MTES/CGDD/SEEIDD/ERNR1 09/06/17

French contribution to the definition of the ecological condition of ecosystems in thecontext of the working group for the mapping and assessment of ecosystems and

their services (MAES) of the European Commission

Preliminary remark : This note is provided to support the content of a presentation that will be given at the MAES workshop on June 27th, 2017.

I) Context and objectives

The working group on the mapping of ecosystems and their services of the European Commission,called MAES, concentrates its efforts this year on the assessment of the condition of Europeanecosystems. This documents aims to contribute to the reflection on the points 2 and 3 of the analyticalframework proposed by the European Commission1.

The MAES working group defines the condition of an ecosystem as « the capacity of an ecosystem toyield services, relative to its potential capacity ». It also emphasizes that, « for the purpose of MAES,ecosystem condition is, however, usually used as a synonym for 'ecosystem state' », that is « thephysical, chemical and biological condition of an ecosystem at a particular point in time »2.

The scope of such a definition remains to settle because ecosystems are dynamic, complex andmultidimensional objects which are the focus of a plurality of interests. Before its assessment, anoperational definition of the ecological condition (or state) of an ecosystem is a difficult exercise thatrequires to set up an explicit framework.

Consistently with the current priority of the MAES working group, France encourages theworking group to define the condition of ecosystems through a set of indicators that is bothparsimonious and policy relevant. The construction of such a set shall be the result of atransparent process that allows for subsequent improvements.

France wishes to emphasize that parsimony is particularly relevant in decision frameworks3, publicdebate arenas and general information of the public (natural capital accounting). It allows to allocateavailable resources on the main issues. Still, France also recognises that parcimony could concealcrucial questions as it requires to arbitrate, and then, such an approach necessarily depends onthe context and the objectives pursued by the group conducting the evaluation.

It therefore appears necessary to first clarify the objective being pursued and the ways toassess their achievement before any further reflection on the definition of indicators for theecological condition of ecosystems in the context of the MAES working group4. Such aclarification could also help to express what this notion does not intend to capture in order to avoid anymisunderstanding.

Il) French proposition

As it stands, the analytical framework proposed to the MAES WG5 does not provide an explicitframework to justify the selection of indicators of condition. This precludes both their explicitarticulation with policy objectives6 and the identification of opportunities for improvement. Francetherefore aims to propose an approach based on the following understanding of three sets of policyobjectives that a measure of ecosystem condition is expected to address7 :

1See « An analytical framework for mapping and assessment of ecosystem condition: Proposal to organise the work until June 2017 » in appendix 2.2Maes et al., 2014.3For instance, the monetary valuation of ecosystem services helps to take into account the related stakes in economic decision making.4For instance, the assements in light of a restauration target or the prioritization of restoration measures. 5See « An analytical framework for mapping and assessment of ecosystem condition: Proposal to organise the work until June 2017 » in appendix 2.6See also Heink et coll., 2016.7These three families of objectives can be found in the definition of the ecological state of most European directives as well as in the 2050 vision ofthe EU: « By 2050, European Union biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides – its natural capital – are protected, valued and appropriately restored for biodiversity’s intrinsic value and for their essential contribution to human well-being and economic prosperity, and so thatcatastrophic changes caused by the loss of biodiversity are avoided. »

1

MTES/CGDD/SEEIDD/ERNR1 09/06/17

• the objective of conserving remarkable biodiversity, which is expressed in terms ofconservation status, but also, and more generally, in terms of no-net-loss on a set ofdimensions8 ;

• the objectives of maintaining the capacity of ecosystems to sustainably provide goodsand services, which are expressed out of the objectives of other sectoral policies9, andthat draw the attention on other and complementary features of ecosystems and theirfunctionning as compared to the previous points ;

• the objective of maintaining ecosystem overall functioning10, which is a necessarycondition of achieving the two previous sets of objectives. Although instrumental to them, it isnecessary because of the complexity and the dynamic character of the systems considered ; itcan be expressed in terms of safe bounds on a set of indicators whithin which the overallfunctioning of the system is guaranteed.

The approach proposed by France aims to address the three families of objectives which, to someextent, reflect the objectives of integrative policies such as the Marine Strategic Framework Directive(MSFD) on the marine environment. Such an approach takes into account the state of remarkablebiodiversity, on which conservation objectives are expressed, but also the general state ofecosystems, their biodiversity, that could be called ordinary, and their overall functioning thatsupports ecosystem services. It is organized in two stages and consists in, first, specifying andselecting a set of indicators directly related to these three sets of objectives and, then, in possiblyaggregating them through explicit and meaningful methods.

First, the construction of a set of relevant indicators would require to identify an exhaustive set offeatures of interest for the ecosystems considered11 :

• On the conservation side (remarkable biodiversity), for instance, all the dimensions on whichno-net-loss policy objectives are specified shall be listed. Each of these features of interestwould be captured by an indicator that shall be required not to decrease12 ;

• From the other sectoral perspectives (ordinary biodiversity), a list of ecosystem goodsand services of interest from a sectoral perspective13 shall be proposed and one or severalbiophysical indicators that reflect the capacity of ecosystems considered to sustainablyprovide these goods and services shall be specified14;

• From the overall functioning perspective, the selection of relevant indicators could result fromthe study of the risk of an irreversible degradation of the ecosystems considered and theirdeterminants.

On the basis of the exhaustive set of policy-relevant and interpretable indicators obtained, theecosystem condition could be defined by the combination of all these indicators. A tentativepresentation of the possible methods for combining indicators (selection, agregation, integration) ispresented in appendix 1.

III) Discussion

The approach proposed by France offers several interests:• It eases the interpretation of the proposed indicators with regards to policy objectives.

Because of their policy relevance, the methods used for their combination can also beinterpreted and lead to meaningful composite indicators;

• It requires to make the arbitrages explicit and transparent and allow for their discussionon objective bases. For instance, and because of the exhaustive nature of the list of features

8The action 7 of the Euorpean biodiversity strategy aims at ensuring « no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services ». 9 For instance, policy objectives on economic growth, employment, public health or climate change mitigation.10 For instance, in the MSFD, good environmental status requires « safeguarding the potential for uses and activities by current and future generations » and to « allow those ecosystems to function fully and to maintain their resilience to human-induced environmental change ». MSFD, article 3.11a minima defined at the scale of European ecoregions.12 And not the distance to a htpothetical reference state, which distinguish this definition, based on no-net-loss objective, to the definition of the ecological satus of the WFD.13 Economic development, protection against risks, climate change mitigation, urban development and housing, etc.14Note that we do not suggest to measure ecosystem services, which requires to also take into account the level of use of the ecological function identified. Therefore goods or services of interest could be potential services that is goods and services are not used today but are perceived as potentially useful in relation to some objective. Ecosystem service accounts can be informative about the intensity of our tie with Nature, but they are not only related to ecological condition.

2

MTES/CGDD/SEEIDD/ERNR1 09/06/17

of interest in the first stage preceding their combination, it allows to identify and point at anoversight;

• It eases the precise identification of knowledge gaps, data needs and assessmentrequirements and of their relative priorities;

• it is also an iterative and progressive method, that is no more demanding than the currentapproach of the MAES working group. If adopted by the group, it can be limited in the shortterm to interpret the current set of indicators. In a longer term, it would allow to enrich this setthrough identified opportunities for improvement.

The approach proposed by France could also be helpful in assessing relevant monetary estimates,that would ease the integration of conservation objectives with the sustainable use of biodiversity indecisionmaking. For a given element of biodiversity15, the monetary values to be considered could beadapted depending on whether this elements is related to the first set of conservation objectives(restauraton costs), the second set of other sectoral objectives (value of related ecosystem goods andservices), or the objective of maintaining their overall functioning.

References : • Borja, A., Prins, T. C., Simboura, N., Andersen, J. H., Berg, T., Marques, J. C., ... & Uusitalo, L. (2014).

Tales from a thousand and one ways to integrate marine ecosystem components when assessing the environmental status. Frontiers in Marine Science, 1, 72.

• Commissariat général au développement durable, 2015. Nature and wealth of nations. English version. La revue du CGDD.

• Commission européenne, 2017. An analytical framework for mapping and assessment of ecosystem condition: Proposal to organise the work until June 2017, Working document porposed to the 13th WG MAES.

• Heink, U., Hauck, J., Jax, K., & Sukopp, U. (2016). Requirements for the selection of ecosystem service indicators–The case of MAES indicators. Ecological Indicators, 61, 18-26.

• Maes J. et coll., 2014. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services: Indicators forecosystem assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. 2nd Report. Final,Technical Report 080.

15Ecosystem structure, habitat, species, ecological function, etc.

3

MTES/CGDD/SEEIDD/ERNR1 09/06/17

Appendix 1: Possible methods for combining indicators

Given the likely multiplicity of relevant indicators, the combination16 of indicators appears necessary forachieving a parcimonious set of indicators. Combination can be carried out through aggregation17,integration18 or selection19. Clearly, the relative relevance of combination methods depends on the setof policy objectives considered20. At present, no clear position has been proposed on this issueby the MAES WG. The following discussion tackles the identification of accurate combinationmethods given the policy objective considered.

The three sets of policy objectives are discussed in the following sections. In each section, we firstrecall the nature of relevant individual indicators. Then, we introduce a discussion about the mostrelevant combination rules. In the fourth section, we summarize and conclude on the possibility ofintegrating the indicators resulting from the three sets of objectives.

(i) Selection and combination of indicators related to conservation objectives

Target indicators are related to the state of each dimension of the biodiversity of the ecosystemconsidered (habitat, species, individuals, genes, etc.) on which a no-net-loss objective isexpressed. It can be an indicator of the abundance of the population of a species of Communityinterest in a given area, or the conservation status of an habitat considered of Community interest in agiven area. The associated objective is that these indicators shall not decrease. Trends andassociated confidence levels also are interesting.

On the basis of such a list, aggregation can be made on the basis of a « one-out-all-out » rule21.Given the conservative character of such a measure, aggregation can take into account the risk offalsly reporting a net loss given the confidence attached to the indicators. Current discussions exist onthis technical issue, and the possible relevance of a «two or three-out-all-out » or other approaches22.

In order to allow for the integration of this family of indicators with others, the monetary assessment ofthese criteria could be carried out on the basis of the cost of restoration measures required for theirsatisfaction23.

(ii) Selection and combination of indicators related to the capacity of ecosystems tosustainably provide goods and services

Target indicators are one or several biophysical indicators that reflects the capacity of anecosystem to sustainably provide a relevant set of ecosystem goods and services . Such anapproach first selects a set of prioritarian ecosystem goods and services out of a common list ofecosystem goods and services24. For each of these goods and services, it then seeks to identify thebiophysical features of interest, which requires a proper understanding of the underlying sectoralobjectives. Again, the criterion is that these indicators shall not decrease25.

A particularity of the set of indicators resulting form this process is that they may be incosistent26. As aresult « one-out-all-out » aggregation is not able to account for the necessary underlying arbitrage.Therefore, another aggregation methods has to be proposed. A possible and more relevant process ofagregation can rely on the weighting of normalized indicators. This can be achieved in two steps.

16 Combination here refers to the construction process of a synthetic indicator out of several indicator. The combination of indicators can be an aggregation, an integration or a selection of the originary indicators (definition adapted from Borja et coll., 2014).17 Aggregation here refers to the construction process of a synthetic indicator out of several indicator that refers to a same objective (definition adapted from Borja et coll., 2014).18 Integration here refers to the construction process of a synthetic indicator out of several indicator that refers to distinct objectives (definition adapted from Borja et coll., 2014). Integration requires to make explicit the arbitrage between different objectives and to use common metrics for the assessment. It may rely on relevant monetary values. 19 Selection here refers to a specific form of combination that simply consist in the selection of one out of several indicator.20 See e.g. Borja et coll., 2014.21 Such an aggregation process report the worst assessement of the set of target indicators considered. The assessment of good ecological statuswithin the scope of the WFD relies on such an aggregation process. Beforehand, there are two intermediate possibilities: umbrella species or the aggragation of ecologically equivalent dimensions could be undertaken. 22 See e.g. Borja et al., 2014.23 This correponds to the notion of unpaid ecological costs; see CGDD, 2015, p. 75 and 85.24 e.g. the Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES).25The action 7 of the EU biodiversity strategy also requires the avoid loss of ecosystem services.26 Exemples of trade-offs between ecosystem services are indeed numerous. For instance, the recreational quality of a forest may be negatively correlated with the density of trees whereas the same criterion may be positively correlated with wood production.

