On the environmental effectiveness of the EU marine strategy framework directive
Christine Bertram, Katrin Rehdanz
Abstract
Open-access reader
Christine Bertram, Katrin Rehdanz
Abstract
Open-access reader
Marine and coastal ecosystems – and thus the benefits they create for humans – are subject to increasing pressures and competing usages. For this reason, the European Union (EU) adopted the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), which is to guide future maritime policy in the EU and aims at achieving or maintaining a good environmental status (GES) of European seas by 2020. To this end, the MSFD requires the development of improvement measures, which have to be assessed inter alia by examining their cost-effectiveness and by carrying out cost-benefit analysis (CBA) before their implementation. This paper investigates the applicability of environmental CBA in the marine context. It identifies and discusses problems that could hamper the environmental effectiveness of the MSFD. For example, the fact that marine ecosystem services are much less tangible than terrestrial ones implies greater challenges for the quantification of benefits for society in a marine context. One finding is that the limitations of environmental valuation methods regarding their ability to capture the whole total economic value of improvement measures are a potential source of problems, as the MSFD allows countries to disregard measures with disproportionately high costs. The trans-boundary nature of the main European seas adds to the complexity of the valuation task, e.g., due to the danger that benefits that occur outside of national territories are neglected. Moreover, the current state of knowledge on the functioning of complex marine ecosystems and the links to socio-economic impacts and human well-being seem insufficient to meet the MSFD requirements.
OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Marine and coastal ecosystems – and thus the benefits they create for humans – are subject to increasing pressures and competing usages. For this reason, the European Union (EU) adopted the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), which is to guide future maritime policy in the EU and aims at achieving or maintaining a good environmental status (GES) of European seas by 2020. To this end, the MSFD requires the development of improvement measures, which have to be assessed inter alia by examining their cost-effectiveness and by carrying out cost-benefit analysis (CBA) before their implementation. This paper investigates the applicability of environmental CBA in the marine context. It identifies and discusses problems that could hamper the environmental effectiveness of the MSFD. For example, the fact that marine ecosystem services are much less tangible than terrestrial ones implies greater challenges for the quantification of benefits for society in a marine context. One finding is that the limitations of environmental valuation methods regarding their ability to capture the whole total economic value of improvement measures are a potential source of problems, as the MSFD allows countries to disregard measures with disproportionately high costs. The trans-boundary nature of the main European seas adds to the complexity of the valuation task, e.g., due to the danger that benefits that occur outside of national territories are neglected. Moreover, the current state of knowledge on the functioning of complex marine ecosystems and the links to socio-economic impacts and human well-being seem insufficient to meet the MSFD requirements.
Key concepts: Marine Strategy Framework Directive, European union, Environmental resource management, Marine ecosystem, Context (archaeology), Valuation (finance), Water Framework Directive, Directive