Comparing economic and biological management objectives in the commercial Baltic salmon fisheries
In: Marine policy, Band 100, S. 207-214
ISSN: 0308-597X
7 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Marine policy, Band 100, S. 207-214
ISSN: 0308-597X
In: Marine policy, Band 99, S. 181-189
ISSN: 0308-597X
Authors Oinonen, Börger, Luisetti and Heiskanen would also like to acknowledge DEVOTES (DEVelopment Of innovative Tools for under-standing marine biodiversity and assessing good Environmental Status) project funded by the European Union under the 7th Framework Program, 'The Ocean for Tomorrow' Theme (grant agreement no. 308392, ww.devotes-project.eu). ; The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) sets out a plan of action relating to marine environmental policy and in particular to achieving 'good environmental status' (GES) in European marine waters by 2020. Article 8.1 (c) of the Directive calls for 'an economic and social analysis of the use of those waters and of the cost of degradation of the marine environment'. The MSFD is 'informed' by the Ecosystem Approach to management, with GES interpreted in terms of ecosystem functioning and services provision. Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach is expected to be by adaptive management policy and practice. The initial socio-economic assessment was made by maritime EU Member States between 2011 and 2012, with future updates to be made on a regular basis. For the majority of Member States, this assessment has led to an exercise combining an analysis of maritime activities both at national and coastal zone scales, and an analysis of the non-market value of marine waters. In this paper we examine the approaches taken in more detail, outline the main challenges facing the Member States in assessing the economic value of achieving GES as outlined in the Directive and make recommendations for the theoretically sound and practically useful completion of the required follow-up economic assessments specified in the MSFD. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed
BASE
The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) sets out a plan of action relating to marine environmental policy and in particular to achieving 'good environmental status' (GES) in European marine waters by 2020. Article 8.1 (c) of the Directive calls for 'an economic and social analysis of the use of those waters and of the cost of degradation of the marine environment'. The MSFD is 'informed' by the Ecosystem Approach to management, with GES interpreted in terms of ecosystem functioning and services provision. Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach is expected to be by adaptive management policy and practice. The initial socio-economic assessment was made by maritime EU Member States between 2011 and 2012, with future updates to be made on a regular basis. For the majority of Member States, this assessment has led to an exercise combining an analysis of maritime activities both at national and coastal zone scales, and an analysis of the non-market value of marine waters. In this paper we examine the approaches taken in more detail, outline the main challenges facing the Member States in assessing the economic value of achieving GES as outlined in the Directive and make recommendations for the theoretically sound and practically useful completion of the required follow-up economic assessments specified in the MSFD.
BASE
The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) sets out a plan of action relating to marine environmental policy and in particular to achieving 'good environmental status' (GES) in European marine waters by 2020. Article 8.1 (c) of the Directive calls for 'an economic and social analysis of the use of those waters and of the cost of degradation of the marine environment'. The MSFD is 'informed' by the Ecosystem Approach to management, with GES interpreted in terms of ecosystem functioning and services provision. Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach is expected to be by adaptive management policy and practice. The initial socio-economic assessment was made by maritime EU Member States between 2011 and 2012, with future updates to be made on a regular basis. For the majority of Member States, this assessment has led to an exercise combining an analysis of maritime activities both at national and coastal zone scales, and an analysis of the non-market value of marine waters. In this paper we examine the approaches taken in more detail, outline the main challenges facing the Member States in assessing the economic value of achieving GES as outlined in the Directive and make recommendations for the theoretically sound and practically useful completion of the required follow-up economic assessments specified in the MSFD.
BASE
This manuscript is a result of DEVOTES (DEVelopment Of innovative Tools for understanding marine biodiversity and assessing good Environmental Status) project, funded by the European Union under the 7th Framework Programme, 'The Ocean of Tomorrow' Theme (grant agreement no. 308392), www.devotes-project.eu. María C. Uyarra is partially funded through the Spanish programme for Talent and Employability in R + D + I "Torres Quevedo". Melanie Austen and Stefanie Broszeit are partially funded by the Marine Ecosystems Research Programme, Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (grant number NE/L003279/1). ; The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) requires Member States to assess the costs and benefits of Programmes of Measures (PoMs) put in place to ensure that European marine waters achieve Good Environmental Status by 2020. An interdisciplinary approach is needed to carry out such an assessment whereby economic analysis is used to evaluate the outputs from ecological analysis that determines the expected effects of such management measures. This paper applies and tests an existing six-step approach to assess costs and benefits of management measures with potential to support the overall goal of the MSFD and discusses a range of ecological and economic analytical tools applicable to this task. Environmental cost-benefit analyses are considered for selected PoMs in three European case studies: Baltic Sea (Finland), East Coast Marine Plan area (UK) and the Bay of Biscay (Spain). These contrasting case studies are used to investigate the application of environmental cost-benefit analysis including the challenges, opportunities and lessons learnt from using this approach. This paper demonstrates that there are opportunities in applying the six-step environmental cost-benefit analysis framework presented to assess the impact of PoMs. However, given demonstrated limitations of knowledge and data availability, application of other economic techniques should also be considered (although not applied here) to complement the more formal environmental cost-benefit analysis approach. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed
BASE
We compared and contrasted 11 European case studies to identify challenges and opportunities toward the operationalization of marine and coastal ecosystem service (MCES) assessments in Europe. This work is the output of a panel convened by the Marine Working Group of the Ecosystem Services Partnership in September 2016. The MCES assessments were used to (1) address multiple policy objectives simultaneously, (2) interpret EU-wide policies to smaller scales and (3) inform local decision-making. Most of the studies did inform decision makers, but only in a few cases, the outputs were applied or informed decision-making. Significant limitations among the 11 assessments were the absence of shared understanding of the ES concept, data and knowledge gaps, difficulties in accounting for marine social-ecological systems complexity and partial stakeholder involvement. The findings of the expert panel call for continuous involvement of MCES 'end users', integrated knowledge on marine social-ecological systems, defining thresholds to MCES use and raising awareness to the general public. Such improvements at the intersection of science, policy and practice are essential starting points toward building a stronger science foundation supporting management of European marine ecosystems. © 2017 The Author(s).
BASE