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 Surname 9/5/2016 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 Surname 05/09/2016 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 Surname 05/09/2016 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 Surname 05/09/2016 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 Surname 05/09/2016 6

D5 Eutrophication

• Contingent valuation

study covering all 9 countries (Ahtiainen et al. 2014)

• No benefit transfer
• Original values

adjusted to the year 2015

Name Surname 05/09/2016 7

Country Cost of degradation (€/person/year, 2015 euros) Population in 2015* (18-80 years

• ld)

Cost of degradation (M€/year, 2015 euros) Denmark 33.0 4.28 141 Estonia 25.5 1.011 26 Finland 44.0 4.151 183 Germany 26.2 64.164 1680 Latvia 5.7 1.553 9 Lithuania 9.1 2.267 21 Poland 12.7 29.789 377 Russia 11.9 90.787 1078 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.

D1 Biodiversity and D4 Foodwebs

• Choice experiment

study covering 3 countries (Kosenius & Ollikainen 2015)

• Benefit transfers:

– Finland to Denmark and Germany – Lithuania to Estonia, Latvia and Russia

Name Surname 05/09/2016 8

Country Cost of degradation (€/person/year, 2015 euros) Cost of degradation (M€/year, 2015 euros) Denmark 10.3b 44 Estonia 6.8b 7 Finland 11.8a 49 Germany 13.3b 853 Latvia 6.4b 10 Lithuania 4.9a 11 Poland 8.1b 240 Russia 9.1b 823 Sweden 22.7a 166 Total 2203

* Eurostat, except Russia: Russian Federation Federal State Statistics

• Service. Russian population includes the population who is over 15 years
• ld 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.

D2 Non-indigenous species

• Choice experiment study

in 2 countries (Pakalniete et al. 2013, Tuhkanen et al. 2013, 2016)

• Benefit transfers:

– Estonia to Denmark, Finland, Germany and Sweden – Latvia to Lithuania, Poland and Russia

Name Surname 05/09/2016 9

Country Cost of degradation (€/person/year, 2015 euros) Cost of degradation (M€/year, 2015 euros) Denmark 19.2b 82 Estonia 15.3a 15 Finland 18.1b 75 Germany 24.8b 1594 Latvia 2.8a 4 Lithuania 5.4b 12 Poland 5.4b 159 Russia 6.0b 547 Sweden 19.7b 144 Total 2633

* 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.

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 Surname 9/5/2016 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 Surname 9/5/2016 11