diff --git "a/data/datasets/onu/Chapter_03.txt" "b/data/datasets/onu/Chapter_03.txt" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/data/datasets/onu/Chapter_03.txt" @@ -0,0 +1,338 @@ +Part Ill +Assessment of Major Ecosystem Services from the Marine Environment (Othe than Provisioning Services) +Chapter 3. Scientific Understanding of Ecosystem Services +Contributors: Marjan van den Belt (Lead author and Convenor), Elise Granek Francoise Gaill, Benjamin Halpern, Michael Thorndyke, Patricio Bernal (Lea member) +1. Introduction to the concept of ecosystem services from oceans +Humanity has always drawn sustenance from the ocean through fishing, harvestin and trade. Today 44 per cent of the world's population lives on or within 15 kilometres from the coast (United Nations Atlas of Oceans). However thi fundamental connection between nature and people has only very recently bee incorporated into trans-disciplinary thinking on how we manage and account for th human benefits we get from nature. Today, when a product taken from a ecosystem’, for example, fibres, timber or fish, enters the economic cycle (i.e., a par of the human system), it receives a monetary value that accounts at least for th costs associated with its extraction and mobilization. If that natural product is th result of cultivation, as in the case of agriculture, forestry and aquaculture, th monetary value also includes the production costs. However, the extraction o natural products and other human benefits from ecosystems has implicit costs o production and other ancillary costs associated with preserving the integrity of th natural production system itself. Traditionally these benefits and costs have bee hidden within the “natural system,” and are not accounted for financially; suc hidden costs and benefits are considered “externalities” by neoclassical economists While the neoclassical economic toolbox includes non-market valuation approaches an ecosystem services approach emphasizes that ‘price’ is not equal to “value” an highlights human well-being, as a normative goal. The emergence and evolution o the ecosystem services concept offers an explicit attempt to better capture an reflect these hidden or unaccounted benefits and associated costs when the natura “production” system is negatively affected by human activities. The ecosyste services approach has proven to be very useful in the management of multi-secto processes and already informs many management and regulatory processes aroun the world (e.g. United Kingdom National Ecosystem Assessment, 2011). +Ecosystems, including marine ecosystems, provide services to people, which are life sustaining and contribute to human health and well-being (Millennium Ecosystem +1 . * Synonyms for ‘ecosystems’ in the literature are: natural systems, natural capital, nature, natura assets, ecological resources, natural resources, ecological infrastructure. +© 2016 United Nations + +Assessment, 2005; de Groot, 2011). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment define an ecosystem as “a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organis communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit” an goes on to define ecosystem services as “the benefits that humans obtain fro ecosystems” (p. 27). This definition encompasses both the benefits people perceiv and those benefits that are not perceived (van den Belt et al., 2011b). In othe words, a benefit from ecosystems does not need to be explicitly perceived (o empirically quantified) to be considered relevant in an ecosystem services approach Similarly, ecosystems and their processes and functions can be described i biophysical (and other) relationships whether or not humans benefit from them Ecosystem services reflect the influence of these processes on society's wellbeing including people’s physical and mental well-being. While ecosystems provid services not only to people, the evaluations of services are, by definitio anthropocentric. +The deliberate interlinking between human and natural systems is not new, but ove the past few decades interest in “ecosystem services” as a concept has surged, wit research and activities involving natural and social scientists, governments an businesses alike (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; Braat and de Groot, 2012). Thi interest is in part driven by the growing recognition that the collective impact o humans on the earth is pushing against the biophysical limits of many ecosystems t sustain the well-being of humankind. Such pressures are well recognized (e.g. Halpern et al., 2008; Rockstrom et al., 2009) and are felt by pelagic, coastal, an intertidal ecosystems. +The human system — comprising built, human and social capital” —ultimately is full dependent on natural capital. Ecosystems can exist without humans in them, bu humans cannot survive without ecosystems. Therefore, the human system ca usefully be considered as a sub-system of natural capital. An ecosystem service approach then becomes an organizing principle to make visible the relativ contribution of natural capital toward the goal of human well-being. The use of suc an organizing principle can be the basis for investments to maintain and enhanc natural capital to ensure a flow of ecosystem services (Costanza et al., 2014). +Natural capital is the natural equivalent of the human-made agricultural an aquaculture production systems mentioned above (Daly and Cobb, 1989). I essence, natural capital refers to ecosystems (i.e., coastal shelves, kelp forests mangroves, coral reefs and wetlands) as a network of natural production systems i the most fundamental sense. Humans with our many production systems are part o this natural capital and collectively have much to gain or lose from maintaining o neglecting, respectively, its sustainability. +The normative goal underpinning the ecosystem services concept is to maintai long-term sustainability, as well as local and immediate enhancement of huma well-being within the carrying capacity of the biophysical system. To continue +* Built Capital refers to human-made infrastructure. Human Capital refers to the ability to deal wit complex societal challenges, including education, institutions and health. Social Capital refers to th networks of relationships among people who live and work in a particular society, enabling tha society to function effectively. +© 2016 United Nations + +receiving a sustainable flow of ecosystem services, it is crucial to manage the scale o the human system relative to its natural capital base (Rockstrom et al., 2009). Th ecosystem services approach acknowledges natural capital as the paradigm in whic the human subsystem exists, highlighting (but not limiting to) the anthropocentri aspect of this concept (Costanza et al., 2014). At the same time the ecosyste services approach draws into decision-making the less visible aspects of sustainabl development, such as supporting, regulating and cultural services. Through a ecosystem services approach, people, governments and businesses are increasingl using this approach as an organizing principle for finding new ways to invest thei human, social and built capital in this common goal (Déring and Egelkraut, 2008). +The magnitude of human pressures on the earth’s natural systems an acknowledgement of the interconnectedness between ecosystems and human sub systems has revealed a need to transition from an emphasis on single-species o single-sector management to multi-sector, ecosystem-based management (TEEB 2010a; Kelble et al., 2013) across multiple geographic (Costanza, 2008) and tempora (Shaw and Wlodarz, 2013) dimensions. Intensification of use of natural capita increases interactions between sectors and production systems that in turn increas the number of mutual impacts (i.e., externalities). This requires accountabilit among tradeoffs in a way that was, perhaps, not as necessary when the use o natural capital was less intense. On land, negative impacts can be partially manage or contained in space. However, in the ocean, due to its fluid nature, impacts ma broadcast far from their site of origin and are more difficult to contain and manage For example, there is only one Ocean when considering its role in climate chang through the ecosystem service of “gas regulation”. +An ecosystem services approach supports assessment and decision-making acros land and seascapes; i.e., to consider benefits from ecosystems in natural, urban rural, agricultural, coastal and marine environments in an integrated way, an ultimately to understand the potential and nature of tradeoffs among services give different management actions. An example derived from Food and Agricultur Organization (FAO) states that 50 billion United States dollars is lost annually fro global income derived from marine fisheries, compared to a more sustainabl fishing, due to fish stocks over-exploitation, when viewed through an ecosyste services lens (FAO, 2012). +Principles for sustainable governance of oceans’ are straightforward (Costanza et al. 1998; Crowder et al., 2008,), but use of an ecosystem services approach has th potential to provide a basis for collaborative investments (in monetary o governance efforts), based on common ground and shared values. In other words, +3 Lisbon’ Principles for Sustainable Development of Oceans: 1) Responsibility: ability to respond t social and ecological goals. 2) Scale-matching: ensuring flow of ecological and social informatio allows for timely and appropriate action across scales. 3) Precaution: in the face of uncertainty abou potentially irreversible ecological impacts, decisions about natural capital err on the side o precaution. The burden of proof shifts to those whose activities potentially damage natural capital. 4 Adaptive management: decision-makers collect and integrate socio-cultural-economic-ecologica information, adapting their decisions accordingly. 5) Full-cost accounting: where appropriate, externa costs allow markets to reflect full costs.6) Participation: foster stakeholder awareness an collaboration. +© 2016 United Nations + +the ecosystem services approach has the potential to provide a new “currency” o organizing principle to consider multi-scale and cross-sectoral synergies an tradeoffs. +Several recently developed and evolving frameworks outline an ecosystem service approach and its underlying connection between natural and human systems Although the essence of the ecosystem services concept is the dependence o human well-being on ecosystems, there are diverse definitions of the concept reflecting differing worldviews on how human systems relate to ecosystems. Fo example, ecological economists emphasize that human societies are a sub-set o ecosystems and as a consequence assume limited substitutability betwee built/manufactured and natural capital (Daly and Farley, 2004; van den Belt 2011a Braat and de Groot, 2012; Farley, 2012). Some definitions of ecosystem service emphasize the functional aspects of ecosystems from which people derive benefit (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997) and others put more exphasis on their utilitaria aspects and seek conformity with economic accounting (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007 United Nations Statistics Division, 2013). Still others emphasize human health an well-being (Fisher et al., 2009) and values (TEEB, 2010a). +The ecosystem services approach aims to address and make explicit the inheren complexity of the coupling between biophysical and human systems. For example, i allows regulating ecosystem services at a global scale, such as climate regulation an sea level rise, to be integrated into local decision-making (Berry and Bendor, 2015) An important point here is that though climate change is perceived as a broadl global phenomenon, its impacts will be local, depending on a host of local/regiona drivers that will interact with global climate changes. This means that assessments o natural capital and ecosystem services are best done at multiple scales. At the sam time, integration across and between regions is essential to ensure shared bes practices, agreed protocols and data-access policies, etc. This is an importan function for governance at the global level. +The ecosystem services approach has been embraced by different fields an perspectives. For example, those concerned with biodiversity (e.g., TEEB, 2009 TEEB, 2010a; TEEB, 2010b; TEEB, 2010c; Intergovernmental Panel for Biodiversit and Ecosystem Services-IPBES) and climate change (e.g., Intergovernmental Panel fo Climate Change-IPCC) have generally aligned themselves with this approach. Man international organizations (e.g., United Nations, World Bank, the Organization fo Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), The Nature Conservancy International Union