From biodiversity prediction to ecosystemservice evaluation: marine case studies in Japan
Takehisa Yamakita

Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology

Acknowledgements:

The Environment Research and Technology
Development Fund (ERTDF), S9 and S15,
Ministry of the Environment

Importance of marine spatial planning (MSP)• Aichi Target (CBD strategic plan -2020)– Sustainable use of ecosystem– 10% MPA etc….
– Status in Japan• 8.3% in EEZ & territorial sea
incl. fishing right area
(Cabinet Office2011 )• 0.11% in Territorial sea
3.75% upper 10m deep

Territorial sea
EEZCoastal Fisheries Development Area

Specified waters

by Marine Fishery Resources
Development Promotion Law(WWF Japan 2009) without fishery management

MoE started to increase PA
Fishery started BD consideration

Be careful database by UNEP WCMC is incorrectSeven criteria for EBSA identification (CBD COP 9, annex I, decision IX/20)

1. Uniqueness or rarity

Area contains either unique (the only one of its kind), rare (occurs only in fewlocations) or endemic species, populations or communities, and/or unique, rareor distinct, habitats or ecosystems; and/or unique or unusual geomorphologicalor oceanographic features

2. Special importance for life
history of species

Areas that are required for a population to survive and thrive

3. Importance for threatened,endangered or declining
species and/or habitats

Area containing habitat for the survival and recovery of endangered, threatened,
declining species or area with significant assemblages of such species

4. Vulnerability, fragility,sensitivity, slow recovery

Areas that contain a relatively high proportion of sensitive habitats, biotopes orspecies that are functionally fragile (highly susceptible to degradation ordepletion by human activity or by natural events) or with slow recovery

5. Biological diversity

Area containing species, populations or communities with comparatively higher
natural biological productivity

6. Biological productivity

Area contains comparatively higher diversity of ecosystems, habitats,communities, or species, or has higher genetic diversity

7. Naturalness

Area with a comparatively higher degree of naturalness as a result of the lack ofor low level of human-induced disturbance or degradation

EBSA identified by Japan(coastal version)

From the website of MOE

ScoreBased on data of species
distribution all over Japan“Without any prediction”e.g) Criterion 6
Coastal area

Nineteenth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA-19): side-event ID3439, Montreal, 2 November 2015.

Integrative observation and assessments of marine biodiversity inAsia-Pacific region by the strategic project S-9-5 of Japan

2011 to 2015.

This project, Integrative Observation andAssessments of Marine Biodiversity in Asia
region (S-9-5) consists of six research teams;

1) regional biodiversity in Asia,2) kelp forest and seaweed beds,3) seagrass beds,4) coral reefs,5) plankton communities in pelagicwater, and
6) deep-sea chemosynthetic
communities. ,Since 2011, the project collected over
2,213,148 records, and studied to establish
the protocol to select ecologically andbiologically significant area (EBSA). These
results are adopted as expert opinion andcould contribute to achieve the Aichi Target,
and as the baseline data of discussion on theInternational Science–Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

Project members:+ Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology+National Institute for Environmental Studies+ Fisheries Research Agency+ Hokkaido University+Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, University of Tokyo
Funding : Ministry of the Environment, Japan

Predicted distribution of species
and biodiversity to plan theprotected area

Using presence of species data on ca.100 study site by MOE

Sum over0.5

6Z.marina
1Z.asiatica

0.1

AUC > 0.9

0Z.japonica
Philispadix iwatensis

ProtectedArea
Potential species richness

Prediction of future distribution of algae(number of species)

2010

Decrease：
Increase：
ホソジュズモ、ハイミル、ミル、キッコウグサ、 ウミウチワ、ヒジキ、ツルアラメ、ヒメカニノテ、
ピリヒバ、オバクサ、フクロフノリ
クロガシラ属、イバラノリ

2050 RCP8.5

Yamakita et al. Establishment of a protocol for selecting EBSAs (Marine Policy 2015 )Possibility of the evaluation of 7 EBSA criteriaLife history ,uniqueness
Naturalness, Diversity, Productivity, vulnerability ,endangered,

Cr.7 , Cr.6 , Cr.5, Cr.4 ,Cr.3,Cr.2 ,Cr.1

Candidate quantitative
indices for each criterion
Distribution of endemic species
Unique species assemblage structure
Unique genetic structure of key species
Data on habitat use by important species
Fisheries statistics of important species
Animal tracking data
Genetic data as source and sink populations
Ocean current as source and sink populations
Occurrence in endangered species red lists
Data on long-term changes in habitat area
Indicator species information
Data on primary productivity
Area or coverage as a proxy of productivity
Secondary or higher trophic level productivity
Satellite images (e.g., ocean color)
Species richness and other diversity indices
Human population data
Data on coastal development
Level of protection as natural reserves
Fisheries data
Industrial use (e.g., marine mining)

Data availability
Kelp Seag
Coral Plank Deep
bed rass
bed reefs ton sea○○○
○
△○
△
△
○
○
○
○
△△

△
△
△
○
△○
○
△△
○
○
○
○
△

△
○
○
○
△
△
○
○
△
○
○
○
○
△
△

△
○
○
○
○-△
○
△
○
○
○
○

Possible to use

multiple criteria forthese 5 ecosystems

Insufficient in …

Criterion2“Data on mobilefauna”
Criterion 4“Data on the temporal
dynamics ofecosystems“Yamakita et al. Establishment of a protocol for selecting EBSAs (Marine Policy 2015 )Integrated result in 1 degree
GAP of Protected Area

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

Kelp

2.0

Seagrass

1.5

1.0CoralEBSA identification trials for Asia region

Source of records for species occurrence
OBIS
GBIF
NaGISA
Database
COPEPODPANGAEA
H.M.S. Challenger Expedition
Hakuho-Maru Cruise
Snellius-II Expedition
Cruise reports
Rumphius Biohistorical Expedition
Anambas Expedition
Published papers
Total count of records

Years
1748〜2013
1700〜2013
2002〜2010
1974〜1981
2005
1874〜1875
1972〜2006
1984〜1985
1990
2002
1939〜2012

Records collected
1,120,974
842,569
2,928
1,475
19,1002,375
15,668
3,319
1,989
2,127
23,792
2,036,316

Sum and Marxan

Comparative study on issues of Marine Protected Area
Contribution to marine science and policy making on sustainable use

Research Subjects fro Marine Ecosystem and Community

Shifting effort to theIPBES andEcosystem services
Framework
referred inthe S15

The Environment
Research and TechnologyDevelopment Fund(ERTDF) S15, by Ministryof the Environment(FY2016-2020)

Focusof S915

Integration of evaluation and connection with scenario
Status：-Candidate list was discussed-Present indicators were listed(OHI, Costanza, Invest etc)

OHI Goal
Food Provision
Fisheries
Mariculture
Artisanal Fishing
Opportunity
Natural Products
Coastal Protection
Carbon Storage
Livelihoods andEconomiesTourism and Recreation
Sense of Place
Clean Waters
Biodiversity
Habitats
Species

S9EBSAMoE Coral MoE
Wetland
▲

●
▲

●
▲

▲
●

▲
▲

●
●

▲
▲

▲

17

Example of global or national evaluation ofvalues on ecosystem services
Unit values of annualecosystem services [US$/ha/yr](Costanza et al., 2014)

Coral reef

Total:

352,257

Seaweed bed Total:
Tidal flat Total:

28,916

Costanza et al 1997

Coral reef value assets in Japan– Tourism and recreation
240 billion yen/year– Fishing(commercial seafood) 11 billion yen/year– Coastal protection function
7.5-84 billion yen/year

cf. Tropical forest：

193,843
5,382

Evaluation of economic value of wetland 2014
(Committee of the Ministry of the environment)
Ecosystem Services

Price / yr(billion ¥)Unit Price/ha/yr(million ¥)Provisioning

Food

90.7

1.85

Regulating

Water
qualification
Habitatoffering

296.3

6.03

218.8

4.45

Recreation,
Environment
education

4.5

0.091

Habitat(Supporting )CulturalClamming was only one evaluated↑(Marine Diving 1974 Dec.)

