1 WP7/8 Plenary Session Presentation MERMAID, 6 th meeting, September 17 th -19 th, Bologna, Italy WP8 Leader Prof. Dr. Phoebe Koundouri Director of ReSEES,

1

WP7/8 Plenary Session Presentation

MERMAID, 6th meeting, September 17th-19th, Bologna, Italy

WP8 LeaderProf. Dr. Phoebe KoundouriDirector of ReSEES, AUEB

http://www.aueb.gr/users/koundouri/resees

WP7 LeaderProf. Dr. Barbara Zanuttigh

University of Bolognahttp://www.unibo.it/en

http://www.aueb.gr/users/koundouri/resees/

http://www.unibo.it/en

MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece

Session Plan1. WP7 progress in the last 6 months

1.1 WP7 objectives

1.2 WP7 &WP8 methodology history

1.3 Deliverable 7.2

1.4 Next steps

1.5 Deliverable 7.3

1.6 MUP assessment tool (clarifications)

2. WP8 progress in the last 6 months

2.1 Data Collection Activities

2.2 MERMAID Resources repository

2.3 Social Cost Benefits Analysis

2.4 PublicationsMERMAID 2

1. WP7 PROGRESS IN THE LAST 6 MONTHS

MERMAID 3


1.1 WP7 Objectives

• To develop CS-specific innovative MUP plans and designs.• To integrate and tune the work within the other WPs through

direct application to real CS and problems.• To develop an integrated multidisciplinary approach for the

selection of sustainable MUP plan and design.

This procedure should be generic so that it can be used by stakeholders and end users for marine planning strategies


1.2 WP 7&8 Methodology – History

• D7.1 delivered as scheduled – July 2013• WP7 & WP8 Iterative Process for design selection in CS: - Presented in Delft, April 2013- Presented with example application in Santander, Sept. 2013- Extended, revised, preliminary implementation results, March 2014- Revisit & Confirm preliminary results, Par. Sessions: WP7 & WP8

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------• Implementation: Experts Groups and Stakeholders’ Focus Groups in

CS:

WP2-WP7-WP8• Input on environmental conditions and technical specifications:

WP3, WP4, WP5, WP6

MERMAID 5


1.3 Deliverable 7.2 Site specific impact of policies: Report on identification, impact and selection of planning and design options in study sites with implication for policies and regulations

• OD7.2 delivered was re-scheduled – December 2014• A first draft was produced and will be discussed during the parallel

sessions:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5r34tfbkg0gtx1n/OD%207.2%20.doc?dl=0

Goals and objectives of the deliverable

The main objective of this report is to assess site specific impacts of policies, reporting on the identification, impact and selection of planning and design options in study sites with implication for policies and regulations.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------MERMAID 6


Table of ContentsChapter 1: Introduction and scope of the deliverable

1.1 Goals and objectives of the deliverable

1.2 Definitions

1.3 Relationship to overall project objectives

1.4 Outline for the reader

Chapter 2: General Framework of Analysis

2.1 Short description of case studies areas.

2.2 Description of the MUOP selection tool

Chapter 3 MUOP Selection tool & EU legislation and policies on wind farms and aquaculture on coastal & offshore areas

Chapter 4 Mediterranean Site

Chapter 5 Atlantic Site

Chapter 6 North Sea Site

Chapter 7 Baltic Sea Site

Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendationsMERMAID 7


1.4 Needs: for each site we need to know the following

• How was the MUOP selection tool used for the selection of the final design (in case other non-standardised procedure was followed we need to include the details and justification for this in OD7.2).

• Details of the final design(s) for each site (recall that in Athens it was agreed that a single use platform (wind-farm) and a MUP would be available in each site).

MERMAID 8


1.4 Next steps

• Remaining questions about the MUOP assessment tool must be discussed and completely clarified during the parallel sessions in Bologna.

• The draft of OD7.2 will be circulated among all the relevant site partners and input and feedback is expected.

MERMAID 9


1.5 Deliverable 7.3 Site specific design conditions, month 48 - DTU

Goals and objectives of the deliverable

The main objective of this report is to present the conceptual design of the MUPs in the study sites, considering planning, operation and maintenance.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MERMAID 10


Background

• Site Conditions – OD7.1, already available, we should not repeat.

• Draft design concept – OD 7.1 and OD7.2, month 36• Stakeholder views and their influence on the draft design – WP

2• Policies – this is already addressed by OD7.2.

