Figure 1: Conceptual framework for EU wide ecosystem assessments – Source: Maes et al., 2013 [2]
How IMPRECO incorporates ESA
The IMPRECO project is based on the so called Ecosystem Services Approach (ESA). ESA is defined as having four common characteristics (Beaumont et al., 2018[1]):
- ecosystem services are valued on the basis of their benefits to humans;
- ecosystem services are provided by ecosystem processes and this relationship is made explicit;
- the approach requires interdisciplinary competencies and stakeholder engagement at multiple scales;
- the outcomes of the approach can be incorporated into environmental policy and management decisions.
At the primary level, ESA highlights the intrinsic relationship between human development and the ecosystems (Figure 1).
At the second level, ESA aims to understand the tradeoffs between human development and the conservation of natural systems. Applied in this context, the ESA can improve the understanding of the two-directional relationships between the environment and human society, and in turn support the sustainable management of natural resources.
In this framework the IMPRECO project:
- maps the ecoSYSTEM services,
- maps the socioeconomic SYSTEM,
then, in order to identify the most relevant stakeholders and to analyze the relationship between the two SYSTEMS (ecoSYSTEM and socioeconomic SYSTEM) the so called supply and use tables have been created (La Notte et al., 2019[3]). The supply table provides information about what ecosystem services are able to offer flow of goods and services, and how much of them are used. The use table shows different categories of users: “enabling actors” who are the ultimate drivers of changes in the actual flow, and beneficiaries who directly benefit from what is generated by the flow.
The supply and use tables approach is adopted to build the Sensitive Map which identifies:
- the ecosystem services related to the marine ecosystem,
- the stakeholders benefitting of the flow of goods and services provided by the ecosystem services.
Each cell derived by crossing ecosystem services and stakeholders describes the relationship based on:
- Benefit of the stakeholder received by using the ecosystem service,
- Impacts related to the use of the flow of goods and services,
- Conflict among stakeholders related to the same ecosystem services,
- Involvement or level of involvement of the stakeholder in reducing the negative impact and/or maximizing the positive impact on the ecosystem.
The qualitative description has been transformed into a quantitative assessment. In this way the overall score of the ecosystem service has been assessed and the most relevant cases with related stakeholders identified. The most relevant cases are the IMPRECO pilot cases.
Going more in depth, the Map of Stakeholders and the Sensitive Map are here described.
Map of Stakeholders
The Map of Stakeholders is built on two main steps:
- Identifying stakeholders,
- Analyzing stakeholders.
Identifying stakeholders
When talking about stakeholders, it is important to consider that stakeholders are both local people and organizations such as governments, agencies, organizations not necessarily located close to the natural resource (for ex. Regional or National offices/agencies/organizations); are both organizations and informal groups (individuals, communities and informal networks); are both the directly and indirectly users of natural resources which may impact indirectly on the resources even without using them.
In order to identify the groups and actors that have a stake in each of the Ecosystem Service, PPs gave a response to the following questions (Caribbean Natural Resources Institute, 2004[4]):
- Who uses the resource?
- Who benefits from the use of the resource?
- Who impacts on the resource, whether positively or negatively?
Analyzing stakeholders
Crossing Ecosystem Service with stakeholders the stakeholders’ analysis is carried out. This step aims at working out their power, influence and interest.
Stakeholder analysis exercise aims at answering questions such as:
- What are the current and future interests of the various stakeholders in the use and management of the Ecosystem Service? What are their needs and expectations? How do they use the Ecosystem Service and what benefits do they derive?
- What are the social and environmental impacts, both positive and negative, of their past and current uses of and relationships with the Ecosystem Service?
- Are there some conflicts in the use of the Ecosystem Service among the stakeholders?
- How ready and willing are they to participate in and contribute to management? What are the potential areas of agreement and shared interest, upon which consensus and collaboration can be developed? What are the human, technical and financial resources that they are willing to contribute to the management process?
The sensitive map
Sensitive map systemizes the stakeholder analysis data in a matrix form. The matrix is build by crossing:
- in the rows the Ecosystem Services (ecoSYSTEM),
- with the columns identifying the stakeholders (socioeconomic SYSTEM).
