Offertetemplate TRITEL recto

Transcription

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
THE USE OF MARINE WATERS AND
OF THE COST OF DEGRADATION OF
MARINE BELGIAN WATERS
Marine Strategy Framework Directive –
Article 8 paragraph 1c
© MUMM | BMM | UGMM
1
CONTENTS
1.
Introduction ______________________________________________________ 10
1.1
Background and objectives _________________________________________________ 10
1.2
Initial Assessment ________________________________________________________ 10
1.3
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.2.1
Socio-economic analysis of the use of the marine waters ............................... 12
1.2.2
Business As Usual scenario .......................................................................... 13
1.2.3
Socio-economic analysis of the cost of degradation of the marine
environment ............................................................................................... 13
DPSIR framework ________________________________________________________ 13
Socio-economic analysis of the use of marine waters ______________________ 15
2.1
Ecosystem services approach _______________________________________________ 16
2.2
Marine water accounts approach ____________________________________________ 17
2.3
The link between the Marine water accounts approach and ecosystem services _______ 22
Business As Usual scenario ___________________________________________ 27
3.1
Objective _______________________________________________________________ 27
3.2
Steps 27
3.3
The projected development of marine uses ____________________________________ 27
Socio-economic analysis of the cost of degradation of marine waters __________ 29
4.1
Cost of degradation _______________________________________________________ 29
4.2
Thematic Approach _______________________________________________________ 29
4.3
Belgian approach _________________________________________________________ 30
Commercial (sea) fisheries ___________________________________________ 32
5.1
Sector description ________________________________________________________ 32
5.2
Turnover________________________________________________________________ 37
5.3
Added value _____________________________________________________________ 44
5.4
Employment data _________________________________________________________ 44
5.5
Factors influencing the future development of the sector _________________________ 45
5.6
Cost of degradation based on costs of current environmental measures _____________ 49
Mariculture _______________________________________________________ 56
6.1
6.2
6.3
Wind farms _______________________________________________________ 58
2
8.
9.
10.
7.1
7.2
Turnover________________________________________________________________ 59
7.3
7.4
Aggregate extraction _______________________________________________ 62
8.1
8.2
Turnover________________________________________________________________ 64
8.3
Added value _____________________________________________________________ 65
8.4
Employment _____________________________________________________________ 66
8.5
8.6
Dredging and dredged material disposal ________________________________ 73
9.1
9.2
Turnover________________________________________________________________ 75
9.3
Added value _____________________________________________________________ 76
9.4
Employment _____________________________________________________________ 76
9.5
9.6
Commercial shipping _______________________________________________ 78
10.1 Sector description ________________________________________________________ 78
10.2 Turnover________________________________________________________________ 80
10.3 Added value _____________________________________________________________ 83
10.4 Employment _____________________________________________________________ 85
10.5 Factors influencing the future development of the sector _________________________ 88
10.6 Cost of degradation based on costs of current environmental measures _____________ 88
11.
Tourism__________________________________________________________ 94
11.1 Sector description ________________________________________________________ 94
11.2 Catering industry and retail industry __________________________________________ 99
11.3 Water recreation ________________________________________________________ 100
11.4 Factors influencing the future development of the sector ________________________ 101
11.5 Cost of degradation based on costs of current environmental measures ____________ 102
12.
Other activities and functions related to the sea _________________________ 105
12.1 Research ______________________________________________________________ 105
12.1.1
Institutions ............................................................................................... 105
12.1.2
Budget ..................................................................................................... 109
3
12.1.3
Employment.............................................................................................. 111
12.1.4
Factors influencing the future development of the sector ............................. 112
12.1.5
Cost of degradation based on costs of current environmental measures ....... 113
12.2 Military exercises ________________________________________________________ 113
12.3 Historical ammunition zone: the Paardenmarkt ________________________________ 116
12.4 Anchorage area and places of refuge ________________________________________ 118
12.5 Cables and pipelines _____________________________________________________ 119
12.6 Activities considering the sea as a sink: wrecks and wreck salvage ________________ 120
13.
Nature conservation _______________________________________________ 121
13.1 International biodiversity policy ____________________________________________ 121
13.2 Relevant legal decisions under federal legislation for nature conservation in the
BPNS 121
13.3 Site protection __________________________________________________________ 123
14.
Bibliography _____________________________________________________ 126
4
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Illustration of linkages between requirements on economic and social analysis and
other requirements by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) ............. 12
Figure 1-2: DPSIR framework ...................................................................................................... 14
Figure 2-1: Belgian part of the North Sea ..................................................................................... 19
Figure 2-2: Multifunctional use of the Belgian part of the North Sea ............................................... 21
Figure 4-1: Simplified illustration of the cost of degradation .......................................................... 29
Figure 4-2: Belgian approach to the cost of degradation ............................................................... 31
Figure 5-1: Evolution of the Belgian fleet: number of vessels and capacity (1950 – 2009) ............... 33
Figure 5-2: Average capacity per vessel in kW and GT (1950 – 2009) ............................................ 34
Figure 5-3: Evolution of the average age of the Belgian fleet (2000 – 2009) ................................... 34
Figure 5-4: Fish prices in Belgian harbors (1991 - 2009)................................................................ 35
Figure 5-5: Average fish price in Belgian and foreign harbours (1950 - 2009) ................................. 36
Figure 5-6: Fish landings of Belgian vessels (1950 – 2009) ............................................................ 36
Figure 5-7: Share of fish landings to Belgian and foreign harbours in terms of percentage
(1950 – 2009) ........................................................................................................... 37
Figure 5-8: Turnover (1986-2009) ............................................................................................... 38
Figure 5-9: Turnover per sailing day (1986-2009) ......................................................................... 38
Figure 5-10: Average turnover per vessel (2008 – 2009) ................................................................. 39
Figure 5-11: Turnover and operating profit coastal vessels (1990 – 2008) ........................................ 40
Figure 5-12: Turnover and operating profit Eurocutters (1990 - 2008) ............................................. 41
Figure 5-13: Turnover and operating profit large beam trawlers (1990 - 2008) ................................. 42
Figure 5-14: Turnover in Belgian and foreign harbours (1950 – 2009) ............................................. 43
Figure 5-15: Turnover in Belgian and foreign harbours in terms of percentage (1950 – 2009) ........... 43
Figure 5-16: Production and turnover in the Belgian fish processing industry (2000 - 2007) .............. 44
Figure 5-17: Employment data (2001 – 2007) ................................................................................ 45
Figure 5-18: Average gas oil prices for sea fishing (2005 – 2009) .................................................... 46
Figure 5-19: Average fuel consumption per kg landed fish (2003-2007) ........................................... 46
Figure 5-20: Evolution of Belgian quota of some fish species in ton (1996 – 2010) ........................... 48
5
Figure 5-21: Evolution of the number of FIFG-applications (1998 - 2009) ......................................... 52
Figure 5-22: Evolution of FIFG-funding (1998 - 2009) ..................................................................... 53
Figure 6-1: Assigned zone for mussel cultivation ........................................................................... 56
Figure 7-1: Wind turbine zones and electricity export cables .......................................................... 59
Figure 8-1: Extraction zones ........................................................................................................ 63
Figure 8-2: Aggregate extraction in Belgian marine waters (1976 – 2010) ...................................... 64
Figure 8-3: Turnover (1998 – 2002) ............................................................................................. 64
Figure 8-4: Number of companies, divided per turnover category (2002) ....................................... 65
Figure 8-5: Added value (1998 – 2002) ........................................................................................ 66
Figure 8-6: Employment per province (1998 – 2002) .................................................................... 66
Figure 8-7: Companies per jurisdiction (2002) .............................................................................. 67
Figure 8-8: Number of employees per jurisdiction (2002) .............................................................. 68
Figure 8-9: Number of companies and of employees per company size (1998 and 2002) ................ 68
Figure 8-10: Number of companies per size in percentage terms (1998 and 2002) .......................... 69
Figure 8-11: Number of employees per company size in percentage terms (1998 and 2002) ............. 69
Figure 8-12: Quantity of extracted sand for coastal defence purposes and beach supplements
(2010) .................................................................................................................. 70
Figure 8-13: Future developments of aggregate extraction in Belgian marine waters (2011 –
2020)
.................................................................................................................. 71
Figure 9-1: Quantities of dredged material dumped at sea in TDS (1997 – 2006) ........................... 74
Figure 9-2: Dredging and disposal intensity (2008) ....................................................................... 74
Figure 9-3: Dredged quantities per ton dried substance (TDS) in the BPNS (2000 – 2009) .............. 75
Figure 9-4: Turnover (1991 – 2000) ............................................................................................. 75
Figure 10-1: Navigation routes and anchorage area ........................................................................ 79
Figure 10-2: Total maritime traffic in ton (2003 - 2008) .................................................................. 80
Figure 10-3: Turnover in the port of Ostend (2003 – 2010) ............................................................. 81
Figure 10-4: Turnover in the port of Zeebrugge (2003 – 2010)........................................................ 81
Figure 10-5: Turnover in the port of Antwerp (2003 – 2010) ........................................................... 82
Figure 10-6: Turnover in the port of Ghent (2003 – 2010) .............................................................. 82
6
Figure 10-7: Total turnover (2003-2010) ........................................................................................ 83
Figure 10-8: Added value in the Port of Ostend (2003 – 2008) ........................................................ 83
Figure 10-9: Added value in the Port of Zeebrugge (2003 – 2008) ................................................... 84
Figure 10-10:
Added value in the Port of Antwerp (2003 – 2008) ........................................ 84
Figure 10-11:
Added value in the Port of Ghent (2003 – 2008) ........................................... 85
Figure 10-12:
Total added value (2003 – 2008) ................................................................. 85
Figure 10-13:
Employment at the Port of Ostend (2003 – 2008) ......................................... 86
Figure 10-14:
Employment at the Port of Zeebrugge (2003 – 2008) .................................... 86
Figure 10-15:
Employment at the Port of Antwerp (2003 – 2008) ........................................ 87
Figure 10-16:
Employment at the Port of Ghent (2003 – 2008) ........................................... 87
Figure 10-17:
Total employment (2003 – 2008) ................................................................. 88
Figure 10-18:
Location of the Tricolor incident ................................................................... 91
Figure 11-1: Touristic-recreative attractions ................................................................................... 94
Figure 11-2: Capacity (number of beds) per type of accommodation at the Belgian coast (2009) ...... 95
Figure 11-3: Long-stay tourism (in number of overnight stays) per type of accommodation at
the Belgian coast (2009) ............................................................................................ 95
Figure 11-4: Direct expenditures from short- and long-stay tourism at the Belgian coast, in
constant prices of 2009 (2007 – 2009)........................................................................ 96
Figure 11-5: Direct expenditures from short- and long-stay tourism at the Belgian coast per type
of tourism (2009) ...................................................................................................... 96
Figure 11-6: Direct turnover from day tourism at the Belgian coast (%) (2009) ................................ 97
Figure 11-7: Evolution of the number of companies in the catering and retail industry at the
Belgian coast (2004 - 2009) ....................................................................................... 99
Figure 11-8: Turnover of the catering and retail industry at the Belgian coast, in constant prices
of 2009 (2004 - 2008) ............................................................................................. 100
Figure 11-9: Investments in the catering and retail industry at the Belgian coast, in constant
prices of 2009 (2004 – 2008) ................................................................................... 100
Figure 11-10: Waste in kilogram per kilometre collected in ‗Lenteprikkel‘ (2004 – 2008) ................. 103
Figure 11-11: Type of waste (%) collected in ‗Lenteprikkel‘ (2008) ................................................ 104
Figure 12-1: Number of campaigns of R/V Belgica by theme (%) (2009 and 2010) ......................... 107
7
Figure 12-2: Number of campaigns and of planned and effective number of days by R/V Belgica
(2010) ................................................................................................................ 107
Figure 12-3: Research by the Zeeleeuw (2009) ............................................................................ 108
Figure 12-4: Scientific monitoring by R/V Zeeleeuw (2001 – 2009) ................................................ 108
Figure 12-5: Tendered monitoring by R/V Zeeleeuw (2001 – 2009) ............................................... 109
Figure 12-6: Distribution of research potential in number of persons ............................................. 111
Figure 12-7: Share (%) of persons per discipline (universities) ...................................................... 112
Figure 12-8: Distribution of research potential in number of persons per discipline (universities) ..... 112
Figure 12-9: Military exercise zones in the BPNS ........................................................................... 114
Figure 12-10:
The evolution of the use of Ready Duty Ships for fisheries surveillance
(2001 – 2010) ......................................................................................................... 115
Figure 12-11:
The evolution of the use of BNS Belgica for hydrographical research
(2000 – 2010) ......................................................................................................... 115
Figure 12-12:
The evolution of the use of military ships in MOST military training areas
(2000 - 2010) .......................................................................................................... 116
Figure 12-13:
2010)
The evolution of the use of ships from the naval component (2000 116
Figure 12-14:
Ammunition dumping areas in the North Sea and in the North East
Atlantic Ocean. ........................................................................................................ 117
Figure 12-15:
The Paardenmarkt ..................................................................................... 118
Figure 12-16:
Places of anchorage .................................................................................. 119
Figure 12-17:
Communication cables, electricity export cables and gas pipelines ................ 120
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1:
How the Ecosystem service and Marine water approaches capture different aspects ...... 15
Table 2-2:
Ecosystem goods and services (EGS) provided by the Belgian marine waters ................ 23
Table 2-3:
Present uses of the Belgian marine waters classified according to the ecosystem
goods and services (EGS) concept .............................................................................. 24
Table 2-4:
Pressures on the Belgian marine environment ............................................................. 25
Table 5-1:
Turnover per type of vessel (2008 - 2009) .................................................................. 38
Table 5-2:
Average turnover per vessel (2008 – 2009) ................................................................. 39
8
Table 5-3:
Added value (2008) ................................................................................................... 44
Table 5-6:
Share of fuel consumption in turnover in terms of percentage (2007 – 2009) ................ 47
Table 5-7:
Goals of the National Operational Programme ............................................................. 48
Table 5-8:
Performed controls and number of charges (2001-2006).............................................. 50
Table 5-9:
Submitted investment amounts per type of investment (2009) ..................................... 53
Table 5-10: Financial support from EFF to projects per measure (2009) .......................................... 55
Table 8-1:
Overview of the future requested amount of marine aggregates (2010 – 2020) ............ 70
Table 10-1: MARPOL Annex VI fuel sulphur limits .......................................................................... 92
Table 11-1: Direct turnover from day tourism at the Belgian coast (2009)....................................... 97
Table 11-2: Evolution of the number of attractions with more than 5.000 visitors at the Belgian
coast (2004-2009) ..................................................................................................... 98
Table 11-3 Evolution of the number of visitors of attractions with more than 5.000 visitors at
the Belgian coast (2004-2009) ................................................................................... 98
Table 11-4: Results of a poll about which environmental factors are important choosing the
holiday destination (UNEP, 2009) ............................................................................. 102
Table 11-5: Overview of cleaning actions and collected waste in four coastal communities
(Oostende, Nieuwpoort, Bredene and De Panne) ....................................................... 102
Table 11-6: Collected marine litter (kg), distance (km) and number of volunteers in
‗Lenteprikkel‘ (2004 - 2008) ..................................................................................... 103
Table 11-7: Cost estimation of ‗Lenteprikkel‘ ............................................................................... 104
Table 12-1: Overview research potential (November 2009) .......................................................... 105
Table 13-1: Overview Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation ......................... 125
9
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background and objectives
In 2008 the European Union‘s Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (2008/56/EC)
was implemented. The aim of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive is to more effectively
protect the marine environment across Europe. Member States should achieve Good
Environmental Status (GES) in 2020 at the latest. In order to attain Good Environmental
Status, each Member State – cooperating with other Member States and non-EU countries
within a marine region - is required to develop strategies for their marine waters,
considering the economic, social and regulatory situation of its users.
The Directive integrates socio-economic analysis into this objective, requiring an Economic
and Social Analysis (ESA) as part of the Initial Assessment due in July 2012. This Initial
Assessment will provide a basis for developing programmes of measures to be implemented
as from 2015. The ESA will support consideration of the socio-economic effects of choosing
targets; cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis of measures; economic
incentives to support GES; and exemptions where costs are disproportionate.
Key requirements of the Directive includes an assessment of the current state of Belgian
marine waters by July 2012, a detailed description of what Good Environmental Status
means and associated targets and indicators by July 2012, the establishment of a monitoring
programme to measure progress toward Good Environmental Status by July 2014 and the
establishment of a programme of measures for achieving Good Environmental Status by
2016.
The purpose of this report, according to Art. 8.1. (c) of the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive, is firstly to conduct an economic and social analysis of the use of Belgian marine
waters, secondly analyse how this would evolve over time in the absence of the Marine
Strategy Framework Directive and finally assess the cost of degradation of the marine
environment. The theoretical framework is discussed in chapters 1 to 4.
Chapters 5 to 12 give an overview of the socio-economic assessment of the following
sectors: commercial (sea) fisheries, mariculture, wind farms, aggregate extraction, dredging
and dredged material disposal, commercial shipping, research and tourism. Chapter 13
presents a summary of activities related to the sea: military exercises, historical ammunition
zones (the Paardenmarkt), anchorage area and places of refuge, wrecks and wrecks
salvage, cables and pipelines. Chapter 14 deals with the legislation with regard to nature
conservation.
1.2
Initial Assessment
The Marine Strategic Framework Directive states explicit economic requirements:

Preamble no. 24 […] ―an economic and social analysis of their use and of the cost of
degradation of the marine environment.‖

Art. 8.1. ―In respect of each marine region or subregion, Member States shall make
an Initial Assessment of their marine waters, taking into account existing data where
available and comprising the following:
10
(c) an economic and social analysis of the use of those waters and of the cost of
degradation of the marine environment.‖
So, the economic and social analysis of the Initial Assessment consists of two parts:
1. An economic and social analysis of the use of marine waters;
2. An economic and social analysis of the cost of degradation of the marine
environment.
The Initial Assessment should also include how the use of marine waters and its pressures
will evolve over time – i.e. defining a Business As Usual scenario.
The Initial Assessment must be carried out in a broader framework and in connection to
other parts of Art 8.1. of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive:
(a) ―An analysis of the essential features and characteristics, and the current environmental
status of those waters, based on the indicative list of elements set out in Table 1 of
Annex III, and covering the physical and chemical features, the habitat types, the
biological features and the hydro-morphology‖;
(b) ―an analysis of the predominant pressures and impacts, including human activity, on the
environmental status of those waters which:
i.
is based on the indicative lists of elements set out in Table 2 of Annex III, and
covers the qualitative and quantitative mix of the various pressures, as well as
discernible trends.‖
Figure 1-1 shows the components of the Initial Assessment and the further steps to be
undertaken.
11
Figure 1-1: Illustration of linkages between requirements on economic and social analysis and other
requirements by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC)
(European Commission, 2010, p. 9)
1.2.1
Socio-economic analysis of the use of the marine waters
A socio-economic analysis aims to identify the impact on human welfare of a given policy.
This includes economic as well as social aspects, and may include consideration of the
distribution of these impacts across stakeholders 1. The impacts can be positive, where
welfare is increased (i.e. benefits) or negative impacts which lead to a loss of welfare (i.e.
costs). These impacts can be financial (i.e. loss of revenue), environmental (i.e. welfare loss
due to environmental damage) and social (i.e. health or employment impacts). All impacts
should be included in the assessment, even if the impacts can not be valued (i.e.
recreational value of marine water).
1
(European Commission, 2010)
12
In particular the economic and social assessment should include:

Costs and benefits for those sectors that financially benefit directly from the use of
the marine waters (e.g. commercial (sea) fisheries, mariculture, the energy sector,
the transport sector, the tourism sector);

Costs and benefits for the users of the marine waters who do not benefit financially
such as leisure-time fishermen, anglers, recreational yachtsmen etc;

