DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT
Brussels,
ENV-B2 D(2013)
Final workshop minutes
Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES)
in the marine environment
19 June 2013, 09:00-17.30
DG ENV Room C, 5 Avenue de Beaulieu, 1160 Brussels
Participants: There were about 60 participants, including representatives from Member States, stakeholders and experts (see Annex 1).
Co-Chairs: François Wakenhut, Head of Unit ENV B2 (Biodiversity), and
David Connor, Unit ENV C2 (Marine Environment and Water Industry)
I. Opening and introduction – MAES and marine environmental policy
The Commission welcomed the participants and stressed that the objective of the workshop was to strengthen synergies between MAES and Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) implementation process, raise mutual awareness, take stock of relevant activities in Member States, scientific and NGO communities, and agree on a joint cooperative process to be started.
1) Introduction to the MAES initiative, its relevance to related policies, in particular the mutual supportiveness and interdependency of MAES, MSFD, and marine Natura 2000
François Wakenhut presented the MAES initiative and progress so far (see presentation on CIRCABC). The MAES Analytical Framework was published in April 2013[1]. Six pilot cases have been launched in 2013 on nature, agriculture, forest, freshwater, marine and natural capital accounting that will provide recommendations on the data to use at EU/MS level and guidance on how to deal with cross-cutting issues. The typology proposes 12 broad ecosystem types, including 4 marine ones (i.e. marine inlets & transitional waters, coastal, shelf, open ocean). A crosswalk between Habitats Directive habitat types, MSFD predominant habitat types and the MEAS ecosystem types has been developed by EEA-ETC/BD. Further work would be needed for the typology of marine ecosystems and services.
David Connor highlighted the links between MAES and the MSFD, which aims at achieving good environmental status (GES) by 2020, through an ecosystem-based approach and enabling sustainable use of marine goods and services.
MSFD-related work can support MAES by contributing to the assessment of the state of marine ecosystems and providing maps. Implementation of the MSFD can benefit from MAES insofar as it links the assessment of ecosystem services to particular components of marine ecosystems, demonstrates the benefits of achieving GES for these components/services, and supports measures needed to achieve GES through improved ecosystem services (links to costs of degraded ecosystems).
Fotis Papoulias (Unit ENV B3 – Nature) presented the state of play regarding the implementation of the nature directives in the marine environment, with the designation of marine Natura 2000 sites (currently 2300 sites, covering ca. 217500 km2) and assessment of conservation status of marine habitats and species. The legislation applies to waters where MS exercise sovereign rights. A study on the socio-economic benefits from marine protected areas under N2000 is being undertaken. He stressed the rather unfavourable status and important knowledge gaps in the marine environment. Far more work is needed on marine monitoring and on cooperation across countries.
In conclusion, the inter-relations between biodiversity, nature and marine policies were highlighted and these will be discussed at a joint meeting between Nature, Water and Marine Directors in Lithuania on 4th December 2013.
2) The MAES analytical framework and pilot on marine ecosystems: conceptual approach and initial results
Francesca Somma (European Commission Joint Research Centre – JRC) presented the MAES marine pilot that aims to identify available data and knowledge that can be used for mapping and assessing marine ecosystems and their services. She highlighted the knowledge gaps (especially on deep sea and benthic habitats) as compared to terrestrial and freshwater. The ecosystem typology as proposed in the analytical framework will need to be refined for marine. It is currently a compromise between Corine Land Cover (CLC) and MSFD ecosystem types. The use of the Common International Classification on Ecosystem Services (CICES) is relevant to be able to include potential values into accounting systems but it is not adapted to the marine environment. The use of the cascade model allows for linking ecosystem structures to functions, and to derive services flows and benefits if there is human demand. The pilot team is currently developing a matrix that connects the mapping and assessment of the condition of marine ecosystem (CLC, MSFD) with the mapping and assessment of ecosystem services using indicators. The JRC has just published a literature review on marine ecosystem services that includes a table listing indicators for each category of services.
Finally, she presented the example of JRC work on coastal protection mapping, applying the cascade model and leading to the identification of socio-economic benefits (capacity, exposure, demand).
