Practitioners and policy makers at European Union (EU) and Member States level are increasingly seeking spatially-explicit ecosystem service information to use in decision-making and the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Whilst under the MAES Action, land-cover data has already been used to map the distribution of several ecosystem services provided over the European land surface, a similar exercise exploiting existing seabed habitat data is still lacking for the European Seas. In this work we map the distribution of seabed-associated ecosystem services capacity by using a methodology that brings together (i) a geospatial dataset representing the broadscale distribution of permanently-submerged seabed habitats with (ii) information on each habitat capacity to provide ecosystem services. A compilation of EUNIS-harmonized broadscale seabed habitat maps based on EMODNET Seabed Habitats and UNEP GSGFM is exploited as the pan-European cartographic basis. The exercise extends out to the limits of the Extended Continental Shelf claims, achieving an areal coverage of approximately 8.7 million km2, i.e., more than 90% of the EU seafloor area in the Northeast Atlantic and adjacent seas. Alongside, expert-based assessments of each marine EUNIS habitat's capacity to provide CICES-harmonized Ecosystem Services are compiled from a literature review into a presence-only lookup table. Overall, the new seabed habitats versus ecosystem services lookup tables relate 33 ecosystem services to 67 EUNIS and 24 non-EUNIS seabed habitats. These results suggest that out of all marine habitats (n=974) in the EUNIS classification (EUNIS A1 to A7), only 14% (n=141) have so far been related to at least one ecosystem service. When all potential connections between the existing seabed EUNIS classes and CICES services are considered (n=104,218), results further show that only 2% (i.e., n=2,241) of the have been addressed qualitatively or semi-quantitatively. Based on this information, a total of 30 CICES ecosystem service categories are mapped: 3 at level 1 (CICES Sections), 5 at level 2 (CICES Divisions), 10 at level 3 (CICES Groups) and 12 at level 4 (CICES Classes). From these maps, area-based indicators of ecosystem service capacity (i.e., extent where each service is potentially provided) are extracted per MSFD region/subregion, Ecoregion, Fishing Area and an approximation of EU Member States (MS) maritime areas in the Northeast Atlantic and Adjacent Seas. Along with the maps, the study presents also some spatial statistics based on the extent over which each service is potentially provided. Different segmentations of the European Seas are used to aggregate these statistics including MSFD region/subregion, Ecological Region, FAO Fishing Area and an approximation of the Member State maritime area. Overall, continental shelves and oceanic elevations (islands, seamounts and ridges) were highlighted as ecosystem services hotspots where a larger number of services could be potentially held. When maps were segmented using MSFD region/subregion limits, the Extended Continental Shelf areas claimed by the EU MS in the Northeast Atlantic, together with the Celtic Seas and the Greater North Sea sub-regions stood as the regions holding most ecosystem service capacity. An ecoregion-based segmentation of the maps emphasized the Atlantic Deep Sea as the major ecosystem service capacity holder, followed by ecoregions containing large shelves, notably the Boreal Proper, the Boreal-Lusitanean and the Western Mediterranean. A disaggregation of the results per Fishing Area highlighted the Northeast Atlantic, namely areas around the British Isles and Macaronesia, as well as the western Mediterranean. When an approximation of EU Member States (MS) maritime areas was used, MS with larger EEZs (namely, UK, IT, PT and ES) came up as holding most of the marine ecosystem service capacity. The new maps and associated area-based indicators provide a first spatially-explicit baseline concerning the EU-wide distribution of marine ecosystem services. They contribute to the marine component of MAES and fulfil key objectives of the JRC's SEACOAST and BES projects. Options to develop this research line and eventually make it more quantitative are expounded in the discussion and summarized in the conclusions. The new information is of value to practitioners, managers and policy makers, at European or Member State level, seeking spatially-explicit ecosystem service information for marine spatial planning and environmental management. Researchers initiating and developing marine ecosystem service mapping studies are also expected users.
