Conceptual model for the HOLAS II ESA

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Aim To develop and test a management system for implementing an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Contributes to Defra project area MF10 ‘Impact of fishing.
Advertisements

Caring for The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park & World Heritage Area Dr Laurence McCook, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Pew Fellow in Marine.
SURF nature The Welsh Environment: Understanding the connections with the economy November 3 rd 2011: Parc Hotel, Cardiff.
SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounts: A Proposed Outline and Road Map Sixth Meeting of the UN Committee of Experts on Environmental-Economic Accounting.
Work Package 3 Identifying and quantifying the main driving forces of ecosystem changes influencing the aquaculture sector and developing the appropriate.
[ Slide Title ] Session II: Reporting back from breakout session NAME, Rhodes University 7 th Biennial GEF International Waters Conference Bridgetown,
Anna Donald Marine Planning and Strategy Marine Scotland
Where do recreational fisheries sit in the Australian Fisheries Industry?
David Whitmarsh CEMARE University of Portsmouth ECASA Meeting in Paris, April 2005 Ecosystem Approach for Sustainable Aquaculture: the contribution of.
Discussion on Chapter 2 Rocky Harris Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK Expert workshop, Melbourne, May 2012.
Ecosystem approach to fisheries (western Channel and Celtic Sea) Simon Jennings, Cefas, UK.
HELCOM HOLAS II ESA WS, Helsinki EU Horizon 2020 Coordination and support action Ville Karvinen / SYKE Enhancing ecosystem services mapping for.
Marine Strategy Framework Directive Consultation on Good Environmental Status How the Impact Assessment was developed Kevin Brady Marine Analytical Unit,
Integrating SEA into Decision Making: An Economic Approach Dan Biller The World Bank East Asia and Pacific Region.
© Natural Resources Institute Finland Heini Ahtiainen Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) HOLAS II Workshop, 30 September.
WP6 trends in biodiversity - Review impacts - Explore trends in catch data - Explore trends in survey data - Options for assessing trends in invertebrates.
Green Accounting. EU Policy Context Lisbon (economic and social) Gothenburg (environment) Climate change Sustainable transport Public health Resource.
Marine Water Accounting & HOLAS II Soile Oinonen, SYKE, HOLAS II ESA Workshop,
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) The key and only legislation completely focused on the marine environment Clear ecosystem based thinking.
How do we work… Samuli Korpinen, Finnish Environment Institute, Marine Research Centre HELCOM BalticBOOST WS on Physical loss and damage to the seafloor.
BalticBOOST Theme 3 WS, Copenhagen, 2-3 June 2016
FISHING EFFORT & CPUE.
Theme 3 – Physical loss and damage to the seafloor
Learning from BC Coastal Environment 2006 Part I: Consulting with Audiences and Experts Lynne Bonner Linda Gilkeson.
United Nations Statistics Division
The French National Agency on Water and Aquatic Environments
Principles and Key Issues
SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS - WORK IN GROUPS
Regional experiences, case of the Mediterranean Sea
Progress on the initial ESA in Ireland for the MSFD
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
Marine Strategy Framework Directive:
EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 Towards implementation & monitoring
EU Biodiversity Strategy and its mid-term review
Reporting on socio-economic aspects in regard to socio-economic assessment & environmental targets under MSFD Lydia MARTIN-ROUMEGAS DG Environment -
Development of a methodological framework (EEA contributions)
Economic and social analyses in HOLAS II
EU Biodiversity Strategy in context
Questions for break-out sessions GROUP 2 messages Participants : state administrations in charge of MSFD and/or WFD, ESA and GES experts, shipping industry,
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)
Reporting on socio-economic aspects in regard to socio-economic assessment & environmental targets under MSFD Lydia MARTIN-ROUMEGAS DG Environment -
Which relevance for the EEA?
Taking forward the common understanding of Art. 8, 9 and 10 MSFD
A framework for economic and social analyses within HOLAS II
Summary of Member States Initial Assessment
WG ESA guidance document
MSFD and cost-effectiveness: options for the WG ESA-work programme
16th COP of the Barcelona Convention, Marrakech, 3-5th November 2009.
WG ESA meeting 9th of March 2015
MAES and its relation to marine environmental policies
Reporting for MSFD Article 13 and 14 –
Lena Bergström, Project Coordinator
WG GES Workshop Art. 8 MSFD Assessment
Proposal for MSFD risk-based approach project in OSPAR region
13th Meeting of the Working Group on Economic
Group 2.
Conclusions Group 3 Parallel sessions 2 and 3
Update from working group economic valuation & EMB
No: need to identify the sources and adress totally new pressures
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
1.
Joint Meeting of the Nature, Marine and Water Directors Meeting of 4 December 2013, Vilnius Stefan Berggren, Director Swedish Ministry of the Environment.
1.
Different purposes where information on BES can be helpful/is needed
What can we learn from D3 assessments?
WG GES Drafting Group June 2013 Berlin
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
Marine Environment and Water Industry
Session 2: An Accounting Structure for Ecosystems
Role of socio economics in setting targets and measures
Presentation transcript:

Conceptual model for the HOLAS II ESA 5/6/2019 Conceptual model for the HOLAS II ESA Anna Mellin anna.mellin@havochvatten.se A framework for the economic and social analysis. This framwork or conceptual models are intended to show how to combine the ecosystem services approach and the marine water accounts apporoach in the economic and social analysis within HOLAS II. They have shortly been introduces during the last HOLAS meeting in Gothenburg in June. The models have now been slightly modified. In the presentation the models will be exemplified to show the pros and cons with them. The aim is to give a background and options for the following discussion on tomorrow. And I think the following presentations will discuss which data we have available to use in the model we choose. Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management

Earlier discussions resulted in two conceptual models. These ones. 5/6/2019 Earlier discussions resulted in two conceptual models. These ones. 5/6/2019 Conceptual model for the HOLAS II ESA Anna Mellin Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management

Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management 5/6/2019 5/6/2019 Conceptual model for the HOLAS II ESA Anna Mellin Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management

5/6/2019 Alternative 1 Max and I have now elaborated these two and made examples of them. Mainly bases on the first conceptual model I showed. The difference in the models are how to relate to GES – good environmental status. Pros: Includes the connection to state (GES). Cons: Pressures might be a more relevant measure, since: it is easier/more direct linked to benefits (GES a proxy for ESS). Suggested measures should address pressures. 5/6/2019 Conceptual model for the HOLAS II ESA Anna Mellin Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management

Alternative 2- suggested option 5/6/2019 Alternative 2- suggested option Activity: Data on e.g. income and jobs in commercial fishery (Water accounting approach) Pressure indicator: Information on e.g. hours of trawling per year ESS: connection between Pressures and ESS (background has been used in SwAM report and WS on the 14-15th of Oct). Need to know more on the impact (strength). Benefits lost/Cost of Degradation: This needs to be based on a gap analysis, i.e. BAU vs a scenario where GES is reached. E.g. loss of net benefits from fish stocks not at MSY, Litters’ impact on – tourism & commercial fishery, Seabirds loss - tourism, recreation. (UK initial assessment). GES will in other words be captured in the GAP analysis rather than have the connection between Pressure – GES – ESS. We think this second approach is more feasible and straighforward. But open for discussions and maybe need to be examplified with an acctual GAP analysis, and depends on what available information and data we have. Assessement of the status of ESS today and when reaching GES. Or assume; if we reach GES the related ESS are of good status? GES is either reached or not, i.e. 1 or 0. Important also to be able to prioritize the activities based on which has the main impact. How can this be done? Do we have this information, based on numbers of activites on the pressure? Other scale? E.g. Selective fishery (pressure) – commercial & recreational fishing. A worskhop will be held in Sweden within the initial assessment, based on this model –14-15 Oct. Aim: to show how one or several activities impact others within the sector as well as other sectors via ESS. Cost of degradation (utebliven nytta). If there are losses of benefits found in the final step when we are moving towards GES from BAU, it is an indication that we are not using ours seas in a way that maximizing societies’ welfare. (NB, GES not surely the welfare maximum). 5/6/2019 Conceptual model for the HOLAS II ESA Anna Mellin Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management