Download Presentation, 5MB

Social and economic aspects of ICZM;
functionality and valuation
Annemie Volckaert
First BeNCoRe Conference
26/04/2007
Outline presentation

Socio economic impact of major activities




Overview recent studies
Gaps
Socio economic impact: challenges
Comment Green Paper topic “how can quality of
life be maintained in coastal regions”
Users of the Belgian part of the North Sea


Belgian part of the North Sea
(BPNS):
 Part of southern North Sea
 3600 km²
Different users
 Shipping & anchorage
 Fishery/ mariculture
 Aggregate extraction
 Dredging
 Dumping
 Military exercises
 Off-shore constructions
 Wrecks, buoys, masts
 Cables & pipelines
 Tourism/ recreation
 Nature areas
Sustainable management of North Sea

Socio-economic Impact on the Environment
 Identification
 Valuation
I. Maritime transport

Shipping:






Commercial (incl. ferries)
Fisheries
Offshore industries: wind energy, aggregate
extraction, dredging & dumping, etc.
Recreational
Risk analysis of Marine Activities in the Belgian
Part of the North Sea (RAMA) – SPSD II (2006)
Evaluation of marine degradation in the North
Sea (MARE-DASM) – OSTC (2002)
Risk analysis of Marine Activities in
the Belgian Part of the North Sea
(RAMA)
Supported by the
Federal Science Policy
Goals


Risk-analysis of shipping
incidents with environmental
damage on the Belgian part
of the North Sea
Study area: BPNS



Excl. Scheldt traffic
Excl. Noordhinder TSS
Data:



Database IVS-SRK
Data period 01/04/2003 –
31/03/2004
Data on ferries from Ostend
Impact valuation
Historical data
Modelling
GIS based analysis
Qualitative impact
table
Release assessment: Cargo spill risk


Tonnes/yr spilled
Highest risk class 8
(dangerous, no info)



Class 1 (MP, cat A)


1.0 E-08 - 1.0 E-06
1.0 E-06 - 1.0 E-05
1.0 E-05 - 1.0 E-04
1.0 E-04 - 1.0 E-03
1.0 E-03 - 1.0 E-02
> 1.0 E-02

Total: 539 t/yr
Containers: 390 t/yr
Total: 12.3 t/yr
Containers: 9.9 t/yr
Class 2 (crudes)


Total: 101 t/yr
Oil tankers: 101 t/yr
Exposure and effect assessment

Selection of two scenarios



Sensitivity analysis (GIS-based)




Worst case oil: 17.000 ton/accident; crudes
Worst case HNS: 8.000 ton/accident (1.000 ton/accident);
acetone cyanohydrine
Ecological parameters (e.g. Ramsar, MPA, beach reserve)
Socio-economic parameters (e.g. ports, spawning site,
extraction zone, wind farm)
3 Scenarios (general, winter, summer ~ interests)
Effect analysis



Exposure assessment (PEC)
Consequence assessment (PNEC)
Risk characterisation (PEC/PNEC)
Summer scenario
Effect analysis : worst case


Exposure assessment:
 MU slicklets model (BMM)
 12,6 km² oil spill
 In 13 hours Zwin
Consequence assessment:
 LC50 aromatic comp.
 Direct loss biota: 12% - 68%
 Bird loss open sea: 471
 Bird loss Zwin: 741 Seabirds;
2595 Water birds


Exposure assessment:
 No model available HNS
(sedimentation)
 0,01 mg/l (critical effect
concentration = 1% loss biota)
 75 simulation days
Consequence assessment:
 Ecological impact area
 8.000 ton: 70% BPNS
 1.000 ton: 40% BPNS
Evaluation of marine degradation in
the North Sea (MARE-DASM)
Goal

Development of mathematical models assessing
the risk and damage



Identification & quantification of the different
contaminants in the marine environment
Socio-economic assessment criteria to determine
the cost of degradation
Development & evaluation of technical and legal
procedures
Socio-economic assessment

Valuation of the non-use value of BPNS in case of
an accidental oil spill

Contingent Valuation method (questionnaire)




