MSFD Reporting Sheets – Economic and Social Assessment, Version 3
/ EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDIRECTORATE-GENERAL - ENVIRONMENT /
Marine Strategy Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy
Working Group on Economic and Social Assessment (WG ESA) / WG ESA 2011/2/6
Bonn
13-14 October 2011
Document title: / Proposal for reporting sheeton economic and social assessment and cost of degradation
Document no.: / WG ESA 2011/2/6
Agenda item: / 10
Date prepared: / 6 October 2011
Prepared by: / Charlotte Tindall (MRAG Ltd), and the European Commission
Background / This paper introduces reporting requirements for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and presents the European Commission's suggested approach to reporting.
A draft reporting sheet has been developed for the Economic and Social Assessment (ESA) under contract to DG Environment as a contribution to the development of reporting requirements for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.
WG ESA is invited:
- to review and comment on the proposed draft reporting sheet in Annex 1, with a view to agreeing the general approach and structure to reporting onArticle 8. 1. c;
- to note as guidance the concept document presented as an Addendum 1 to this document;
- to consider whether the suggested information and data collection is feasible and relevant;
- to make arrangements for providing specific comments on the details of the sheet, and for further development of the sheet.
Introduction
Reporting requirements under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)
The background for developing reporting sheets is the requirements of Article 12 of the Directive, which sets out the provisions for “Notifications and Commission’s assessment”:
“On the basis of all the notifications made pursuant to Articles 9(2), 10(2) and 11(3) in respect of each marine region or subregion, the Commission shall assess whether, in the case of each Member State, the elements notified constitute an appropriate framework to meet the requirements of this Directive and may ask the MemberState concerned to provide any additional information that is available and necessary.
In drawing up those assessments, the Commission shall consider the coherence of frameworks within the different marine regions or subregions and across the Community.
Within six months of receiving all those notifications [March 2013], the Commission informs Member States concerned whether, in its opinion, the elements notified are consistent with this Directive and provides guidance on any modifications it considers necessary.”
The European Commission has prepared a "concept paper" describing the overall approach and framework to reporting by Member States under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. This has been developed in the framework of WG DIKE. This concept document focuses on reporting requirements for Articles 8, 9 and 10 which are due to be reported by October 2012.
In establishing a reporting framework for Article 8, the approach has been to keep the three main elements of Article 8(1) (a. environmental status, b. pressures and impacts, c. economic and social analysis) clearly separate (i.e. through separate sets of reporting sheets), but to make provision for links to be made between them in the following ways:
- In reporting on environmental state (Art. 8(1a)), to allow reference to the main pressures affecting state;
- In reporting on pressures and impacts (Art. 8 (1b), to allow reference to the main ecosystem components being affected (predominant habitats and functional groups of species) and to the main activities exerting the pressures;
- In reporting on economic and social uses (via sectors) (Art. 8 (1c)), to allow reference to the main pressures exerted.
The concept paper is presented in a separate document (WG ESA 2011/2/x; Addendum 1).
Draft reporting sheet
This reporting sheet is for Member States to inform the Commission on their Economic and Social Assessments (ESA) that forms part of the Initial Assessment (IA) undertaken for Article 8 of the MSFD. It draws on the MSFD and on Guidelines on economic and social analysis for the initial assessment of the MSFD produced by the Working Group on Economic and Social Assessment (WG-ESA, 2010).
The aims of this reporting sheet are:
- to allow Member States to inform the Commission on the ESA;
- to provide key information that can be easily compared across Member States;
- to provide a template for key information which may be reported on in the future;
- not to replace the full ESA within Initial Assessments, but to provide this information in a common structure across all Member States in order to facilitate its interpretation, particularly in relation to the Commission's Article 12 assessment.
The objective of presenting this draft reporting sheet to the Working Group on Economic and Social Assessment (WG-ESA) is to ensure that the reporting sheet:
a)Reflects how Member States are conducting the ESA;
b)Asks for data and information that will be possible to provide (some in the long-term); and
c)Provides Member States with an opportunity to provide comments and shape the further development of the reporting sheet.
