ESAWaterAccounts

AnalysisCostDegradation

AnalysisAll

ESAEcosystemServices

DegradationEcoServices

DegradationEcoServices

ESAEcosystemServices

ESAEcosystemServices

DegradationEcoServices

DegradationThematic

DegradationThematic

DegradationThematic

-

-

-

2004-2009

-

-

2009-2010

-

-

-

2008-2010

2005-2011

For all sea uses analysed quantitatively considered economic activities according to NACE are specified. For some activities (port operations and tourism-related activities) the share of socioeconomic values that can be attributed to the sea use is calculated based on judgements derived from available information incl. earlier studies (more detailed information is provided when describing each activity in the "8Ca-ESA_Uses" sheet). Due to lack of information the respective share was not estimated for agriculture and communal sewage sectors.

The ‘Ecosystem Services Approach’ is used overall for the ‘cost of degradation’ (CoD) analysis. CoD in relation to significantly affected ecosystems goods and services (EGS) are analysed (where the necessary information was available for developing the assessments). These EGS (determined based on expert assessment as part of the ‘ESA of marine waters’ use’) include: the ‘provisioning’ EGS “Food (fish) for consumption” (P1.1), “Environment for tourism and recreation, enjoyment of scenery” (C1, C2) and the ‘supporting’ EGS “Maintenance of marine biodiversity and habitats” (S4, S5). The costs are treated as ‘foregone benefits’ due to reduced provision of the EGS (due to marine environment degradation). Degradation is treated as reduced provision of EGS comparing the ‘baseline-as-usual’ (BAU) scenario state and the GES. Since the data for applying only (and fully) the ‘Ecosystem Services Approach’ were limited, as well as with an aim to characterise diversity of types of the CoD, the results above were complemented with assessments of CoD developed by applying other approaches also. The CoD due to eutrophication, marine litter and coastal erosion were estimated according to the ‘Thematic Approach’.

The ‘Ecosystem Services Approach’ is used overall for the ‘ESA of water use’. However the national approach can overall be characterized as “combined approach”, since the analysis includes also detailed economic and social analysis of the marine uses (according to the ‘Marine Accounts Approach’). The national approach includes the following steps: (1) description of marine ecosystem goods and services (EGS) for the national marine waters, (2) description of users and beneficiaries of these EGS, (3) characterisation of socioeconomic benefits/values of using the EGS and (4) characterisation of pressures from the sea uses and their impact on the EGS. (1) Description of the marine EGS is developed according to the classification by Garpe et.al (2008) that is based on the “Millennium Ecosystem Assessment” classification. Specification of the EGS was made corresponding to the national waters based on experts’ knowledge and information on national marine waters. For each EGS brief characterization, the main users/beneficiaries and type of value according to the TEV framework is characterised. (2) The users of EGS are described by using specific indicators (e.g. indicators on fishing fleet and volume of catches in relation to fishery, number of passengers’ and volume of cargos in the Latvian ports). The analysis includes both existing and potential sea uses (i.e. wind power industry, oil and mineral extraction). For existing sea uses a detailed description and quantitative characterization (by the specified “water use” indicators) is prepared. Potential sea uses are described mainly qualitatively. (3) Characterisation of socioeconomic values of using the marine EGS includes assessing benefits of (using) the EGS and socioeconomic analysis of the sea uses. Economic, social, cultural and ecological values derived from the EGS are characterised. Benefits from relevant EGS are characterised and assessed where any data for such assessments are available. Those EGS are analysed that are the most significant socioeconomically and where at least any data are available for characterising the benefits. These EGS include: the ‘provisioning’ EGS “Food (fish) for consumption” (P1.1), “Environment for tourism and recreation, enjoyment of scenery” (C1, C2) and the supporting’ EGS “Maintenance of marine biodiversity and habitats” (S4, S5). Specific indicators are used for the socioeconomic analysis of the uses. Statistical data on economic activity level (the added value, a number of companies, turnover and profit) are used for characterising the economic value. Some sector-specific indicators related to production volumes and values are also used. Employment is used to characterise the social value. Also the employment-created income to inhabitants and tax revenues to the state and municipal budgets are estimated. The cultural value is described qualitatively, the ecological value is characterized as part of the description of EGS (the step 1). For all marine uses their socioeconomic significance is also analysed – in terms of their contributions to the total national added value and employment, for some uses also in terms of their contribution to the national export and/or their relevance for regional economies. (4) To assess impact of the sea uses and pressures they create on the EGS, experts’ knowledge was used (marine scientists/experts were asked to assess impact of each relevant pressure on each EGS, and also highlight pressures and EGS where the current information is not sufficient for assessing the impact). The assessment aimed to identify significant pressures and significantly affected EGS (to be analysed further for the BAU scenario and the ‘cost of degradation’).

Benefits from using the EGS “Food (fish) for consumption” (P1.1.) are assessed by using national statistical data on catches and fish market prices. The result is a (monetary) estimate indicating rough range of socioeconomic benefits to society from using this EGS.

The analysis for the EGS P1.1 included: 1) analysis of link between the marine ecosystem’s ecological characteristics and provision of the EGS, incl. selecting indicators for characterising these ecological characteristics and the state of the EGS (characterised by fish resources available for the national fisheries), 2) characterisation of expected provision level of the EGS in the BAU scenario and the GES scenario, 3) assessing difference of the provision in both scenarios, 4) estimating the difference in terms of foregone catch value.

The analysis for the EGS C1 and C2 included: 1) characterisation of benefits from using the EGS (the results from "ESA of water use"), 2) collecting evidences on reduced provision level of the EGS, 3) providing illustrations on possible magnitude of CoD (based on economic valuation studies from other Baltic Sea countries and calculations).

Benefits from using the EGS “Environment for tourism and recreation, enjoyment of scenery” (C1, C2) are estimated based on a survey and national statistical data on Latvian residents’ and foreign tourists’ leisure trips to the sea/coastal areas. A simplified "Travel Costs" approach is used. Data on leisure days spent at the sea, travel expenses and wages are used to calculate the recreationl value attached to the given recreational services of the national marine waters.

Benefits from using the EGS “Marine biodiversity and habitats maintenance” (S4, S5) are characterised qualitatively by describing the role of biodiversity and habitats in provision of other EGS, including the ‘final’ EGS where quantitative illustrations of benefits to society and economy are provided.

The analysis for the EGS S4 and S5 included: 1) characterisation of benefits from using the EGS (the results from "ESA of water use"), 2) collecting evidences on reduced provision level of the EGS, 3) providing illustration on possible magnitude of CoD (based on economic valuation studies from other Baltic Sea countries).

The CoD due to eutrophication were analysed by inventorising available information from valuation studies in other Baltic Sea countries and earlier assessments where the ‘benefit transfer’ method had been used for estimating CoD for Latvia (since ‘original’ valuation studies had not been conducted for Latvia on this theme). These results were compared with results from an ongoing valuation study as part of research project PROBAPS (BalticSUN) covering all the Baltic Sea countries (incl. Latvia). Although the scenarios valued by this study don’t correspond fully to the MSFD needs, it provides indicative estimate on CoD for Latvia due to eutrophication.

Specific costs to society due to marine litter were estimated by assessing costs of measures taken to avert/mitigate negative consequences of the marine environment degradation. Data obtained from a specially organised survey of coastal municipalities were used to develop the estimates. Coastal municipalities were asked to provide data regarding length (km) and annual costs for cleaning beaches from algae and litter.

Specific costs to society due to coastal erosion were estimated by assessing costs of measures taken to avert/mitigate negative consequences of the marine environment degradation. Data obtained from a specially organised survey of coastal municipalities were used to develop the estimates. Coastal municipalities were asked to provide data on taken measures and their costs to reduce/prevent coastal erosion.

More information: Section 1.1.4.1 in IA's Part B. List of used information sources: - data from the Central Statistical Bureau (CSB) of Latvia, - data from the National Board of Fisheries of the Ministry of Agriculture, - data from the Department of fisheries of the Ministry of Agriculture.

More information: Section 1.3.2.2 in IA's Part B. List of used information sources: - Assessments from "ESA of water use" on benefits. - SEPA (2010) BalticSurvey – a study in the Baltic Sea countries of public attitudes and use of the sea. Report on basic findings. Report 6348. Sweden: Naturvårdsverket (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency). - Eggert H., Olsson B. (2003) Heterogeneous Preferences for Marine Amenities: a Choice Experiment Applied to Water Quality. Working Paper, Department of Economics, Göteborg University, Sweden. - Kosenius AK. (2004) Estimating the benefit from algal bloom reduction – an application of Contingent valuation method. Master's thesis, Department of economics and management, University of Helsinki. - Söderqvista T., Scharina H. (2000) The regional willingness to pay for a reduced eutrophication in the Stockholm archipelago. Beijer Discussion paper No. 128.

More information: Section 1.1.4.3 in IA's Part B. List of used information sources: - expert opinion, - data from other assessments for the IA.

More information: Section 1.3.2.3 in IA's Part B. List of used information sources: - Beaumont et al. (2006) Marine biodiversity: An economic valuation. Building the evidence base for the Marine Bill. DEFRA. UK. - Eggert H., Olsson B. (2003) Heterogeneous Preferences for Marine Amenities: a Choice Experiment Applied to Water Quality. Working Paper, Department of Economics, Göteborg University, Sweden. - SEPA (2008) Economic Information Regarding Fisheries. Report 5879 of the project “Economic Marine Information”. Sweden: Naturvårdsverket (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency). - Kataria M., Lampi E. (2008) Betalningsvilja för miljökvalitetsmålen, en värderingsstudie. Raport 5822, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. - Scottish Agricultural College (2008) Determining monetary values for use and non-use goods and services – Marine Biodiversity – primary valuation. DEFRA. UK.

More information: Section 1.3.2.5 in IA's Part B. List of used information sources: - HELCOM, NEFCO (2007) Economic analysis of the BSAP with focus on eutrophication. Final report. - HELCOM (2010) Ecosystem Health of the Baltic Sea 2003-2007: HELCOM Initial Holistic Assessment. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No.122. - Eggert H., Olsson B. (2003) Heterogeneous Preferences for Marine Amenities: a Choice Experiment Applied to Water Quality. Working Paper, Department of Economics, Göteborg University, Sweden. - Kosenius AK. (2004) Estimating the benefit from algal bloom reduction – an application of Contingent valuation method. Master's thesis, Department of economics and management, University of Helsinki. - Markowska A., Zylicz T. (1999) Costing an international public good: the case of the Baltic Sea. Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), p. 301-316. - SEPA (2008) The economic value of ecosystem services provided by the Baltic Sea and Skagerrak – Existing information and gaps of knowledge. Report 5874 of the project “Economic Marine Information”. Sweden: Naturvårdsverket (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency). - Huhtala A. et al. (2009) The economics of the state of the Baltic Sea: Pre-study assessing the feasibility of a cost-benefit analysis of protecting the Baltic Sea ecosystem. Finland: MTT Economic Reserach, SYKE, FIMR, FEM. - Söderqvista T., Scharina H. (2000) The regional willingness to pay for a reduced eutrophication in the Stockholm archipelago. Beijer Discussion paper No. 128. - Kosenius AK. (2008) Heterogeneous Preferences for Water Quality Attributes: the case of Eutrophication of the Gulf of Finland, Baltic Sea. Discussion paper No 24. Department of Economics and Management, University of Helsinki. - Economic valuation study BalticSUN under PROBAPS („Protection of the Baltic Sea: Benefits, Costs and Policy Instruments”).

More information: Section 1.3.2.4 in IA's Part B. List of used information sources: - specially organised survey of coastal municipalities (2011).

More information: Section 1.3.2.4 in IA's Part B. List of used information sources: - specially organised survey of coastal municipalities (2011).