for the Conservation of Nature(IUCN), FAO), governments (e.g. European Union, United Kingdom, United States of America), and increasingl companies (e.g., Dow Chemical and potentially those connected to the Worl Oceans Council) are collaborating to explore the potential for efficient and effectiv decision-making offered by an ecosystem services approach. An example o intergovernmental collaboration on ecosystem services is the Group on Eart Observations (GEO)* and particularly GEO’s Biodiversity Network (GEO BON), voluntary partnership among intergovernmental, non-governmental an governmental organizations (www.earthobservations.org/geobon). The +* GEO, the Group on Earth Observations has today 89 member states and the European Commission. +© 2016 United Nations + +Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service (IPBES) enhances this integration effort at sub-regional, regional and global level (Larigauderie and Mooney, 2010; www. ipbes.net). +Although the concept has achieved broad acceptance, caution is needed i implementing ecosystem services approaches to avoid a simplistic or biase commodification of ecosystems that prioritizes some elements of nature that ar economically useful to the detriment of overall ongoing preservation of thos ecosystems for their intrinsic value. An unbalanced approach focused primarily o assigning monetary values can exacerbate power asymmetries and increase socio ecological conflicts (e.g., Beymer-Farris and Bassett, 2012). Giving equal focus t non-market/non-use services within the ecosystem services framework is both desirable approach and a strength of this method for decision-making (Chan et al. 2012). When ecosystem services are approached as an organizing principle, thi includes the development of common units of measurement for decision support beyond application of existing tools in the natural and social science toolboxes. I needs to be acknowledged that we don’t, and may never, fully understand social ecological systems to the point that people can confidently predict changes an impact or ‘optimize’ these systems. A precautionary stance regarding managemen and governance for maintenance of resilience of social-ecological systems i highlighted (Bigagli, 2015). +The ecosystem services approach gained momentum in the late 1990s, whe monetary values associated with ecosystem services from natural capital wer conservatively estimated (at a rate double that of global Gross Domestic Produc (GDP) to highlight the potential economic and societal value of previously unvalue ecosystem services (Costanza et al., 1997). These values were globally expresse with a single spatial dimension, a snapshot of which is shown in Figure 1. Thes values only provided a starting point of a necessary debate, as they relied on man and generally conservative assumptions about how to, in a broader sense, valu services globally. Although they expressed these services in monetary values, th authors did not claim that these services were suitable for exchange in the marke system (Costanza et al., 1997). A recent re-assessment of these global value indicated that the values of global ecosystem services have increased with additiona studies on ecosystem services, but these values simultaneously have decrease where natural capital has been converted to other types of capital (Costanza et al. 2014). +© 2016 United Nations + +100 1,000 10,00 USS hat yr-1 +The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. +Figure 1. Global map of values of estimated ecosystem services in 1997. Source: Costanza et al., 1997. +An ecosystem services approach certainly isn’t without controversy and critique i offered by neoclassical economists and ecologists (McCauley, 2006), albeit fo different reasons. Some critiques of an ecosystem services approach are highlightin the utilitarian manner in which this approach has been implemented (Wegner an Pascual, 2011; Bscher et al., 2012). Ecosystem services, or "nature's benefits provide a strengths-based, organizing principle to more deliberately an systematically consider the contributions biophysical communities (includin biodiversity and habitat) provide to human well-being (including health). A wea application of an ecosystem services approach builds on traditional natural resourc management tools by considering a broader appreciation of the advantage provided by natural systems to include social, economic, health and ecologica benefits. This approach is then used to analyze, in more detail, aspects of ecosyste services currently considered externalities and builds upon natural resourc management strategies of the 20th century. This may incrementally expand th quality and quantity of relevant indicators considered when making decisions abou tradeoffs. In a strong application of an ecosystem services approach, it can be use to synthesize systemic aspects of managing the human sub-system within a ecosystem. A strong application of an ecosystem services approach requires th design of tools and skill sets suitable to support multi-faceted management an governance strategies fit for the 21* century. +The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) classified ecosystem services as provisioning services (e.g., food — including food traded in formal markets an subsistence trade and barter -, pharmaceutical compounds, building material) regulating services (e.g., climate regulation, moderation of extreme events, wast treatment, erosion protection, maintaining populations of species); supporting +© 2016 United Nations + +services (e.g., nutrient cycling, primary production) and cultural services (e.g. spiritual experience, recreation, information for cognitive development, aesthetics). +Supporting services are often considered at an ‘intermediate’ level as suppor functions toward “final ecosystem services” (Landers and Nahlik, 2013). While th intermediate nature of supporting services makes accounting more challenging, i.e avoiding double counting, it is also important to acknowledge the “unaccountable” characteristics of ecosystems for three reasons. First, the complexity of ecosystem is such that applying accounting practices modelled in accordance with traditiona economic accounting is often both impossible and inappropriate. In other words while economic activities can be aggregated to a certain extent°, attributes o ecosystems and their functions do not lend themselves well to aggregation. Second supporting services or support functions underlie all other services (e.g., provisionin and cultural services are made available in part by supporting services). Third supporting services are often considered to be most important from cultural an spiritual perspectives, which have their own specific value (Chan et al 2012). +Scientific publications concerning ecosystem services have grown exponentially sinc the late 1990s. As shown in Figure 2, the marine and coastal ecosystem service (MCES) literature is no exception. Liquete et al. (2013) recently categorized 14 articles on the current status of MCES. +15 8 2g 100 g 6 a S a & 4 S 2 50 2 a 0 gsgaseeegeeg Cuanthative Quettative 2egRgR FRRBR lapping onceptu Year Type of analysi 6 6 ? & 2 20 2 2 | | o Coastal Coastal& Marine Terrestrial& econom. environ. social mixe Marine Marin Study area Perspective +Figure 2. Data and analysis from 145 MCES assessments by Liquete et al. (2013). A. Number o publications per year. *The year 2012 covers 1 January to 4 April. B. Number of studies per type o analysis. C. Number of papers per type of environment analyzed. D. Number of publications pe scientific discipline. +The analysis by Liquete et al. (2013) found that most of the MCES case studies the reviewed: 1) were concentrated in Europe and North America; 2) did not cover the +° The System of National Accounts does not account for everything either. +© 2016 United Nations + +area beyond the continental shelf edge, with benthic habitats generally lacking, an 3) focused on mangroves for supporting and provisioning services and on coasta wetlands for regulating and supporting services. A primary focus on local or regiona geographic location raises a concern for MCES, as biophysical events and condition are generated further afield. For example, patterns of upwelling and migrator species will be influenced by benthic and oceanic conditions that might occur a some distance from the affected region and thus will be difficult to predict. As i other domains, decision-makers have to make decisions under conditions of hig uncertainty with limited ability to conclusively consider all risks. An ecosyste services approach has the advantage of making visible the non-linear behaviour® o ecosystems and draw attention in decision-making to fundamentally differen alternatives (Barbier et al., 2008). Such alternatives may lead to synergies (i.e. shared values across sectors as a basis for social-ecological enterprises and povert alleviation) or to difficult trade-offs between different uses or user groups. valuation spectrum should include “all that is important to people”, whether th people themselves perceive this or not (van den Belt et al., 2011b) and regardless o whether the value is monetary, spiritual, cultural, or otherwise. +2. Evolving ecosystem services frameworks, principles and methods +An overview follows of accepted typologies, principles and methods currently use for assessing and measuring ecosystem services in the rapidly growing internationa literature. Although concepts and methodologies show a consistent pattern in loca applications, no generally accepted classification of ecosystem goods and service for global accounting purposes exists (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010; Bohnke Henrichs et al., 2013). The complexity of such a task requires a pluralistic approac across temporal and spatial scales to make ecosystem services visible in decision making processes and to decision-makers. Capabilities for temporal and spatia analyses are evolving rapidly (e.g. Altman et al., 2014). These now enable decisio support and the use of an ecosystem services approach at local, regional, nationa and global scales (e.g. Zurlini et al., 2014). However, consistency across scales an across terrestrial and marine environments has not been achieved. This is ofte highlighted as a research, policy and management priority (Braat and de Groot 2012). For example, the Ecosystem Service Partnership (ESP) (www.es partnership.org) attracts scientists and practitioners working with the ecosyste services concept in a self-organizing manner. The ESP website allows the assessmen of ecosystem services through the various themes, geographic locations and biomes The themes (Table 1) provide a good overview of the variety of methods and tool and required skills through which the ecosystem services concept can be viewed Associated with ESP, the Marine Ecosystem Services Partnershi (http://marineecosystemservices.org/) features a library of valuation-oriente literature, organized by ecosystem, on the delivery of ecosystem services an offering interconnection with other databases (see Appendix 2 for an overview of +° Non-linear behaviour refers to the characteristic of complex systems where effects are no proportional to their causes. +© 2016 United Nations + +relevant databases). Currently organized by country, further analyses of scal addressed by the valuation studies included may help progress toward a multi-scal approach. For example, completion of Table 1 for marine ecosystem services coul be very useful for a future second United Nations World Ocean Assessment. +Table 1. Overview of thematic working groups of the Ecosystem Service Partnership (ESP), whic would be useful to complete for a subsequent World Oceans Assessment Thematic working groups of ESP Biomes Scale +1. Ecosystem services assessment frameworks and typologies +2. Biodiversity and ecosystem services +3. Ecosystem service indicators +4. Mapping ecosystem services +uw +. Modeling ecosystem services +6. Valuation of ecosystem service 6A. Cultural services and value 6B. Ecosystem services and public healt 6C. Economic and monetary valuation +6D. Value integration +N +. Ecosystem services in trade-off analysis and project evaluation +io) +. Ecosystem services and disaster-risk reduction +wo +. Application of ecosystem services in planning and management +9A. Restoring ecosystems and their services +10. Co-investment and reward mechanisms for ecosystem services +10A. Ecosystem services and poverty alleviation +11. Ecosystem service accounting and greening the economy +12. Governance and institutional aspects +The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) started as a UNEP projec (2007 — 2010) initiated by the G8. This resulted in the promotion of steps toward th management of values that