Scenario: 10.000 m³ spill
Scenario: 5.000 m³ spill
Scenario: 200 m³ spill
Willingness to pay: between 375 and 606 million €
II. Industries

Offshore:






Wind energy
Aggregate extraction
LNG transport
Environmental impact assessment
MAREBASSE: Management, Research and
Budgeting of Aggregates in Shelf Seas Related to
End-users - SPSDII
Balancing the Impacts of Human activities on the
Belgian Part of the North Sea (BALANS) – SPSDII

Aggregate extraction
EIA as a legal instrument to evaluate impacts

Legal basis:


International: EIA directive (85/337/EC)
National:



Marine Law (20/01/1999) (art.28 §1)
RD 09/09/2003: rules & procedures EIA
Master Plan North Sea


Political priorities
Delimitation of zones


RD 17/05/04
RD 01/09/04
EIA as a legal instrument to evaluate impacts

Offshore windfarms




C-Power: 60 turbines (5-7 MW), 30 km offshore
Eldepasco: 36 turbines (5-7 MW), 38 km offshore
Bligh Bank: 69 turbines (5 MW), 45 km offshore
Sand- and gravel extraction


Zeegra
AWZ-Coast
EIA as a legal instrument to evaluate impacts

Impact valuation of the activity on different
disciplines:









Soil
Water
Atmosphere & Climate
Noise & Vibrations/ Electromagnetic fields
Fauna & flora & biodiversity
Seasight
Users
Safety (shipping, radar, oil)
Major challenges: cumulative effects
III. Fisheries

Commercial fisheries





Small fleet
Big fleet
Shrimps
Anglers (recreational)
Balancing the Impacts of Human activities on the
Belgian Part of the North Sea (BALANS) –SPSD II
Balancing the Impacts of Human
activities on the Belgian Part of the
North Sea (BALANS)
Goals & methodology

Focus on:



shrimp fisheries
Aggregate extraction
Procedure





Conceptual model development
Translation into a system-thinking environment
Data entry
Integrated conceptual policy & interface
development (STELLA model)
Scenario development
Conceptual model (sand & gravel)
Outcome


Improve understanding of the activity
Manage the effects of policy choices on sustainable
management
IV. Human induced impacts
Effects on Socio-economic
ecosystem
activities
Effect on
abiotic

Evaluation of climate change impacts and adaptation
responses for marine activities (CLIMAR)



Coastal flooding
Fisheries
Ballast water & invasive species
Evaluation of climate change
impacts and adaptation responses
for marine activities (CLIMAR)
Methodology
WP1
Definition and modelling of
climate change induced primary
impacts at North Sea scale
Climate change induced primary impacts: sea level rise, increased
storminess, possible increased rainfall, salinity, temperature, etc..
Definition and modelling
WP2
Deduction of climate change
induced secondary impacts
Case study - Coastal flooding
Modelling
Secondary impacts on the marine
ecosystem in general and related
socio-economic activities
Identification and
classifications
Case study – Fisheries sector
Impact assessment
WP3
Identification of adaptation
scenario’s/measures
Case study – Coastal flooding
Identification/modelling of
adaptation scenario’s/measures
Marine ecosystem in general and
related socio-economic activities.
 extrapolation of adaptation
scenario’s/measures
Case study – Fisheries sector
Identification/modelling of
adaptation scenario’s/measures
WP4
Evaluation of adaptation
scenario’s/measures
Case study – Coastal flooding
Evaluation adaptation
scenario/measures
Marine ecosystem in general and
related socio-economic activities.
Evaluation adaptation
scenario/measures
Case study – Fisheries sector
Evaluation adaptation
scenario/measures
Elaboration of an evaluation
framework for adaptation
scenario’s/measures as a response to
climate induced impacts (North Sea)
Integrated
sustainability assessment
of adaptation
scenario's/measures
Formulation of recommendations
towards North Sea future policy and
its different socio-economical
activities.
Evaluation of the effects of the
proposed adaptive strategies
(embedding in policy, practical
integration, implementation )
CESSE-ULB & VITO
Contribution to
SPICOSA
BY
Dr. WALTER HECQ
Ir. MATEO CORDIER
GUY ENGELEN
JOACHIM MAES
LEO DeNOCKER
SPICOSA

SPICOSA Fact sheet





Science and Policy Integration for Coastal Systems Assessment
(http://www.eucc.net/spicosa/)
54 Partner institutes, 22 countries, 18 study sites
6th FP
1 Feb 2007 – 1 Feb 2011
Objective: Develop a system dynamics modelling approach to
support decision-making processes enabling integrated
assessment of coastal systems in Europe
Fully interlinked processes:
physical & ecological;
economic, demographic & societal;
environmental & land use.
at appropriate abstraction levels
Carrying out of economic assessment :
CESSE – ULB contribution to SPICOSA
b) Assistance to SAF modelling in :
Integrating economic assessment methodology
(Input - Output tables…) in the systemic model
EXTEND)
Carrying out of economic assessment :
Carrying out of economic
assessment :
a) reviewing success of application
in other projects having carried out
economic assessments (with
spatial dimensions)
c) Assistance to Study Site Applications in :
- Selecting a methodology for economic
evaluation
- Adapting it to the SSA specificities
- Carrying out the methodology on field (and
real presence on field for few selected SSA)
Conclusions


Interdisciplinary approach is a must!
Same language/Terminology:




Good data base is fundamental
Importance of stakeholders (private, institutes, etc.)






Between different partners
Scientific team & stakeholders
Concrete problem formulation
Data delivery
Expertise
Valuation
Visualisation of results (GIS maps, models)
Dissemination to public (awareness; language)
Socio-economic impact: challenges

Other important players:





Commercial fisheries and recreational anglers
Tourism
New developments: LNG tankers, offshore energy,
mariculture, harbour expansion
Demography (older population)
Other important impacts of users:





Mobility
Ballast water
Invasive species
Climate change
Cumulative impacts
Socio-economic impact: challenges (2)



Problem formulation: Tackling problems of public concern
 Improving communication with private sector
 Improving communication with policy
Methodological:
 Good data base with relevant parameters
 Accessible quality data
 Quantification of impacts (modelling)
Valuation of non-use values of the BPNS:
 Contingent Valuation method (Willingness to pay)
 Other methodologies?
Socio-economic impact: challenges (3)

Broader scale:



Sea/coastal/hinterland interface
Border-crossing problems: climate change,
cumulative effects, etc.
Cooperation with neighbouring countries (Nl, En,
Fr)




Data input
Methodology
Integrated results
European level (e.g. Spicosa)
Socio-economic impact: challenges (4)

Policy instruments




Spatial planning (European scale)
Integrated decision models (Balans, Climar,…)
Coordinating institutes
Need for innovative and flexible research
Green paper

The issue on how quality of life in coastal regions of
Europe can be maintained, while continuing to
develop sustainable income and jobs? Development
inevitably brings with it pressures on space and the
environment. It requires improvements in accessibility to,
and internal mobility within, coastal zones, in particular
small islands, through transport infrastructure
improvements. It also calls for the supply of general
interest services (health, education, water and energy
supply, telecommunications, postal services, waste water
and waste treatment) in order to improve the quality of
life in coastal zones, in particular during peak tourist
seasons
Green paper (2)


Quality of life
Valuation
Parameters
Place to live & work
Market value
Economical
Social
Leisure & tourism
Market and non-market
value
Econ. / soc.
Other
Intrinsic value coast &
sea
Non-market value
CVM
Willingness to pay
Seasonal variation: tourist peak


Good indicator Database:
Positive: jobs but temporarily
Coastal zone (kustbarometer)
Negative: conflicts, facilities (WTP, water),
…
Marine zone
Integration between zones
Green paper (3)

Possible solutions to improve quality of life


Spatial planning larger scale
Diversification of tourism



Sustainable fisheries




Connection sea/coast/hinterland
Needs: families, older people, etc.
New techniques
Alternatives
Conflict with anglers at sea
Legal & policy instruments



Sustainable
income and jobs
Decrease pressure
on environment
Improve quality of
life
Control (safety, pollution)
Integration WFD, Maritime strategy, etc.
Coordinating institute to manage integration