1

Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services:

An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under Action 5 of

the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020

Discussion paper.

Draft version 08 May 2012

Contributions by

Joachim Maes, Camino Liquete, Markus Erhard, Anne Teller, Jennifer Hauck.

1. Introduction

In the EU, many ecosystems and their services have been degraded, largely as a result of

land fragmentation. Nearly 30 % of the EU territory is moderately to very highly

fragmented. Target 2 focuses on maintaining and enhancing ecosystem services and

restoring degraded ecosystems by incorporating green infrastructure in spatial planning.

This will contribute to the EU's sustainable growth objectives and to mitigating and

adapting to climate change, while promoting economic, territorial and social cohesion

and safeguarding the EU's cultural heritage. It will also ensure better functional

connectivity between ecosystems within and between Natura 2000 areas and in the wider

countryside. Target 2 incorporates the global Aichi target 15 agreed by EU Member

States and the EU in Nagoya to restore 15% of degraded ecosystems by 2020. It is also a

direct response to Aichi targets 2 and 14 of the Global Strategic Plan for Biodiversity,

2011-2020 of Convention of Biological Diversity1.

Progress on implementing the actions under Target 2 will be monitored and the results

will feed into the preparation of both the EU mid-term report in 2015, the EU’s fifth

National Report as required under the CBD in 2014. In Action 5, the Commission is

committed to assist Member States (MS) in mapping and assessing the status of

ecosystems and their services in their national territory by 2014, in assessing the

economic value of such services, and in promoting the integration of these values into

accounting and reporting systems at EU and national level by 2020.

1 Global Target 2: By 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values have been integrated into national and local

development and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and are being incorporated into

national accounting, as appropriate, and reporting systems.

Global Target 14: By 2020, ecosystems that provide essential services, including services related to water,

and contribute to health, livelihoods and well-being, are restored and safeguarded, taking into account the

needs of women, indigenous and local communities, and the poor and vulnerable.

Global Target 15: By 2020, ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks has

been enhanced, through conservation and restoration, including restoration of at least 15 per cent of

degraded ecosystems, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation and to combating

desertification.

2

To this end, a working group on Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their

Services (WG-MAES) has been established by DG Environment in March 2012. This

group operates under the common implementation framework of the EU Biodiversity

Strategy to 2020. The objective of WG-MAES is to support the Member States in

operationalising Action 5 and in undertaking the first steps of mapping and assessment of

the status of major ecosystems and of defined ecosystem services by 2014.

This discussion paper supports the development of an analytical framework with the aim

to ensure consistency in mapping and assessment approaches across Member States and

at pan-European level. It will serve as a basis for discussion in the working group.

In the short-term, the essential challenge of Action 5 is to make the best use of and

operationalize the current information and scientific knowledge available on ecosystems

and their services in Europe and make it accessible to Member States for mapping and

assessment in their territory. The work to be undertaken under Action 5 will strongly

build on the outcomes of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) work and The

Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) studies and also capitalise on the

ongoing assessments and TEEB studies currently undertaken by EU and its Member

States. The ecosystem assessment will benefit from the outcomes of the reporting

obligations of the Member States under EU environmental legislation on the status of

biotic components of ecosystems (i.e. ecological status of water bodies, conservation

status of protected species and habitat types and environmental status of marine

environment) and abiotic environmental conditions such as air quality including

greenhouse gas emissions, surface water and groundwater quantity and physico-chemical

quality etc. The analytical framework should therefore be sufficiently flexible to

accommodate the results from ongoing European, national and sub-national assessments

while enabling the inclusion of future assessments.

As follow-up of the preliminary discussions that have taken place at the first meeting of

the working group on 13 March 2012, the present discussion paper has been developed,

which proposes to construct the analytical framework along the lines and columns of an

EU common matrix of ecosystems and services to be used and shared with all for the

mapping and assessment work.

Why mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services?

By building the knowledge base for ecosystems and their services in Europe, it is clear

that Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 underpins all the actions under

Target 2. This baseline is essential for supporting decision-making on what ecosystems to

restore in priority and where, where and how much to invest in Green Infrastructure

(Action 6) so that ecosystem status improves and the delivery of multiple ecosystem

services is ensured in the long-term. This baseline is dependent on the availability of

spatially explicit information on ecosystems and the flow of their services as benefits to

the society. Furthermore, spatial information on the delivery of and the demand for

3

ecosystem services will provide baseline data to measure net future gains or losses

(Action 7) and will support the development of financial instruments to fund investments

in nature (Action 7).

There are several more benefits from spatially explicit ecosystem assessments. Maps are

useful for prioritization and problem identification, and as communication tool to initiate

discussions with stakeholders, visualizing and explaining the relevance of ecosystem

services to the public. Maps can - and to some extend already do so at sub-national level -

contribute to the planning and management of biodiversity protection areas and implicitly

of their ecosystem services.

At the European level, mapping can assist decision makers in identifying priority areas,

relevant policy measures, including the improvement of the targeting of measures and in

demonstrating/evaluating their benefits in relation to costs (e.g. impact assessment) via

spatially explicit reporting obligations from the Member States.

Figure 1: Interaction between biotic and abiotic environment, services and human

wellbeing (EEA SOER2010, Biodiversity)

4

2. Proposal of work structure

As a first step, it is proposed to build on the current knowledge delivered by projects such

as RUBICODE (FP7 coordination action on trends in ecosystem services)2, TEEB (The

Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity)3, CICES (Common International

Classification of Ecosystem Services)4 and PRESS (the JRC led PEER initiative on

mapping ecosystem services)5 in order to develop a methodological framework for

mapping and assessing the status of ecosystems and their services in Europe. There was

consensus among the members of the working group that such a framework should be

structured using a so called “Rubicode matrix” (Figure 2) which cross tabulates

ecosystems with their services for the terrestrial environment. The matrix structure will

help to map present knowledge and knowledge gaps at different spatial scales and allow

for selecting a set of main ecosystems for status assessment and defined services for

mapping by 2014.

The matrix structure is furthermore seen as a logical structure to bring together current

mapping of ecosystem services by JRC, EEA, and FP7 projects with the outcome of

Member States reporting on a number of environmental issues, including the

conservation status of protected habitat types and species, the ecological status of water

bodies and the environmental status of marine waters. The implementation needs to

provide entry points for species, species assemblages/communities, habitat types, forest

types as elements underpinning the delivery of ecosystem services.

In addition, a matrix structure helps identifying what kind of knowledge is already

available and how it can be used for linking the state of ecosystems to the delivery of

services and what are the main gaps in both ecosystem and ecosystem services mapping

and assessment. Such a gap analysis may show opportunities to fill some of these gaps at

the appropriate scale in a cost-effective manner. For instance, experiences and results

obtained in one MS could be used for mapping and assessing in another MS using value

transfer methodologies within areas situated in a similar biogeographical region and/or

socioeconomic context. Another example is that some ecosystems (forests) or some

ecosystem services (carbon sequestration of above ground biomass) can possibly be

mapped at high resolution at global or continental level based on earth observation data

and could be downscaled to national levels.

2 http://www.rubicode.net/rubicode/index.html 3 http://www.teebweb.org/ 4 Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) v2 http://cices.eu/ 5 http://www.peer.eu/projects/press/

5

Figure 2. Rubicode matrix as analysis frame for mapping and assessing ecosystems and

their services.

6

3. Filling the Rubicode matrix with columns and rows

The Rubicode matrix can potentially hold 4 types of information: ecosystems (column

headings), services (row headings), the status of ecosystems and their importance in

delivering services (for instance by adding colours that reflect conservation or ecological

status), and trends in the delivery of services by different ecosystems (presented by

arrows or quantified by data of biophysical flow or monetary value).

3.1. Typology of ecosystems

The selection of broad habitat types or ecosystems that can be assessed for their status

and their contribution in delivering ecosystem services needs to be carefully chosen to

ensure both a balanced representation of important European ecosystems and meaningful

aggregation of current continental or national land cover types and marine unit(s) as well

as of habitats that are listed under Annex 1 of the Habitats directive. According to the EU

Biodiversity Baseline 2010, the proposed ecosystem classification shown in table 1 is

based on combination of Corine land cover (CLC) adjusted with EUNIS habitat types

where necessary.

Proposal I for an ecosystem typology

The use of the ecosystem classification in table 1 is proposed as basic units for ecosystem

mapping at European and national scale. The 12 classes should allow for consistent

assessments from local to European scale. Information from more detailed classification

and higher spatial resolution should be compatible with the European-wide classification

and could be aggregated in a consistent manner if needed. If required aggregated sub-

/trans-national classes such as ‘mountainous areas’ or ‘coastal zones’ can be generated

using the proposed ecosystem classes as baseline. The mixed class ‘agricultural mosaics’

is introduced to maintain full coverage at European and national scale without losing the

specific characterization of this class with its high value for biodiversity and other

ecosystem functions and services. Methods to attribute ecosystem functions to mixed

classes will be evaluated.

7

Table 1. Proposal II for ‘ecosystem mapping’ at European level as refinement of the

EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline (EEA 2012 work in progress).

Major

eco-system

category

(level 1)

Ecosystem

type for mapping

and

assessment (level 2)

Representatio

n of habitats (functional

dimension by

EUNIS)

Representation

of land cover (spatial

dimension)

Benefits of

mapping

Problems of

mapping

Listed as

ecosystems, major

habitat

types or reporting

categories

in

Spatial data

availability

Terre-strial

Urban Constructed, industrial and

other

artificial habitats

Urban, industrial,

commercial

and transport areas, urban

green areas,

mines, dump

and

construction

sites

Urban areas represent mainly

human habitats

but they usually include

significant areas

for synanthropic

species

CLC’s coarse resolution that

needs to be

complemented e.g. by Urban

atlas (ca 300

cities) and HRL

Imperviousness

EUNIS (SEBI)

UNEP/CB

C MEA

CLC Urban Atlas

HRL

Imperviousness

Cropland

Regularly or

recently

cultivated agricultural,

horticultural

and domestic habitats

Annual and

permanent

crops

Main food

production areas,

intensively managed

ecosystems

Habitat

classification

(e.g. EUNIS) includes

permanent crops

into Heathland and scrub

EUNIS

(SEBI,

Baseline) UNEP/CB

C

MEA

CLC

Agricultura

l mosaic

Agro-

ecosystems with

significant

coverage of natural

vegetation

Heterogeneous

agricultural areas that

occur as a

single complex at a given

spatial scale

Multifunctional

area supporting many semi- and

natural species

along with food production (lower

intensity

management)

It is a mixed

class type, but. merging with

any other

ecosystem type would lose either

production or

biodiversity

functions.

EUNIS

(SEBI) UNEP/CB

C***

CLC, HNVF

Grassland Grasslands and land

dominated by forbs, mosses

or lichens

Pastures and

natural

grasslands

Areas dominated

by grassy

vegetation of two kinds – managed

pastures and

natural (extensively

managed)

grasslands

Distinction

between

intensively used and more natural

grasslands

requires additional

datasets (Art.

17)

EUNIS

(SEBI,

Baseline) UNEP/CB

C

WWF MEA***

CLC

HRL

grasslands

Woodland

and forest

Woodland,

forest and

other wooded land

Forests Climax

ecosystem type

on most of the area supporting

many ecosystem

services

Missing

information on

quality and management

requires

additional datasets (Art. 17,

HRL forest)

EUNIS

(SEBI,

Baseline) UNEP/CB

C

WWF MEA

CLC

HRL forests

Transitional woodland

Transitional ecosystems

due to land

abandonment, forest

management

or regeneration

processes

Transitional woodland

shrub

Describes essential dynamic

of ecosystems

transition on forest-nonforest

boundary

(afforestation of open land or

internal forest

management processes)

Need good interpretation of

involved process

type (by location or previous land

cover changes)

EUNIS (SEBI)

CLC HRL forests (?)

Heathland

and shrub

Heathland,

scrub and

tundra (vegetation

Moors,

heathland and

sclerophyllous vegetation

Mostly secondary

ecosystems with

unfavourable natural conditions

Mapping the

condition of

these areas requires

EUNIS

(SEBI,

Baseline) WWF

CLC

8

dominated by

shrubs or dwarf shrubs)

combination

with Art.17

MEA***

Sparsely

vegetated

land

Inland

unvegetated or sparsely vegetated

habitats

(naturally unvegetated

areas)

Open spaces

with little or no

vegetation (bare rocks,

glaciers and

inland dunes and sand

plains*

included)

Ecosystems with

extreme natural

conditions that might support

valuable species

Becomes a

conglomerate of

distinctive rarely occurring

ecosystems,

often defined by different

geographical

location

EUNIS

(SEBI)

MEA***

CLC

Inland

wetlands

Mires, bogs

and fens

(freshwater wetland

habitats)

Inland

wetlands

(marshes and peatbogs)

Specific plant and

animal

communities, water regulation,

peat-related

processes

Separation from

grasslands

(temporary inundation) and

forests (tree

canopy), HRL wetlands

EUNIS

(SEBI,

Baseline) UNEP/CB

C

MEA***

CLC

HRL wetlands

Coastal

Coastal

habitats (characteristic

coastal

wetlands and open spaces)

Coastal

wetlands, lagoons,

estuaries,

beaches and dunes*

Includes

ecosystems on marine/terrestrial

boundary that are

defined by unique mix of terrestrial,

freshwater and marine

components

‘Beaches, dunes,

and sand plains’ are divided to

coastal or inland

on the basis of their location

EUNIS

(SEBI, Baseline)

UNEP/CB

C** MEA***

CLC

HRL small water bodies

Fresh-

water

Rivers and

lakes

Inland surface

waters

(freshwater

ecosystems)

Water courses

and bodies

All permanent

freshwater surface waters

Underestimation

of water courses and small water

bodies needs

application of external datasets

(ECRINS, (HRL

Small lakes)

EUNIS

(SEBI, Baseline)

WWF

MEA***

CLC

HRL small water bodies

ECRINS

Marine Marine

Marine habitats (salt

water habitats)

Marine waters

(sea and ocean)

Salt water

ecosystems

Marine

ecosystems are

not mapped by by CLC and

needs alternative

sources e.g. EUSeaMap

EUNIS

(SEBI,

Baseline) UNEP/CB

C**

WWF MEA

EUSeaMap,

CLC for

coastal waters extent only,

*CLC class 3.3.1. Beaches, dunes, and sand plains divided to coastal or inland coastal or inland on the basis of their location

**UNEP/CBC only partially covering/mentioning (http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-10/information/sbstta-10-inf-10-

en.pdf ) ***MA’s type may differ to our description (http://millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.300.aspx.pdf )

WWF – Global Ecoregions (http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/ecoregions/about/ )

9

3.2. Typology of ecosystem services

Three international classification systems are available to classify ecosystem services:

MA, TEEB and CICES. In essence, they relate to a large extent to each other; all three

include provisioning, regulating and cultural services. The correspondence between these

classifications is illustrated in Table 2. Each classification has its own advantages and

disadvantages.

Table 2. Ecosystem services categories

MA categories TEEB categories CICES class

Food Food

Provisioning

services

Nutrition Fresh water Water

Fibre Raw Materials

Materials Genetic resources Genetic resources

Biochemicals Medicinal resources

Ornamental resources Ornamental resources

Energy

Air quality regulation Air quality regulation

Regulating

services

(MA and

TEEB)

Regulating

and

maintenance

(CICES)

Regulation of wastes

Water purification and

water treatment

Waste treatment (water

purification)

Water regulation Regulation of water flows

Flow regulation Moderation of extreme events

Erosion regulation Erosion prevention

Climate regulation Climate regulation Regulation of biophysical

conditions and biophysical

environment Soil formation

(supporting services) Maintenance of soil fertility

Pollination Pollination

Regulation of biotic

environment

Pest regulation Biological control

Disease regulation

Primary production

Nutrient cycling

Maintenance of life cycles of

migratory species (incl. nursery

service)

Maintenance of genetic

diversity (especially in gene

pool protection)

Spiritual and religious

values

Spiritual experience

Cultural

services

Symbolic

Aesthetic values Aesthetic information

Cultural diversity Inspiration for culture, art and

design

Recreation and

ecotourism

Recreation and tourism

Intellectual and experiential Knowledge systems

and educational values

Information for cognitive

development

MA provides a

classification that is

globally recognised

and used in sub global

assessments.

TEEB provides an updated

classification, based on the

MA, which is used in on-going

national TEEB studies across

Europe

CICES provides a

hierarchical system tailored

to accounting and includes

also abiotic resources and

energy

10

MA

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) organises ecosystem services into four

well known groups:

1. provisioning,

2. regulating,

3. cultural and

4. supporting services.

TEEB

TEEB proposes a typology of 22 ecosystem services divided in 4 main categories, mainly

following the MA classification:

1. provisioning,

2. regulating,

3. habitat and

4. cultural & amenity services,.

An important difference TEEB adopted was the omission of supporting services, which

are seen in TEEB as a subset of ecological processes. Instead, habitat services have been

identified as a separate category to highlight the importance of ecosystems to provide

habitat for migratory species (e.g. as nurseries) and gene-pool “protectors” (e.g. natural

habitats allowing natural selection processes to maintain the vitality of the gene pool).

The availability of these services is directly dependent on the status of the habitat (habitat

requirements) providing the service. In case commercial species are involved, such as

fish and shrimp species that spawn in mangrove systems (= nursery service) but of which

the adults are caught far away, this service has an economic (monetary) value in its own

right. Also the importance of the gene-pool protection service of ecosystems is

increasingly recognized, both as “hot spots” for conservation (in which money is

increasingly invested) and to maintain the original gene-pool of commercial species

(which we are increasingly being imitated through the creation of botanic gardens, zoos

and gene banks)..

CICES

The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES, draft V1)

offers a structure that links with the framework of the UN System of Environmental-

Economic Accounts (SEEA 2003) currently revised with an update to be published in

2013 and with other standard classifications for activities and products used in the

System of National Accounts, namely: the International Standard Industrial

Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC V4), the Central Products Classification

11

(CPC V2), and the Classification of Individual Consumption by Purpose (COICOP).

CICES also correlates to the TEEB classification of ecosystem services. The relationships

between CICES/TEEB and the other environmental accounting tables are neither all-

inclusive nor biunivocal (i.e. not all the service classes are found in the different

accounting tables and vice versa, and two matched terms do not necessarily represent the

same). These relationships are especially poor for the regulating services but are under

revision since they were not considered in traditional environmental accounts.

Annex: CICES classification version 4 (Haines-Young, personal communication)

Proposal III for ecosystem services categories

The general framework developed by CICES (in particular the so-called service classes

of CICES V4 shown in Table 2) is proposed to be used so that cross-reference can be

made between ecosystem services and the other instruments for environmental

accounting mentioned above. This very general level of classification is suggested with

the aim of providing a flexible and hierarchical classification that can be adapted to the

specific situation and needs of Member States. Within each of the 9 broad service classes

Table 3 provides a list of examples of specific services that can be assessed. It is

proposed to assess the ecosystem services, which are generated by living ecosystems and

which are dependent on biodiversity or on ecosystem processes. Therefore, abiotic

environmental outputs (e.g. minerals, wind energy), already included in other

environmental accounting frameworks, will not be covered by this assessment

framework.

12

Table 3. Examples of ecosystem services that can be included within each service class

of the CICES classification.

Nutrition

Provision of food crops

Provision of meat

Provision of fish and shellfish

Provision of wild plants or algae for food

Provision of drinking water

Materials

Provision of raw materials like timber, leather, cooling or irrigation water, chemical

compounds…

Provision of ornamental resources, like cut flowers or shells

Provision of genetic resources

Provision of natural medicinal resources or exemplar for synthetic compounds

Energy

Provision of wood fuel

Provision of energy crops or algae

Provision of biogas from manure

Regulation of wastes

Air purification by vegetation, soil or water bodies

Water purification

Regulation against hazards

Floods attenuation

Water storage

Coastal protection

Air flow regulation

Erosion prevention

Regulation of physical environment

Climate regulation

C sequestration

Maintenance of soil fertility

Regulation of biotic environment

Lifecycle maintenance

Gene pool protection

Pollination / Seeds, eggs or gametes dispersal

Biological control

Symbolic

Inspiration for culture, art or design

Aesthetic information

Spiritual experience

Intellectual and Experiential

Recreation and tourism

Information for science or education

13

4. Ecosystem assessment

4.1. Conceptual model(s)

An ecosystem assessment is analysing the interactions between human society and nature

at a certain spatial scale over given geographic and temporal scopes. Figures 3 and 4

present a possible conceptual framework for an EU ecosystem assessment linking the

status of ecosystems to the delivery of multiple ecosystem services.

Figure 3. The ecosystem service cascade embedded in the adaptive DPSIR indicator and

management cycle after Haines-Young and Potschin (2010)6, de Groot et al. (2010)

7,

Kandziora et al. in press8.

Drivers – human activities that cause pressures on the natural environment

Pressures – the manner through which drivers act upon state

State – measure of ecosystem functioning and integrity

Impacts – measures of human welfare (including indirect effects such as the

knowledge that a particular species is endangered)

Responses – effects of impacts on other DPSIR components through policy response

6 Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2010, Proposal for a Common International Classification of Ecosystem

Goods and Services (CICES) for Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting, Report to the EEA. 7 De Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., 2010. Challenges in integrating the

concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol.

Complex. 7, 260-272 8 Kandziora, M., Burkhard, B., Müller, F. (in press). Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem

integrity and ecosystem services indicators – A theoretical matrix exercise. Ecological Indicators.

14

Figure 4. Conceptual framework for the bio-physical baseline of ecosystems and services

in context of the targets of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (EEA 2012). ‘Ecosystem

Services’ represent the use of renewable natural capital for human wellbeing. It is also

the entry point for the valuation exercise foreseen after 2014.

Drivers –activities to make use of ecosystem services for human wellbeing;

Pressures – processes affecting ecosystem functioning triggered by human activities;

State – ecosystem functioning as combination of biotic and abiotic environmental conditions and

pressures;

Impacts – changes in ecosystem functioning;

Response – measures to cope with impacts to maintain ecosystem services for long-term human

well-being.

Both figures are embedding ecosystem services into the DPSIR model. European

environmental assessments are frequently framed based on the DPSIR methodology. The

state (S) is the result of specific drivers (D) and pressures (P), positive or negative, which

impact (I) the environment. The responses (R) represent the solutions (e.g. policies,

15

investments) for what should then be done to improve or maintain that state (EEA, SOER

2010).

The ecosystem services cascade (which is explicitly presented in Figure 3) is a useful

concept to frame spatially explicit, quantitative assessments of ecosystems, ecosystem

services and benefits. This framework is based on the TEEB study and links biodiversity

and ecosystems to human wellbeing through the flow of ecosystem services (Figure 3).

Ecosystems provide the necessary structures and processes that underpin ecosystem

functions which are defined as the capacity or potential to deliver services. Ecosystem

services are derived from ecosystem functions and represent the realized flow of services

in relation to the benefits of people. Importantly, the framework considers natural capital

as the stocks of natural assets which have capacity to deliver services and ES as the flows

of benefits that people receive and which are generated by these assets.

The state of ecosystems connects the DPSIR model to ecosystems under the assumption

that healthy ecosystems in a good state are necessary to provide multiple services. The

impact that an altered supply of services has on our wellbeing provides a second linkage

between the cascade model and the DPSIR cycle. Maintaining the balance between the

different services of each ecosystem for sustainable delivery of its multiple services is the

entry point for decision processes and policy measures.

The framework can integrate different sorts of information which are relevant for

ecosystem assessment: (1) the state of ecosystems in Europe, (2) the flow of ecosystem

services from ecosystems to society and human wellbeing , (3) the value derived from

changes in ecosystem service supply and (4) plausible scenarios and outlooks for social

and economic change across Europe that affect via the DPSIR cycle the supply of and

demand for ecosystem services.

The typology of ecosystems versus services can now be used for an ecosystem

assessment (Figure 5). Such an assessment will follow four strands of work, which link

well to the DPISR-Cascade framework:

1. Biophysical baseline mapping and assessment of the status of major ecosystems

2. Biophysical baseline mapping and assessment of defined ecosystem services

3. Alignment of ecosystem service assessments with scenarios of future changes

(Future outlooks)

4. Valuation of ecosystem services for baseline and contrasting scenarios and

integration into environmental and economic accounting

With the first two tasks to be performed until 2014 and therefore key objectives of this

paper and the third and fourth to be foreseen after 2014.

16

Conservation

status of habitats

and species

(Article 17 of the

Habitats Directive

Favourable

Sta

tus

of

bro

ad

eco

syst

ems

ECOSYSTEM

ASSESSMENT

EU and Member States

Unfavourable-

Inadequate

Unfavourable-Bad

Ecological status

of water bodies

(Water

Framework

Directive)

High

Good

Moderate

Poor

Bad

Environmental

status of seas

(Marine Strategy

Framework

Directive)

Baseline assessment

Other reporting obligations (air quality,

greenhouse gas emissions) or other

information (land use change)

MAPPING AND ASSESSING ECOSYSTEM

SERVICES

Mapping

Biophysical

baseline of

ecosystem

services

Scenarios

Outlooks

Visions for

Europe

Value/Benefits

Well being,

Economic,

Social,

Health,

Figure 5. Implementation of Action 5 ecosystem assessments along 4 main strands of

work: assessment of status of broad ecosystems, mapping of major ecosystem services

(by 2014) and scenario analysis and valuation/benefits of ecosystem services

4.2. Biophysical baseline mapping and assessment of the status of major ecosystems

Member States are committed to report on the conservation status of habitats and species,

the ecological status of water bodies and the environmental status of marine waters, in the

period 2012-2014. This quasi synchronised reporting will be integrated as much as

possible as part of the streamlining initiative of EU Policies on Biodiversity, Nature,

Water and Marine environment, currently being discussed between the Commission and

the Member states at respective Directors meetings. Other regular reporting processes

provide relevant data/information important for assessing the status of ecosystem

17

functioning - such as air quality, statistical data about agricultural yields, timber etc.

including through the reporting to the UN Conventions. Additional information is also

available (but not necessarily accessible) from national and European activities,

especially GMES (Global Monitoring for Environmental Security Programme) and

research projects. At European scale, these data represent a primary data source for

assessing the status of ecosystems. Most environmental data sets from national reporting

are made available by European bodies such as the European Environment Agency

(EEA) in cooperation with the European Topic Centres (ETCs), Eurostat and DG

Environment through the European Data Centres. Environment-relevant data/information

is also available in other EC services and related agencies (e.g. International Council for

the Exploration of the Sea - ICES for marine information).

Proposal IV for mapping and assessing the status of major ecosystems

EEA is currently assessing data availability and methods for ecosystem mapping and

assessment at European scale. As soon as the ecosystem classification and a priority list

for ecosystem services to be assessed up to 2014 are adopted, guidelines and

recommendations will be evaluated and distributed for review and comments.

4.3. Biophysical baseline mapping and assessment of defined ecosystem services

Research on mapping and assessment of ecosystem services is increasing. As a result of

different methodological approaches, different sets of indicators are being used to assess

a single service, resulting in different units in which ecosystem services are expressed.

For example, different proxies are often used to study air quality regulation including

fluxes in atmospheric gasses between vegetation and the air, atmospheric cleansing

capacity of leaves or levels of pollutants in the air. These discrepancies evidently have

implications for estimating monetary values. Thus, the need to standardize definitions for

each service and methods for mapping them is important in comparing results among

different EU Members States and measuring effectiveness of different policy measures.

Consistency in mapping approaches is therefore a major challenge.

Several approaches to map ecosystem services exist and reviews of methodologies are

available.

Deriving information on ecosystem services directly from land-use/cover or

habitat maps. Such approaches may be appropriate at national or European scales,

for areas where the dominant service relates directly to land use (e.g. crop and

timber production) or where data availability or expertise is limited, and where

the focus is on the assumed presence of ecosystem services rather than on

quantification of the supply. This method is often coupled to value transfer.

Ecosystem service values are transferred from existing valuation studies to other

18

areas using land cover data for value transfer. This approach cannot be so easily

applied to the marine environment.

Using primary data to map ecosystem services are used for provisioning services

where statistics are available. Examples include timber, food, or water supply.

Statistical data usually relate to certain administrative units.

Primary data are often not available for regulating, supporting, and cultural

services and we must rely on proxies for mapping these latter services. For

instance, the regulation of urban air quality by trees depends much on the size and

density of the leaves. A dense canopy is able to capture more particulate matter or

pollutants than sparse canopies. The leaf area index is therefore a possible

indicator to map this ecosystem service.

Recent mapping techniques are based on biological data such as functional traits

of plants or ecosystem structure and habitat data. Functional traits, such as

vegetative height, leaf dry matter content, leaf nitrogen and phosphorous

concentration, flowering onset, can be used to map several services. Habitat

classification, such as the European Nature Information System (EUNIS)

classification include detailed data on the associated biodiversity, which makes

their use reasonable in mapping relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem

services.

Models and derived indicators: For instance InVEST or ARIES or any other

biophysical/ecological model that can be adapted to map ecosystem services as

well. The JRC develops European scaled models for mapping ecosystem services

for instance in collaboration with the PEER network (under the PRESS project).

Proposal V for mapping ecosystem services

Once the matrix structure for the ecosystem assessment is adopted, methodological

guidelines on mapping ecosystem services can be drafted (JRC). These guidelines should

include a flexible set of indicators for mapping ecosystem services as well as mapping

tools, methodologies and training options.

4.4. Outlook and valuation

An outlook or scenario analysis showing the implications for biodiversity and ecosystem

services of different possible futures is an essential component of an ecosystem

assessment. Contrasting policy scenarios with baseline changes that arise from policy

measures can be valued in terms of changed in well-being. Valuation and outlook using

scenarios are foreseen to be carried out after 2014. Several activities and research projects

are working on methods and tools to provide the necessary instruments. At EEA,

19

Quickscan9 is currently tested for scenario analysis. JRC and EEA are evaluating

valuation methods to be feasible for national and European assessments.

Annexes

TEEB Glossary:

http://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CHMQFjA

A&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teebweb.org%2FLinkClick.aspx%3Ffileticket%3DSTcE

Gif4A10%253D%26tabid%3D1018%26language%3Den-US&ei=dIGnT82XPMeP-

wbq_IjwAg&usg=AFQjCNHngfV_JCJgP6gApGKLOEP4Fq3ayg&sig2=h84Iw41ECcq2

CXh7FRdU-g

CICES version 4

9 QUICKScan: A pragmatic approach for bridging gaps in the science-policy interface; Manuel Winograd (European Environment

Agency), Marta Perez-Soba (ALTERRA), Peter Verweij (ALTERRA), Rob Knappen (ALTERRA), LIAISE OPEN DAY, Bilbao, Spain, 14 March, 2012.

20

Theme Service Class Service Group Service Type Sub-types

Examples and indicative benefits TEEB Classes

Pro

visi

on

ing

Nutrition Terrestrial plant and animal foodstuffs

Commercial cropping eg. by crops

Cereals, vegetables, vines etc. Food

Subsistence cropping eg. by

crops Cereals, vegetables, vines etc.

Commercial animal

production eg. by animal type

Sheep, cattle for meat and dairy products

Subsistence animal

production eg. by animal type

Sheep, cattle for meat and dairy products

Harvesting wild plants and

animals for food eg. by resource

Berries, fungi etc

Freshwater plant and animal foodstuffs

Commercial fishing (wild populations)

eg. by fishery

Subsistence fishing eg. by

fishery

Aquaculture eg. by

fishery

Harvesting fresh water

plants for food eg. by resource

Water cress

Marine plant and animal foodstuffs

Commercial fishing (wild populations)

eg. by fishery

Includes crustaceans

Subsistence fishing eg. by

fishery Includes crustaceans

Aquaculture eg. by

fishery Includes crustaceans

Harvesting marine plants

for food eg. by resource

Seaweed

Potable water Abstraction of surface

waters eg. by feature

Spring, well water, river, reservoir, lake, supply of domestic and bottled waters

Water

21

Abstraction of ground

waters eg. by habitat

Aquifers

Materials Biotic materials Non-food plant fibres eg. by

resource Timber, straw, flax Raw Materials

Non-food animal fibres eg. by

resource Skin, bone etc., guano

Ornamental resources eg. by resource

Bulbs, cut flowers, shells, bones and feathers etc.

Ornamental resources

Genetic resources eg. by resource

Wild species used in breeding programmes Genetic resources

Medicinal resources eg. by resource

Bio prospecting activities Medicinal resources

Abiotic materials Mineral resources eg. by resource

Salt, aggregates, etc. (include but EXCLUDE subsurface assets)

Energy Renewable biofuels

Plant based resources eg. by resource

Wood fuel, energy crops etc.

Animal based resources eg. by resource

Dung, fat, oils

Renewable abiotic energy sources

Wind eg. by resource

Hydro eg. by resource

Solar eg. by resource

Tidal eg. by resource

Thermal eg. by resource

Re

gula

tio

n a

nd

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Regulation of wastes

Bioremediation Remediation using plants eg. by method

Phytoaccumulation, phytodegredation, phytostabilisation, rhizodegradation, rhizofiltration, vegetation cap

Remediation using micro-organisms

eg. by method

In situ (Bioremediation), ex situ (composting), bioreactors

Dilution and sequestration

Dilution eg. by method

Wastewater treatment

22

Filtration eg. by method

Filtration of particulates and aerosols Air purification

Sequestration and absorption

eg. by method

Sequestration of nutrients in organic sediments, removal of odours

Flow regulation Air flow regulation

Windbreaks, shelter belts eg. by process

Disturbance prevention or moderation

Ventilation eg. by process

Water flow regulation

Attenuation of runoff and discharge rates

eg. by process

Woodlands, wetlands and their impact on discharge rates

Regulation of water flows

Water storage eg. by process

Irrigation water

Sedimentation eg. by process

Navigation

Attenuation of wave energy

eg. by process

Mangroves

Mass flow regulation

Erosion protection eg. by process

Wetlands reducing discharge peak Erosion prevention

Avalanche protection eg. by process

Stabilisation of mudflows, erosion protection [reduction]

Regulation of physical

environment

Atmospheric regulation

Global climate regulation (incl. C-sequestration)

eg. by process

Atmospheric composition, hydrological cycle Climate regulation (incl. C-sequestration)

Local & Regional climate regulation

eg. by process

Modifying temperature, humidity etc.; maintenance of regional precipitation patterns

Water quality regulation

Water purification and oxygenation

eg. by process

Nutrient retention in buffer strips etc. and translocation of nutrients

Cooling water eg. by process

For power production

Pedogenesis and soil quality regulation

Maintenance of soil fertility

eg. by process

Green mulches; n-fixing plants Maintaining soil fertility

Maintenance of soil structure

eg. by process

Soil organism activity

23

Regulation of biotic

environment

Lifecycle maintenance & habitat protection

Pollination eg. by process

By plants and animals Lifecycle maintenance

Seed dispersal eg. by process

By plants and animals Pollination

Pest and disease control

Biological control mechanisms

eg. by process

By plants and animals, control of pathogens Biological control

Gene pool protection

Maintaining nursery populations

eg. by process

Habitat refuges Gene pool protection

Cu

ltu

ral

Symbolic Aesthetic, Heritage

Landscape character eg. by resource

Areas of outstanding natural beauty Inspiration for culture, art and design

Cultural landscapes eg. by resource

Sense of place Aesthetic information

Spiritual Wilderness, naturalness eg. by resource

Tranquillity, isolation Spiritual experience

Sacred places or species eg. by resource

Woodland cemeteries, sky burials

Intellectual and Experiential

Recreation and community activities

Charismatic or iconic wildlife or habitats

eg. by resource

Bird or whale watching, conservation activities, volunteering

Recreation & tourism

Prey for hunting or collecting

eg. by resource

Angling, shooting, membership of environmental groups and organisations

Information & knowledge

Scientific eg. by resource

Pollen record, tree ring record, genetic patterns Information for cognitive development

Educational eg. by resource

Subject matter for wildlife programmes and books etc.