Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services

Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services ALTER-Net Conference 2013: Science underpinning the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy. April 2013 Gent Joachim MAES 1

This presentation is based on the MAES discussion paper, and takes it one step further by setting a common framework for mapping and assessment.

EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 Action 5 of the Biodiversity Strategy requires Member States, with the assistance of the Commission, to map and assess the state of ecosystems and their services in their national territory by 2014, assess the economic value of such services, and promote the integration of these values into accounting and reporting systems at EU and national level by 2020 MAES working group to support the implemetation of Action5

Why mapping? Ecosystems and their services are spatially explicit Supply and demand differ in space Ecosystem accounting requires detailed spatial data Mapping and modelling for scenario assessment and for spatial planning at land and at sea Powerful way of communicating to stakeholders Spatial data are needed for Action 6 (restoration of 15% of degraded ecosystems) and for Action 7 (NNL of BES)

Why assessing? An ecosystem assessment is helpful in exploring and communicating how good ecosystem status supports broader social and economic goals through enhanced delivery of ecosystem services H 0 : Good ecosystem status increases human well-being through the delivery of multiple ecosystem services.

soil CO2 land use indicators conservation status

Sustainable use of natural resources H -1 : An ecosystem management which targets the delivery of multiple services helps achieve environmental policy targets. Restoring ecosystems Green infrastructure Resource efficiency Green economy

ecosystems functions ecosystem services socio-economic systems ecosystem use and management other capital inputs human well-being ecological processes genetic diversity benefits nutrition, clean air and water health, safety, security enjoyment,... functional traits biodiversity species richness value economic value health value shared (social) value other values biophysical structures state present and future biotic interactions drivers of change response institutions, businesses policies (agriculture, forestry, fishery, environment,...) stakeholders and users

Common frame for mapping and assessing

(1) Mapping ecosystems Corine Land Cover Main advantages of using CLC: Temporal frequency (1990, 2000, 2006, and on ). European spatial extent Methodological consistency leads to reasonable degree of comparison across countries

Refinement of the CLC2006 data Main disadvantage of using CLC: Low spatial detail (MMU: 25 hectares) Complemented by more detailed or high resolution data sets Example for urban systems (Batista e Silva et al. 2012. Journal of Land Use Science)

Refinement of the CLC2006 data Target mainly the artificial land cover classes, increasing the minimum mapping unit to 1 hectare, thus allowing a more complete representation of urban patterns; Was operated by incorporating land use/cover information present in various higher resolution thematic maps available for Europe such as: CLC change map; Soil sealing layer; Tele Atlas Spatial Database; Urban Atlas; SRTM Water Bodies Data.

CLC

CLC CLC_refined

CLC CLC_refine d

(2) Ecosystem assessment Based on the reporting obligations of environmental directives HD/BD WFD MSFD other (air quality, ) Increase the usability of these assessments Example for the Art.17 habitat assessment

Mapping habitat conservation status A model to assess the probability that habitats are in a favourable conservation status as function of drivers of biodiversity Preliminary results for EU- 25 (excl. CY, MT))

(3) Mapping ecosystem services Several reviews are available Blueprint JRC report Biophysical mapping Look up tables (BB approach) Ecological traits Spatial indicators (PRESS) Models (Invest, Aries,...) Value mapping

Timber stock Crop stock Livestock density Erosion control Pollination potential Soil quality Water provision Water regulation Water purification Carbon stock Atmospheric cleansing Recreation potential Coastal protection 26 April 2013

Ecosystem services

(4) Integration Why does favourable conservation status matter? How does ecosystem status relates to service provision How do various ecosystem types interact to provide multiple services At EU scale, habitats in a favourable conservation status have a higher potential to supply regulating and cultural ecosystem services than habitats in an unfavourable conservation status (Maes et al. 2012. Biological Conservation)

End statements The scientific community, and in particular ALTER-Net, can do better than expert based ecosystem assessments by using the current knowlegde base. Therefore it is very likely that the 2014 deadline of mapping and assessing the state of ecosystems and their services will therefore be met

Step in and enjoy