STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF OFFSHORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Harte Research Institute
A report to Exxon Mobil Corporation
STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF OFFSHORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Table of Contents Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2 I.
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3
II.
Offshore Ecosystem Services Workshops ........................................................................................... 5 i.
Houston Workshop ....................................................................................................................... 5
ii. Tampa Workshop ......................................................................................................................... 8 iii. Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 11 III.
Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13
IV.
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 14
V.
References......................................................................................................................................... 16
VI.
Appendix ........................................................................................................................................... 17
Suggested Citation Yoskowitz, D., C. Carollo, and C. Santos. Stakeholder Perceptions of Offshore Ecosystem Services. Harte Research Institute. March 2014. 18 pages.
1
STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF OFFSHORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Executive Summary Summary of Offshore Ecosystem Services Workshops Preserving the ability of the environment to provide valued ecosystem services is one of the overall objectives of environmental management. International standards and policies are being developed to meet this goal, but often lack a structured framework for engaging stakeholders in the decision-making process. In particular, the integration of ecosystem services into the management of deep-water marine systems has been limited by the absence of organized forums where stakeholder groups can communicate their values and expectations, and where the input provided by stakeholders can be used to determine ecosystem services priorities as perceived by the wider ocean user community. To begin closing this gap, the Harte Research Institute, with active engagement and support from ExxonMobil, held two stakeholder workshops on September 29th, 2013 in Houston, Texas and on November 21st, 2013 in Tampa, Florida. The workshops were designed to engage participants in a discussion on ecosystem services provided by the deepwater Gulf, and to facilitate the relative valuation (or ranking) of offshore ecosystem services using a non-monetary valuation scheme (Relative Valuation of Multiple Ecosystem Services Index/RESVI approach). Stakeholders that participated in the workshops included representatives from commercial and recreational fishing, oil and gas, diving, aquaculture, wind energy, pipeline industry, federal agencies, and non-government organizations. Both workshops were held independently of each other, i.e., participants did not overlap between the two workshops, and results from the first workshop were not shared during the second workshop prior to completion of the valuation exercise. The following important findings were made during the workshops:
Stakeholders took a holistic approach, i.e., recognized the importance of multiple ecosystem services instead of assigning value only to those services that were closely related to their respective constituents. Both workshops yielded similar results, with food, raw materials, and recreation being among the top three ranked ecosystem services. Stakeholders in both workshops distinguished between direct (provisioning and cultural) and indirect (regulating and supporting) services. There was a preference among stakeholders to rank only the direct services, as these are the services directly used by stakeholders. Stakeholders further expressed that the role of indirect services needed to be considered when designing monitoring and/or mitigation measures to ensure the sustainability of the direct services.
The workshop results provide a first step toward defining and understanding priority ecosystem services in the deepwater Gulf as perceived by the wider ocean user community. Future steps will depend on the willingness of all stakeholders, including industries, scientists and government entities, to share into collaborative efforts that ensure the sustainability of ecosystem services for all ocean users. 2
STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF OFFSHORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
I.