MERMAID 11


Table of ContentsChapter 1: Introduction and scope of the deliverable

1.1 Goals and objectives of the deliverable

1.2 Definitions

1.3 Relationship to overall project objectives

1.4 Overview of the sites

1.5 Relation with existing DLs/WPS 7, 2, 8

1.6 Outline for the reader

Chapter 2: Baltic Sea

Chapter 3: Atlantic Ocean

Chapter 4: North Sea and Wadden Sea

Chapter s: Mediterranean Sea

MERMAID 12


Table of ContentsSection 2.1 - Single Use and Multiple uses

In this section based on the OD7.1 and 7.2, the site teams should identify two key concepts, one single use and one multiple use to be designed at the site. If for some reasons it is not possible to consider a single use, clear motivations should be given (or maybe refer to a WP 8 or WP 2 Deliverable?).

Section 2.2 - Platform Layout

Size, position and placement of the uses considering their synergy and the optimisation of space (Marine Spatial Planning). A map of the area interested by the design should be prepared higlighting the combination of uses. Where possible, add details about the design (such as cross sections, layouts of the farms including distances among devices/cages and foundation types and footprints).

MERMAID 13


Table of ContentsSection 2.3 - Production and energy transfer

Production from marine renewable, from acquaculture, etc. Use of energy for the platform operation and local energy storage or transfer to shore.

Section 2.4 - Operation and maintenance

Plan of the activities required to keep the platform operating and for maintenance. Identification of transportation requirements and related impacts (conflict of uses, existing maritime routes, specific vessels, additional pollution).

Section 2. 5 - Technical Assessment and risks

Structural failure, Geotechnical failure, Moorings, Power failure, Pollution.

MERMAID 14


Table of ContentsSection 2.6 - Environmental Assessment and risks

The following issues should be taken into account: Use of marine space; Foundation type; Materials; Impact on the coast; Inclusion of exposed components/parts; Noise/Vibration during operation; Aesthetic impact; Maintenance (Transportation, Fouling, Material durability). EIA should also at least include reccomendations regarding the different scales: local, regional and European.

Section 2.7 - Financial Assesment and risks

Identification of the missing (if any) requirements for a CBA; use of a MCA instead where impossible to do a CBA?? An explanation of the local, regional and national impact of the installation has to be provided considering that costs and benefits have often ery different scales.

MERMAID 15


Table of ContentsSection 2.8 - Socio-economic Assesment and risks

Not sure what exactly is meant with “socio-economic”. Here I would expect to mainly address a twofold aspect: social acceptance and participation; societal impact. Therefore, based on the focus groups with stakeholders (WP 2): expected barriers if any to be overcome and related actions to minimise the problem. But also societal impact in terms of competitiveness, concept marketability, technological innovation.

Section 2.9 - Conclusions and reccomendations

Here some conclusion should be drawn on the final selected “best” design, including the challenges, the impacts and the single versus multiple use if applicable.

This layout is repeated for all the sites.

MERMAID 16


MERMAID 17

WP1: Project management

WP2: Assessment of policy management and planning strategies

WP8: Economical, technical and environmental feasibility of multi-use platforms

WP9: Project dissemination & outreach activities

WP7:

Inn

ova

tive

Pla

tfo

rm

pla

n a

nd

des

ign

Estuarine

Active Morphology

Open deep water

Sheltered deep water

WP3:

Ren

ewab

le e

ner

gy c

on

vers

ion

fr

om

win

d a

nd

wav

es

WP4:

Syst

ems

for

sust

ain

able

aq

ua-

cult

ure

an

d e

colo

gica

l bas

ed d

esig

n

WP5:

Sin

tera

ctio

n o

f p

latf

orm

wit

h

hyd

rod

ynam

ic c

on

diti

on

s an

d s

eab

ed

WP6:

Tran

spo

rt a

nd

op

tim

izati

on

of

inst

alla

tio

n, o

per

atio

n, a

nd

dec

om

.

MERMAID 18

1.5 THE MUP ASSESSMENT TOOLMUP.AT

DEVELOPED BY WP7 AND WP8

IMPLEMENTED BY WP2 During meetings with experts

and stakeholders’ roundtables.

MERMAID 19


Presentation Structure

1. The MUP assessment tool (MUP.AT) for design selection.2. Preliminary Results: Implementation of MUP.AT in 4 CS.3. Integration of CS results in Socio-Economic Assessment Methodology.

MERMAID 20

Four offshore CS with different characteristics wrt.

- MUP Technical Feasibility- Institutional Feasibility- Energy Production Potential- Environmental Impact- Financial Feasibility- Economic Impact- Social Impact


Why do we need this preliminary MUP.AT?

