Linking equity, power, and stakeholders’ roles in relation to ecosystem services

The issues of power and equity are gaining attention in research on ecosystem services (ESs). Stakeholders benefiting from ESs are not necessarily able or authorized to participate in ES management. Thus, we have proposed an analytical framework to identify and qualify stakeholders' roles in relation to ES flows. Building on existing frameworks in the ES literature, we aimed to unravel the different direct and indirect management contributions to ES flows and link them to ES benefits. Direct management targets the functioning of ecosystems, the flows of services, and the benefits received by society, whereas indirect management facilitates, controls, or restricts the activities of direct managers. We applied this framework to the Mariño watershed (Peru) to describe stakeholders' roles using a set of 8 ESs. We have discussed the implications of our findings in terms of equity and power distribution. We conducted face-to-face semistructured interviews with representatives of 52 watershed stakeholders to understand how they managed and benefited from ESs. We used statistical analysis (permutation tests) to detect significant differences in the number of received and managed ESs among stakeholder sectors, i.e., civil society, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), business, and the public sector, and scales, from local to national levels. Indirect forms of ES management were more frequent than direct ones for all ESs. Water quantity, water quality, and agricultural production were managed by the largest number of stakeholder types. The differences in the number of stakeholder types benefiting from and managing ESs could result from intentional choices, e.g., preferences for local benefits. We also found clear differences in the identity of stakeholders who managed or benefited from ESs. Local stakeholders and the business sector benefited from a higher number of ESs, and public organizations and NGOs were most involved in ES management. More equitable governance of ESs should aim to integrate more diverse stakeholders into decision making. Further empirical research could use our framework to explore the factors determining stakeholders' roles and power distribution. There is a particular need to understand how rights, endowments, and entitlements, as well as spatial configuration, underpin inequities in different social and cultural contexts

Ecosystem service assessment for urban planning: a French case study

Cabral, P., Levrel, H., Féger, C., Chambolle, M., & Basque, D. (2015). Ecosystem service assessment for urban planning: a French case study. In Annual Meeting of the French Economic Association (pp. 1-26)Ecosystems provide a varied range of services to people known as ecosystem services (ES) which contributepositively to human well-being. Thus, their quantification and integration into planning decisions has become increasingly important.In this study we analyzed ES provided by the landscape of the Urban Community of Bordeaux (CUB) in France. These ES were selected using a participatory approach with local stakeholders and involved the creation of scenarios of land use and cover change (LUCC) expressing alternative planning options. Only open data was used. Results show that allthe analyzed ES, except erosionregulation, have decreased as a consequence of LUCC between 1990 and 2006. For year 2030, the "Plan" scenario, which integrates approved urban local plans, is the one that will cause more negative impacts on the CUB ES. Both "Conservation" scenarios present a more balanced situation allowing to choose between carbon storage improvement or agriculture preservation with a degradation on nitrogen and phosphorous retention ES. We also found that there is little or no tradeoff on nutrient and sediment retention services regardless of the scenario used. This spatial explicit approach to ES modeling enables an informed discussion with the stakeholders about different planning options and their impact on ES and tradeoffs. Additionally, it may be used to effectively implement, monitor and communicate planning policies.publishersversionpublishe

L’approche par les services écosystémiques peut-elle permettre une meilleure mise en visibilité de la nature dans les processus de planification urbaine ?

La nature est un atout conséquent d’adaptation des villes au changement climatique et contribue à la qualité de vie des citadins. Ses contributions, positives comme négatives, peuvent être représentées par les services (se) et dis-services écosystémiques. Dans cet article, nous questionnons l’apport de la considération, de la cartographie et de la communication autour des se dans les processus d’aménagement urbain pour créer un langage commun auprès d’acteurs aux différents parcours et pratiques, et pour mieux appréhender la nature dans les décisions d’aménagement. La question est traitée de manière qualitative, par des entretiens d’acteurs de l’aménagement urbain. Les résultats témoignent de la plus-value que pourrait représenter la considération des se dans les processus d’aménagement, en tant qu’outil d’acculturation, de dialogue territorial et enfin d’évaluation en faveur de la conservation et du développement de la nature en ville.Nature in the city is a significant asset for cities’ adaptation to climate change and contributes to the quality of life of people in many ways. Its contribution, predominantly positive but also negative, can be represented by ecosystem services and disservices. In this paper, we question the input of consideration, mapping and communication on ES in creating a common language among stakeholders with different background and practices, and to make nature more visible in urban planning decisions. The question is addressed qualitatively through stakeholders’ interviews. The results show the potential added value of se as a tool for acculturation, territorial dialogue and evaluation in favour of the conservation and development of nature in the city

Recreational sea fishing in Europe in a global contextParticipation rates, fishing effort, expenditure, and implications for monitoring and assessment

Marine recreational fishing (MRF) is a high-participation activity with large economic value and social benefits globally, and it impacts on some fish stocks. Although reporting MRF catches is a European Union legislative requirement, estimates are only available for some countries. Here, data on numbers of fishers, participation rates, days fished, expenditures, and catches of two widely targeted species were synthesized to provide European estimates of MRF and placed in the global context. Uncertainty assessment was not possible due to incomplete knowledge of error distributions; instead, a semi-quantitative bias assessment was made. There were an estimated 8.7 million European recreational sea fishers corresponding to a participation rate of 1.6%. An estimated 77.6 million days were fished, and expenditure was Euro5.9 billion annually. There were higher participation, numbers of fishers, days fished and expenditure in the Atlantic than the Mediterranean, but the Mediterranean estimates were generally less robust. Comparisons with other regions showed that European MRF participation rates and expenditure were in the mid-range, with higher participation in Oceania and the United States, higher expenditure in the United States, and lower participation and expenditure in South America and Africa. For both northern European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax, Moronidae) and western Baltic cod (Gadus morhua, Gadidae) stocks, MRF represented 27% of the total removals. This study highlights the importance of MRF and the need for bespoke, regular and statistically sound data collection to underpin European fisheries management. Solutions are proposed for future MRF data collection in Europe and other regions to support sustainable fisheries management.Institut Francais de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer; French Ministry of Fisheries Management; Greek National Data Collection Programme; European Commission, Data Collection Framework; Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [MF1221, MF1230, MI001]; Norges Forskningsrad [267808]; State Department of Agriculture, Food Security and Fisheries Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania; Interreg IVa 2 Seas; Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs; European Fishery Fund; Government of Galicia [ED481B2014/034-0

Impact of land-use-based climate mitigation policies on biodiversity and food security

International audienc

Using indicators to assess interactions

UNESCO Edition ISSN 2071-146