Introduction
Ecosystem services are generally defined as the contributions from ecosystems that support, sustain, and enrich human life (Yoskowitz 2010). They can directly (e.g., fish harvesting) or indirectly (e.g., algal growth for fish food) benefit humans and comprise both living and non-living resources. These services are the result of various ecosystem structures, functions, and processes that exist and can be measured independently of humans. Several services are easily valued and linked to human well-being such as food exploitation; however, many other services such as waste or biological regulation are less clearly valued or understood. Ecosystem services that humans benefit from must be considered in decision-making together with their intrinsic values and conservation ethics in order to foster a sense of responsibility and greater understanding of trade-offs with immediate and long-term consequences. To do this, it is necessary to understand what services are provided by different ecosystems and how they contribute to human wellbeing. Besides, human actions affect both human well-being and ecosystem functions, requiring a combination of ecology and economics to identify changes in the provision and value of ecosystem services. The offshore ecosystem (Open Ocean) comprises the largest ecosystem on Earth but is the one we know the least about. It can be divided into several different zones based upon depth; for this workshop we considered three main zones: the euphotic or surface zone (0 – 200 m depth), the pelagic zone (water column below 200 m), and benthic or seafloor zone (on or near the ocean floor). The euphotic, pelagic, and benthic zones are parts of a single, multifaceted system which is linked to the rest of the world by matter, energy, and biodiversity exchanges. Many of the services provided by the offshore ecosystem illustrate the links between the deep sea and human well-being. Many of the services provided by the offshore ecosystem illustrate the links between the deep sea, through Earth’s surface to the atmosphere. For example, photosynthesis links the deep sea and the atmosphere (through phytoplankton that produces about 50% of the oxygen made available by plant life), and sea and land through the aquatic food web (primary productivity, secondary productivity, fish populations and fisheries). To begin the conversation about Gulf of Mexico offshore ecosystem services, the Harte Research Institute, with support from ExxonMobil, held two workshops with stakeholders on September 29th in Houston, Texas and on November 21st in Tampa, Florida. Workshop participants engaged in a discussion about the Gulf of Mexico, its role in providing ecosystem services, and the interconnection between the offshore environment and human well-being. Defining and understanding the services provided by the Gulf of Mexico is an essential first step in informing decision-making and gauging the overall resilience of the Gulf. Specifically, the goals of the workshops were to: 1) Identify relevant ecosystem services that are or can occur in the Gulf;
3
STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF OFFSHORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
2) Quantify, in non-monetary terms, the relative importance of offshore ecosystem services. Attendees included representatives from commercial and recreational fishing, oil and gas, diving, aquaculture, wind energy, pipeline industry, federal agencies, and NGOs. The number of participants in each workshop was approximately 14, an appropriate size to benefit a group discussion and maintain focus on the workshop goals. The results of these workshops will be used to advance our understanding of the importance of offshore services and how we might go about better measure their present and future provision and value. Prior to the workshops, stakeholders were presented with the following ecosystem services list (Table 1). Table 1: List of Offshore Ecosystem Services
Ecosystem Functions and Services
Description
Supportive functions and structures
Ecological structures and functions that are essential to the delivery of ecosystem services
Net primary production Dispersal of organisms Habitat Regulating services Gas regulation Climate regulation Biological regulation Waste/pollutant regulation Nutrient regulation Provisioning services
Conversion of sunlight to biomass Seed and larval transport The location organisms use Regulation of the atmospheric and oceanic chemical composition Regulation of global climate processes Species interactions Removal or breakdown of non-nutrients Maintenance of major nutrients
Downwelling of oxygen, carbon burial Heat transfer and storage Preventing species invasions Dilution of human waste, oil Preventing harmful algal blooms
Provision of natural resources and raw materials Human consumption of organisms
Raw materials
Fuel and energy
Genetic resources
Genetic resources
Medicinal resources
Substances for use in pharmaceuticals
Recreation Science and education Spiritual and historic
Algal growth Larvae dispersal by currents Spawning grounds
Maintenance of essential ecological processes and life support for humans
Food
Cultural services
Examples
Fish via commercial or subsistence harvesting Oil and natural gas, wind/wave Temperature stable compounds, oil dispersing compounds Anti-cancer products
Enhancing emotional, psychological, and cognitive well-being Rest, refreshment, and recreation Scientific and educational enhancement Spiritual or historic information
Boating; Diving, Fishing Field studies; Reference areas Ship wrecks
Source: Modified from Farber, S., R. Costanza, D.L. Childers, J. Erickson, K. Gross, M. Grove, C.S. Hopkinson, J. Kahn, S. Pincetl, A. Troy, P. Warren, and M. Wilson (2006). Linking Ecology and Economics for Ecosystem Management. BioScience, 56, 121-133
4
STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF OFFSHORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
II. i.
Offshore Ecosystem Services Workshops Houston Workshop
On September 26th the first Offshore Ecosystem Services (ES) Workshop took place in Houston, Texas. There were a total of ten stakeholders representing different industries (recreational and commercial fishing, oil and gas, and wind energy), a federal agency (NOAA), and three NGOs (Coastal Conservation Association, Gulf of Mexico Foundation, and Ocean Conservancy); in addition, four Harte Research Institute researchers facilitated the workshop. After a brief introduction, attendees were given a list of fifteen ES (table 1) and were asked to rank those services using a non-monetary valuation scheme, specifically, the Relative Valuation of Multiple Ecosystem Services Index (RESVI) approach (Jordan, et al., 2010). This exercise entailed answering the question: “If we give you $1, how would you spend it to ensure the continued provision or enhancement of ES?� Participants could either assign the $1 to one ecosystem service alone or divide it among as many ecosystem services as desired. By doing this, the relative value of each ES is stated. Below are the results of this first RESVI exercise (Table 2). Table 2: Houston Workshop RESVI 1 Results Ecosystem Services
Sum
Number of votes (max. 10)
Food
$1.83
10
Raw Materials
$1.20
9
Recreation
$1.07
9
Habitat
$0.92
8
Climate Regulation
$0.79
8
Gas Regulation
$0.71
8
Dispersal of Organisms
$0.59
7
Net Primary Production
$0.54
5
Waste/Pollutant Regulation
$0.48
6
Science and Education
$0.45
7
Medicinal Resources
$0.38
6
Nutrient Regulation
$0.30
5
Biological Regulation
$0.29
5
Genetic Resources
$0.27
5
Spiritual and Historic
$0.18
4
Food, raw materials, recreation, and habitat were the ecosystem services more highly ranked by stakeholders. This was expected since stakeholders tend to value the services more directly enjoyed by humans. Contrarily, nutrient regulation, biological regulation, genetic resources, and spiritual and historic were the ES less ranked; perhaps because they are not directly used by stakeholders and the need for such services is not as obvious. Overall, stakeholders used their $1 dollar to rank multiple services rather than one service alone. Out of fifteen ecosystem services that could be valued, 5
STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF OFFSHORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
stakeholders divided their dollar among five to fifteen services, showing that they consider important a suite of ecosystem services. This was unknown prior to the workshop. It was unclear whether stakeholders would perhaps represent their industry by voting on one service only, or if they would represent a broader view and value a wider range of ES. In the discussion that followed, stakeholders argued about the relevant ES provided by the Gulf of Mexico. It was the overall opinion that supportive services were the natural services needed for other more direct services, such as provisioning and cultural, to occur. There is interaction among all services so that the presence/absence of indirect services (supportive and regulating) influence the present/absence of more direct services (provisioning and cultural). As an example, the provision of food is highly dependent on the provision of other services such as habitat, biological interactions, and net primary production. There needs to be a balance among all services so that the excessive exploration of one does not compromise the provision of others. After the discussion participants were tasked with the refinement of the offshore ES list followed by a new RESVI exercise. The services transportation, aesthetics, and existence were added and genetic and medicinal resources were combined into biochemical products. For the second RESVI exercise, participants believed that only the more direct services should be valued, since the more indirect services were a condition for such services to exist. Thus, eleven ES were included in RESVI 2: food, raw materials, biochemical products, transportation, existence, recreation, spiritual and historic, aesthetics, science and education, waste/pollutant regulation, and nutrient regulation. Below are the results of the exercise (Table 3). Table 3: Houston Workshop RESVI 2 Results Ecosystem Services
Sum
Number of votes
Food
$2.14
10
Raw Materials
$1.81
10
Recreation
$1.16
9
Transportation
$1.06
9
Science and Education
$0.91
7
Waste/Pollutant Regulation
$0.85
7
Biochemical Products
$0.69
7
Nutrient Regulation
$0.65
6
Existence
$0.39
7
Spiritual and Historic
$0.23
5
Aesthetics
$0.11
3
Once again food, raw materials, and recreation were the more highly ranked services. Some participants mentioned that if the same exercise were to be carried out with 100 different stakeholders, these same services would be at the top given their direct relation with human well-being. Transportation came in fourth followed by science and education and waste/pollutant regulation. It is clear that the top services 6
STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF OFFSHORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
are more directly related to human well-being and easy to understand, thus having a higher relative value. More abstract and subjective services such as existence, spiritual and historic, and aesthetics, although considered, have a lower relative value. The last exercise was to identify where the provision of ecosystem services occurs in the different offshore zones: euphotic (0 – 200 m depth), pelagic (water column below 200 m), and benthic or sea floor (on or near the ocean floor). A diagram illustrating the different zones was provided to stakeholders (Figure 1) along with an explanation of what each zone entailed. Table 4 shows the results of this exercise.
