Ecosystem based management, multiple pressures and descriptors

Transcription

1 Ecosystem based management, multiple pressures and descriptors Soile Oinonen, Senior Research Scientist, Adjunct Professor Finnish Environment Institute, Marine Centre Management of environmental problems in aquatic ecosystems (ESCG-501)

2 Outline EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) Economic analyses requested Use of marine waters Cost of degradation (CoD) Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) How these analyses are conducted? Interdiscipilinary and international collaboration Case-study Finnish MSFD Programme of Measures (CEA & CBA) State of the Finnish Marine Environment 2018 (CoD) 2

3 Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) Objective: Good Environmental Status (GES) by 2020 Initial Assessment Monitoring Programme Programmes of measures

4 MSFD & Economic Analyses European Commission Scoping study on the requirements for economic assessment in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

5 Marine Strategy Framework Directive 1. Biodiversity 2. Non-indigenous species 3. Fish 4. Foodwebs 5. Eutrophication 6. Sea-floor integrity 7. Hydrographical conditions 8. Contaminants in water 9. Contaminants in seafood 10. Marine litter 11. Marine energy GES

6 6

7 Economic analyses of the Finnish PoM Cost-effectiveness analysis Cost-benefit analysis Public hearing Government decision 7

8 Interdisciplinary CBA 1. Define the desired state of the ecosystem (GES) 2. Determine the current state of the ecosystem 3. Determine the gap between current and desired state (distance to GES) 4. Specify the minimum requirements for reducing the gap 5. Identify n candidate measures to reduce the gap 6. Determine the costs of each measure 7. Determine the effects of each measure (in terms of how they contribute to closing the gap) 8. Compute cost-efficient combination of measures 9. Estimate the economic benefits of the PoM 10. If benefits exceed the costs then implement the PoM

9 Cost-benefit analysis is an interdisciplinary process Economics of PoM = Managers Marine scientists Measures + effectiveness + (-costs) + benefits Economists 9

10 Examples of measures Measure Description M1 Reduce food production and consumption impacts on water Influence agri-environmental compensation mechanism to improve M2 water conservation Promote the commercialization and deployment of fish feed based on M3 raw materials produced in the Baltic Sea region Improve habitats of sensitive species living in waters discharging into the M4 sea M5 Implement nutrient-neutral municipal pilot projects M6 Study coastal species fisheries management and its efficiency M7 Implement national strategy for the Baltic Salmon and sea trout M8 Protect mullet Incorporate conservation objectives of the marine protected areas into M9 marine spatial plans M10 Enhance protection of marine conservation areas M11 Develop programmes of measures for endangered species and habitats Produce material for education and communication about the state of M12 and pressures on the marine environment M13 Protect Baltic ringed seal

11 Group work How to estimate the effectinvess of these measures in terms of achieving GES? How to estimate costs of the measures? 11

12 Effectiveness of a measure Probability of closing the gap between the present state and the GES Class Description 1 Measure has no impact 2 Measure bridges < 12.5 % of the gap 3 Measure bridges % of the gap 7 Measure bridges % of the gap 5 Measure bridges % of the gap 6 Measure bridges % of the gap 7 Measure achieves GES by

13 Cost of a measure Class Description M M M M M M 7 >50 M 13

14 Effectiveness of measures Probability of closing the gap between the present state and the GES How to estimate such probabilities? Marine ecosystem models Literature Expert judgements

15 Expert workshops Workshop theme (date) Number of experts Number of assessed candidate measures Eutrophication ( ) 13 6 Commercial fish stocks ( ) 6 7 Biodiversity ( ) 8 10 Marine traffic( ) 4 4 Marine litter ( ) 7 8 Hydrography, underwater noise and toxic substances ( ) Common understanding of the gap with respect to each of the GES descriptor 2. Common understanding of the content and cause-effect mechanism of the candidate measure 3. Assessment of the effectiveness of a candidate measure 4. Assessment of the costs of a candidate measure 5. Assessment of the difficulty of the cost and effectiveness assessment 6. Assessment of the joint effect of the candidate measures 7. Assessment of the cross-effect of the candidate measures 15

16 16

17 Costs of PoM with 31 measures Probability Total costs Expected costs : 136,2 milj 17

18 Effectiveness of PoM with 31 measures GES

19 Summary of the Cost-effectiveness analysis Cost of each measure Total cost of the PoM Descriptor specific cost-effectiveness ranking of measures Probability of achieving GES by 2020 Which of the 31 measures should be included in the final PoM? What is the cost of the recommended PoM? What are the economic benefits of the PoM? Benefits > Costs? 19

20 Effectiveness Options for cost-effective PoMs Cost-efficient solutions Candidate PoM Total costs Budg.lim. Number of measures (meas.includ.) 90% confidence interval for closing the gap M D1 D4 D5 D8 D measures (1, 2, 8, 10, 12-15, 18-29, 31) meausures (1-3, 5, 8, 10-16, 18-29, 30-31) measures (1-5, 7-16, 18-31) unlimited 136, (all measures)

21 What is your recommendation for the PoM and why? Budg.lim. Number of measures (meas.includ.) 90% confidence interval for closing the gap M D1 D4 D5 D8 D measures (1, 2, 8, 10, 12-15, 18-29, 31) meausures (1-3, 5, 8, 10-16, 18-29, 30-31) measures (1-5, 7-16, 18-31) ,2 unlimited 1 31 (all measures)

