Advertisement

European Union Policies and Standards as Drivers for Ecosystem Service Provision and Impairment

  • Christian SchleyerEmail author
  • Sylvia Herrmann
  • Irene Bouwma
  • Eeva Primmer
  • Klara J. Winkler
Chapter
Part of the Landscape Series book series (LAEC, volume 24)

Abstract

This chapter describes the potential of different EU policies for implementing the concept of ecosystem services (ES) at different scales. We provide an overview of a broad range of EU policies and their role as drivers for ecosystem services provision and impairment on the regional and local scale and present the consideration of the ES concept within these policies. This is based on research conducted in the EU FP7 OpenNESS project. Additionally, we provide examples of the implementation of selected policies in EU Member States: the EU Water Framework Directive and Public Policy Appraisals allowing for a more in-depth evaluation of opportunities and obstacles of the implementation processes.

Keywords

Water framework directive Public policy appraisal Pressures 

References

  1. Bastian, O., Grunewald, K., & Syrbe, R. (2012). Space and time aspects of ecosystem services, using the example of the EU Water Framework Directive. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management, 8(1–2), 5–16.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2011.631941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BfG (Bundesanstalt für Gewässerkunde). (Ed.). (2015). Ökosystemleistungen – Herausforderungen und Chancen im Management von Fließgewässern. 5. Ökologisches Kolloquium am 5./6. Mai 2015 in Koblenz. Veranstaltungen 3/2015, Koblenz, Oktober 2015, p 100.Google Scholar
  3. Borowski-Maaser, I., Sauer, U., & Cortekar, J., et al. (2014). Final Report (DII.6–V4) on Phase II of an ecosystem services project in the Vecht basin: Developing a proposal for a regional scheme on payments for ecosystem services. (VechtPES Project). http://www.interessen-im-fluss.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/VechtPES_FinalReport_09September2014_small.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2016.
  4. Bouwma, I., Schleyer, C., Primmer, E., et al. (2017). Adoption of the ecosystem services concept in EU policies. Ecosystem Services, 29(Part B), 213–222.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daily, G. C. (1997). Nature’s services. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  6. de Groot, R. S. (1992). Functions of nature: Evaluation of nature in environmental planning, management and decision-making. Groningen: Wolters Noordhoff BV.Google Scholar
  7. Deloitte Consulting. (2011). Support to fitness check water policy. European Commission – General Directorate Environment.Google Scholar
  8. DESSIN (Demonstrate Ecosystem Services Enabling Innovation in the Water Sector). (2014). About Dessin: What do we do? https://dessin-project.eu/?page_id=16. Accessed 14 Mar 2016.
  9. European Commission (EC). (2000). Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (Water Framework Directive – WFD). Directive 2000/60/EC, Brussels.Google Scholar
  10. Everard, M. (2011). Introduction on ecosystem services and water management: A manager’s point of view. In C. Wallis, N. Séon-Massin, F. Martini, et al. (Eds.), Implementation of the water framework directive: When ecosystem services come into play, 2nd “water science meets policy” event, Brussels. 29-30th September 2011; http://www.onema.fr/EN/EV/meetings/ecosystem-services.pdf (pp. 108–112).Google Scholar
  11. Galler, C., von Haaren, C., & Albert, C. (2013). Planning multifunctional measures for efficient landscape management: Quantifying and comparing the added value of integrated and segregated management concepts. In B. Fu & K. B. Jones (Eds.), Landscape ecology for sustainable environment and culture (pp. 249–284). Berlin: Springer. ISBN:978-94-007-6529-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glotzbach, S. (2013). Ecosystem services and distributive justice: Considering access rights to ecosystem services in theories of distributive justice. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 16(2), 162–176.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2013.801203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Green, C., & Penning-Rowsell, E. (1999). Inherent conflicts at the coast. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 5, 153–162.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02802753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hajer, M., & Wagenaar, H. (Eds.). (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hansjürgens, B., & Herkle, S. (Eds.). (2012). Der Nutzen von Ökonomie und Ökosystemleistungen für die Naturschutzpraxis. Workshop II: Gewässer, Auen und Moore. BfN-Skripten 319.Google Scholar
  16. Hartje, V., & Klaphake, A. (2006). Implementing the Ecosystem Approach for Freshwater Ecosystems – A case study on the Water Framework Directive of the European Union. Bonn.Google Scholar
  17. Hauck, J., Schweppe-Kraft, B., Albert, C., et al. (2013a). The promise of the ecosystem services concept for planning and decision-making. Gaia, 22, 232–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hauck, J., Görg, C., Varjopuro, R., et al. (2013b). Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: Some stakeholder perspectives. Environmental Science & Policy, 25, 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hauck, J., Schleyer, C., Winkler, K. J., et al. (2014). Shades of greening: Reviewing the impact of the new EU Agricultural Policy on ecosystem services. Change and Adaptation in Socio-Ecological Systems, 1, 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Helming, K., Diehl, K., Geneletti, D., et al. (2013). Mainstreaming ecosystem services in European policy impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 40, 82–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multilevel governance and European integration. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  22. Interwies, E. (2011). Utilizing the esa for WFD implementation between theory and practice: Opportunities and challenges. In C. Wallis, N. Séon-Massin, F. Martini, et al. (Eds.), Implementation of the water framework directive: When ecosystem services come into play. 2nd “water science meets policy” event, Brussels (pp. 127–128). 29-30th September 2011; http://www.onema.fr/EN/EV/meetings/ecosystem-services.pdf.Google Scholar
  23. James Hutton Institute. (2012). Exploring ways for the application of ecosystem services approaches at the catchment level. www.hutton.ac.uk/research/themes/managing-catchments-and-coasts/ecosystem-services/catchment-level. Accessed 26 Mar 2019.Google Scholar
  24. Jax, K., Barton, D. N., Chan, K. M. A., et al. (2013). Ecosystem services and ethics. Ecological Economics, 93, 260–268.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.06.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jordan, A., & Adelle, C. (Eds.). (2012). Environmental policy in the EU: Actors institutions and processes (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge/Earthscan. ISBN: 978-1849714693.Google Scholar
  26. Jordan, A., & Russel, D. (2014). Embedding the concept of ecosystem services? The utilisation of ecological knowledge in different policy venues. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32, 192–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koundouri, P., Ker Rault, P., Pergamalis, V., et al. (2016). Development of an integrated methodology for the sustainable environmental and socio-economic management of river ecosystems. Science of the Total Environment, 540, 90–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krüger, A-L. (2016). Institutional analysis of the river management contract ‘Masterplan Ems 2050’. Master thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.Google Scholar
  29. Maes, J., Hauck, J., Paracchini, M. L., et al. (2013). Mainstreaming ecosystem services into EU policy. Current Opinion in Environment Sustainability, 5, 128–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martin-Ortega, J. (2012). Economic prescriptions and policy applications in the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive. Environmental Science & Policy, 24, 83–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Matzdorf, B., & Meyer, C. (2014). The relevance of the ecosystem services framework for developed countries’ environmental policies: A comparative case study of the US and EU. Land Use Policy, 38, 509–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. May, P. J., Sapotichne, J., & Workman, S. (2006). Policy coherence and policy domains. Policy Studies Journal, 34(3), 381–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McShane, T., Hirsch, P., Trung, T., et al. (2011). Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biological Conservation, 144(3), 966–972.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mickwitz, P. (2003). A framework for evaluating environmental policy instruments: Context and key concepts. Evaluation, 9(4), 415–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005a). Ecosystems and human wellbeing: Current state and trends, volume 1. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  36. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005b). Ecosystems and human wellbeing: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  37. Nilsson, M., Zamparutti, T., Petersen, J. E., et al. (2012). Understanding policy coherence: Analytical framework and examples of sector-environment policy interactions in the EU. Environmental Policy and Governance, 22(6), 395–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Owens, S. (2012). Experts and the environment – The UK Royal Commission on the environmental pollution 1970–2011. Journal of Environmental Law, 24(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Potschin, M., & Haines-Young, R. (2011). Ecosystem services – Exploring a geographical perspective. Progress in Physical Geography, 38(5), 575–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reyjol, Y., Argillier, C., Bonne, W., et al. (2014). Assessing the ecological status in the context of the European Water Framework Directive: Where do we go now? Science of the Total Environment, 497–498, 332–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sabatier, P. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21, 29–168.Google Scholar
  42. Schleyer, C., Bouwma, IM., & Primmer, E., et al. (2015a). Paper on the policy analysis. European Commission FP7, 2015.Google Scholar
  43. Schleyer, C., Görg, C., Hauck, J., et al. (2015b). Opportunities and challenges for mainstreaming the ecosystem services concept in the multilevel policy making within the EU. Ecosystem Services, 16, 174–181.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Seeconsult GmbH, InterSus. (2012). German Case Study Report.Google Scholar
  46. Spray, C., & Blackstock, K. (2016). Optimising water framework Directive River basin management planning using an ecosystem services approach. Aberdeen: Centre of Expertise for Waters (CREW) Facilitation Team, James Hutton Institute.Google Scholar
  47. TEEB. (2008). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Ecological and economic foundation. Cambridge: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  48. Theesfeld, I., & Schleyer, C. (2013). Germany’s light version of integrated water resources management. Environmental Policy and Governance, 23, 130–144.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tolonen, K. T., Hämäläinen, H., Lensu, A., et al. (2014). The relevance of ecological status to ecosystem functions and services in a large boreal lake. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 560–571.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Turnhout, E., Waterton, C., Neves, K., et al. (2013). Rethinking biodiversity: From goods and services to “living with”. Conservation Letters, 6, 154–161.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00307.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Turnpenny, J., Russel, D., & Jordan, A. (2014). The challenge of embedding an ecosystem services approach: Patterns of knowledge utilisation in public policy appraisal. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32, 247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vlachopoulou, M., Coughlin, D., Forrow, D., et al. (2014). The potential of using the ecosystem approach in the implementation of the EU water framework directive. Science of the Total Environment, 470–471, 684–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wallis, C., Séon-Massin, N., Martini, F., et al. (2011). Implementation of the water framework directive – When ecosystem services come into play. In 2nd “water science meets policy” event, Brussels. 29–30th September 2011; http://www.onema.fr/EN/EV/meetings/ecosystem-services.pdf.Google Scholar
  54. Waterton, C., & Tsouvalis, J. (2015). On the political nature of cyanobacteria: Intra-active collective politics in Loweswater, the English Lake District. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 33, 477–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wurzel, R., Zito, A. R., & Jordan, A. J. (2013). Environmental governance in Europe: A comparative analysis of the use of new environmental policy instruments. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Schleyer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sylvia Herrmann
    • 2
  • Irene Bouwma
    • 3
  • Eeva Primmer
    • 4
  • Klara J. Winkler
    • 5
  1. 1.University of Innsbruck, Institute of GeographyInnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.Institute of Environmental PlanningLeibniz University HannoverHannoverGermany
  3. 3.Alterra Wageningen URWageningenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Environmental Policy Centre, Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)HelsinkiFinland
  5. 5.Natural Resource SciencesMcGill UniversitySte-Anne-de-BellevueCanada

Personalised recommendations