The evolution of ecosystem services assessments and the evidence of the value of marine and coastal ecosystems

1. THE EVOLUTION
OF ECOSYSTEM
SERVICES
ASSESSMENTS
AND THE
EVIDENCE OF THE
VALUE OF
MARINE AND
COASTAL
ECOSYSTEMS

2. OVERVIEW
 The evolution of ecosystem services
assessment frameworks and evidence of the
value of marine and coastal ecosystems
 MEA (2005)
 TEEB (2010)
 CICES
 UK NEA (2011)
 IPBES (2018)

3. MILLENNIUM
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
ASSESSMENT (2005)
A key report for the development
of Ecosystem Services
Assessments
Linked biodiversity to ecosystem
services to constituents of human
well-being.
But did not assess the economic
value of the benefits.

4. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) 2010
 The TEEB framework explicitly
evaluates the economic benefits of
the ecosystem services.
 TEEB (2010) used similar provisioning,
regulating and cultural groupings as
the MEA, but exchanged the concept
of supporting services for a new
category termed ‘habitat services’
(although this was essentially
semantics)’.
 TEEB includes a series of reports that
target different audiences.

5. TEEB (2010) : Monetary value of services (Int $ / ha / year – 2007)
Coastal Systems Open Ocean

6. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES)
 CICES was developed from the work on
environmental accounting undertaken by the
European Environment Agency (EEA).
 Latest version 5.1 https://cices.eu/
 Based on the ‘Cascade’ conceptual model
 ‘Final services’ are classed as:
 ‘Provisioning’,‘
 Regulation and maintenance’, and
 ‘Cultural’ services.

7. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES)
 ‘Final ecosystem services’ are described
using a five-level hierarchical structure.
 Section (e.g. Provisioning)
 Division (e.g. Biomass)
 Group (e.g. Cultivated plants for nutrition,
materials or energy)
 Class (e.g. Cultivated plants (including fungi,
algae) grown for nutritional purposes)
 Class type (e.g. Kelp The ecological
contribution to the growth of cultivated,
‘crops’ that can be harvested and used as
raw material for the production of food)

8. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES)
Biotic ecosystems
(those depending on living organisms)
Abiotic ecosystems
(Not depending on living organisms)

9. UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011)
 The UK NEA is arguably the most comprehensive
ecosystem services assessment undertaken at a
national scale.
 Chapter 11 focuses on ‘Coastal margins’
 Sand dunes, Machair, Saltmarsh, Shingle, Sea cliffs,
Coastal lagoons.
 Chapter 12 focuses on ‘Marine’
 Marine Habitats: Intertidal rock, intertidal sediments,
subtidal rock and other hard substrate, shallow and
shelf subtidal sediments, deep-sea habitats
 Marine fauna: Plankton, Fish, Seals, Cetaceans, Birds.
 The chapters provide and assessment of the status
and trends in habitats, species and associated
ecosystem services.
 Limited information on the value of coastal margin /
marine services

10. UK NATIONAL
ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT
‘FOLLOW-ON’ REPORT 4
Work Package 4: Coastal and
marine ecosystem services:
principles and practice.
Specifically adapts the UK NEA
conceptual framework for marine
and coastal ecosystems.

11. UK NATIONAL
ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT
‘FOLLOW-ON’ REPORT 4
Table 4.S.2. Importance of ecosystem
services per coastal and marine habitat
and the availability of UK-based valuation
studies.
 Red: services of high importance with
no relevant valuation studies;
 Orange: important services with one
valuation study, or services of
medium importance with no
valuation studies;
 Yellow: important services with two
or more valuation study or services
of medium importance with one
valuation study;
 White: services of low importance or
services of medium importance with
two or more valuation studies.

12. IPBES was established in 2012 to
‘strengthen the science-policy
interface for biodiversity and
ecosystem services for the
conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity, long-term human well-
being and sustainable development’
(https://www.ipbes.net/).
IPBES reports:
 Regional Assessments
 Global assessment
 Values assessment (on-going)
IPBES Conceptual Framework

13. Nature’s contributions to people
 Re-conceptualized services as:
 Material (provisioning)
 Non-material (cultural)
 Regulating
 NCP overlap between groups.
 Instrumental values:
 The value attributed to something as a
means to achieving a particular end
 Relational values:
 The values that contribute to desirable
relationships, such as those among people
or societies, and between people and
nature, as in “Living in harmony with
nature”
IPBES NCP and links to Quality of life
Nature’s Contributions to People Quality of Life
Food, energy and water
security
Physical, mental and
emotional health
Cultural heritage and identity
Environmental justice and
equity
Instrumental
Relational
REGULATINGMATERIAL NON MATERIAL
1. Habitat maintenance
2. Pollination
3. Reg. of air quality
4. Reg. of climate
5. Reg. freshwater quantity
6. Reg. freshwater quality
7. Formation of soils
8. Reg. of hazards
9. Reg. of organisms
detrimental to humans
10. Food and feed
11. Energy
12. Materials and assistance
13. Medicinal resources
14.Learning and inspiration
15. Physical and psychological
experiences
16. Supporting identities
17. Maintenance of options

14. IPBES
European and Central Asia
assessment
Assessment of past (~1950–2000) and current (~2001–2017)
trends in biodiversity status of marine ecosystems.
Trends in direct drivers of biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people in the last 20 years.

15. IPBES
Values assessment
‘A methodological assessment
regarding the diverse
conceptualization of multiple
values of nature and its benefits,
including biodiversity and
ecosystem services’
The ‘Values Assessment’ Objectives
• to assess the diverse conceptualization of the values of
nature and NCP across socio-economic, ecological and
cultural contexts;
• to assess the range of valuation approaches and
methodologies that may be used to identify and capture the
diversity of values of nature and NCP,
• to assess the extent to which diverse values of nature and
NCP are articulated or expressed in institutional and
governance systems;
• to assess how values can function as effective interventions
points towards deep institutional transformation towards
more sustainable futures.
• ‘First Order Draft’ currently out for external review –
deadline 22 September 2019
• Final report due 2021

16. Conclusions:
• There has been significant developments in the way ecosystem
services assessments are being undertaken, in terms of
understanding:
• The linkages between ecosystems, services and well-being;
• The plurality of ways people value ecosystem services /
NCP.
• But, still limited evidence on the values of marine and coastal
ecosystems.
• However, the available evidence consistently shows increasing
pressures from drivers, which in turn are degrading these
ecosystems and their benefits to people.
• Research is urgently needed to better understand these fragile
ecosystems and to provide evidence of the value of these
systems and feed these values into effective policy decisions to
conserve and sustainably use marine and coastal ecosystems.
THE EVOLUTION
OF ECOSYSTEM
SERVICES
ASSESSMENTS
AND THE
EVIDENCE OF THE
VALUE OF
MARINE AND
COASTAL
ECOSYSTEMS