Trial of the evaluation ofMarine Cultural Ecosystem Services:

DivingQuestion :1) Is there gaps betweenpotential of services (coral reef area)and demand (diving shop or spot density)2) How these gaps will change
depending on the climate change scenario

Distribution of Diving shops
vs coral reef area and population：prefecture level resolution
y = 0.34x + 0.87
R² = 0.45
p=0.016

Number of diving shops（log10）

2.6
2.4
2.2

OkinawaTokyo

Shizuoka

2Okinawa

2.6

y = 0.73x - 0.86
R² = 0.42
p=0.023

2.4
2.2

Tokyo
Shizuoka

2

1.8

1.8

Wakayama

1.6

1.6

1.4

1.4

1.2

1.2

11

-0.5

1.5
Coral reef area（log10）

3.5

Wakayama

2.5

33.5
population（log10）

44.5

Distribution of Diving spots
vs coral reef area /population：10km grid level resolution

Number of diving spots
listed by PADI and Oceana

All data

Okinawa

Shizuoka

40

40

20

200

1

100

Coral reef area

10000

0Wakayama

1Tokyo100

population

Maximum potential will be limited by natural capital (coral reef area)

10000Present distribution by the model
Area (ha) of the reef

Coral reef area（ha）

10000
1000
100
1010.1131517192123

Minimum
temperature (℃)

25

RCP8.5 2050 increase in area and northward up
Area (ha) of the reef

Coral reef area（ha）

10000
1000
100
10
10.1
1315

17192123

Minimumtemperature (℃)

25

Future gaps in the diving use
Gaps-20-15-5-30153040

Increase of the Gaps

Target ecosystems
discussed in marine theme of S15– (Mangrove)– Coral reef
– (Salt marsh)– Seagrass beds
– Tidal flat
– Rocky shore (seaweed beds)– Offshore (until the continental shelf)– Aquaculture– Sandy beachFinal Target of our theme
Making present and future maps based on assessment andprojection of marine natural capital and ecosystem services ofJapan coastal zone
3-1
Constructing a database/environmental variablesof natural capital and ecosystem services (ES)
3-2
3-3
3-4
Assessment of
Scenario
interaction
analyses under Predicting andbetweenassessing ES
futurenatural capital
under marineand drivers
environment
・terrestrial–marine
managementchangeassessment model with
options
Theme 23-1

Integratingassessment of
natural capital andecosystem services↓
Projecting andMapping at
nationwide scale↑
Assessment of
impacts on
economy underscenarios
28Promoting collaboration with subthemes and previous projects (S-9, S-13, S-14)

Members3-1)Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC）
Yoshihisa Shirayama , Takehisa Yamakita , Yoichi Ishikawa , Hiromichi Igarashi ,Hashioka Taketo , Yoshikazu Sasai , Yushi Morioka , Yasumasa Miyazawa ,Hideaki Saito , Takashi Hosono , Yusuke Tanaka , Misako Matsuba , SachikoOguma, Emily Skeehan3-2)Hokkaido Univ.
Masahiro Nakaoka , Norishige Yotsukura , Masahiko Fujii , Junjiro Negishi ,Takashi Denboh , Jun Shoji (​Hiroshima​ Univ. ), R​yuta Terada (KagoshimaUniv. ​)3-3)National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES)
Hiroya Yamano , Tohru Yabe , Takahiro Kubo , Koichi Arita ,Takahiro Tsuge (Konan Univ. )3-4) Japan Fisheries Research and Education Agency (FRA)
Mitsutaku Makino, Nanami Atsushi, Takaomi Kaneko, Masakazu Hori,
Juri Hori , Masaaki Sato

AP-BON and Marine
data archive/curation• Database of S15 PANCES• BISMaL, OBIS(local node by JAMSTEC)• Several marine env.
data such as DIAS
• Plan of M-BONIllustration courtesy of F. Chavez/K. Lance(Monterey Bay Research Institute/MBARI)