© Natural Resources Institute Finland Heini Ahtiainen Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) HOLAS II Workshop, 30 September 2015 Ecosystem services and a proposal for their classification in the HOLAS II ESA 1

© Natural Resources Institute Finland Contents Starting point Ecosystem service classifications Ecosystem services in marine areas Considerations for valuation Conclusions 2

© Natural Resources Institute Finland The conceptual framework and premise 3 Pressures affect the state of the environment and the provision of ecosystem services Changes in ecosystem services are valued (in monetary terms) Use an existing classification of ecosystem services

© Natural Resources Institute Finland Existing ecosystem services (ES) classifications Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2005) –Regulating, provisioning, cultural and supporting ES TEEB, TEEB Oceans and Coasts (2008, 2012) –Focus on final ES UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UK NEA) and follow-on (2011, 2014) –Framework for valuing ecosystem services CICES (2010 and ongoing) –Comprehensive (even too detailed?) MAES Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem Services (2013 and ongoing) –Conceptual framework 4

© Natural Resources Institute Finland Classification of ecosystem services (MA 2005) Regulating, e.g., pollination and the regulation of climate and erosion Provisioning, products from the ecosystems, e.g. food, genetic resources and energy sources Cultural, e.g. recreation, inspiration, aesthetic and educational value Supporting, maintain other services, e.g. primary production and nutrient cycling This division is also used in other classifications 5

© Natural Resources Institute Finland Intermediate and final ES and goods/benefits (Fisher et al. 2009) ES are ecological in nature Intermediate and final services –Separation based on link to human welfare Final services produce goods that can be valued 6 Intermediate services Nutrient cycling Primary production Water cycling Habitat maintenance Biodiversity maintenance Final services Fish/shellfish Aquaculture Water quality Wild species diversity Raw materials Climate regulation Goods/ benefits Energy Food Recreation Tourism Education Aesthetic/ Inspiration Existence

© Natural Resources Institute Finland Combining classifications At least UK NEA uses this combined classification 7 Intermediate services Supporting services Regulating services/ ecological processes Final services Provisioning servicesCultural servicesRegulating services

© Natural Resources Institute Finland ES work specific to marine areas Swedish EPA reports (2008) –Ecosystem services provided by the Baltic Sea and Skagerrak –The economic value of ecosystem services provided by the Baltic Sea TEEB Oceans and Coasts (2012, ongoing) –Assessment and valuation of marine ES MAES (2014) –Marine ecosystem typology UK NEA follow-on, Coastal and marine ecosystem services (2014) –Classification of marine ES and goods –Literature review of valuation studies in the UK 8

© Natural Resources Institute Finland Ecosystems, socio-economic systems and ecosystem services (Adapted from Haines-Young & Potschin 2010) 9 Goods, e.g. recreation food energy non-use goods Biophysical structures and processes Ecosystem functions Value/benefits Socio-economic systems Marine ecosystems State indicators and descriptors Pressures Intermediate and final ecosystem services

© Natural Resources Institute Finland ES classification for coastal and marine ecosystems (UK NEA 2014) 10

© Natural Resources Institute Finland Considerations for the valuation of ecosystem services Interdisciplinary work Need to separate between intermediate and final services –Avoids double counting Marginal values –Value of changes in the ecosystem/provision of ES Spatial explicitness –Spatial heterogeneity of ES provision and benefits 11

© Natural Resources Institute Finland What is needed for the valuation of ecosystem services? What to value and how the results will be used (policy change) Impacts on the ecosystem Affected ecosystem services and their change Valuation of ecosystem services (qualitative, quantitative, monetary) Sensitivity analysis 12

© Natural Resources Institute Finland Conclusions: A useful classification… Considers the valuation of ecosystem services –Separates between intermediate and final services –Deals with changes in ecosystem services Uses the MA classification into regulating, provisioning and cultural (and supporting) Is adapted to the marine environment Good candidate: UK NEA Other: CICES (or combination of UK NEA and CICES) 13

© Natural Resources Institute Finland Thank you!