4

MTES/CGDD/SEEIDD/ERNR1 09/06/17

1. First, and for each sectoral objective27, the aggregation of normalized indicators that capturethe capacity to sustainably provide the goods and services related to this objective can becarried out through a weighting that reflect the relative contribution of these services to thesectoral objective. For instance, for the objective of economic growth, target indicators shallreflect the capacity of the ecosystem considered to contribute to economic growth and theycould be aggregated depending on their relative commercial values;

2. In a second step, an integration of different sectoral objectives could be proposed on the basisof a weighting that reflects their relative importance, be it on the basis of political priorities or ofcriteria that result from socio-economic valuation processes or other evaluation methods28.

(iii) Selection and combination of indicators related to the overall functioning of ecosytems

Targets indicators result from the analysis of the risk of an irreversible degradation and itsdeterminants. More precisely, the indicators are proposed on the basis of an identified risk of anirreversible transition and its qualification as a degradation given the links established with indicatorsof the two first sets of policy objectives. Indicators of pressure, ecological impact, or ecologicalstate that are informative, when compared to a threshold value, to the probability of encurringsuch a transition are all relevant. They can be measures of pollution (pressure), the abundance of akeystone species (state).

Given the strong link with no-net-loss objectives, the suggested aggregation can be a « one-out-all-out » process, although this approach may be too restrictive given the current specification of suchindicators. An alternative could be proposed out of the analysis of cumulative effects.

(iv) Summary and possible paths to integrating three sets of objectives

Set of objectives Associated policyobjective

Features of interest

Indicateurs Combined indicator

Overall criteria

Conservation of remarkable bioidversity

No net lossTo be specified To be specified

« One-out all out »type of aggregation

No decrease in all dimensions

Conservation of the capacity to provide goods and services

Maintenance of thecapacity of the ecosystem to contribute to human well-being and economic prosperity

To be specified To be specifiedWeighted sum of

normalizedindicators

No decrease in the combined indicator

Maintenance of overall functioning

Avoid catastrophic change To be specified To be specified To be specified

Comparison with threshold value

Each of the three approaches give a distinct information, and the proposal of a single indicator ofecological condition that reflects the overall capacity of an ecosystem to sustainably provide goodsand services while achieving conservation targets in the long run is an issue for the assessment ofintegrated policies. The creation of such an indicator would necessarily rely on a specification ofarbitrage between the three dimensions.

27 For instance climate change mitigation, economic growth, employment or public health. 28 For instance group valuation methods.

5

MTES/CGDD/SEEIDD/ERNR1 09/06/17

Annexe 2 - Analytical framework porposed for mapping and assessment of ecosystemcondition

6

1

An analytical framework for mapping and assessment of ecosystem condition:

Proposal to organise the work until June 2017

Much work on condition is already prepared by MAES. We need to bring this together in a consistent

draft MAES report which contains clear proposals for the member states

There are potentially 7 pilots/working streams which need to prepare a proposal for assessing

ecosystem condition at EU and MS level: the thematic pilots forest, agro-ecosystems (cropland

and grassland), urban, freshwater, marine, and the more cross-cutting pilots nature (including

other MAES ecosystem types including wetlands, heathlands and shrub, and sparsely vegetated

land) and soil (tbc)

We propose that these pilots follow a common methodological framework which consists of the

following steps:

1. Define ecosystem condition descriptors per ecosystem type

2. Select appropriate indicators following the MAES common assessment framework

(pressure, state, impact on biodiversity) based on existing material, including the MAES

cards compiled for the 2nd MAES Report1

3. Describe the link between ecosystem condition and ecosystem services

4. List the European datasets available to quantify the indicators at EU level

5. Validate and discuss with member states the proposals per pilot (workshop with member

states)

6. MAES report on condition with per ecosystem type proposals for the steps 1 to 4

Contents

1. Definition, reference and concept for each ecosystem type .................................................................... 2

2. Select the indicators and organise them according to the 2nd MAES report table 3 ................................ 3

3. Link condition to ecosystem services (integration) .................................................................................. 3

4. Linking ecosystem condition descriptors to spatial data collections ........................................................ 4

5. Validation of the proposals and joint work with MS (after June 2017) .................................................... 4

1 2

nd Maes Report

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/2ndMAESWorkingPaper.pdf Ecosystem condition https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/3c54ce29-f028-49ce-ac38-d92cfbe85a87, Agro https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a486f161-6032-4d22-98ab-d5126b04806d Forest https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/2f74716f-e99f-4401-b387-4411155df378 Freshwater https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/4f653b1b-159c-4d85-ae83-1f38d0876a6d and marine ecosystems https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/1c4bd4c6-7ac0-453c-b602-19624243ff27 , nature https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a1e8b35c-cb38-4981-b2e8-e20452cde22d urban https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/75ce4465-377f-47a6-9944-ce2cfe41aeb7 and soil https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/615d5787-5ce5-4286-a8ea-b1e234cf6a78

2

1. Definition, reference and concept for each ecosystem type

Update from the MAES glossary:

Ecosystem condition for the purpose of MAES, ecosystem condition is used as a synonym for

'ecosystem state': The physical, chemical and biological condition of an ecosystem at a

particular point in time. The biological condition is usually described by species richness and

abundance (biodiversity). Condition determines the capacity to provide services. In relation to

accounting ecosystem condition reflects the overall quality of an ecosystem asset, in terms of its

characteristics (SEEA-EEA).

Ecosystem status: A classification of ecosystem state among several well-defined categories. It is

usually measured against time and compared to an agreed target (distance to target) in EU

environmental directives (e.g. HD, BD, WFD, MSFD).

From HBD

o Favourable conservation status implies that habitats have sufficient area and quality and

species have a sufficient population size to ensure their survival into the medium to long

term, along with favourable future prospects in the face of pressures and threats.

From the WFD

o Ecological status is an expression of the quality of the structure and functioning of aquatic

ecosystems associated with surface waters.

From the MSFD

o Good environmental status (GES) is the environmental status of marine waters where these

provide ecologically diverse and dynamic oceans and seas which are clean, healthy and

productive (Art. 3).

Other environmental directives provide additional status information e.g. nitrate directive for

chemical status and revised NEC directive on impacts of air pollution upon ecosystems.

Possible tasks to consider for the pilots

Review the above-mentioned definitions from the scientific literature, environmental legislation

and from international organisations or initiatives (e.g. Ramsar, EC Communication on wise use

of conservation of wetlands) to help define ecosystem condition with a specific focus on the

ecosystem type.

Propose a specific definition of ecosystem condition for each ecosystem type. If a general

definition is difficult to propose try to describe what a good ecosystem condition is. Examples:

o Freshwater ecosystems are in good condition if they are classified as having a good

ecological status, a good ecological potential and a good chemical status as defined by

the WFD.

o Urban ecosystems are considered in “good condition” if the living conditions for humans

and urban biodiversity are good.

Describe the obstacles or problems for defining ecosystem condition

Draw an ecosystem specific conceptual model which includes the pressures acting on

ecosystems and the reference condition against which the current condition can be evaluated.

The reference condition should describe what good ecosystem condition is. Establishing a

3

reference condition is challenging but a key activity. A practical way to address the problem of

missing targets is to measure progress towards common agreed indicators for good condition

(e.g. increase in green urban areas).

Address and implement ecosystem interactions for condition, biodiversity and services into the

overall concept.

2. Select the indicators and organise them according to the 2nd MAES

report table 3

The basis for an indicator table per ecosystem type is table 3 of the second MAES report. They are

organised under three headings: pressure indicators, condition/state indicators and biodiversity

indicators for the impact of ecosystem condition on biodiversity.

Tasks to consider for the pilots

Review table 3 of the 2nd MAES report and reorganise it so that there is one table per ecosystem

type (see example 1 for urban ecosystems in Annex).

Condition was not the focus on the ecosystem pilots so an additional review of indicators may

be necessary.

Check of data availability for the respective indicators in terms of spatial and temporal

resolution and coverage including ecosystem status indicators.

Identification of needs for cross-ecosystem indicators at landscape level to describe biodiversity

relevant condition at landscape and regional level.

3. Link condition to ecosystem services (integration)

Step 3 (integration) of the common assessment framework (2nd MAES report) links ecosystem condition

to ecosystem services. There are several issues which need to be considered:

A. for the purpose of linked accounting tables on ecosystem condition and ecosystem services it is

useful to analyse how different condition aspects are related to ecosystem services (see also the

example for freshwater ecosystems by Grizzetti et al. 2016, see example 2 in the annex). If

ecosystem service models (developed for the purpose of accounting) include data used for

indicating condition, then these condition indicators should be reported in condition account

tables. It implies that service assessments are sensitive to changes in ecosystem condition.

