Ecosystem service approach as a common Nordic understanding for MSP

Transcription

1 Ecosystem service approach as a common Nordic understanding for MSP Thursday, March 30 HELCOM - BONUS BALTICAPP workshop on the ecological economic research to support marine policy implementation in the Baltic Sea region Stockholm University

2 The project Ecosystem service approach as a common Nordic understanding for MSP Financed by the Nordic Council of Ministers (2016) Project team: Mats Ivarsson (Anthesis Enveco AB) Kristin Magnussen (Menon Economics) Ståle Navrud (Menon Economics) Anna-Stiina Heiskanen (Finnish Environment Institute, SYKE) Markku Viitasalo (Finnish Environment Institute, SYKE)

3 Project goals Developing and communicating a proposal for a new decision-making support tool in terms of established and generalized links between maritime activities and their dependence of and impact on ecosystem. Exploring challenges and opportunities with using this tool and introducing an ecosystem approach for MSP in the Nordic countries, to facilitate and underpin the selection (or dismissal) of planning scenarios by providing improved knowledge in all sustainability dimensions; ecology, economy and social desirability. Providing conclusions and recommendations for the target groups, including NCM, the Nordic countries, planners, and researchers. These will include both policy advice and future research need. Communicating and co-producing the results using, e.g. a workshops, establishment of a reference group including selected stakeholders and end-users.

4 Methodology: Economic assessment of MSP scenarios from an Ecosystem Services point of view 1. Scoping the analysis 2. Reference scenario 3. Identification and description of the planning scenario(s) 4. Identification of consequences of the planning scenario(s) 5. Control station: Are the scenarios correctly defined? Changes in maritime activities Changes in environmental impact Changes in provision and quality of ecosystem No Yes 9. Conclusions: Are the tradeoffs socially desirable? 8. Sensitivity analysis 7. Distribution analysis No Yes 6. Valuation of changes in provision and quality of ecosystem Revised from Kriström and Bonta Bergman, 2014 Financial analysis Economic analysis

5 Practical application of the tool The reference scenario Case study area; North and South Middle bank and Hoburgs bank The planning scenario The figure was provided by the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) in the preparations for the project workshop held at SwAM on the 5th of September 2016

6 Some features of the analysis Mapping the causal chain between: Maritime activities Environmental pressures Marine ecosystem Effects on wellbeing Typology of maritime activities/sectors, and their links to environmental pressures from the revised annex III to the MSFD The Böhnke-Henrichs ecosystem typology a gross list Central principle Assessing the impact from environmental pressures on the provision and quality of marine ecosystem making use of scores

7 Approach to assess impact on ecosystem from environmental pressures Three criteria for evaluation: How large is the impacted area? How severe is the impact on ecosystem in the impacted area? Are the damages resulting from the impact reversible once they have occurred? Criteria Size of impacted area Severity of impact Irreversibility of damage Available score levels, see above. Overall impact score ( criteria 1-3) Assessment (scores, 1-4, filled in by the user) Low Medium High Very high

8 Impact score per pressure and activity ( ) C4 Aesthetic informatin/landcape C3 C1 R7 P4 P3 P2 P1 Cultural heritage and identity Recreation and leisure H2 Gene pool protection H1 Lifecycle maintenace R8 Biological control Coastal erosion prevention R6 Waste treatment Genetic resources (DNA) Raw material Sea water Sea food Activities Pressure theme Pressure Impact score per pressure and activity ( ) C4 Aesthetic informatin/landcape C3 C1 H2 H1 R8 R7 R6 P4 P3 P2 P1 Cultural heritage and identity Coastal erosion prevention Genetic resources (DNA) Activities Pressure theme Pressure Recreation and leisure Gene pool protection Lifecycle maintenace Biological control Waste treatment Raw material Sea water Sea food Change seabed Physical Damage seabed Damage seabed Physical Change hydrology Hydrological Input/ spread non-indigenous species Biological Input/ spread nonindigenous species Biological Input hazardous substances Input hazardous substances Input litter Pollution Input litter Pollution Input sound Input sound Practical application of the tool The reference scenario The planning scenario Ecosystem Ecosystem Provisioning Regulating Habitat (Regulating) Cultural Provisioning Regulating Habitat (Regulati ng) Cultural Transport- shipping Energy-Cables Transport-shipping Transport- shipping Transport-shipping Renewable energy Transport- shipping Transport-shipping Transport- shipping Transport-shipping Transport- shipping Transport-shipping Transport- shipping Renewable energy Impact score per ecosystem service ( ) Impact score per ecosystem service ( )

