Elisabet Kock
Phone: +46-8-698 13 73
elisabet.kock
@naturvardsverket.se / REPORT
2010-07-08 / Dnr 121-3184-10 Nh
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY / 1 (18)
PARTICIPANTS
See annex 1
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY / 1 (18)
Marine Strategy Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy Working Group on Economic and Social Assessment
Time: / 5-6th of July 2010Place: / Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY / 1 (18)
Summary of decisions made
The agenda was adopted with the postponing of the agenda item Knowseas to the next meeting.
The notes of the previous meeting 8-9 March were adopted with minor amendments.
The way forward was agreed
Work on the product (Data needs and availability, Core content, Business as Usual) will have to be done in between meetings, by drafting groups but also by all participants by commenting.
Final dates for these commenting rounds will be sent out by Philip Stampwhen possible. Timetable for preparation of papers will be sent out after the meeting.
The next meeting will focus on work with the products that WG ESA will produce.
The next meeting will also include links between Article 8 (1) (c)with other parts of Article 8 in the Directive.
The chairs will submit a draft progress report (for Marine Directors) to the next meeting of WG ESA.
Meeting notes will be adopted by a written procedure. The Work programme will be amended according to decisions made at this meeting. It will then be sent out with the meeting notes also for the participants to comment and then sent to the Marine Directors.
Date and place of the next meeting was agreed to be held in Brussels 21-22 October.
Day 1, 5th of July
Katrin Zimmer(Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Swedish EPA) opened the third meeting of the Working Group on Economic and Social Assessment (WG ESA) and wished all participants welcome.
Charing the meeting were Katrin Zimmer (Swedish EPA), Philip Stamp and Kirsty Inglis (both Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, DEFRA).
Agenda Item 1: Welcome and introduction
Philip Stamp(DEFRA) presented the agenda, informing the meeting that there will be a presentation of the Knowseas project at the next meeting and made a short summary of last meeting in London. As new participants have joined the WG ESA there was also a round of introductions.
Kirsty Inglis (DEFRA) presented the objectives for the forthcoming discussions on core content (of the socio-economic initial assessment) based on a meeting earlier that day of the drafting group for the core content paper and distributed a paper where five specific issues relating to the core content paper were explained and to which large part of the meeting would focus on. In summary these issues were:
- Role of the paper
- Definition of use of marine waters
- Definition of degradation
- Which counterfactual to use when defining cost of degradation
- Should the social and economic assessment include only marine activities or also terrestrial activities with substantial use of marine waters.
The agenda was adopted and the meeting notes from the previous meeting was discussed. The Netherlandsmissed text on discussions held on last meeting. It was decided that he will come back with complementary text.
All presentations under each agenda item below are found on the circa website:Agenda Item 2: Commission Update
Sif Johansson (European Commission, EC) reported back on discussions held at the last meeting with the Marine Directors (MD) held in May. The main issue discussed wasthe Commission decision on criteria and indicators for Good Environmental Status (GES), but the Directors showed great interest in proceedings from WG ESA and expect to see the detailed work programme for the next meeting planned to be held the 3-4 December.
A draft Commission decision with criteria and indicators for the 11 descriptors describing GES is currently in the European Parliament for scrutiny. If passing the parliament the Commission Decision will be published probably in September. By 2012 the MS should then set regionally coordinated targets for GES. Several criteria and indicators still needs further development and the first six year cycle will be a test period.
The DIKE (Data Information and Knowledge Exchange) group has not been very active.The Netherlands raised the need that if DIKE was developing reporting requirements for MS for the MSFD in relation to the economic requirements of the Directive, then they should involve WG ESA in the development of these requirements so that the reporting requirements were consistent with the ESA that MS needed to undertake. The EC agreed that this link would be useful. It was agreed that the necessary links were made between WG ESA and DIKE possibly by inviting a representative to our next meeting. The EC also informed about an meeting on marine data (EMODNET) in October arranged by EEA. Further information will sent to ESA.
Agenda Item 3: Updated work programme and milestone plan
Philip Stamp (DEFRA) explained what had been changed in the work programme since the last meeting in London. Hard products 1 and 2 have been merged into one document, the names of lead authors are included and the first list of issues now inserted as appendix.
Philip brought up the need to agree upon a structure and role of the main report to be produced by the WG ESAby the end of the year . Options were: to have a short report, base on the core content paper, with other products either kept separate, or annexed; or to aim for a larger paper covering all the elements from the various papers.
The ECraised the question whether the group intended the document(s) to be formally endorsed by the Marine Directors (MD) as the next meeting of MD is to be held in 2December. Philip replied that the outputs of WG ESA would not be endorsed by MD this year. This would be possible in 2011.
Some papers will work into the core content and some will be put as annexes. The core content paper can be seen as a pyramid where the consensus is at the top of the pyramid.
The NetherlandsandGermany stated that they needed to inform their Governments on what the WG ESA will deliver.
Germany will finish their initial assessment in summer 2011 months time; so a “guidance” note is not suitable. Preferably an advisory paper with core contents and describing minimum requirements.
The Netherlands advised that they were working towards a deadline of end 2010 for the initial assessment.
The UK advised that they will be publishing the environmental part of the initial assessment soon.
The EC informed that it was necessary to clarify the working arrangements for the MSFD CIS. In the WFD CIS, the formal outputs (e.g. guidance documents) produced through the common implementation strategy are not legally binding documents. They are endorsed on a consensus based approach by Water Directors. There was a need to clarify what the arrangements were for MSFD CIS.
No decision was taken regarding the exact structure of the paper. Ideas and alternatives will be circulated to participants. Its final form will depend on what emerges from the work streams.Agenda Item 4: Lessons learnt from WFD
Anita Payne (EC) made a short presentation of lessons learnt from WFD which are relevant for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive(MSFD). It was agreed at the last meeting that a paper should be compiled based on input from WG ESA members regarding their views on the relevant lessons learned from WFD. This would not be a formal output of WG ESA. No responses were received from WG ESA members in response to the request (presentation is to be found on CIRCA).
Some WG ESA members commented that it is possible that regional agencies will be involved in the MSFD initial assessment and non-economists again will be doingsome of the initial assessment:
Germany, UK and Greeceagreed to provide some more views. It was agreed to circulate the original email request again with a deadline of mid-September to provide responses. Based on these additional responses received, a paper would be drafted compiling the information.
Agreed action:
WG ESA secretariat to resent original email request
WG ESA to provide responses by mid-Sept
AP to draft paper based on the additional responses.
Agenda Item 5: Pressure and drives and descriptors
Stuart Rogers (Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science ,Cefas) made a presentation on pressures and drivers. He presented the 11 different descriptors and which of these were likely to bemore challenging for each region. He also presented linkages between pressures and the different descriptors and how potential measures could influence a range of descriptors.
Following Stuart’s presentation, Ian Dickie (Economics for the Environment Consultancy Ltd, Eftec)presented the implications for the economic analysis.
Ian presented useful approaches for the analysis based on the study by Kerry Turner (University of East Anglia) for the Oslo Paris Conventions (OSPAR) Commission, such as the Drivers-Pressures-Impact-Resonse (DPSIR) approach, Ecosystem services approach, adoption of IPCC scenarios and the use of a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) extended framework. Eftec had elaborated a figure which illustrated how GES is affected by present legislation, pressures, current management etc. and how socio-economic activities affect the ability to fill the gap between current or future status and GES.
Group’s general comments on presentations:
Benefit transfer studies were brought up as a useful tool to be used to value the change in marine ecosystems. Eftec have elaborated value transfer guidelines for DEFRA which are available on their website.
It is not always possible to quantify change but it should be possible to describe the changes. If you have a target set, you can use cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and if you have directions on where you want to reach, then a CBA is needed.
When discussing drivers, rules set by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and other conventions should also be included.
Agenda Item 6: Data needs regarding costs and benefits of measures
Kari Hyytiäinen (MTT Agrifood Research Finland) is the lead author on this paper. He presented four alternative approaches for the analysis:
(1) Limited data – static analysis on the costs of predetermined set of activities
(2) Some data – static cost-effectiveness analysis
(3) More data – dynamic cost-effectiveness analysis
(4) Full availability of data – dynamic cost-benefit analysis
Group’s discussion:
Some participants thought that the focus of data availability should be more on the initial assessment and that costs of measures could come as a next step. Others argued that when looking at data availability for the initial assessment it is necessary to look forward to identify data needs for future analysis. Additionally, it shouldn’t be too early to start with data availability also for CEA and CBA. The information gathered in the initial assessment will also have effects on the second steps. The initial assessment has a role in finding the right cost-effective measures. Similar discussions were also present in Water Framework Directive (WFD) i.e. the role of the Article 5 (Annex III) analysis in developing the Programmes of Measures (POMs), but in MSFD the work is on different geographical scales. MSFD deals with regional seas, WFD with water bodies, which implies a difference.
There are also cumulative impacts. How much natural issues are part of the process when deciding on measures and costs? OSPAR and the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM)both look at cumulative impacts.
There were opinions that the document should include a list of data sources as a starting point. It was debated whether this should relate to EU and member states (MS) data sources or European Union (EU) only (e.g. Eurostat). The value added of a list of MS sources was questioned as MS would have this information themselves. It would only be useful if these MS data sources could be used by other MS. It was agreed that where MS thought listed their data sources would be helpful then theses should be provided by the MS and included in the paper.
DG MARE stated that they do not have much data that would be useful for the initial assessment.However, the EMODNET process is seeking to providedata.Therefore, it would be helpful if WG ESA could provide a description of the type of data that was needed so that this could be taken into account in the development of EMODNET. In addition, it was not thought that data held by Eurostat was in a form that was particularly useful for the initial assessment. Again, any information that WG ESA could provide regarding data needs would be helpful when Eurostat was developing its data collection in the future.
The EC suggested that clear value could be added by this paper by it providing a description of the information that is available at a EU level. would provide more
Further, the NAMWA approach (used in the Netherlands) was brought up as a possible tool to describe the use and do the initial assessment.
Actions agreed:Kari should be invited to make a scoping study on what is available at an EU level and make suggestions on how to go forward in the next steps.
Agenda Item 7: Baltic Survey
Åsa Soutukorva (Environmental Economics Consultancy, Enveco, Sweden)presented the Baltic Survey, a subproject in the Baltic Stern review.
The Baltic Survey is principally a survey on people’s use and perception of the Baltic sea. The aim of the study is to get an idea of people’s use of the sea and their perception of problems, actors and funding of actions related to environmental improvements. The study was carried out by asking the same questions to about 1000 persons in each of the nine Baltic Sea countries during a two-week period in May 2010.
Key preliminary findings showed that the Baltic Sea is important for the public. For example 90% spend their time by the Baltic during summer/spring. Regarding the public’s perception of what are the greatest problems in the Baltic,litter came as the number one problem, followed by possibility of major oilspill and hazardous substances, algal blooms was of less importance. The main conclusion was that there are differences in people’s priorities and the priorities for improvement measures by the governments.
Day 2, 6th of July
Katrin Zimmer (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Swedish EPA) started the day with a short summary of day 1.
Agenda Item 8: Advances from the OSPAR feasibility study
Ian Dickie (Eftec) presented advances from the feasibility study made for the OSPAR Commission.
The aims of this study are in summary:
1.Determine the most suitable approach for doing ESA in the OSPAR region. Develop a concrete proposal for approach to OSPAR region (ESA) for MSFD
2.Consider a wide range of options, but focus quickly on best approaches
3.Support for preferred approach
4.Specification for preferred approach
The interim report which will be ready in July will be circulated to other countries. The whole project will be finalised in January 2011.Group’s comments and questions on the presentation:
There were questions regarding the difference between this work and the WG ESA work. As this work is done for OSPAR the geographical scales are different.Furthermore, WG ESA will not itself produce any assessment.
There was also a discussion on how each MS can use the work in the regional conventions and if the work can be broken down to national levels. The question was raised regarding how the MS and regional sea conventions work should be used by MS when meeting their requirements.
The EC answered that the requirement relating to the initial assessment relates to MS but the Directive explicitly requires coordination within the regions, preferable through the regional sea conventions. Each MS can use the studies in the regional sea conventions as a base and add national views and details.
Some information gathered in the OSPAR study can be used on a national scale, for example oil activities. The Quality Status Report (QSR) in OSPAR is structured so that some data easily can be taken out, except for some highly aggregated data. For the Baltic Sea region, The study:Ecosystem Health of the Baltic Sea, HELCOM Initial Holistic Assessment (2010), can be used in the same way, as a base for each country.
Large differences will be seen for data in especially in Eastern European countries, where datais on other scales. We must therefore be careful what to expect. If expectations are held too high, there is a risk that some MS will not be able to complete the requirements, and instead nothing will be done.
Agenda Item 9: Core Content and assumptions of Initial Assessment
Lieven de Smet (ARCADIS,Belgium) initiated this session by presenting a scoping study about the socioeconomic aspects of the MSFD.