The Members of ESA Are Invited To

The Members of ESA are invited to:

• Discuss the findings presented in this document and, in particular, consider the conclusions presented and assess whether they highlight the need for further activity by WG ESA (or other groups)
• Discuss whether or not it would be useful to develop this paper into a more “formal” report of MS experiences and if so agree on the format and form of that document.

State of play with respect to programs of measures in various MS and RSCs

Prepared by NL : Rob van der Veeren and Xander Keijser

Table of content

Summary

Introduction

1.Results

2.Summary of key findings

3.Main conclusions

Annex 1: Responses by Member States

1.Belgium

2.Estonia

3.Finland

5.Germany

6.Ireland

7.Latvia

8.Lithuania

9.Malta

10.The Netherlands

11.Poland

12.Portugal

13.Romania

14.Spain

15.Sweden

16.UK

17.UNEP MAP (Barcelona convention)

Annex 2: Examples of measures mentioned by Member States

Summary

Introduction

Now that we as Member States are already a long way in the preparation of the programs of measures, it might be an interesting moment to exchange experiences on both the struggles with the preparations of the programs of measures – and since we are a working group on economics, primarily focusing on the economic aspects of it. In order to facilitate this exchange of experiences, the Netherlands have taken the initiative to have a ‘tour de table’ on the experiences and the state of play with respect to the economic analysis for the Programs of Measures in the various Member States at the WG ESA meeting of 14-15th of October 2014. In order to structure the discussion, as list of questions was prepared.

The discussions at the WG ESA meeting were lively and all participants welcomed this exchange of experiences as a very helpful support for their work as well as for further defining the work program of the WG ESA for 2015 and beyond. It was therefore agreed to collect the reactions to all the questions in writing (on a voluntary basis), in order to capture the status of work regarding economics and to be able to utilize these experiences.

Based on the replies by the various Member States, and after sending a reminder, NL together with the co-chairs compiled the inputs into this informal information/experience sharing document, wrote a summary, and have drawn some conclusions for the work program. These draft outcomes will be presented at the WG ESA-meeting in March 2015.

The main questions discussed in this document are:

On classification of measures (see recommendations paper):

1. Regarding the distinction between categories of measures (1a, 1b, 2a, 2b): Do you have examples of measures you consider to report under each category?
2. What do you call a ‘measure’? E.g. are green deals seen as a measure? (green deals are treaties between industry (e.g. beach resorts) and government where they lay down agreements on what they will do to e.g. reduce the amount of marine litter on beaches.
3. How do you intend to assess the contribution of existing measures?

With respect to the cost benefit analyses (the main issue is underlined; you do not need to answer all questions under each main issue; they are just suggestions):

1. What are the most important challenges performing the analyses? Was it possible to estimate costs, effects and benefits of (all) measures? If not, how did you proceed? Was it possible to quantify them for certain types of measures? What (other) problems did you encounter when performing cost benefit analyses? How did you solve those? How do you handle the CBA if you face a variety of different measures (let´s say more than 50)?
2. How was the cost benefit analysis used in the process and at what time of the measure-choosing process did you/ will you perform the CBA?
3. Did it help the process to narrow down and fine-tune possible measures?
4. Was it used to illustrate the relevant trade-offs and support decision making?
5. Or was it primarily used to inform policy makers and the wider public on the costs and benefits of the program of measures?
6. What are your experiences with international cooperation? What help could you need from other colleagues/Member States/ Regional Sea Conventions /other cross border cooperation? What are the experiences with coordination of (economic analyses of) programs of measures in the regional seas?
7. A CBA on performing CBA: Do you have any figures about how much effort (money, personal) was necessary for a CBA on a concrete measure or a set of measures? When/how do you decide to perform analyses on what?

On exceptions:

1. What are your experiences with applying and justifying exceptions based on the Article 14.4 (disproportionate costs)? Have such exceptions been applied? If yes, then in relation to what measures (related to what pressures/problems of the marine environment)? What kind of the economic analysis was performed for justifying them? What were the main difficulties/obstacles in practice when performing this analysis.
2. Any other business: And finally of course, if there are other issues that Member States would like to exchange, please do so

This document summarizes the results. Full responses of most Member States can be found in the annex, together with a summary of the comments made during the WG ESA meeting.