people derive from ecosystems (Figure 3). In essence the TEEB framework clusters and links the ESP themes into a process suitable fo decision support for projects, governments and businesses (TEEB, 2010b). Thi process is then ideally implemented systemically, with appropriate feedbac mechanisms for on-going assessments of all aspects involved at multiple scales. +© 2016 United Nations + +Feedback to improve all aspects over time +Capture value Incentives +- Subsidies +- Fiscal +- Payments for E - Policy change +* Institutiona + Instrumental +Estimate value - Valuation in physical unit - Ranking +- Valuation in monetary terms, +Identify & Asses - Indicators +- Mapping +- Quantification +Figure 3. Process of ecosystem service assessments based on TEEB, redrawn after Hendriks et al. 2012. +2.1 The flow of ecosystem services +For this introductory chapter on ecosystem services, however, we elaborate on th cascading Haines-Young and Potschin (2010) framework. This framework is relevan because of its close alignment with the evolving United Nations System o Environmental-Economic Accounting (United Nations Statistics Division, 2013) an its effort to seek a consistent classification system and set of accounting principle (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007; Landers and Nahlik, 2013). +Conceptual models, such as the Common International Classification of Ecosyste Goods and Services (CICES) (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010), enable practitioner to differentiate between natural capital, i.e., the natural resources or ecologica infrastructure, and the services that are derived from that infrastructure. This i presented in a framework cascading from biome to function/process, service benefit and value (Figure 4). This framework is influenced by two perspectives: 1) th desire to account for ecosystem services and avoid double counting by economist and 2) an opportunity for natural scientists to rapidly communicate the value o particular ecological structures and processes. When applying this framework supporting and cultural ecosystem services are easily ignored, as non-market’ value are at best considered at the end of the cascade and more often are not considere at all; and the flow of ecosystem services is portrayed as linear or unidirectional mimicking a production chain, and implies a “trickling down” from natural capital t value for people, whose task it is to perceive this value. Appreciated for its simplicity this framework relies, in theory, on coherent and collective policy action to correc cumulative pressures when values are perceived. This feedback requires active +7 In a weak application of an ecosystem services approach, cultural services are often limited to monetary equivalent of ‘recreation’. In a stronger application of this approach spiritual connections sense of place and mental well-being are recognized. Social sciences contribute a myriad of tools t appreciate such values (e.g. (Pike et al.,, 2014). +© 2016 United Nations 1 + +management to allow natural capital to function and provide essential services an benefits, whether people perceive such values or not. This framework show similarities to the DPSIR (Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response®) framework. I comparison, the U.S. EPA draft classification system for Final Ecosystem Goods an Services (FEGS-CS) attempts to provide a categorization of beneficiaries and assist i tracking changes in ecosystem services upon those beneficiaries (Landers and Nahlik 2013). +Economists often use the term ‘ecosystem goods and services’, in part to see comparability and consistency with the System of National Accounting (Unite Nations Statistics Division, 2013). It is important to recognize that the provision o ecosystem goods and services relies on the integrity of ecosystem processes an functions, referred to as regulating and supporting ecosystem services, wit characteristics that make them less than suitable for rigorous accounting (Farley 2012). Disparate disciplinary perspectives occur in the context of applying a ecosystem services approach; e.g., economists appreciate an ability to account fo outputs and optimization of the ‘production process’, whether it is human- o nature-made, whereas ecologists tend to resist such a linear accounting o ecosystems as inaccurate because ecosystems are ‘complex systems’, with highl non-linear behaviours, and simplifying these complexities can lead t misrepresentation of management needs required to maintain valued services. +Following the steps of this cascading framework, marine ecological infrastructur includes (but are not limited to) biophysical structures, e.g., the open ocean continental shelves, coral reefs, kelp forests, seagrass beds, mangroves, sal marshes, rocky intertidal and subtidal zones, sand dunes and beaches. These ar ecological systems and the associated structures created by biological and physica processes, e.g., primary production, wave generation, and decomposition of organi matter. Ecosystem functions and processes emphasize the potential capacity o natural capital to deliver an ecosystem service, which includes resource function (e.g., mineral deposits and deep-sea fish), sink capacity (e.g., the ability to absorb dilute or keep out of sight unwanted by-products) and service functions (e.g., habita to support biodiversity, wave attenuation, degradation of organic matter). ° +This flow from biophysical structures to functions and processes to ecosyste services is labelled the “supply of ecosystem services” (Figure 4). Ecosystem service also provide benefits (such as, air to breathe, water to drink, fish to eat, sustenanc of marine life, energy to harness from wave/wind/tidal/thermal power, health safety and increased human well-being). Because these benefits are essential for +5 ppsir: Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Response generally focusses on impacts as in costs rathe than on the benefits people derive from ecosystems. Another difference is that the ‘State’ in DPSI has a biophysical focus, whereas in the ES framework, the ‘State’ of the human dimension is equall important. (Kelble et al., 2013). +° Some scholars (e.g., Aronson et al., 2007) separate natural capital into renewable natural capita (living species and ecosystems); non-renewable natural capital (subsoil assets, e.g., petroleum, coal diamonds); replenishable natural capital (e.g., the atmosphere); and cultivated natural capital (e.g. aquaculture). +© 2016 United Nations 1 + +human well-being, a market or non-market value’’ can, in some cases, be placed o these ecosystem services. This is part of the cascade labelled ‘demand for ecosystem +services’. +Global +National +Biophysica structures Natural capita (e.g., ope ocean continental shelf, +Supp Y of Cosy stem, Vices +Service (e.g. coastal +Local +protection, Benefits (e.g. recreational health opportunity) safety Value (e.g. human well- ill ee willingness to +pay for ree surveillance, +or kelp fish) +v +SOLUTION-ORIENTE LOCAL RESPONSES +~Den an Sor Cosy ster, "Vices +NABLING SOLUTION ORIENTE LOBAL RESPONSES +<< +Figure 4. The flow of ecosystem services at multiple scales. Adapted from Haines-Young and Potschi (2010. While not a part of the original model, we added and highlight the ‘supply of and demand fo ecosystem services’ and the gap between ‘supply and demand’, signalling a shortage or abundance o ecosystem services. This is one basis for establishing ‘value’ in a broader sense. +In essence, the flow diagram has two fundamental purposes: (1) identifying th ecological processes required to attain ecosystem services; and (2) developing th ability to account more rigorously for this natural ‘production system’, particularly a a global level. At this analytical level, the ecosystem services concept effectivel reveals and communicates the ‘invisible’ biophysical processes and functions an thereby broadens, guides and informs local decision alternatives and scenarios. Thi is not a uni-directional flow - the ‘cascading production chain’ (as shown in Figure 4 also requires attention for reverse processes taking ‘values’ in a broad pluralisti sense, as a starting point, to collectively develop solutions (Haines-Young an Potschin, 2010; van den Belt, 2014; Maes et al., 2012; Tallis et al., 2012) Understanding this flow of ecosystem services at multiple scales, top-down an bottom-up, facilitates practical local solution-oriented responses, enabled by globa guidance. +Sometimes a limited set of ecosystem services can be locally managed for short-ter benefits, whereas other ecosystem services have globalized characteristics and/or +10 Market and non-market values are sometimes also referred to as use or non-use values or a instrumental and intrinsic values. +© 2016 United Nations 1 + +have longer-term benefits. Therefore, this approach has the potential to effectivel connect mutual or competing interests at local to global scales and facilitat cohesive decision support. Given that the ecosystem services approach is a inherently anthropocentric concept and is context-dependent, any value attribute to ecosystem services is not absolute and depends on the supply of (i.e., how muc of a service is available, if it is limiting) and demand for the service (i.e., how muc people need or want a service). A ‘gap’ between supply and demand of ecosyste services indicates a shortage or abundance (Figure 4). The gap varies temporally an spatially, per societal sector, and by the political scale of the perspective (i.e., local regional, or global). When an abundant supply of ecosystem services exists relativ to demand, the governance or management requirement is primarily one o monitoring. A shortage of supply of ecosystem services, relative to demand, make the necessity of effective governance and management more acute (see also ‘tim preference’ below) - quality and efficiency of delivery of ecosystem service need t be considered. Supply and demand are dynamically interconnected and therefor employment of methodologies beyond market-based theories is crucial. +2.2 Biophysical supply of ecosystem services +Any assessment of ecosystem services must begin with natural capital. The natura system encompasses species present, the flows of matter and energy to which thes species contribute, their functional attributes, and the interactions with the physica environment that serve to enhance or dampen the functional attributes an processes. This may require principles and practical guidelines codifyin simplification schemes (e.g., Townsend et al., 2011), as science will not be able t provide all of the answers in the time needed to develop management responses. A assessment of natural capital in marine systems should include the distribution an level of ecosystem services in relation to space and time, so that changes i ecosystem services may be better understood following different managemen practices and proximity to tipping points of marine ecosystems (MacDiarmid et al 2013; Townsend and Thrush, 2010). +Assessing the supply of ecosystem services in practice requires a process similar t the generic TEEB approach highlighted in Figure 3. First, one must define, a specifically as possible, how an ecosystem function or process of interest connects t specific human benefits of interest and exactly which aspects of a species o ecosystem structure are connected to that function. Developing such a conceptua model following ecological principles (Foley et al., 2010) is important because, fo example, a single species can provide more than one function, and differen attributes or processes of the species may be more or less important for (a particular service(s) of interest. For example, mangrove forests provide coasta protection, carbon storage, nursery habitat, and wood, among other services, an these services are provided primarily by the density of above-ground biomass below-ground biomass, submerged root structures, and the absolute amount o above-water/ground biomass, respectively. Mangroves can provide bundles o ecosystem services, which are inter-related to each other. Measurements requir knowledge of such bundles and how they occur at multiple spatial scales over whic their benefits are conferred (Costanza, 2008). +© 2016 United Nations 1 + +The second step is to develop a model describing how the biophysical syste produces or inhibits production of the metric of interest, and which key driver modify that production. This step corresponds to step 1 in Figure 3. In the mangrov example above, if we are interested in the coastal protection function of mangrov forests and thus the above-ground density of the woody biomass, we ideally woul have or develop a mangrove growth model that could predict how wave height an intensity, sunlight, rainfall, sedimentation, etc., affect