ESA_13-2015_12


Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)
Common Implementation Strategy
Working Group on Economic and Social Analysis (WG ESA)
10h00-18h00: 26October2015
9h00-13h00: 27 October 2015
Room 3C , European Commission, Conference Centre Albert Borchette, Rue Froissart 36, B-1040 Brussels
Agenda item: / 7d
Document: / ESA_13-2015_12
Title: / ActionC Scientific needs for economic analysis
Concretizing scientific knowledge needed for economic analyses for the MSFD
Prepared by: / NL
Date prepared: / 13/10/2015
Background: / The ESA WG membersshall propose to MSCG a proposal of actions to be taken into account in the ESA work programme for 2016-2018.
The final MSFD work programme should be adopted in the first semester of 2016.
This paper is aimed at initiating the discussions at ESA WG.

The Members of the ESA are invited to:

  • Exchange on their similar needs for scientific knowledge to undertake economic analysis, give examples.
  • If relevant,describe in details the action of the future ESA work programme:leader and participants, title,aim, description, deliverables with associated time targets.

Proposal for WG ESA work program Concretizing scientific knowledge needed for economic analyses for the MSFD

Introduction

The MSFD is aimed at achieving good environmental status in the marine environment. To this end, Member States are proposing measures to reduce, inter alia, the pressures on the marine environment. One of the obligations of the MSFD is that Member States have to perform cost benefit analyses prior to the implementation of additional measures. For these analyses, it is important to have information not only the costs but also on the effects of measures. The survey recently carried out by the WG ESA on the Member States’ experience with the economic analyses for the program of measures, indicates that in most Member States there is a significant lack of knowledge about the functioning of the ecosystem, which made it difficult – if not impossible – to provide a quantitative description of the effectiveness of measures, and to perform the economic analyses necessary to say something about the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of (programs of) measures and support decision making.

But what scientific knowledge is exactly needed to carry out economic analysis?

The answer is "information on the effects of the measures." But that is too vague and abstract for ecologists and other scientists to know what information is exactly needed. At the same time, for the economic analysis, it is not necessary to understand the functioning of the entire ecosystem in every detail. After all, for economic analyses it is often enough to know only certain elements. But only when economists can make their knowledge requirements as concrete as possible, they can ask focused questions to ecologists and other scientific colleagues on what knowledge is needed and should be developed to improve the economic analyses.

Purpose

The aim of this work package is (therefore) the concretization of the scientific knowledge needs for the economic analyses for the MSFD

Possible product: Overview of pragmatic rules of thumb

A short term action could be to develop a list of pragmatic rules of thumb (presenting orders of magnitude, expert judgment) for areas where some / many Member States lack information on the effects of measures. Such an overview would be helpful to be able to say at least something about the potential magnitude of effects and help to make a qualitative evaluation of the cost effectiveness and efficiency of measures. (Of course it remains up to the individual Member State to decide whether they think that the information in this overview useful and reliable enough for their analyses; This exercise merely developing a possible helpful tool, not a requirement)

These rules of thumb should preferably exist of generally applicable quantitative information, but,

  • obviously the impacts of certain measures differ for certain situations. The overview should have an opportunity to account for this.
  • Due to a lack of knowledge, not all effects of all measures can be presented quantitatively (in the same level of detail). Although quantitative information is preferred, often a qualitative indication can already be very useful.

Possible approach

  1. In order to make it interesting for as many Member States as possible, one could start with an inventory of the environmental issues that are addressed by the majority of Member States in their programs of measures (eutrophication, litter, MPAs).
  2. For the issues that are relevant for the majority of Member States, one could try to compile a list of measures that are proposed by most Member States. One challenge is that some measures (may) have different names in different Member States, but are essentially the same (and vice versa).
  3. Then one could collect the information the Member States have on (costs) and effects of the measures.
  4. If possible, one could also try to say something about the reliability of the information on the measure. (Is it very certain, or a wild guess; what is the source?)
  5. This leads to a list of the measures and the information that is available about those measures.
  6. This list can then be used in discussions between Member States, the European Commission (EU research?), With European working groups such as WG GES, but also with the ecologists and other scientific colleagues within the Member States, to see how we can supplement missing information and improve the reliability of existing information.
  7. In the short term, the empty fields in the database should be filled in with some rules of thumb ((if) better than nothing). For the long term, the information could be improved by additional monitoring and research.

Planning

Such an overview of rules of thumb should be available before the Member States start the economic analyses for the second program of measures. In addition, the information can be used as a long-term research agenda.

Capacity needs

  • Step 1 (inventory of relevant environmental problems) and step 2 (inventory of relevant measures) can be done largely by email correspondence.
  • At the end of step 2, it would be helpful to have a discussion (at a WG ESA meeting) to ensure that measures that have the same name, also mean the same thing.
  • In step 3, Member States should be able to specify what information they have about the various measures by filling out a table (this can again be done in a written procedure).
  • Step 4 can take place simultaneously to step 3.
  • In step 5, the list is presented and discussed during a WG ESA meeting, and then shared and discussed with others (step 6).
  • Discussions of step 6 should lead to an overview of what information can be completed easily and what not. This will then be shared again with WG ESA (and other WGs).

If steps 2, 5 and 7 are to be discussed at WG ESA meetings, this means that the entire project will run for 2 years, from the moment WG ESA agrees that this might be a good idea (and approved by MSCG/MD).

Lead

If WG ESA agrees that this would be an interesting and useful exercise, for which most Member States are willing to provide data by answering some questionnaires/filling in tables, NL could take the lead, provided 1-2 other Member States volunteer to take up some of the coordination work.

1