MSFD Socio-economics, OSPAR approaches Ian Dickie, eftec Stockholm, 07/07/10

Overview Aims, work schedule a. Study objectives and method b.      Screening/feasibility criteria Characterising ‘approaches’ c.      Short-list of options d.      Assessment of options e.      Preferred approach Introduced project yesterday Say where we are in work programme Discuss agenda circulated by Phillip

Aims of Study Develop a concrete proposal for approach to OSPAR region (ESA) for MSFD Consider wide range of options, but focus quickly on best approaches Support for preferred approach Specification for preferred approach Discussed yesterday Get support = listen to partners

Economics in MSFD Article 8(1c): to carry out “an economic and social analysis of the use of [their] waters and of the cost of degradation of the marine environment” as an integral part of their initial assessments. Reminder of text. Objective is to do this in coordinated way and efficiently. 4

Work Carried Out Assessment of current data, methods and tools for the Directive Draft assessment of feasibility of options for OSPAR regional ESA Defined approaches (their characteristics) Identify criteria for choosing between approaches Apply criteria ~ draft result Circulated in draft interim report

Work To Do Take into account feedback on draft interim report – comments by 16th July Identify potential funding opportunities Interim report (23rd July) - select preferred approach  Develop detailed specification for preferred approach: circulate for comment 20th August – 10th September. Preferred option = the basis for commissioning and securing funding for the preferred approach.

Work To Do Reporting: Final Report January 2011 Clear record of process Presented to Bergen Sept 2010 OSPAR conference Presented to EIHA meeting Winter 2010/11 Final Report January 2011

Method Iterative process 8

Consulted on briefly in early June Screening = initial macro-scale, filter approaches outside scope or purpose. Feasibility = issues within the project’s scope and purpose

3 elements: Characteristics: 1. Problem scoping & scenarios 2a. Economic analysis 2b. Social analysis Characteristics: Method(s) Spatial/temporal scale Level of Detail Who does Who leads

Characteristics of Approaches Table A1. Template for a definition of an approach Phase of work 1. Problem scoping & scenarios 2a. Economic analysis 2b. Social analysis Methodological Methods Spatial scale Temporal scale Level of detail Procedural Who leads? Who does? Methods = Using DPSIR. CBA vs qualitative. 11

4 approaches short-listed: MINI MIDI-light MIDI MAXI Screening used to develop shortlist

MINI screened out: MIDI-light weak: MIDI – Preferred MAXI weak: Non-comparability, Inefficiency MIDI-light weak: Inflexible, Social analysis MIDI – Preferred MAXI weak: Cost and time Criteria applied to 4 methods

‘MIDI’ approach: Use DPSIR More than min (‘medium’ detail) CEA or CBA, distributional impacts, governance maps Five OSPAR regions Long-term: impacts & implementation 2020 + Coordinated by OSPAR (secretariat) Work within Governments, with contracted support Criteria = filtering process for different characteristics of approach, so would expect a central option to be preferred. Key issues is how approaches are differentiated (characteristics) AND should any of these characteristics be varied to produce different options?

MSFD Socio-economics, OSPAR approaches Ian Dickie, eftec Stockholm, 06/07/10 15