production, and especially th inter-plant density, of the woody biomass. In order to do this modelling, for al potential functions (and services) of interest, one can draw on or develop species specific population models coupled with ecosystem dynamics models, although th parameters of the model may vary spatially and temporally. Once in place, thes models then permit relatively simple sensitivity analyses that identify key drivers o change in the metric of interest. +Such models are always challenged by the availability of data, particularly in man developing countries. Thus, model development must proceed hand-in-hand wit data discovery and, where possible, data-gap filling, so that models are tailored t the scale, resolution, and complexity of the data available for a region (Figure 5) Typically useful data include physical data on sea level, pH, temperature and wav height and intensity, and biological data on the demographics, densities, dispersal and trophic dynamics of species. Although the data needs are similar at a global leve across the major oceans, these data will vary by locale and temporally (sometime seasonally). Availability of data and scientific understanding to properly paramatiz such models in particular, depends on scale and differs between regions Local/regional data for marine ecosystem services assessments are generally muc more available for counties including, but not limited to Europe, North America Australia/New Zealand, and Japan, and are very poor in most of Africa, Asia, an Latin America. A complete world assessment of ecosystem services is beyond th scope of this Assessment, but would ideally be undertaken for a future assessment. +The final step in the process of assessing the supply of ecosystem services is to ma and monitor the modelled or empirically derived values for the metrics of interes (step 2 in Figure 3) and the communication thereof (step 3 in Figure 3). Mapping an modelling are inherently constrained by the spatial resolution of the input data fo the models described above. Without such maps, one cannot say from where withi a region of interest the supply of and demand for the service is actually coming, an thus managers are left to make decisions about how to maintain or improve th supply, in order to meet demand, at the coarsest scale of assessment (for example for an entire country). Such coarse-scale decision-making may be appropriate, and i fact is often all that is needed for many decision contexts that occur at a scopin level. Scoping is the process used to identify the key issues of concern at an earl stage in any planning process. Scoping should be carried out at an early stage t facilitate strategic planning and reporting. However, when management is using a ecosystem services framework to make smaller-scale decisions, such as designatio of Marine Protected Areas, issuing permits for offshore mining, oil or wind-energ installations, and offshore aquaculture installations, then more detailed maps o service supply are critical. +© 2016 United Nations 1 + +Numerous examples of both types of decision-making exist. On the one hand is th more general, coarse-scale, often data-poor heuristic assessment, where decision makers are primarily interested in whether service supply will go up, stay constant or decline under a given management action. For example, model-building, includin indigenous stakeholders, can be used to scope for changes over time in ecosyste service values in a non-spatial manner (van den Belt et al., 2012). On the other hand more specific, finer-scale, often data-rich quantitative scenario developmen requires detailed assessments of who wins and loses under a given managemen action, and by how much, when and where. Examples include decisions on wav energy (Kim et al., 2012) and offshore aquaculture facility locations (Buck et al. 2004), considering specific tradeoffs. +At local and regional scales, often considerable but incomplete data are available, t make visible the biophysical supply of ecosystem services. Fundamental to suc efforts are sufficient data to map the location and interaction of key biophysica attributes (such as wave energy, ocean temperature, species density an composition, quality and health of those species, etc.), and for some places aroun the world such data exist. However, for many regions of the world such data do no exist or are extremely limited, constraining the ability to produce precise global regional and local estimates of the supply of and demand for ecosystem services. detailed assessment of the most limiting data gaps between regions is a highl desirable study to be conducted before a second United Nations World Ocea Assessment. The ability to map and monitor key areas for ecosystem service suppl is crucial for the development of scenarios and strategies to ensure future suppl (Burkhard et al., 2012; Maes et al., 2012a; Maes et al., 2012b; Martinez-Harms an Balvanera, 2012). Furthermore, more complete data sets can be achieved throug complementary strategies including baseline assessments in key ecosystems and/o in-depth pilot research efforts that can support model development fo extrapolation to similar habitats/ecosystems. +The provisioning of ecosystem services depends not only on the presence o biophysical structure and processes, but the condition (intact vs. degraded) and, i some cases, temporal variability (e.g., seasonal variability in the density or height o seagrasses or kelps, or variability in storm-driven waves). To determine the quantit of an ecosystem service, one must identify the spatial scale (local, regional, global and temporal scale (short- to long-term) of both supply and demand (also illustrate in Figure 4). A mismatch often exists between the data available on supply versu demand due to the variability in spatial provisioning and jurisdictional disconnect between supply and demand and the corresponding data available. For example global studies often draw on low-resolution, remotely sensed data on a global scale whereas local studies draw on higher-resolution data on a smaller spatial scale. Thi difference in data quality and spatial extent can lead to different conclusions on th quantity and quality of service provisioning available and the need to handl differences and uncertainty with care. Nevertheless, considering this ‘mismatch’ o data and information available to assess a gap between supply and demand o ecosystem services is an important move toward broadening the notion of valu away from narrow commodification of ecosystem services. +© 2016 United Nations 1 + +Of particular importance is the multi-scale aspect of the ecosystem service approach, as it provides an invitation to consider a connection between local an global scales at different temporal/seasonal intervals (Costanza, 2008). Som ecosystem services are produced and consumed in situ (e.g., coastal protection) whereas others have clear global aspects (e.g., carbon sequestration, climat regulation, biodiversity, global fisheries and mineral extraction). Certain services ar primarily seasonal (e.g., coastal protection), and others are provided or utilized year round (e.g., food provision). +2.3 Demand for ecosystem services +The ‘Benefits’ and “Value’ steps in the cascading framework (Figure 4) represent th ‘demand for ecosystem services’ and indicate where drivers of management an decision-making can be incorporated. The perception of values and benefits sets th context when determining the ‘supply of ecosystem services’. Therefore, it i important to consider demand for ecosystem services through at least two lenses (1) demand, as identified by market-based, economic sectors (as defined in th United Nations System of National Accounts); and (2) demand from non-marke sectors or societal groups, including ‘needs’ and ‘wants’, whether perceived b people or not. Therefore, value statements, if perceived, are bi-directional and ca be viewed as “trickling down” through Total Economic Values and/or “trickling up through participatory involvement of local communities. +Although the biophysical knowledge of the supply of ecosystems services i progressing, the understanding and visibility of socio-cultural-health-economi benefits from ecosystems (i.e., the understanding of the demand for ecosyste benefits) remain fragmented and are lagging behind, especially for oceans. On difficulty in profiling demand is partly due to the vast geographic scope and overal invisibility of supporting and regulating ecosystem services. Demand for ecosyste services is frequently assessed based on diverse rationales, such as risk reduction revealed preferences, direct use or consumption of goods and services (Wolff et al 2015). Also, the relative importance of these ecosystem services is often locall perceived by non-market sectors, especially through diverse cultural perspectives. A a result, management and decision-making frequently prioritize quantifiabl ecosystem services (e.g., provisioning services). This prioritization of provisionin services often occurs to the exclusion or detriment of supporting and regulatin services. On the other hand, cultural services are frequently highlighted togethe with provisioning services, as indigenous livelihoods are often tightly coupled t provisioning services as part of cultural services. +As a consequence, in any comprehensive process of ecosystem services valuation, i will be necessary to utilize both monetary and non-monetary valuations, as befit the spatial and temporal characteristics of each ecosystem service. When classica economic theory addresses “market failures”, it resorts to the following distinctions: +e Arrival good declines in abundance as it is consumed or used, e.g., when on fishing boat catches a fish, the same fish cannot be caught be another boat. +© 2016 United Nations 1 + +e Non-rival goods can be used by many without being ‘used up’, e.g., one an the same fish can be admired by multiple divers, or clean coastal waters ca be available. +e Agood is excludable if the use of it can be prevented, e.g., one need permission to drill for minerals in the Exclusive Economic Zone. +e Anon-excludable good is freely accessible to all, e.g. Storm protectio provided by mangroves, seagrasses and reefs and dunes. +Most provisioning goods are ‘rival and excludable’ and therefore more suitable fo valuation through markets, (e.g., fisheries in an Exclusive Economic Zone). However some provisioning services are ‘rival but non-excludable’ (e.g., fisheries outside o Exclusive Economic Zones). Depending on place, some non-rival, excludable good can be enjoyed by those who can afford them; these include some recreational an research services. Most regulatory and cultural services are non-rival and non excludable, such as the existence of diverse marine life or practically, whale watching from shores. Based on these characteristics, it is generally inappropriat and unconventional to value non-rival and/or non-excludable ecosystem service using market mechanisms. Even non-market valuation approaches have sever limitations in this realm, which requires socio-political and_ institutiona considerations. Hence, processes to support “trickling up” of local demand fo ecosystem services become increasingly important, preferably supported b appropriate data and an ability to integrate and make these data visible. +Some basic global data is available that can be used for the socio-economi component of assessments based on ecosystem services, such as revenue fro coastal and marine related economic sectors. Jobs related to coastal and marin related economic sectors - and cultural values related to culturally important specie - may be available at regional level in some places, but are less available in othe places. Until the multiple ecosystem services, their interconnections and tradeoff between different sectors are more accurately recognized and at least semi quantified in the decision-making sphere, full inclusion of all available globa databases is beyond the scope of this first assessment. However, the distinctio between markets and other interests, resolution, geographic spread and ease o access are important characteristics of any evolving framework of data sets. ‘Scale sets the direct context for any situation where an ecosystem services approach i envisioned, used and under improvement. The ecosystem services approach has th ability to effectively communicate land-sea connectivity and tradeoffs associate with a variety of ocean- and land-based human uses, economic sectors, stakeholder and governance (Butler et al., 2013). In such an analysis, costs (e.g., due to a loss o ecosystem services, often expressed in indirect values) and benefits (e.g., due to monetary or non-monetary gain in direct or indirect values) are incurred