Costs and benefits for the non-users of the marine waters.
However, it might be hard to carry out a full economic analysis due to data unavailability
and a lack of time to perform valuation studies. So, as a subset of the economic analysis, a
financial analysis can be conducted. A financial analysis of the users of marine waters (first
bullet) shows the dependence of various sectors on the marine waters. The analysis is based
on financial data such as turnover, gross added value and employment of sectors benefiting
from the use of marine waters2. The socio-economic analysis of the use of marine waters is
further analyzed in chapter 2.
1.2.2
Business As Usual scenario
A baseline or Business As Usual (BAU) scenario describes the anticipated evolution in the
environmental, social, economic and legislative situation in a marine environment over a
certain time horizon in the absence of the policy under consideration (i.e. if the Marine
Strategy Framework Directive is not implemented). The Business As Usual scenario is further
discussed in chapter 3.
1.2.3
Socio-economic analysis of the cost of degradation of the marine
environment
The European Commission (2010) defines the cost of degradation as ―the welfare foregone,
reflecting the reduction in the value of the ecosystem services provided compared to another
state‖. The cost of degradation of the marine environment should be described in qualitative
and, if possible, in quantitative terms. This subject is commented in Chapter 4.
1.3
DPSIR framework
The DPSIR (Drivers, Pressures, State, Impact and Responses) framework can be considered
as a useful tool in understanding the various steps of the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive (Figure 1-2).
2
(European Commission DG Environment, 2010)
13
Driving
forces
Policy
reponse
Impact
(welfare)
Pressures
State of the
environment
Figure 1-2: DPSIR framework
‗Driving forces‘ (e.g. economic activities that use marine waters), cause environmental
‗Pressures‘, directly or indirectly, on the marine environment. Pressures include e.g. oil spill,
nutrient load, fishing activities. Those Pressures affect the ‗State‘ of the environment, e.g.
deterioration of water quality, declining fish stocks, which ‗Impact‘ on human health and the
value of ecosystem goods and services provided. Society can decide to ‗Respond‘ by acting
on the Driving forces, Pressures, State of the environment or by implementing measures and
incentives (i.e. policy instruments)3.
3
14
2.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF MARINE WATERS
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive requires that an economic and social analysis
should be carried out, however, the Directive does not mention how the analysis should be
performed in practice. The Guidance document of The European Commission4 describes two
different approaches to perform the economic and social analysis: the ‗Ecosystem services
approach‘ and the ‗Marine water accounts approach‘. However, it needs to be noted that
several other approaches can be considered. The Ecosystem services approach starts by
identifying the ecosystem services of marine waters, whereas the Marine water accounts
approach identifies economic sectors using the marine waters.
The Ecosystem services approach has a higher ambition level (and hence data requirements)
as this approach takes into account use values as well as non-use values of the marine
waters, whereas the Marine water accounts approach captures only direct use, making use
of data available in national accounts. Due to a lack of data, time and resources, the Marine
water accounts approach will be adopted in this report. However, in the long run, the aim is
to apply the Ecosystem services approach. Table 2-1 shows the differences between both
approaches.
Table 2-1:
How the Ecosystem service and Marine water approaches capture different aspects
Identification
Ecosystem services approach
(ESA) / Marine water
accounts approach (MWAA)
Quantification
Valuation
ESA
MWAA
ESA
MWAA
ESA
MWAA
- Economic sectors
x
x
x
x
x
x
- Other uses
x
x
x
Indirect use
x
x
x
Non-use
x
x
x
Direct use:
(European Commission, 2010, p. 23)
The European Commission‘s Guidance document explains that describing the values in a
qualitative manner will be sufficient in many circumstances. However, it would be desirable
to quantify or monetize degradation when data is available and sufficiently good.
4
15
2.1
Ecosystem services approach
The Ecosystem services approach starts by identifying the ecosystem services from the
marine waters. After identifying the ecosystem services, those should be linked to the GES
descriptors (Annex I Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Next, the change in benefits to
human welfare (rather than the benefits per se), generated by these services, need to be
valued. The benefits consist of use and non-use values, after which the benefits should be
connected to different sectors (e.g. tourism, fishing).
Use value includes direct use, indirect use and option value:

Direct use value: individuals making actual or planned use of ecosystem services,
including consumptive and non-consumptive use, e.g. fishing, walking on the beach.

Indirect use value: the value of individuals benefitting from ecosystem services
supported by a resource, rather than directly making use of it. These ecosystem
services can not be noticed, only when they are damaged or lost, making the
valuation difficult.

Option value: the value of having the option to use directly or indirectly a resource
in the future even if they are not current users.
Non-use value has three components:

Bequest value: the value of passing on ecosystem resource to future generations.

Altruistic value: the value of ecosystem resource being available to others in the
current generation.

Existence value: the value of the existence of ecosystem resource, even without
actual or planned use of it5.
Non-use values are difficult to capture. According to the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs, 2007, the non-use value of environmental assets may be considerable.
Steps
The Ecosystem services approach consists of following steps:
1. Identify ecosystem services of the marine areas in cooperation with the analysis of
status (Art. 8.1 (a) MSFD) and the analysis of pressures and impacts (Art. 8.1 (b)
MSFD);
2. Identify and if possible quantify and value the welfare derived from the ecosystem
services using different methods to estimate the use and non-use values of these
services;
3. Identify the drivers and pressures affecting the ecosystem services.
5
(Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2007)
16
2.2
Marine water accounts approach
The Marine water accounts approach is based on experiences of the Water Framework
Directive (NAMWA). As this approach is based on internationally agreed definitions and
methods, it is possible to compare the data internationally.
Steps
The Marine water accounts approach consists of following steps:
1. Identify and describe the region of interest (i.e. the Belgian Part of the North Sea BNPS);
2. Identify and describe the economic sectors using marine waters;
3. Identify and, if possible, quantify the economic benefits derived from the economic
sector‘s use of marine waters in terms of production value, intermediate
consumption, value added, number of employees and compensation of employees;
4. Identify and, if possible, quantify impacts generated by these sectors.
In this report, step 1 to step 3 will be taken into account. Step 4 will be carried out by the
Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG GES).
Step 1: Identification of the region of interest: the Belgian part of the North Sea
The Belgian part of the sub-region North Sea (BPNS) has a coastline of approximately 66 km
and a surface of about 3454 km². The Belgian maritime zones are measured from a normal
baseline, which is the mean low-low water line along the coast. The BPNS is legally divided
in five maritime zones within the jurisdiction of the coastal states: territorial seas, contiguous
zones, continental shelves, exclusive economic zones, and fishery zones (ARCADIS, 2010).

Territorial sea: that part of the sea which is adjacent to the land territory and
internal waters of the coastal states, up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles
from the baselines.

Contiguous zone: a zone adjacent to the territorial sea, extending no further than 24
nautical miles from the baselines.

Continental shelf: beyond the territorial seas in the North Sea, each coastal state is
entitled to a continental shelf, which is the natural extension of the land territory.
This right does not depend on occupation or any express proclamation. The
continental shelf comprises the seabed and the subsoil of the submarine areas up to
the outer edge of the continental margin or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from
the baseline, where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend that
far. Division of the continental shelf in the North Sea between the coastal states is a
result of delimitation agreements concluded in the mid-sixties and early seventies.
Later agreements complement or alter former delimitation agreements as a result of
the decision of the International Court of Justice in the North Sea Continental Shelf
Case of 20 February 1969 (Germany vs. Denmark and the Netherlands). In the
nineties, Belgium concluded delimitation agreements with France, the UK, and the
Netherlands.
17

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): under the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, coastal
states are entitled to an exclusive economic zone extending no further than 200
nautical miles from the baselines. In contrast to the continental shelf, an exclusive
economic zone must be explicitly proclaimed or installed by the coastal state and
includes, besides the seabed and its subsoil (or with other words the continental
Shelf), the waters super-adjacent to the seabed. The boundaries of the exclusive
economic zones in the North Sea coincide with the boundaries of the continental
shelves. Belgium, France, United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the
Netherlands and Germany have proclaimed an exclusive economic zone in the North
Sea.

Fishery zones: in the late seventies the fishery zones of the North Sea were
extended to 200 nautical miles, as requested by the Council of the European
Community. The boundaries of the North Sea fishery zones are set by existing
agreements as to the limits of the continental shelves. The fishing rights within the
EEZ are the competence of the EU, and are managed through the ‗Common
Fisheries Policy‘. The access to the territorial waters (12Nm-zones) is also managed
through the CFP. Member States can take non-discriminatory measures in their
territorial waters to protect the conservation and management of the fish stocks and
to minimise the effect of fishery on the conservation of the marine ecosystem as
long as these measures are compatible with the objectives of the CFP and are not
less stringent than those in existing Union legislation. Member States have full
competence for control and compliance of fishery activities in their own EEZ.
According to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the Belgian marine waters
consist of the territorial sea and the Exclusive Economic Zone, existing of the waters
above the seabed, the seabed itself and its subsoil (the latter two coinciding with the
continental shelf). The intertidal waters, as part of the coastal waters, should also be
covered by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, in so far as particular aspects
of the environmental status of the marine environment are not already addressed
through the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) or other Community
legislation, so as to ensure complementarity while avoiding unnecessary overlaps
(conf. MSFD, preambule no. 12).
The Belgian marine waters, together with the marine waters of Denmark, France, Germany,
the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom, are an integral part of the subregion
Greater North Sea, being a part of the marine region ‗North-east Atlantic Ocean‘ as defined
under Article 4 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 6.
6
(ARCADIS, 2010)
18
Figure 2-1:
Belgian part of the North Sea
(Coördinatiepunt Duurzaam Kustbeheer, 2011)
Step 2: Identification and description of sectors using marine waters
The Belgian part of the North Sea is intensively used by different sectors, affecting the
marine environment (
Figure 2-2). The following economic activities / sectors have been identified as ‗driving
forces‘ by ARCADIS (2010), using in a direct manner the Belgian marine waters and giving
rise to significant pressures on those waters. These sectors are taken into account in this
report:
I.
Economic activities:

Commercial (sea) fisheries;

Mariculture: the cultivation of marine organisms in their natural habitats;

Wind farms;

Aggregate extraction: the exploitation of sand in the Belgian marine waters;
19
II.
III.

Commercial shipping;

Dredging and dredged material disposal: in order to maintain access routes to
the Belgian coastal ports and the depth of coastal ports;

Tourism
Activities / functions related to the sea:

Research: consists of monitoring natural conditions of the Belgian marine waters
and the impact of other uses on the BPNS as ecosystem and of fundamental
research;

Cables and pipelines: cables used for telecommunication or for transport of
electricity onshore (and gas and oil pipelines);

Historical military ammunition zone: munitions dumped at the Paardenmarkt;

Military exercises;

Anchorage area and places of refuge;
Activities considering the sea as a ‗sink‘:

IV.
Wrecks and wreck salvage: ship wrecks, other vessel wrecks and sunk loads
spread along the entire Belgian part of the North Sea as a consequence of
shipping accidents and other disasters at sea and their removal;
Other:

The legislative and regulatory framework with regard to nature conservation (all
coastal and marine areas that have received a protection status).
Following sectors / activities / functions related to the sea are further not taken into account
in this report, but do put pressure on the Belgian waters:

Water recreation: including non-motorised and motorised recreation, and
angling at sea;

Coastal defence: combination of natural elements, technical constructions and
ecological sound measures to protect the Belgian shoreline against natural
coastal processes like erosion and flooding;

Radar and measuring pillars: in order to monitor shipping traffic and hydrometeorological conditions;

Land-based sources: marine pollution brought in via rivers or direct discharges
of pollutants from activities carried out on land.