3) Methodological considerations relating to European marine ecosystem assessments with a focus on services
Eva Royo Gelabert (European Environment Agency – EEA) made a detailed presentation of methodological considerations on European marine ecosystem assessment with a focus on services following the DPSIR. The EEA is focusing on the supply side of MAES, and the benefits are addressed through case-studies. Three categories of services are tested. The data used are EU-level assessment products from Directives reporting flows (nature, WFD, MSFD), ICES as well as voluntary data flows from EIONET. A major issue is the way to assessing how status varies under the different directives. A next step will be to integrate MSFD data on state and pressures as well as to use the Directive as part of the ‘Response’ (link between ecosystem services and GES descriptors/indicators needed). This is very much work in progress. She concluded by stressing the importance of defining first what type of assessment is required and then looking at data needed, and not the other way round.
II. The policy context and its relation to 'MAES marine' at EU and Member-state level
4) Implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: issues related to ecosystems and their services
In opening the discussion of this item, Joachim d'Eugenio (Deputy Head of Unit ENV C2) referred to the lunch discussion of Ministers at the Environment Council of 18 June that focused on "Blue Growth" and how to ensure the sustainable development of marine waters, by looking at the status of implementation of the MSFD and integration of marine environmental concerns through other EU initiatives – the EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change and the Commission's proposal for a Directive on Maritime Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal Management. The need to take appropriate measures to bridge the significant gap still separating Europe's waters from achieving good environmental status by 2020 was stressed by the Commission, as there is still a lack of coherence in national policies. A better implementation of MSFD is required but also better cooperation within the EU and neighbours, through the Regional Sea Conventions.
MAES is an opportunity to demonstrate the benefits of achieving GES in terms of benefits not only to the environment but also to society and the economy. This is very timely since by 2015 MS have to develop their programmes of measures needed to achieve GES and safeguard some services. It is now time to join forces and organise ourselves so that we can deliver more integrated work. A joint work programme will be fixed up to 2020 at the Directors meeting in December 2013.
In his presentation, David Connor provided an introduction to the MSFD and its implementation for non-specialists, and he elaborated on some of the interrelations between the MAES and MSFD processes.
5) Common Fisheries Policy and Integrated Maritime Policy: issues related to ecosystems and their services
Iain Shepherd (DG MARE) presented the "Blue Growth" agenda and the opportunities it provides for growth and jobs. He outlined the EU's Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP), in particular maritime policy instruments (including for marine knowledge, spatial planning, and surveillance), sea-basin strategies, and targeted efforts on issues such as marine biotechnology, seabed resources, and aquaculture
In the discussion, DG ENV highlighted the role of the MSFD as the environmental pillar of the IMP. With regard to the political agreement recently achieved on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the final text needs to be evaluated fairly and critically, and all opportunities resulting from the new CFP Regulation need to be used during its implementation.
6) EU-funded research on marine ecosystems and their services
Ana Teresa Caetano (DG RTD) presented the main RTD funded projects in 2007-2013 (see http://cordis.europa.eu for reports), including on climate change, monitoring of the environment, and on management of marine ecosystems. In terms of ecosystem services, she quoted projects like KNOWSEAS, MEECE (developing models on bundle of impacts and delivered a MEECE Model Atlas) and CoralFish (interaction between corals in EU deep sea, fish and fisheries, including an atlas). In the 2014-2020 framework programme, "Horizon 2020" (H2020), as part of the Challenge on "Climate action, Resource Efficiency and Raw Materials", environment research on marine ecosystems will be covered along five lines of activities. H2020 has flexibility for accommodating cross-cutting approaches. There is agreement on a budget of 70 billion € for H2020. Work programmes are being prepared with a first call towards the end of 2013. H2020 is open to everyone, including NGOs. She stressed that the link between research and policy has to be improved (e.g. SCALES).
7) Plenary discussion
It was observed, inter alia, that official reporting by MS does not deliver what it should and that other ways are currently being explored, such as more forward-looking processes. The issue of better access to existing information is also an issue (e.g. marine knowledge). There was also an interest in developing "storylines" that would link ecosystem services to the marine environment with concrete examples that could be easily communicated.