by differen groups over different time scales. +Data on ecosystem services and their valuation for specific case studies are often re used for similar case studies in different locations, because local data collection an analysis are expensive and require specific skills in non-market analysis. Suc ‘benefits transfer’ approaches to valuation can be controversial because they requir assumptions about similarities among regions that are often inaccurate, but the remain a powerful and necessary approach to filling data gaps, when used with +© 2016 United Nations 1 + +caution. Table 2 provides a sample of references to local case studies of ecosyste services and their values associated with a sample of particular marine ecosystems The development of such matrices is often referred to as a ‘rapid ecosystem servic assessment (RESA)’ to identify where ecosystem services and valuation data ar available and where data gaps exist. The 17 per cent of boxes that are grey and hav no studies referenced represent ecosystem services provided by a_ particula ecosystem for which insufficient studies have been conducted. +Table 2. Each marine ecosystem provides a suite of ecosystem services, a subset of which ar identified; policy and management decisions result in tradeoffs among ecosystem services. * Ope ocean may include benthic and pelagic systems. Grey boxes indicate services provided by th ecosystem on the left. Numbers are examples of studies of the ecosystem service in that particula ecosystem. The numbers in table 2 correspond to the case studies listed in Appendix 1. (expanded +from Granek et al. 2010) Selected t . ecosystem services g 5 & E g a c = £ u s : z 5 B b 9 < o 3 5 S 3 J 2 bo : 3 3 s 3S v £ 2 e 5 a = es 3 = 73 a ov 3 2 = % o s o 3 2 2 3 © oD © 5 Sc Qa 3 2 < f < . = S % 8 < os & gs Marine 3 ce 3 8 5 2a z e 3 Ss : E z gs s o 25 S 2 Ss s ecosystems 3 5 3D a s 3 os 3 2 ¥ zg 88 2 ¢ @ és 2 6 Rocky intertidal 13,45, 5 22,29, Salt marshes 12,36, 37 15,39,4 10,49, Mangrove forests 8 3,20,33 16,17, 41 4,23,47 | 6,30, 61 16,17 19, 27 Seagrass beds 41 16,17, 41 1,34, 52 6,3 9,16, 9,11 Coral reefs 21,28, 42 | 17,41 9,61 6,30, 61 | 13,25 6 24,43 Kelp forests 32,54 55,56 30 2,38, 6 Sand dunes 13,51,57 | 5,35, 4 Open ocean* 7,8,26 | 18,31,59 | 44,53, 60 14,46, 58 +Because it is both essential and expensive to initiate studies of local ecosyste services, various databases have been developed to extract relevant informatio from site-specific case studies and ‘transfer’ such knowledge to similar sites. Th ‘benefit transfer’ approach also comes with severe limitations and risk o propagation of errors (Liu et al., 2011). Appendix 2 provides a limited overview of +© 2016 United Nations 1 + +publicly searchable databases that can assist decision-makers in populating matrice suitable to their region, following the exemplified structure of Table 2. The selectio of data bases in Appendix 2 was based on explicit reference to an ‘ecosyste services’ approach, and does not provide an exhaustive list of databases that coul be used when applying an ecosystem services approach. +2.4 Managing gaps, tradeoffs, and values across multiple spatial scales +Managing tradeoffs, for example between prioritizing fish-protein production fro coastal waters versus coastal protection (Maes et al., 2012b), recreational us (Ghermandi et al., 2011) or cultural considerations (Chan et al., 2012), can lead t difficult decisions for managers and policy-makers. Fairness of distribution an environmental justice beyond direct costs and benefits for user groups need to b considered. The supply of ecosystem services is affected by decision-making tha may favour production or provisioning of one service over others. For example, i kelp harvest is a favoured service that is managed, associated “costs” may be reduction in fish protein, as fish habitat is reduced, and/or a reduction i recreational diving, as the kelp forest is extracted from the ocean (Menzel et al. 2013). Poor decision-making often results in benefits to some users (i.e., those wh harvest kelp) and costs to other users (i.e., those who fish for animals that live i kelp, recreational divers, etc.). To achieve equitable distributions via policy-making, i is necessary to consider who wins (i.e., gains, benefits) and who loses (i.e., suffers cost or loss), directly and indirectly as well as now and in the future. In the absenc of regulation or when decision-making fails to consider the suite of services provide by an ecosystem and the range of users of those services, decisions on how best t manage a marine ecosystem may lead to unintended consequences (e.g., costs t recreational divers and fishing communities). +In decision making, stakeholders or managers often choose a set of possible action to take and then assess the tradeoffs that exist among the identified options. On strength of an inclusive ecosystem services assessment is that it allows exploratio of a broader set of possible actions and outcomes and distributive impacts, ofte identifying and highlighting true ‘win-win’ solutions (e.g., Lester et al., 2012; Whit et al., 2012). +Decision-makers are faced with the challenge of considering the spatial an temporal distribution of these services, which directly affects the flow of services Certain services may be provisioned in close proximity to local communities, bu utilized by both local users and others that live far from the location of provisioning For example, coral reefs may provide protein and coastal protection to loca community members on an island, and recreational opportunities, as well as som protein, to outsiders who visit the location as tourists. Even within the loca community, individuals residing along the coast may prioritize the coastal protectio service of the reefs or mangroves, whereas residents who live inland or upland ma prioritize the provisioning of marine protein. The ecosystem services framework when systematically applied, allows for considerations of multiple ecosystem services over time and space and thus, in this example, highlighting regulating and +© 2016 United Nations 1 + +supporting services, such as habitat needed for spawning to ensure long ter provisioning of protein. +Decisions on how best to manage marine resources frequently require consideratio of the tradeoffs among a suite of possible scenarios. These tradeoffs generally entai values gained or lost with each scenario. Most commonly such values assigned ar monetary. Historically, this has led to consideration of values that can be given monetary worth, whereas services that are difficult to measure and value are ofte excluded from the decision-making process (TEEB, 2010a). Rodriguez et al. (2006 found that provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services are generall traded off in this respective order. This approach results in a focus on one or a fe ecosystem services and in decisions that have an unequal distribution of costs an benefits across sectors of the population. Failure to include supporting and cultura services, specifically on par with provisioning services, may have unintende consequences. +In other words, understanding the flow of production (i.e., supply) and consumptio (i.e., demand) of ecosystem services is complex, leaves room for cultura interpretation (Chan et al., 2012), and has distributive implications (Rodriguez et al. 2006; Halpern et al., 2011). However, tools are available - ranging from simple (fo scoping purposes or in the face of poor data) to complex (for management purpose and when adequate data are available) - to assist in the development of scenario and decision-support for this purpose. +2.5 Time preferences +Just as spatial analysis at multiple scales is crucial in understanding the supply o ecosystem services, the understanding of time scales and time preferences ar important in assessing tradeoffs, especially with regard to the demand for ecosyste services. The perception of time is often culturally defined. Indigenous peoples ofte think in terms of multiple generations and time can have a spiritual element. For market-oriented investor or government, time is captured in a ‘discount rate’. I essence, a high discount rate reflects a desire to consume resources now rather tha later. From an economic perspective, this choice also determines how quickly a investment returns a profit. Long-term planning to safeguard the benefits of les visible, non-provisioning ecosystem services requires low or even negative discoun rates (Carpenter et al., 2007). For investments in natural capital and for people t receive ecosystem services and benefits, multiple discount rates are required. Suc ecological discount rates may be place-based (e.g., when considering in sit ecosystem services) or universal (e.g., when ecological infrastructure is providin global ecosystem services) and should also reflect the (often slow) recovery time o ecosystems. This would apply to most supporting, regulatory and cultural services, a they are ‘non-rival, non-excludable’ services. In addition, certain ecosystem service may be provisioned (e.g., coastal protection when seagrass beds are dense enoug to attenuate waves) or utilized (intertidal or inshore fisheries during seasons whe ocean conditions do not permit offshore fishery) seasonally, highlighting th importance of managing for time frames that reflect seasonal availability of or acces to a service (TEEB, 2010a). +© 2016 United Nations 2 + +2.6 The challenge of multi-scale integrated assessments for ecosystem services +There are indicators that allow us to reflect on the health of oceans, e.g., the Ocea Health Index (Halpern et al., 2012) and retrospectively how ocean health is changing A general indicator for ecosystem services from oceans is not available, nor may it b desirable as one indicator. Such an indicator would require integration acros biophysical and human dimensions, with relevance across multiple scales an developing a transparent ability to consider tradeoffs with a forward perspective This requires the gathering of data at local, regional, national and global scales, an in principle with three dimensions: space, time and values. Although not unique t the ecosystem services concept, the need to connect local to global scales throug bottom-up and top-down governance is paramount. +Database management and modeling capacity are increasingly important to suppor decision-making at multiple levels of scale. This capacity needs to be ‘fit for purpose (i.e., it needs to answer specific questions by decision-makers in a timely fashion), a well as contribute to the development of knowledge across scales (i.e., be relevan beyond the boundary of an individual decision-maker). Currently several tools ar available, each emphasizing particular strengths, such as the ability to: (1 communicate effectively with local stakeholders (e.g., Rapid Ecosystem Servic Assessments (RESA), Seasketch (McClintock et al., 2012); (2) illustrate spatial aspect (e.g., INVEST (Lester et al., 2012; White et al., 2012); and (3) consider scenarios an changes over time, e.g., Mediated Modeling at the scoping (van den Belt et al. 2012), research, and MIMES/MIDAS (Altman et al., 2014) at management levels Table 3 illustrates some tools with differing strengths and weaknesses. comprehensive overview of all tools is beyond the scope of this assessment. +Table 3. A subset of tools that can be included in an ecosystem services valuation ‘toolbox’. The tool range from crude conversation starters (e.g. RESA) to spatially dynamic decision support framework (e.g. MIMES). +Dimension | Rapid SeaSketch InVEST Mediated Modeling MIME Ecosyste Servic Assessmen (RESA Context | Social / Possible Yes Yes Yes Ye value Content | Spatial Limited Yes Yes No Ye Dynamic/ No No No Yes Ye change over tim Ecological Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye Economic Yes Limited Yes, where Yes, where benefits Yes, wher benefits are are not perceived benefits ar perceived not perceive Process | Adaptive Scoping Scoping Research Scoping Management +© 2016 United Nations +21 + +These tools draw on local ‘small data’ and global ‘big data’ to various extents. Eac case study has the potential to be used in education and add to the collectiv building of knowledge on ecosystem services. As discussed, multiple databases o ecosystem services and their values are already available (Appendix 1), many o which feature ecosystem-based management tools (e.g. http://ebmtoolsdatabase.org). Newly initiated local case studies, as well as th output from modelling tools and applications of TEEB-like processes, add to thi body of knowledge, and draw on ‘big data’ sets. Bringing together the variou databases, tools and knowledge gained from various applications is a top priority fo multiple stakeholders, such as policy makers, industry and non-governmenta organizations. The iMarine infrastructure is one example of an emergin "Community Cloud" platform which offers Virtual Research Environments tha integrate a broad range of data services with scientific data and advanced analysis Such scenarios then result in new datasets. This could be expanded to includ protocols for an ecosystem services approach. Figure 5 illustrates a connectio between: (1) ‘big data’, primarily spatial information relevant to the supply o ecosystem service and (2) ‘small data’, the transferable insights that can be gaine from local case studies. These data are brought together in (modeling) tools evolving (1) from scoping to management level and (2) from static to dynamic tools In the same way, but with a much more “bottom-up” and integrated emphasis, th European Marine Biodiversity Observation System (EMBOS: http://www.embos.eu/ offers the advantages of scale and expert identification of relevant organism (taxonomy). This holistic approach is important since marine biodiversity provide many ecosystem services. However, biodiversity is undergoing profound changes due to anthropogenic pressures, climatic warming and natural variation. Prope understanding of biodiversity patterns and ongoing changes is needed to asses consequences for ecosystem integrity, in order to be in a position to manage th natural resources. +SMALL DATA on human dimensions Socio-Cultural-Health-Economic: e.g. Botto up, participatory, community-based valu studies, original Total Economic Valuation Benefit Transfer tools: e.g studies, Surveys RESA, SERVES, TEEB, +NN SO InVest, Seasketc Data Bases: e.g. oN | +Ecosystem Servic Valuation Tool +BIG DATA, Specialized models, aggregate Scoping Models: e.g. socio-economic information: e.g. Remot ~+—___ Mediated Modeling sensing, Geographic Information Systems weather data, components of well-bein SMALL DATA on biophysica dimensions - new ecosyste knowledge relevant wit transferability potential Research/Managemen Models: e.g. MIMES +Figure 5. Evolution of ecosystem services knowledge. Adapted from van den Belt et al., 2013. +Appropriate application of an ecosystem services approach as an organizing principl in a consistent manner across multiple scales (space, time and values), require capacity development. +© 2016 United Nations 2 + +3. Capacity-building and knowledge gaps +This section highlights knowledge gaps regarding the application of ecosyste services and discusses opportunities for capacity development. This concern ‘human capital’, often interpreted as the ‘ability to deal with complex societa challenges’. In the context of marine ecosystem services, this is reflected in th capacity to collect and use available data to make visible ‘the benefits that peopl derive from ecosystems’ relevant for effective decision-making at multiple scales This includes effective global policies and agreements, education and awarenes programmes. Assessing governance and institutional changes that are required a multiple scales is beyond the scope of this chapter, although it should be noted tha a feedback to this effect is included in all of the ecosystem services frameworks. +There is a gap in social sciences and economics’ ability to support ecosystem-base science. Application of an ecosystem services approach emphasizes the need fo human dimensions of well-being, bridging natural and social sciences. Suc integrative approach requires capability building in skills beyond existing disciplines Generic skills that are needed to work within an ES framework, include: technica (e.g. modellers) and specialists (including scientists in specific disciplines), integrator (to make links between the parts), translators (to change policy questions int assumptions) and interpreters (who can communicate complex issues in simpl terms). +The multi-scale and process-oriented aspects of an ecosystem services approac provide both a challenge and an opportunity for capacity development i understanding and capturing value regarding the supply of and demand fo ecosystem services. Table 4 attempts to relate the scale of the demand for an supply of ecosystem services with data gaps and capacity to interlink/disseminat data for decision-support. +Table 4. Gaps regarding data and ability to interlink data for decision-support at multiple scales coherent across marine and terrestrial systems. +Local National Globa Supply of Need = high resolution data and Need = mixed resolution Need = low resolutio ecosystem ability to interlink data for data and ability to interlink data and high ability t services decision-support in the short data for decision-support in interlink and disseminate +term. +Available = Mixed data an multiple tools; sufficient fo scoping purposes in develope countries. Insufficient fo management in develope countries. +Insufficient for scoping o management in developin countries. +the short and long term. +Available = Multipl databases often organize per country and multipl tools. +data for decision-suppor in the long term. +Available = Sufficien data for scoping insufficient ability t interlink. +© 2016 United Nations +23 + +Demand for Need = high ability for Need = ability for recognizing | Need = ability to suppor ecosystem recognizing market and non- market and supporting non- all sectors wit services market sectors in managing market sectors in managing understanding of globa tradeoffs. tradeoffs in the short and ecosystem services an long term. humanity’s long-term collective needs Available = Market-base information often available Available = market-base through the system of national information and some socio- | Available = market-base accounting. Non-market-based cultural information information and som information depends on local depending on country. socio-cultura governance and community information involvement Gap Matching data between supply Examples of ecosystem Shortage in some globa and demand of ecosystem services supply; demand-side | ecosystem services services and ability to lagging. Interconnections . . . . Interlinkages amon interconnect with regional/global | among ecosystem services global ecosystem service scales. and between local and global . elusive scales elusive. +The following are important capacity-development needs: +Data availability and resolution at different scales and geographic spread: Here th most important action item will be to map key areas, identify existing gaps and pu in place mechanisms for filling those gaps in a coordinated and strategic way. Fo example, in the developing world data gaps complicate even rapid ecosystem servic assessments at the scoping level. Although other areas have access to data fo scoping purposes, crucial knowledge is lacking to use such data through a ecosystem services approach for management purposes. +The ability to use data in an integrated manner, both for ‘trickling down’ accounting as well as for “trickling up” community empowerment and participatory purposes This is exacerbated by the severe lack of local empowerment and understanding o the ecosystem services concept and by the fact that it is a multi-factoral and trans regional, trans-national issue. This can be addressed by coordinated knowledg transfer and information exchange at the global level, for example, in coordinatio with IPBES. +Capabilities to undertake heuristic/participatory processes: Once again, this shoul be approached in a regional to global dimension, albeit for enhancement of specifi purposes at each level. Heuristics approaches to problem solving can be used in th domains of natural science and social science and refers to ‘operating under les than perfect circumstances to arrive at a way forward’. Perhaps most important wil be to encourage, facilitate, collate and promote understanding of regiona differences in valuation of ecosystem services according to culture and history. Th first step in capacity-building and filling in knowledge gaps will be to empower loca stakeholder communities and enable them to understand the impact that ecosyste services have on their lives and well-being. Empowerment and enablement are ke concepts in the social sciences and if we are to improve and develop an ecosyste services approach, it will be vital to equip communities, from the bottom up, t develop a stronger sense of ownership and responsibility for the protection and +© 2016 United Nations 24 + +sustainability of their local and global ecosystems and resultant services. However collectively, it is crucial for people to understand that ecosystem services do no respect national and international boundaries, necessitating an integrated approac and a trading off with adjacent regions. If not accomplished in a transparent manner this approach is likely to exacerbate regional conflicts. A simple example is the nee for an understanding of ecosystem life-processes by the community at large and th interdependence and cascading links between individual ecosystem services Furthermore, it is vital to understand how this varies region-to-region and culture-to culture. +Relevance and capacity for different regions, specifically for marine ecosyste services: +Human capacity-building (e.g. technology training/education) and the associate physical infrastructure (e.g., coastal marine laboratories and institutes, marin observatories/observations, oceanographic fleets, together with appropriate an robust technology/instrumentation) are important to understand marine biomes a natural capital. This is expensive infrastructure and it is often lacking or operating a a low level in developing countries. Marine research stations are scattere worldwide, are often long established, and can act as important focal points fo community-wide understanding and appreciation of marine/coastal ecosyste services. However, they lack capacity to recognize and value ecosystem services o use this approach as an organizing principle. Yet, these infrastructures have th potential to underpin the ecosystem services approach and facilitate gap-filling, e.g. by collecting data relevant to different sea-users and providing avenues to educat local communities. Improvement in these domains requires appropriate nationa policies in science and significant institutional strengthening. Education and trainin are vital to share best practices, data and experience and to create a truly globa approach. Good examples of the human capital that is available but is, as yet fragmented, in terms of supporting the development and understanding o ecosystem services, are the various networks of marine infrastructures exemplifie by MARS (http://www.marsnetwork.org) in Europe and NAM (http://www.naml.org/) in the USA, together with smaller Japanese and Australia counterparts. Recently a global initiative has been launched with the help of th Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, i.e., the World Association of Marin Stations (WAMS) (http://www.marsnetwork.org/world-association-marine-stations wams), with the mission to unite and integrate their strategies from training education, and outreach to best practice and shared research agendas. Ne initiatives emerging from the EMBRC consortium (http://www.embrc.eu) an Euromarine (www.euromarinenetwork.eu) are acting as vibrant platforms bringin together all actors in the marine sphere. An important development recentl available is The European Marine Training Portal (http://www.marinetraining.eu/) The European Marine Training portal is a centralized access point for education an training in the field of marine sciences. It will help European scientists, technician and other stakeholders to navigate in the jungle of courses and _ trainin opportunities. Marinetraining.eu offers a variety of services to both trainin organizers and trainees. +© 2016 United Nations 2 + +Databases and tools available to Marine Stations and Meteorological Centres nee to integrate and share data/tools/strategy. Time series are vital fo biological/chemical/physical/geological datasets. +As original local studies of ecosystem services are expensive, guidance is needed fo local stakeholders and decision-makers to progress from scoping to managemen tools. This includes a continuum of multiple discount rates relevant to the variou ecosystem services (TEEB, 2010a). The network of existing marine research station and institutes can play a central and coordinating role in providing relevan information and assist in preparation of options to consider bundles of ecosyste services. Many marine stations have historical data sets that, if properly digitized an shared, could help to fill gaps. Many are still locally collecting biogeochemical biophysical and biodiversity data and recording their changes. These are powerfu tools but tend to be restricted to local or regional databases. Although