Kerstin Blyh
Phone: +46-10-698 1569
kerstin.blyh
@naturvardsverket.se / REPORT
2010-11-02 / Dnr 121-3184-10Km
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY / 1 (20)
PARTICIPANTS
See annex 1
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) Working Group on Economic and Social Assessment (WG ESA)
Time: / 21st-22nd of October 2010Place: / Environment Directorate-General, Beaulieu, Brussels
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY / 1 (20)
Summary of decisions made
The agenda was adopted. Notes from the previous meeting 5-6Julyin Stockholmhad already been adoptedduring a written procedure prior to this meeting.
The way forward was agreed
An updated version of the Chairs progress report of the WG ESA will be sent to the Marine Strategic Coordination Group (MSCG) prior to their meeting on the 15th of November.
A new draft of the Guidance document with track changesand of the paper on Data needs will be distributed from the lead authors on the 5thof November to the group for comments before the 19th of November.
Country examples of current thoughts regarding how to perform the initial assessment can be sent to the chairs or to the lead authors as half a page before the 19th of November.
A final draft of the guidance document will be distributed for a final checkon the 26th of November, not to handle any major issues. Final comments can be made until the 3rd of December.The final document will be sent out to the groupon the 10th of December.
The chairs will work on a suggested content, including an updated draft work programme, for the next WG ESA meeting.
The main focus of the working group for the next year was agreed to shift towards information sharing on the development of initial assessments (both at national and regional scales); approaches and methods for socio-economic assessment under articles 13 and 14 (including cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness assessment, impact assessment, disproportionate costs); and identifying priorities for research.
Meeting notes will be adopted by a written procedure.Next meeting was agreed to be held in France in the end of March. The chairs will look into possible dates for the next meeting and come back to WG ESA.
Regarding the principal document, some of the main agreementsmade:
Name the principal document: “Economic and social analysis for the initial assessment for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: a guidance document” - A non binding document agreed on by Member States in the WG ESA group.
The meeting also agreed on all definitions in chapter 1 with minor changes.
To include examples on how countries work with their initial assessments (contributions possiblyprovided by FR, DE, DK, NL and UK).
Spell out advantages and disadvantages of each approach.
To make an addition in chapter 1 on the ideal approach vis-à-vis what is possible to do in 2012, responding to the request for advice on “level of details”.
To include a figure in chapter 1 illustrating linkages between different steps in the MSFD and requirements of economic analysis in the Directive.
Add a section on transboundary issues in Business As Usual (BAU).
Change the structure of chapter 4 cost of degradation to start with the ecosystem services approach as representing an ideal situation and also to show possible ambitions for the initial assessment.
Include relevant lessons learnt from the Water Framework Directive (WFD) as an Annex.
The paper on Data needs was presented during the meeting by Kari Hyytiäinen, (MTT Agrifood Research Finland) and the group wanted to include the paper as a chapter in the principle report under on the condition that it is sufficiently completed before the finalisation of the document.
Other presentations were made on the work from CEFAS (Philip Stamp), Eurostat (Isabelle Collet) and Knowseas (Philip Cooper).
All presentations will be found on the circa website:Day 1, 21stof October
Elisabet Kock(Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Swedish EPA) opened the fourth meeting of the Working Group on Economic and Social Assessment (WG ESA) and wished all participants welcome.
Chairing the meeting wereElisabet Kock (Swedish EPA) and Philip Stamp(Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, DEFRA).
Agenda Item 1: Welcome, introduction and chairs’ report
Elisabet Kock (Swedish EPA)presented the objectives of the WG ESA included in the Terms of References (ToR) and presented the agenda. As new participants have joined the group there was also a round of introductions.
Philip Stamp (Defra) presented the objective of the Chairs’ report. The report would be amended after the WG ESA meetingin accordance with decisions taken. EC informed the meeting of theMarine Strategic Coordination Group (MSCG) meeting on the 15th of November and advised that the progress report should be sent prior to this meeting before it is sent to the Marine Directors (MD).
It was highlighted that it might not be a good idea to send the draft guidance documentto the MD when it was still being finalised in the working group. EC advised the group to ask the MSCG what should be sent to the MD.
Actions agreed:Revised chairs report to be sent to WG ESA for comment before submitting to MSCG.
Agenda Item 2: Commission Update and lessons learned from the WFD
Anita Payne(EC) first gave an update regarding the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) work programme and then an update on lessons learnt from the WFD since the last meeting. Since July this year, the CIS is being revised and will be presented at theMSCG meeting (15th of November) for approval early December this year. The working group on Good Environmental Status (GES)had a meeting in Brussels during the same days as WG ESA.