8) Break-out group discussions
Patrick Murphy (ENV B2) introduced the four break-out groups with particular focus on provisioning (e.g. wild animals), regulating and maintenance (e.g. coastal protection and maintaining nursery populations and habitats), and cultural services (e.g. physical and experimental interactions). Each group discussed the synergies and complementarities between existing mapping and assessment activities (e.g. MAES, CFP, MSFD); potential data sources; relevant research activities and other relevant experiences; challenges, data and knowledge gaps.
III. Way forward – identifying needs and setting priorities in support of joined-up delivery on MAES marine, MSFD implementation, and related objectives
9) Presentation of MESEU case-study on the Wadden Sea
Chris Klok (Wageningen University) presented the case-study that was developed as part of the MAES supporting contract (MESEU).
10) Speed presentation of the VALMER research project
Mahé Charles (France) presented the Interreg project on Valuing Marine Ecosystem Services in the Western Channel.
11) Reports from break-out group discussions
Leo Maier (ENV B2) presented the main outcomes of the four break-out groups:
o Synergies: Focus on MSFD, a qualitative storyline would be useful in short-term, quantitative MAES outcomes would be needed to support the longer-term goal of achieving GES (link between services and descriptors/indicators), information on pressures to come from CFP/IMP;
o Data sources/research: EEA-ETC/BD crosswalks is an interesting contribution as it shows the links between several European marine habitat type classifications (EUNIS, Habitats Directive, MSFD and EUSeaMap), citizen science should be further developed/supported, initiative of DG MARKT on Natural Capital Services should be explored, collection of well-researched case-studies would be useful to illustrate MAES storylines.
o Challenges: important data/knowledge gaps, legislation not geared to ecosystem services assessment; sequence of assessment steps to be considered; a 'translation' methodology to use the MAES analytical framework for an actual assessment would be needed; utility of MAES to be better communicated to stakeholders; need for (qualitative) storyline to be developed in the short-term; time pressure of 2014 unrealistic; perceived excess of parallel, non-synchronised reporting requirements from the relevant EU directives; original point of departure 'biodiversity' risks to be somewhat lost.
A more complete summary of the specific discussions are included in annex of the report of the workshop (see Annex 2).
12) Plenary discussion on the way forward
François Wakenhut underlined that MAES is a step-by-step approach with some methodological delivery from the pilots by the end of this year, provision of case-studies by Member States and work on the MAES matrix as a whole as second step. There is a need to improve the exchange of information with the MAES marine pilot – for the time being through CIRCABC – and to develop a sort of "cookbook" for case-studies.
During the plenary discussion, the role of MAES as integrative tool for supporting the streamlined reporting under environmental legislation was stressed (e.g. it should help harmonise data flows and ensure coherent aggregation through grids). Synergies between MAES and MSFD descriptors should be further developed (e.g. JRC is working on a matrix relating descriptors to ecosystem services).
13) Conclusions and closing of the meeting
François Wakenhut insisted that this workshop was not a one-off event and that there is a need to take the joint cooperative process forward. As far as biodiversity community is concerned the workshop report will be made available to the MAES Working Group of 18 September. The marine pilot will distil the outcomes of the workshop for its work. There is a plea to increase the level of involvement in the Marine Pilot. The operational conclusions that can be drawn from this discussion will be forwarded to the Nature/Water/Marine Directors meeting in December.
The objective is to ensure that the MAES marine process can relate to different processes, thus bridging work at global and EU levels, but also under different EU instruments. We need to mobilise decision power to address gaps and needs. There is a lot to happen in the meantime, including finalisation of pilot with guidance on how to carry out the work at national level.
One of the objectives of this initiative is that linkages will become the norm across the marine community (MAES marine, MSFD, marine Natura2000). In spite of the challenges, one of the take-home messages is a general recognition and mutual interest of working together.
David Connor found the workshop helpful in raising awareness and bringing the MSFD and MAES processes together. There are many challenges ahead but also relatively easy things to do, such as highlighting the benefits of ecosystem services in the MSFD context. It is important to bring this message home and share experience from countries. There is a lot to be learned but we need to build upon ongoing work and to make the links more concrete between both communities. The process of streamlining of reporting is a key issue. There is some work under way within the Commission to make this happen in practice. With regard to the MSFD community, the outcomes of this workshop and of the marine pilot will be channelled to the GES Working Group and Marine Strategy Coordination Group. Further contributions from MS on how this joined-up approach is working in practice are welcome.