Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis for the MSFD Framework for the Netherlands Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis for the MSFD Framework for the Netherlands Stijn Reinhard Arianne de Blaeij Marc-Jeroen Bogaardt Aris Gaaff Mardik Leopold Michaela Scholl Diana Slijkerman Wouter Jan Strietman Paul van der Wielen LEI report 2011-036 February 2012 Project code 2276000145 LEI, part of Wageningen UR, The Hague 2 Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis for the MSFD; Framework for the Netherlands Reinhard, S., A. de Blaeij, M.-J. Bogaardt, A. Gaaff, M. Leopold, M. Scholl, D. Slijkerman, W.-J. Strietman and P. van der Wielen LEI report 2011-036 ISBN/EAN: 978-90-8615-565-1 Price € 26,75 (including 6% VAT) 143 p., fig., tab., app. 3 This research has been carried out by commission of the Directorate-General for Public Works and Water, Management Centre for Water Management. Photo cover: Wouter Jan Strietman Orders +31 70 3358330 Contents Preface 7 Summary 8 S.1 Main conclusion 8 S.2 Other conclusions 8 S.3 Methodology 10 Samenvatting 11 S.1 Belangrijkste uitkomsten 11 S.2 Overige uitkomsten 11 S.3 Methode 13 1 Introduction 15 1.1 Background 15 1.2 Objective 16 1.3 Methodology 17 1.4 Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment 19 1.5 Structure of the report 20 2 Research method 21 2.1 Step 1: Quantitative gap analysis 21 2.2 Step 2: Identify pressures and impacts 23 2.3 Step 3: Identification of additional measures 23 2.4 Step 4: Describing the effects of additional measures 24 2.5 Step 5: Quantitative assessment of effect on MSFD objectives 25 2.6 Step 6: Determination of the costs of additional measures 26 2.7 Step 7: Assess least costs to reach MSFD objectives 27 2.8 Cost-Benefit Analysis 28 3 Cost-effectiveness analysis 31 3.1 Descriptors GES 1 en GES 4: 'Biodiversity and Food web' 33 5 3.2 GES descriptor 2: 'Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do not adversely alter the ecosystems' 36 3.3 GES descriptor 3: 'Commercial fish and shellfish' 39 3.4 GES descriptor 4: 'Foodwebs' 39 3.5 GES descriptor 5: 'Human induced eutrophication' 40 3.6 GES descriptor 6: 'Seafloor integrity' 41 3.7 GES descriptor 7: 'hydrographical conditions' 44 3.8 GES descriptor 8: 'Contaminants' 44 3.9 GES descriptor 9: 'contaminants in seafood' 48 3.10 GES descriptor 10: 'Marine litter' 48 3.11 GES descriptor 11: 'Underwater noise' 92 3.12 Costs of the additional measures identified to fill the gap 93 4 Cost-benefit analysis 98 4.1 CBA of GES Descriptor 1: Biodiversity 98 4.2 CBA of GES Descriptor 2: Non-indigenous species 100 4.3 CBA of GES Descriptor 3: Commercial fish and shellfish 102 4.4 CBA of GES Descriptor 4: Food webs 102 4.5 CBA of GES Descriptor 5: Eutrophication 103 4.6 CBA of GES Descriptor 6: Sea Floor integrity 104 4.7 CBA of GES Descriptor 7: Hydrographical conditions 104 4.8 CBA of GES Descriptor 8: Contaminants 105 4.9 CBA of GES Descriptor 9: Contaminants in seafood 105 4.10 CBA of GES Descriptor 10: Litter 105 4.11 CBA of GES Descriptor 11: Underwater noise 113 4.12 CBA conclusions 114 5 Conclusions and recommendations 116 5.1 Conclusions 116 5.2 Recommendations 123 Literature and websites 125 Appendices 1 Long lists of additional measures 136 2 Consulted experts 139 6 Preface The EU has established the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). MSFD requires Member States to develop marine strategies with the aim of achieving Good Environmental Status (GES) in European marine waters. One part of this strategy is a cost-effective set of measures to attain GES. Directorate-General for Public Works and Water, Management Centre for Water Management on behalf of the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment has asked LEI and Imares to elaborate a cost-effective set of measures based on a draft version of the Dutch Marine Strategy and a preliminary cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of MSFD to see what is needed to do the formal CBA. For the assessment of various potential measures the opinion of experts, civil servants and scientists is used during workshop settings and interviews. Based on this information measures were reformulated or regarded as not ad- ditional. During this project the Dutch Marine Strategy has been fine-tuned. A draft version of this report has been presented to the Kernteam KRM. We would like to thank everyone for their effort, comments and advice. We also thank Rob van der Veeren (Directorate-General for Public Works and Water, Management Centre for Water Management), especially as commissioner for efficient interac- tion with the developing Dutch Marine Strategy. Prof. Dr R.B.M. Huirne Managing Director LEI 7 Summary S.1 Main conclusion The methodology elaborated is suitable for the MSFD cost-effectiveness analysis. Within the set of measures considered in this report, the larg- est benefits of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) are re- lated to marine litter. The biggest financial benefits are related to a reduction of larger litter items. The target set to attain Good Environmental Status (GES) for biota, however, will be reached if the quantity of small plastic items in sea is reduced as these are most frequently ingested. Measures to reduce lost nets and pieces of nets are potentially cost effective. Increasing the awareness of one's own contribution to the marine litter problem will be an important trigger to reduce marine litter, both from tourists at the beach and from mariners and fishermen at sea. Inter- national harmonisation of port reception facilities will reduce the amount of litter entering the sea from ships. S.2 Other conclusions The benefits of a reduction of litter in sea and on the beach are related to spe- cific litter items. Tourists are less interested in nylon wires on the beach, but are deterred by larger items. Also the impact of litter on biota differs with the char- acteristics of litter items. Hence, litter cannot be treated as one homogenous GES-descriptor (see Section 4.10). This CEA (Cost-Effectiveness Analysis) and CBA (Cost-Benefit Analysis) re- vealed useful information to decision‐makers. The CEA indicated the ranking of possible measures according to their estimated cost and their effect on the pressure. This information facilitates the selection of measures to be elaborated in the next phases of MSFD (see Section 3.12). The CBA indicated the expected direction and scale of changes to human welfare of MSFD targets. This infor- mation helps to target the MSFD to a more balanced benefit cost ratio (see Section 4.12). The Dutch government has related the targets of MSFD as much as possible 8 to other EU directives and policies (for example Water Framework Directive, Common Fisheries Policy, IMO). Hence, the MSFD does not add much to the au- tonomous development of the marine environment of the North Sea except for litter. Therefore, the Dutch Government considers that the gaps between the Business as Usual scenario and the MSFD targets are small for most GES de- scriptors. Many EU policies still have to be implemented on the national level, which creates a complex process of which the results are difficult to predict. Particularly, more insight into the Common Fisheries Policy and its impact on the marine environment is necessary to better determine the gap between au- tonomous development and MSFD (see Chapter 3). Figure S.1 Sources of litter entering the sea (Percentages are very Sea bottom rough estimates) Fisheries 50% 30% Shipping Transport 40% Households 10% Sea Sea surface Fisheries 40% Fisheries 34% Transport 40% Households 20% Non tourist Tourist Beach beach By air 1% 25% Tourists 15% 9 River Beach 74% 15% 84% 20% 1%