Figure 1: Offshore Ecosystem Services and Water Column Zones
According to the stakeholders at the workshop, the zone providing more ecosystem services is the photic zone (eleven), followed by the sea floor (nine) and the pelagic zone (seven). The services waste and nutrient regulation, food, raw materials, biochemical products, science and education, and existence are provided by the three zones. Transportation, recreation, and aesthetics were believed to be provided by one zone only, the photic/surface zone.
7
STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF OFFSHORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Table 4: Assigning ES to Water Column Zones- Houston Workshop Ecosystem Services
Zone Photic/ Surface
Pelagic
Sea Floor
Waste/Pollutant Regulation
x
x
x
Nutrient Regulation
x
x
x
Transportation
x
Food
x
x
x
Raw Materials
x
x
x
Biochemical Products
x
x
x
Recreation
x
Aesthetics
x
Science and Education
x
Spiritual and Historic
x
Existence Number of Services
x x
x
x
x
x
11
7
8
ii. Tampa Workshop The workshop in Tampa, Florida followed the same format as the one in Houston so that results could be easily compared. There were a total of nine stakeholders and four Harte Research Institute researchers. Stakeholders represented recreational and commercial fishing, aquaculture, pipeline industry, diving industry, oil and gas, one NGO (Conservational International) and two federal agencies (NOAA and BOEM). As with the previous workshop, the first RESVI exercise was done shortly after the introduction. Below are the results of that first exercise. As expected, food and raw materials were the services more highly ranked followed closely by habitat. Recreation came in seventh place after more indirect services such as net primary production and gas regulation. This came as a surprise since stakeholders tend to value more highly direct services rather than indirect services. Overall, stakeholders divided their $1 dollar among multiple services rather than valuing one service alone. Out of fifteen ecosystem services, stakeholders divided their $1 among five to fifteen services. This shows that participants were aware of the overall importance of all ecosystem services including the more indirect ones that are not enjoyed directly by humans; again, this was also shown by the higher relative value assigned to net primary production and gas regulation than to recreation.
8
STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF OFFSHORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Table 5: Tampa Workshop RESVI 1 Ecosystem Services
Sum
Number of votes
Food
$1.6
9
Raw Materials
$1.3
8
Habitat
$1.03
9
Net Primary Production
$0.78
8
Science and Education
$0.6
8
Gas Regulation
$0.59
7
Recreation Waste/Pollutant Regulation
$0.59 $0.43
7 7
Climate Regulation
$0.425
6
Biological Regulation
$0.39
5
Nutrient Regulation
$0.36
7
Medicinal Resources
$0.33
5
Genetic Resources
$0.22
4
Spiritual and Historic
$0.185
5
Dispersal of Organisms
$0.17
4
Following this exercise, stakeholders proceeded with a discussion about the definition of ecosystem services and the refinement of the current ES list. The initial definition of ecosystem services was slightly modified to include the words direct and indirect; thus, “ecosystem services are the direct and indirect contributions from the Gulf of Mexico marine and coastal ecosystems that support, sustain, and enrich human life.� Concerning the ES list, stakeholders believed indirect ecosystem services (supportive and regulating) are needed for direct ecosystem services to occur. Therefore, the ecosystem services used for RESVI 2 were modified and only direct services were included in the exercise. Transportation was added as a service and genetic and medicinal resources were combined into derivative resources. Spiritual and historic was changed to aesthetic and cultural, thus as with the previous group, aesthetics was included in the refined list of offshore ES. The results of RESVI 2 are shown in table 6. Food and raw materials were the most highly valued services. Recreation moved up and it became the third most highly valued ecosystem service; that was expected since some stakeholders were representing sectors such as recreational fishing and diving industry and in general most people recognize recreation as an important service. Science and education came in fourth followed by derivative resources, aesthetic and cultural, and transportation. A recurring topic during the discussion was whether or not man-made structures could be included as a service-provider or as an example of the service habitat. More specifically, oil platforms provide habitat for fish and in return are used by many fishermen and divers; one could even argue that without platforms there would not be a place for diving in certain coastal areas of the Gulf. So how can stakeholders communicate to decision-makers the recreational importance of such infrastructure and should they be included in management decisions concerning natural resources in the Gulf?
