Breaking down the barriers between Ecosystem services and the Fisheries Socio-Ecological System : abstract

Fisheries research gives scientific advice towards informing the management of different types of fisheries, mainly on the basis of the biology of a single stock, i.e. how much can sustainably be harvested from this stock every year. Implicitly, some ecosystem functions of this stock are taken into account through specific natural mortality analyses to assess the stock status and to derive advice on total catch for the following year. Indeed the ecosystem-based management is becoming more and more used on the assessment of fisheries, for instance in the last update of the European Common Fisheries Policy. Still there are several issues and conflicts emerging in different fisheries-related cases around the globe. This highlights the need for a holistic approach of the the marine/fisheries system where ecological, social, economic and institutional aspects are taken into account. We go beyond the standard fisheries or ecosystem-based approach and see the fisheries “system” as a complex, dynamic socio-ecological system, with a variety of interaction types and a broad range of ecosystem services and beneficiaries. Our goal is to highlight the complex nature of this system, give emphasis on different types of ecosystem services generated by this system (from the standard food provisioning ones, to regulating and cultural) and use this approach as a means to incorporate fisheries management in broader decision-making strategies. We highlight research areas where fisheries and ecosystem services science share common grounds and explore ways to improve scientific knowledge around this topic. This work is a conversation starter, aiming to bring together researchers from both communities in order to improve research and practice around the topic

A Pan-European Delimitation of Coastal Waters: Compliance with EU Environmental Legislation

The definition of coastal waters in relation to EU environmental legislation was clearly stated in the Water Framework Directive. In compliance with this Directive, most of the EU Member States delineated their coastal waters¿ boundaries. However, these delineations are not as complete and homogeneous as could be expected. A clear identification of European coastal waters boundaries is crucial for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, which depend on an accurate ecological/environmental assessment of those waters. Hence, there is a need for a comprehensive and unambiguous delimitation of European coastal waters. This report aims at bridging this gap providing a pan-European mapping of coastal waters, which cover 553,817 km2 in 30 seaside countries, 340,524 km2 of which pertain to the 22 EU Member States connected to the sea. For this purpose, a comprehensive geographical analysis of the national baselines and transitional waters distribution was performed. A pan-European baseline of 63,340 km was delineated as a basis for the European coastal waters delimitation. The European coastal waters identified in this work show significant differences with the available national declarations (almost 12% of the compared area), the latter defining an additional area of 29,337 km2 with respect to the former. The largest deviations seem to be due to misinterpretations of the definition of coastal waters in the Water Framework Directive, although a number of one-sided national modifications to that definition are also observed. This work provides the geographical basis for a full consultation process and discussion about this subject. Our recommendations include setting a clear geographical limit between the Water Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive jurisdiction, revise the possible exemptions in the definition of coastal waters, and discuss their consequences in the assessment of ecological/environmental status.JRC.DDG.H.5-Rural, water and ecosystem resource

Spatial distribution of marine ecosystem service capacity in the European seas

Practitioners and policy makers at European Union (EU) and Member States level are increasingly seeking spatially-explicit ecosystem service information to use in decision-making and the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Whilst under the MAES Action, land-cover data has already been used to map the distribution of several ecosystem services provided over the European land surface, a similar exercise exploiting existing seabed habitat data is still lacking for the European Seas. In this work we map the distribution of seabed-associated ecosystem services capacity by using a methodology that brings together (i) a geospatial dataset representing the broadscale distribution of permanently-submerged seabed habitats with (ii) information on each habitat capacity to provide ecosystem services. A compilation of EUNIS-harmonized broadscale seabed habitat maps based on EMODNET Seabed Habitats and UNEP GSGFM is exploited as the pan-European cartographic basis. The exercise extends out to the limits of the Extended Continental Shelf claims, achieving an areal coverage of approximately 8.7 million km2, i.e., more than 90% of the EU seafloor area in the Northeast Atlantic and adjacent seas. Alongside, expert-based assessments of each marine EUNIS habitat's capacity to provide CICES-harmonized Ecosystem Services are compiled from a literature review into a presence-only lookup table. Overall, the new seabed habitats versus ecosystem services lookup tables relate 33 ecosystem services to 67 EUNIS and 24 non-EUNIS seabed habitats. These results suggest that out of all marine habitats (n=974) in the EUNIS classification (EUNIS A1 to A7), only 14% (n=141) have so far been related to at least one ecosystem service. When all potential connections between the existing seabed EUNIS classes and CICES services are considered (n=104,218), results further show that only 2% (i.e., n=2,241) of the have been addressed qualitatively or semi-quantitatively. Based on this information, a total of 30 CICES ecosystem service categories are mapped: 3 at level 1 (CICES Sections), 5 at level 2 (CICES Divisions), 10 at level 3 (CICES Groups) and 12 at level 4 (CICES Classes). From these maps, area-based indicators of ecosystem service capacity (i.e., extent where each service is potentially provided) are extracted per MSFD region/subregion, Ecoregion, Fishing Area and an approximation of EU Member States (MS) maritime areas in the Northeast Atlantic and Adjacent Seas. Along with the maps, the study presents also some spatial statistics based on the extent over which each service is potentially provided. Different segmentations of the European Seas are used to aggregate these statistics including MSFD region/subregion, Ecological Region, FAO Fishing Area and an approximation of the Member State maritime area. Overall, continental shelves and oceanic elevations (islands, seamounts and ridges) were highlighted as ecosystem services hotspots where a larger number of services could be potentially held. When maps were segmented using MSFD region/subregion limits, the Extended Continental Shelf areas claimed by the EU MS in the Northeast Atlantic, together with the Celtic Seas and the Greater North Sea sub-regions stood as the regions holding most ecosystem service capacity. An ecoregion-based segmentation of the maps emphasized the Atlantic Deep Sea as the major ecosystem service capacity holder, followed by ecoregions containing large shelves, notably the Boreal Proper, the Boreal-Lusitanean and the Western Mediterranean. A disaggregation of the results per Fishing Area highlighted the Northeast Atlantic, namely areas around the British Isles and Macaronesia, as well as the western Mediterranean. When an approximation of EU Member States (MS) maritime areas was used, MS with larger EEZs (namely, UK, IT, PT and ES) came up as holding most of the marine ecosystem service capacity. The new maps and associated area-based indicators provide a first spatially-explicit baseline concerning the EU-wide distribution of marine ecosystem services. They contribute to the marine component of MAES and fulfil key objectives of the JRC’s SEACOAST and BES projects. Options to develop this research line and eventually make it more quantitative are expounded in the discussion and summarized in the conclusions. The new information is of value to practitioners, managers and policy makers, at European or Member State level, seeking spatially-explicit ecosystem service information for marine spatial planning and environmental management. Researchers initiating and developing marine ecosystem service mapping studies are also expected users.JRC.H.1-Water Resource

Ecosystem services sustainability in the Mediterranean Sea: assessment of status and trends using multiple modelling approaches

14 pages, 5 figures, 3 tables, supplementary information https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep34162Mediterranean ecosystems support important processes and functions that bring direct benefits to human society. Yet, marine ecosystem services are usually overlooked due to the challenges in identifying and quantifying them. This paper proposes the application of several biophysical and ecosystem modelling approaches to assess spatially and temporally the sustainable use and supply of selected marine ecosystem services. Such services include food provision, water purification, coastal protection, lifecycle maintenance and recreation, focusing on the Mediterranean region. Overall, our study found a higher number of decreasing than increasing trends in the natural capacity of the ecosystems to provide marine and coastal services, while in contrast the opposite was observed to be true for the realised flow of services to humans. Such a study paves the way towards an effective support for Blue Growth and the European maritime policies, although little attention is paid to the quantification of marine ecosystem services in this context. We identify a key challenge of integrating biophysical and socio-economic models as a necessary step to further this researchPeer Reviewe

ESTIMAP: Ecosystem services mapping at European scale

Mapping, visualization and the access to suitable data as a means to facilitate the dialogue among scientists, policy makers and the general public are among the most challenging issues within current ecosystem service science and application. Recently the attention on spatially explicit ways to map ecosystem services, at local, regional and global scale is increasing. This report presents ESTIMAP: a suite of models for a spatially explicit assessment of three ecosystem services (recreation, pollination and coastal protection) at continental scale. The main objective of the models is to support EU policies with information on ecosystem services.JRC.H.8-Sustainability Assessmen

Current Status and Future Prospects for the Assessment of Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review

Background: Research on ecosystem services has grown exponentially during the last decade. Most of the studies have focused on assessing and mapping terrestrial ecosystem services highlighting a knowledge gap on marine and coastal ecosystem services (MCES) and an urgent need to assess them. Methodology/Principal Findings: We reviewed and summarized existing scientific literature related to MCES with the aim of extracting and classifying indicators used to assess and map them. We found 145 papers that specifically assessed marine and coastal ecosystem services from which we extracted 476 indicators. Food provision, in particular fisheries, was the most extensively analyzed MCES while water purification and coastal protection were the most frequently studied regulating and maintenance services. Also recreation and tourism under the cultural services was relatively well assessed. We highlight knowledge gaps regarding the availability of indicators that measure the capacity, flow or benefit derived from each ecosystem service. The majority of the case studies was found in mangroves and coastal wetlands and was mainly concentrated in Europe and North America. Our systematic review highlighted the need of an improved ecosystem service classification for marine and coastal systems, which is herein proposed with definitions and links to previous classifications. Conclusions/Significance: This review summarizes the state of available information related to ecosystem services associated with marine and coastal ecosystems. The cataloging of MCES indicators and the integrated classification of MCES provided in this paper establish a background that can facilitate the planning and integration of future assessments. The final goal is to establish a consistent structure and populate it with information able to support the implementation of biodiversity conservation policies.JRC.H.1-Water Resource

