Marine and Coastal Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services Assessment

Marine and Coastal Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services Assessment

Proposal from the Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Enery – 23/04/2013 :

1. Policy issues strategically linked to the assessment that should be taken into account

1.1.Directive 2008/56/ECof the European Parliament and of the Council of 17June2008 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive).

How can we take ecosystemic services into account for the restoration of marine and coastal ecosystems?

How can we best use an ecosystemic services assessment to raise awareness for the marine environmental policy’s objectives and in solving conflict linked to its implementation?

How could we take into account ecosystemic services into the assessment of ecological status of waters and impact of human activities?

How could an assessement of ecosystemic services be integrated into the impact assessments and cost/benefit analyses.measures decided by the Member States?

How could ecosystemic services assessment help in setting a priorization framework for the measures decided by the MS?

1.2.International Issues(UN)

At the World Summit on Sustainable Development, held in Johannesburg, South Africa, from 26 August to 4 September 2002, States agreed, in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI), to “establish by 2004 a regular process under the United Nations for global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine environment, including socio-economic aspects, both current and foreseeable, building on existing regional assessments” (the “Regular Process”).

The aims of this process are the following:

• Include assessment of the influence of land-based activities on the marine environment;
• Identify the linkages between human well-being and marine environmental changes, including those resulting from human impacts, such as the e ects of climate change foreseen by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;
• Organize, analyze, and communicate this information;
• Create a framework to assist regional and specialized assessment processes to improve data collection and analysis;
• Strengthen networking and capacity-building within and between regions; and
• Promote capacity-building and transfer of technology, including marine technology for developing and other States, in accordance with accepted international rules;

A successful outcome to the first cycle of Regular Process could help:

• Policy-makers and other stakeholders makeinformed choices;
• States and competent regional and internationalorganizations to respond appropriately; and IONS
• Competent regional intergovernmental organizations to recognize linkages between the challenges that they face, so that issues of common concern can be tackled in a coordinated way.

The integration of ecosystem aand ecosystemic assessments into this policy framework should be explored.

2.Proposal for a methodology for the case study

The mapping and evaluation of ecosystems and their services should aim to respond to political and strategical questionings identified by the ministries of environment of the Member States and the EU Working groups MAES and Restoration priorization framework. Therefore, the case study should taake in consideration sthe strategic issues mentionned above.

In order to coordinate the working groups between national and european levels for the case study, we suggest to agree on a common step by step methodology based on the following questions, which correspond to the four main questionnings proposed in the «Common framework for ecosystem assessment for the MAES pilots: Proposals of work structure for the ecosystem cases» paper.

Step 1: Map the marine ecosystems

1.1.How to define marine ecosystems which are concerned by this assessment?
Proposals for criteria of definition:
1.1.1.What are the geographical boundaries?
1.1.2.How to identify transitional ecosystem types?
1.1.3.What including and excluding criteria of marine ecosystems could be defined?
1.1.4.Which subtypes can be identified and which ones the studies will focus on?
1.1.5.What are the functional relationships of marine ecosystems to other ecosystem types?
1.2.What are the available data to map the marine ecosystems?
1.2.1.What are the available data to define the concerned ecosystem and to map it at a national scale?
1.2.2.To which scale are these data available? Is their quality sufficient to succeed in the exercise? Do available data at the national scale exist?
1.2.3.What are the gaps and the other constrains (knowledge gaps e.g.) in relation to the mapping of marine ecosystems?
1.3.What is the appropriate scale of mapping and assessment of the marine ecosystems and of the related services accross the coherent scales?
1.4.What are the different methodes to map marine ecosystems taking into account the existing data and quality constraints and the other relevant parameters?

Step 2: Assess the condition of marine ecosystems and of their biodiversity

2.1.On which criteria should the assessment of the ecological state of biodiversity and marine ecosystems be based?
2.1.1.Proposals for criteria of evaluation:
Base the study on the proposals made by the consulting firm Arcadis within the 4 level framework of the EU WG Restoration priorization framework (RPF)
2.1.2.How to identify drivers of change and pressures undergone by marine ecosystems and their services?
2.2.To which extent can the policy relevant questions identifyed in the analytical framework be answered?
2.3.What are the available data to lead the mapping and evaluation?
2.3.1.What are the available data to evaluate the state of marine ecosystems?
2.3.2.Are these data of a sufficient quality?
2.3.3.What are the gaps and the other constrains (knowledge gaps e.g.) in relation to the evaluation of marine ecosystems?
2.3.4.Which methodology can be implemented to analyse ecological processes (or functions) sustaining direct or indirect production of ecosystem services?
2.3.5.What are the links between the state of biodiversity and the one of ecological functions?
2.3.6.Which indicators on biodiversity and ecological functions are relevant in order to appreciate the state of ecosystems and their services?
2.3.7.According to for the time being available data, can some levels of resilience of ecosystems regarding the state of biodiversity and ecological functions be defined?

Step 3: Quantify the ecosystem services provided by marine ecosystems

3.1.How to define and prioritize the ecosystem services related to marine ecosystems which will be quantified?
Proposals for criteria orf definition:
Should the definition “ecosystem services” according to the Cices v4.3 table be clarified or modified (look at the link with ecological functions for example)?
3.2.What are the diffrent methods for quantifying marine ecosystem services taking into account the existing data and quality constraits and the other relevant parameters?
3.3.What are the available data?
3.3.1.What are the available data to evaluate the state of marine ecosystem services?
3.3.2.Are these data of a sufficient quality?
3.3.3.What are the gaps and the other constrains (knowledge gaps e.g.) in relation to the evaluation of marine ecosystem services?
3.4.What are the links between ecosystem services (synergies, dependence relationships...)?
3.5.Can «diservices» be identifyed and be integrated into the Cices v4.3 classification of ecosystem services?

Step 4: Integrated ecosystem assessment

4.1What is the link between ecosystem services and the marine ecosystems which they depend on?
4.1.1Test the rubicode matrix method in order to associate ecosystems to ecosystem services. Can it be transposed to the national scale and is it perfectible?
4.1.2What link can be identifyed between the state of marine ecosystems and the services they produce?
4.1.3What are the different methods of mapping and quantification of ecosystem services?
4.2. How does this evaluation help in the implementaation of the strategic policy objectives linked to biodiversity and ecosystem conservation?
4.3. What are the main tendencies of evolution of ecosystem and services in relationship with different scenarios in public policy?

This questionnaire is of course open to corrections and discussions with JRC, the Commission, other MS and the Commission.

Once finalized, it could be sent to all other concerned MS partaking in the case study.

Four successive seminars could be organized at both national and european levels to work on each of the above mentionned “steps” before September.

The organization of these specific working sessions should be discussed rapidly between the pilots, the Commission and the contractors.

More specififcally, at the national level, we propose to focus the mapping and assessment exercise on coral reefs, which are ecosystems of high interest, in particular because they contain main biodiversity hotspots. Moreover, important studies are available on these ecosystem at our national scale:

We would also like to ask other Member State taking part to the marine ecosystem pilote study which other marine ecosystems they would be interested in. The following proposals should be considered:

-Marine inlets and transitional waters: Estuaries and other transitional water

-Open ocean: Abyssal rock and biogenic reef or abyssal sediments (Open ocean)