The meeting asked what progress the working group on Data Information and Knowledge Change (DIKE) has made so far. Anita informed that this group has not yet been very active.
Anita has worked on a report on economic lessons learned from the WFD relevant for this group. The report is based on the earlier request to participants in the WG ESA group to provide relevant lessons learnt from the WFD to the EC. A few contributions from the group have been sent since the last meeting. Anita therefore asked the meeting whether a report would still be the most suitable product. It was mentioned that in the draft work specification on the OSPAR (Oslo Paris Conventions) Regional Economic and Social Assessment for the MSFD commissioned by Defra, there is also an Annex with lessons learnt where there might be additional valuable information.
Slovenia gave a flavour of what the GES meeting being held at the same time as the WG ESA meeting is about. The EC came to a decision earlier this autumn regarding indicators, and has sent a questionnaire to all participants in the GES group. WG ESA is very interested in the outcome of the GES group’s work, in particularly at the moment which indicators will be used for the initial assessment. Several of the participants pointed out that coordination with the GES group is necessary. The chairsand the ECreminded the meeting that it is also each country’s responsibility to coordinate their workat national level and raise issues in the CIS working groups. The meeting also mentioned that information provided by all groups can be accessed through circa.
Actions agreed:EC will send the draft report on lessons learnt to the secretariat to attach as an Annex in the guidance document with relevant lessons learnt from the WFD. The information will only be based on the draft prepared by the EC so far together with any additional information found in the OSPAR reportcommissioned by Defra.
EC will also distribute the answers of the questionnaire discussed at the meeting of the GES group to WG ESA when these are available.
Slovenia will provide links where reports by OSPAR and HELCOM that are of interest for the WG ESA can be found.
Agenda Item 3: Links to other socio-economic requirements within the Directive
Philip Stamp (Defra) introduced the UK’s ideas of developing an analytical framework for the socio-economic analysis in the MSFD. He showed an illustration of a road map for the outputs for analysis in MSFD developed within Defra. The purpose of the road map is to give a strategic overview of requirements for the socio-economic analysis and link these requirements to MSFD deliverables. Philip explained how this can be divided into three phases: initial assessment; knowledge creation and programme of measures. He further explained what the benefits of developing a road map within the UK is thought to be e.g. for improved communication with stakeholders and consultants. This is a first step towards a more detailed project plan and is an iterative process.
Kerstin Blyh (Swedish EPA) presented a figure developed within the Swedish EPA illustrating how the economic requirements links into the process of other requirements of the MSFD. This is also just a first step towards a better understanding within the Swedish EPA between different expertise as well as for better communication with e.g. stakeholders. The meeting was asked ifsomething similar would be of interest to include in the existing guidance document or if it would be more desirable with a figure more similar to the one in the COWI report, which rather focuses on linkages between economic requirements in the Directive (See COWI report p. 42).
Comments from the group:
A similar exercise as the one within Defra could be interesting for the WG ESA to do next year to get a better overview of required deliverables ahead However, a similar road map as the one presented here seemed far too complex and country-specific to be of interest for the existing guidance document.
It could be useful to integrate a figure illustrating linkages between requirements on socio-economic analysis and other requirements of the Directive in the guidance document.
It was also mentioned that it would be desirable if WG ESA could come up with a “wish list” of what is needed from the GES group to be able to perform the socio-economic analysis.
Actions agreed:The secretariatwill include a suggestion of a figure in chapter 1 based on the one developed within the Swedish EPA.
Agenda Item 4: Presentations of Chapter 1-4 of guidance document by lead authors
Presentations were made by the lead authors of each chapter regarding changes made in the guidance document since the last meeting (see presentation for details).
Henrik Scharin (BalticSTERN secretariat, Sweden) introduced by presenting an update on what has been changed in the introduction, in chapter 1 on the role of socio-economic analysis in the MSFD and in chapter 2 on the analysis of water use included in the guidance document. The group was asked to consider what they would like to discuss.
Kevin Brady (Marine Scotland) gave an update on the progress on chapter 3 on Business As Usual (BAU) since the last meeting,raised questions to the group and proposed another round of comments within the group.
Ida Ringdal (Climate and Pollution Agency, Norway) gave an update on chapter 4 of cost of degradation focusing on a presentation of the ecosystem services approach and welcomed further discussions of improvement of the chapter.
Agenda Item 5: Plenary Discussion on guidance document
Elisabet Kock (Swedish EPA) explained the purpose with the following plenary discussion and the group discussions on the guidance document.
Status of the document:
After some discussions in the group, it was decided to name the principal report “Economic and social analysis for the initial assessment for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: a guidance document”.
DK wanted to add directly after the title “A non-binding document agreed on by Member States in the WG ESA group”. EC explained that a guidance document is not binding for Ms.
Actions agreed:Name the principal report “Economic and social analysis for the initial assessment for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: a guidance document”.
To include the added suggestion by Denmark on the first page to avoid any misunderstanding.
Structure of the document:
The meeting wanted to include the paper on Data needs prepared by Kari Hyytiäinen (MTT Agrifood Research Finland)as a chapter in the principal document.
The chairs highlighted that our first aim is to have a report finished by the end of this year, but it could be a good idea to include Data needs if the paper can be ready in time for this. However, to succeed with this, contributions from the members of the WG ESA will be needed.
There was a general wish from the group to keep the principal document short and to focus on new items, such as practical examples from Member States (MS) with added contact persons.
Some participants thought it could be good to include a table of preambles and articles with economic requirements in an Annex. Others did not see any added value with such an Annex as the key parts are referred to in chapter 1.
Actions agreed:To keep all different parts into one document in line with the new draft.
To aim for including Data needs as a chapter in the principal document.
To include lessons learnt from WFD as an Annex.
To include advantages and disadvantages with each approach.
Content of the document:
It was emphasized that the chapter on cost of degradation is unbalanced as it focuses on the ecosystem services approach.
Several of the participants of the group found that, although the Directive states that an “ecosystem based approach” should be used, it is likely that achieving the aim of the Ecosystem services approach will be unrealistic in time for the initial assessment at least, with regard to quantitative assessments.
Valuable input was made on ongoing work with the initial assessment in several countries. This was asked by the chairs to be further developed by these countries to be included in the principal document where relevant. The meeting agreed that this would be a good idea.
France is working on a draft of the initial assessment which they possibly can share with the group. Different types of costs will be proposed here. The next step will be how to assess the cost of degradation. A pragmatic approach is proposed to be taken.
In Germanyexisting/available data is/will be used and the aim is in regard to this to decide which methodology is the most appropriate to use.
Denmark are preparing a follow up project after the COWI report which will focus on Article 8.1 (c) of the Directive.
UKis using an ecosystem services approach even if gaps will not currently be possible to fill.
Actions agreed:To include examples of a few country’s ideas on how they will perform the initial assessment in the guidance document. FR, DE, DK, NL and UK can all possibly provide half a page on their ideas to either lead authors or the Chair before the 19th of November.
Recommendations on level of detail and reference year:
The meeting discussed that level of details may not be specific for each chapter but rather key recommendations on an overall level e.g. regarding assumptions, data gaps, reporting requirements etc.
Actions agreed:To state recommendations on level of details only once and in chapter 1.
From discussions in the group it was decided to let the RSC agree on a reference year, according to data availability. To include this decision in the chairs’ progress report as it is stated in the ToR for the WG ESA that this would be agreed upon.
The rest of the afternoon was spent for discussions on the definitions in chapter 1of the Guidance Document
There was a long discussion concerning the definition on “Use of Marine Waters”. It was agreed that is important to respect definitions which appear in the MSFD itself. The MSFD definition of marine waters recognises the interface with the Water Framework Directive.
The definitions listed below were agreed upon after amendments and discussion and will be inserted into the principal document until the 5th of November.
Degradation
–Degradation is the reduction in the provision of the ecosystem services compared to another state.
Cost of degradation
–The cost of degradation is the welfare foregone reflecting the reduction in the value of the ecosystem services provided compared to another state.
Socio-economic analysis
–A socio-economic analysis aims to identify the impact on human welfare of a given policy. This includes social as well as economic aspects, and may include consideration of the distribution of these impacts across stakeholders. In light of this definition, an explicit distinction between ‘economic’ and ‘social’ analysis is not necessary.
Baseline scenario/business as usual
–A baseline, or a Business As Usual (BAU) scenario, describes the anticipated evolution in the environmental, social, economic and legislative situation in a marine environment over a certain time horizon in the absence of the policy under consideration (i.e. if the MSFD is not implemented).
Counterfactual
–A counterfactual in the context of the MSFD is a description of the ecosystem services provided by the marine environment and of the uses of the marine environment that are likely to have been present if a policy decision had been taken differently.