• Select CS-specific MUP design

• Identify Cost /Benefits of MUP design

• Integrate Cost/Benefits in CBA

MERMAID 21


Assessment Process and Criteria

A. Technical Feasibility Assessment (TFA)

B. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

C. Financial and Economic Assessment (FEA)

D. Social Cost Benefit Analysis (SCBA)

MERMAID 22


A. Technical Feasibility Assessment (TFA)

MERMAID 23

QUESTIONS:

a. Is placement possible?

Legal Considerations

b. Is placement possible?

Technically Considerations

c. Approximations/estimations of financial cost & revenues

d. Definition of project time horizon

e. Possibilities of combined use

f. Possibilities for technological upgrades

RISKS:

R.A.1 Technical Uncertainty

R.A.2 Financial Uncertainty

R.A.3 Impact diffusion (correlated risks between functions)

R.A.4 Political uncertainty

R.A.5 Unclear definition of property rights


B. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

QUESTIONS:

a. Significant negative environmental impact (local, regional, global).

b. Significant positive environmental impact (local, regional, global).

c. EIA available for similar project(s) in the region.

MERMAID 24

RISKS:

R.B.1 Uncertainty about Climate Change and other environmental parameters.

R.B.2 Non linear environmental effects & threshold identification.

R.B.3 Irreversible environmental effects.



Financial Assessment

QUESTIONS

a. Estimated financial costs: capital, O&M, Administrative.

b. Estimated financial revenues.

c. Efficiency gains from combined use

d. Regulatory/Institutional Restrictions

e. Sustainable Business Plan

MERMAID 25

RISKS

R.C.1 Sensitivity to changes of output/input prices.

R.C.2 Difficulty in time horizon and interest rate definition.



MERMAID 26

Economic Assessment

QUESTIONS:

f. Calculation of efficiency prices for the inputs and outputs of the investment.

g. Determination of indirect and induced effects (creation of jobs, increased economic activity, increased incomes, etc.)

h. Discount investment’s cash flows

i. Economic efficiency indicators

RISKS:

R.C.1 Sensitivity to changes of output/input prices.

R.C.2 Difficulty in time horizon and interest rate definition.


D. Social Cost Benefit Analysis (SCBA)

QUESTIONS:

a. Monetary valuation of environmental externalities, (Ecosystem Services approach).

b. Monetary evaluation of health and other (e.g. educational) externalities

c. Monetary evaluation of local accessibility effects

d. Perceived Stakeholders' Fairness of Distribution of Costs and Benefits (between income groups; spatial; intergenerational)

MERMAID 27

RISKS:

R.D.1 Uncertainty and missing information in estimation of external effects.

R.D.2 Uncertainty and missing information in perception formation.

Bird’s Eye View of MUP.AT

http://www.madgik.di.uoa.gr/mermaid/?q=datasets

MERMAID 28



PRELIMINARY RESULTS FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MUP.AT IN THE FOUR STUDY SITES

TO BE REVISITED AND CONFIRMEDDURING WP7 AND WP8PARALLEL SESSIONS

MERMAID 29


Results

• The row results from the CS-specific implementation of the assessment tools are available at the MERMAID online data repository:

• http://www.madgik.di.uoa.gr/mermaid/?q=datasets

MERMAID 30




Atlantic Sea

MERMAID 31

✓

✓

✓

✓

Wind Wave Electricity connection

Aquaculture Fish transport

✓


Atlantic Sea

MERMAID 32

TFA• Technically feasible• Potential combined useRisks• Reliability of technique (WA, EC, AQ)• Uncertainty about estimates of costs and

revenues (exc. FT)• Impact diffusion (all)• Political uncertainty (exc. EC & FT)

EIA • EIA is availableRisks• Uncertainty about climate

change and other Env. Parameters (all)

• Non-linear env. effects (AQ & FT)

• Irreversible env. effects (AQ & FT)

FEA• Some F&E Information • Not enough information on

efficiency prices for inputs and outputs of the investment

Risks• Sensitivity to changes of

output/input prices• Difficulty in time horizon and

interest rate definition

SCBA• Not enough information

on SCBARisks• Uncertainty and missing

information of external effects and perception formation

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓


Baltic Sea

MERMAID 33

✓

✓

✓

✓

Wind Wave Electricity connection

Aquaculture Fish transport

✗

✓Seaweed farming


Baltic Sea

MERMAID 34

TFA• Technically feasible• Potential combined useRisks• New political skepticism on

the climate change and benefits from using renewable energies (all)

EIA • EIA is available (single

use)Risks• No risks identified at this

stage

FEA• Enough F&E InformationRisks• Sensitivity to changes of

output/input prices• Difficulty in time horizon

and interest rate definition

SCBA• Some monetary

evaluation of externalities (TEEB)

Risks• Uncertainty and missing

information of external effects and perception formation

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓


Mediterranean Sea

MERMAID 35

✓Macro Wind Micro Wind

Floating Wave

Aquaculture

Fixed Wave✓✓

✓ ✓


Mediterranean Sea

MERMAID 36

TFA (Engineers and Economist)• Technically feasible• Potential combined use

(except floating wave)Risks• Uncertainty about estimates

of costs and revenues• Some uncertainty about

reliability of technique• Political uncertainty

EIA (Ecologists)• EIA is available for some impacts• Possibility of significant

environmental impactRisks• Uncertainty about climate change

and other env. parameters• Some non-linear env. effects• Possible irreversible env. effects

FEA• Not enough F&E information

at this stageRisks• No risks identified at this

stage


on SCBA Risks• No risks identified at this

stage

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓


North and Wadden Sea

MERMAID 37

✓ ✓Wind Wave Electricity connection

Aquaculture (Mussels) Aquaculture transport

✗

✓Seaweed farming

✓ ✓


North and Wadden Sea

MERMAID 38

TFA• Technically feasible• Potential combined useRisks• Revenues are depended on

oil and energy prices• Aquaculture needs market

development

EIA • Not enough EIA

information at this stageRisks• No risks identified at this

stage

FEA• Not enough F&E information

at this stageRisks• Not risks identified at this

stage


on SCBA Risks• Not risks identified at this

stage

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

- Verify correct interpretation of MUP.AT from experts in WP7 and amend where necessary.- Discuss the results obtained from the focus groups with stakeholders in WP 2.- Review the design options and select one MUP and one SUP

for each site; these options have to be provided to WP8 for the CBA.

Expectation for WP7 Parallel Sessions:

MERMAID 39

2. WP8 PROGRESS IN THE LAST 6 MONTHS

MERMAID 40


WP8 Objectives & Deliverables

MERMAID 41

Completed

In progress

2.1 DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES

MERMAID 42


Document about data requirements for the assessment of MUP designs

• After the meeting in Athens a document was developed to start the data collection for the assessment of MUP designs.

• The purpose of the document is to help systematizing the search for documents and other resources that contain data, which can be useful for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), the Financial and Economic Assessment (FEA) and the Social Cost-Benefit Analysis (SCBA).

• All the three types of assessments are included in the tables because EIA and FEA information is of importance for the SCBA.

MERMAID 43


• For the sake of consistency with earlier MERMAID work, the rows of the tables are related to those found in the MUP assessment tool.

• Table 1 includes documents specifically about the four MERMAID sites.

• Table 2 includes documents that are not specifically about MERMAID sites but about other sites/areas/projects from which data or results probably can be transferred to the four MERMAID sites.

• Table 3 lists documents of even more general nature.

MERMAID 44

2.2 MERMAID RESOURCES REPOSITORY

MERMAID 45

2.3 SOCIAL COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS (SEE SEPARATE

POWER POINT)

MERMAID 46

INTEGRATE THESE RESULTS IN MERMAID

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

THE MUP.AT INTEGRATES SCBA!…BUT MOST RELEVANT INFORMATION IS MISSING

I.E. WP8 HAS A LOT OF WORK TO DO!

MERMAID 47


Why Social Cost Benefit Analysis?• SCBA is decision support tool to compare in monetary

terms benefits and costs of a proposal (project, policy or programme), including:

- financial and economic impacts- impacts on environmental resources and

services that are not owned or traded in the markets.

The methodology applies the standard, best-practice methodology of European Commission CBA: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/guides/cost/guide2008_en.pdf

MERMAID 48

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/guides/cost/guide2008_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/guides/cost/guide2008_en.pdf


Determination of the project’s impact on the national economy (for further information please see

separate presentation by Anastasios Xepapadeas)

A. Calculation of efficiency prices for the inputs and outputs of the investment.

B. Economic assessment of externalities which are created from the investment.

C. Determination of indirect and induced effects. – Creation of new economic activity– Output, Income and Employment Multipliers

D. Discount of the investment’s cash flows.

E. Calculation of economic efficiency indicators. MERMAID 49


Total Economic Value

MERMAID 50

D ire c t U seV a lue

In d irec t U seV a lue

A c tu a l u seV a lue

O p tio n V a lue

U se V a lue

E x is te n ceV a lue

B e qu e stV a lue

A ltru is ticV a lue

F o r O th e rs

N o n -u se V a lue

T o ta l E co no m ic V a lue

Environment

Structure & Processes

Environmental Functions

HumanBenefits

AnthropocentricValues

Use Non-UseValues Values

An example on Marine Resources

MERMAID 51


Risk Analysis, Uncertainty Analysis

Project-Specific Risks :

(i) financial and economic

(ii) natural – environmental

(iii) technological

Sensitivity Analysis: relates proportional changes in the critical variables to NPV/IRR values.

