What have we donesince the last time?

We have been very productive…

26 February 2019

Update of the economic chapter in theIntermediate Assessment (you’ve seen this)

26 February 2019

The empty table (presented before)…

26 February 2019

Contracting Party Gross Value Added Year

Employed persons (FTEs) Year

Development in production value or other relevant data on trends between first and second Initial Assessment

Scale: OSPAR area, national, other

Data sources

Belgium 363 2016from 68,367 million Euro in 2009 to 81,815 million Euro in 2015

Denmark 184 mio. EUR 2014 1289 2014 No possibility for comparison OSPAR STECF

France

Aquaculture : 443 million €Fisheries : 517 million €

2014Aquaculture : 9284Fisheries : 9681

2014

Aquaculture: sales volumes decreasing, production value increasing Fisheries : gross value added steady, employment decreasing

National

Aquaculture : Enquête Aquaculture DPMA / BSPA ; données DCF Aquaculture ; STECF 16-19 « Aquaculture economic data table ». Fisheries : données DCF, DPMA, Ifremer SIH, rapport Capacités2016

GermanyFisheries : 57 million € Aquaculture : 9,3 million €

2015

2014

(43.638national, Fisheries, Aquaculture, including fish processing industry)

2015

Gross Value Added (Fisheries and

Aquaculture together): 65.8 Mio. €

in 2007. There may have been a

slight increase. The current values for Fisheries and Aquaculture cannot be added together because they are from different years.

Gross Value Added: OSPAR area, Employed persons: national

Gross Value Added Fisheries: STECF 2017: Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) 2017. The 2017 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet (STECF-17-12). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

Gross Value Added Aquaculture: STECF 2016:

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) 2016. Economic Report of the EU Aquaculture Sector (EWG- 16-12); Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.Employed persons: Fisch-Informationszentrum 2018a: Strukturdaten (online), http://www.fischinfo.de/index.php/markt/datenfakten

IrelandSea fisheries 187.00 + Aquaculture 71.53

2016

Sea fisheries 2,536 + Aquaculture 1,030

2016

Sea fisheries: Gross Value Added % change - data from 2010 -2012: 91% 2012 - 2014: 18% 2014 - 2016: 11%Aquaculture: Gross Value Added % change - data from 2010 - 2012: 31% 2012 - 2014: -19% 2014 -2016: 46%

Irish Marine Waters

All data taken from Ocean Economy 2015 & 2017 reports: https://www.ouroceanwealth.ie/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/Publications/2017/SemruIreland%27sOceanEconomy2017.pdfhttps://www.ouroceanwealth.ie/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/news/Final%20Semru%20-%20Ireland%27s%20Ocean%20Economy%202015%20Report.pdf

Netherlands 58 mln 2014 600 2014 Decrease

Dutch part of the North Sea (approx. 30% of total NL)

https://www.noordzeeloket.nl/publish/pages/138222/economic-description-of-the-dutch-north-sea-and-coast-2005-2010-2014.pdf

Norway 27047 2015 15570 2015 No clear trend, going up and downNational (=OSPAR)

Statistics Norway

Portugal

Spain

Sweden Fishing: 22,7 meurAquaculture: 6,5 meur

2014Fishing: 854Aquaculture: 83

2014 National Fishing: Eurostat. Aquaculture: Statistics Sweden

UK

…is not longer empty (but also not complete yet)

26 February 2019

Cost of degradation: Overview of approachesCountry Method More information Links to background documents

Belgium Thematic approach Saskia Van Gaever saskia.vangaever@milieu.belgie.be

Denmark

France Cost based Diane Vaschalde diane.vaschalde@afbiodiversite.fr

Germany Thematic approach Katharina Raupach Katharina.Raupach@mu.niedersachsen.de

Ireland Ecosystem services

approach?

Mary Hegarty Mary.Hegarty@housing.gov.ie We use the Choice Experiment (CE) evaluation technique to measure the welfare impact from not

implementing in full the MSFD.

-> Background research paper to follow by email

Netherlands Cost based Rob van der Veeren

rob.vander.veeren@rws.nl

2017 report https://www.noordzeeloket.nl/publish/pages/138544/the_cost_of_degradation_v_0_06_2018-

015_strietman.pdf

2010 report

https://www.noordzeeloket.nl/publish/pages/122326/the_current_cost_of_avoiding_degradation_of_the_dutch_north_

sea_environment_lei_2010_836.pdf

Norway None Guro Børnes Ringlund

guro.bornes.ringlund@miljodir.no

We have not conducted such an analysis as part of the Integrated Management Plan

Portugal

Spain Cost based Paloma Ramos

pramos@mapama.es

Lucía Martínez

lmgarcia@mapama.es

We will use ecosystem services values in Spain (€/ha/year) as the basis of our analysis together with other information

generated in the framework of the project Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in Spain (Spanish Ministry of

Environment, 2011), including ecosystem services provided by marine ecosystems and future scenarios

Sweden

UK Cost based, with

ecosystem services

approach for illustrative

purposes

Marilena.Pollicino Marilena.Pollicino@defra.gsi.gov.uk For the purpose of the IA the cost based approach was mainly used which determined extra costs of delivering this

measures with the identification of the least cost solution. See:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/82640/20120327-

msfd-consult-ia.pdf (p112)

26 February 2019

Workshop on natural capital and ecosystem services

Scheveningen, September 11, 2018

26 February 2019

Started with

26 February 2019

Fisheries

Offshore energy

Ports

Marine tourism (includes boating)Aquaculture

Impact

on e

cosyste

m

serv

ices

Dependency on quality of ecosystem services

Discussed about

Bow tie analyses

Linkage frameworks

Dependency vs impact

26 February 2019

Ended with

It really was a workshop

And still a lot to do….

26 February 2019

First next step:

• Internship Petr Veretennikov: background document on the potential role and relevance of natural capital and ecosystem services in socio-economic analyses – in general – and in OSPAR plans and strategies

-> Tomorrow presentation and discussion on first results!

26 February 2019

Background document on how to present benefits of a reduction of marine litter (in CBA’s)• MSFD requires cost benefit analyses for new measures

• OSPAR developed regional action plan on marine litter

• Therefore many countries performed some type of economic analysis for reducing marine litter

• Challenges: No data, and limited knowledge on ecosystems

• Different countries used different approaches

• Collected in one document

• To be shared among OSPAR economics group

• But also to people involved in regional action plan (to link our workwith them)

26 February 2019

Potential future role economic analyses in OSPAR

• North East Atlantic Strategy: Long term

– Economic description of the use of the marine environment

– Role for cost benefit analyses in regional action plans

– Ecosystem services? Natural capital accounting?

– More?

• Quality Status report 2023: Relatively short term

– Economic description of the use of the marine environment

– More?

• This year

– Presentation of background document on benefits of reducingMarine Litter. Discussion on role in supporting regional action plan

– Might consider also other topics; MSP, sea bed protection, noise…

26 February 2019