Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management

Havs- och vattenmyndigheten har tagit fram ett verktyg för analys av blå (vattenrelaterade) ekosystemtjänster. Verktyget kallar vi för VEsta. Vatten är en förutsättning för liv och många ekosystemtjänster är kopplade till vatten.

Många befintliga bedömningar av ekosystemtjänster fokuserar på de gröna ekosystemtjänsterna. Fokus för VEsta är de blå ekosystemtjänster även om de gröna tjänsterna också kan analyseras på liknande sätt i verktyget. Med blå ekosystemtjänster avses de tjänster som vi får från sjöar, vattendrag och hav.

Hur kan VEsta användas?

Spara ner dokumentet (se Excel-filen till höger) innan du gör din analys. Verktyget fungerar med Excel till Windows 365 och Excel 2019 eller senare.

Du kan använda VEsta i en mängd olika situationer för att få en övergripande indikativ bild av ekosystemtjänstpåverkan vid en förändring.

VEsta kan exempelvis användas när:

• en brygga ska anläggas,
• hus och andra byggnader ska byggas, i synnerhet nära vatten,
• mindre detaljplaner tas fram för områden nära vatten,
• verksamheter ska etableras i närheten till vatten,
• markanvändningen förändras på olika sätt.

Du kan använda VEsta i en mängd olika situationer för att få en övergripande indikativ bild av ekosystemtjänstpåverkan.

Hur fungerar verktyget?

Genom att besvara ett fyrtiotal frågor om miljöeffekterna som en förändring förväntas ge, genereras en bedömning på hur ekosystemtjänsterna påverkas.

En bedömning av varje ekosystemtjänst presenteras utifrån svaren på frågorna men även en övergripande bild ges i ett spindelnätsdiagram (utifrån nuläget). Det innebär att ju bättre frågorna besvaras angående effekterna, ju bättre kvalitet fås på ekosystemtjänstbedömningen i VEsta.

I tidig planeringsfas är användbarheten av verktyget begränsad eftersom man då sällan har en tydlig bild av effekterna. Användbarheten ökar allteftersom bilden framträder mer och mer. VEsta kan med fördel användas flera gånger under processen, även som utvärdering efter förändringen.

Ekosystem har dock mycket komplicerade relationer och interna samband. Kompletterande studier är många gånger nödvändigt för att förstå påverkan ekosystemtjänster på djupet.

Systemkrav för VEsta

VEsta kräver någon av följande versioner av Excel

• Excel till Windows 365
• Excel 2019 eller senare 

Boverkets verktyg för bedömning av ekosystemtjänster

Ester (se länk högre upp) är ett annat verktyg för ekosystemtjänstbedömning som Boverket tagit fram, se filen till höger. Detta verktyg är inriktat mot gröna ekosystemtjänster och kräver inte samma detaljeringsgrad, vilket är en fördel i många lägen. Verktyget lämpar därför sig bättre i situationer då detaljeringsgraden är svår att uppnå, till exempel vid tidig planeringsfas eller vid komplicerade detaljplaner. Samt då vatten inte berörs av exploateringen.

The main task in this report has been to evaluate a number of projects designed to reduce the impact on eutrophication from farmlands by reducing the discharge of nutrients. The projects are de “5 stora” (The five great”), with funding from the havsmiljöanslaget, and in addition, three minor projects financed through LOVAfunding.      

To facilitate comparable and robust project evaluations, an analysis-tool has been developed in parallel with the compilation of project data. The tool is used for evaluating the contribution from a project to environmental, economic and social sustainability. The overall assessment consists of a weighted sustainability index accompanied by a number of descriptive criteria.     

The evaluation of the ”5 stora” reveals among many things the following: 

• The most successful projects among de “5 stora” are Greppa Fosforn and Tullstorpsån. The evaluation shows that the indexes for the three sustainability dimensions are correlated (generally high) for most successful projects. This illustrates e.g. that the possibility to achieve the project objectives regarding measures (ecological sustainability) is enhanced when accompanied by a high level of acceptability and cooperation from local actors and land owners (social sustainability).  
• Some project evaluations show high social indexes while the ecological and economic indexes are relatively. This might imply that the project has resulted in an increased level of acceptability, participation and knowledge which in turn is expected to foster continued engagement. One such example is Slätbaken where great effort has been invested into the development of cooperation and institutional arrangements.  
• The outcome of the project evaluations can to a large extent be explained by the descriptive criteria focusing on how the projects have been executed and individual preconditions e.g. was the project initiated locally, regionally, nationally, or by an individual actor or a governmental agency.           
• In order to draw statistically significant conclusion regarding project success factors and risk, a greater number of projects need to be evaluated. The analysis would provide a data set to facilitate statistical analysis yielding information on the connection between different features and successful projects.       