generally no private, they are often not widely known; this is where the United Nations Membe States could come together to identify all sources and repositories of knowledge an data and bring them together to benefit the global community. Indeed this is one o the key missions of WAMS, supported by UNESCO-IOC. Whereas this is wel recognized in Europe, North America and Australia, for example, an urgent nee exists to embrace and empower other less well-supported regions, including but no limited to Africa, South America, the Caribbean, and the Polar regions. +4. Conclusion +Many fundamental Earth system processes are approaching or have crossed saf boundaries for their continued sustainability. Oceans play a crucial role in thes Earth systems. After two decades of development, the ecosystem services approac has made good progress in making more visible the benefits people derive fro ecosystems, which are often taken for granted. The ecosystem services approac outlined above provides an organizing methodology to assess and analyze the suppl of and demand for ecosystem services and to connect across multiple geographi and temporal scales. However, this chapter does not fully outline the necessar steps to determine the potential supply and tradeoffs of ecosystem services for region. The trans-disciplinary nature of an ecosystem services approach is comple and goes well beyond a mechanical application of both natural and social science including decision making. The definitions of ecosystem services are multiple an broad and leave room for interpretation. A strong application of the ecosyste services concept can have a transformational impact, shift paradigms and provid new organizing principles advancing sustainability. A weak application of thi concept may provide justification for business-as-usual. For example, a robust an strategic application has the potential to create a collaborative space to addres fundamental challenges facing humanity; a weak application may address scattere local challenges at best or justify undesirable outcomes at worst. +Establishing principles, approaches and consistent terminology and guidelines fo use of marine ecosystem services are needed. Linkages to people are often missin and more data and knowledge on attitudes, perceptions and beliefs of resource +© 2016 United Nations 2 + +users and resource dependents is key. Several networks (e.g., MEA, GEO-BON, IPBES TEEB, Lisbon Principles) have developed and are further developing such principle and guides. A significant development in Europe is EMBOS (http://www.embos.eu/) This has a focus on observation systems for marine biodiversity. This represents significant challenge since biodiversity varies over large scales of time and space, an requires research strategies beyond the tradition and capabilities of classic research Research that covers these scales requires a permanent international network o observation stations with an optimized and standardized methodology. In this way we recognize that it is increasingly important to develop ‘frameworks of frameworks and understand the underlying purpose and worldview of each contributin framework in order to unify instead of divide the potential support for an ecosyste services approach, especially for oceans. Developing overarching principles, creatin consistency in reporting, and generating relevant shared data and information, a well as the capacity to use such information, are creating an exciting opportunity fo the United Nations and its members. +The ecosystem services approach has the potential to support a variety o management frameworks, including Marine Spatial Planning and tools fo coordinating national and international sustainable marine resource management Marine laboratories and fleets provide much of the needed data and human capita to better understand the supply of ecosystem services. Opportunities to fill dat gaps exist (especially in developing countries), as well as developing capability t make available data suitable for use in ecosystem services approaches. Thes opportunities should be identified and acted upon with some urgency. +An increasing amount of spatial data/information is readily available/accessible However, global data are often too coarse in resolution to make accurate estimate for certain regions and the capacity to access and use global data is limited and ofte lacking in developing countries and even developed countries. In addition, local o fine resolution spatial data and information are often unavailable and expensive Also, nomenclatures and protocols should be standardized to enable meaningfu integration, comparison and shared analyses. +Perhaps the most important gap in knowledge is understanding and integration of a ecosystem services ethos. This can be remedied by initiating a global approach wit coordinated knowledge and education transfer amongst both developed an developing nations. Marine ecosystems exist regardless of the status of developmen of nations, but their integrity is certainly dependent on anthropogenic effects of al kinds under the influence of cultures around the globe. Thus, the ecosystem service approach must be multi-scalar in all facets. A thematic link with IPBES for ocean could address this. +Numerous methodologies have been developed to guide the ecosystem service approach; these range from scoping to highly advanced research and managemen approaches. Some methodologies provide static ‘snapshots,’ and others provide spatially dynamic framework highlighting inter-linkages between bundles o ecosystem services and their changes over time. +The top-down progression of the cascading model (Figure 4) reflects steps involve in scoping the provision and value of ecosystem services. Inclusive, participatory +© 2016 United Nations 2 + +approaches are important if we are to enhance ecosystem service models wit bottom-up considerations to incorporate non-market and monetary values. Th incorporation of local or bottom-up perspectives provides the opportunity to bette integrate the distribution of costs and benefits and thereby enhance the fairness o decision-making. +When a participatory, bottom-up approach to ecosystem service valuation is taken the ‘gap’ between ‘supply of’ and ‘demand for’ ecosystem services can mor accurately define and measure ‘value’; either there is an abundance, a sufficiency, o a shortage in time and space, applying both market and non-market perspectives Mapping such gaps and how they change over time and space can be used t identify ‘hotspots’ for prioritization of management actions at multiple scales Increasingly, marine ecosystem services are used in marine spatial planning (Whit et al., 2012; Altman et al., 2014). +It is important that the ecosystem services approach is used to influence beyond th immediate jurisdiction of those undertaking or sponsoring an ecosystem service assessment. Marine ecosystems function independently of national boundaries an Exclusive Economic Zones and so require an integrated global approach, if humanit wants to receive ecosystem services. When local biophysical data are not available more heuristic methods can still guide conversations among multiple stakeholders t consider options to govern, manage and sustain the ‘benefits people derive fro ecosystems’. +At a global level, assessment of slow-moving biophysical processes (e.g., climat regulation, ocean acidification) need to be interpreted in terms of ecosyste services for their relevance to and impact on bundles of local ecosystem service i case studies. +In order to facilitate and enable the use of an ecosystem services approach agreement on a global nomenclature and resulting classification would be useful However, such a classification ought to be flexible enough to allow for loca variability in applications. Therefore, the design of nomenclature, principles, an data management needs to be transparent and display characteristics appropriate t scale and purpose. +In addition to multiple scales, comparability between locations and case studies an over time is important. Some databases go to great lengths to encourage long-ter comparability, e.g., Marine Ecosystem Service Partnership and Ecosystem Valuatio Tool at Earth Economics. Comparability and transferability apply not only to data gathering and -formatting, but also to the human component of socializing using/interlinking such data is equally important (e.g., exchanges and collaborativ opportunities). +The available ecosystem services frameworks emphasize that this is an iterative evolving process and therefore needs an adaptive programme of strategi assessment. +© 2016 United Nations 2 + +References +Altman, |., Boumans, R., Roman, J., Gopal, S. and Kaufman, L. (2014). An Ecosyste Accounting Framework for Marine Ecosystem-Based Management. In Fogarty, M. J. and McCarthy, J. J. (eds.) Marine Ecosystem-base Management. Harvard University Press. +Aronson, J., Milton, S.J., and Blignaut, J.N. (eds.). (2007). Restoring natural capital science, business, and practice. Island Press, Washington, DC. DOI 10.3368 er.24.1.22. +Barbier, E.B., Koch, E.W., Silliman, B.R., Hacker, $.D., Wolanski, E., Primavera, J. Granek, E.F., Polasky, S., Aswani, S., Cramer, L. A., Stoms, D.M., Kennedy, C J., Bael, D., Kappel, C.V., Perillo, G.M.E. and Reed, D.J. (2008). Coasta ecosystem-based management with nonlinear ecological functions an values. Science, 319, 321-323. DOI 10.1126/science.1150349. +Berry, M. and BenDor, T.K. 2015. Integrating sea level rise into developmen suitability analysis. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 51, 13-24 Available: DOI 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2014.12.004 +Beymer-Farris, B.A. and Bassett, T.J. (2012). The REDD menace: Resurgen protectionism in Tanzania's mangrove forests. Global Environmental Change 22, 332-341. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.11.006. +Bigagli, E. (2015). The EU legal framework for the management of marine comple social-ecological systems. Marine Policy, 54, 44-51. Available: DO 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.11.025. +Bohnke-Henrichs, A., Baulcomb, C., Koss, R., Hussain, S.S. and de Groot, R.S. (2013) Typology and indicators of ecosystem services for marine spatial plannin and management. Journal of Environmental Management, 130, 135-145 Available: DOI 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.08.027. +Boyd, J. and Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need fo standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63, 616 626. +Braat, L.C. and de Groot, R. (2012). The ecosystem services agenda: bridging th worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development and public and private policy. Ecosystem Services, 1, 4-15. +Bscher, B., Sullivan, S., Neves, K., Igoe, J., and Brockington, D. (2012). Towards synthesized critique of neoliberal biodiversity conservation. Capitalism Nature, Socialism, 23(2), 4-30. +Buck, B.H., Krause, G. and Rosenthal, H. (2004). Extensive open ocean aquacultur development within wind farms in Germany: the prospect of offshore co management and legal constraints. Ocean & Coastal Management, 47, 95 122. +© 2016 United Nations 2 + +Burkhard, F., Kroll, Nedkov, S. and Miller, F. (2012). Mapping ecosystem servic supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators, 21, 17-29. +Butler, J.R.A., Wong, G.Y., Metcalfe, D.J., Honzak, M., Pert, P.L., Rao, N. van Grieken, M.E., Lawson, T., Bruce, C., Kroon, F.J. and Brodie, J.E. (2013). A analysis of trade-offs between multiple ecosystem services and stakeholder linked to land use and water quality management in the Great Barrier Reef Australia. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 180, 176-191. +Carpenter, S. R., Brock, W. A. and Ludwig, D. (2007). Appropriate discounting leads t forward-looking ecosystem management. Ecological Research, 22, 10-11. +Chan, K.M.A., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X. Bostrom, A., Chuenpagdee, R., Gould, R., Halpern, B.S., Hannahs, N. Levine, J., Norton, B., Ruckelshaus, M., Russell, R., Tam, J. and Woodside, U (2012). Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework fo constructive engagement. BioScience, 62, 744-756. +Costanza, R., Andrade, F., Antunes, P., van den Belt, M., Boersma, D., Boesch, D.F. Catarino, F., Hanna, S., Limburg, K., Low, B., Molitor, M., Pereira, J. G. Rayner, S., Santos, R., Wilson, J. and Young, M. (1998). Principles fo sustainable governance of the oceans. Science, 281, 198-199. +Costanza, R. (2008). Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed Biological Conservation, 141, 350-352. DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.020. +Costanza, R., Darge, R., deGroot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K. Naeem, S., Oneill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P. an van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services an natural capital. Nature, 387, 253-260. DOI 10.1038/387253a0. +Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P.C., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S, Kubiszewski, I. Farber, S. Turner, K. (2014). “Changes in the glogal value of ecosyste services.” Global Environmental Change, vol 26: 152-158. +Daily, G. (Ed.). (1997). Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems Washington DC: Island Press. +Daly, H. and Cobb, J. (1989). For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Towar Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future. Boston, Beacon Press. +Daly, H.E. and Farley, J. (2004). Ecological economics: principles and applications Washington: Island Press. 454 pages. +de Groot, R. (2011). What are Ecosystem Services. /n: Van den Belt, M. an Costanza, R. (eds.) Ecological Economics of Estuaries and Coasts. Elsevie Academic Press +Doring, R., and Egelkraut, T.M. (2008). Investing in natural capital as managemen strategy in fisheries: The case of the Baltic Sea cod fishery. Ecologica Economics, 64(3), 634-642. +FAO. (2012). Payments for Ecosystem Services,(accessed 7 May 2015 http://www. fao.org/fileadmin/templates/nr/sustainability_pathways/docs/ actsheet_PES.pdf. +© 2016 United Nations 3 + +Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., and Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosyste services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 643-653. doi 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014. +Farley, J. (2012). Ecosystem Services: The Economic Debate. Ecosystem Services, 1, 9. +Foley, M.M., Halpern, B.S., Micheli, F., Armsby, M.H., Caldwell, M.R., Crain, C.M. Prahler, E., Rohr, N., Sivas, D., Beck, M.W., Carr, M.H., Crowder, L.B. Emmett Duffy, J., Hacker, S.D., McLeod, K.L., Palumbi, S.R., Peterson, C.H. Regan, H.M., Ruckelshaus, M.H., Sandifer, P.A. and Steneck, R.S. (2010) Guiding ecological principles for marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 24 11. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.001. +Ghermandi, A., Nunes, P., Portela, R., Rao, N. and Teelucksingh, S. (eds.) (2011) Recreational, Cultural, and Aesthetic Services from Estuarine and Coasta Ecosystems. Burlington, MA: Elsevier. +Granek, E.F., Polasky, S., Kappel, C.V., Stoms, D.M., Reed, D.J., Primavera, J. Koch, E.W., Kennedy, C., Cramer, L.A., Hacker, S.D., Perillo, G.M.E., Aswani, S. Silliman, B., Bael, D., Muthiga, N., Barbier, E.B., Wolanski, E. (2010) Ecosystem services as a common language for coastal ecosystem-base management. Conservation Biology 24, 207-216. +Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M. (2010). Proposal for a common internationa classification of ecosystem goods and services (CICES) for integrate environmental and economic accounting. Department of Economic and Socia Affairs Statistical division, United Nations (ESA/STAT/AC.217 UNCEEA/5/7/Bk). +Halpern, B.S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K.A., Kappel, C.V., Micheli, F., D'Agrosa, C. Bruno, J.F., Casey, K.S., Ebert, C., Fox, H.E., Fujita, R., Heinemann, D. Lenihan, H.S., Madin, E.M.P., Perry, M.T., Selig, E.R., Spalding, M., Steneck, R and Watson, R. (2008). A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems Science, 319, 948-952. DOI 10.1126/science.1149345. +Halpern, B.S., Longo, C., Hardy, D., McLeod, K.L., Samhouri, J.F., Katona, S.K. Kleisner, K., Lester, S.E., O’Leary, J., Ranelletti, M., Rosenberg, A.A. Scarborough, C., Selig, E.R., Best, B.D., Brumbaugh, D.R., Chapin, F.S. Crowder, L.B., Daly, K.L., Doney, S.C., Elfes, C., Fogarty, M.J., Gaines, S.D. Jacobsen, K.I., Karrer, L.B., Leslie, H.M., Neeley, E., Pauly, D., Polasky, S., Ris B., St. Martin, K., Stone, G.S., Sumalia, U.R., Zeller, D., (2012). An index t assess the health and benefits of the global ocean. Nature, 488, 615. DO 10.1038/nature11397. +Hendriks, K. Braat, L. Ruijs, A., van Egmond, P., Melman, D., van der Heide, M. Klok, C., Gaaff, Dietz, F. (2012). TEEB voor Fysiek Nederland, Alterra Wageningen, ISSN 1566-7197 (page 32). +Kelble, C.R., Loomis, D.K., Lovelace, S., Nuttle, W.K., Ortner, P.B., Fletcher, P. Cook, G.S., Lorenz, J.J. and Boyer, J.N. (2013). The EBM-DPSER Conceptua Model: Integrating Ecosystem Services into the DPSIR Framework. PLoS ONE 8(8): DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0070766. +© 2016 United Nations 3 + +Kim, C.-K., Toft, J.E., Papenfus, M., Verutes, G., Guerry, A.D., Ruckelshaus, M.H. Arekema, K.K., Guannel, G., Wood, S.A., Bernhardt, J.R., Tallis, H. Plummer, M.L., Halpern, B.S., Pinsky, M.L., Beck, M.W., Chan, F., Chan, K.M.A and Polasky, S. (2012). Catching the right wave: evaluating wave energ resources and potental compatibility with existing marine and coastal uses PLoS ONE, 7 (11). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047598. +Landers, D. H. and Nahlik, A.M. (2013). Final ecosystem goods and service classification system (FEGS-CS). Corvallis, Oregon: US Environmenta Protection Agency. +Larigauderie, A., Mooney, H.A. (2010). The Intergovernmental science-polic Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: moving a step closer to a IPCC-like mechanism for biodiversity. Current Opinion in Environmenta Sustainability, 2(1-2), 9-14. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2010.02.006. +Lester, S.E., Costello, C., Halpern, B.S., Gaines, S.D., White, C. and Barth, J.A. (2012) Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services to inform marine spatia planning. Marine Policy 38, 80-89. DOI 10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.022. +Liquete, C., Piroddi, C., Drakou, E. G., Gurney, L., Katsanevakis, S., Charef, A. an Egoh, B. (2013). Current Status and Future Prospects for the Assessment o Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE, 8(7). +DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0067737. +Lui, S., Portela, R., Rao, N., Ghermandi, A., Wang, X. (2011). Environmental benefi transfers of ecosystem service valuation. /n: Wolanski, E. and McClusky, D.S (eds.) Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science. Burlington MA: Academi Press. +MacDiarmid A.B., Law C.S., Pinkerton M., Zeldis J. (2013). New Zealand marin ecosystem services. In Dymond J.R. (ed.) Ecosystem services in New Zealand conditions and trends. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, New Zealand +Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., Liquete, C., Vihervaara, P., Schadgner, J.P. Grizzetti, B., Drakou, E.G., Notte, A. L., Zulian, G., Bouraoui, F. Luisa Paracchini, M., Braat, L. and Bidoglio, G. (2012a). Mapping ecosyste services for policy support and decision making in the European Union Ecosystem Services, 1, 31-39. +Maes, J., Paracchini, M.L., Zulian, G., Dunbar, M.B. and Alkemade, R. (2012b) Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply, biodiversity, an habitat conservation status in Europe. Biological Conservation, 155, 1-12 DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.(2012).06.016. +Martinez-Harms, M.J. and Balvanera, P. (2012). Methods for mapping ecosyste service supply: A review. International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystems Services and Management, 8, 17-25. +McClintock, W., Paul, E., Burt, C. and Bryan, T. (2012). McClintock Lab: seasketch. U Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-6150 Marine Science Institute http://mcclintock.msi.ucsb.edu/projects/seasketch [Accessed 13t September 2012]. +© 2016 United Nations 3 + +McCauley, D.J. (2006). Nature: McCauley replies [4]. Nature, 443(7113), 750. +Menzel, S., Kappel, C.V., Broitman, B.R., Micheli, F. and Rosenberg, A.A. (2013) Linking human activity and ecosystem condition to inform marine ecosyste based management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwate Ecosystems, 506. +Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being. |slan Press, Washington, D.C. +Pike, K., Wright, P., Wink, B., and Fletcher, S. (2014). The assessment of cultura ecosystem services in the marine environment using Q methodology. Journa of Coastal Conservation. +Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F. Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sorlin, S., Snyder, P.K. Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J. Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P. and Foley, J A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472-475. DO Doi 10.1038/461472a. +Rodriguez, J.P., Beard Jr, T.D., Bennett, E.M., Cumming, G.S., Cork, S.J., Agard, J. Dobson, A.P. and Peterson, G.D. (2006). Trade-offs across space, time, an ecosystem services. Ecology and Society, 11. +Shaw, W. D. and Wlodarz, M. (2013). Ecosystems, ecological restoration, an economics: Does habitat or resource equivalency analysis mean othe economic valuation methods are not needed? Ambio, 42, 628-643. +Tallis, H., Mooney, H., Andelman, S., Balvanera, P., Cramer, W., Karp, D., Polasky, S. Reyers, B., Ricketts, T., Running, S., Thonicke, K., Tietjen, B. and Walz, A (2012). A Global System for Monitoring Ecosystem Service Change BioScience, 62, 977-986. DOI 10.1525/bio.2012.62.11.7. +TEEB. (2009). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National an International Policy Makers. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversit (TEEB). +TEEB. (2010a). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological an Economic Foundations Earthscan, London and Washington. +TEEB. (2010b). Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. The Economics of Ecosystems an Biodiversity. +TEEB. (2010c). A quick guide to TEEB for Local and Regional Policy Makers. Th Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). +Townsend, M. Thrush, S. (2010). Ecosystem functioning, goods and services in th coastal environment. Prepared by the National Institute of Water an Atmospheric Research for Auckland Regional Council. Auckland Regiona Council Technical Report 2010/033. +© 2016 United Nations 3 + +Townsend, M., Thrush, S. F. and Carbines, M. J. (2011). Simplifying the complex: A ‘Ecosystem principles approach’ to goods and services management i marine coastal ecosystems. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 434, 291-301. +United Nations Atlas of Oceans, www.oceansatlas.org, accessed on 16 April, 2015 +United Nations Statistics Division. (2013). System of Environmental-Economi Accounting 2012: Experimental Ecosystem Accounting. Europea Commission, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development United Nations, World Bank. +UK National Ecosystem Assessment. (2011). The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis of the Key Findings. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC. +van den Belt, M. (2011a). Ecological Economics of Estuaries and Coasts. In Wolanski, E. and McClusky, D.S. (eds.) Treatise on Estuarine and Coasta Science. Burlington MA: Academic Press. +van den Belt, M., Forgie, V.E. and Farley, J. (2011b). Valuation of Coastal Ecosyste Services. In: Wolanski, E. and D.S., M. (eds.) Ecological Economics of Estuarie and Coasts. Burlington MA: Elsevier. +van den Belt, M., McCallion, A., Wairepo, S., Hardy, D., Hale, L. and Berry, M. (2012) Mediated Modelling of Coastal Ecosystem Services: A case study of Te Awanu Tauranga Harbour, Manaaki Taho Moana project. +van den Belt, M. (2013, August 26-30). Integrating Ecosystem Services Valuatio Case Studies, Valuation Databases and Ecosystem Services Modeling Proceedings of the 6" Annual International Ecosystem Services Partnershi Conference, Bali, Indonesia. +van den Belt, M. and Cole, A.O. (2014). Ecosystem Services of Marine Protecte Areas. Wellington, NZ: Department of Conservation. +Wegner, G., and Pascual, U. (2011). Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosyste services for human well-being: A multidisciplinary critique. Globa Environmental Change, 21(2), 492-504. +White, C., Halpern, B.S. and Kappel, C.V. (2012). Ecosystem service tradeoff analysi reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States o America, 109, 4696-4701. DOI 10.1073/pnas.1114215109. +Wolff, S., Schulp, C.J.E. and Verburg, P.H. ( 2015). Mapping ecosystem service demand: A review of current research and future perspectives. Ecologica Indicators, 55, 159-171. Available: DOI 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.016. +Zurlini, G., Petrosillo, |., Aretano, R., Castorini, |., D'Arpa, S., De Marco, A., Pasimeni M. R., Semeraro, T. and Zaccarelli, N. (2014). Key fundamental aspects fo mapping and assessing ecosystem services: Predictability of ecosyste service providers at scales from local to global. Annali di Botanica, 4, 53-63 Available: DOI 10.4462/annbotrm-11754. +© 2016 United Nations 3 +