Understanding the draft reporting sheet
The draft reporting sheet below provides details on what type of information will be sought in the reporting sheet. It is not however the final format of the reporting sheet as this will be developed at a later stage and will consider a user-friendly format.
The reporting sheet is divided into the following sections:
I)Metadata on the reporting sheet
II)Background to the Economic and Social Assessment
III)Economic and social assessment of marine activities
IV)Cost of Degradation (including Business As Usual Scenarios)
Questions in the table are divided into three levels depending on the type of information they are capturing:
Level 1: Description text
Level 2a: Summary information – simple
Level 2b: Summary information (detailed, supporting)
Level 3: Detailed information / data
The colour coding provides an initial indication of the level of priority for the information to the Commission. This prioritisation will be informed by Article 12 requirements as well as feedback from Member States.
Please find in Annex 1 the draft reporting sheet.
Please find in Annex 2 the following supportive reference lists for the reporting sheet: Country codes, human activities, pressures and impacts, GES descriptors.
Annex 1: Draft Reporting Sheet
I) Metadata on the reporting sheet
Question / Format/Instructions / Enter informationMemberState / Options: use 2-digit ISO code (see Annex 2A Country Codes) / MemberState for which the report applies
Region/Sub-region / Options: select one from list:
Baltic Sea
North-east Atlantic Ocean: Greater North Sea, incl. Kattegat & English Channel
North-east Atlantic Ocean: Celtic Seas
North-east Atlantic Ocean: Bay of Biscay & Iberian Coast
North-east Atlantic Ocean: Macaronesia
Mediterranean Sea: Western Mediterranean Sea
Mediterranean Sea: Adriatic Sea
Mediterranean Sea: Ionian Sea & Central Mediterranean Sea
Mediterranean Sea: Aegean-Levantine Sea
Black Sea / The region or subregion for which the report applies. Where the MS has more than one region/subregion, complete a separate report for each. [Or allow for reporting on different regions within on reporting sheet?]
Note: For the Atlantic and Mediterranean, reporting should be at subregion level
Make cross-reference to spatial data provided within the geographical boundaries reporting sheet.
Assessment area / Name of area: text [if smaller than zone specified above]
/ Specific geographical area to which the assessment applies. Where an MS has more than one area of assessment (e.g. a sub-division or ecological assessment area) within the region/subregion, complete a separate reporting sheet for each.
Make cross-reference to spatial data provided within the geographical boundaries reporting sheet.
Reporting information / Format / Enter information
Reported by / Name of person / Enter several if needed
Reported by / Contact email
Reporting organisation / Name, address of organisation
Report date / DD/MM/YYYY
II) Background to the Economic and Social Assessment
Q No. / Level / Question / Instructions / CommentsQ1 / 2a / Is the ESA integrated within the IA or as a stand-alone assessment? / Options (select one):
a)Integrated within IA
b)Stand alone assessment
Q2 / 1 / Where is information on ESA covered in the IA? / Specify chapter number, page numbers (free text)
Q3 / 2a / Which approach have you used to undertake economic and social analysis of the use of marine waters? / Category options:
a) Marine Water Accounts Approach) (complete Q9)
b) Ecosystem services approach (please complete Q9 & Q10)
c) Other [Please specify] (please complete Q9 & Q11)
Q4 / 1 / Describe the methodology used for the economic and social analysis of the use of marine waters / Free text (max no. words #)
Q5 / 2a / In your ESA, have you described a business as usual (BAU) scenario? / Options (select one): Y/N
Q6 / 1 / Describe the methodology for the BAU scenario / Free text (max. no. words #)
Q7 / 2a / What approach have you used to assess the cost of degradation? / Options (select one):
a) Ecosystem services approach
b) Thematic approach
c) Cost-based approach
d) Other (please describe) / Discussion point:
How does cost of degradation differ to costs associated with Programme of Measures to reduce Pressures/Impacts?
Q8 / 1 / Describe the methodology for assessing cost of degradation / Free text (max no. words #)
III) Economic and social assessment of marine activities
No. / Question / CommentsQ9 / For each relevant marine activity please complete Table Q9.
(Use reference list in Annex 2B) / Table Q9 should be filled in by all MS as far as possible, regardless of the approach to economic and social analysis taken. (It may be most associated with the Marine Waters Accounts approach but there is also an opportunity to report using the Ecosystem Services Approach).
The reference list provided in Annex 2B is taken from the DIKE Working Paper: Approach to Reporting for the MSFD (which reflects the Commission Staff Working Paper list). This list takes account of the list of sectors in the WG ESA guidance. Other activities may be added if not all relevant sectors are listed.
Note: Would it be relevant to use this table to report for indirect uses and non-uses?
Note: Need to check which socio-economic data is collected for Eurostat
1
MSFD Reporting Sheets – Economic and Social Assessment, Version 3
Table Q9: Marine activities *Repeat Table for each relevant marine activity*
Question / Description (text) (level 1) / Summary information – simple (level 2a) / Summary information(detailed, supporting - level 2b) / Detailed information / data (level 3) / Date (period used for reporting) / Method used / Sources of informa-tion / Limitations of data (provide descriptive text),indicate data availability (Excellent; Good; Poor/patchy; None)Economic sector and activity : / Enter the marine activity name from Annex 1 (repeat table for as many activities as necessary)
Activity intensity and distribution / Description of the activity including its temporal nature, spatial distribution and intensity (free text, # max no words) / Intensity of activity (select one): Low; Medium; High; Unknown
[Also indicate what MS considers to be Low, Medium, High] / Temporal nature (select one): All year, seasonal; occasional; other (please specify) / GIS map showing spatial distribution (and intensity?) of the activity
[Provide specifications]
Socio-economic importance / Production value / Describe economic value of the sector/activity(free text, # max no words) / Production value (€ million) / Confidence limits (quantitative, or low-med-high)
Value-added / Describe value-added, upstream and downstream, of the sector/activity(free text, # max no words) / Value-added (€ million) / Confidence limits (quantitative, or low-med-high)
Employment / Describe importance of employment (e.g. May be few jobs but important for NUTS2 deprived (free text, # max no words) areas) / Employment (direct) (*1000 FTE) / Confidence limits (quantitative, or low-med-high)
Main Pressures caused by activity / Pressure 1 NAME of pressure.Enter one pressure from the Reference list (see Excel Reference list) / Description of the main pressures caused in the marine environment by this activity, and the ecosystem components on which they are impacting.
(free text, # max no words) / Rank of pressure (0,1,2,3) Indicate whether this pressure is most important (1), second (2) or third (3). Alternatively, indicate that rank is not known by entering '0' for all of them. To indicate that two pressures are the same, enter the same number in each field (e.g. '2' for each and no '3')
Pressure 2
NAME of pressure / Rank of pressure (0,1,2,3)
Pressure 3
NAME of pressure / Rank of pressure (0,1,2,3)
Add further rows if required
Q10 / If using Ecosystem Services Approach, complete Table Q10 / Completing this information is only high priority IF you have used this approach for the ESA.
Note: Commission is considering using a reference list of ecosystem services based on the Millennium Assessment.
Table Q10: Ecosystem services
Ecosystem service / Links to GES(see reference list) / Marine activities supported by this service (see reference list) / Value of service / Aspects valued / Date (period used for reporting) / Method used / Sources of information / Limitations of data (provide descriptive text), indicate data availability (Excellent; Good; Poor/patchy; None)
Insert ecosystem service / Insert relevant GES descriptors/criteria from reference list (Annex 2D) / Insert relevant marine sector-activities from reference list (Annex 2B) / Enter value of the service (€million) / Describe aspects valued (Free text). If ES not valued, please explain approach.
Add as many rows as required
Note: Not all MS using ES approach would have valued service; may have only valued cost of degradation.
Q11 / If using ‘other’ approach to the ESA, please complete Table Q11 / Completing this information is only high priority IF you have used this approach for the ESA.Table Q11: Other approaches to ESA(Note this table may not be necessary)
Area/theme/ activity / Description / Value / Comments/Aspects valued / Date / Method used / Sources of information / Limitations of data (as above)Enter relevant area/ theme / activity/ (free text) / Describe the area/ theme/ activity (free text) / Provide quantitative data on the importance of the area/ theme/ activity / Provide qualifying information about the value provided in previous field
Add as many rows as necessary
1
MSFD Reporting Sheets – Economic and Social Assessment, Version 3
IV) Cost of Degradation (including Business-As-Usual Scenarios)
BAU ScenariosQ No. / Level / Question / Response / Comments
Q12 / 1 / For which sectors/descriptors/ecosystem service have you described a Business as Usual Scenario / List sectors-activities, descriptors, or ecosystem services, using reference lists (Annex 2) / For example:
Sweden: scenarios are done for eutrophication, fisheries, tourism, litter, shipping
Finland: Scenarios for eutrophication and fish
UK: Priority pressures/sectors & each descriptor
NL: Possible levels of different economic activities for different sectors (production level, value added, employment)
Q13 / 2a / Within a BAU scenario have you included the following:
- Projection of changes in marine uses over time?
- Projection of pressures that these uses of marine waters create?
- Relevant legislation, measures and voluntary agreements that could have an influence on the development of pressures over time?
- Changes in the state of environment as a result from changes in pressures?
- Other (please describe)
Q14 / 2a / What time frame have you used for scenarios / Indicate years
Q15 / 1 / Describe Business as Usual Scenarios per sector/per descriptor/per ecosystem service/ or per theme / Free text, max no. words #
For each scenario (define timeframe) include description of:
a) changes of marine uses; projection of pressures;
b) influence of relevant legislation on the evolution of pressures;
c) changes in state and GES descriptors resulting from change in pressures; and
d) details of any sensitivity analysis and most likely scenario / Also ask for a description of the gaps in legislation and implementation?
Q16 / 3 / Provide quantitative data to illustrate Business as Usual Scenarios. / Complete tables below depending on approach used.
Table Q16a if using Marine Waters Accounting Approach
Table Q16b if using Ecosystems Approach [or Thematic Approach]
Also describe date used for reporting, method used, source of information, limitations of data. / Q for MS: Should description on data be provided for each sector/activity, or just once for BAU as a whole?
Table Q16a: Business as Usual data - Marine Water Accounts approach
Marine Activities / Economic Indicator / Value (€)2015 / 2020 / 2040
[List activities using reference list in Annex 2B]
Notes:
-As this is a projection, data may be in ranges
-This table can be used with one economic indicator (options: production value, value added or employment)
-Allow MS to put in the years for which have undertaken scenarios re: Q14
Table Q16b: Business as Usual data - Ecosystem Services Approach/[Thematic Approach]
Ecosystem Services/[Thematic areas] / Main changes in ecosystem services* (qualitative and quantitative)2015 / 2020 / 2040
[List services using reference list in Annex 2B]
* Indicate whether ecosystem service likely to go up or down and describe main changes
Notes:
-Allow MS to put in the years for which have undertaken scenarios re: Q14
-Thematic approach may have to use their own fields
Cost of DegradationQ No. / Level / Question / Response / Comments
Q17 / 1 / What approach was used for the cost of degradation? / Describe how you have approached the assessment of cost of degradation (Free text, max no words #)
Q18 / 1 / Describe the outcomes of the cost of degradation work / Free text (max no words #) / If using Cost Based Approach:
Describe costs of current interventions to improve the marine environment by sector.
If using Ecosystem Services approach:
Describe:
-Difference between the BAU scenario and GES by descriptor, and ecosystem service.
-Consequence to human well being
If using Thematic Approach:
Describe the difference between GES and the present marine environmental status by degradation theme.
[For all approaches – explore possibility of linking to pressures and impacts using reference lists in Annex 2C]
Q19 / 3 / Provide quantitative data on the economic impacts of changes to the marine environment under BAU / Table Q19a if using Cost-based approach
Table Q19b if using Ecosystem services approach
Table Q19c if using Thematic approach / Commission comment: have MS calculated the costs to reduce specific pressures? See ** notes below on how pressures may fit with how MS interpreted cost of degradation
Note: Countries may not be able to provide this data at present but may be of value to come up with common formats for the future
Note: Not expected to be able to sum these costs/values
Table Q19a: Cost of degradation when using the cost based approach