Advertisement

Public Policies Towards Marine Protection: Benchmarking Estonia to Finland and Sweden

  • Tea NõmmannEmail author
  • Sirje Pädam
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter compares the approaches for cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of the new measures in the EU Marine Strategy Framework of Estonia, Finland and Sweden. Proposed measures are expressed as intended objectives rather than in terms of their implementation. Uncertainty regarding the choice of policy instruments for implementation adds to the challenges of appraising the environmental impacts and to the estimation of costs and benefits. In order to improve practices, it is important to build knowledge about policy instruments to protect marine environments. Further, this chapter examines the argument that in order to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) across the Baltic Sea, it is important to consider cross-country coordination of measures, as one country alone cannot achieve GES in its national marine area.

Keywords

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) EU marine strategy framework 

Notes

Acknowledgements

An early version of this chapter was presented at the International Workshop on Environmental Challenges in the Baltic Region, 11 May 2016 at Södertörn University. We thank our discussant Katarina Elofsson for providing helpful comments.

References

  1. Ahtiainen, H., Artell, J., Czajkowski, M., Hasler, B., Hasselström, L., Huhtala, A., et al. (2014). Benefits of meeting nutrient reduction targets for the Baltic Sea—A contingent valuation study in the nine coastal states. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 3(3), 278–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boardman, A. E., Greenberg, D. H., Vining, A. R., & Weimer, D. L. (2011). Cost-benefit analysis: Concepts and practice (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Börger, T., Broszeit, S., Ahtiainen, H., Atkins, J. P., Burdon, D., Luisetti, T., et al. (2016). Assessing costs and benefits of measures to achieve Good Environmental Status in European regional seas: Challenges, opportunities and lessons learnt. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3(192), 1–35.Google Scholar
  4. Convery, F., McDonnell, S., & Ferreira, S. (2007). The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic bags levy. Environment and Resource Economics, 38(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins, J., Thomas, G., Willis, R., & Wilsdon, J. (2003). Carrots, sticks and sermons: Influencing public behaviour for environmental goals. A Demos/Green Alliance report produced for Defra. Version 4.0, 16/12/03. http://www.demos.co.uk/files/CarrotsSticksSermons.pdf. Accessed 18 October 2016.
  6. European Commission. (2008). Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:164:0019:0040:EN:PDF. Accessed 18 October 2016.
  7. European Commission. (2015). Background document summarizing experiences with respect to economic analysis to support Member States with the development of their programme of measures for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. European Commission DG Environment. https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/f3079771-5ab2-4d49-8a23-add8d829c75f/CIS%20Best%20practices%20document-cost%20benefit%20analysis.pdf. Accessed 3 November 2016.
  8. Elofsson, K. (2010). The costs of meeting the environmental objectives for the Baltic Sea: A review of the literature. Ambio, 39(1), 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanley, N., & Barbier, E. B. (2009). Pricing nature: Cost-benefit analysis and environmental policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  10. Hanley, N., & Spash, C. L. (2003). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  11. Havs-och vattenmyndigheten. (2015a). God havsmiljö 2020: Marin strategi för Nordsjön och Östersjön. Del 4: Åtgärdsprogram för havsmiljön. Remissversion Dnr 3563-14. Göteborg.Google Scholar
  12. Havs-och vattenmyndigheten. (2015b). Samhällsekonomiska konsekvenser av att nå god havsmiljö. Kommersiellt fiske samt marin turism och rekreation, Rapport 2015:5, Göteborg.Google Scholar
  13. Havs-och vattenmyndigheten. (2015c). God havsmiljö 2020: Marin strategi för Nordsjön och Östersjön. Del 4: Åtgärdsprogram för havsmiljön. Havs-och vattenmyndighetens rapport 2015:30. Göteborg.Google Scholar
  14. HELCOM. (2016). National programmes of measures. Coordination and information related to the implementation of the ecosystem approach and related policies. Document 3-2 Rev 1 of GEAR 13-2016.Google Scholar
  15. Homonoff, T. (2013). Can small incentives have large effects? The impact of taxes versus bonuses on disposable bag use. Working Paper 572, Princeton University, Industrial Relations section, March 2013.Google Scholar
  16. Oinonen, S., Hyytiäinen, K., Ahlvik, L., Laamanen, M., Lehtoranta, V., Salojärvi, J., et al. (2016). Cost-effective marine protection—A pragmatic approach. PLoS ONE, 11(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Oinonen, S., Hyytiäinen, K., Ahlvik, L., Salojärvi, J., Ahtiainen, H., Lehtoranta, V., Virtanen, J., Väisänen, S., & Valve, H. (2015). Merenhoitosuunnitelman toimenpideohjelman valmistelun tueksi laaditut taloustieteelliset analyysit. Merenhoitosuunnitelman toimenpideohjelman taustaraportti. Finnish Ministry of Environment, December 2015.Google Scholar
  18. SA Stockholmi Keskkonnainstituudi Tallinna Keskus, Tartu Ülikooli Eesti Mereinstituut ja Tallinna Tehnikaülikooli Meresüsteemide Instituut. (2016). Eesti merestrateegia meetmekava rakendamise sotsiaalmajanduslik hinnang. Eesti Keskkonnauuringute Keskus, hankeleping nr 2-1/14, Tallinn, 14 June 2016.Google Scholar
  19. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Styrmedel för att nå miljökvalitetsmålen. Naturvårdsverkets rapport 6415, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  20. Söderholm, P., Christernsson, A., & Stage, J. (2015). Samhällsekonomiska analyser i havsmiljö- och vattenförvaltningen: kartläggning, kategorisering och utvecklingsområden. Havsmiljöinstitutets rapport, 4.Google Scholar
  21. Tuhkanen, H., Piirsalu, E., Nõmmann, T., Karlõševa, A., Nõmmann, S., Czajkowski, M., et al. (2016). Valuing the benefits of improved marine environmental quality under multiple stressors. Science of the Total Environment, 551–552, 367–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vretborn, M. (2015). Underlagsrapport till God Havsmiljö 2020, åtgärdsprogram för havsmiljön: konsekvensanalys, PM Havs-och vattenmyndigheten. Göteborg.Google Scholar
  23. Working Group on Economic and Social Assessment. (2010). Economic and social analysis for the initial assessment for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: A guidance document. In European Commission DG Environment. https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/d/…1ede…/2.3b-%20ESA%20Guidance.doc. Accessed 3 November 2016.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Finance and Economics, Tallinn School of Economics and Business administrationTallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia
  2. 2.Chair of Environmental Economics, Tallinn School of Economics and Business administrationTallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations