Celtic Seas Partnership is an EC LIFE+ project with the contribution of the LIFE financial instrument of the European Community. It is a four year project, running from January 2013 to March 2017 WWF-UK is the lead with partners the University of Liverpool, Eastern and Midland Regional Authority, the Natural Environment Research Council and SeaWeb. Project number: LIFE11/ENV/UK/392.

Nature’s Services and the SeaA Resource Pack for Marine and

Coastal Stakeholders

0202

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Ecosystem Services and the Sea

3. Using the Resource Pack

4. Getting StartedDublin Bay Natural Livelihoods WorkshopArrábida Natural Park, PortugalThe Value of the Mersey Estuary

5. Understanding PlaceWirral online survey of the cultural value of the coast Conwy Seascapes PilotSocial Value Mapping British Columbia

6. Planning for Change Participatory Modelling of Well-being trade-offs in coastal KenyaODEMM Cost Benefit Analysis Tool

7. Further Steps

8. Marine Ecosystem Services Cards

9. Further InformationKey Ecosystem Services Assessments of interest to the Celtic SeasRecommendations on Ecosystem Services Assessment use in Marine Strategy Framework Directive Decision MakingReferences

page

05

06

11

13

22

33

40

41

47

0303

I must go down to the seas again, to the lonely sea and the sky,

And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by;

And the wheel’s kick and the wind’s song and the white sail’s shaking,

And a grey mist on the sea’s face, and a grey dawn breaking.- John Masefield, Sea Feaver

0404

Foreword This resource pack has been produced by the University of Liverpool as part of the Celtic Seas Partnership project funded under the EU Life+ programme. The project, led by WWF-UK with the University of Liverpool, National Environmental Research Council (NERC), Ireland’s Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly and Seaweb as project partners, aimed to support trans-boundary implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in the Celtic Seas through a stakeholder-led approach.The objectives of the Celtic Seas Partnership project related to MSFD delivery were to support:

1. The development of stakeholder engagement mechanisms for the Celtic Seas; and

2. Demonstration of ecosystem-based management approaches. For more information on the project, see www.celticseaspartnership.eu.Ecosystem Services Assessment (ESA) is increasingly being advocated as a useful tool in highlighting the economic benefits of Good Environmental Status in marine areas as part of developing ecosystem based approaches to marine planning and management. In formulating the Celtic Seas Partnership project it was evident that there is interest in exploring the potential application of ESA thinking further in the Celtic Seas. Some valuable overview work has been undertaken in the area for example the UK’s National Ecosystem Assessment, work related to the ‘Harnessing our Ocean Wealth’ integrated marine plan in Ireland, and the evaluation of ecosystem services in France (see p47). As a contribution to these efforts, the Celtic Seas Partnership project aimed:

To develop Ecosystem Services Assessment resources to support delivery of MSFD in the Celtic Seas.

Consultation undertaken in the early stages of the Celtic Seas Partnership project indicated that there was particular interest in developing ‘qualitative’ rather than ‘quantitative’ ESA resources that could be used to inform stakeholder discussions about applying the Ecosystem Approach to planning and management of the Celtic Seas. This resource pack has been developed with this in mind.

0505

1. Introduction What is the purpose of this resource pack? The purpose of this resource pack is to help people who live and work in the Celtic Seas catchment area develop an understanding of what Ecosystem Services are and the many natural services that the sea provides. It translates what can seem the complex and difficult concept of ecosystem services into entry level materials designed to enable people from non-expert backgrounds to undertake ESA related activities that can assist their participation in ecosystem based planning and management of marine and coastal areas.Who is the guide for? The pack is aimed at marine and coastal partnerships, local authorities, community and voluntary organisations and others involved in the management of coastal and marine areas. What does the pack contain?

• Summary information on the ecosystem services concept• Guidance on using the resource pack• Guidance on the use of ESA related activities in different planning and

management situations• Case studies • Marine Ecosystem Service ( MES) cards• Further information

0606

2. Ecosystem Services and the Sea What are Ecosystem Services?Ecosystem Services are defined as the benefits human beings can obtain from ecosystems (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005 p.v.) A number of studies conducted over recent years, including the United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment have pioneered ecosystem good and services assessment techniques as a key part of applying the Ecosystem Approach to environmental planning and management. Section 9 provides further information on leading studies related to ecosystem goods and services in the Celtis Seas.Traditionally Ecosystem Services are separated into 4 categories, Provisioning, Regulating, Supporting and Cultural Services. Provisioning Services are products obtained from ecosystems, such as water, plants and animals for food or materials. The supply of provisioning services may be dependent upon supporting or regulating services, and may also be the products of heavily managed ecosystems, such as aquacultural systems.Regulating Services are benefits that are obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes, such as climate regulation, water regulation, pest and disease control. Regulating services are strongly interrelated and closely related to other services such as provisioning services. For example, the regulation of climate conditions, along with the supporting services of soil formation and nutrient cycling, can provide the conditions for the production of food. Supporting Services are those services that are necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services, e.g. photosynthesis or nutrient cycling – all processes with complex physical, biological and chemical interactions. Supporting services often have indirect effects on people or occur over long periods of time.Cultural Services are generally considered to be those non-material benefits people obtain from interaction with their surroundings and can take many different forms, from aesthetic appreciation of the natural environment to artistic inspiration, using different spaces or settings for activities such as leisure, education, improving health and wellbeing, spiritual enrichment, appreciation of symbols, history and diverse cultures.

0707

How are Marine Ecosystem Services tied together?To understand the concept of ecosystem services, it is important to put individual ecosystem services within their wider context and consider them as interconnected parts of the wider marine ecosystem. Most provisioning and cultural services are directly dependant upon supporting and regulating services provided by the marine environment. However provisioning and cultural service related activities can have adverse impacts on these underlying environmental services. Developing an appreciation of the linkages between ecosystem services can therefore help efforts to move towards sustainable management of marine and coastal areas.

Figure 1: What’s in the sea for me?

Adapted from: Swedish Environment Agency, 2009, p17

0808

Key Messages from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment The Millenium Ecosystem Services Assessment report on marine and coastal ecosystems and human well-being (UNEP, 2006) set out a number of key messages that are still relevant to those involved in the management of marine and coastal areas.

• People are dependent on the ocean and coasts and their resources for their survival and well-being

• The major drivers of change, degradation, or loss of marine and coastal ecosystems and services are mainly anthropogenic

• Marine and coastal ecosystems are among the most productive and provide a range of social and economic benefit to humans

• Most services derived from marine and coastal ecosystems are being degraded and used unsustainably and therefore are deteriorating faster than other ecosystems

• The highly threatened nature of marine and coastal ecosystems and the demand for their services highlight the need for a local, regional, and global response

• Trade-offs in meeting the Millennium Development Goals and other international commitments are inevitable*

• Improved capacity to predict the consequences of change of drivers in marine and coastal ecosystems would aid decision-making at all levels.

Human threats to marine and coastal ecosystems

Population growth

Land use change and habitat loss

Overfishing and destructive fishing methods

Illegal fishing

Invasive species

Climate change

Subsidies

Eutrophication

Pollution

Technology change

Globalization

Increased demand for food

A shift in food preferences

Source: (UNEP, 2006)

0909

Simplifying the Ecosystem Services Terminology Whilst those working directly in the field of ESA are very familiar with these terms and the services which fall into each category, for the non expert the language can be difficult to understand. Simplifying the terminology to make it more accessible to people from diverse backgrounds is therefore a key first step. This resource pack on marine ecosystem services has been given the headline ‘Nature’s Services and the Sea’ in order to provide a more ‘user friendly’ starting point for exploration of ecosystem services in marine and coastal areas. In addition the pack suggests adopting an economic, environmental and social classification of ecosystem services. This has been used extensively to explain sustainable development and by linking ecosystem services and sustainable development terminology it could help stakeholders to feel more comfortable about discussing the ecosystem services concept.

One of the most difficult aspects of ecosystem services discussions for non-specialists has been the focus on biotic (living) and exclusion of abiotic (non-living) components from leading ecosystem services classifications. However recently there are movements towards including both in natural capital assessments. The classification system presented here includes both biotic ecosystem services and abiotic assets. For further information please see ‘Exploring Gaps within Ecosystem Service Valuations’, University of Liverpool, 2017

Ecosystem Society

Economic(Provisioning Services)

Social(Cultural Services)

Environmental(Regulating and Supporting Services )

Adapted from: Nature’s Services, Wiborn. 2013

10

Nature’s Services and the Sea

Economic ServicesServices from the sea that we directly use and need to survive and where there is often a viable market in which goods and services are bought and sold.

• Fish and shellfish• Fossil fuels• Medicine and blue technology• Raw materials • Renewable energy• Seaweed and Algae• Shipping • Water use

Environmental ServicesServices from the sea that allow nature to resist or fix problems and protect humans and that help other processes in nature to work and are essential for life on Earth.

• Climate regulation• Defence against natural hazards• Lifecycle maintenance• Natural waste treatment• Nutrient and sediment cycling

Social ServicesServices from the sea which makehumans glad, happy, and give meaning to life and connect to our lifestyles and wellbeing:

• Arts and culture• Education and research • Leisure• Sense of place• Tourism

Photo © Chris Martin Bahr WWF

Photo © Jiri Rezac WWF

1111

3. Using the Resource Pack The resource pack provides materials and inspiration for entry level ESA activities. It is designed to help people develop an understanding of the many ecosystem services that we derive from the sea and to inform discussions about ecosystem based management management of marine and coastal areas.

Structuring your ActivitiesFigure 2 illustrates how the ESA activities presented in the pack might contribute to marine and coastal planning and management efforts. The focus is on Getting Started, Understanding Place and thinking about Planning for Change. Some ideas are also provided about how ESA activities might aid stakeholder input to Developing Action Plans, and Implementation and Monitoring. You may decide to focus on one step or undertake activities in a step by step way. A key message is that you should feel free to tailor activities to your particular situation.

Case Studies For each step case study activities are provided illustrating a range of ESA approaches that may be of interest to marine and coastal stakeholders. These draw upon the experience of pilot exercises that were undertaken as part of the Celtic Seas Partnership project which helped develop, test and refine the materials presented here. Research into other experience of qualitative approaches to ESA have provided some useful additional examples of activities that could be undertaken with non expert participants. These are also included here. The early case studies illustrate relatively simple exercises that may be helpful for those with limited specialist expertise and resources. The later case studies provide examples of more ambitious and complex activities that you might like to progress to over time.The case study descriptions follow a common format that includes: objectives, a description of the purpose of the activity, methodology, summary and evaluation and suggestions about potential applications in other contexts.

MES-CardsAt the end of the pack a series of marine Ecosystem Services (MES) cards are included. Each card represents a Marine Ecosystem Service and provides a visual prompt and brief description of what it contributes to humans and the wider ecosystem. Each card has been assigned a colour that relates to one of the three service families – Economic, Environmental and Social. Together they can be envisaged as a ‘deck of cards’ which can be used in a variety of ways.The cards are a tool which you can use to: develop knowledge about ecosystem services concepts; consider the services provided in particular areas; explore interactions and impacts between different types of service; and discuss the possible need for management measures to maintain and restore ecosystem health.

Further InformationThe final section of the pack provides further information on: key ESA studies related to the Celtic Seas area; recommendations on ESA use in MSFD decision making and a list of references.

12

Figure 2: Structuring your Rapid Ecosystem Services Assessment Activities

The Role of ‘Qualitative’ Ecosystem Services Assessment ActivitiesThe following suggestions were developed from stakeholder discussions held during the preparation of this resource pack.

An educational toolEnables discussion about the ecosystem services concept Everyone can participate and contribute their expertise

A brainstorming toolEnables consideration of an area outside the usual boxesUseful for highlighting issues and areas for further information/research

A common framework for analysisCould aid thinking about trans-boundary resource planningA nested approach across different scales might be usefulLarge scale public interaction may be possible via web applicationsCould guide citizen science initiatives

A decision making tool ?Can provide useful qualitative material Outcomes very dependent on knowledge and spread of participantsCould be a useful starting point for quantitative assessments

Gettingstarted

Developingaction plans

Planningfor change

Implementationand monitoring

Understandingplace

Structuringyour

EcosystemServicesactivities

First steps towards exploring the range of ecosystem services provided by marine and coastal areas and identifying the beneficiaries of these services

Developing a more detailed understanding of: the ecosystem services provided by the sea; what people value about these services; the relative value they place on particular areas or services; and management issues raised by current patterns of use

Further exploration of: the interactions between ecosystem services; the trade-offs that may be involved in different management options; and stakeholder views about preferred management strategies

Potential for use of ESA based activities to help structure the development of plan objectives and actions that can deliver multiple benefits

Potential for using ESA approaches to identify those who may have a role to play in plan implementation and to guide monitoring activities

1313

4. Getting Started This section of the resource pack will help you take some simple first steps towards exploring the range of ecosystem services provided by marine and coastal areas and identifying the beneficiaries of these services.

Before you start you should consider the following questions

Why and What?Outline your aim and objectives Why are you undertaking the ESA activity? What do you aim to achieve? Do you have long term and/or short term objectives?

Where?Define the area Where is your area of focus? What boundaries will your ESA have? (e.g. Will it focus on an existing administrative boundary? Will it be defined by your stakeholders? Will it reflect a particular project aim, such as improvement of water quality in a named water body? Will it be a particular area such as a designated site of nature conservation importance?)

Who?Identify the participants Who should be involved? Which people will you need to engage with? ( e.g. local people? local businesses? conservation groups? others?)

Is that right?Think outside the box How will actions outside your project boundary affect ecosystem services within it? It may be important to remember that the processes and pressures which effect the ecosystem services you are assessing may well occur outside your project boundary. Have you taken this into account?

How?Tailor activities to your participants What knowledge will different participants have? Can you structure activities to benefit from individual understanding as well as developing shared understanding? What resources would be helpful to support activities - physical resources (e.g. the MES Cards, maps, post-it notes, pens, flip charts, pro-formas for capturing comments) information resources (e.g. visual aids providing supporting information, access to online maps/data) and people (e.g. briefed facilitators, people knowledgeable in different fields)?

14

Case Study: Dublin Bay Nature and Livelihoods Workshop(Eastern and Midlands Regional Assembly, 2016)

A Strategic Management Framework for Dublin Bay has been produced by the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly to support the sustainable development of this key regional asset. A ‘Nature and Livelihoods‘ stakeholder workshop was held as a first step in the process of preparing the strategy. This workshop was one of the pilot activities undertaken through the Celtic Seas Partnership project to inform the production of this ‘Nature’s Services and the Sea’ resource pack.

Objectives1. to identify critical ecosystem goods and services in Dublin Bay 2. to identify how these goods and services may be protected or enhanced

by a new strategic management framework for the Dublin Bay area.

PurposeThe workshop was intended to inform the development of the strategic management framework for Dublin Bay by:

• collecting building blocks though which a collective vision for the sustainable development of Dublin Bay might be formulated

• networking - bringing stakeholders in Dublin Bay together to address their own issues and discuss ideas around managing and planning of Dublin Bay and its assets

• identifying areas of responsibility and cooperation between sectors and tangible actions that might be incorporated within a strategic management framework for Dublin Bay.

MethodologyEcosystem services concepts were used to help:

• Define the geographic coverage of maps to be used in the workshop exercises

• Inform the targeting of invitations to attend the workshop• Structure the initial workshop discussions.

Summary and EvaluationIf you organised a Nature and Livelihoods workshop along the lines indicated you should have:

• Contributed to stakeholder networking and understanding related to Nature’s Services and the Sea

• Obtained stakeholder maps of ecosystem services and their views on particular services that may merit priority attention in future management arrangements

• Derived stakeholder input to the definition of appropriate boundaries for coastal/marine management purposes

• It is important to recognise that the outputs will reflect the knowledge and spread of workshop participants physical mapping of environmental services may be difficult in a workshop setting and that follow up activity may be desirable

1515

Defining a boundary for Dublin Bay This was necessary from the perspective of putting in place the governance mechanisms for the strategic management framework. Mapping the extent of Dublin Bay involved consideration of boundaries using a combination of stakeholder opinion including inputs from the Nature and Livelihoods workshop and associated discussions about ecosystem services, other geographical delineators (such as administrative boundaries and boundaries) and boundaries for data collection and socio-economic evidence.

Targeting workshop invitationsThe aim was to achieve a good balance of stakeholder representation at the workshop both geographically and with knowledge of the ecosystem services categories. It was also felt to be important to involve those that were service users as well as people with varying governance responsibilities.

Structuring the workshop discussionsSession 1 Ecosystem Services - which ones are important?Stakeholders were divided into 6 tables and were asked to look at one of the three categories of ecosystem services: economic services, social services and environmental services. The classifications were displayed with visual aids. Stakeholders were asked first to map ecosystem services in Dublin Bay by placing post-it notes on a map. They were then asked to discuss the most important ecosystem services from a management perspective.Session 2- Ecosystem Services - pathways to improving and protecting prioritised services Stakeholders were then asked to examine the impact of three development pathway scenarios (a) economic prosperity, (b) pristine environment or (c) society and wellbeing and assess what the implications might be for the priority ecosystem services they had identified in session 1. The exercise was designed to link ecosystem services to future planning and management directions in the Bay.

Potential ApplicationsThese are relatively simple starter activities that could be undertaken with a wide range of people with an interest in coastal and marine areas. The activities could be adapted for use in:

• Environmental education activities at sixth form level and with adult groups

• Early stakeholder engagement related to coastal and marine planning and management initiatives

• Preliminary community level assessment of coastal and marine development proposals

16

Case Study: Arrábida Natural Park, Portugal (Lopes and Videira, 2016)

This case study relates to an exercise undertaken in Arrábida Natural Park in Portugal, a marine and coastal protected area which is also a Natura 2000 site. It illustrates how “bottom-up” ecosystem services identification processes may be used by natural resource managers during engagement with stakeholder groups.

Objectives1. To use an innovative approach to conducting collaborative scoping pro-

cesses to explore the multiple values of ecosystem services in Arrabida Natural Park, .

Purpose • To apply a collaborative scoping methodology proposed by Lopes

and Videira• To develop evolving lists of relevant stakeholder groups via reviews

and interviews with key researchers and policy makers.

Methodology• Establish the legislative context. It is important to understand the

different legislation and governance frameworks which are in place. Reviewing documentation including local, national and international legal policy frameworks which related to the park also assisted in identifying major stakeholder groups

• Identified stakeholders were invited to recommend other stakeholders who might like to be involved

• Stakeholders were then invited to attend a ‘Scoping Workshop’ to identify ecosystem services related to the park

• Workshop participants were asked to complete an online questionnaire to validate outcomes obtained.

Arrábida Natural Park, Scoping Ecosystem Servicing with stakeholders

Knowledge elicitation and information flows

Validation and iteration of results

1. Framing the institutional context & stakeholder analysis

Objectives:• Identification of relevant decision rules

• Identification of key stakeholder groups

Methodology• Literature review• Interviews

3. Online SurveyObjectives:• Validation and iteration of workshop results

Methodology• Online survey

2. Participatory Workshop

Objectives:• Identification of eco system services

• Recognition of links between ecosystem services and human well-being

• Identification of ecosystem services drivers of

• Screening the relative importance of ecosystem services to stakeholders

Methodology• Work in small groups

Developed from Lopes and Videira (2016)

1717

Summary and EvaluationStakeholder identification and engagement:

• The institutional analysis allowed researchers to identify the key organisations and the legislative control they had over the Natural Park

• The stakeholder analysis identified 67 representatives from 38 organisations which were separated into 4 categories: i) Government/Authorities ii) Research Institutions iii) Civil Society and iv) Business. The group agreed that a diverse group of parties should be involved. It was suggested in future studies the length of time available for participatory exercises could be extended. The online survey increased the time available for stakeholder participation. The response rate to the online survey was higher than that of the workshop.

Identification of Ecosystem Services:• Participants in the workshop were provided with a list of previously

identified ‘generic ecosystem services’ and were asked to identify and disscuss on concrete examples in the case study area. In depth discussion translated general perceptions of ecosystem services into specific examples participants could relate to based on suggestions from their own knowledge of the Natural Park

• In contrast, findings from the institutional analysis highlighted that the concept of ecosystem services and some ecosystem services themselves were not reflected in current institutions and their documents (for example the Management Plan for the Natural Park itself)

• To verify the completeness of the list of ecosystem services identified by stakeholders at the workshop, the online survey was used to validate the results

• Feedback from the online survey suggested changes to the ecosystem services list identified at the workshop. These were mostly concerned with ecosystem services not represented in the Natural Park, examples of ecosystem services found in the Natural Park which were not identified at the workshop and suggestions for management of some services.

Potential ApplicationsA collaborative scoping process as detailed above could be used as the starting point for a number of applications depending on the scale of your project. Some examples could be:

• As the collaborative scoping process involves multiple procedures (desk-based analysis/workshop/online survey ) this could form the first step in an exercise to form a stakeholder network, providing the opportunity to identify a wide range of stakeholders and ecosystem services and minimising the risk of exclusion that may occur in a one off scoping event

• The scoping process could form the start of a more detailed study related to the ecosystem services identified. Further studies to identify potential drivers of change of ecosystem services could be undertaken

• Expanding this work to assess the relative importance of each ecosystem service to stakeholders could assist decision makers when thinking in terms of potential trade-off scenarios.

18

Case Study: The Value of The River Mersey (River Mersey Task Force, 2014; River Mersey Task Force, 2016)

The Making the Most of the River Mersey and the Value of the River Mersey reports were produced by the River Mersey Task Force in response to the Liverpool City Region (LCR) Devolution Agreement which set ambitious targets for the new LCR Combined Authority related to the growth of maritime industry, tidal energy generation and achieving the highest environmental standards for the river.

Objectives1. To make the best use of this unique asset to maximise the contribution

of the river to future economic growth and sustainable development of LCR

2. To identify and, as far as possible, quantify many of the crucial but hidden environmental assets that are derived from the River Mersey to the LCR.

Purpose • To inform dialogue between the River Mersey Task Force and the

LCR Combined Authority about the future planning and management arrangements for the Mersey Estuary and Liverpool Bay.

MethodologyAn initial desk based analysis was undertaken to:

• Identify the different beneficiary communities of the River Mersey• Explore the benefits they derive from the river’s ecosystem

This was followed by second desk based study to:• Provide a more detailed qualitative assessment of the value of the

River Mersey using Total Economic Value (TEV) and Ecosystems Services framework approaches

• Develop illustrative quantitative assessments of the monetary values that might be attached to specific services.

1919

Beneficiaries of River Mersey

services

Businesses

Lando

wn

ers

Authorities

Tou

rist

s&

Vis

ito

rs

Residents

Academ

ic

Establishm

ents & Inve

stor

s

Develo

pers

Increased resilienceImproved workplace productivityReduced levels of sicknessGreater pool of skillsGlobal connectivity

Positioning benefitsIncreased local re-investmentImproved collaborationInnovation

Partnership and collective actionIncreased influenceCleaner air and waterReduced flood riskIncreased economic activity

Carbon savings (and energy)Inward investmentReduction in derelict landReduced cost of pollutants/contaminantsStrengthened brand

Increased quality of experienceCleaner environmentMore recreational facilities/activitiesAttractiveness of surroundingsIncreased choice (hotels, retail etc)Unique sense of placeCruise liner terminalReduced crime

Increased land valueReturn on investment - reduced riskIncreased property valueIncreased investment opportunitiesWind and tidal powerGlobal connectivity

Research opportunitiesGlobal connectivityWater innovationIncreased skills/qualificationsMatching skills with business needCommercialisation of productsBusiness incubators

Improved quality of placeCleaner environmentReduced flood riskIncreased biodiversityIncreased social mobilityCarbon savings

More recreational facilitiesResilienceQuality of lifeEducation - raising skillsReduced crime

Improved infrastructureIncreased property/land valueIncreased investment opportunitiesImproved saleabilityReduced vulnerability to climate changeNew business developmentAccess to new markets and customers

Public Realm/ Amenity

Improved Health

Unique Sense

of Place

Cruise Liner Terminal

Quality of Life

Carbon Sink

Global Connectivity

Research Opportunities

Tidal Power

Wind Power

Natural Filtration

Flood Protection

ResilienceEcosystem Services

River Mersey services

World Class Destination

Maritime Trade

EconomyVisitor E

conomy

Ene

rgy

Health & W

ellbein

g

Environment

Who are the Beneficiaries of River Mersey Services?

River Mersey Task Force (2014)

20

Ecosystem good/services

Landowners

Crops

Livestock

Capture Fisheries

Aquaculture

Wild foods

Timber/other woods

Fibres/resins

Animal Skins

Sand

Ornamental resources

Biomass

Freshwater

Generic resources

Biochemical

Regulating

Air quality

Global climate reg.

Regional/local climate reg.

Reg. of water timing/flows

Erosion control

Water purification/waste treatment

Disease mitigation

Maintenance of soil quality

Pest mitigation

Pollination

Natural hazard mitig.

Cultural

Recreation and ecotourism

Ethical and spiritual values

Educational and inspirational values

Other

Environmental benefits

Increased resilience

Businesses

Improved workplace

Global connectivity

Increased property/land value

Improved saleability

Reduced vulnerability to climate change

Increased land value

Developers and investors

Increased property value

Wind and tidal power

Improved quality of place

Residents

Cleaner environment

Reduced flood risk

Increased biodiversity

Carbon savings

More recreational facilities

Resilience

Quality of life

Education - raising skills

Research opportunities

Academic Establishments

Global connectivity

Water innovation

Increased quality of experience

Tourists and visitors

Cleaner environment

More recreational facilities/activities

Attractiveness of surroundings

Unique sense of place

Cruise liner terminal

Cleaner air

Local authorities

Cleaner water

Reduced flood risk

Carbon savings (and energy)

Reduced cost of pollutants/contaminants

Strengthened brand

Relocate to other stakeholders

Mapping the environmental benefits/stakeholders in the River Mersey against Ecosystem Services

River Mersey Task Force (2014)

2121

Summary and EvaluationThe River Mersey Task Force reports illustrate a more advanced, staged approach to understanding ecosystem services in a coastal setting. If you adopted a similar methodology you could provide:

• A broad assessment of the ecosystem services and benefits that different communities of interest derive from your marine/coastal area

• A broad assessment of how marine/coastal ecosystem services connect to the economic prosperity of your area and peoples’ wellbeing

• A more detailed qualitative mapping of the beneficiaries of different marine and coastal ecosystem services

• Examples of quantitative assessments for selected services.

Potential ApplicationsDepending on the context for your work and resources available to you, the level of analysis you choose can be tailored to suit your circumstances. Possibilities include:

• ESA activities undertaken in a workshop setting• Desk-based ESA activities undertaken as an in-house research

project• Involvement of university students or consultants to undertake more

in depth qualitative ESA• Commissioning of studies providing more detailed quantitative ESA

related to particular services.

22

5. Understanding Place This section of the resource pack will help you develop a more detailed understanding of: the ecosystem services provided by the sea; what people value about these services; the relative value they place on particular areas or services; and management issues raised by current patterns of use.

This section may also provide a starting point for Planning for Change. It will help you answer questions about:

ValueWhat do people value about your area and the ecosystem services it provides?

ChallengesWhat ecosystem services related issues or challenges are there?

Possible areas for changeHow can these issues or challenges be addressed?

2323

Case Study: Conwy Seascapes Pilot (Gee, 2015)

This case study relates to a pilot project undertaken by the University of Liverpool in Conwy, North Wales. It aimed to develop new methods of seascape character assessment designed to capture the perceptual qualities of place that are unrelated to sight – those that relate to cultural associations, memories, sound, touch, feel, smells etc.

Objectives1. To elicit people’s sense of place with respect to the sea2. To elicit place attachment in the sea (What values are important? What

features are people particularly attached to?

Purpose• To gain an appreciaion of non-material values and their role in

generating a sense of place and identity for coastal and marine spaces. The hypothesis was that non-material values can be threatened by changing marine activities and are largely neglected in sensitivity, vulnerability and risk assessments because they are difficult to elicit, express spatially and compare with economic and ecological values.

Methodology• Household survey in the form of a self-administered questionaire

including open and closed questions• Semi- structured interviews with people who use the sea including a

personal mapping element• Both approaches followed the structure below:

A. The sea near where you live B. How you make use of the sea C. The places you like and use D. Wider use of the sea E. About yourself

Adapted from Natural England, 2012

24

Examples of Survey Responses What do you spontaneously think of when you picture the sea near where you live?“Nice views, walking with my daughter in her pram, tranquility and calmness, open spaces”“Freedom”“The ebb and flow (of life) as the tide moves in and out and the river flows through out to sea”“Conwy Bay with Anglesey and the Great Orme in the distance in all its moods”

I consider the sea near where I live....

Generally speaking, how would you say the sea near where you live is mostly being used?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% an essential part of my life

a place for economic activities

beautiful to look at

part of my home

a spiritual place

no answer not at all

0 2 4 6 8

10 12

Fishing

Touri

sm

Musse

l fish

ing

Pleasu

re

Recrea

tion

Sailing

Offsho

re wind

Boat tr

ips

Walking

Commerc

ial

Family

fun

quali

ty jud

gemen

t

Trans

port

Watersp

orts

n.a.

2525

The places you like and use

26

Summary and EvaluationThe Conwy Seascapes Pilot Study illustrates how questionnaire surveys and face to face interviews can be used to identify the unique sense of place associated with particular coastal /marine environments and identify ‘Culturally Significant ‘areas that are important to the wellbeing and identity of a community. To maximise the value of potential outcomes key points to consider include:

• In designing the survey be clear about the aims of the study. What do you want to know from your respondents?

• Get to know the case study area. Prior knowledge is essential so you know the context for your study. There is a danger of missing important issues or asking irrelevant questions

• Decide on the scope of your study. Are you aiming at a representative study or not? What is your sampling method: Households? Tourists? Particular demographics?

• Think carefully about the wording and ordering of questions to make it as easy to complete as possible and minimise misinterpretaion.

• Give clear instructions explaining what the questionnaire is about and the context of the study (for whom?)

• In designing your suvery think about how you are going to collate and analayse the results.

Potential ApplicationsThe approaches developed in the Conwy Seascape Pilot project could be:

• Used sequentially, perhaps starting with a wider community questionnaire followed by more in depth interviews in areas identified as being of particular community interest.

• Undertaken at intervals to gain an understanding about changing perceptions of an area for example before and after a development has taken place.

• Taken as a first stage in a wider community consultation process exploring the social value of coastal and marine areas.

2727

Case Study: Cultural Value of Wirral Coast (University of Liverpool, 2016)

This case study relates to a survey assessing the cultural value of Wirral coast that was undertaken by the University of Liverpool in conjunction with Wirral Council. It involved an online questionnaire made available to the public to explore the more intangible cultural ecosystem services provided by sites along Wirral’s coast.

Objectives1. To engage stakeholders in exploring the cultural value of Wirral’s coast2. To engage stakeholders in identifying future planning and management

approaches that may be helpful in securing good environmental status of the coast.

Purpose • To test an online survey methodology as potentially a cost effective

method of obtaining useful management information about the use and value of coastal assets.

• To provide information for various Wirral Council coastal planning and management activities including updating of the Wirral Tourism Brand and Wirral Council’s Habitat Regulation responsibilities.

Methodology• Developing the format of the survey to align with previous coastal

survey work so that updating of some key baseline information would be possible.

• Developing new lines of questioning on visitor attitudes to the sites they visit and the range of cultural ecosystem services offered at each.

• Establishing an online version of the survey on the University of Liverpool website and making a paper-based version available on request for people who do not have access to the internet.

• Publicising the launch of the survey through a number of channels, including: social media such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn pages, web pages of the Irish Sea Maritime Forum and North West Coastal Forum, email newsletters to wildlife trusts and friends groups for particular sites, printed posters/leaflets displayed in strategic locations such as council buildings and visitor centres

• Preparation of a report analysing the results of the survey for discussion at a meeting with Wirral Council coastal management staff.

Summary and EvaluationThe online survey of the cultural value of Wirral Coast illustrates a low cost method of gathering information about: the special qualities people value about coastal sites; how sites are used; issues of public concern; and ideas about improvements. To maximise the value of potential outcomes key points to consider include:

• Designing the survey so that it builds upon and adds to earlier survey work and where appropriate feeds in a clear way to any anticipated follow on activities

28

• Developing a publicity strategy targeted at different stakeholder communities to maximise survey response rates (recognising that there will be limitations in the profile of survey respondents)

• Making the online survey engaging, easy to use and speedy to complete

• Piloting a draft version of the survey to refine the design and content• Considering the timing and duration of the survey availability.

Potential ApplicationsThe online survey approach could be tailored to suit different levels of resourcing and areas of interest. For example:

• Use could be made of standard survey design and analysis packages such as Survey Monkey

• Analysis could be presented visually through the use of quality word cloud analysis packages

• Surveys could focus on one or more ecosystem service• Online surveys could be left open or re-run from time to time to

provide time series data• Online surveys could be complemented and ‘quality controlled’ by

the use of alternative survey methods including on site interviews, focus groups, analysis of social media material such as online photo streams e.g. flikr.

2929

The online questionnaire captured information on

Which sites on the Wirral coastline people have previously visitedThen, respondents would be able to choose up to 3 sites they wish to talk about to answer questions on the following topics:

• When they go to a particular site, how long they spend there and how they get there

• What activities they participate in at the site (from a predetermined list or “other” activities of their own description)

• What specific cultural ecosystem services (from a predetermined list) they value at that site

• What other things they value about that site (respondents would be free to express their own opinions).

• What, if anything, respondents would like to improve about the site

• If respondents were aware of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and had any concerns about particular marine issues (related to the descriptors of Good Environmental Status for the MSFD), and finally;

• Basic demographic information (gender, age group, location) to determine whether the survey is representative of a broad cross-section of people.

What do you like most about Wirral’s coast?

We would like to invite you to take part in a survey exploring residents’ and visitors’ views on Wirral’s coast. The results will help us to understand what people value most about Wirral’s coast and the environmental issues it faces. You can access the survey at http://survey.liv.ac.uk/WirralCoast or request a paper version by calling 0151 934 2966. The survey is being carried out as part of the work of the Celtic Seas Partnership project* which brings people together to help achieve healthy and sustainable seas. It is being organised by the University of Liverpool and the North West Coastal Forum with the help of Wirral Council.

* Celtic Seas Partnership is an EC LIFE+ project with the contribution of the LIFE financial instrument of the European Community. It is a four year project, running from January 2013 to December 2016. WWF-UK is the lead with partners the University of Liverpool, Eastern and Midland Regional Authority, the Natural Environment Research Council and SeaWeb Europe. Project number: LIFE11/ENV/UK/392.

Survey responses

‘Walks around the lake, walks to Hilbre, the sunsets. The peace, sea air and views. We’re very lucky to have this special place on our doorstep’‘I like it because it is by the sea, the views, the accessibility, the fact that ‘Hilbre Island is just there. The marine lake is great for people of all ages and encourages sailing and water sports. I love watching though I would never do them’‘We live here and feel lucky that we can frequently walk from home to enjoy the views and fresh air’‘West Kirby is a wonderful place to raise a child. Wherever you are in the town you are never far from a natural wonder’

West Kirby: What people find important (Cultural Value)

30

Case Study: Social Value Mapping British Columbia (Klain and Chan, 2012)

This case study draws upon work undertaken by Klain and Chan which sought to foster explicit inclusion of intangible values alongside material values connected to ecosystems in environmental management. Here a survey was used to elicit verbal comments, spatial identification and quantified marine-related values and threats across the seascape of northern Vancouver Island, Canada.

Objectives1. To find out what categories of ecosystem services participants find most

important2. To catalogue and map ecosystem services to inform spatial planning

using interview data.

Purpose • To use social value mapping of ecosystem services to develop an

understanding of cultural ecosystem services as an input to marine spatial planning.

• To highlight to decision makers areas of importance of ecosystem services which may not have been identified using traditional methods.

• To allow people to quantify the importance of these ecosystem services and also discuss this in a qualitative manner.

MethodologyThe methodology for this exercise can broadly be split into three distinct components:

• Selection of stakeholder sample• Interviews with stakeholder participants• Correlation of monetary and non monetary value and drawing of other

conclusions

Summary and EvaluationIf you conduct interviews along these lines you should have achieved the following:

• A series of maps which identify areas of importance, socially, economically and areas which are perceived by your stakeholder sample to be under threat.

• An indication as to what the threats certain points in your study area might face.

• Comparative values to how valuable socially and economically certain areas are.

• Comparative values as to how under threat locations within your sample area are perceived to be.

3131

Interview methodology

Interview Sections Examples

Introduction Introduce the project. Thank participants

Background Participant Information

Open ended questions relating to ecosystem services and ecosystem health/management

What is your profession? How long have you worked in this profession? Has your interest or involvement in ocean related issues/business changed over time? If so, how?Do you think of the ocean’s health and your own well being as being connected in any way? If so, can you describe that link?How do you know if an ecosystem is healthy or not? What indicates ocean health to you?You’ve mentioned several issues that ought to be addressed to improve ocean management. Here’s the list. Can you rank these management issues in importance?

Mapping market values - Spatial QuestionsUsing map of area to be investigated overlain with acetate

Interviewees are asked to highlight areas of financial importance to them on the map (e.g. in green pen)

Relative value of economic services

Advise participants they have 100 of X currency, which they can assign to the various areas in terms of importance. (i.e areas which have been most profitable for you directly)

Mapping non market social values

Open ended questions relating to cultural, spiritual & leisure services

Ask participant to identify areas on the map which are especially important to them (e.g. highlight with red pen) Are there places that remind you of past events that are important to you and your community?Can you describe or speak to me about experiences of this kind that might be associated with a physical place in this region?

Relative value of non-monetary services

Advise participants they have 100 X non-monetary currency, which they can assign to ES areas in terms of importance. This can be split between all areas in any ratio at the participant’s discretion

Threats Ask participants to highlight any area from which they derive income which they feel is under threat (e.g. using a red pen)What does the participant believe are the sources of these threats

Relative value of threats Advise participants they have 100 ‘under threat currency’. This can be split between all areas in any ratio at the participant’s discretion

Conclusion Ask participant is there are any other areas they wish to highlight. Thank participant and close the interview

32

Potential ApplicationsDepending on the resources available to you, the level of analysis you choose can be varied to suit the scope and scale of your project. Some examples of analysis which could be undertaken:

• Areas identified on maps from your stakeholder sample along with the currency values associated with those areas could be input into GIS software or similar to produce intensity maps for threats, and benefits (both economic and social).

• Identification of areas for further investigation. You will have identified areas of benefit and area under threat. This methodology could assist in choosing areas for further scientific investigation to assess environmental status.

3333

6. Planning for Change This section of the handbook will help you explore further: the interactions between ecosystem services; the trade-offs that may be involved in different management options; and stakeholder views about preferred management strategies.

It will help you answer questions about:

Drivers for ChangeWhat are the key drivers for change in your area?

Risks and opportunitiesWhat are the risks and opportunities for ecosystem services that should be considered in future planning and management for your area?

AspirationsWhat management strategies might be favoured by stakeholders?

34

Case Study: Participatory Modelling of Wellbeing Trade-offs in Coastal Kenya- (P-MOWTICK) (Daw et al, 2013)

The Participatory Modelling of Wellbeing Trade-Offs in Coastal Kenya (P-MOWTICK) project was funded by the UK Research Council Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation (EPSA) programme in 2011 /12. The project sought to develop a framework and tools for explicitly identifying trade-offs between the wellbeing of different stakeholders resulting from changes in ecosystem services.

This case study examines the social-ecological system of the small scale fishery of Nyali, Mombasa, Kenya and the primary stakeholders and their use and impact on the reef and seagrass ecosystem. By working with both primary and secondary stakeholders previously unrealised management issues were brought to the attention of decision makers particularly related to stakeholder wellbeing. Below are examples of some of the tools and techniques used during the project.

ObjectivesTo develop and test a framework and associated tools designed to explicitly identify trade-offs:

1. between different ecosystem services and2. between the wellbeing of different stakeholders resulting from policy

and development scenarios and changes in ecosystem services.

Purpose The P-MOWTICK project combined marine ecosystem modelling with participatory modelling of social-ecological systems. The aim was to develop and test a conceptual framework through a series of expert and primary stakeholder workshops. The project provided a background and proof of concept for further projects including the ESPA funded SPACES Project

Methodology• Conceptual Workshop – A group of fifteen experts from a range

of disciplines were brought together to exchange knowledge and experience in different approaches in studying ecosystem services and trade-offs during a 3 day workshop. One day was allocated specifically to discuss modelling approaches.

• Ecological Models – Two models were developed; the mass balanced based Ecopath with Ecosim (EWE) model designed to focus on fisheries impacts and dynamics and a STELLA based model CAFFEE designed to model coral reef ecological dynamics including interactions between coral and algae and disturbances such as bleaching. Following the System Mapping Workshop (see below) a simplified simulation of the key interactions in the system known as the ‘Toy Model’ was created.

• Primary Stakeholder Activities – A series of five focus groups were conducted with local stakeholders to gain an understanding of how their wellbeing was affected by benefits derived from the ecosystem

3535

service - fishing. These focus groups: explored how wellbeing was perceived; identified links between components of wellbeing; and reviewed potential scenarios of change and associated interactions using a stylised fuzzy logic model reflecting the general dynamics of the ecosystem.

• Secondary Stakeholder activities – These activities were carried out over the course of 8 months: System Mapping Workshop – A two day workshop was attended

by local experts with the aim of developing a mental model of the Nyali reef and seagrass ecosystem with a focus on ecosystem services and the wellbeing of poorer residents The workshop consisted of a series of exercises including: stakeholder analysis; construction and review of a basic ecosystem model; analysis of drivers of change; and a shock analysis. Together these led to the production of a ‘mental model’. Based on this work four future scenario’s were put together by the project team based on good/poor governance and high/low population growth.

Trade Off and Scenarios Workshop – Another 2 day workshop was held again attended by local experts. Progress on the project was reviewed. Participants were invited to use the ‘Toy Model’ to predict the outcome of changing drivers as well as provide feedback to the team. Participants explored the four potential scenarios produced during the previous workshop. Participants were asked to identify winners and losers for each particular scenario and also think about potential management options. The concept of trade-off was introduced via a series of ‘wellbeing maximisation’ exercises.

• Policy Makers Workshop – The final workshop was attended by those who had been involved over the length of the project along with relevant policy and decision makers with the aim of disseminating the outcomes of P-MOWTICK and stimulating discussion about wellbeing trade-offs associated with the governance of fisheries.

Summary and EvaluationThe range of ecosystem services related activities undertaken as part of

Photo: P-MOWTICK, ESPA

36

the P-MOWTICK Project provided a number of valuable lessons for those concerned with the management of marine and coastal ecosystems. Key points can be summarised as follows:

• Managing ecosystems taking into account the well being of stakeholders often involves trade-offs. It is important to recognise that ecosystem services that cannot be readily expressed in monetary terms (e.g. cultural identity/sense of place) can be overlooked in favour of more obvious economically or socially quantified services when considering policy decisions. A trade off from the perspective of one stakeholder group may be considered as a synergy for another. Participatory tools can help stakeholders gain a better understanding of marine and coastal ecosystems and the drivers and linkages in place.

• Analysis of data obtained from the exercises carried out in the P-MOWTICK project identified four mechanisms that could cause certain trade-offs to be overlooked: 1. Consideration of certain trade-offs can be overlooked in favour of

more socially acceptable win-wins2. Trade-offs can be overlooked when they result from complex

socio-ecological connections3. Wellbeing trade-offs can often be overlooked if losers have no

voice in decision making. 4. People hold a bias towards trade-off’s which pit sacred values

against secular concerns.

Potential Applications• Using both a participatory modelling and a scenarios approach

involving both primary and secondary stakeholders allows decision and policy makers to become aware of different perceptions of benefits obtained from ecosystem services across different stakeholder groups.

• The use of these techniques can help minimise the risk of disregarding how trade offs can affect socially more marginalised stakeholder groups often excluded from decision making processes. It could therefore be particularly valuable when examining management issues in areas where primary stakeholders are known to live in poor economic circumstances.

Artistic representations of qualitative future scenarios for the system. (A) Low growth, ecotourism, low exploitation, no beach seines. (B) High population, low enforcement. (C) Economic growth, mass tourism, abundant alternative earning opportunities. (D) Professionalization and offshore development of the fishery. Five primary stakeholder groups’ perceptions of wins or losses under each scenario are indicated by shaded bars

(Dav et al, 2013)

Tim M Daw et al. PANS 2015 112:6949-6954 ©2015 by National Academy of Sciences

3737

Case Study: The ODEMM Project: Cost & Benefit Analysis Tool (Hussain et al, 2013)

The European Union FP7 funded ODEMM Project (Options for Delivering Ecosystem-Based Marine Management) aimed to support the delivery of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and other aspects of the EU’s Integrated Maritime Policy. Part of the work involved the development of structures, tools and resources required to choose and evaluate management options based on the principles of Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM).

Objectives1. To develop a set of fully-costed ecosystem management options

that would deliver the objectives of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the Habitats Directive, the European Commission Blue Book and the Guidelines for the Integrated Approach to Maritime Policy.

2. To produce scientifically-based operational procedures that allow for a step by step transition from the current fragmented system to fully integrated management.

Purpose • Ecosystem Based Management is an approach that is designed

to deal with the increasing impact of human activity on the marine environment. Whilst the term EBM is now familiar within the context of European Policy, for example having been adopted as a central objective by the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), the highly complex nature of a fully holistic approach such as EBM is challenging to implement.

• The ODEMM Project developed an approach and an accompanying series of tools and resources designed to assist decision makers in the implementation if EBM which was illustrated using the MSFD.

MethodologyOne tool produced as part of the ODEMM Project was a Cost Benefit Analysis tool. The tool allows decision makers to examine the financial implications and the affects to different benefits arising from the implementation of different management options. The tool contains 3 key resources: 1. A typology of ecosystem services

The ODEMM project developed a marine ecosystem typology and an associated series of cards (similar to those developed in the Celtic Seas Partnership project) designed to allow users to become more familiar with the typology.

2. A method linking management options to change in the supply of individual ecosystem servicesThe Project also developed a Linkage Framework to help identify which ecosystem services can be affected by particular management options. An associated Ecological Risk Assessment procedure was produced to allow users to make qualitative assessments of changes to ecosystem services supply and changes in risk to ecosystem status. This process involves:

• Assessment of the relative contribution made by each ecological component to each identified service using an ordinal scale e.g. none, low, moderate, high.

38

• Creating a formal link between changes in ecosystem services supply to changes in marine management. This is achieved by multiplying the output of an Ecological Risk Assessment (please see ODEMM.com for further details) by the by the relative contribution linking each ecological component to each ecosystem service.

With this process complete a simple matrix will have been produced capturing ecosystem complexity which can be compared against management options.3. Assessment of Costs

A third resource is a typology of costs associated with the implementation of management options. Costs are split across two domains (i) the affected agents incurring the costs; and (ii) when the costs are incurred – before, during or after the application of the management option. Its is important to note that the typology includes both costs incurred by the regulator and those by affected industries and other stakeholders. In the development of this typology the project conducted primary valuation studies to assess cultural ecosystem services in Marine Protected Area designations. In addition, 590 valuations studies were reviewed in order to create a database of marine ecosystem services valuations.

All resources including the Linkage Framework and the Ecological Risk Assessment can be accessed via ODEMM.com

Summary and EvaluationThe cost benefit analysis approach developed within ODEMM combines a focus on ecosystem services with an assessment of the possible costs incurred by specific management options. The typology of costs draws upon the database of marine valuation studies. However it should be noted that majority of studies identified in the literature were conducted at a small scale such as an area of coastline. In contrast the focus of MSFD and other marine management processes require consideration at a larger regional scale (often transboundary and/or transnational such as in the Celtic Seas). Following a review of the valuation studies it was noted that very few data points could be replicated. The review concluded that while quantitative valuation using the resources assembled should be undertaken where practical, there was still benefit to be derived from qualitative valuations using expert judgement where appropriate monetary values were not available.

3939

Potential Applications• The approach and tools developed as part of the ODEMM Project

are designed to be used either individually or in combination by managers, scientists, regulators or sectoral organisations who are creating, testing, advising on, or implementing management measures in the marine environment and those who are trying to implement an integrated ecosystem-based approach.

• Using the Linkage Framework and Ecological Risk Assessment procedure can help decision makers prioritise the sectors and pressures for management.

• The resources can also assist in identifying ecological components most at risk in achieving policy objectives (such as the MSFD’s Descriptors of Good Environmental Status)

• The tools and resources developed by the project can be applied at different spatial and temporal scales. At its outset ODEMM aimed to look at the implementation of EBM at the regional scale such as is require for legislation such as the MSFD, however the project highlighted that in order to obtain stakeholder confidence in EBM at this scale, further analysis is required.

A conceptual diagram representing the ODEMM approach. The process is non linear and all components (dark blue boxes) work within the same governance structure (light blue box and circle).

Governance  e.g.  Legal,  Stakeholders    

Management  Op9ons      

Ecosystem  Services  e.g.  Raw  Materials    

Ecological  Components  e.g.  Marine  Mammals  ,  Oxygen  

Sectors  e.g.  Fishing,  Shipping    

Pressures  e.g.  Abrasion,  Marine  Li9er  

Objec9ves  e.g.  GES  Descriptor  

Adapted from ‘Towards delivering ecosystem-based marine management: The ODEMM Approach. Deliverable 17, EC FP7 Project (244273) ‘Options for Delivering Ecosystem-based Marine Management’. University of Liverpool

40

7. Further Steps This resource pack provides entry level materials and inspiration to support qualitative ESA activities involving people from many different backgrounds. It aims to help those unfamiliar with ESA to: assess the contribution that the sea makes to their lives; assist their participation in ecosystem based planning and management of marine and coastal areas: and contribute to the initial framing of planning and management efforts. The activities presented here have been selected to help you Get Started, Develop an Understanding of Place and think about Planning for Change. As Figure 2 illustrates, there are however very important stages beyond this that ESA based activities may also be able to contribute to. Some ideas about further steps to take are presented below.

Developing Action PlansESA activities aim to encourage integrated thinking about action that can deliver multiple benefits for people while respecting the integrity of marine and coastal ecosystems. Having developed an understanding of place and considered what might be priorities and challenges in planning for change, a next step could be to develop an Action Plan. ESA type activities could also be of assistance here by providing a structured approach to developing plan objectives and actions that can deliver multiple benefits.

Implementation and MonitoringConsideration of implementation is important throughout any plan making process not just when plan has been produced. ESA approaches may help by providing a framework for considering the beneficiaries of marine and coastal ecosystem services and thereby identifying those that may have a role in plan implementation and how actions may be more effectively delivered by partnership working. Once a plan is in place monitoring will be important to help keep track of the delivery of actions and changes in marine and coastal ecosystems and adapt management responses where necessary. This is known as ‘adaptive management’. Consideration of the scope of marine and coastal ecosystem services could help to guide the focus of monitoring activities. As this pack has illustrated it may be possible to engage marine and coastal stakeholders in various types of citizen science/social science activities that could form part of wider monitoring activities.

4141

8. Marine Ecosystem Services Cards These MES-cards have been produced to allow users to familiarise themselves with our classification of ecosystem services. Each card contains a description of the service, along with examples which are relevant to the Celtic Seas. Services have been divided into three categories, economic, environmental and social as listed below.

For further information please see ‘Exploring Gaps in Ecosystem Service Valuations’, University of Liverpool, 2017.

Economic Environmental Social

Fish and Shellfish Climate Regulation Arts and Culture

Fossil Fuels Defence Against Natural Hazards

Education and Research

Medicines and blue technology

Lifecycle Maintenance Leisure

Raw Materials Natural Waste Treatment Sense of Place

Renewable Energy Nutrient and Sediment Cycling

Tourism

Seaweed and Algae

Shipping

Water Use

42

Fish  and  Shellfish  

This  service  includes  all  fish  and  shellfish  w

e  obtain  from  

the  sea  to  be  consumed  by  

humans  directly  as  food.    

 It  includes  anim

als  such  as  wild  fish  caught  both  com

mercially  and  

recrea9onally  as  well  as  

aquaculture  of  fish  and  shellfish.    

In  many  cases  m

arine  life  has  adapted  to  survive  in  extrem

e  condi9ons.  Explora9on  and  exploita9on  of  these  resources  is  know

n  as  blue  technology.    

 This  resource  includes  

gene9c  and  other  materials    

used  for  medical  

applica9ons  (including  pharm

aceu9cal)  and  also  in  cosm

e9c  products  

Medicine  and  Blue  Biotechnology  

Fossil  Fuels  

This  service  refers  to  oil  and  gas  resources  extracted  

offshore  from  under  the  sea  

bed.      

Fossil  fuels  such  as  oil  and  gas  are  prim

arily  used  for  energy.  O

ther  uses  however  

can  include  fuel  for  vehicles  and  also  in  the  

petrochemical  industry  for  

example  in  the  produc9on  of  plas9cs.    

   

Raw  M

aterials    

The  removal  of  abio9c  raw

 materials    for  exam

ple  aggregates  such  as  sands  and  gravels  directly  from

 the  seabed  for  use  in  

industries  such  as  building  and  construc9on.    

 This  can  also  include  

removal  of  bio9c  m

aterial  for  exam

ple  shells  for  use  as  ornam

ents,  samphire    w

hich  is  used  in  the  cosm

e9c  industry,  and  bio9c  m

aterial  used  in  anim

al  feed.  

4343

Renewable  Energy  

This  service  refers  to  the  abio/c  natural  capital  

resources  obtained  from    the  

marine  environm

ents  such  as  offshore  w

ind  farm,  w

ave  and  /dal  pow

er  from  which  w

e  obtain  energy.    

 One  the  m

ost  common  form

s  of  renew

able  energy  found  in  marine  and  coastal  areas  is  offshore  w

ind.  Other  

renewable  energy  

technologies  such  as  /dal  lagoons  have  the  poten/al  to  generate  m

ajor  amounts  of  

electricity.    

Shipping  

This  service  refers  to  the  mari/m

e  transport  of  goods  and  people  w

hich  provides  a  vital  service  w

hich  has  been  important  for  centuries.    

 Most  good  traded  by  Cel/c  

Seas  countries  are  transported  by  sea.    

 Ac/vi/es  related  to  shipping  can  affect  other  ecosystem

s  and  services,  for  exam

ple  dredging  of  m

ajor  shipping  lanes  can  dam

age  sea  floor  habitats.        

     

Seaweed  and  Algae  

This  services  includes  seaw

eed  which  is  harvested  

for  human  consum

p/on.  The  m

ost  common  species  

harvested  include  Dulse  (Palm

eria  palmata),  

Carrageen  Moss  (Chondrus  

crispus),  and  Marsh  

Samphire  (Salicornia  Europaea).    

 This  service  also  includes  

microalgae  cul/vated  in  situ  for  hum

an  consump/on.    

Water  U

se  

This  service    refers  to    the  abstrac/on  of  w

ater  rem

oved  from  the  sea  

which  is  used  for  

industrial  processes  such  as  cooling,  for  exam

ple  in  pow

er  plants.      

Other  uses  include  the  

opera/on  of  fish  farms,  

fish  processing  plants,  food  m

anufacture  and  in  the  construc/on  and  defence  industries.    

     

44

Natural  W

aste  Treatm

ent    

The  reduc)on  or  removal  of    

anthropogenic  pollutants  through  filtra)on  (e.g.  by  

shellfish),  chemical  

breakdown  or  

bioremedia)on  by  m

icro-­‐organism

s    or  via  circula)on  of  w

ater.      

Examples  can  include  the  

degrada)on  of  oil    from  spills  

broken  down  by  bacteria,  the  

phytodegrada)on  of  contam

inants  by  photosynthe)c  organism

s    and    m

arine  deposit  feeders  that  consum

e  organic  waste.    

Climate  Regula2on

   

Photosynthesising  organisms  

which  live  w

ithin  the  worlds  

seas  and  oceans  provide  betw

een    50-­‐70%  of  the  

worlds  oxygen,  essen)al  for    the  air  w

e  breathe.      

The  worlds  seas  and  oceans  

also  represent  the  largest  ac)ve  carbon  sink  on  earth,  absorbing  large  am

ounts  of  the  anthropogenic  carbon  

dioxide  we  produce.      

Increases  in  atmospheric  CO

2  can  result  in  ocean  

acidifica)on  which  can  

adversely  affect  these  processes.  

Defence  Against  Natural  Hazards    

Ecological  structures  within  

the  marine  environm

ent  can  play  a  vital  part  in  protec)ng  coastal  environm

ents    by  retaining    sedim

ent  and  providing  flood  protec)on.    

 Exam

ples  of  this  service  include    the  root  system

s  of  cord  grass  and  m

arram  grass    

holding  sediment  in  place  and  

seaweed  such  as  kelp  

aMenua)ng  w

ave  ac)on.      

This  service  also  includes  pest  and  disease  control  by  m

arine  organism

s.          

Lifecycle  Maintenance

   

Species  and  habitats  within  

the  marine  environm

ent  play  a  vital  role  in  lifecycle  

maintenance.        

 For  exam

ple  wading  birds  

can  transport  droplets  of  water  containing  gam

etes,  sea  floor  dw

elling  com

muni)es  can    transport  seagrass  seeds.    

 Coastal  environm

ents  are  oPen  also  im

portant  nursery  grounds  for  m

any  com

mercial  and  other  fish  

species.      

4545

Leisure    

This  service  refers  to  the  benefits  that  can  be  obtained  from

 interac3ng  with  bio3c  

and  abio3c  components  

which  are  unique  to  the  marine  environm

ent.      

These  ac3vi3es  are  wide  

ranging  and    include  wildlife    

watching,  diving  and  

snorkelling,    swim

ming,  

sailing  and  angling.      

Arts  and  Culture    

Marine  and  coastal  

environments  can  o>en  

provide  inspira3on  for  art  works,  such  as  pain3ngs  or  wildlife  photography  of  

marine  plants  and  or  anim

als.      

This  service  can  provide  benefit  both  to  those  directly  

experiencing  the  marine  

ecosystem  and  those  

experiencing  any  representa3ons  produced.        

   

Educa1on  and  Research

   

Marine  ecosystem

s  and  coastal  realm

s  which  are  

used  as  resources  for  educa3on  teaching    

understanding  of  the  natural  environm

ent,  examples  

include  coastal  discovery  centres.    

 Marine  ecosystem

s  and  species  frequently  provide  

the  subject  maB

er  for  scien3fic  research  studies.  

           

Nutrient  and  

Sediment  Cycling    

Nutrient  cycling  occurs  via  processes  such  as  death,  decay,  consum

p3on  and  defeca3on.    

 The  return  of  nutrients  to  sedim

ents  can  largely  be  aB

ributed  to  sea  floor  com

muni3es  although  all  

marine  species  can  be  said  to  

contribute.    

46

Sense  of  Place    

Marine  ecosystem

s  and  coastal  habitats  can    o2en  be  im

portant  to  our  cultural  heritage  and  sense  of  place  and  influence  the  character  

and  history  of  coastal  se8

lements.    

   Marine  species  including  

plants  and  animals  can  

provide  inspira;on  for  logo’s  for  exam

ple  for  local  areas  or  businesses.    

         

Tourism    

This  service  overlaps  with  

leisure  but  more  specifically  

refers  to  travelling  to  marine  

environments  over  long  

distances  in  order  to  par;cipate  in  recrea;onal  environm

ents  specific  to  a  par;cular  m

arine  ecosystem.    

 Exam

ples  may  include  

travelling  at  a  specific  ;me  of  

year  to  a  par;cular  loca;on  to  w

atching  a  species  of  migratory  sea  birds.    

4747

9. Further Information

Key Ecosystem Service Assessments of interest to the Celtic SeasThe Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) was initiated by the United Nations in 2001. It was the first major study to undertake an assessment of ecosystem services and their link to human well-being and development needs. The objective was to assess the consequence of ecosystem change for human well-being on a global scale and to provide the scientific basis for action needed to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of those systems and their contribution to human well-being. The core activities of the Millennium Assessment took four years to complete and the results were published in 2005. A synthesis report on Marine and Coastal Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing was published by the United Nations Environment Programme in 2006 (UNEP, 2006) and its key messages are a useful reference point for those interested in using ESA approaches in planning and management of marine and coastal areas.The UK National Ecosystem Services Assessment (2011)was undertaken between 2009 and 2011 and was the first study which sought to capture the value of the UK’s natural environment in terms of its economic value and wider benefits to society. A follow-up phase, helped to further develop the evidence base of the NEA for communication and use by policy makers. Within the NEA Follow-Up, one work package investigated Coastal and marine ecosystem services: principles and practice and a report on its findings was published in 2014 (Turner et al, 2014).Harnessing our Ocean Wealth (HOOW) is an integrated Marine Plan for Ireland that was published in 2012 (Marine Coordination Group, 2012) . It presents an overview of Ireland’s rich and diverse marine ecosystems and highlights the essential goods and services they provide. As part of the follow up to the HOOW Ireland’s Environment Protection Agency have commissioned the Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit (SEMRU) from the National University of Ireland Galway to undertake a study ‘Valuing the significant ecosystem services provided by Irish coastal, marine and estuarine habitats’. The final report on the project is due to be published late 2016/early 2017.Evaluation of Ecosystem Services in France. An initial Exploratory Study was published in 2009 by the Centre de Recherche pour l’Etude et l’Observation des Conditions de Vie (CREDOC, 2009). This set the scene for the French Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services (EFESE) project which is being led by the Ministry of Environment Energy and the Sea). The EFSE project will provide a physical and ecological assessment and a valuation of French ecosystem services together with recommendations related to national environmental accounting, methodological tools and communication aids. An Intermediate Report on the project was published in December 2016 (Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, 2016).

48

Recommendations on Ecosystem Services Assessment use in Marine Strategy Framework Directive Decision Making This resource pack has been produced as part of the Celtic Seas Partnership project funded under the EU LIFE+ programme. The project aimed to support trans-boundary implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in the Celtic Seas through a stakeholder-led approach. A key aspect of the project related to MSFD delivery included demonstration of ecosystem-based management approaches. The MSFD has adopted ecosystem-based management as a central part of its objectives (Article 1 of the MSFD). ESA is increasingly being advocated as a useful ecosystem based management tool and part of the Celtic Seas Partnership project sought to develop resources to support delivery of MSFD in the Celtic Seas. Reflecting upon the experience of developing this resource pack a number of recommendations are put forward regarding the future application of ESA in Marine Strategy Framework decision making.

RecommendationsEntry Level ESA Materials for Stakeholder Engagement in MSFDThere is stakeholder interest in supporting the delivery of the MSFD and in the use of ESA methodologies in management activities related to the Good Environmental Status of the sea. However, many people find ecosystem services related terminology and concepts difficult to understand.Consideration should be given to further development and promotion of entry level ESA materials (such as those provided in this resource pack) that: enable non specialists to gain a better understanding of marine ecosystems and ESA techniques; and facilitate their engagement in the delivery of the MSFD and wider ecosystem based management of the sea. European MSFD PlatformESA related activities are core features of MSFD delivery. The Directive calls for different types of economic analyses to be undertaken in different phases of the MSFD process. The MSFD therefore has the potential to become a focus of significant learning about the development and application of ESA tools related to marine ecosystems as well as other aspects of management of the marine environment (Oinonen,et al, 2016).Consideration should be given to the creation of a European MSFD Platform that provides an information and communication gateway designed to facilitate knowledge exchange and capacity building among those with an interest in marine related ESA and other MSFD activities.

Strengthen the connections between MSFD processes and ESA conceptsOne of the challenges in developing ‘user friendly’ ESA resources for use by a wide range of stakeholders has been the complexity of terminology related to ecosystem based management of the sea. Berg et al (2015) for example highlight the disconnection between MSFD descriptors with ecosystem services frameworks as well as with other established ecosystem based management concepts such as the DPSIR indicator framework (Driver- Pressure-State-Impact-Response). Variation in approaches and terminology is a complicating factor in efforts to engage stakeholders in better management of the sea.As the MSFD process progresses opportunities should be taken to refine and strengthen the connections between MSFD delivery and ESA and other

4949

ecosystem based management concepts.Developing Non Monetary ESA ApproachesMany stakeholders recognise that ESA activities which provide better monetary estimates of the benefits that humans gain from ecosystem services are set to become important features of ecosystem based management of European seas. However, there is also stakeholder interest in non monetary ESA applications which example, enable better consideration of less tangible qualitative values that people derive from the sea or provide a structured approach to information gathering and monitoring including quantitative data of a non-monetary nature. Consideration should be given to the further development and promotion of non monetary MSFD related ESA tools which range in their level of sophistication and have application in different phases of the MSFD process.

50

ReferencesBerg, T., Fürhaupter, K., Teixeira, H., Uusitalo, L. and Zampoukas, N., 2015. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the ecosystem-based approach–pitfalls and solutions. Marine pollution bulletin, 96(1), pp.18-28. Centre de Recherche pour l’Etude et l’Observation des Conditions de Vie, 2009, Etude Exploratoire Pour Une Evaluation Des Services Rendus Par Les Ecosystemes En France, CREDOC, Paris.Daw, T.; Munyi, L.; Galafassi, D., 2013, Tools and Processes for Participatory Modelling of Wellbeing Implications Ecosystem Service Tradeoffs: Description and reflection on methods developed and used in the ESPA P-Mowtick project, Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation, Edinburgh.Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly, 2015, Workshop Report Dublin Bay Nature and Livelihoods, EMRA, Dublin.Gee, K. 2015 Seascape character assessment for marine and coastal planning and management: Case study and methods, University of Liverpool, Liverpool.Hussain, S., Baulcomb, C., Bloomfield, H., Böhnke-Henrichs, A., Culhane, F., Fofana, A., Frid, C., de Groot, R., Halkos, G., Koss, R. and Robinson, L.A. 2013. The ODEMM Approach to Analysing the Costs & Benefits of Marine Management. Deliverable 12, EC FP7 project (244273) ‘Options for Delivering Ecosystem-based Marine Management’. University of Liverpool, Liverpool Klain, S.C. and Chan, K.M., 2012. Navigating coastal values: participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning. Ecological economics, 82, pp.104-113.Lopes, R. and Videira, N., 2016. A Collaborative Approach for Scoping Ecosystem Services with Stakeholders: The Case of Arrábida Natural Park. Environmental Management, pp.1-20.Marine Coordination Group, 2012, Harnessing our Ocean Wealth: An Integrated Marine Plan for Ireland, Irish Government, Dublin.Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, 2016, Évaluation française des écosystèmes et des services écosystémiques: Rapport intermédiaire, Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, Paris.Natural England, 2012. An approach to seascape character assessment, Natural England, Peterborough.Oinonen, Soile; Börger, Tobias; Hynes, Stephen; Buchs, Ann Katrin; Heiskanen, Anna-Stiina; Hyytiäinen, Kari; Luisetti, Tiziana; and van der Veeren, Rob (2016) “The Role of Economics in Ecosystem Based Management: The Case of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive; First Lessons Learnt and Way Forward.,” Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: Vol. 2, Article 3. River Mersey Task Force, 2014, Making the Most of the Mersey: Delivery of its Growth Potential, River Mersey Task Force, LiverpoolRiver Mersey Task Force, 2016, The Value of the River Mersey, River Mersey Task Force, Liverpool.Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. What’s in the sea for me?-Ecosystem Services Provided by the Baltic Sea and Skagerrak, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm

5151

Turner, RK, Schaafsma, M, Tett, P, Mee, L., and others 2014, ‘WP 3B: Coastal/Marine Ecosystem Services: Principles and Practice’. in UK National Ecosystem Assessment follow-on : Work Package Report 4: Coastal and marine ecosystem services: principles and practice. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011) The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the Key Findings. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. United Nations Environment Programme, 2006 Marine and coastal ecosystems and human wellbeing: A synthesis report based on the findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. UNEP, Nairobi.University of Liverpool, 2016, Survey Report : Valuing Cultural Ecosystem Services on Wirral’s Coast, University of Liverpool, LiverpoolUniversity of Liverpool, 2017, Exploring Gaps in Ecosystem Service Valuations, University of Liverpool, LiverpoolWilborn, P., 2013, Nature’s Services: A Guide for Primary School, WWF Sweden, Solna.

Celtic Seas Partnership is an EC LIFE+ project with the contribution of the LIFE financial instrument of the European Community. It is a four year project, running from January 2013 to March 2017 WWF-UK is the lead with partners the University of Liverpool, Eastern and Midland Regional Authority, the Natural Environment Research Council and SeaWeb. Project number: LIFE11/ENV/UK/392.

twitter:celticseas

To find out more visit

www.celticseaspartnership.eu

Or contact csp@wwf.org.uk