Source: Visintin et al., 2019 [5]
- Benefit of the stakeholder received by using the Ecosystem Service,
- Impacts related to the use of the flow of goods and services,
- Conflict among stakeholders related to the same Ecosystem Services,
- Involvement or level of involvement of the stakeholder in reducing the negative impact and/or maximizing the positive impact on the ecosystem.
A first qualitative assessment was given scaled into three ordered assessment levels: low level, medium level, high level. In order to transform qualitative into quantitate assessment, a score was assigned: 1 to low level, 2 to medium level, and 3 to high level. In case of impacts, considering the project area (the N2K sites) and the project aims (reducing the impact on the ecosystem), the weight is double than for the other topics: 2 for low level, 4 for medium level, 6 for high level.
Finally, the overall score of the ecosystem service was assessed and the most relevant cases with related stakeholders identified. The most relevant cases are the IMPRECO pilot cases.
Table 1: Qualitative assessment of benefit, impact, conflict and involvement
| Benefit | Impact | Conflict | Involvement | |
| Low | There are several alternatives to use/benefit of the ESS in the surroundings of the N2K site | The human presence or the use of the ESS does not modify the ecosystem structure | There isn’t any conflict among stakeholders | Low interest and capacity to participate in management |
| Weight: 1 | Weight: 2 | Weight: 1 | Weight: 1 | |
| Medium | There are some alternatives to use/benefit of the ESS in the region where the N2K site is located | The human presence or the use of the ESS modifies the ecosystem structure in a reversible way | There is a conflict in the use. Introducing behavioral code can solve the conflict | Medium interest and capacity to participate in management |
| Weight: 2 | Weight: 4 | Weight: 2 | Weight: 2 | |
| High | There isn’t any alternative to use/benefit of the ESS in the region | The human presence or the use of the ESS modifies permanently the ecosystem structure | There is a conflict in the use, and no behavioral code can solve the conflict | High interest and capacity to participate in management |
| Weight: 3 | Weight: 6 | Weight: 3 | Weight: 3 |
Besides the score, PP selected the pilot considering the financial and organizational constraints of the IMPRECO project together with the potential level of involvement expressed by the relevant stakeholders in the implementation of the Pilot.
The pilot action aims to evaluate and demonstrate the effectiveness and replicability of the Ecosystem management measures tested within the pilot action. Therefore, as regard the monitoring of pilot results:
- on the SocioEconomicSystem side (stakeholders), the following monitoring indicators are applied on the selected ESS:
- capacity to provide a service assessing the so-called capacity indicators
- actual use of that service assessing the so-called flow indicators
- economic values assessing the so-called benefit indicators
Indicators should be valuated before and after the pilot in order to assess the effectiveness of the pilot.
- on the EcoSystem side, the joint monitoring protocol is applied on target species (fauna and/or habitat) as defined by the Activity T1.2
References
[1] Beaumont N.J., Mongruel R., Hooper T. (2018), Practical application of the Ecosystem Service Approach (ESA): lessons learned and recommendations for the future, International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 2018 Vol. 13, No. 3, 68–78, https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2018.1425222.
[2] Maes J., Teller A., Erhard M., Liquete C., Braat L., Berry P., Egoh B., Puydarrieux P., Fiorina C., Santos F., Paracchini M.L., Keune H., Wittmer H., Hauck J., Fiala I., Verburg P.H., Condé S., Schägner J.P., San Miguel J., Estreguil C., Ostermann O., Barredo J.I., Pereira H.M., Stott A., Laporte V., Meiner A., Olah B., Royo Gelabert E., Spyropoulou R., Petersen J.E., Maguire C., Zal N., Achilleos E., Rubin A., Ledoux L., Brown C., Raes C., Jacobs S., Vandewalle M., Connor D., Bidoglio G. (2013), Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
[3] La Notte A., Vallecillo S., Marques A., Maes J. (2019), Beyond the economic boundaries to account for ecosystem services, in “Ecosystem Services”, vol. 35, pp. 116–129.
[4] Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (2004), Guidelines for Stakeholder Identification and Analysis: A Manual for Caribbean Natural Resource Managers and Planners, ISBN 1-890792-07-1.
[5] Visintin F., De Luca M., Pinat M. (2019), Deliverable T2.1.1 – Sensitive map, Project IMPRECO – Common strategies and best practices to IMprove the transnational PRotection of ECOsystem integrity and services, Project Number 450, Project cofinanced by the TCP Adrion