The common framework suggests a four‐step approach, in parallel with the milestones set for the Member States: 1. Map the concerned ecosystem; 2. Assess the condition of this ecosystem; Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and 3. Quantify the ecosystem services their Services (MAES) in transitional and provided by this ecosystem; marine environments 4. Integrated ecosystem assessment. A recent status report from the MAES Working A reporting structure was proposed for steps 1 Group (WG) was presented by Francesca to 3, in the form of a table (the MAES Matrix) Somma during the 8th International SedNet in order to collect together the knowledge conference, held in Lisbon, Portugal from 6‐9 available for the mapping and assessment of November 2013. ecosystems and the services they provide. Filling out the MAES matrix translates into a The Working Group supports the data availability survey exercise for the implementation of Action 5 of the EU subsequent actual mapping and assessment Biodiversity Strategy which states that: foreseen in Action 5. “Member States, with the assistance of the Commission, to map and assess the state of The MAES WG tested the framework using six ecosystems and their services in their national pilots: 1) The use of nature reporting data for territory by 2014, assess the economic value of ecosystem assessment, 2) Agro‐ecosystems, 3) such services, and promote the integration of Forest ecosystems, 4) Freshwater ecosystems, these values into accounting and reporting 5) Marine ecosystems, 6) Natural capital systems at EU and national level by 2020.” accounting. Within marine ecosystems, four sub‐ecosystems were identified: 1) inlets and transitional waters, 2) coastal waters, 3) shelf water, 4) open ocean. The JRC has completed the survey on available EU‐wide datasets and indicators for all marine sub‐ecosystems. Both the ARCH and the LAGOONS FP7 projects have contributed to the “Marine inlets and transitional waters” MAES Conceptual framework for EU wide sub‐ecosystem. The MAES WG recently 2 ecosystem assessments published a second report , presenting the results of the pilots' activities. The MAES WG produced a first report in 2013.1 The document sets out a conceptual framework for mapping and assessment, linking human well‐being to biodiversity while making proposals for a typology of ecosystems and ecosystem services. 1 J Maes et al. (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. 2 J Maes et al., (2014) Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems ARCH project partners at the Consortium meeting and their Services. Indicators for ecosystem assessment under held in Obidos, Portugal November 3rd – 5th, 2013 Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Byfjorden: a case study Place. Byfjorden is a 16 km long fjord located in western Norway by the city of Bergen. However, the ARCH case study site focuses on the southern part of the fjord, which stretches into Vågen and the city centre of Bergen, as well as Puddefjorden located on the west side of the Nordnes peninsula. The Byfjorden case study site includes the 2.7 km2 area of water located at the end of the fjord arm, framing much of the city of Bergen along its waterfront. Byfjorden is located within Sub‐district West, as defined under the Water Framework Directive. This sub‐district includes nine municipalities for a total land and water area of about 3,200 km2. Local recreational fishing in Byfjorden, in spite of fish consumption restrictions (photo: David Barton, NINA) population of about 260,000 and by Norwegian standards is a highly urbanised area. Bergen and Byfjorden remain a regional centre for shipping and transport as well as a centre for maritime activities and research in the aquaculture and the oil and gas industries. Byfjorden and Bergen, Norway (photo: Carlos Vale, Natural system. The water quality of the IMPA) Byfjorden is characterized as having moderate With its close access to the sea, the city of ecological status. Although the chemical Bergen is nicknamed the “Gateway to the status of the water is good, the ecological fjords” and has a long tradition of shipping status is at risk and efforts are required in and seafaring that has influenced the order to reach good ecological status by 2021. development of the region. Bergen was an The sources of risk that are identified include important Hanseatic merchant trading centre diffuse sources of pollution from during the Middle Ages and was the largest contaminated sediments and surface water town in Norway until the 1830s. It is currently run‐off that have contributed to restrictions in the second largest city in Norway with a the consumption of fish and seafood. Photo: David Barton, NINA These conditions have contributed to the A Stakeholder’s perspective existing fishing restrictions in place at the Byfjorden case study site, as well as in the This section reproduces an interview with fjords in the vicinity of Bergen. They have also Anne Mette Mydland, the Water Framework led to fish and seafood consumption Directive coordinator for Water Region West, restrictions (cod liver and eel). who works for Bergen Municipality’s Parks and Recreation Department. Social communities. The Byfjorden case study site represents an urban setting and reflects Bergen’s rich tradition in trade, commercial, industrial and cultural heritage. Although about 80% of the population lives in the main urban area of the municipality, 70% of the Logo for the WFD work in Norway (Water – from land area is used for agriculture, nature and mountain to fjord) forestry. The residents of Bergen enjoy the amenities and services of an urban area as well as close access to nature and recreational What category of stakeholder do you activities. Visible from much of city, Byfjorden represent and how would you characterize is a natural landmark, situated between the your role? seven mountains that encircle Bergen. I am project manager for Water Region West. Vulnerabilities. The main pressures to the There are 9 municipalities in this water region natural system are climate change (sea storm and I have an administrative role in following surges and flooding) and pollution (to include up the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) legacy pollution in contaminated sediments, on a local level. One of the important as well as storm water runoff which influences principles following the WFD is local the water quality and the existing seafood and participation, which means I have a role in the fish consumption advisories). Additional facilitation of participation from different pressures include balancing tourism, stakeholders. recreation and the desire for access to the waterfront with maintaining the few industrial and maritime activities that do exist in the Byfjorden. A central feature of ARCH is to overcome the lack of integration between science and policy by actively using existing knowledge and policy, with the engagement of stakeholders, to form the basis for a management strategy. In your opinion, what does not get enough focus when integrating and interpreting science and policy? I think it can be hard to convey science to the policymakers, simply because they do not always have the right tools to understand the meaning of it (because they have other fields of expertise). In general, a closer link between "Beauty and the beasts". Winning photo in Water Picture Moments photo competition, arranged as science and policy, and having science part of the stakeholder workshops at the Byfjorden presented in a way that is easy to grasp might case study site. Photo: Bente Nedrebø. be something that needs more focus. What would you like to learn from other ARCH case studies? It would be exciting to see how this process is carried out in other case studies, and whether any good has come of it – has there been a change in the way science and policy relate to each other, and have any measures been taken in order to better the environmental conditions of the different study sites? Are there any additional thoughts or opinions you would like to share? Map of Water Region West with the Byfjorden case I think it was a good experience for me to be a study site circled in black part of the stakeholder workshops. I do not What is the main challenge in your view, for have a lot of experience with this kind of work, Water Region West? and it was interesting to see different approaches and methods used during the One of the main challenges is probably meetings in order to get a good result. funding/resources. Many of the municipalities in Water Region West are quite small and do not have unlimited resource to spend (money or labour). It is important that policy makers are interested and find this work important. What do you perceive as the three most important contributions of the ARCH project to the case study site? Getting together people from all areas of society, and from different disciplines Giving everybody a chance to have their say and be heard Creating and/or expanding people’s Photo of Anne Mette Mydland summarizing input networks from local stakeholders .