1. Conceptual model for the HOLAS II ESA
5/6/2019
Conceptual model for the HOLAS II ESA
Anna Mellin
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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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 – 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