Search

This paper aims to improve ecosystem assessment practice by sharing the lessons learned from the Flanders Regional Ecosystem Assessment. The ‘ EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 ’, requests the EU member states ‘ to map and assess the state of ecosystems and their services by 2014 ’. However, a large number of member states have yet to start this assessment, and depend on assistance from the European Commission and on experiences from ongoing national assessments. In the region of Flanders (Belgium), several ecosystem service projects have since 2009 led the way to the ‘Flanders Regional Ecosystem Assessment’ (Flanders-REA), led by the governments’ leading research institute on biodiversity. To attain high regional requirements on scientific quality, acceptance and effective local policy impact, this assessment has tackled a number of challenges. The challenges discussed in this paper are obtaining conceptual clarity and consensus across disciplines and partners, the integration of multiple sources of information, critical handling of maps and the inclusion of experts and stakeholders. This paper also critically reflects on the definition of EU targets, their implementation, the current EU assistance to the member states, and the alignment with actual local and global policy needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Until present, it has been challenging to turn the concept of ecosystem services into a practical tool in the formulation of day-to-day policies on a national or regional scale. This is largely due to the overarching nature of the concept of ecosystems services (ESs) and the lack of concrete ecosystem service typologies. In this paper, we describe the foundation process of a national ecosystem service indicator framework for Finland, beginning with the selection of nationally important ESs. We also evaluate how this set of national indicators could be scaled down to regional circumstances, or integrated in the international ecosystem assessment processes. Our aim was to develop a national framework that complies both with national circumstances and with international typologies such as the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) and the cascade model. We developed indicators for 28 ecosystem services (10 provisioning, 12 regulating and maintenance, and 6 cultural services), a set of four indicators for every stage of the cascade model; altogether 112 indicators. We hope that the indicator framework draws attention to questions of resilience by providing information on the different aspects of ecosystem functioning that are crucial to the provisioning of ecosystem services. Furthermore, we hope to highlight the societal dependence on ecosystem services by providing indicators of both benefits and values. Besides higher-level decision-making processes, our attempt was to provide novel ecosystem service information for regional environmental managers and decision-makers, as well as the wider public interested in local issues. Integrating both ecological and socio-economic data into one platform may help to bridge the gap between science and practical decision-making resulting in more sustainable environmental management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]