A comparison between the evaluations of de ”5 stora” and the three LOVA-projects reveals the following:   

• The sizes of the LOVA-budgets are in general only between 5 and 10% of the budgets in the larger projects. The LOVA-projects are thus much smaller but achieves approximately the same sustainability indexes as the bigger projects. 
• In addition, the LOVA-projects were initiated locally, in two cases by a municipality.  
• The smaller LOVA-projects might have an advantage by being adapted to, and designed for local needs facilitating local acceptability.   
• Another important success factor among the LOVA-projects also mentioned above is the clear projects delimitation and in addition, that authorities and project owners have a clear agreement on the project focus.  
• The smaller project does on the other hand lack the possibility to benefit from synergies offered by larger organizations, e.g. existing infrastructure, adjoining research projects etc.   

Three recommendations is made based on the outcome of the project:   

• The requirements regarding reporting of projects need to be more extensive. The compilation of data for evaluating de “5 stora” and the three LOVA-projects has revealed the need for improvements regarding the reporting of the projects. To facilitate the future project evaluation and prioritization of future projects at SwAM (Swedish Agency for marine and water management), the reporting from ongoing projects need to be much more comprehensive when it comes to describing achievements as well as economic and social circumstances. The reporting must at least be good enough to allow for evaluation of ecological, economic and social sustainability.  
• Stricter requirements on applications regarding presentation of project implementation and organization. An important feature, at least in larger projects where the measures relies on voluntariness, is the creation of acceptability and participation. A thorough presentation already in the application on how the project plans to achieve vertical as well as lateral cooperation should therefore be a precondition for co-financing from Havs- och vattenmiljöanslaget (previously havsmiljöanslaget) and LOVA. The application should also clearly show what methods that are planned for stimulating participation, cooperation and dissemination of the project outcome.   
• Evaluate a greater number of projects with the analysis tool In order to draw conclusions regarding success factors and risks on a more general level, a greater number of projects need to be evaluated with the analysis tool. A more comprehensive data set could be used for statistical analysis describing e.g. the dependence of individual criteria for project outcome in different circumstances. It could also be used to illustrate the relationship between uncertainty in reported project data and achieved sustainability indexes in varying projects. This would in turn yield information on what improvements of the reporting of projects that is most important in order to facilitate future project evaluations.

Denna vägledning för projektutvärdering är tänkt att användas tillsammans med huvudrapporten Utvärdering projektverksamhet – De fem stora, Havs- och vattenmyndighetens rapport 2016:5 och en Excel-mall för projektutvärdering. Utvärdering projektverksamhet - utvärderingsmall, Enveco rapport 2015:9. Varje delmoment i vägledningen innehåller hänvisningar till huvudrapporten där användaren kan finna mer och utförligare information om kriterier, poängskalor för bedömningar samt beräkningar av hållbarhetsindex. I huvudrapporten beskrivs även den teoretiska bakgrunden till metoden. I anslutning till de praktiska stegen för projektutvärdering som presenteras i guiden görs hänvisningar utvärderingsmallen i bilagan.

The initial assessment (IA) of the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) includes an economic and social analysis (ESA). This analysis is about two areas: (1) the use of marine waters and (2) the cost of degradation of the marine environment. Marine litter is one descriptor relevant for assessing good environmental status (GES) within the MSFD. Based on the ecosystem approach this report provides information on marine litter in Sweden involving status of marine litter (amounts, composition, sources etc.), how marine litter affects the provision of ecosystem services and costs and benefits connected to marine litter. This report is based on a literature review and a survey carried out in October 2011 to Swedish organizations causing marine litter or affected by marine litter. From the literature review and the survey it was evident that there is a general lack of data on the status of marine litter in Sweden as well as a lack of socioeconomic data describing effects of marine litter. The literature review and the survey also show that marine litter is an urgent environmental problem that causes negative effects on the provision of ecosystem services and causes costs to affected organizations and to society as a whole. The lack of data on marine litter might be explained by the fact that there is no uniform way in which marine litter is monitored and measured in Sweden. The data found of amounts of marine litter in Sweden only covered the coast of the North Sea and no data were found for the coast of the Baltic Sea. Data on composition of litter showed that the litter commonly consists of plastic, packages, oil cans and fishing equipment etc. The most important sources of marine litter are both based on land and at sea and involve the fishing industry, shipping sector, tourism sector and other recreational activities.Several ecosystem services are judged to be affected by marine litter including supporting, regulating, provisioning and cultural ecosystem services. There are however several policy instruments in place for handling marine litter. The main sources of marine litter are also covered by the current legislation. Marine litter and effects of marine littering has however been apparent in the literature review and the survey in this report. This indicates that the current policy instruments might be inefficient or need to be complemented. The development of marine litter is uncertain and is likely to depend of the drivers of marine litter. Potential drivers of marine litter are closely related to the sources of marine litter and probably involve changes in consumption levels (affecting the use of packages), coastal and marine recreation and tourism, commercial fishing and shipping.   Data on cost of degradation due to marine litter are scarce and the data collected only covered the coast of the North Sea. Cost data indicate that cleaning the beaches from marine litter in the province of Bohuslän in the northern part of the Swedish west coast costs about 5-10 MSEK yearly based on data from the survey and over 10 MSEK based on data from the literature review. Data on benefits of reduced marine litter are even more scarce. The benefits of reduced marine litter involve increased aesthetic values, increased possibilities for coastal and marine recreational and tourism.

This report provides input regarding the marine recreation and tourism components of the ecosystem service approach to the Economic and Social Analysis of the Initial Assessment of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive. The main content of the report is the following. See also Figure 0.1 for an illustration that also provides an interpretation of the report in terms of the Drivers-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework.  Chapter 1 presents the general methodology followed in the report. It also gives an introduction to Swedes’ recreation in or at the sea.  Chapter 2 presents a number of definitions related to marine recreation and tourism. Six sectors of marine tourism are identified:  A. Cruise-ship traffic in marine waters B. International passenger ferry traffic in marine waters C. National passenger ferry traffic in marine waters D. Other commercial passenger transportation in marine waters E. Leisure boating in marine waters F. Holiday housing associated with marine recreation G. Commercial accommodation (e.g. hotels, camping sites, etc.) associated with marine recreation H. Same-day visits associated with marine recreation  For sectors A-E, the connection to marine waters is unambiguous since the activities in these sectors take place in marine waters. Sectors F-H have a less direct connection but are still relevant to include because a substantial proportion of these sectors is likely to depend on the enjoyment of marine recreation. However, including sectors F-H requires a reasonable and objective delimitation of these sectors. It was chosen to use  two alternative geographical definitions for these sectors; one (called MAX) that is likely to result in an overestimate of the sectors in relation to their association with marine recreation and one (called MIN) that is likely to result in an underestimate. The MAX definition is to include those parts of sectors F-H which are located in Swedish coastal municipalities or on islands in marine waters. The MIN definition is to include those parts of sectors F-H which are located in subdrainage basins that drain directly into coastal or transitional water bodies (typology from the Water Framework Directive, 2000/60/EG) (delavrinningsområden som avvattnas direkt till kustvattenförekomster eller övergångsvatten) or on islands in marine waters. Based on the classification of marine ecosystem services in Garpe (2008) and SEPA (2009) and a survey of people’s use of marine waters (SEPA, 2010a, 2010b), Chapter 2 identifies the following seven subcategories of the ecosystem service C1 Enjoyment of recreational activities:  C1.1  Swimming C1.2  Diving C1.3  Windsurfing, water skiing C1.4  Boating C1.5  Fishing C1.6 Being at the beach or seashore for walking, picnicking, sunbathing, visiting touristic or cultural sites, etc. C1.7  Using water-based transportation  Chapter 3 describes the extent of use of Swedish marine waters by the sectors of marine tourism. The findings are summarized in Tables 0.1 and 0.2, where the former is based on the MIN definition for sectors E-H and the latter is based on the MAX definition for these sectors. When interpreting the figures, note that turnover and employment are defined differently for the different sectors: For sector A, they are about passengers’ expenditures ashore and the jobs these expenditures create; for sectors B-D, turnover and employment are for the companies found in these sectors – for employment this implies an underestimation because a substantial part of the employment is accounted for in the country where ships are registered; and for sectors E-H, turnover and employment are about tourists’ spending when boating, having holiday housing, making use of commercial accommodation and making same-day visits and the jobs associated with this turnover. The tables illustrate the considerable extent of coastal and marine tourism in Sweden. For example, the estimated turnover of this part of the Swedish tourism industry is between SEK 58 578 million (MIN) and SEK 75 153 million. The turnover of the Swedish tourist industry as a whole in 2010 was SEK 255 000 million (Tillväxtverket, 2011), which means that coastal and marine tourism accounted for between 23 % (MIN) and 29 % (MAX) of the total turnover.