply and/or demand and/or pressure. The most pragmatic approach to deal with scaling issues is the use of expert knowledge through the matrix approach, by which the level of provision of ecosystem services is assigned to different ecosystems spatial units (see the work carried out at the two different case studies in the Background document. Annex F). This seems to be the most pragmatic approach, and possibly the only viable way to assess ecosystem services in the current time frame of MAES implementation However, ideally actual valuations, using available methodologies (e.g. change in productivity, replacement cost, travel cost, contingent valuation, conjoint analysis, benefit transfer, etc.) would be recommended, in order to assess the change of benefits derived from the use of ecosystem services. The EU funded project OPENNESS is currently developing (and will be freely available as from 2016) a guidance document for the use of different methodologies in the assessment of ecosystem services. d. There is no integrated assessment of several services developed. It can be questioned whether an integration of ecosystem services is useful for informing stakeholders. It might be useful for an overall view of large-scale trends in classes of ecosystem services. If this is of interest, then, this would require research and development of a set of coherent integration rules (see Prins et al. 2014 for examples). The level of aggregation (e.g. on indicator level or aggregated using several indicators) depends on the ecosystem service in focus, and which ecological components have been identified to be relevant for each service. (iii) Assess the confidence (uncertainty) associated with the assessment (qualitative or quantitative approaches can be used). Different tools can be used (e.g. NEAT calculates the associated uncertainty in the environmental status assessment). Approaches for the “confidence” assessment on ecosystem services are yet to be developed. Overlay the maps of ecosystem services supply from the steps above to the existing EU level or regional level maps on ecosystem condition from step 7. At the moment, very few examples are available for marine waters. The North-East Atlantic and the Gulf of Finland case studies conducted under this service contract (see Annex F of the background document) provide useful background on distribution and level of ecosystem services supply. Preferably, such maps should include parameters/indicators that describe both the supply and the demand of ecosystem services. Linking human activities to affected ecosystem components commonly goes through these different types of ecosystem services. For example, fish catches (ecosystem service demand) and fish production (ecosystem service supply) need to be in balance for a sustainable fisheries. Understanding what is being caught

28 of 63


1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

where, considerably aids in being able to manage fisheries (as opposed to having only catch data or vessel distribution data). In our case study for the North-East Atlantic, several ecosystem services were integrated into a map showing distribution and level of ecosystem services supply provided by different types of benthic habitats (Fig. 3.2). The matrix approach using information from Salomidi et al. (2012) and the following guidelines were used: (i) when the provision of a specific service is well documented in the scientific literature and is widely accepted as important for the specific benthic habitat analysed, this habitat was considered to provide a “High” level of such ecosystem service (e.g., seagrass beds are important in provision of sediment retention and prevention of coastal erosion; however, this does not assess what is the condition or state of the ecosystem service); (ii) when a service was or could be provided by a habitat but to a substantially lower magnitude than by other habitats and without being vital for the persistence of an important human activity, a “Low” level was assigned; and (iii) in all other cases, ecosystem services provided by specific habitats were classified as “Negligible/Irrelevant/Unknown.”

Figure 3.2 Mapping example of an integrated assessment of the provision of different ecosystem services by benthic habitats in the North Eastern Atlantic (Galparsoro et al., 2014).


29 of 63

1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

Subsequently the ecosystem services categories were rated into the following numerical values for further analysis: “High = 3,” “Low = 1,” “Negligible/Irrelevant/Unknown = 0.” Integration of ecosystem services provision was simply carried out by averaging values within and between ecosystem service types. If there is an assessment of the status of those habitats available, this can be linked with the evaluation of the provision of ecosystem services and their potential status. For instance, if the status of the relevant benthic habitats has been assessed using MSFD GES descriptors and indicators (from art.8.) and their status is considered as ‘Good’ meaning those habitats are providing high level of ecosystem services, then the status of the ecosystem services can be considered as being good as well. Therefore, overlaying maps of the status of different habitats with the level of ecosystem services provided by those habitats, could provide an assessment of the status of ecosystem services provided by those habitats. However, currently there are no maps of the status of different marine habitats available. Once available the output of this step is an assessment of the current status of the ecosystem and of the services they provide. Changes over time should also be taken into account. The above step can be summarized as:


MSFD

MSPD

WFD

HBD

(Art. 8, Annex III) and

MS’s reporting for

MS’s reporting on the

setting of

RBMP, includes

implementation of the

environmental

assessment of

measures taken, as

MS’s reporting on assessment of environmental status

Step 8: Assessment of environmental status and services

targets (Art. 10,

MSPD does not

ecological and

well as evaluation of

Annex IV) presuming

require assessments

chemical status of

their impact on the

that when targets are

coastal and

conservation status

reached, ecosystem

transitional waters

of the habitats and

services provision is

(on water body level)

species (Art. 17).

in good status as well, but see next step 9.

30 of 63


1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

3.9

Step 9: Evaluation of ecosystem condition and services assessment results The objective of this step is to evaluate the assessments of the ecosystem condition and the ecosystem services and trying to interpret the results and the interactions between the ecosystem and the level of the ecosystem services in the study area (high or low services levels, trends). This work should be done by the PCT. As such, this step is the integrated view on the assessment of how the (marine) ecosystem functions, both internally (condition) and externally (services). In an ideal situation, three assessments would be made : - Ecosystem condition: describing, quantifying and ‘judging’ the state of the environment and especially the functioning of the habitats and species in it and their (functional) relationships. - Capacity of ecosystem services supply: describing and quantifying the capacity of the ecosystem to deliver ecosystem services based on the above. - Demand of the ecosystem services: describing and quantifying the pressures and (primary) state changes that occur in the environment related to the above ecosystem services supply. Note that for ecosystem condition, the step of ‘judging’ has been included, while this is excluded for the ecosystem services. Ecosystem conditions will be primarily based on data and indicators of the MSFD and WFD. The normative context (indicators and targets) of this legislation provides the basis for judging the condition as good or bad. Also other policies (e.g. IUCN Red List, Regional Sea Assessment frameworks) underpin the valuation of the condition. Such an institutionalized normative context lacks for ecosystem services. The implicit assumption in the MSFD is that healthy and productive marine ecosystems provide a sustainable flow of ecosystem services. When assessing (and judging) ecosystem services based on legislative targets and indicators as those in the MSFD, the following issues (not exhaustive) have to be taken into account: -

Ecosystem services and ecosystem conditions (as per MSFD or WFD assessment) may not consist of the same parameters; services indicators may be aggregations of several MSFD or WFD indicators, or be functionally related to them. Services may also be provided over spatial scales with different assessment outcomes of a specific indicator. An example is the regulatory service ‘carbon sequestration’ (indicator e.g. g C.m -2.y-1) or various cultural services. There are no MSFD or WFD indicators to directly support such service. - If an ecosystem is in GES for all indicators, it indeed is likely to supply its ecosystem services sustainably, i.e. structure and functioning of the ecosystem and thereby its capacity to deliver ecosystem services can be continued in the longer term. However, while many MSFD and WFD indicators are ‘structural’ (i.e. about biomass, densities, length or species numbers), many services indicators are about a flow (supply of biomass a biomass, sequestration of amount of carbon, etc.). Hence, the question is if we are able to assess the flow of services from this MSFD or WFD (GES (or any other assessment framework)) and if this is a constant relationship. - Next, this sustainable level of ecosystem services (when GES is attained) is in many cases not the desired level of ecosystem services for specific economic sectors. The


31 of 63

1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

choices we make as a society in managing human activities to attain GES will not just affect the targeted ecosystem services, but also other (non-targeted) ecosystem services. In each of the above considerations, trade-offs are possible at various levels of ecosystem services assessments. This is one important argument to consider as much as possible an integrated assessment of ecosystem services, instead of focusing on a specific sector or specific ecosystem service. Hence, this step should constitute two different types of evaluation: one focusing on the comparison of changes in ecosystem condition (~status), ecosystem services supply and ecosystem services demand, and another on the trade-offs between the different services and the functionalities in the ecosystem that underpin them. As such, the second can form the explanation of the first. This step requires methodologies on how to relate the ecosystem condition (good or not good) to the level of the ecosystem services in the study area (high or low provision). The evaluation of environmental status and ecosystem services incorporates the whole (D(A)PSI(W)R(M)) assessment framework that includes the assessment of ecosystem services as a fundamental part of the analysis (Figure 3.3, see background document section 3.1).

Figure 3.3 Simplified DAPSI(W)R(M) framework (after Barnard & Elliott, 2015), modified to incorporate ecosystem services as linkage from state to impact of human welfare.

The need for evaluation of the ecosystem services as a part of the overall MSFD assessment framework is indicated in several sections of the MSFD legislative text (COWI, 2010). The MSFD Art. 8 (1c) economic and social analyses includes an option to assess the value of the economic benefits based on the evaluation of the goods and services that the marine waters provide. This would allow evaluation of the welfare (W) gains that the marine environment generates to society. Likewise, the value of the economic benefits of sectors (direct users) benefiting financially from the use of the marine waters is derived from the Art. 8 (1c) analyses. The evaluation of the cost of degradation requires assessment of the welfare

32 of 63


1210689-000-ZKS-0018, 26 May 2016, final

losses due to degradation. The cost-benefit evaluation of measures is also part of the Art. 13 (par. 3) analysis, for the estimation of the expected change of welfare due to implementation of (a set of) measures (COWI 2010). Thus the MSFD Art.13 Program of measures provides the response (R)-step and is closing the DAPSI(W)R(M) framework (Fig. 2.10). Thus the full integrated assessment will require combining ecological assessment with ecosystem services and economic and social assessment of the marine environment. This is a very challenging task and existing examples on the marine (sub)regional level are not available. HELCOM has suggested an approach to link holistic environmental status assessment with socio-economic assessment based on ecosystem services approach. However, this remains to be developed further and tested in a regional sea context during the next two years. This is described in section 4.7.6 in the background report. Although limited work on this has been done at this stage (to the best of our knowledge), for an overall understanding some simple approaches can be undertaken to relate (integrate) both ecosystem condition and ecosystem services (see Table 3.1). On the one hand, the implementation of the MSFD Article 8 assessment, will lead to a water body being assessed to have good or bad environmental status. On the other hand, and since so far there are no defined targets for the level of provision of ecosystem services, examining the trends (evolution) of the level of provision could lead to classifying the trends (evolution) of the level of ecosystem services as: improving, maintained and declining. Although the table presented below should be validated in an expert and stakeholder workshop (in relation with Step 4), this approach could be used as a starting point for discussion. Ecosystem services

Ecosystem condition GES

Improving

GES

Maintained

GES

Declining

Roadmap towards the implementation and

Roadmap towards the implementation and

Suggest Documents

ROADMAP FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ...

BRIDGE WP05 Application Guidelines and Implementation Roadmap

LERU Roadmap towards Open Access

a roadmap towards versatile mir

Roadmap towards the Openness of Educational ...

The LERU Roadmap Towards Open Access

the fire roadmap towards 2020 - ePrints Soton

A Tool Design of Cobit Roadmap Implementation - The Science and ...

Towards the Design and Implementation a Smart

TOWARDS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ...

Mid-and-Long-Term Roadmap towards the Decommissioning of ...

Mid-and-Long-Term Roadmap towards the Decommissioning of ...

Shared Decision-Making Implementation Roadmap - Minnesota ...

Common Implementation Roadmap for Renewable ... - RHC-Platform

implementation roadmap for downscaling drought ...

An Evidence Roadmap for Implementation of

Implementation of Roadmap Strategy - European Commission

Bulgaria-nZEB Implementation Roadmap in EN

Common Implementation Roadmap for Renewable ... - RHC-Platform

Roadmap for childhood tuberculosis: towards zero deaths

Towards Commerce 3.0 roadmap - eBay Main Street

Defining a Roadmap towards Comparative ... - Semantic Scholar

Roadmap towards a Banking Union - European Parliament

Roadmap towards a Banking Union - European Parliament