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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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

8. Method
Iterative process 8

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 4 approaches short-listed: MINI MIDI-light MIDI MAXI
Screening used to develop shortlist

13. 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

14. ‘MIDI’ approach: Use DPSIR More than min (‘medium’ detail)
CEA or CBA, distributional impacts, governance maps
Five OSPAR regions
Long-term: impacts & implementation
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?

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