9 Impact score per scenario ( ) C4 C3 C1 H2 H1 R8 R7 R6 P4 P3 P2 P1 Aesthetic informatin/landcape Cultural heritage and identity Recreation and leisure Gene pool protection Lifecycle maintenace Biological control Coastal erosion prevention Waste treatment Genetic resources (DNA) Raw material Sea water Sea food Practical application of the tool What are the resulting changes in the provision and quality of ecosystem? Ecosystem Provisioning Regulating Habitat (Regulating) Cultural Scenario Reference scenario Alternative scenario Impact change

10 Valuation of changes in provision and quality of ecosystem Changes with regards to the activities themselves Activities in the reference scenario Activities in the planning scenario Changes in spatial claim (m 2, km 2, ha,%) Shipping Shipping 50% of the area used for navigational routes is closed. (the northern route) economic significance* ship passages a year are moved to the southern navigational route. number of associated jobs Renewable energy 10% of the policy area is claimed. Annual profit of EUR 2 M for 30 years. 100 jobs for 2 years in the building phase, 5 jobs for 30 years in the production phase 50 jobs for 1 year in the decommissioning phase.

11 Valuation of changes in provision and quality of ecosystem Changes with regards to the provision and quality of ecosystem Provisioning Habitat Cultural Market prices Market prices Stated preference (WTP) Stated preference (WTP) Hedonic pricing Travel cost method

12 Distributional analysis Interest groups Description of impact, positive (+) or negative (-) Non-monetary Valuation (semi-quantitative, quantitative or qualitative) Monetary valuation Households in Gotland (-) Negative aesthetic impacts from the off-shore wind farms. Decreased value for affected (sea view) properties. (Hedonic pricing methods) Households in Gotland Households in Gotland (-) Negative impacts from the loss of other ecosystem, e.g. Habitat (+) Positive impact from increased protection (N2000) Semi-quantitative assessment (scales), quantitatively (e.g. affected areas) or qualitatively (words). Semi-quantitative assessment (scales), quantitatively (e.g. affected areas) or qualitatively (words). Or alternatively, by means of SP-valuation techniques. Or alternatively, by means of SP-valuation techniques. Distribution of costs and benefits between all affected interest groups Households in Gotland (+) Increased job opportunities. Households in other parts of Sweden (+) Positive impact from increased protection (N2000) Semi-quantitative assessment (scales), quantitatively (e.g. affected areas) or qualitatively (words). Or alternatively, by means of SP-valuation techniques. Owners of ships in traffic in this part of the Baltic Sea - non-users (-) Potentially increased costs due to longer travelling distances in the Baltic Sea. Costs for the increased numbers of travel hours, fuel, personnel, depreciation etc. Owners of the off-shore windfarm (+) Profit from establishing wind farms in the area. EUR 2 M/Year (estimated profit from windfarms) Halibut fishermen (-) Decreased catch due to decreased recruitment Market prices for halibut and increased cost for operations. Bird watchers (-) Reduced recreational value from not seeing the affected long tail duck as frequently. Semi-quantitative assessment (scales), quantitatively (e.g. affected areas) or qualitatively (words). Or alternatively, by means of SP or RP valuation techniques.

13 Sensitivity analysis Uncertainties in the assessment of semi-quantitative impacts on ecosystem Uncertainties in the process needed to "translate" semi-quantitative impacts into impacts quantified in units that lends themselves to economic valuation Uncertainties in the valuation and value transfer methods Uncertainties in the estimates for unit values from market prices or revealed and stated preference surveys used in value transfer exercises.

14 Are the tradeoffs socially desirable? Between goods and : Use and management of water resources may enhance one or a few or use areas, at the expense of others. Over time: Management may give benefits in the short run, but negative impacts and costs at a later point in time. For management and use of natural resources the long-term perspective is normally of great importance. Between interest groups: Prioritizing of use areas which are important for some interest groups compared to others. If such tradeoffs have to be made, it may be that some groups mainly receive the benefits while others bear the costs. Spatially: Different kinds of regulations or management regimes may give benefits and costs that are spatially differentiated. These tradeoffs may be more or less inter-related.

15 Conclusions: The study clearly shows that making use of the proposed methodology enables and facilitates the incorporation of and accounting for ecosystem in the planning process The methodology is however at an early stage of development The scores applied in the study for evaluation of impact on ecosystem are not fully adapted to assess positive impacts Activties dependent on ecosystem which are negatively impacted by environmental pressures of other sectors and activities are not fully taken into account There is a need for a real-world case study to apply all parts of the methodology and arrive at a complete evaluation result

16 Thanks for the attention!