Approach and Objectives of the EU MAES Process as an Example for Regional Cooperation Markus Erhard European Environment Agency (EEA) Kongens Nytorv 6, 1050 Copenhagen K, DENMARK TEEB Workshop, Vilm, May 2013

EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 Target 2 By 2020, ecosystem services are maintained and enhanced through the establishment of Green Infrastructure and the restoration of at least 15% of degraded ecosystems. Action 5: Improve knowledge about ecosystems and their services in the EU  MAES Working Group (Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services) Target setting Action 6: Establish priorities for restoration and promote the use of Green Infrastructure Action 7: Ensure no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services

Ecosystem Assessment in EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 Action 5 under Target 2 of the Biodiversity Strategy to 2020: ”Member States, with the assistance of the Commission, will 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.”

Ecosystems (ES) – Ecosystem Services (ESS) WHY: To address multiple use of ecosystems (demand for services) in relation to multi-functionality of ecosystems  synergies and trade-offs

 Landuse  Tourism  Oil & Gas  Coastal defence  Ports & Navigation  Military activities  Culture  Conservation  Dredging & Disposal  Submarine cables  Fishing  Renewable energy  Marine recreation  Mineral extraction  Mariculture Vision: to map and assess ecosystems and their services e.g. coastal, marine and maritime space Source: DEFRA

MAES Analytical Framework

Matrix Approach: from Baseline 2010 (Rubicode, UK-NEA etc.) to 2014 MAES-0 baseline

4 steps of implementation Until 2014/2015 I.Biophysical baseline mapping and assessment of the state of major ecosystems (EEA);  MAES-0 baseline scenario 2014 II.Biophysical baseline mapping and assessment of defined ecosystem services (JRC); Until 2020 III.Alignment of ecosystem service assessments with scenarios of future changes; IV.Valuation of ecosystem services for baseline and contrasting scenarios and integration into environmental and economic accounting.

Building Blocks 1(3) Ecosystem typology and ecosystem service classification (CICES v4.3  MAES analytical framework Ecosystem mapping and assessment (conditions and trends for MAES-0 baseline 2014)  EEA Ecosystem service assessment (PRESS, OPERAS, OPENESS etc.)  JRC Integrate reporting data (HD/BD, WFD. MSFD etc.) and reference data (land cover, DEM, soil, geology) Link to research and Conventions (IPBES, TEEB)

Building Blocks 2(3) Learn from Member States approaches (MESEU Project) Use Ecosystem Capital Accounts (ECA) – water, land, carbon Streamline vs. targets (Action 6, 7): Restoration and Prioritization Framework (RPF) No net loss (NNL) Green Infrastructure (EU Communication Paper) Develop scenarios to 2020 (Quickscan tool) BISE platform for Information exchange: literature, data, review (virtual library) Communication and outreach (e.g. Eye on Earth)

Sources: CLC Legend: 1km and 5 km refer to the radius used for the CORILIS. Green Infrastructure e.g. Brussels Green : Green infrastructure Red : potentially affected by built-up areas

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE FOR A MEMBER STATE WITH HIGH COVERAGE OF NATURAL AREAS Types of areas Base- line By 2020 (and net gain) By 2050 LEVEL 1 Key species, properties and processes of ecosystems and their functions are restored ‘wilderness’ areas and N2000 sites in FCS 30% 32% (+ 2% from L2) 40% (+ 8% from L2) LEVEL 2 Abiotic and/or biotic factors largely in good condition but still restoration management measures required N2000 sites not in FCS, national parks, … 15% 28% (+ 15% from L3; - 2% to L1) 35% (+15% from L3; - 8% to L1) LEVEL 3 Abiotic factors in moderate to good condition; severe problems with one or more biotic factors Non-protected rural areas, not including intensive agriculture 30% 16% (+ 1% from L4; - 15% to L2) 10% (+ 9% from L4; - 15% to L3) LEVEL 4 Severe problems with one or more abiotic factors e.g. excessive nitrate load in groundwater; severe problems with several biotic factors; no traces of original ecosystem visible ‘transformed ecosystems’ (e.g. Intensive agriculture, build urban areas, roads, airports, quarries, brownfield areas, heavily modified water bodies) 25%24% 15% (non-restorable) TOTAL SURFACE100% TOTAL ‘RESTORABLE’ SURFACE55% TOTAL ‘RESTORED’ SURFACE (cumulative starting from baseline) 18%50% RESSTORATIONRESSTORATION DEGRADATIONDEGRADATION Restoration and Prioritisation Framework (RPF) 4 level approach Courtesy: ARCADIS draft, April 2013

Building Blocks 3(3) 6 pilot studies to explore data, methodology, scaling etc. 1.Nature  attribution species data to ecosystem conditions 2.Agro-ecosystems  using IACS/LPIS data for assessing agro- ecosystems 3.Forest  ecosystem services and trade-offs e.g. sequestration – biodiversity 4.Freshwater  ecological status data for freshwater ecosystem (WFD) – incl. Wetlands 5.Marine  MSFD and IMP data integration for marine ecosystems assessments 6.Natural capital accounting  explorative

Integration: climate change, vulnerability and adaptation, resource efficiency (EU Horizon 2020 targets) Knowledge base: evidence incl. co-forcing / synergies / trade-offs Methodology: assessment, harmonization, scaling issues, spatial explicity (incl. trajectories), multiple service valuation (integration, aggregation), monetization Use of and need for indicators To be further explored

Thank you for your attention EEA: Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystem Service Classification: EU Beyond GDP: UNSD-SEEA: Eye on Earth: