cost of degradation assessment Heini Ahtiainen HELCOM TAPAS ESA WS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Proposal for the regional cost of degradation assessment Heini Ahtiainen HELCOM TAPAS ESA WS 2-2016 Tallinn, 8th September 2016 9/5/2016 1

Outline • Background • Proposed approach • Results • Discussion Name 9/5/2016 Surname 2

Background • Aim to develop a regional framework for the use of marine waters and cost of degradation analysis for HOLAS II and to support the MSFD • Cost of degradation = consequences to human well- being from not achieving the good environmental status (GES) • Cost of degradation approaches – Ecosystem service approach – Thematic approach – Cost-based approach Name 05/09/2016 Surname 3

Proposed approach: summary • Combined thematic and ecosystem approach • Assess cost of degradation in monetary terms • Benefit transfer: Use existing economic valuation studies • Baseline and target scenarios are specified in the valuation studies • Separately for each descriptor (group) • Additional information on ecosystem services can be presented Name 05/09/2016 Surname 4

Estimating cost of degradation • Data – Several recent literature reviews – Economic valuation studies in the Baltic Sea area – Willingness to pay (WTP) for improvements in the marine environment • Descriptors – D5 Eutrophication – D1 Biodiversity and D4 Foodwebs – D2 Non-indigenous species Name 05/09/2016 Surname 5

Benefit transfer • Using existing values in other contexts/areas • Here: transfer mean willingness to pay across coastal countries • Adjustments: currency, price levels, income • Problematic issues – Reliability of transferred values – Differences between the valuation study and HOLAS II/MSFD: baseline and target scenarios (extent of change), study area Name 05/09/2016 Surname 6

D5 Eutrophication Country Cost of Population in Cost of • Contingent valuation degradation 2015* degradation ( € /person/year, (18-80 years (M € /year, study covering all 9 2015 euros) old) 2015 euros) countries (Ahtiainen Denmark 33.0 4.28 141 Estonia 25.5 1.011 26 et al. 2014) Finland 44.0 4.151 183 • No benefit transfer Germany 26.2 64.164 1680 Latvia 5.7 1.553 9 • Original values Lithuania 9.1 2.267 21 adjusted to the year Poland 12.7 29.789 377 Russia 11.9 90.787 1078 2015 Sweden 76.2 7.316 557 Total 205.318 4072 * Eurostat, except Russia: Russian Federation Federal State Statistics Service. Russian population includes the population who is over 15 years old in Western Russia, i.e. Central, Southern, North Western, Ural and Volga federal districts. All value estimates are primary. Value estimates in PPP adjusted 2015 euros. Name 05/09/2016 Surname 7

D1 Biodiversity and D4 Foodwebs Country Cost of degradation Cost of degradation • Choice experiment ( € /person/year, (M € /year, 2015 2015 euros) euros) study covering 3 Denmark 10.3 b 44 countries (Kosenius & 6.8 b Estonia 7 Finland 11.8 a 49 Ollikainen 2015) 13.3 b Germany 853 • Benefit transfers: 6.4 b Latvia 10 4.9 a Lithuania 11 – Finland to Denmark and 8.1 b Poland 240 Germany 9.1 b Russia 823 – Lithuania to Estonia, 22.7 a Sweden 166 Total 2203 Latvia and Russia * Eurostat, except Russia: Russian Federation Federal State Statistics Service. Russian population includes the population who is over 15 years old in Western Russia, i.e. Central, Southern, North Western, Ural and Volga federal districts. a Primary estimate, b Transferred estimate. Value estimates in PPP adjusted 2015 euros. Name 05/09/2016 Surname 8

D2 Non-indigenous species Country Cost of degradation Cost of degradation • Choice experiment study ( € /person/year, (M € /year, 2015 2015 euros) euros) in 2 countries 19.2 b Denmark 82 (Pakalniete et al. 2013, 15.3 a Estonia 15 18.1 b Finland 75 Tuhkanen et al. 2013, 24.8 b Germany 1594 2016) 2.8 a Latvia 4 • Benefit transfers: 5.4 b Lithuania 12 Poland 5.4 b 159 – Estonia to Denmark, 6.0 b Russia 547 Finland, Germany and Sweden 19.7 b 144 Total 2633 Sweden * Eurostat, except Russia: Russian Federation Federal State Statistics Service. – Latvia to Lithuania, Russian population includes the population who is over 15 years old in Western Russia, i.e. Central, Southern, North Western, Ural and Volga federal Poland and Russia districts. a Primary estimate, b Transferred estimate. Value estimates in PPP adjusted 2015 euros. Name 05/09/2016 Surname 9

Conclusions and discussion • Indicative estimates of the cost of degradation • Better used separately – summing may lead to double-counting • Could be included in the HOLAS II report and used in national assessments (?) • Possible to update the assessment when new results become available Name 9/5/2016 Surname 10

Cost of degradation analysis: Discussion points • Additional studies that could be used? • Any comments on the approach, e.g. – Studies – Descriptors – Adjustments for currency, price levels and income • Are the results usable in the national MSFD reporting? • Could/should we add some information on ecosystem services? Name 9/5/2016 Surname 11