22 Economic benefits from reaching GES The economic benefits of achieving GES in Finnish marine waters were estimated based on existing valuation studies on the benefits of improving the state of the Baltic Sea 1 contingent valuation (Ahtiainen et al. 2014) 1 choice experiment (Kosenius and Ollikainen 2015) The benefit estimates reflect mainly cultural ecosystem services, i.e. recreational and non-use values Rather straightforward to link the valuation studies directly to the MSFD Descriptors of GES For example, the attributes of the choice experiment are related to the descriptors of biodiversity and food web (D1 and D4) and their specification Rather than assessing the impact on human welfare from changes in the provision of ecosystem services from reaching GES, the impact on welfare from changes in the Descriptors of GES was assessed. 22

23 Economic benefits from reaching GES Biodiversity and food webs (D1& D4): 363-1,068 M Lower bound includes only improvement in one attribute Eutrophication (D5): 1,022-3,580 M Benefits of reaching GES to the Finnish population by 2050 would be 3,580 M of which 1,022 M would accrue by Economic benefits of achieving GES by 2020 for D1, D4 & D5 is around 2,000M GES

24 Benefits from reaching GES and implementing the PoM Probability to achieve GES by 2020 for D1&D4 is 0,77 Probability to achieve GES by 2020 for D5 is 0,02 Descriptor Biodiversity & Foodwebs (D1 & D4) Benefits from the PoM (M ) Eutrophication (D5) Total

25 CBA for the Finnish PoM Benefits million Costs 136,2 million Benefits exceed the costs by a factor of 2 to 6 Interdisciplinary learning process is more important than the numbers! 25

26 2 nd MSFD Cycle 2018 State of the Finnish Marine Environment Cost of degradation Use of marine waters Public hearing in the begining of the 2018 You can give your feedback too! 26

27 The economic benefits of achieving Good Environmental Status in the Finnish marine waters of the Baltic Sea Emmi Nieminen 1, Heini Ahtiainen 2, Carl-Johan Lagerkvist 3, Soile Oinonen 1 1 Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), 2 HELCOM/Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), 3 Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)

28 MOTIVATION Especially designed for the use of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) Requires cost of degradation analysis of the marine environment Cost of degradation = How much we lose if the marine environment is below Good Environmental Status (GES)? = How much we benefit if the marine environment reaches GES? A valuation survey to Finnish citizens to estimate the benefits monetarily 28

29 CONCLUSIONS Substantial benefits are associated with reaching GES in the Finnish marine waters per person/year Total benefits million/year Finnish citizens: Support allocating public funding particularly to problems related to hazardous substances and eutrophication Have a high valuation of non-use values Appreciate healthy Baltic Sea irrespective of how far from the coast they live and even if they do not use the sea themselves Place a high importance especially on the existence of habitats for species as well as on recreation and aesthetic values 29

30 References Oinonen, S., Hyytiäinen K, Ahlvik L, Laamanen M, Lehtoranta V, Salojärvi J, Virtanen J (2016). Cost-effective marine protection - a pragmatic approach. PLoS ONE 11. doi: /journal.pone Ahtiainen H., Artell J., Czajkowski M., Hasler B., Hasselström L., Huhtala A., Meyerhoff J., Smart J.C.R., Söderqvist T., Alemu M.H., Angeli D., Dahlbo K., Fleming- Lehtinen V., Hyytiäinen K., Karlõševa A., Khaleeva Y., Maar M., Martinsen L., Nõmmann T., Pakalniete K., Oskolokaite I., Semeniene D. (2014) Benefits of meeting nutrient reduction targets for the Baltic Sea a contingent valuation study in the nine coastal states. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 3(3), Kosenius A-K., Markku O. (2015) Ecosystem benefits from coastal habitats A threecountry choice experiment. Marine Policy, 58, Hasler, B., Ahtiainen, H., Hasselström, L., Heiskanen, A-S., Soutukorva, Å., Martinsen, L. (2016) Marine Ecosystem Services: Marine ecosystem services in Nordic marine waters and the Baltic Sea possibilities for valuation. TemaNord 2016:501. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. Börger, T., S. Broszeit, H. Ahtiainen, J. P. Atkins, D. Burdon, T. Luisetti, A. Murillas, S. Oinonen, L. Paltriguera, L. Roberts, M. C. Uyarra and M. C. Austen (2016). "Assessing Costs and Benefits of Measures to Achieve Good Environmental Status in European Regional Seas: Challenges, Opportunities, and Lessons Learnt." Frontiers in Marine Science 3: 192. Niemininen E.,, Ahtiainen H., Lagerkvist C.-J., Oinonen, S. (2017) The economic benefits of achieving Good Environmental Status in the Finnish marine waters of the Baltic Sea. (Submitted) 30

31 Indicators for effectiveness and costs Effectiveness Class Description Probability Score 1 Measure has no impact Measure bridges < 12.5 % of the gap Measure bridges % of the gap Measure bridges % of the gap Measure bridges % of the gap Measure bridges % of the gap Measure achieves GES by Cost Class Description Probability Score M M M M M M >50 M