1. 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

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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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