9
STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF OFFSHORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Table 6: Tampa Workshop RESVI 2 Ecosystem Services
SUM
Count
Food
$2.7
9
Raw Materials
$1.85
8
Recreation
$1.086
9
Science and Education
$0.996
9
Derivative Resources
$0.82
8
Aesthetic and Cultural
$0.816
9
Transportation
$0.73
7
Food and raw materials were the most highly valued services. Recreation moved up and it became the third most highly valued ecosystem service; that was expected since some stakeholders were representing sectors such as recreational fishing and diving industry and in general most people recognize recreation as an important service. Science and education came in fourth followed by derivative resources, aesthetic and cultural, and transportation. A recurring topic during the discussion was whether or not man-made structures could be included as a service-provider or as an example of the service habitat. More specifically, oil platforms provide habitat for fish and in return are used by many fishermen and divers; one could even argue that without platforms there would not be a place for diving in certain coastal areas of the Gulf. So how can stakeholders communicate to decision-makers the recreational importance of such infrastructure and should they be included in management decisions concerning natural resources in the Gulf? The last exercise included assigning the provision of ecosystem services to the different water column zones. Table 7 shows the results of such exercise. Table 7: Assigning ES to Water Column Zones- Tampa Workshop Ecosystem Services
Zone Photic/ Surface
Pelagic
Sea Floor
Food
x
x
x
Raw Materials
x
x
Transportation
x
x
Recreation
x
x
Science and Education
x
Aesthetics and Cultural
x
Derivative Resources
x
x
x
Number of Services
7
3
7
x
x x
According to stakeholders, the zones providing all seven ecosystem services are the photic zone and the sea floor (seven) followed by the pelagic zone (three); the illustration of each zone is shown in Figure 1. The services food, science and education, and derivative resources are provided by the three zones, and
10
STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF OFFSHORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
all the other services are provided by both the photic zone and sea floor (according to stakeholders); similar results were found in the previous workshop.
iii. Summary Both workshops followed the same format so that results could be compared and in fact results were very similar. For simplicity purposes, the Houston workshop will be called group 1 and the Tampa workshop will be called group 2. Table 8: Summary of the RESVI 1 results for both Workshops Combined Houston Ecosystem Services ranking ranking
Tampa ranking
Food
1
1
1
Raw Materials
2
2
2
Habitat
3
4
3
Recreation
4
3
7
Gas Regulation
5
6
6
Net Primary Production
6
8
4
Climate Regulation
7
5
9
Science and Education
8
10
5
Waste/Pollutant Regulation
9
9
8
Dispersal of Organisms
10
7
15
Nutrient Regulation
11
12
11
Medicinal Resources
12
11
12
Biological Regulation
13
13
10
Genetic Resources
14
14
13
Spiritual and Historic
15
15
14
Comparing results for the first RESVI exercise (RESVI 1), food and raw materials were the services more highly valued in both groups. Habitat was also highly valued, being fourth in group 1 and third in group 2. The services whose relative value differed between both groups were recreation, net primary production, climate regulation, science and education, and dispersal of organisms; all other services had very similar results. Recreation was the fourth most highly valued service in group 1, and in group 2 it was in a surprising seventh place. The reason for this is unclear, but maybe since its importance is so obvious, stakeholders decided to value other services more highly or even abstained from assigning a portion of their $1 to it. Net primary production and science and education were more highly valued in group 2, while climate regulation and dispersal of organisms had a higher value in group 1 (Table 8). Another way to analyze the results is by adding up the dollar values assigned to each ecosystem service in both groups. By doing so, food, raw materials, habitat, and recreation are the top four services and 11
STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF OFFSHORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
biological regulation, genetic resources, and spiritual and historic the bottom three services. Table 8 summarizes the results of RESVI 1 for both groups by showing the relative value of each ecosystem service. For the second RESVI exercise (RESVI 2), the list of ecosystem services was slightly different between groups; therefore the direct comparison was only possible for some ecosystem services. Table 9 shows the ES list included in RESVI 2 for both groups. Food, raw materials, recreation, science and education, and transportation are present in both groups. Biochemical products and derivative products have different names, but both include medicinal and genetic resources thus are comparable. In group 1, aesthetics and spiritual and historic are separated and in group 2 they are put together with the name aesthetic and cultural. Lastly, existence, waste/pollutant regulation, and nutrient regulation are only included in group 1. Table 9: Offshore Ecosystem Services included in RESVI 2 Offshore ES for Group 1 (Houston)
Offshore ES for Group 2 (Tampa)
Food
Food
Raw Materials
Raw Materials
Recreation
Recreation
Science and Education
Science and Education
Transportation
Transportation
Biochemical Products
Derivative Resources
Aesthetics Spiritual and Historic
Aesthetic and Cultural
Existence Waste/Pollutant Regulation
n/a n/a
Nutrient Regulation
n/a
When comparing results, food, raw materials, and recreation were the top three ecosystem services in both groups. Transportation’s relative value differed between groups being more highly valued in group 1 (fourth) than in group 2 (7th). Science and education had similar value in both groups as did derivative resources and biochemical products (5th and 7th place respectively). By summing up the results, food, raw materials, and recreation are still at the top; science and education and transportation come fourth and fifth respectively, followed by derivative or biochemical products, and aesthetic and cultural (which includes spiritual and historic and aesthetics from group 1). Waste/pollutant regulation, nutrient regulation, and existence come next mostly because they were included only in group 1. Since the most relevant offshore services were identified and their relative value determined, the next step is to identify appropriate indicators so that the provision of such services can be monitored and/or enhanced. 12
STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF OFFSHORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Table 10: Summary of RESVI 2 for both Workshops Combined Ranking
Houston Ranking
Tampa Ranking
Food
1
1
1
Raw Materials
2
2
2
Recreation
3
3
3
Science and Education
4
5
4
Transportation
5
4
7
Derivative/Biochemical Resources
6
7
5
Aesthetic and Cultural (Spiritual and Historic, Aesthetics)
7
10/11
6
Waste/Pollutant Regulation
8
6
n/a
Nutrient Regulation
9
8
n/a
Existence
10
9
n/a
Ecosystem Services
III.
Discussion
For the first time in the Gulf of Mexico region a formal process was undertaken to both discuss deep water ecosystem services and carry out a relative ranking with regional stakeholders that represented a variety of organizations from oil and gas industry and the federal government to NGOs and recreational fishing and diving. At both workshops the participants took a holistic approach, i.e., recognized the importance of multiple ecosystem services instead of limiting their ranking to those services most closely related to their particular constituent. Prior to the workshops, there was a concern that the sector stakeholders might bias their ranking, thus providing contrasting results in the two workshops due to the industries and organizations that had been invited to attend. However, instead of inevitably ranking higher the service pertaining or related to their specific sector, the stakeholders made an effort to fully consider the values of the different open water ecosystem services, hence providing comparable results. The workshop results ranked food, raw materials, and recreation as the top three offshore ecosystem services. The consistency of the results is an indication of how the regional stakeholder community at large might rank the services and provides us with a strong basis to move forward with the next steps despite the limited number of workshops held in the region. Several stakeholder groups were represented at the two workshops, thus making the results more robust. Stakeholders in both workshops distinguished between direct (provisioning and cultural) and indirect (regulating and supporting) services. Indirect services were considered as part of nature’s structure, function, and dynamics, a requisite for a healthy ecosystem, and keystone for other services to occur. Instead, direct services were considered as those goods and services that can be directly consumed or enjoyed by people.
13
STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF OFFSHORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
As these services are directly used by stakeholders, the predominant opinion was that only the direct services should be ranked in a relative valuation exercise. To avoid “double-counting� the indirect services, which contribute to the provision of the direct services, the final ranking only took into consideration what stakeholders defined as direct services. Stakeholders also felt that the role of indirect services needed to be considered when designing monitoring and/or mitigation measures to ensure the sustainability of the direct services. This set the stage for potential interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholders collaboration for the measurement of deep water ecosystem services through the measurement of ecosystem functions that produce direct services.
IV.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the results from these two workshops show that the most valued offshore ecosystem services are food, raw materials, and recreation. This can be helpful when trying to prioritize ecosystem services for decision-making or when trying to find indicators for monitoring the sustainable provision of such services. According to stakeholders, food is provided by the three water column zones (photic, pelagic, and sea floor), raw materials is provided by the three zones in group 1 and by two in group 2 (photic zone and sea floor), and recreation is provided by both the photic and sea floor. To link back these direct services to those more indirect, the indirect services needed for the provision of food, raw materials, and recreation are net primary production, dispersal of organisms, habitat, biological regulation, waste/pollutant regulation, nutrient regulation, and gas regulation. Table 11 shows these results in more detail. In summary, defining and understanding the services provided by the Gulf of Mexico is an essential first step in informing decision-making and gauging the overall resilience of the Gulf. Now that the top three offshore ecosystem services were identified, where do we go from here? It is important to track changes of these ecosystem services and ensure their long-term provision. For that to happen, a long-term monitoring process is necessary and understanding the linkages between direct and indirect services can help identify the relevant indicators to be included in the monitoring process. Additional research is needed to improve the knowledge of how the offshore ecosystem produces these ecosystem services and scientists and stakeholders need to be engaged in this process so that a better understanding is attained. There needs to be a two-way communication between stakeholders and scientists; a way in which stakeholders can provide their input and a way in which scientists can communicate the importance of ecosystem services, by for example including the socio-economic impacts to society of such services.
14
STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF OFFSHORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Table 11: Link between Direct Services and the Indirect Services Direct Ecosystem Services
Indirect Services needed Net Primary Production Dispersal of Organisms
Food
Habitat Biological Regulation Nutrient Regulation Gas Regulation
Raw Materials (Oil and gas)
Net Primary Production Dispersal of Organisms Recreation
Habitat Biological Regulation Nutrient Regulation Gas Regulation
These two workshops initiated the conversation about the relevant ecosystem services provided by the Gulf of Mexico. The three more valued offshore ecosystem services were identified and their link to indirect ecosystem services was established. The next step is to identify important indicators to initiate the long-term monitoring of such services and improve the overall understanding of how the offshore ecosystem produces ecosystem services.
15
STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF OFFSHORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
V.
References
Armstrong, C.W., Foley, N., Tinch, R., van den Hove, S., 2010. Ecosystem goods and services of the deep sea. Hotspot Ecosystem Research and Man’s Impact on European Seas. Deliverable D6 2, 68. Jordan, S.J., Hayes, S.E., Yoskowitz, D., Smith, L.M., Summers, J.K., Russell, M., Benson, W.H. 2010. Accounting for Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability: Linking Ecosystem Services to Human Well-Being. Environmental Science & Technology 44, 1530–1536. Yoskowitz, D., Plantier-Santos, C., Carollo, C. 2012. Integrating Ecosystem Services into Restoration Decisions for the Gulf of Mexico: Workshop Proceedings. Harte Research Institute. August. 22 pages
16
STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF OFFSHORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
VI.
Appendix
Stakeholder List Houston Workshop Stakeholder Groups
Participant
Coastal Conservation Association
Troy Williamson
Recreational Fishing
Captain Scott Hickman
Commercial Fishing
Michael Miglini
Oil and Gas
Gary H. Isaksen
Oil and Gas
Daniel C. Easley
Third party contractor
Paul Kelly
Ocean Conservancy
Chris Robbins
Gulf of Mexico Foundation National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Quenton Dokken
Wind Energy Research
John Pappas
Becky Allee
Tampa Workshop Stakeholder Groups
Participant
Recreational Fishing
Captain Michael Colby
Commercial Fishing/Seafood Industry
Bob Gill
Aquaculture Industry / Mote Marine Laboratory
Kevan L. Main
Pipeline Industry National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Fred DeLoach
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Megan Biven
Diving Industry
Jim Copeland
Oil and Gas
Sandra Werner
Conservancy International
Debra Zeyen
Bill Causey
Harte Research Institute Harte Research Institute Cristina Carollo Carlota Santos Travis Washburn David Yoskowitz
17