Uncertainty Analysis: Computational algorithm based on random sampling and on assigning specific subjective probability distributions to important cash flow variables.

MERMAID 52

The Figure provides a Monte Carlo histogram for NPV, which was obtained after 1000 repetitions.


In the parallel sessions

• Discuss what is the status of the MUP design• Provide an update of data collection for SCBA• Discuss any foreseen problems related to the

SCBA

MERMAID 53

2.4 PUBLICATIONS

MERMAID 54


Forthcoming Publications• Special Issue in Journal of Sustainability (http://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/sustainable_management_of_marine_resources

) • Guest Editor: Prof. Dr. Phoebe Koundouri

• Objective: Integrated framework of analysis of offshore activities under uncertainty (socio-economic & environmental)

• Keywords: marine resourcesoffshore activities integrated sustainable managementSocial Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework for Assessing

Environmental, Economic (including financial) & Social Sustainability

Environmental, Technological and Socio-Economic UncertaintyEcosystem Services Based Valuation Methods

http://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/sustainable_management_of_marine_resources

http://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/sustainable_management_of_marine_resources


Forthcoming Publications (cont’d)

• Publisher: Springer Academic Publishers: http://www.springer.com/

• Title of Work: The Ocean of Tomorrow (Vol. I and II): Socio-economic Methodology and Empirical Applications for Multi-Use Offshore Platforms Investments

• Editor: Prof. Phoebe Koundouri

• Estimated number of: Words in manuscript: 400 pages

http://www.springer.com/


The Ocean of Tomorrow (Vol. I)Table of Contents

Preface 1. Introduction.2. A Methodology for Integrated Socio-Economic Assessment3. Socio-economic Analysis on selected Estuarine Site (Baltic Sea).4. Socio-economic Analysis on selected Active Morphology Site (North Sea

and Wadden Sea) 5. Socio-economic Analysis on selected Open Deep Water Site (Atlantic

Coast)6. Socio-economic Analysis on selected Sheltered Deep Water site

(Mediterranean) 7. Risk Analysis on all 4 case studies8. Conclusions and Policy recommendations


The Ocean of Tomorrow (Vol. II)Integrating Socio-Economic Analysis:

MERMAID, H2OCEAN, TROPOSTable of Contents

Foreword

Preface

Introduction

1. Socio-economic methodology (complementarities)

2. Framework for Socio-Economic Data collection

3. Data analysis methodology

4. Stakeholder Methodologies

5. Conclusions and Policy recommendations

References

Index


Status of the chapters and articles (Marian Stuiver)

2 chapters in book Springer:

1. Participatory design. As Masha has been replaced with Christine Rockmann, this chapter is delayed. Furthermore we need to do the third round table BEFORE we can produce this chapter.

2. Marine Spatial Planning. Marian sent abstract and title. Bonne van der Veen is lead author and working on this at the moment. I expect to have a draft ready in Bologna

MERMAID 59


2 articles in Sustainability Journal

1. Article Feasability Seaweed

This article is difficult to fit in this journal as it only focuses on seaweed and the MUPS perspective is gone. Instead it was proposed to have an article of Sander van den Burg and Marian Stuiver in it on policy analysis of MUPS. They are working on that at the moment. There is a draft ready

2. Article on legislation

Abstract sent but not the division of tasks yet. So no draft ready yet.

MERMAID 60


Chapter on data repositories

• An abstract and chapter proposal was drafted by Evita Mailli and Osiel Dávila.

• Literature review is in process.

MERMAID 61


In the parallel session

• Clearly identify lead authors and divide the labour

• Discuss the progress in the chapters• Clarify any questions and discuss next steps

MERMAID 62

MERMAID 63

Contact details:Prof. Dr. Phoebe Koundouri

Director of ReSEES, AUEB-RCICRE8 Scientific Director

Email: [email protected]

ReSEES, AUEB-RC Webpage:http://www.aueb.gr/users/koundouri/resees/

ICRE8 Webpage:www.icre8.eu

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.icre8.eu/

http://www.icre8.eu/

Documents

1 WP7/8 Plenary Session Presentation MERMAID, 6 th meeting, September 17 th -19 th, Bologna, Italy WP8 Leader Prof. Dr. Phoebe Koundouri Director of ReSEES,