Mapping of ecosystems and their services in the EU and its Member States ENV.B.2/SER/2012/0016 The objective : - to compare and test EU methods on pilot cases from Member States in order to identify possible commonalities and facilitate cross-linkages between national/sub-national assessments and the work carried out at EU level. the Working Group MAES should give regular feedback to this project and is one of the main users of the results

OVERALL APPROACH F. A. B. C. D. E.

Task 1 Results:MAPS Case 4 NL-Marine Case 2.1 Belgium Case 1.1 UK-Wales Case 2.1 Belgium Case 2.2 Austria Case 3.1 Switzerland Case 1.2 Spain Case 3.2 Balkan

COUNTRY CASE STUDIES -FACT SHEET table: GROUP 1 Policy & Process   Q 1: Implementation of T2, A5 Q 2: Position in T2, A5 1.1. U.K. UK NEA for T2A5 1.2. Spain Spanish Strategic Plan National Ecosystem Assessment of Spain: biophysical evaluation and an economic valuation 2.1. Belgium 2.1.a. Flanders National: BEES Flanders: yearly update of nature status indicators, regular nature report Not explicitely; overview of current knowledge on ES 2.1.b. Flanders Qualitative ES assessment (Nature Report 2014) 2.1.c. Wallonia National: BEES Wallonia: ecological network of Wallonia, ES qualitative assessment ES qualitative assessment including WG-MAES recommendations 2.2. Austria National Austrian Strategy (under development) towards ES mapping and assessment for 2014 Not explicitely GROUP 1 QUESTIONS POLICY & PROCESS Q 1: Implementa-tion of T2, A5 Q 2: Position in T2, A5 Q 3: Future use within T2, A5 Q 4: Stakeholders Q 5: Executive institutes Q 6: Problems and recomm. 1.1. U.K.   UK NEA,wide range, not complete UK NEA intended as UK input in T2A5 yes various Welsh Government 1.2. Spain Spanish Strategic Plan NEA of Spain: biophysical evaluation scenario exercise, spatial explicit analysis of biodiversity and ES, LU change. scientists, government, NGOs, private sector Biodiversity Foundation of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment mobilization and common understanding of stakeholders 2.1. Belgium 2.1.a. Flanders National: BEES Flanders: nature report (NARA) ES state (2012) and ES assessment (2014) Not explicitely; overview of current knowledge on ES Ecoplan + basis for quantitative ES assessment of the Nature report (2014) None Flemish Environment, Nature and Energy Department (LNE) 2.1.b. Flanders Qualitative ES assessment (Nature Report 2014) easily implementable and up-scalable public and private institutions for the survey, professional experts regional policy institutions survey organization 2.1.c. Wallonia National: BEES Wallonia: ecological network of Wallonia ES qualitative assessment simple methodology, implementable on EU scale. awareness raising DEMNA, experts (qualitative quantification) see Group 2, Q 8 2.2. Austria National Austrian Strategy towards ES mapping and assessment for 2014 Not explicitely Can be used as show cases; discussion to serve the national assessment Ministry of FAEW, local admin., private stakeholders, action groups Ministry of FAEW (steering committee and funding) Lack of data access due to lack of backing from policy level 3.1. Switzerland 3.1.b. Regional Swiss Biodiversity Strategy being detailed until 2014, Spatial planning at regional scale Not specified P: need for detailed knowledge 3.1.c. Local Consider uncertainties, Experts (Bayesian Network), local knowledge P: few experts, data intense , lack of understanding 3.2. Balkan 3.2.a. Croatia Strategy / Action Plan for Protection of B&L diversity, Nature Protection & Forest Act lack of data, data availability or data compatibility 3.2.b. Others Few frameworks, poorly implemented 4. The Netherlands National MAES launched Not yet Use for kick-off of T2,A5 policy makers, fisheries, industry, energy, recreation , local nature groups, farmers IMARES