Fisheries

FishProcessingIndustry

Ports

Shipping

TourismRecreation

AgricultForestry

Urban

ResearchSurvey

RenewableEnergy

OilGas

CablesPipelines

MiningSandGravel

Statistical data on the national commercial marine fishery are used. National marine fisheries in high seas are also included (the statistical data don't alow separating the respective amounts from the total amounts). Four different types of fisheries are described: (i) coastal fishing for self-consumption (only qualitative description), (ii) coastal commercial fisheries, (iii) commercial fisheries behind coastal zone, (iv) commercial fisheries in the high seas. [For more information see the Section 1.1.5.1.1 in IA's Part B]

Statistical data on the national fish processing industry are used. Part of the procution is based on imported raw materials (around 20% according to available information). However the economic statistical data don't alow separating the respective amounts from the total amounts. [For more information see the Section 1.1.5.1.3 in IA's Part B]

Statistical data on the ports operation related activities are used. In relation to the socioeconomic data, two sectors (codes 52.10 and 52.24 according to NACE Rev.2) include cargos storage and handling activities/services in relation to all kinds of transportation (air, land, water). The share of these sectors in relation to the port operations is estimated. It was calculated based on data on the share of enterprises of these sectors located in coastal municipalities and cities, except the capital city where 35% of the enterprises are considered. The respective share (31% of enterprises of the sector 52.10 and 47% of enterprises of the sector 52.24) was taken for estimating the socioeconomic values of the given sectors that are attributed to the ports operation (the "sea use”). The confidence level is estimated as “moderate” since the socioeconomic values are calculated based on extensive (statistical) data but with some extrapolations. [For more information see the Section 1.1.5.1.4 in IA's Part B]

National statistical data are used considering the sea transport and related economic activities (see the collumn H). [For more information see the Section 1.1.5.1.4 in IA's Part B]

The economic activities related to tourism & recreation are included (see the collumn H). Primary and secondary sectors are included, except the transport due to difficulties to estimate its share that could be attributed to the tourism & recreation and to avoid double-counting (since the marine shipping is analysed separately). National statistical data are used for characterising their socioeconomic values, thus their "sea-related share" had to be estimated. It is done based on data on number of employees of each of the given sectors in the coastal municipalities and cities (except the capital city (Riga)). 11.7 % of the total employees of the given sectors are employed in the coastal municipalities and cities. The respective share is used to calculate the economic and social values attributable to the marine tourism & recreation (the sea use). The confidence level is estimated as “moderate” since the socioeconomic values are calculated based on extensive (statistical) data but with some extrapolations. [For more information see the Section 1.1.5.1.5 in IA's Part B]

National statistical data are used for characterising the production volumes and socioeconomic values of the agriculture. The forestry is not included. Due to information and time constraints share of the values that could be attributed to the "sea use" is not estimated. The confidence level is estimated as "high" since the socioeconomic values are based on extensive (statistical) data and do not included calculations/extrapolations of the share that should be attributed to the "sea use". [For more information see the Section 1.1.5.1.10 in IA's Part B]

National statistical data are used for characterising the socioeconomic values of the urban water sypply and sewage service sectors. Aggregated values for both sectors are provided, although the data for each sector separately are used behind the aggregates (thus they can be separated). Due to information and time constraints share of the values that could be attributed to the "sea use" is not estimated. The confidence level is estimated as "high" since the socioeconomic values are based on extensive (statistical) data and do not included calculations/extrapolations of the share that should be attributed to the "sea use". [For more information see the Section 1.1.5.1.11 in IA's Part B]

Research and education in relation to/based on the marine ecosystem are characterised qualitatively on the national scale. Information on the most relevant research themes and programs is collected and summarised, as well the most relevant education programs. An example on 'value of information' for the national policy decision making is provided to show the (monetary) benefits from improved information and knowledge achieved by the national research activities. [For more information see the Section 1.1.5.1.6 in IA's Part B]

A potential sea use - off-shore wind energy production - is analysed as relevant for the national marine waters (the Baltic Proper). Available information about this activity (incl. national regulations in relation to its management and the current status of development plans) is summarised. Detailed analyses is conducted as part of the 'business-as-usual' scenario development (expected development till 2020). The results include quantitative estimates on expected total capacity and produced energy by off-shore wind farms, potential areas and their size. [For more information see the Section 1.1.5.1.7 in IA's Part B]

Two potential activities are analysed as (potentially) relevant for the national waters: oil extraction (in the Baltic Propoer) and extraction of iron-manganese nodules (in the Gulf of Riga). Available information about these activities (incl. national regulations in relation to management of them) is reviewed. There are no conrete plans for the time being (e.g. approved licences for extracting these resources), also because of undertainty in the economic efficiency of extracting these resources. [For more information see the Section 1.1.5.1.8 in IA's Part B]

The pipeline operations is analysed as a potential sea use. The planned pipelines in the Baltic Sea (incl. the "Nord Stream") might not affect the national waters and economy directly. [For more information see the Section 1.1.5.1.9 in IA's Part B]

Two potential activities are analysed as (potentially) relevant for the national waters: oil extraction (in the Baltic Propoer) and extraction of iron-manganese nodules (in the Gulf of Riga). Available information about these activities (incl. national regulations in relation to management of them) is reviewed. There are no conrete plans for the time being (e.g. approved licences for extracting these resources), also because of undertainty in the economic efficiency of extracting these resources. [For more information see the Section 1.1.5.1.8 in IA's Part B]

Unknown_NotAssessed

Unknown_NotAssessed

Unknown_NotAssessed

Unknown_NotAssessed

Unknown_NotAssessed

Unknown_NotAssessed

Unknown_NotAssessed

Unknown_NotAssessed

Unknown_NotAssessed

Unknown_NotAssessed

Unknown_NotAssessed

Unknown_NotAssessed

NotRelevant

NotRelevant

NotRelevant

NotRelevant

NotRelevant

NotRelevant

NotRelevant

NotRelevant

NotRelevant

NotRelevant

NotRelevant

NotRelevant

NACE Rev.2: 03.11

NACE Rev.2: 10.20

NACE Rev.2: 52.1; 52.22; 52.24

NACE Rev.2: 30.1;33.15 ;50.10 ; 50.20

NACE Rev.2: 55; 56; 79; 90; 91; 93

NACE Rev.2: 01. NACE Rev.1.1: 01.

NACE Rev.2: 36; 37.

Not determined

Not determined

Not determined

Not relevant

Not determined

NotReported

NotReported

NotReported

NotReported

NotReported

NotReported

NotReported

NotReported

NotReported

NotReported

NotReported

2005-2009

2005-2009

2005-2009

2005-2009

2005-2009

2005-2009

2005-2009

-

-

-

-

-

NotReported

NotReported

NotReported

NotReported

NotReported

NotReported

NotReported

NotReported

NotReported

NotReported

NotReported

NotReported

2010-2020

-

2010-2020

2010-2020

-

2010-2020

2009-2020

-

-2020

-

-

-

Recent trends: are analysed for specific sea "use factors" (e.g. catch for various species, fleet capacity indicators etc.). A single overall assessment on a trend is not made. Future trends: The used approach includes assessment of changes in drivers and factors determining size of pressures from the marine use (since the aim is to assess changes in the pressures not to analyse development of a sector per se). The "factors" for which future estimates are developed are quantitative indicators specific for each sector. For Fisheries the "factors" are: volume of catches (t), number of fishing vessels and total gross tonnage (GT) of national fishing fleet. Changes in the “factors” are assessed based on analysing driving forces (socioeconomic, sectoral policy and environmental drivers), past trends, available forecasts etc. Estimates on changes in the "factors" are used for assessing changes in pressures. [For more information see Chapter 1.2.2.1 in IA's Part B and Chapter 2.2 in its Annex 3]

Recent trends: are analysed for various socioeconomic indicators separately. A single overall assessment on a trend is not made. Future trends: Fish processing industry is not analysed as part of the BAU development. It is because the BAU is considered for significant pressures on national marine waters only, and only sectors that create these pressures are analysed as part of the BAU development. The significant pressures are pollution with nutrients, oil products (mainly the risk of oil spills) and hazardous substances, physical pressures from using the shore and seabed and pressures from fishery (only over-exploitation of fish resources). An "Activities-Pressures Matrix" was built for the national waters to identify significant marine uses - economic sectors that should be included in the BAU development (the list of such sectors includes: agriculture, communal sewage services, marine shipping and harbours, fishery and wind power generation).

The BAU is developed for port operations and shipping together. Recent trends: are analysed for specific sea "use factors". A single overall assessment on a trend is not made. Future trends: The used approach includes assessment of changes in drivers and factors determining size of pressures from the marine use (since the aim is to assess changes in the pressures not to analyse development of a sector per se). The "factors" for which future estimates are developed are quantitative indicators specific for each sector. For shipping and harbours (the most "factors" are analysed for each main port): turnover of passengers and cargos, intensity of shipping traffic (No of vessels served in the national ports), expected development of ports' infrastructure, expected frequency and size of oil spills (for the Baltic Proper). Changes in the “factors” are assessed based on analysing driving forces (socioeconomic, sectoral policy and environmental drivers), past trends, available forecasts etc. Estimates on changes in the "factors" are used for assessing changes in pressures. [For more information see the Section 1.2.2.5 in IA's Part B and Section 2.6 in its Annex 3]

The BAU is developed for port operations and shipping together. Recent trends: are analysed for specific sea "use factors". A single overall assessment on a trend is not made. Future trends: The used approach includes assessment of changes in drivers and factors determining size of pressures from the marine use (since the aim is to assess changes in the pressures not to analyse development of a sector per se). The "factors" for which future estimates are developed are quantitative indicators specific for each sector. For shipping and harbours (the most "factors" are analysed for each main port): turnover of passengers and cargos, intensity of shipping traffic (No of vessels served in the national ports), expected development of ports' infrastructure, expected frequency and size of oil spills (for the Baltic Proper). Changes in the “factors” are assessed based on analysing driving forces (socioeconomic, sectoral policy and environmental drivers), past trends, available forecasts etc. Estimates on changes in the "factors" are used for assessing changes in pressures. [For more information see the Section 1.2.2.5 in IA's Part B and Section 2.6 in its Annex 3]

Recent trends: are analysed for various socioeconomic indicators separately. A single overall assessment on a trend is not made. Future trends: Tourism & Recreation is not analysed as part of the BAU development. It is because the BAU is considered for significant pressures on national marine waters only, and only sectors that create these pressures are analysed as part of the BAU development. The significant pressures are pollution with nutrients, oil products (mainly the risk of oil spills) and hazardous substances, physical pressures from using the shore and seabed and pressures from fishery (only over-exploitation of fish resources). An "Activities-Pressures Matrix" was built for the national waters to identify significant marine uses – economic sectors that should be included in the BAU development (the list of such sectors includes: agriculture, communal sewage services, marine shipping and harbours, fishery and wind power generation).

Recent trends: are analysed for specific sea "use factors" and socioecnomic indicators. A single overall assessment on a trend is not made. Future trends: The used approach includes assessment of changes in drivers and factors determining size of pressures from the marine use (since the aim is to assess changes in the pressures not to analyse development of a sector per se). The "factors" for which future estimates are developed are quantitative indicators specific for each sector. For agriculture: agricultural land (ha), unused agricultural land (ha), arable land/crop area, number of livestock, amount of fertilizers used. Changes in the “factors” are assessed based on analysing driving forces (socioeconomic, sectoral policy and environmental drivers), past trends, available forecasts etc. Estimates on changes in the "factors" are used for assessing changes in pressure (nutrients pollution). [For more information see Chapter 1.2.2.3 in IA's Part B and Chapter 2.4 in its Annex 3]

Recent trends: are analysed for specific sea "use factors". A single overall assessment on a trend is not made. Future trends: The used approach includes assessment of changes in drivers and factors determining size of pressures from the marine use (since the aim is to assess changes in the pressures not to analyse development of a sector per se). The "factors" for which future estimates are developed are quantitative indicators specific for each sector. For Municipal WW discharge: inhabitants served with centralized sewage system (% of total population) and wastewaters’ treatment level. Changes in the “factors” are assessed based on analysing driving forces (socioeconomic, sectoral policy and environmental drivers), past trends, available forecasts etc. Estimates on changes in the "factors" are used for assessing changes in pressure (nutrients pollution). [For more information see the Section 1.2.2.4 in IA's Part B and Section 2.5 in its Annex 3]

Recent trends: Are not analysed, the activity is described qualitatively. Future trends: The activity is not analysed as part of the BAU development. It is because the BAU is considered for significant pressures on national marine waters only, and only sectors that create these pressures are analysed as part of the BAU development. The significant pressures are pollution with nutrients, oil products (mainly the risk of oil spills) and hazardous substances, physical pressures from using the shore and seabed and pressures from fishery (only over-exploitation of fish resources). An "Activities-Pressures Matrix" was built for the national waters to identify significant marine uses – economic sectors that should be included in the BAU development (the list of such sectors includes: agriculture, communal sewage services, marine shipping and harbours, fishery and wind power generation).