B. for the purpose of MAES it is necessary to demonstrate that good condition goes hand in hand

with a delivery of multiple services. An example was provided by Bruna where the relation

between freshwater ecosystem services and ecological status was calculated (see example 4 in

the Annex). For other ecosystems where observations of ecosystem condition presently lack, it

would be difficult to follow this approach.

C. the above approach however lacks validation based on field observations or independent data.

So in addition, it is useful to collect evidence which accepts or rejects the presumed positive

4

relation between condition and services. OpenNESS has done this assessment for a set of

ecosystem services (see also example 3 in the Annex).

Tasks to consider for the pilots

Draw an arrow diagram to represent the links between condition aspects and ecosystem

services (based on the tables of the 2nd and 4th MAES report) by specific ecosystem type (?); see

example 2 in Annex.

4. Linking ecosystem condition descriptors to spatial data collections

One of the further tasks of the pilot could be to link the condition aspects to indicators and their

underpinning data. EEA has already provided a number of excel sheets coupling condition indicators to

data (at different spatial resolution). In addition, the third MAES report on ecosystem condition contains

a first EU wide assessment per MAES ecosystem type with reference to the data.

Suggested action for the EEA and topic centre with support from the pilot partners

EEA and ETC to start collecting all datasets storing them on the EEA Spatial Data Infrastructure

for further analysis by the MAES partners (also useful to prepare the 2019 EU wide assessment).

5. Validation of the proposals and joint work with MS (after June 2017)

After the June workshop Member States and MAES working group members should comment on the

proposals for mapping and assessing condition for the different ecosystem types.

5

Annex

Table: Current status of the work on condition and action plan to be delivered on the June Condition workshop

(step 1 to 4)

Pilot Urban Agri Forest Freshwater Marine Nature Soil

Lead partner JRC JRC JRC EEA ENV (tbc)

Contributing partners

VLM (Vlaamse Land Maatschappij, Flemish Land Agency)

JRC Joachim Maes

Maria Luisa Paracchini

Jose Barredo Bruna Grizzetti

Joachim Maes Sara Vallecillo Maria Luisa Paracchini

Arwyn Jones (tbc) Alberto Orgiazzi Joachim Maes

EEA Markus Erhard

Jan Erik Petersen

Annemarie Bastrup-Birk

* * Markus Erhard

ETC ULS Dania Abdul Malak

Dania Abdul Malak (Pollination)

Dania Abdul Malak (wetland)

Dania Abdul Malak

ETC BD Sophie Condé Balint Czucz

Sophie Condé Balint Czucz

Sophie Condé Balint Czucz

Sophie Condé Balint Czucz

Sophie Condé Balint Czucz

ETC ICM * *

ENV Julie Raynal Vujadin Kovasevic, Jérémie Crespin (tbc)

Peter Loeffler (tbc)

Juan Pablo Pertierra (tbc)

Camino Liquete (tbc)

Frank Vassen (tbc) Josiane Masson (tbc)

STEP 1. Definitions and reference frame

DONE 4th MAES report

To be done Deadline 31/05/2017: JRC will prepare a proposal

On-going 28/02. In the case of forest we will provide a review of the different available definitions and

On-going 03/03 update based on 3rd MAES report and ETC milestones and deliverables 2016

Ongoing – Final draft report will be published 1st half 2017 (tentative date)

6

Pilot Urban Agri Forest Freshwater Marine Nature Soil how they relate with the definitions in the MAES glossary. To propose one specific definition could be challenging. TBD Setting a “reference condition” could be challenging and problematic. “Reference condition” relates to the definition of condition, and in most cases available definitions in the literature cannot be operationalised into a measurable reference condition. Therefore, the reference condition is an abstract aspiration hardly measurable in all its

7

Pilot Urban Agri Forest Freshwater Marine Nature Soil dimensions with available indicators. TBD

STEP 2. Selecting indicators and organising the indicator table

DONE 4th MAES report

To be done Deadline 31/05/2017: JRC will prepare a proposal

Planned 30/04

First draft 08/03 Final version before end April

A workshop dedicated to MAES soil is planned 13 May 2017 at JRC-Ispra.

STEP 3 Link between condition and ecosystem services

To be completed Deadline 31/05/2017: JRC will work out a proposal

To be done Deadline 31/05/2017: JRC will prepare a proposal

Planned 31/05. Following example 2 in the forest pilot seems a reasonable option. This could be based on literature review and expert knowledge from the Pilot participants. It would be important to have further feed-back from MS after the workshop in June for a more comprehensive list of links.