COUNTRY CASE STUDIES -FACT SHEET table: GROUP 2 Science & assessment GROUP 2 QUESTIONS Science & assessment Q 1: Ecoystems Q 2: Ecosystem services Q 3: indicators Q 4: quantification Q 5: EU data Q 6: Scientific analysis or critical view on own work 1.1. U.K.   UK Ecosystems, Phase 1 habitat categories MA-Classification=> selection Many ;Overview in UK NEA (2010) Remote Sensing, Country Side Survey, Ecosystem maps RS database JRC nr 1.2. Spain Spanish selection / EU Baseline (EEA2010) MA based Spanish specific services (TEEB & CICES) Many; Overview in Spanish MA reports Land use maps, biodiv Monitoring, National statistics Europarc, JRC water use DPSIR framework was "successfully" applied 2.1. Belgium 2.1.a. Flanders Flanders/Brussels Land use map classes. Belgian Adaptation of CICES Many; potential ES supply indicators; Burkhard et al matrix => Flanders Land Use types + expert judgement => classes not used qualitative estimation, in expert judgement etc. 2.1.b. Flanders Flanders Natura 2000 sites. TEEB & Jacobs et al, 2010 Many; Supply vs Demand Monitoring data; statistics, maps 2.1.c. Wallonia Wallonia Land use map classes. Burkhard et al matrix => etc 2.2. Austria Land Use/ Land cover, national based on Databases & Cadstral map De Groot et al. (2002), De Groot (2006), data availability & Stake holders Various per service 56 classes, based on ecosystem maps, statistics, models HD&BD basic information extensive evaluation of strength & weaknesses 3.1. Switzerland 3.1.b. Regional regional selection 9 services, selected, with MA, De Groot et al. 2002, Kanzig & Hauser, 2009 1 or 2 (stock & flow) per selected service (9) national data used inventories, topographical scenario based uncertainty analysis 3.1.c. Local forest 5 selected for economic relevance, list of De root et al 2002 5-5 (stock + flow) bayesian network modelling 3.2. Balkan Croatia 1- forest, coast, marine, freshwater 1- ;recreation, pollination, NTFP, livestock, soil protection, carbon seq etc 2- many 1 Sector Scenario analysis (?) Others 4. The Netherlands Coastal Zone Habitat classes TEEB : shellfish, fish, habitat, recreation flow indicators + habitat stock indicators inventories + expert jusgment HD classes info to be developed 3.1. Switzerland 3.1.b. Regional regional selection 9 services, selected, with MA, De Groot et al. 2002, Kanzig & Hauser, 2009 1 or 2 (stock & flow) per selected service (9)   3.1.c. Local forest 5 selected for economic relevance, list of De root et al 2002 5-5 (stock + flow) 3.2. Balkan Croatia 1- forest, coast, marine, freshwater 1- ;recreation, pollination, NTFP, livestock, soil protection, carbon seq etc 2- many Others 4. The Netherlands Coastal Zone Habitat classes TEEB : shellfish, fish, habitat, recreation flow indicators + habitat stock indicators

Peer Evaluation of ‘Highlights’ and ‘lowlights’ of the Country Cases Country Case Study Highlights Lowlights 1.1 UK (Wales)   Focus on habitats not merely LU Link with T2A5 Case study continuing many stakeholders increases Very broad categories of habitats Variability of scales and resolution 1.2 EME (Spain) T2A5 Covering many ES (22) Includes marine ecosystems and ES (Very) Large set of (quantified) indicators on stock and flow for ecosystem/ES relations Use of (modified) DPSIR approach in a general scheme. Not very wide institutional and administrative coverage A bit less thematic detail on ecosystem level (14) 2.1Belgium (Walloon Region) CICES based ES selection Covers all relevant ES High resolution Iterative expert judgment mapping quick & Transparent, No real quantification Not based on habitats/ecosystems Maps of stocks rather than flows Few experts 2.2Austria Use of WG MAES definition of ecosystems Translation of ES into (many) quantitative indicators spatially explicitly mapped Thematic resolution of ecosystems: a forest is a forest Regional assessment (rather small area) 3.1Switzerl and Spatial explicit uncertainty analysis Clear distinction between stock and flow Only a limited number of ecosystems and ES covered 3.2Balkan region Croatia: green tax, actual implementation of a ES approach in forest management Balkan: No ES assessed 4.Marine case Intensive stakeholder approach Marine HD habitats selections Quantification of 26 ES TEEB classification Local case with specific scope, limited spatial coverage No (spatial explicit) ES mapping Country Case Study Highlights Lowlights 1.1UK (Wales)   Focus on habitats not merely LU Link with T2A5 Case study continuing many stakeholders increases Very broad categories of habitats Variability of scales and resolution 1.2EME (Spain) T2A5 Covering many ES (22) Includes marine ecosystems and ES (Very) Large set of (quantified) indicators on stock and flow for ecosystem/ES relations Use of (modified) DPSIR approach in a general scheme. Not very wide institutional and administrative coverage A bit less thematic detail on ecosystem level (14) 2.1Belgium (Walloon Region) CICES based ES selection Covers all relevant ES High resolution Iterative expert judgment mapping quick & Transparent, No real quantification Not based on habitats/ecosystems Maps of stocks rather than flows Few experts

