GESTION DES MILIEUX ET BIODIVERSITE From local production of data to global relevant assessments Example of the french approach Copenhagen, 30 October 2007 Hélène Souan Ministry of ecology, sustainable development and land use planning

GESTION DES MILIEUX ET BIODIVERSITE Introduction The global MA has proved to be a great contribution By offering a synthetic view of the value of biodiversity and of threats on ecosystem and the consequences for us Towards a better knowledge by the public, policy-makers and stakeholders By the methodology itself built to produce results and conclusions But… Results can neither be directly transposed nor disaggregated at a national level No sub-global assessment in France Some french specificities… We need in France to develop a similar approach

GESTION DES MILIEUX ET BIODIVERSITE Context in France Unquestionable relevance of a « MA-inspired » assessment A large number of ecosystems : coastal, moutains, grasslands, forests, … and much more if considering our oversea territories Many activities benefiting from and/or impacting those ecosystems : forestry, tourism, agriculture, cultural services We must be able to better talk about these subjects and to make the public knowledge progress A lot of data is then needed Do we have the necessary information? If it does exist… where is it? Different options can be selected Focus on a few ecosystems? Which spatial scale(s) : national? Local assessments?

GESTION DES MILIEUX ET BIODIVERSITE First step : a feasibility study From Dec 06 to Apr-May 07 Objectives: Preliminary rewiew of Available and relevant data Expertise abilities To discuss on this basis the relevant options (scale, focus or not) To present recommandations regarding organisation and costs Method : Interviews with french experts involved in the global MA and with experts of ecosystem services Litterature review Detailed analysis of the sub-global MA (Portugal in particular)

GESTION DES MILIEUX ET BIODIVERSITE First step : a feasibility study Conclusions : Lots of data exist, but lack of structure and integration, lack of homogeneity, access not always easy It should be possible to assess (even if roughly) ecosystem status and services (at least quality) for most ecosystem types But no or scarce information on interactions (i.e relations between the boxes of the MA framework)

GESTION DES MILIEUX ET BIODIVERSITE 6 (non-exlusives) options are possible Focus on the logical frames adopted for the MA without dealing in a detailed manner with interactions Priority given to ecosystem services and their links with biodiversity, here approached mainly by natural areas and habitats. Building data collection networks in order to improve knowledge on nature-human society interactions A participative approach for interaction building, involving a large set of stakeholders and taking key issues as a starting point A scientific experimental assessment of the links between biodiversity and ecosystem services A statistical assessment of the links between biodiversity and ecosystem services, based on participative science and common knowledge

GESTION DES MILIEUX ET BIODIVERSITE Analysis of the proposed options Short-term results, first assessment, use of quite rough estimates and expert judgement +/- Research, already studied Results to be expected middle/long-term, focus on knowledge improvement Focus on the logical frames adopted for the MA without dealing in a detailed manner with interactions Priority given to ecosystem services and their links with biodiversity, here approached mainly by natural areas and habitats. Building data collection networks in order to improve knowledge on nature-human society interactions A participative approach for interaction building, involving a large set of stakeholders and taking key issues as a starting point A scientific experimental assessment of the links between biodiversity and ecosystem services A statistical assessment of the links between biodiversity and ecosystem services, based on participative science and common knowledge

GESTION DES MILIEUX ET BIODIVERSITE A two-step approach Summary : Datasets are available, but not sufficient to assess interactions. On the other hand, we strongly need results on ecosystem services, in particular regarding the 2010 objective Our approach Now (step 1): A first assessment with what we have, using approximations, short-cuts expert judgement to fill the gaps and focusing on a few key issues, with a large participation After that (step 2): Reinforcement of data collection networks to improve our conclusions

GESTION DES MILIEUX ET BIODIVERSITE Step 1 : A quick assessment 12 months ~ : 2008 A (very) rough assessment but For some ecosystems the work has already be almost done (forests) Our aim is to identify key issues and messages and we need them quickly We will after that know what has to be improved in step 2…

GESTION DES MILIEUX ET BIODIVERSITE Step 1 : Framework for the first assessment Our reference is the global MA framework Same list of ecosystems/biomes Same boxes (biodiversity, ecosystem services …) And above all : same typology of ecosystem services With adjustments to issues relevant for France Focus on ecosystem status and services, and qualitative links with activities Selection among the ecosystem list Focus on the most relevant services Special attention given to a small number of key issues will be more relevant in France than a comprehensive assessment

GESTION DES MILIEUX ET BIODIVERSITE Step 1 : Framework for the first assessment We need to involve scientists and to use expert judgement as well as other advices, but we also need a single structure to gather data, make proposals, … Organisation : Call for proposals by the ministry (published) A large steering committee Researchers, experts, but also the main stakeholders Including the data collection networks Key tasks : to discuss the results and to help complete analysis

GESTION DES MILIEUX ET BIODIVERSITE Step 1 : Framework for the first assessment Tasks/activities 1.Gather available national datasets and propose a quick global assessment (overview) of ecosystem status, services and links with activities : qualitative analysis + quantification as frequently as possible Data to be used : databases, GIS, publications No focus on interactions at this stage 2.Selection of a few key issues (ecosystems and/or activities and/or places) 3.More detailed analysis for these issues : complementary datasets, interviews with local stakeholders but no new data collection (= step 2)