To be further elaborated (see pollination fact sheet) Requires service specific sensitivity analysis with respective JRC and EEA partners involved

8

Pilot Urban Agri Forest Freshwater Marine Nature Soil

STEP 4 Collecting datasets per indicator

This will be part of the EnROute project (MAES follow up pilot). JRC to make a proposal for subsequent input from EEA and ULS Deadline 30/11/2017

Plan to be decided together with the pilot steering partners Deadline 30/11/2017

Planned 30/11/2017 Input from Pilot leader and co-leaders needed for setting a comprehensive list of datasets. TBD in video conference

Key data sets available. Access to additional information under constant evaluation

* Contributions from EEA on Water and Marine can only be based on the European Water Assessment report (WFD second round of RBMPs) and

the Marine Assessment Frameworks, which are currently under development. Contacts for ongoing work on JRC side would need to be related

to these current assessments at EEA and should be developed alongside these. From 2018 onwards, EEA contributions will be possible based

on the 2017 work.

9

Annex

Example 1: Indicator framework for measuring the condition of urban ecosystems

Pressures indicators of urban ecosystems

Class Indicator Scale

R M U

Urban Sprawl

Percent of built-up area (%) ● ●

e.g., Weighted Urban Proliferation (Urban Permeation Units m-2

) (Jaeger and Schwick 2014)

● ●

Air pollution

Concentration of NO2, PM10, PM2.5, O3 (μg m-3

) ● ● ●

Number of annual occurrences of maximum daily 8 hour mean of O3 > 120 µg m-3

● ● ●

Number of annual occurrences of 24 hour mean of PM10 > 50 µg m-3

● ● ●

Number of annual occurrences of hourly mean of NO2> 200 µg m-3

● ● ●

State indicators of urban ecosystems

Built infrastructure Green infrastructure

Class Indicator Scale Class Indicator Scale

R M U R M U

Population density

Number of inhabitants per area (number ha

-1)

● ● ●

Urban forest pattern

Canopy coverage (ha) ● ●

Land use and land use intensity

Artificial area per inhabitant (m

2 person

-1)

● ● ● e.g., different indicators based on forest pattern and fragmentation including SEBI 13

● ●

Land annually taken for built-up areas per person (m

2 person

-1)

● ● ● Tree health and damage

e.g. foliage damage crown dieback; measurements based on visual inspection of trees

● ●

Road density

Length of the road network per area (km ha

-1)

● ●

Connectivity of urban green infrastructure

Connectivity of GI (%) ● ●

Fragmentation of GI (Mesh density per pixel)

● ●

Fragmentation by artificial areas (Mesh density per pixel)

● ●

State indicators related to the ratio between green and built infrastructure

Class Indicator Scale

R M U

Land use

Proportion of urban green space (%) ● ● ●

Proportion of impervious surface (%) ● ● ●

Proportion of natural area (%) ● ● ●

Proportion of protected area (%) ● ● ●

Proportion of agricultural area (%) ● ● ●

Proportion of abandoned area (%) ● ● ●

Indicators of urban biodiversity

Class Indicator Scale

R M U

Species diversity

Number and abundance (number ha-1

) of bird species ● ● ●

e.g., number of lichen species ● ● ●

Conservation Number and abundance (number ha-1

) of species of conservation interest ● ● ●

Introductions Number of alien species ● ● ●

R: Regional scale; M: Metropolitan scale; U: Urban scale

10

Annex

Example 2: Linking condition and service indicators. Note this example shows a non-exhaustive list of

links. So for other ecosystems the work could cover the most relevant relationships but it is acceptable

that this will not deliver an exhaustive review.

11

Annex

Example 3: Supporting evidence on the link between biodiversity/condition and ecosystem services

based on OPenNESS deliverable D3.1

Number of scientific articles reporting positive correlations between ecosystem properties and ecosystem services (based on a sample of 50 studies per ecosystem service)

Number of scientific articles reporting negative correlations between ecosystem properties and ecosystem services (based on a sample of 50 studies per ecosystem service)

Example 4. Supporting evidence on the link between ecological status and freshwater services

Correlations between Ecological status and ecosystem service indicators (From Grizzetti presented at

the MAES condition meeting in Ispra)