1.Results

Reactions were received from the following 18 Member States:

1. Belgium
2. Estonia
3. Finland
4. France
5. Germany
6. Ireland
7. Italy*
8. Latvia
9. Lithuania
10. Malta
11. The Netherlands
12. Poland
13. Portugal
14. Romania
15. Spain
16. Sweden
17. UK
18. UNEP MAP (Barcelona Convention)

* Italy responded that the ministry had not started yet to plan the program of measures, and therefore, no experiences could be shared.

From this list, it appears that, although not all Member States did respond, the results seem to be representative, both in number of respondents, as well as the representation of the various regions.

2.Summary of key findings

At the WG ESA meeting of 14-15 October 2014 a quick ‘tour de table’ took place on the state of play with respect to programs of measures in various MS and RSCs. At that meeting, most Member States indicated that they think the PoM Recommendations document was useful for their analyses. It was considered to be very clear, not ambiguous, and has contributed to the development of a common language, both nationally and internationally. Some discussion arose on the question whether a cost-benefit analysis is only needed for those measures where the government is involved (government interventions). This discussion was triggered by a comment by Ireland, that they have many deals with stakeholders, including Coca-Cola. Most other comments made at the meeting are similar to those given in the answers to the questionnaire and are therefore not repeated here.

Only a few Member States have performed an extensive cost-benefit analyses for the programme of measures of the MSFD and could share their experiences. Some Member States haven’t performed a cost-benefit analyses yet. They are still in the process of developing a programme of measures. Other Member States refer to experiences with cost-benefit analyses earlier in the process (e.g. Initial Assessment) or to experiences for other processes (e.g. EU Water Framework Directive).

1. Examples of measures

Most Member States have given examples for the different categories of measures (1a, 1b, 2a, 2b). Table 1 presents an overview of the examples mentioned by the various Member States. It also presents examples of measures that were presented by only one Member State to illustrate the wide variety of measures that Member States consider (see Annex 2 for the full list of measures).

Category 1a and 1b measures mentioned by more than one Member State often refer to measures related to other EU directives, such as the EU Water Framework Directive, EU Port Reception Facilities Directive, Nitrates Directive, and the Common Fisheries Policy. Category 2a measures mentioned by more than one Member State are often related to MPA’s and Natura 2000 policies. Litter related measures are mentioned by various Member States as category 2b measure.

Finally, some Member States indicated that they are still in the process of developing measures, and therefore cannot make a distinction yet or give examples for the different categories of measures. Other Member States argue that certain additional measures they intend to take for the MSFD have already been agreed upon and are therefore no ‘new measures’, but category 1b measures.

• Fertilizer related requirements
• Fisheries policies
• Port reception facilities
• Marine protected areas
• Waste water treatment
• Beach cleaning

• Environmental compensation for expansion of ports
• Bathing water directive
• National plan to respond to pollution incidents threatening marine environment
• Fishing for litter and local litter campaigns
• Most measures in first RBMP

• Fisheries policies, including discard ban
• Nitrate Directive, including buffer strips
• Wastewater treatment and sewerage
• Ballast water convention
• Designation of new MPA’s
• WFD

• Single use carries bags charge regulations
• Government decision to open the Haringvliet sluices

• MPA’s
• Natura 2000 related regulations

• Enforcement of existing shipping ban in areas with wind farms
• Upgrade of central command for maritime emergencies
• Measures related to limitations on fishing nets

• Litter related measures

• Imposing a ban on (re)moving, stones and gravel from seabed
• Strengthening assimilative capacity of estuaries
• Noise
• Pre-MSP control measures
• Monitoring program on NIS
• New fishing regulation

1. Definition of measures

Most Member States either refer to the PoM recommendations document, or use the PoM recommendations document as starting point for defining a measure. In most cases, Member states apply a rather broad definition of a measure, and include green deals as a potential measure.

An interesting result is that there is a difference between some Member States in whether or not actions taken by private companies are considered to be part of the PoM. Some Member States indicate that they try to include as many actions taken by various actors that may contribute to GES as possible, so as to avoid accidental gaps in the PoM, whereas one Member State explicitly states that PoM can only be directed to public authorities.

1. Assessment of the contribution of existing measures

Most Member States indicate that they have performed (or will perform) a GAP analysis of some kind in order to check whether existing measures will reach GES. An important challenge is the lack of knowledge on the cause effect relationships, which make it difficult to estimate the contribution of measures to reaching GES. Therefore, many Member States largely rely on expert judgment and performed the gap analyses in a qualitative way. Others indicate that the assessment of the contribution of existing measures has been or will be done through monitoring. Expert judgments seem to be used by Member States that perform the assessment of the contribution of existing measures as part of their ex ante analyses, whereas monitoring seems to be used as part of ex post assessments.

1. Challenges performing cost-benefit analysis

Most Member States indicate that they have either performed or will perform cost-benefit analyses. Irrespective of the fact whether a Member State has already performed the analyses, or is still intending to do so, certain challenges are mentioned by most of them. The most important are lack of data on costs of measures, and a limited understanding of the cause-effect relationships and ecological processes, which make it difficult to quantify the environmental and social impacts of measures. Therefore, most Member States use expert judgement, many assumptions and qualitative analyses, including scores in classes instead of monetary numbers. Another challenge mentioned by various Member States is a lack of funds and/or time to perform the analyses.

1. Role of cost-benefit analysis in the decision making process

Not all the respondents have answered this question, because some Member States didn’t perform a cost-benefit analysis yet. However, some Member States have responded although they have not perform a cost-benefit analysis yet.

In general, the cost-benefit analyses were used for multiple purposes in the process. Some Member States indicate that cost-benefit analyses helped to narrow down the number of potential measures, other Member States stated that the cost-benefit analysis was used to support the decision making process and to inform the wider public.

Table 2: Role of CBA in the decision making process

Note: some Member States have given multiple answers. Hence, the total number of answers is more than the number of Member States who have responded.

1. International cooperation

Almost all member states mentioned that they have contact with their neighboring countries and/or Regional Sea Commission such as OSPAR or HELCOM. The cooperation is in generally good and useful, although various Member States indicate that there is room for improvement with respect to regional coherence, e.g. by starting international cooperation earlier in the process in the second round of analyses and by devoting more international attention and coordination to economic analyses.

The fact that different Member States are in different phases in the implementation of the MSFD PoM development, can be an important difficulty to achieve real and effective coordination. But at the same time, those being late can learn from those who are further in the process (e.g. copy interesting methods and learn from experiences).

1. CBA on performing CBA

Not many member states responded to this question. Mostly because they didn’t perform a cost-benefit analysis yet. The range of answers is quite broad.

• Germany indicate that as part of the development of a standardized assessment scheme the full economic assessment for one potential measure took approximately 3 months.
• UK are not considering another analysis. They already carried out an analysis for the initial assessment. This relates back to the fact that the UK has classified most measures as 1b measures, and thus doesn’t have to perform an additional CBA.
• In Spain, the design of the program of measures of the MSFD will be performed by an external expertise assistance (one person during 24 months), and completed and verified by the MSFD competent authority (a team of two members). However, the assistance will not only work on the CBA but also on other ESA issues.
• The Netherlands responded that the average costs of a study was €50.000. Examples of studies are cost-benefit analyses for a specific measure, but also a more general study for multiples measures. Total cost so far is estimated to be €650.000.
• France mentioned that the cost-effectiveness analysis was done by a consultant, which took 5 months.
• Sweden guesstimated the cost at about €120.000 for the CBA/CEA, based on number of people involved by the agency and material ordered from consultants.

1. Experiences with applying and justifying exceptions

Not many Member States answered this question, but the reactions of those who did are summarized below:

• Portugal responded that exceptions were not applied to the PoM, but considered in the definition of the monitoring program, regarding the potential existence of a significant risk to the marine environment.
• Ireland mentioned that they haven’t done this yet, but that the overall issue will require some considerable deliberation (as will the art. 15 issues) as they may have unintended consequences. Furthermore, they can envisage that Member States apply these articles if the pressure on the marine environment is as a result of another Member State or outside actor (transatlantic, riverine, etc).
• The Dutch response is in line with the Irish one: They responded that they have not performed an analysis on exceptions yet, since they assume that with the Program of Measures, they do everything possible to achieve GES. There may however be areas where exceptions apply, especially where the Netherlands do not have full control over potential measures, e.g. persistent substances and riverine input from international rivers, where, because of reasons of disproportionate costs, WFD measures are not met yet, but spread over a longer period of time.
• In France the work to identify and apply exceptions is still in progress. At the moment, some marine sub-regions do an analysis of the cost of measures which may be called exceptions.
• Malta responded that to date they haven’t applied for any exceptions that relate to disproportionate costs for the marine environment.

1. Other points

Only a few member states have used the opportunity to provide additional information (e.g. raise other issues or exchange information on particular matters). Their responses are given below: