European islands (Fig. 1) are hotspots of biological and cultural diversity, which, compared to their mainland counterparts, are more vulnerable to climate change, intense human activities, uncontrolled land-use changes and financial crisis (Balzan et al. 2018, Pörtner 2019). Beyond Europe, the United Nations since 1992, acknowledged the social, economic and environmental vulnerabilities of all small islands (UN-OHRLLS 2018) and also the fact that they might face the consequences of the constantly emerging changes "with a limited coping capacity" (The World Bank 2017). These factors have increasingly resulted in severe impacts on social, economic and environmental services and, in turn, on sustainability. Island regions i.e. those entirely made up of islands, are recognised as Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) 3 regions (small regions for specific diagnoses) as NUTS3 regions by EUROSTAT on the basis of surface, distance from mainland and population size. Small islands, in particular (those with an area < 10,000 km² and < 500,000 inhabitants), but even medium-sized sparsely populated ones, experience greater difficulty in achieving a comparable level of development and standard of living when compared to the European mainland (EESC 2003). Article 174 of the European Treaty has recognised that many of the European islands are suffering from structural handicaps, leading to limited economic activity due to their small size, population reduction and landscape degradation. Despite their importance and vulnerability, the management of biodiversity and ecosystem services on and adjacent to islands is challenging for both the administrators, who are usually based on the mainland and the islanders themselves (Mercer et al. 2012). The range of contributions delivered to human societies by nature so-called “ecosystem services” (ES) have received increased attention during the last 15 years (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity 2008; Maes 2014; Díaz et al. 2015;Haines-Young and Potschin-Young 2018) Worldwide islands are dependent on ES provided by their terrestrial component (e.g. freshwater provisioning, pollination) or the adjacent marine and coastal areas (e.g. food provision through fisheries) and supply important services that benefit society beyond their boundaries (e.g. lifecycle maintenance, recreation and tourism) (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Small physical size, limited natural resources i.e. freshwater, relative isolation and openness of their economies (highly sensitive to external shocks) limit the capacity of small islands to supply the required goods and services and meet domestic and external needs, thus the islands may become dependent on imports and exports. Space constraints impact not just agricultural production, but also housing, infrastructure, waste disposal, industrial development and, ultimately, biodiversity conservation. Although the presence of resources on islands is constrained by their physical setting, the use of these resources is significantly influenced by political decision-making. Therefore, it becomes increasingly important for islands to be aware of their natural capital and how it may be threatened by changes due to internal or external biophysical and socio-economic drivers. For decision-makers and islanders alike, tourism is often seen as the core activity capable of reviving and sustaining local economies (Dorta Antequera et al. 2021, Singh et al. 2020) This also appears to be reflected in the scientific literature (Mazzola et al. 2019) where most studies on island ecosystems and their services have focused on the management of island tourism or the environmental impacts of mass tourism and other human activities (Balzan et al. 2018) with limited attention to benefits which island spaces offer to society. However, the increasing sophistication of tourist demands requires access to non-material characteristics of the environment i.e. nature, archaeology, good water quality, fresh food and aesthetic environments, so-called cultural ES (CICES). Therefore, nature and/or cultural conservation is not an impediment to tourism development (Baldacchino 2016), but a means to promote an island identity. In addition, new technologies are opening up new possibilities and solutions for more sustainable lifestyles and land and sea management. This may result in improved preservation of environmental quality under proper planning and active management for which a prerequisite is the assessment of ES provided by islands to put an end to the dilemma faced by the communities, i.e. tourism or abandonment. The recent crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, extreme fires in Mediterranean islands or volcanic eruptions in the Canary Islands, have showcased the high social, economic and environmental vulnerabilities facing these regions. The ongoing global environmental change has revealed the fragility of all social-ecological assets of these regions related to food security, education, diversity, health and digital infrastructure (Veron et al. 2019). Conversely, the contribution of the island territories to the GDP of the countries they are part of, is important through the provision of ecosystem services, such as recreation and tourism, renewable energy, fisheries, agriculture and raw materials and, as such, an island is a resource in itself for a mainland state and, thus, needs to be safeguarded.

The now commonly accepted framework of ES assessment in Europe, Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) (Haines-Young and Potschin-Young 2018), may underpin economic, social and biophysical valuation of the Ecosystem Services provided by Small and Medium IsLandS (SMILES). However, if a case is to be made for those islands, the drivers which affect ES supply should be addressed, since their demise might be closer than their assessment. Two of the most important drivers are land-use and climate change. On one hand, islands are faced with new demands for new uses of their land or sea areas (e.g. from energy or tourism) and, on the other hand, with abandonment which often leads to a polarisation effect in land uses i.e. tourism/urbanisation vs. rewilding (Tzanopoulos and Vogiatzakis 2011, García-Nieto et al. 2018). At the same time, climate change impacts on islands will be disproportionate to their size and their “contribution” to CO₂ emissions, as has been documented in various global scale assessments (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Pörtner 2019). Extreme weather events, such as Medicanes (Mediterranean tropical-like cyclones), flooding and the increase in wildfires which have been intensified the past five years, will undoubtedly affect islanders and the use of resources, calling for an increased effort to increase island community resilience, given that infrastructures to enhance this resilience are usually less developed in island spaces. Already the documented shift in populations due to rural push and urban pull factors, results in island abandonment since traditional jobs, such as those linked with agriculture, are eschewed and, in turn, loss of associated cultural practices, a key to the maintenance of many species and habitats of conservation importance. Thus, there is a documented need towards a better-balanced national and regional development, which recognises the value of insular geographical areas and strengthens their economic, social and territorial cohesion (ESPON BRIDGES 2019).

This paper introduces a new European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST). Action: ‘Enhancing Small-Medium IsLands resilience by securing the sustainability of Ecosystem Services (SMILES)” which brings together researchers, policy-makers and other stakeholders to address the threats to the European islands’ ecosystem services.

Worldwide islands have evolved at the interface between land and sea. The size of the island determines the importance/dominance of the seascape over the landscape or vice versa. When the terrestrial component of an island is not sufficient to support human communities, recourse to coastal and/or sea resources becomes of paramount importance. The sea has a dual role as a conduit, but also as an obstacle in colonisation, settling, movement, communication and exchange to and from the wider world. However, islands are often examined in isolation from the sea which surrounds them (Vogiatzakis et al. 2017). This is also reflected in various key policies which usually adopt a sectorial approach treating separately the two main island realms (terrestrial vs. marine).

Following the establishment of the EU, the place of islands has changed from being “just” a part of individual nations to strategic fringes of the EU territory. The Treaty of Amsterdam (EU 1997) introduced a number of provisions to account for island specificities and constraints. Policies related to islands originate from mainlands. Therefore, the “continentality” of Europe’s policies results in political and financial neglect for islands. At the same time, an emerging issue in the last decade is the role of islands, particularly in the Mediterranean, as stepping-stones for immigration from Africa and Asia into Europe. Policies of the majority of economic and environment sectors are now dictated by EU directives and regulations incorporated in national policies. There are a number of EU policies affecting island development including the Cohesion Policy, the CAP, Common Fisheries Policy, the Integrated Maritime Policy and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). In addition, the EU support policies targeting Small Island Developing States (SIDS), as well as its Overseas Territories (OCT-EU). By far though, the most ambitious of these policies are the Green Deal and the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 which set up concrete goals and binding targets for conservation at land and sea.

SMILES will address gaps in knowledge sharing and promote concerted efforts on small-medium island protection and development. It will provide a platform for knowledge transfer and collaboration amongst scientists, practitioners and citizens living or working on islands across Europe and help to disentangle the conundrum faced by management of island biodiversity and ecosystem services. This will be achieved by four main actions:

SMILES seeks to address three main challenges in European’s islands sustainability

The future of the European islands is intertwined with the continued provision of ecosystem services. This is challenged by the lack of integrated assessments of island-related ecosystem services, the neglect of local specificities and needs at the EU/national policy level and the pseudo-dilemma regarding development or sustainability. Sea, land, coast and their interactions all contribute to an island’s character and its resource base. The increasing pressures/threats on island territory and character, in the light of climate and land-use changes, cannot be effectively managed with the current regulatory sectoral policy framework and ad hoc reactive approach. Since nature and culture are intertwined on islands, understanding of ecosystem functionality and resilience across various temporal and spatial scales requires understanding of the complex social-ecological systems developed over millennia and taking relevant actions in tandem with policy needs.

If we are to have a real impact on the future of the European islands, a holistic and truly interdisciplinary approach is necessary to address the gaps in island research. While this will capitalise on previous work, new combinations of ongoing studies will catalyse new understanding. SMILES aims to fill this niche in island research and contribute towards the EU sustainability goals towards 2030.