Recent trends: are not analysed since the activity is not taking place for the time being. Future trends: The used approach includes assessment of changes in drivers and factors determining size of pressures from the marine use (since the aim is to assess changes in the pressures not to analyse development of a sector per se). The "factors" for which future estimates are developed are quantitative indicators specific for each sector. For off-shore wind farms: expected total electricity produced (GWh), total installed capacity (MW), potential size of territories for wind farms (km2), potential locations are also analysed. Changes in the “factors” are assessed based on analysing driving forces (socioeconomic, sectoral policy and environmental drivers), available forecasts, consulations with stakeholders etc. [For more information see the Section 1.2.2.2 in IA's Part B and Section 2.3 in its Annex 3]

Recent trends: are not analysed since the activity is not taking place for the time being. Future trends: Taking into account the current situation and time needed to start such activities (e.g. the necessary legislative and administrative arrangements) it is not expected that these activities could be started in the national waters till 2020.

Recent trends are not analysed since the activity (pipeline operation) is not taking place. It is not foreseen in the national waters also in the future. Thus the activity is not analysed in details as part of the BAU development.

Recent trends: are not analysed since the activity is not taking place for the time being. Future trends: Taking into account the current situation and time needed to start such activities (e.g. the necessary legislative and administrative arrangements) it is not expected that these activities could be started in the national waters till 2020.

Data on Value of sold fish and fish products are used. Production of both - the fisheries and the fish processing industry is accounted together in these data. Data for 2009 for the category of combined nomenclature (CN): 03 Fish and crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates and 16.04 Prepared or preserved fish; caviar and caviar substitutes prepared from fish eggs and 16.05 Crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates, prepared or preserved. [For more information see the p.38 in IA's Part's B Annex 2]

Data on Value of sold fish and fish products are used. Production of both - the fisheries and the fish processing industry is accounted together in these data. Data for 2009 for the category of combined nomenclature (CN): 03 Fish and crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates and 16.04 Prepared or preserved fish; caviar and caviar substitutes prepared from fish eggs and 16.05 Crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates, prepared or preserved. [For more information see the p.38 in IA's Part's B Annex 2]

Data on Value of agricultural production realized for processing are used. Data for 2010, includes data on cereals, farm animals (slaughter weight) and milk. [For more information see the p.81 in IA's Part's B Annex 2]

Not relevant (the use is not taking place today and is not planned in the national waters in the future)

118.7 (€ million)

118.7 (€ million)

367.5 (€ million)

Not estimated

Not estimated

High

High

High

NotRelevant

NotRelevant

The main gaps: - Not enough knowledge for assessing the impact on provision level of the EGS (if there is really degradation of these EGS). - Not enough information (incl. lack of economic valuation studies) for estimating the 'costs of degradation'. The results include discussion on proposed work to reduce the uncertainties/to fill in the relevant information gaps in the future. It recommends to assess EGS in 'BAU scenario' and 'GES scenario' and to conduct economic valuation studies to estimate differentce between these two scenarios in monetary terms. The proposed work is seen in light of improving the information base for developing the PoM (till 2015).

Data for 2009 according to NACE Rev.2 [For more information see Section 1.1.5.2.1 in IA's Part B and p.36 (Table 5.7) in its Annex 2]

Data for 2009 according to NACE Rev.2 [For more information see Section 1.1.5.2.1 in IA's Part B and p.37 (Table 5.9) in its Annex 2]

Data for 2009 according to NACE Rev.2 [For more information see Section 1.1.5.2.1 in IA's Part B and p.47 (Table 5.24) in its Annex 2]

Data for 2008 according to NACE Rev.2 [For more information see Section 1.1.5.2.1 in IA's Part B and p.47 (Table 5.24) in its Annex 2]

Data for 2009 according to NACE Rev.2 [For more information see Section 1.1.5.2.1 in IA's Part B and p.57 (Table 5.35) in its Annex 2]

Data for 2009 according to NACE Rev.2 [For more information see Section 1.1.5.2.1 in IA's Part B and p.82 (Table 5.53) in its Annex 2]

Data for 2009 according to NACE Rev.2 [For more information see Section 1.1.5.2.1 in IA's Part B and p.88 (Table 5.61) in its Annex 2]

Not relevant (the use is not taking place today and is not planned in the national waters in the future)

Value-added: 22.9 (€ million)

Value-added: 29.6 (€ million)

Value-added: 103.7 (€ million)

Value-added: 69.1 (€ million)

Value-added: 60.8 (€ million)

Value-added: 291.7 (€ million)

Value-added: 67.9 (€ million)

Not estimated

Not estimated

Not estimated

Not estimated

Not estimated

High

High

Moderate

High

Moderate

High

High

NotRelevant

NotRelevant

NotRelevant

NotRelevant

NotRelevant

Data for 2009 according to NACE Rev.2: (1) total number of employees, (2) number of employees in FTE. [For more information see the Section 5.1.3 in IA's Part's B Annex 2]

Data for 2009 according to NACE Rev.2: (1) total number of employees, (2) number of employees in FTE. [For more information see the Section 5.1.3 in IA's Part's B Annex 2]

Data for 2009 according to NACE Rev.2; data on the total number of employees are only available. [For more information see the Section 5.2.3 in IA's Part's B Annex 2]

Data for 2009 according to NACE Rev.2; data on the total number of employees are only available. [For more information see the Section 5.2.3 in IA's Part's B Annex 2]

Data for 2010 according to NACE Rev.2: (1) the total number of jobs, (2) number of employees in FTE. [For more information see the Section 5.3.3 in IA's Part's B Annex 2]

Data for 2010 according to NACE: (1) employed persons, (2) number of employees in FTE. [For more information see the Section 5.8.3 in IA's Part's B Annex 2]

Data for 2009 according to NACE Rev.2: (1) employed persons, (2) number of employees in FTE. [For more information see the Section 5.9.2 in IA's Part's B Annex 2]

Not relevant (the use is not taking place today and is not planned in the national waters in the future).