Ecosystem services classification : A systems ecology perspective of the cascade framework

Creative Commons License (CC BY 4.0)Ecosystem services research faces several challenges stemming from the plurality of interpretations of classifications and terminologies. In this paper we identify two main challenges with current ecosystem services classification systems: i) the inconsistency across concepts, terminology and definitions, and; ii) the mix up of processes and end-state benefits, or flows and assets. Although different ecosystem service definitions and interpretations can be valuable for enriching the research landscape, it is necessary to address the existing ambiguity to improve comparability among ecosystem-service-based approaches. Using the cascade framework as a reference, and Systems Ecology as a theoretical underpinning, we aim to address the ambiguity across typologies. The cascade framework links ecological processes with elements of human well-being following a pattern similar to a production chain. Systems Ecology is a long-established discipline which provides insight into complex relationships between people and the environment. We present a refreshed conceptualization of ecosystem services which can support ecosystem service assessment techniques and measurement. We combine the notions of biomass, information and interaction from system ecology, with the ecosystem services conceptualization to improve definitions and clarify terminology. We argue that ecosystem services should be defined as the interactions (i.e. processes) of the ecosystem that produce a change in human well-being, while ecosystem components or goods, i.e. countable as biomass units, are only proxies in the assessment of such changes. Furthermore, Systems Ecology can support a re-interpretation of the ecosystem services conceptualization and related applied research, where more emphasis is needed on the underpinning complexity of the ecological system.Peer reviewe

Cook-book for water ecosystem service assessment and valuation

This work proposes a methodological framework for the biophysical assessment and the economic valuation of water ecosystem services at the water body, the catchment and the European scale. It suits the intent of understanding how changes in pressures may affect the delivery and the value of these services. We integrated the existing knowledge with experience of experts and operational needs (collected through a consultation), to propose practical methodologies able to address specific objectives. This report is organized as follows. The first section analyses the objectives of an ecosystem services assessment, explains how and why we selected and designed the methodology proposed, and discusses the concepts of ecosystem services and their integrated assessment and valuation. The results of the consultation of the experts are presented in the second section. The third section (‘cook-book’) exposes, in a concise and practical way, the approach and methodologies proposed to assess and value water ecosystem services. Finally, some major issues related to this methodology are discussed in the last section.JRC.H.1-Water Resource

Modern sedimentation patterns and human impacts on the Barcelona continental shelf (NE Spain)

Seafloor sediments were collected from the Barcelona continental shelf, NE Spain, to determine the textural characteristics and sedimentary processes related to different depositional systems and human pressures. The Barcelona continental shelf is principally influenced by the discharge of the Llobregat and Besòs rivers, and also by anthropogenic modifications Duch as the diversion of the Llobregat River or the enlargement of the Port of Barcelona. Sedimentological, physical and biogeochemical properties of 14 sediment cores and grabs indicate the presence of three distinct depositional environments linked to river-influenced, marine-influenced and mixed sedimentation. Sedimentological results have been used to groundtruth available backscatter data. The river-influenced environment, mainly associated to the Llobregat River input, does not reach the shelf edge as the prevailing oceanographic currents deflect sediments south-westward. Riverine sediments are fine-grained, with abundant plant debris, micas and relatively high organic carbon content. The associated sedimentary features are the Holocene prodelta and two modern mud patches. The marine-influenced environment extends north-easterly over the middle and outer shelf and on the upper continental slope. The sediments are coarser grained with abundant bioclasts and lower organic carbon content. Mixed sedimentation is present between the river- and marine-influenced areas. In addition, 210Pb, 226Ra and 137Cs radiometric analyses were used to estimate accumulation rates as well as to identify sites with disturbed sedimentation. Relatively high sediment accumulation rates (up to 0.70-1.03 g•cm-2•yr-1 equivalent to 6.4-10 mm•yr-1) are estimated on the Llobregat prodelta while moderate rates 0.21-0.46 g•cm-2•yr-1 or 1.6-3.6 mm•yr-1) are found between the Besòs and the Llobregat outlets. Two sediment cores show a sharp change from river-influenced to marine-dominated conditions that occurred in the mid- 1960s. This is interpreted as a significant regression (~2.5 km in 40 years) of the river-influenced domain that may be associated to the extension of the Port of Barcelona and the canalization of the Besòs River, amongst other reasons. Other important human impacts observed in the Barcelona continental shelf are (i) sediment mixing by dredging, ship anchoring and trawling; and (ii) possible organic pollution associated to river and sewage discharges