The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) requires EU member states (MS) to develop and implement marine strategies containing programs of measures to protect and preserve the marine environment. Prior to their implementation, impact assessments, including Cost-Benefit-Analyses (CBA), need to be carried out. While the costs of introducing such measures are often relatively easy to determine, the economic valuation of the benefits derived from environmental improvements is much more challenging, particularly in the marine context. Still, it remains an important prerequisite for conducting CBA. The aim of this paper is to evaluate to what extent benefits can be quantified for use in CBA focusing on the German marine waters. The results indicate that there are still considerable gaps in the scientific knowledge about many of the pressures mentioned in the MSFD. Moreover, few economic studies exist that evaluate the benefits of marine protection measures, and many of them are not applicable in the German context. In addition, there is the risk that some benefits accruing from marine protection measures are systematically omitted in CBA. This raises the question to what extent comprehensive CBAs as required by the MSFD are possible in Germany, but also in other EU MS.
The European marine and coastal waters, including the wider North and Baltic Seas, belong to the most intensively used marine regions of the world. Humans use these waters in a number of ways and with increasing intensity, e.g. for fishing or shipping and also for recreational purposes. At the same time, these uses—and other anthropogenic influences—exert pressure on the marine environment, e.g. via increased nutrient input, litter deposition or contamination with toxic substances (for a recent overview of the literature see [1]).
In June 2008, the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)1 was published. The directive obliges EU Member States (MS) to achieve or maintain a “Good Environmental Status” (GES) in their marine environments by 2020 at the latest. This directive establishes a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy, expanding the EU Water Policy to encompass all European waters. At the same time, the MSFD represents the environmental pillar of the integrated EU maritime policy (“Blue book”), which seeks to provide a more coherent approach to maritime issues with increased coordination between different policy areas.
For the purpose of achieving or maintaining a GES, marine strategies containing programs of measures shall be developed and implemented in order to protect and preserve the marine environment, prevent its deterioration or, where practicable, restore marine ecosystems in areas where they have been adversely affected. Prior to implementing such measures, however, the MSFD requires the MS to conduct Impact Assessments, including Cost-Benefit Analyses (CBA). While the costs of introducing such measures are often relatively easy to determine, the economic valuation of the benefits derived from environmental improvements is much more challenging, particularly in the marine context. Still, it remains an important prerequisite for conducting CBA. Theoretical concepts for conducting economic benefit evaluations exist in abundance. The lack of quantifiable data, however, results in the necessity of combining quantitative and qualitative information (e.g. through multi-criteria analyses) or carrying out benefit transfers.
In this context, the German Federal Environment Agency (UBA) initiated the project “Methodologies regarding Economic and Social Analyses and Impact Assessments of Measures including Cost-Benefit Analyses in the context of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive”. 2 The aim of this project was to compile and evaluate existing information about the economic benefits associated with marine protection measures and to develop a methodology to quantify these benefits for use in CBA in a practical and understandable way. The results indicate that there are still considerable gaps in the scientific knowledge about many of the pressures mentioned in the MSFD. Moreover, few economic studies exist that evaluate the benefits of marine protection measures, and many of them are not applicable in the German context. In addition, there is the risk that some benefits accruing from marine protection measures are systematically omitted in CBA. This raises the question to what extent comprehensive CBAs as required by the MSFD are possible in Germany, but also in other EU MS.
This paper highlights the background and main components of the MSFD with regard to the economic analyses required and sketches the main results of the above mentioned project, including experiences derived from two practical case studies. The paper further points out limitations arising from the lack of reliable data and provides recommendations for closing knowledge gaps related to the valuation of benefits of marine protection measures for CBA in the context of the MSFD.
The project demonstrated that significant gaps exist regarding basic information on measures to improve the marine environment, including effectiveness and impact pathways, linkages between ecological and socio-economic systems, but also in the form of a lack of existing CBA. This is true for almost all pressures listed in Annex III, Table 2 MSFD and applies to all EU countries, increasing the likelihood that benefits of protection measures are systematically underestimated or omitted in CBA.
The situation regarding data and information gaps could be improved through selected research projects customized for this purpose. To this end, it would be desirable to launch more interdisciplinary research projects and include scientists with experience in economic valuation exercises into predominantly natural science research projects. This would enhance the chances that the results generated in such projects are in the end actually usable for economic evaluations of benefits and CBA. Furthermore, international cooperation of EU countries regarding research advances and development of measures would be essential taking into account the cross-boundary nature of environmental pressures.