(1) 909; (2) 822

(1) 4728; (2) 3923

Number of employees: 3600

Number of employees: 3077

(1) 4776; (2) 3489

(1) 72100; (2) 7800

(1) 3239; (2) 3142

Not estimated

Not estimated

Not estimated

Not estimated

Not estimated

High

High

Moderate

High

Moderate

High

High

NotRelevant

NotRelevant

NotRelevant

NotRelevant

NotRelevant

Cost of degradation

A number of enterprises

A number of enterprises

A number of enterprises

A number of enterprises

Economic income from the activity

A number of enterprises

CostDegradationTheme

Potential sea use. Expected impacts on the national marine environment will be evaluated as part of the EIA of concrete projects. Socioeconomic estimates (e.g. expected value added, employment) were developed as part of a study where the results came after completing the analysis for the IA (thus they are not included in the IA report).

Not relevant

A number of enterprises: 109

A number of enterprises: 124

A number of enterprises: 184

A number of enterprises: 681

Income: 296 (€ million)

A number of enterprises: 104

NotRelevant

High

Moderate

High

Moderate

High

High

International trade balance

International trade balance

Profit

Profit

Other indicators

International trade balance

The employment-created income to inhabitants

Export value of both - the fisheries and the fish processing industry is accounted together. Data for 2010 for the category of combined nomenclature (CN): 03 Fish and crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates and 16.04 Prepared or preserved fish; caviar and caviar substitutes prepared from fish eggs and 16.05 Crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates, prepared or preserved.

Export value of both - the fish processing industry and the fisheries is accounted together. Data for 2010 for the category of combined nomenclature (CN): 03 Fish and crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates and 16.04 Prepared or preserved fish; caviar and caviar substitutes prepared from fish eggs and 16.05 Crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates, prepared or preserved.

Leisure trips and travel expenses in relation to the sea use; a number of accommodation, beds and persons served in coastal municipalities and cities (except Riga); data on 2010. [See the Section 5.3 in IA' s Part' s B Annex 2]

Data for 2010 for categories of the combined nomenclature (CN): 01 Live animals, 02 Meat and edible meat offal, 04 Dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included, 07 Edible vegetables and certain roots and tubers and 10 Cereals.

Value: 24.9 (€ million)

Value: 24.9 (€ million)

Profit: 34.3 (€ million)

Profit: 3.4 (€ million)

[See the Section 5.3 in IA' s Part' s B Annex 2]

Value: 98.5 (€ million)

Income: 17.1 (€ million)

High

High

Moderate

High

High

High

High

Number of enterprises

Profit

Share

Share

Profit

Poduction volume

The employment-created tax revenues to the state and municipal budgets

Share in the national (1) added value and (2) employment (%) (2009). Share of port operations and shipping is accounted together.

Share in the national (1) added value and (2) employment (%) (2009). Share of port operations and shipping is accounted together.

Data for 2010 on volume of agricultural products realized for processing. Includes data on cereals, farm animals (slaughter weight) and milk. [For more information see the p.81 in IA's Part's B Annex 2]

A number of enterprises: 127

Profit: -0.91 (€ million)

(1) 0.84 %, (2) 0.68 %

1) 0.84 %, (2) 0.68 %

Profit: -15.2 (€ million)

1772.5 (tonnes thousand)

Tax revenues: 13.1 (€ million)

High

High

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

High

High

Profit

Sales value

The employment-created income to inhabitants

The employment-created income to inhabitants

The employment-created income to inhabitants

Profit

Turnover

Data for 2009 for categories of the combined nomenclature (CN): 03 Fish and crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates and 16.04 Prepared or preserved fish; caviar and caviar substitutes prepared from fish eggs and 16.05 Crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates, prepared or preserved.

Profit: 8.3 (€ million)

Value: 118.7 (€ million)

Income: 25.8 (€ million)

Income: 23.6 (€ million)

Income: 17.4 (€ million)

Profit: 1.4 (€ million)

Turnover: 94.1 (€ million)

NotRelevant

High

Moderate

High

Moderate

High

High

Share

Share

The employment-created tax revenues to the state and municipal budgets

The employment-created tax revenues to the state and municipal budgets

The employment-created tax revenues to the state and municipal budgets

Share

Share in the national (1) added value and (2) employment (%) (2009)

Share in the national (1) added value and (2) employment (%) (2009)

Share in the national (1) added value and (2) employment (%) (2009). [For more information see Chapter 1.1.5.3 of Part B of IA (p 52-53.]

(1) 0.14 %, (2) 0.09 %

(1) 0.17 %, (2) 0.48 %

Tax revenues: 16.6 (€ million)

Tax revenues: 12.0 (€ million)

Tax revenues: 12.7 (€ million)

Not assessed

High

High

Moderate

High

Moderate

The employment-created income to inhabitants

The employment-created income to inhabitants

Turnover

Turnover

Turnover

The employment-created income to inhabitants

Income: 4.0 (€ million)

Income: 16.8 (€ million)

Turnover: 251.3 (€ million)

Turnover: 192.4 (€ million)

Turnover: 76.4 (€ million)

Income: 33.6 (€ million)

High

High

Moderate

High

Moderate

High

The employment-created tax revenues to the state and municipal budgets

The employment-created tax revenues to the state and municipal budgets

The employment-created tax revenues to the state and municipal budgets

Tax revenues: 2.6 (€ million)

Tax revenues: 10.4 (€ million)

Tax revenues: 23.6 (€ million)

High

High

High

The value of exports

The value of exports

The value of exports

Export value of both - the fisheries and the fish processing industry is accounted together. Data for 2010 for the category of combined nomenclature (CN): 03 Fish and crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates and 16.04 Prepared or preserved fish; caviar and caviar substitutes prepared from fish eggs and 16.05 Crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates, prepared or preserved.

Export value of both - the fish processing industry and the fisheries is accounted together. Data for 2010 for the category of combined nomenclature (CN): 03 Fish and crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates and 16.04 Prepared or preserved fish; caviar and caviar substitutes prepared from fish eggs and 16.05 Crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates, prepared or preserved.

Data for 2010 for categories of the combined nomenclature (CN): 01 Live animals, 02 Meat and edible meat offal, 04 Dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included, 07 Edible vegetables and certain roots and tubers and 10 Cereals.

Value: 126.5 (€ million)

Value: 126.5 (€ million)

Value: 436.7 (€ million)

High

High

High

Turnover

Turnover

Turnover

Turnover: 34.9 (€ million)

Turnover: 153.8 (€ million)

Turnover: 314.0 (€ million)

High

High

High

Value of catches

Data for 2009 for the most important marine fish species: sprat, herring, cod and others.

Total value: 16.4 (€ million)

High

The available statistical data don't allow separating the national marine fisheries in other seas/oceans (socioeconomic value of these activities shouldn't be attributed to the use of the Baltic Sea). The issue will be addressed as part of the GES-REG project (WP5 on the ESA), where developing recommendations are planned for coordinated definition of the marine water uses, their shares attributable to the sea use, as well as for improving the national statistical data systems to characterise their socioeconomic values.

The available statistical data don't allow separating the value of the sector based on imported raw materials (the socioeconomi value created on this production shouldn't be attributed to the use of the Baltic Sea). The issue will be addressed as part of the GES-REG project (WP5 on the ESA), where developing recommendations are planned for coordinated definition of the marine water uses, their shares attributable to the sea use, as well as for improving the national statistical data systems to characterise their socioeconomic values.

The available statistical data don't allow separating cargos storage and handling activities in relation to ports from the same activities in relation to other kinds of transportation, thus this share was estimated based on available information and assumptions. The issue will be addressed as part of the GES-REG project (WP5 on the ESA), where developing recommendations are planned for coordinated definition of the marine water uses, their shares attributable to the sea use, as well as for improving the national statistical data systems to characterise their socioeconomic values.

(1) It was not possible to estimate share of the tranport sector that could be attributed to the tourism (thus it was not included in the analysis). Similarly, there is no data/estimations available on share of some tourism-related ("secondary") sectors (NACE Rev.2 codes 56, 90, 91 and 93) that can be attributed to the tourism & recreation (thus their total value (in the coastal areas) is attributed to the tourism & recreation). (2) The available statistical data don't allow separating the share of socioeconomic values of the included sectors that could be attributed to the "sea use". Estimations are made based on analysis of available information and assumptions. The issues will be addressed as part of the GES-REG project (WP5 on the ESA), where developing recommendations are planned for coordinated definition of the marine water uses and their shares attributable to the sea use.

The available statistical data don't allow separating the volume of production and socioeconomic values of the agriculture that could be attributed to the "sea use". Estimations are not made due to information and time constraints. The issue will be addressed as part of the GES-REG project (WP5 on the ESA), where developing recommendations are planned for coordinated definition of the marine water uses and their shares attributable to the sea use.

The available statistical data don't allow separating share of the socioeconomic values of the activity (municipal sewage services) that could be attributed to the "sea use". Estimations are not made due to information and time constraints. The issue will be addressed as part of the GES-REG project (WP5 on the ESA), where developing recommendations are planned for coordinated definition of the marine water uses and their shares attributable to the sea use.

The activities are described mainly in qualitative terms due to data and time constraints.

Potential sea uses - possible impacts on the national marine environment and economy can be assessed when there is more concerte information about the future development of these activities.

Potential sea use (pipeline operations) out of national waters - limited information about possible (transboundary) impacts on the national marine environment and economy.

Potential sea uses - possible impacts on the national marine environment and economy can be assessed when there is more concerte information about the future development of these activities.

Not assessed

Not assessed

Not assessed

Not assessed

Not assessed

Not assessed

Not assessed

Not assessed

Not assessed

Not assessed

Not assessed

Not assessed

According to the developed "Activites-Pressures Matrix" for the national marine waters the most significant pressures from fisheries are fish resource depletion and abrasion caused by trawling and use of ships' anchors. According to the national assessment of impact of pressures on marine EGS, the most significantly affected by these pressures ecosystem service is P1.1 "Food for consumption".

According to the developed "Activites-Pressures Matrix" for the national marine waters the most significant pressures from port operations are pressures from using the sea coast and bottom (i.e. coastal constructions/structures, dredging and storage of dredged ground material). This causes changes in sediment processes and overwhelming habitats.

According to the developed "Activites-Pressures Matrix" for the national marine waters the most significant pressures from shipping are nutrients pollution (i.e. NOx emissions and waste water discharges) and oil pollution (risk of oil spills). According to the national assessment of impact of pressures on marine EGS, these pressures the most significantly affect the following ecosystem services: S4, S5 "Maintenance of biodiversity and habitats", S6 "Maintenance of resilience", R5 "Regulation of hazardous substances", P1 "Food for consumption" and P3 "Genetic resources".

According to the developed "Activites-Pressures Matrix" for the national marine waters the most significant pressure from agriculture is nutrients' pollution. According to the national assessment of impact of pressures on marine EGS, the most significantly affected by this pressure ecosystem services are S4 and S5 "Maintenance of biodiversity and habitats", S6 "Maintenance of resilience" and P3 "Genetic resources".

According to the developed "Activites-Pressures Matrix" for the national marine waters the most significant pressures from communal sewage services are nutrients' pollution and pollution with hazardous substances. According to the national assessment of impact of pressures on marine EGS, the most significantly affected ecosystem services from these pressures are S4, S5 "Maintenance of biodiversity and habitats", S6 "Maintenance of resilience", R4 "Biological regulation", R5 "Regulation of hazardous substances", P1 "Food for consumption" and P3 "Genetic resources".

Not taking place today, but potential activity in the future

There are no pipelines in the national waters today, the planned ones in the Baltic Sea might not affect the national waters directly.

Not taking place today, but potential activity in the future

ExtractSpeciesFishShellfish-0

NotReported-NotReported

PhysDam-0

IntroNonSynthSubst-0

Litter-0

InputN_Psubst-0

InputN_Psubst-0

NotReported-NotReported

PhysLoss-0

IntroNonSynthSubst-0

NotReported-NotReported

IntroNonSynthSubst-0

PhysDam_abrasion-0

NotReported-NotReported

PhysLoss-0

InputN_Psubst-0

NotReported-NotReported

NotReported-NotReported

IntroHazSubstOther-0

NotReported-NotReported

PhysDisturbance-0

PhysDam-0

NotReported-NotReported

PhysDam-0

NotReported-NotReported

NotReported-NotReported

NotReported-NotReported

NotReported-NotReported

NotReported-NotReported

NotReported-NotReported

PhysLoss-0

NotReported-NotReported

PhysDam-0

PhysDisturbance-0

NotReported-NotReported

PhysDisturbance-0

Food(fish)ForConsumption(P1.1.)

EnvironmentForTourismAndRecreation(C1, C2)

MaintenanceOfMarineBiodiversityAndHabitats(S4, S5)

EGS P1.1: Food for consumption (mainly fish, shellfish). Non-toxic fish, shellfish can be used for human consumption. Provision is the result of harvest (commercial or subsistence). Not only does the provision of food benefit for human nutrition, it also creates employment and economic benefits. Benefits from using this EGS to society are assessed by using national statistical data on catches and fish market prices. The result is a monetary estimate indicating rough range of benefits to society from this EGS in Latvia. [For more information see the Section 1.1.4.1 in IA' s Part B]

EGS C1: Providing environment (space and resources) for tourism and recreation refers to economic and social values of recreation activities carried out in the marine environment (nature observation, “amber tourism”, swimming, sunbathing, active water sports, angling and recreational fishing, diving). The service further includes the use of coastal and marine environments to promote and sustain national and international tourism. EGS C2: Providing environment for enjoyment of scenery refers to benefits to individual from aesthetic values of marine environment. It includes the appreciation of beauty and silence (enjoyment of silence and beauty in walks/hikes/excursions, pathways/resting-places/ summerhouses/ sanatoriums). Benefits from using this EGS are estimated based on a survey and national statistical data on Latvian residents’ and foreign tourists’ leisure trips to the sea/coastal areas. Data on leisure days spent at the sea, travel expenses and wages are used to calculate the value attached to the given recreational services of the sea. [For more information see the Section 1.1.4.2 in IA' s Part B]

EGS S4: Maintenance of biodiversity (ensures ecosystem balance and ability to handle changes; potential source for new medicaments and genes) and EGS S5: Maintenance of habitats (ensures environments for growth, feeding, refuge for animal and plant species) are 'supporting services' that form basis for other EGS. Thus their value can be assessed via EGS of other groups. Benefits from using this EGS are characterised qualitatively by describing the role of biodiversity and habitats in provision of other EGS, incl. the ‘final’ EGS where (quantitative) illustrations of benefits to society and economy are provided. [For more information see the Section 1.1.4.3 in IA' s Part B]

NotReported

NotReported

NotReported

The estimate illustrates magnitude of benefits from the EGS to society (due to used approach).

The estimate illustrates magnitude of benefits from the EGS to society (due to used approach).

Not relevant

Not relevant

Not relevant

D3-Secondary link with: D1, D4, D6

D10-

D1-

Fisheries-

D5-Secondary link with: D1, D3, D7, D9.

D6-Secondary link with: D4

As part of 'ESA of marine water use' pressures from the marine water uses and their impact on 'ecosystem goods and services' (EGS) were assessed, based on expert opinion. Experts assessed impact of each pressure on every EGS for Latvian marine waters. => The pressures specified in columns F -K, were concluded as affecting the EGS 'food for consumption' (P1.1) most significantly. [For more information see the Section 6 in IA's Part's B Annex 2]

As part of 'ESA of marine water use' pressures from the marine water uses and their impact on 'ecosystem goods and services' (EGS) were assessed, based on expert opinion. Experts assessed impact of each pressure on every EGS for Latvian marine waters. => The pressures specified in columns F -I, were concluded as affecting EGS 'environment for enjoyment of scenery' (C2) most significantly. [For more information see the Section 6 in IA's Part's B Annex 2]

IntroNonSynthSubst-1

InputN_Psubst-1

-

IntroHazSubstOther-2

IntroNonSynthSubst-2

-

ExtractSpeciesFishShellfish-3

NotReported-NotReported

-

Coastal erosion

Litter

Eutrophication

The CoD due to coastal erosion were estimated by assessing costs of actions/measures taken to avert/mitigate negative consequences of the marine environment degradation. Data obtained from a specially organised survey of coastal municipalities were used to develop the estimates. [For more information see Chapter 1.3.2.4 in IA' s Part B and chapter 2.4 of its Annex 4]

The CoD due to marine litter were estimated by assessing costs of actions/measures taken to avert negative consequences of the marine environment degradation. Data obtained from a specially organised survey of coastal municipalities were used to develop the estimates. [For more information see Chapter 1.3.2.4 in IA' s Part B and chapter 2.4 of its Annex 4]

Results include reviewing estimates of the CoD from valuation studies in other Baltic Sea countries and earlier assessments where the ‘benefit transfer’ method had been used for estimating the CoD for Latvia. They are compared with results from an ongoing valuation study as part of PROBAPS project (BalticSUN) covering all the Baltic Sea countries (incl. Latvia). Although the scenarios valued by this study don’t correspond fully to the MSFD needs, it provides indicative estimate on CoD for Latvia. [For more information see Chapter 1.3.2.5 in IA' s Part B and Chapter 2.4 in its Annex 4]

The results show that the average (annualised) yearly costs of measures taken for reducing coastal erosion is 35 000 – 40 000 LVL a year.

The results show that the yearly costs of cleaning beaches from marine litter (algae also included) is approximately 133 000 LVL (in 2010).

The results of PROBAPS BalticSUN study indicates CoD for Latvia due to eutrophication in range of 5 million LVL a year.

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Not relevant

Not relevant

Not relevant

PhysDam_abrasion-0

Litter-0

InputN_Psubst-0

NotReported-NotReported

NotReported-NotReported

NotReported-NotReported

NotReported-NotReported

NotReported-NotReported

NotReported-NotReported