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THEMATIC PILOT STUDIES & COUNTRY CASE STUDIES SLIDE TO BE INSERTED

TASK 2: Assessment of Ecosystem Status across scales EU-wide assessment, with particular focus on indicator species and habitats not covered by the Nature Directives and on the representativeness of indicator species and habitats for each ecosystem group derived from reporting under EU Directives compared to alternatives Country cases: (A) Netherlands, Flanders : small countries, much information available for assessments (B) Spain, Austria: large(r) countries, less information available for assessments, mostly at the regional level

TASK 2: Preliminary Results Headline conclusions State of ecosystems in national assessments based on the trends in indicator species The methods used vary greatly (time period (1y/6 y), parameters used, species selected, spatial scale of reporting (country- province) Challenges National assessments based on national goals and DPSIR chain might lead to the need to select different indicator species. On-going process of inter-calibration of EU reporting Opportunities Additional information: In EU assessments or national assessments some additional species groups are being monitored Converging noted in countries of goals and monitoring approaches

TASK 3:Gaps & TASK 4: Recommendations (1) Policy & Process 1. Lack of cooperation 1.1. Promote MAES national initiatives; 2. Lack of commitment (e.g. MS level)   3. Lack of integration (MAES results into policy at national leve) 4. Lack of understanding on: o Directives link into MAES? o Where do data and information come from? o How will 2020 targets (e.g. 15%) be distributed/downscaled to the national level? o What is the local applicability of MAES? o What opportunities are offered by MAES? o What comes after 2014? 4.1. Need to develop a Diagram / Memo / WEBsite to answer questions. 5. Lack of trust between scientists and policy, between Conservation Biologists & Ecosystem Services advocates 5.2. Implement ‘ambassadors’ 5.3. Awareness-raising of policy comes via the awareness-raising of the public. Gaps Recommendations 1. Lack of cooperation 1.1. Promote MAES national initiatives; 2. Lack of commitment (e.g. MS level)   3. Lack of integration (MAES results into policy at national leve) 4. Lack of understanding on: o Directives link into MAES? o Where do data and information come from? o How will 2020 targets (e.g. 15%) be distributed/downscaled to the national level? o What is the local applicability of MAES? o What opportunities are offered by MAES? o What comes after 2014? 4.1. Need to develop a Diagram / Memo / WEBsite to answer questions. 5. Lack of trust between scientists and policy, between Conservation Biologists & Ecosystem Services advocates 5.2. Implement ‘ambassadors’ 5.3. Awareness-raising of policy comes via the awareness-raising of the public. 6. Lack of use of science and ES assessment to test policy decision efficiency; 7. Lack of understanding of priorities 8.1. Identify the stakeholders; 8.2. working groups by cultural and/or biogeographical regions; 8.3. Incentives have to be provided by state institutes for nature/municipalities/funding bodies 8.5. Implement tax incentives.

PLANNING Date Milestone/activity/deliverable Signing of contract October 31st, 2012 Milestone Draft Inception Report December 5th, 2012 Deliverable Kick off meeting Steering Group Dec 18th, 2012 Draft Interim Report March 10th, 2013 Workshop March 19-21, 2013 Activity Interim report May 17st, 2013 Interim progress meeting June 3rd, 2013 consultation results August 31st, 2013 Guidance Document(s) (Draft) Final reportActivity Sept 15th, 2013 Final meeting September 30th, 2013 Milestone/ Printed report October 31st, 2013