The maintenance costs of marine natural capital: A case study from the initial assessment of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in France
|Author(s)||Levrel Harold1, Jacob Celine1, Bailly Denis2, Charles Mahe4, Guyader Olivier1, Aoubid Scheherazade5, Bas Adeline2, Cujus Alexia5, Fresard Marjolaine3, Girard Sophie1, Hay Julien3, Laurans Yann6, Paillet Jerome4, Perez Jose1, Mongruel Remi1|
|Affiliation(s)||1 : IFREMER, Ctr Brest, UMR AMURE, Marine Econ Unit,ZI Pointe Diable, F-29280 Plouzane, France.
2 : Univ Brest, UMR AMURE, IFREMER, Ctr Brest, F-29280 Plouzane, France.
3 : Univ Brest, UMR AMURE, F-29334 Quimper, France.
4 : Marine Protected Area Agcy, F-29229 Brest 2, France.
5 : ECOWHAT, F-75018 Paris, France.
6 : Inst Dev Durable & Relat Int, F-75006 Paris, France.
|Source||Marine Policy (0308-597X) (Elsevier Sci Ltd), 2014-11 , Vol. 49 , P. 37-47|
|WOS© Times Cited||8|
|Keyword(s)||Maintenance cost, Marine ecosystems, Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Economic analysis|
|Abstract||There are two ways of assessing the costs of environmental degradation: as the costs associated with the loss of benefits resulting from the degradation of natural capital, and as the maintenance costs required to compensate for the actual or potential degradation of natural capital. The first of these methods is based on the Total Economic Value (TEV) of benefits forgone because of the depletion of ecosystem services delivered by marine biodiversity. The second method is based on the costs required to maintain a good state of marine biodiversity, one which makes it possible to deliver ecosystem services.This paper gives an illustration of this second approach. It details how these maintenance costs have been calculated in the initial assessment of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in France. It addresses nine problem areas – corresponding to nine sources of environmental degradation – from non-native invasive species to oil spills. It gives a total figure for these degradation costs (around 2 billion Euros). The results are compared with those of other Member States who have taken similar approaches in the context of the MSFD. One key conclusion is that it is not really possible to make meaningful comparisons at this stage, since the methods of data collection and the nature of the costs are very different. The need to develop such assessments in a standardised way is noted.|