Bathing;

Sport fishing;

Other recreational activities linked to the marine areas;
20

Figure 2-2:
Educational and research activities linked to the marine areas.
Multifunctional use of the Belgian part of the North Sea
(MUMM/BMM/UGMM, 2011)
Step 3: Identification and quantification of the economic benefits of using marine waters
The socio-economic situation of the economic sectors is defined by following socio-economic
indicators:
21

Turnover;

Gross added value: the net gain in terms of the contribution of industries to the
gross national product (GDP);

Employment.
These financial indicators (turnover, gross added value and employment) give an indication
of the socio-economic importance that different sectors attach to the use of marine waters.
Besides, other important indicators are taken into account, such as the production of wind
energy, the amount of fish caught, etc.
2.3
The link between the Marine water accounts approach and
ecosystem services
To ensure environmental decision making is sustainable, efficient and equitable it is essential
that all social, economic and environmental impacts of a development are identified and
measured. The need for this holistic approach is increasingly apparent in environmental
policy and is implicit in the ‗ecosystem approach‘. This approach is a strategy for the
integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and
sustainable use in an equitable way. The term ‗ecosystem approach‘ was first applied in a
policy context at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, where it was adopted as an underpinning
concept of the Convention on Biological Diversity. It now plays an integral part in the
implementation of the European Marine Strategy Directive, and one method of ensuring this
integration of social, economic and environmental demands and pressures, is to utilize the
concept of ecosystem goods and services. Goods and services are defined as ‗the direct and
indirect benefits people obtain from ecosystems‘. Describing this series of ecosystem
functions enables a true understanding of exactly what is being gained and lost when
exploitation and development takes place 7.
The goods and services approach is a reductionist method, but the benefits arising from
marine biodiversity are entirely dependent on the state of the whole ecosystem. The sum of
the parts of the system is less than the value of the whole system, and the different goods
and services provided are intrinsically connected. The exploitation of specific services can
have negative, positive or neutral impacts on the other services. It should be remembered
that all these different components are inter-dependent, and that the provision of goods and
services is merely a consequence of living organisms natural functioning.
Implementation of the European Marine Strategy Directive should deliver an improved
understanding and management of pressures and impacts arising from human activity and
ultimately result in a reduction in undesirable impacts on the marine environment. This
should lead to improved resilience of marine ecosystems to counteract natural and human
induced changes whilst ensuring the sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services.
However, it is recognised that there is a significant gap between theoretical ideals and what
can practically be done in the short-term to meet the Marine Strategy Framework Directive‘s
2012 deadlines. For example, data are generally lacking on non-economic uses, non-use
values, correlations between drivers, pressures and state and their spatial scale. Member
States will therefore need to focus on making best use of the available data in order to
account for marine uses and cost of degradation for the purposes of their Initial Assessment,
whilst working towards more comprehensive coverage over the longer term. This will
7
(Beaumount et al., 2007)
22
inevitably mean using a mix of quantitative and qualitative data, employing expert opinion
and being transparent about levels of certainty and confidence in the assessment.
The degradation of the marine environment affects its ecosystem goods and service
provision. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment defines ecosystem goods and services as
the benefits people derive from ecosystems. The term of ecosystem services is important
because it conveys the idea that ecosystems are valuable for society; ecosystems contribute
to human welfare. Many of the ecosystem services like the provision of food, the enjoyment
of the scenery, etc. are quite obvious. Others are much less obvious and imply a thorough
understanding of ecosystems functioning. Knowledge about ecosystem services, among
which the impact of human action on ecosystem service provision, is still incomplete as their
complexity is still little understood in many instances 8.
Table 2-2:
Ecosystem goods and services (EGS) provided by the Belgian marine waters
EGS Category
Marine EGS provided

Provisioning services
i.e. products obtained from ecosystems










Regulating services
i.e. benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem
processes





Cultural services
i.e. non-material benefits that people obtain through
spiritual enrichment, cognitive development,
recreation, etc.
Supporting services
i.e. necessary for the production of all other ecosystem
services
Food e.g. capture fisheries, aquaculture, wild
foods
Water from desalinization
Wind, wave and tide energy
Mineral (oil and gas, sand and gravel)
Genetic resources
Biochemicals, natural medicines,
pharmaceuticals
Maritime transport routes
Submarine cable communications
Military areas
Air quality regulation e.g. oxygen production,
carbon sequestration
Climate regulation e.g. heat transport, sea/air
interaction
Water purification and treatment e.g.
mitigation of euthrophication, regulation of
hazardous substances
Disease and pest regulation
Natural hazard regulation e.g. storms, floods
Bioremediation of waste i.e. removal of
pollutants through storage, dilution,
transformation and burial





Cultural heritage i.e. value on the maintenance
of important landscapes and species
Recreation and ecotourism
Contribution to science and education
Aesthetic values e.g. enjoyment of scenery
Religious and spiritual values
Inspiration for art, folklore, architecture, etc.







Primary production
Nutrient cycling
Water cycling
Maintenance of food web dynamics
Maintenance of biodiversity
Maintenance of habitat
Maintenance of resilience
(ARCADIS, 2010)
8
(De Groot et al., 2002; NRC, 2004 and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005)
23
The present uses of the Belgian part of the North Sea (BPNS) have been identified and
classified according to the identified ecosystem goods and services (EGS) provided by the
Belgian marine waters (Table 2-2). Table 2-3 describes only the direct relationship
(dependence) between the user and the EGS. All use functions are directly related to either
a provisioning or a cultural service. It is however obvious that the different uses will also
influence (negatively or positively) other EGS (including regulating and supporting services)
affecting in this way other marine uses. The latter is considered when dealing with the
pressures on the marine environment.
Table 2-3:
Present uses of the Belgian marine waters classified according to the ecosystem goods
and services (EGS) concept
EGS Category
Marine EGS provided
Food
Socio-economic use BPNS

Commercial fisheries

Mariculture

Recreational fisheries e.g.
angling at sea
Provisioning services
Wind, wave and tide energy

Wind farms
Minerals (sand & gravel)

Aggregate extraction




Commercial shipping
Anchorage areas & places
of refuge
Wrecks & wreck salvage
Dredging

Cables & pipelines

Military use (historical
military ammunition
zones, military exercises
e.g. shooting, sweeping of
mines)

Coastal defence
infrastructures
Radar & weather masts
Marine transport routes
Submarine cable communications
Military areas
Other space provision



Water recreation (nonmotorised, motorised)
Beach recreation
Contribution to science and
education

Research/monitoring
Cultural heritage

Nature conservation
Others like cultural heritage,
aesthetic values

General public
Recreation and ecotourism
Cultural services
(ARCADIS, 2010)
All uses and activities are actually driven by economic and/or social motives, except maybe
‗nature conservation‘. However, even though the added value or employment of the latter
may not be derived from the national accounts, nature areas, and more specifically the
marine protected areas, have a specific place in the Belgian marine waters. Nature
24
conservation serves a broader social goal; it contributes amongst others to biodiversity
conservation and facilitates nature experience.
Some of the uses can be further broken down by activity (i.e. beam trawling for fisheries)
and activity phase (only relevant for ‗Wind farms‘ and ‗Infrastructures‘) (construction,
exploitation, dismantling). In some cases one should also make special reference to the
interaction (cumulative, synergetic, etc.) of the uses on specific locations (because of the
specific qualities and sensitivities of certain zones). This detailed classification constitutes the
basis for the development of an impact matrix which links the relative importance of the
pressures to the qualitative descriptors of GES (see Table 2-4). As data are not available to
quantify all of the EGS, their assessment is likely to be biased towards those goods and
services that are more data rich, such as food provision and recreation. There is a risk of
assuming no data equates to no benefit. Limited knowledge should not, however, be used
as an excuse to delay the implementation of the ecosystem approach. Therefore we applied
this first qualitative approach, and we intend to develop a more detailed and quantitative
coverage over the longer term.
Table 2-4:
Pressures on the Belgian marine environment
Impact category
Impact (State)

Physical loss



Physical damage
Physical



Other physical
disturbance




Interference with
hydrological processes

Pressure
Small-scale spatial disturbance by smothering (e.g.
by man-made structures, disposal of dredged
material spoil)
Small-scale spatial disturbance by sealing (e.g. by
permanent constructions)
Changes in siltation (e.g. by outfalls, increased runoff, dredging/disposal of dredged material spoil)
Abrasion (e.g. impact on the seabed of commercial
fishing, boating, anchoring);
Selective extraction (e.g. exploration and exploitation
of living and non-living resources on seabed and
subsoil)
Underwater noise: Increase of the level or amount of
sound in the marine environment beyond its natural
range (e.g. from shipping, underwater acoustic
equipment)
Marine litter: introduction of all types of garbage and
solid waste
Change in turbidity or the extent to which light
penetrates the water column (e.g. by extraction
activities)
Changes in hydrodynamics, direction and magnitude
of waves and/ or currents (e.g. from wind energy
foundations)
Seascape: visual disturbance
Significant changes in thermal regime (natural
temperature range) (e.g. by outfalls from power
stations)
Significant changes in salinity regime (e.g. by
constructions impeding water movements, water
abstraction)
25
Impact category
Impact (State)
Pressure

Contamination by
hazardous substances


Chemical
Systematic
and/or intentional
release of
substances
Nutrient and
organic matter
enrichment
(eutrophication)

Introduction of other substances, whether solid,
liquid or gas, in marine waters, resulting from their
systematic and/or intentional release into the marine
environment, as permitted in accordance with other
Community legislation and/or international
conventions

Inputs of fertilisers and other nitrogen — and
phosphorus-rich substances (e.g. from point and
diffuse sources, including agriculture, aquaculture,
atmospheric deposition)
Inputs of organic matter (e.g. sewers, mariculture,
riverine inputs)


Ecological
Biological disturbance
Introduction of synthetic compounds (e.g. priority
substances under Directive 2000/60/EC which are
relevant for the marine environment such as
pesticides, antifoulants, pharmaceuticals, resulting,
for example, from losses from diffuse sources;
pollution by ships, atmospheric deposition and
biologically active substances);
Introduction of non-synthetic substances and
compounds (e.g. heavy metals, hydrocarbons,
resulting, for example, from pollution by ships and
oil, gas and mineral exploration and exploitation,
atmospheric deposition, riverine inputs);
Introduction of radio-nuclides


Selective extraction of species including incidental
non-target catches (e.g. by commercial or
recreational fishing)
Introduction of non-indigenous species and
translocations: species that do not occur naturally or
historically (exotic species)
Introduction of microbial pathogens: diseaseproducing organisms, either from terrestrial or marine
sources
(ARCADIS, 2010)
26
3.
BUSINESS AS USUAL SCENARIO
3.1
Objective
The Business As Usual or baseline scenario aims to provide projections of how the marine
environment might evolve over time, given potential trends in the uses of marine waters and
existing legislative and regulatory framework. The Business As Usual (BAU) scenario plays a
significant role in defining the cost of degradation (chapter 4) and setting measures to
achieve Good Environmental Status.
3.2
Steps
1. Identify the Member States uses of marine waters, and provide a projection as to
how these uses could change over time;
2. Identify the Pressures that these uses of marine waters create, and provide a
projection of how these could develop over time, also taking into account other
pressures, e.g. regional pressures;
3. Identify relevant legislation, measures and voluntary agreements (at the
international, EU, Regional Seas, and Member State levels) that could have an
influence on the development of pressures over time;
4. Identify changes in the state of the marine environment that could result from
changes and developments of pressures, over the time period considered by the
Initial Assessment9.
3.3
The projected development of marine uses
This socio-economic study focuses only on the first step: project how uses of marine waters
might develop and evolve in 2020, the date when Good Environmental Status should be
achieved. The data is qualitative – per sector a list of characteristics that influence the use of
the marine waters - and is quantified where possible. In a later stage, an assessment should
be made, taking into account the effect of marine uses on individual GES descriptors and
how this might affect the marine environment.
A workshop10 has been held in order to receive stakeholder opinion about how sectors might
develop and evolve towards 2020. In this report, important drivers of development have
been identified for each sector. Besides, for some sectors a bottom-up approach has been
adopted as the development is directed by legislative and regulatory framework, governing
the uses of the marine waters, in particular:

Wind farms: the future development is known as an environmental permit and a
domain concession need to be attributed in order to be able to operate;
9
10
24 May 2011 (VLIZ, Oostende)
27

Aggregate extraction: the future development is known as an environmental permit
and a concession need to be attributed in order to be able to operate;

Dredging and dredged material disposal: dumping permits need to be granted;

Commercial (sea) fisheries: the future development is determined by the Common
Fisheries Policy and National Strategy and Operational Programme (2007 – 2013),
setting particular restrictions on total allowable catches, the number of sailing days,
etcetera.
28
4.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE COST OF DEGRADATION
OF MARINE WATERS
4.1
Cost of degradation
Determining the cost of degradation implies analyzing the difference in ecosystem services
provided in two states (gap analysis), i.e. the difference between the Marine Strategy
Framework Directive scenario, resulting in Good Environmental Status, and the baseline
scenario (without measures to achieve Good Environmental Status). Figure 4-1 shows a
simplified illustration of the cost of degradation in the period 2010 - 2020, equal to the
shaded triangle. However, it will be hard assessing the cost of degradation over a period of
time, so specific points in time will need to be considered.
In order to address uncertainty about possible future developments, various Business As
Usual and Marine Strategy Framework Directive scenarios should be defined and compared.
This can be done via a sensitivity analysis for instance. However, this is not taken into
account in this report.
Figure 4-1:
Simplified illustration of the cost of degradation
(European Commission DG Environment, 2010, p. 25)
The Guidance document of the European Commission describes three different approaches
to assess the cost of degradation of the marine environment: the ‗Ecosystem Service
Approach‘, the ‗Thematic Approach‘ and the ‗Cost-based Approach‘. Belgium has carried out
a variance based on the ‗Thematic approach‘.
4.2
Thematic Approach
The Thematic approach analyses the present costs, expenses and benefits related to the
degradation of the marine environment. This includes accounting costs which refer to
current expenditures on measures for environmental protection and environmental
prevention; abatement costs and transaction costs, as well as opportunity costs that relate
to the loss of benefits for activities that suffer from environmental degradation 11.
11
29
According to the thematic approach of France, the cost of degradation consists of four types
of costs:
1. Opportunity costs (benefits principle): Loss of benefits associated with the lack of
resources for biodiversity conservation or ecosystem services degradation;
2. Mitigation costs (avoidance principle): aimed at protecting human population against
negative effects of environmental degradation;
3. Costs related to positive action in favour of the environment, including prevention
costs: specific investments to improve biodiversity (e.g. ecosystem restoration,
technology changes);
4. Transaction costs: aimed at improving coordination levels (e.g. data collection on
biodiversity state and interactions with human activities, monitoring, control,
communication). Costs related to Information gathering, scientific monitoring, time
of negotiation, implementation of rules and rights, control and respect of these
rules.
The cost analysis is performed per degradation theme (8):

Marine litter: a collective term for any persistent, manufactured or processed solid
material discarded, disposed of or abandoned in the marine and coastal
environment.

Micropollutants.

Microbial pathogens.

Oil spills and illegal discharge of hydrocarbons.

Eutrophication.

Deterioration of fished or exploited biological resources.

Loss of biodiversity, of seabed integrity; food web degradation.

Degradation caused by introduction of energy into the environment, or by
alterations to the hydrographical regime.
4.3
Belgian approach
Belgium has organized an expert workshop 12 in order to identify the actual costs of marine
degradation incurred per sector. The results of the expert opinion have been integrated for
every sector. The cost of degradation consists of four cost categories:
1. Prevention costs: prevention of degradation of ecosystem services and costs linked
to restoration. The costs are related to (1) the prevention of degradation of
ecosystem services, (2) fiscal measures, (3) incentives inducing a better
management of the environment and (4) volume measures;
2. Mitigation costs: avoidance expenses for in impact linked to the loss of ecosystem
service. The costs are related to curative measures, in case of marine degradation
ex post;
12
12 May 2011, Ostend (VLIZ)
30
3. Governance costs: expenses related to information, scientific monitoring and
organisation;
4. Opportunity costs: loss of benefits associated with the lack of resources for
biodiversity conservation or ecosystem services degradation.
In this stage, a total economic value assessment can not be carried out. The Thematic
approach can be considered as pragmatic. It takes into account the different costs related to
the current degradation of the marine environment, with the aim to get an exhaustive view
of socio-economic impacts of environmental degradation, not to aggregate all the monetary
values.
In this report the actual costs of the measures have been identified, leading to the actual
environmental status. In order to estimate the total cost of marine degradation additional
‗restoration costs‘ need to be taken into account as well, so the Good Environmental Status
can be achieved. These total costs will only be encountered if the environmental value is
larger than the costs (Figure 4-2)13.
Figure 4-2:
13
Belgian approach to the cost of degradation
It needs to be noted that this illustration is inserted for comprehensive purposes and does not reflect reality.
31
5.
COMMERCIAL (SEA) FISHERIES
Three important annotations need to be made. First, it needs to be noted that the Belgian
fishery sector is situated in a large extend outside the Belgian Continental Shelf. Only a small
part of the Belgian sea fishery – i.e. coastal fishing - is located in the Belgian part of the
North Sea. This means that the socio-economic data (supra) does not cover the BPNS and
so are not representative for the BPNS. Second, other fisheries (i.e. French and Dutch),
exploiting the Belgian part of the North Sea, are not included in the study as no data is
available. Finally, the study only analyses commercial fishing, making abstraction of
recreative fishing – despite the increasing practice and related issues.
5.1
Sector description
Belgian fishing territory
The Belgian fishing territory covers 3.478 km², from which 1.430 km² Territorial Sea. Fishing
grounds are historically dispersed as well as remotely located: the North Sea, English
Channel, Bay of Biscay, Western Waters, Celtic and Irish Sea. The fishing territory is
remotely located from Belgian harbours.
Belgian vessels have exclusive fishing rights in the Belgian Territorial Sea between the
baseline and 3 nautical miles. According to the BENELUX-treaty Dutch vessels have the same
rights. In the zone between 3 and 12 n.m. in the Belgian Territorial Sea, Dutch vessels are
allowed to fish all kinds of fish, whereas French vessels only are allowed to catch herring.
This treaty allows Belgian vessels to fish unrestricted in the Dutch Territorial Sea. Beyond 12
n.m the principle of equal access fully applies with respect to other member States. Third
States have no fishing rights in this zone, unless the European Community gives permission.
Evolution of the Belgian fishing fleet
The Belgian fishing fleet is divided into two sub fleets, based on the engine power of the
vessels:
1. A small fleet segment (SFS) with a maximum engine power of 221 kW (300pk),
comprises:
 Coastal vessels which mostly make trips of less than 24 hours, commanded
by on average 3 crew members;
 Eurocutters are vessels built specifically to fish in the 12-miles zone (since
1981) and equipped with a beam trawl. They have a maximum overall
length of 24m. These vessels are highly modern and flexible, allowing to
redirect their activities on short term – i.e. fishing on other target species or
on other fishing grounds;
 Other small vessels which are not a coastal vessel or eurocutter.
2. A large fleet segment (LFS) with an engine power higher than 221 kW (300pk)
comprises:
 Large beam trawlers fishing with the beam trawl and an engine power of
662 kW or more;
 Other large vessels with an engine power between 221kw and 662kw.
32
Number of vessels and capacity
Figure 5-1 represents the evolution of the Belgian fleet. The number of vessels has
plummeted by 400 % from over 450 vessels in 1950 to 89 vessels in 2009. The capacity –
expressed in engine power (kW) and Gross Tonnage (GT) 14 – allows showing particular
patterns.
In the period 1950 – 1970 the number of vessels fell by 27 %, while capacity increased – by
40 % kW and 15 % GT, implying that smaller vessels exited the fleet, while larger vessels
entered the fleet. This pattern is confirmed in Figure 5-2. In ‘70 – ‘80 the number of vessels
plummeted by 35 %, the total engine power fell by 15 % and the total GT by 32 %. Since
1980 until ‗90 the market recovered, with capacity peaking in 1991. Since, the number of
vessels fell by 55 % to 89 in 2009. The capacity as well plummeted by 28 %, expressed in
kW, and Gross Tonnage by 59 %.
The decrease in the last decennium is a result of the Multiannual Orientation Plan (MOP),
offering a premium in order to reduce the fleet. The MOPs are established by the European
Union and try to direct the decrease of the fishing effort. This resulted in the scrapping of 21
vessels in 2004 and 9 vessels in 2006. Another factor resulting in the fall of number of
vessels is the merging of capacities (kW).
Figure 5-2 shows a significant increase of capacity, as the average Gross Tonnage increased
by 80 % and the engine power by 78 % between 1950 and 2000. Since, the average engine
power increased by 14 % and the average gross tonnage remained stable at circa 185.
90.000
500
80.000
60.000
Capacity
400
66.494
65.965
62.915
65.422
350
60.620
51.590
50.000
40.000
30.000
31.185
200
26.341
21.122
25.498
24.281
22.584
150
16.048
20.000
10.000
0
100
50
457
415
332
208
201
155
127
130
131
126
121
120
107
102
100
89
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
1995
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
vessels
Figure 5-1:
300
250
44.426
Vessels
70.000
450
77.102
74.160
GT
0
kW
Evolution of the Belgian fleet: number of vessels and capacity (1950 – 2009)
(Vlaamse Overheid, Departement Landbouw en Visserij, Afdeling Landbouw- en Visserijbeleid, Zeevisserij, 2009)
14
Until 1970 vessel tonnage was expressed in Bruto Tonnage (BRT) instead of Gross Tonnage. Since 1999 all
vessels are expressed in Gross Tonnage.
33
700
600
511
606
563
542
580
Capacity
500
384
400
300
223
200
134
97
100
94
70
58
102
127
190
189
182
149
180
0
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
1995
2000
2001
average GT per vessel
Figure 5-2:
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
average kW per vessel
Average capacity per vessel in kW and GT (1950 – 2009)
Composition of the Belgian fishing fleet
A distinction can be made between active fishing methods (beam and otter trawls) and
passive fishing techniques (gillnets, entangling nets, hooks, lines and traps). Belgian
fisheries are essentially (85 %) beam trawling in terms of landing volume and value
(Vlaamse Overheid, Departement Landbouw en Visserij, Afdeling Landbouw- en
Visserijbeleid, Zeevisserij, 2009).
In 2009 the Belgian sea fishing fleet included 89 vessels: 47 vessels in the small fleet
segment and 42 vessels in the large fleet segment. Compared to 2008, a reduction of 11
vessels can be noted, as 13 vessels left the fleet and two vessels entered the fleet. Seven
large beam trawlers have been scrapped, and 4 vessels went bankrupt, reducing total
capacity to 51.590 kW and 16.048 GT.
Figure 5-3 shows the average age of the Belgian fleet in 2000 – 2009. In this period 38
vessels left the Belgian fleet, which has aged by 4 years and 4 months to 22 years and 4
months.
140
25
100
21,5
20,8
19,7
19,3
18,8
18,6
18,3
21,5
20
15
80
60
127
130
131
126
121
120
107
102
40
100
10
89
Age of the fleet
Number of vessels
120
22,3
22,3
5
20
0
0
31/12/'00 31/12/'01 31/12/'02 31/12/'03 31/12/'04 31/12/'05 31/12/'06 31/12/'07 31/12/'08 31/12/'09
Number of vessels
Average age of the fleet
Figure 5-3: Evolution of the average age of the Belgian fleet (2000 – 2009)
(FIVA, 2009, p. 50)
34
Fish prices
Fish prices in Belgian harbors
Figure 5-4 shows the evolution of the fish prices in Belgian harbors in 1991-2009 of cod,
plaice, sole, shrimp and the average fish price. The average fish price has increased from
2,62 €/kg in 1991 to 3,72 €/kg in 2009. Soles are one of the most expensive fish species and
have increased the most from ca. 6 €/kg to 9,17 €/kg. However, a significant reduction can
be noticed since 2006, when prices peaked at 11,56 €/kg. Cod prices increased as well from
ca. 2 €/kg to ca. 3 €/kg. The price of plaice decreased to 1,31 €/kg, as well as the price of
shrimps by ca. 60% to 2,77 €/kg.
Figure 5-4:
Fish prices in Belgian harbors (1991 - 2009)
(Vlaamse Overheid, Departement Landbouw en Visserij, Afdeling Landbouw- en Visserijbeleid, Zeevisserij, 2009, p.
36)
Fish prices in foreign harbors
Figure 5-5 shows the evolution of the average fish price in Belgian and foreign harbours in
1950-2009. The average fish price is since 1980 on average ca. 19 % higher in Belgian
harbours than in foreign harbours. Despite a dip in 2004, at 3,72 €/kg in Belgian harbours
and 3,0 €/kg in foreign harbours, the graph shows increasing prices until 2006, at 4,54 €/kg
in Belgian harbours and at 3,94 €/kg in foreign harbours. Since, prices in Belgian harbours
have plummeted to 3,72 €/kg, the same level as in 2004. The price in foreign harbours is in
2009 2,82 €/kg, or 32 % lower than in Belgian harbours.
35
5
4,54
4,5
4
3,52
€/kg
3,5
3,94
2,62
3
2,5
3,44
2,63
2,59
2
2,11
1,5
1
0,5
0,2
0
'50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09
Belgian harbors
Figure 5-5:
Foreign harbors
Average fish price in Belgian and foreign harbours (1950 - 2009)
37)
Fish landings
Figure 5-6 gives an overview of the annual fish landings of Belgian sea vessels to Belgian
harbours and to foreign harbours. Since ‘55 the total supply of fish plummeted from 72.000
ton to 26.000 ton in 2000, corresponding to a decrease of 64 %. The amount of landings is
still decreasing to less than 20.000 ton in 2009. Reasons are decreasing quota, decreasing
profitability, decreasing number of vessels and increasing operating costs.
80.000
72.428
70.000
60.000 53.848
55.197
46.628
50.000
39.942
40.000
32.250
30.000
27.125
26.467
20.000
26.976
23.607
21.793
19.175
10.000
0
'50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09
Belgian harbors
Figure 5-6:
Foreign harbors
Fish landings of Belgian vessels (1950 – 2009)
10)
Figure 5-7 shows the share (%) of fish landings to Belgian and to foreign harbours,
compared to the total fish landings. The overall share of fish landings is offered to Belgian
harbours, with an average of 81 %. In the period 1950 – 2000 a significant increase in fish
landings to foreign harbours can be noted from 0 % to 34 % in 2000. Since the share has
decreased to 11 % in 2005. However, an increase can be noted to 17 % in 2009. The
Netherlands are the major market, with 2.783 ton in 2009, or 86 % of total landings of
36
Belgian vessels in foreign harbours. France and Great-Britain are two upcoming markets, as
a result of selective fishing on scallops15
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
20%
14%
10%
0%
34%
34%
30%
18%
22%
26%
12%
17%
1%
'50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09
Belgian harbors
Figure 5-7:
Foreign harbors
Share of fish landings to Belgian and foreign harbours in terms of percentage (1950 –
2009)
10)
5.2
Turnover
This chapter gives an overview of the turnover in the Belgian fisheries sector. In particular
the total turnover, turnover per sailing day, average turnover per vessel type and per sailing
day, share of Belgian and foreign harbours are analyzed. In addition, the turnover in relation
to the production (ton) of the fish processing industry is examined.
As mentioned in the introduction, these figures exceed the borders of the Belgian
Continental Shelf. Only a fraction (mainly coastal fisheries) concerns the BPNS.
Total turnover
Total turnover peaked in 2006 with 81,7 million €. Since, turnover is decreasing. The total
turnover in 2009 was 59,2 million € or a decrease by 11 % compared to 2008. The average
turnover per sailing day shows the same pattern. In 2006, the average turnover per sailing
day was 4.550 € and since decreased by ca. 14 % to 3.920 €.
15
(Vlaamse Overheid, Departement Landbouw en Visserij, Afdeling Landbouw- en Visserijbeleid, Zeevisserij, 2009,
p. 12)
37
90.000
81.694
80.266
75.479
80.000
66.599
59.200
60.000
x 1.000€
71.390
67.956
70.000
52.613
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0
'86
Figure 5-8:
'87
'88
'89
'90
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
Turnover (1986-2009)
52)
5.000
4.550
4.500
3.920
3.728
4.000
3.500
2.860
3.000
2.472
2.500
1.972
1.804
2.000
1.500
1.000
500
0
'86
Figure 5-9:
'87
'88
'89
'90
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
Turnover per sailing day (1986-2009)
52)
Turnover per type of vessel
Table 5-1:
Turnover per type of vessel (2008 - 2009)
2008
2009
Difference (%)
Small fleet segment
Coastal vessels (≤ 221 kW)
€ 575.678
€ 434.634
- 32,5
€ 320.329
€ 282.657
- 13,3
Eurocutters (≤ 221 kW)
€ 728.887
€ 625.785
- 16,5
Other (≤ 221 kW)
-
€ 135.874
-
€ 1.236.534
€ 1.110.945
- 11,3
€ 1.277.774
€ 1.256.675
- 1,7
€ 576.696
€ 403.114
- 43,1
Large fleet segment
Large beam trawlers (> 662 kW)
Other (> 221 kW)
Table 5-1 shows the average turnover per vessel in 2008 and 2009. Significant differences
can be noted between the small and large fleet segment, as well in the segments
themselves. The turnover of vessels in the large fleet segment was in 2009 150 % higher
38
compared to the vessels in the small fleet segment. The turnover in 2009 decreased
significantly compared to 2008. Vessels in the small fleet segment generated in 2009 an
average turnover of 434.634 € or a decrease of 32,5 %, compared to 2008. The turnover of
vessels in the large fleet segment decreased by 11,3 % to 1.110.945 € in 2009, compared to
2008.
Table 5-3 presents the average turnover per vessel per sailing day in 2008 and 2009. The
table shows as well significant differences between the small and large fleet segments and in
the fleet segments themselves. The average turnover per sailing day of vessels in the small
fleet segment was in 2009 2.618 €. The turnover of eurocutters (≤ 221 kW) amounted
3.401 € or almost double the turnover of coastal vessels (≤ 221 kW). Compared to 2008,
the average turnover decreased by 24,9 %. The average turnover per sailing day of vessels
in the large fleet segment is almost double the turnover of vessels in the small fleet
segment, corresponding to 4.960 €. The average turnover decreased by 9,3 % in 2009,
compared to 2008.
Table 5-2:
Average turnover per vessel (2008 – 2009)
2008
2009
Difference (%)
Small fleet segment
€ 575.678
€ 434.634
- 32,5
€ 320.329
€ 282.657
- 13,3
€ 728.887
€ 625.785
- 16,5
Other (≤ 221 kW)
-
€ 135.874
-
€ 1.236.534
€ 1.110.945
- 11,3
€ 1.277.774
€ 1.256.675
- 1,7
€ 576.696
€ 403.114
- 43,1
Large fleet segment
Other (> 221 kW)
€ 1.400.000
€ 1.200.000
€ 1.000.000
€ 800.000
€ 600.000
€ 400.000
€ 200.000
€0
Small fleet
segment
Coastal vessels Eurocutters (≤
(≤ 221 kW)
221 kW)
2008
Other (≤ 221
kW)
Large fleet
segment
Large beam
Other (> 221
trawlers (> 662
kW)
kW)
2009
Figure 5-10: Average turnover per vessel (2008 – 2009)
39
Coastal vessels
Figure 5-11 gives an overview of the turnover (red line) and the operating profit before (blue
bar) and after taxes (green bar). Coastal vessels (≤ 221 kW) are vessels sailing less than 24
hours per voyage, on average 160 days per year. The crew consists of 2 to 3 persons.
In 2008 the results were based on 9 vessels (out of 23). The average profit per sailing day
in 2008 was 2.002 €, or an increase of 2 % compared to 2007. The total turnover was
320.000 €. The net profit before taxes was in 2008 16.969 €.
Figure 5-11: Turnover and operating profit coastal vessels (1990 – 2008)
(FIVA, 2009, p. 62)
40
Eurocutters
Eurocutters (≤ 221 kW; > 70 GT) are polyvalent vessels, built to fish in the 12-miles zone
and equipped with a beam trawl. Eurocutters sail on average 185 days per year. The results
of 2008 are based on 15 vessels (out of 20). The average turnover in 2008 was 728.887 € or
3.940 € per sailing day.
Figure 5-12: Turnover and operating profit Eurocutters (1990 - 2008)
(FIVA, 2009, p. 63)
41
Large beam trawlers
Beam trawlers (> 662 kW) mainly catch sole and plaice. The results in 2008 are based on 32
vessels (out of 46). The average turnover in 2008 was 1,28 million €, corresponding to an
average loss of 65.000 €.
Figure 5-13: Turnover and operating profit large beam trawlers (1990 - 2008)
(FIVA, 2009, p. 64)
Turnover in Belgian and foreign harbours
Figure 5-14 gives an overview of the turnover in Belgian and foreign harbours, whereas
Figure 5-15 represents its share (%) in 1950-2009. In 2009 85 % of the turnover was
established in Belgian harbours: Zeebrugge accounted for ca. 54 % and Ostend for ca.
43 %. This corresponds to a decrease by 5 %, compared to 2008. The Netherlands
contributed in 2009 for 8,2 million €, ca. 90 % of the turnover in foreign harbours.
42
90.000
80.000
70.000
60.000
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0
'50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09
Belgian harbors
Foreign harbors
Figure 5-14: Turnover in Belgian and foreign harbours (1950 – 2009)
23)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
'50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09
Belgian harbors
Foreign harbors
Figure 5-15: Turnover in Belgian and foreign harbours in terms of percentage (1950 – 2009)
23)
Fish processing industry
The fish processing industry processes marine fish (i.e. salmon, crab,…) or freshwater fish
(i.e. trout) for human consumption. In 2005 ca. 260 companies were active: 5 large
enterprises, 20 small and medium-sized enterprises and 235 small and micro-sized
enterprises16. Figure 5-16 shows the production (ton) and the turnover in the Belgian fish
processing industry in 2000-2007. The turnover has continuously increased from 349 million
€ in 2000 to 420 million € in 2007, corresponding to an increase of 20 %.
16 16
(Visserijfonds, p. 14)
43
€ 450.000
70.000
€ 400.000
68.000
€ 350.000
66.000
64.000
62.000
€ 250.000
60.000
€ 200.000
Ton
x 1.000 €
€ 300.000
58.000
€ 150.000
56.000
€ 100.000
54.000
€ 50.000
52.000
€0
50.000
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
Figure 5-16: Production and turnover in the Belgian fish processing industry (2000 - 2007)
(Europese Visserijfonds)
5.3
Added value
The gross added value of the fisheries sector – in terms of production - accounts for 0,04 %
of the Gross National Product, whereas in the agricultural sector it equals 1,9 %17. According
to the financial statements of 138 companies, collected by the National Bank of Belgium, the
added value in 2008 was 24,6 million €. 110 companies generated a positive added value,
whereas 28 companies did not.
Table 5-3:
Added value (2008)
Added value (excl. VAT)
Number of companies
€ 26.034.000
110
- € 1.409.000
28
(Own elaboration based on financial sheets (DE05: Visserij en het kweken van vis en schaal- en schelpdieren 2008) of the National Bank of Belgium)
5.4
Employment data
Employment in the Belgian fishery can be divided into two segments: the fishing industry
and the fish processing industry. The Belgian fishery employs on average 2.500 people.
Derived activities employ ca. 5.000 people.
In 2007 1.350 people worked in the fish processing industry, from which 70 % are laborers
and 30 % employees. 82 % of the employment is located in Flanders and 18 % in Wallonia.
52 % of the workplace is taken in by men, whereas 48 % by women18.
17
18
(Europese Visserijfonds, p. 49)
44
Figure 5-17: Employment data (2001 – 2007)
1.600
1.438
1.415
1.507
1.406
1.400
1.329
1.373
1.350
1.200
960
1.000
800
600
709
719
657
623
400
666
879
623
859
771
720
591
481
450
2006
2007
200
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Fishermen approved by the Joint Committee (full -time employed)
Fleet
Fish processing industry
(Europese Visserijfonds, p. 6)
5.5
Factors influencing the future development of the sector
The evolution of the Belgian fishing industry depends on various factors, such as climate
change, fuel prices, society, the economic situation, the Belgian policy and foreign
competition.
Climate change: ecosystem shift
Due to climate change several fish species are migrating to the North, towards higher ICESregions. As the temperature of the North Sea is rising, certain species (i.e. shrimp and cod)
will decrease, while other warm water species will manifest. Moreover, overfishing is
restraining the recovery of the marine ecosystem, trying to process the consequences of
temperature rises. It is possible that poor fish stocks will not be able to restore, while other
species will take over.
Economic situation
Increasing operating costs are threatening the economic existence of all active vessels.
According to Decloedt (2006) Belgian fisheries are no longer profitable. Moreover, Decloedt
states that the sector has liquidity and solvability problems.
Fuel price
Fuel price (and consumption) is an important share in the total cost, determining the
profitability. Unlike other economies, fisheries are unable to recoup increasing costs in selling
prices, as prices are established by the market (as a result of demand and supply).
Fuel consumption is determined by the size and type of the vessel, as well as by the fishing
technique. Large beam trawlers consume 4.500 – 6.000 liter per 24 hours, while eurocutters
1.800 liter and coastal vessels 600 liter.
In 2009 fuel consumption accounted for 20 % of the turnover of vessels in the small fleet
segment and 28 % in case of large beam trawlers. In 2008 the share was respectively 30 %
45
and 42 % - Table 5-419. This trend corresponds to the evolution of average gas oil prices,
represented in Figure 5-18Fout! Verwijzingsbron niet gevonden.. Figure 5-19 shows
that the fuel cost per kg landed fish has risen by 100 % over 5 years (2003 -2007).
Figure 5-18: Average gas oil prices for sea fishing (2005 – 2009)
0,70
0,60
0,63
€/liter
0,50
0,40
0,43
0,48
0,48
0,41
0,30
0,20
0,10
0,00
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Average fuel prices of sea fishing
(Zeevisserij, Vlaamse overheid - Departement Landbouw en visserij - Afdeling Landbouw- en Visserijbeleid -, 2009)
3,5
3,5
3
3,02
3,15
2,95
3
2,97
3,0
2,5
2
1,71
1,36
1,5
1
0,78
1,43
2
1,5
0,91
euro
Liter
2,5
1
0,5
0,5
0
0
2003
2004
2005
Fuel consumption per kg of fish
2006
2007
Fuel cost per kg landed fish
Figure 5-19: Average fuel consumption per kg landed fish (2003-2007)
19
(Zeevisserij, Vlaamse overheid - Departement Landbouw en visserij - Afdeling Landbouw- en Visserijbeleid -,
2009)
46
Table 5-4:
Share of fuel consumption in turnover in terms of percentage (2007 – 2009)
Small fleet segment
2007
2008
2009
22,71%
29,51%
19,82%
22,01%
27,34%
19,76%
29,87%
29,88%
19,90%
Other (≤ 221 kW)
-
-
18,15%
31,27%
41,85%
27,12%
31,29%
42,35%
27,89%
Other (> 221 kW)
30,59%
23,92%
15,40%
Large fleet segment
(Zeevisserij, Vlaamse overheid - Departement Landbouw en visserij - Afdeling Landbouw- en Visserijbeleid -, 2009,
p. 27)
Society
Social pressure for more selective fishery and fishing techniques is increasing, affecting the
actors in the fishery sector. Changing (fish) consumption patterns do influence fish prices.
Fish can be considered as a luxury product: demand increases more than proportionally
when income rises. This would lead to a new equilibrium, with a higher level of demand and
supply. On the fishing market however, supply is restricted due to quota and will hence lead
to higher fish prices.
The Common Fisheries Policy
The Belgian fleet is submitted to the European policy. The Common Fishery Policy is a policy
of the European Union, designed to achieve a sustainable European fishing industry in
collaboration with EU countries. The policy was established in 1983 and was revised in 2002.
The revision in 2002 aims a sustainable development of fisheries in an ecological, economic
and social way. The EU has designed a number of conservation measures, categorized in:
1. Total Allowable Catches (TAC): restriction of the maximum amount of fish permitted
to be caught;
2. Technical measures: i.e. minimum size of fish landing, limitations of by-catch,
minimum mesh openings, etc.;
3. Limitation of the fishing effort: restriction of the number of fishing days;
4. Fleet management: determination of the number and type of vessels and setting of
reference levels20.
Total Allowable Catches (TAC)
Each year, Total Allowable Catches for the following year are decided by the Council of
Fisheries Ministers. The Council‘s decision is determined by scientific advice of the
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and in many cases fishermen
from the Member States through the Regional Advisory Committees (RACs).
Figure 5-20 represents the evolution of the Belgian quota in 1996 – 2010. Fishing quota are
generally decreasing, as a result of slinking fish stocks due to overfishing. In this period the
quota of cods have been reduced by 76 %, to 1.200 ton, plaice by 32 % to 4.500 ton and
20
(ir. Jan Adriansens , 2009)
47
sol by 20 % to 3.560 ton. The quota of herring has remained stable at 7.100 ton, despite a
peak in 2002 – 2007 at 9.700 ton and the quota of sea devil has increased by 46 % to 3.600
ton. A new set of quotas will be applied soon.
12.000
10.000
Ton
8.000
6.000
4.000
2.000
0
'96
'97
'98
'99
Cod
'00
'01
Sol
'02
'03
Plaice
'04
Herring
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
Sea devil
Figure 5-20: Evolution of Belgian quota of some fish species in ton (1996 – 2010)
(Vlaamse Overheid, Departement Landbouw en Visserij, Afdeling Landbouw- en Visserijbeleid, Zeevisserij, 2009, pp.
93-96)
National Strategy and Operational Programme 2007-2013
The European Fisheries Fund provides financial support to facilitate the reform of the
Common Fisheries Policy. In order to receive support from the European Fisheries Fund,
Member States had to draw up a national strategy and an operational programme. Belgium
aims at reforming the fisheries sector in a sustainable manner by differentiating and
innovating. Table 5-5 gives an overview of the goals of the Belgian Operational Plan in 2015.
Table 5-5:
Goals of the National Operational Programme
Indicator
2009
2015
Difference
Capacity in GT
16.048
15.000
- 1.048 or - 6,5 %
Capacity in kW
Number of sailing days with a beam trawl for the
entire fleet
Number of sailing days with vessels other than
beam trawls
51.590
47.000
- 4.490 or - 8,9 %
10.60121
11.020
+ 419 or + 3,9 %
7.021
9.072
+ 2051 or + 29,2 %
+80
+80
Employment
(Europese Visserijfonds, p. 76) and (Vlaamse Overheid, Departement Landbouw en Visserij, Afdeling Landbouw- en
Visserijbeleid, Zeevisserij, 2009, p. 60)
Foreign competition
Foreign competition is an important factor, as fish prices from foreign harbors are lower than
in the Belgian market (Figure 5-5). The Belgian fisheries sector is searching for new markets
and added value activities22.
21
This number reflects the number of sailing days of the entire LFS . The number of large beam trawls (>662
kW) is 9.617.
22
48
5.6
Cost of degradation based on costs of current environmental
measures
Following costs are encountered in order to mitigate and prevent (further) degradation of
the marine environment, with regard to the fisheries and mariculture sector:

‗Fishing for litter‘,

Inspection of fisheries activities,

Monitoring,

Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) 23,

European Fisheries Fund (EFF).
Discharge and disposal of wastes from ships including sewage and litter: „Fishing
for litter‟
The aim of the original Dutch project - launched in 2005 - was to clear the North Sea from
litter by bringing ashore the litter that is trawled up as part of fishing activities and disposing
of it on land. This is achieved by providing large hard wearing bags to the boats so that the
waste can be easily collected and deposited on the quayside.
Fishers received 10 € per ‗big bag‘. In 2007, the Fishing-for-Litter contract with the port of
Ostend was financed with 30.000 € by the Federal public service Public Health (Dienst
Marien Milieu DG Leefmilieu).
Inspection of fisheries activities
Fisheries rules and control systems are agreed on at EU level, but implemented by the
member states through their national authorities and inspectors. The Marine Fisheries
Service of the Agriculture and Fisheries Policy Division (located in Oostende) disposes of an
inspection cell, which carries out inspections and coordinates several control authorities. The
Marine Fisheries Service has made an agreement with other partners: the Navy component
from Defence surveils fisheries activities (see Figure 12-10), while DAB Vloot provides
vessels and the Management Unit of the North Sea Mathematical Models (MUMM) carries out
air control. Table 5-6 gives an overview of the conducted inspections and charges in 20012006. In 2009, 117 days (74 days with the Navy, 37 days with DAB Vloot and 6 days
autonomously) of inspection at sea were conducted, 121 complete inspections of fisheries
vessels and ca. 150 inspections of sports fisheries vessels. In addition, 37 flights were
performed. At land, 46 inspections were carried out in the harbour, subjecting 147 vessels to
a complete inspection. Finally, 12 inspections directed to beach fisheries were fulfilled.24
23
In 2008 the European program Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) has been replaced by a new
program, European Fisheries Fund (EFF). The EFF-program has effectively started in Belgium in 2009.
24
(Vlaamse overheid - Beleidsdomein Landbouw en Visserij, 2009)
49
Table 5-6:
Performed controls and number of charges (2001-2006)
Land
Sea
Air
Charges
2001
Number of
inspections
92
Number of
days
63
Number of
boardings
91
Number of
flights
36
Number of
hours
38
2002
96
88
159
45
38.5
49
2003
84
44
84
45
40
59
2004
55
68
78
43
40
53
2005
83
85
151
48
40
34
2006
68
82
163
43
40
34
Number
63
The costs of inspections are:

Navy ships: the operational costs are ca. 11.000 € per day (born by the Navy);

Zeehond and DAB Vloot: 703 € per hour (born by DAB Vloot);

Air control (arrangement with MUMM): 67.000 € per year (born by the Marine
Fisheries Service of the Agriculture and Fisheries Policy Division).
Controls are carried out at every point in the chain from the boat to the retailer. Information
must be provided that the fish was caught legally. Monitoring and control take place through
following modern technologies:

The electronic reporting system (ERS) is used to record fishing activities data (e.g.
catches, landings, sales) and to report them to fisheries authorities in the Member
States. The system is compulsory for vessels above 15 m (as from 1 January 2012 –
vessels above 12 m). It replaces paper logbooks and is therefore often referred to
as an electronic logbook or ―e-logbook‖. It also replaces sales notes.

The vessel monitoring system (VMS) is a satellite-based fishing vessel monitoring
system providing data to the fisheries authorities at regular intervals on the location,
course and speed of vessels. The system is compulsory for EU vessels above 15 m
(as from 1 January 2012 – vessels above 12 m)25.
Monitoring by ILVO
The Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO) is a Flemish Scientific Institute.
As such, it belongs to the Flemish Government's Agriculture and Fisheries Policy Area. ILVO‘s
mission is to perform and coordinate policy-supportive scientific research and to provide
related services with an eye towards economically, ecologically and socially sustainable
agriculture and fisheries26. ILVO aims at researching and providing advice on fisheries
biology and management, aquaculture on land and at sea, technical fishery research, the
quality of the marine environment and its resources, and technological aspects of fisheries
and aquaculture products.
Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance and European Fisheries Fund
Some important remarks need to be made. First, as the Belgian fishery sector is situated in a
large extend outside the Belgian Continental Shelf, subventions will also have an effect
25
(European Commission - Fisheries, 2011)
26
(ILVO, 2011)
50
outside Belgian waters. Second, the effect of subventions to Dutch and French fisheries is
not taken into account. Third, not all EFF and FIFG subventions are relevant as not all
subventions aim reducing the degradation of marine waters, but can be considered as
investments increasing fisheries‘ revenues. As some subventions will contribute to higher
revenues, offsetting the costs, those subventions can not be recorded either. This means
that only a fraction of the subventions needs to be counted as prevention or mitigation
measure.
FIFG: Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance
The Regulation on the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) sets out the policy
priorities and the terms of assistance for the fisheries and aquaculture sector for the period
2000-2006. The FIFG is designed to help achieve the aims of the Common Fisheries Policy
by providing structural assistance. It thus strengthens the competitiveness of the operating
structures and the development of economically viable enterprises.
The aim of the FIFG is to contribute to achieving the objectives of the common fisheries
policy. It supports structural measures in fisheries, aquaculture and the processing and
marketing of fishery and aquaculture products. In this way it promotes the restructuring of
the sector by putting in place the right conditions for its development and modernisation.
Objectives
The aims of the FIFG's structural measures are to:
-
contribute to achieving a balance between fisheries resources and their exploitation;
-
strengthen the competitiveness of operating structures and the development of
economically viable enterprises in the sector;
-
improve market supply and the value added to fishery and aquaculture products;
-
contribute to revitalising areas dependent on fisheries and aquaculture.
Scope
This Regulation grants FIFG support to the following in line with the FIFG's overall
objectives:
-
fleet renewal and modernization of fishing vessels;
-
adjustment of fishing effort;
-
joint enterprises;
-
small-scale coastal fisheries;
-
socio-economic measures;
-
protection of marine resources in coastal waters;
-
aquaculture;
-
fishing port facilities;
-
processing and marketing of fishery and aquaculture products;
-
seeking new outlets for such products;
-
operations by members of the trade;
51
-
innovative actions, in particular those of a transnational nature and involving the
networking of operators and areas dependent on the sector.
-
technical assistance.
Financial support
Figure 5-21 gives an overview of the evolution (1998-2009) of the number of FIFGapplications. The number of applications has rocketed in 1999, immediately followed by a
relapse. Since 2002 the number of applications has stabilized around 15-20 per year. In
2009 the number of applications has increased, due to the scrapping period and the
increased support to 60 % (as a result of the fuel regulation of July 24 2008).
Figure 5-21: Evolution of the number of FIFG-applications (1998 - 2009)
(FIVA, 2009)
Figure 5-22 shows the evolution (1998-2009) of FIFG-funding. In 2004, 2006, 2007 and
2009 FIFG granted support with regard to scrapping actions. Since 2006 FIFG as well
supports projects related to fisheries (regarding wind mills, CORVIS, Advis II, etc.). All this
explains the increased funding since 2006.
52
4.000
3.477
3.500
x 1.000 euro
2.895
2.866
3.000
2.971
2.268
2.500
2.000
1.687
2.163
2.230
2008
2009
1.483
1.500
1.000
2.759
845
500
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Figure 5-22: Evolution of FIFG-funding (1998 - 2009)
Own elaboration based on (FIVA, 2009)
Situation in 2009
In 2009, 38 reports have been submitted, equal to 17.275.604,52 € (Table 5-7).
Table 5-7:
Submitted investment amounts per type of investment (2009)
Number of submitted
projects
Submitted investment amounts/ scrapping
premium
Modernisation of vessels
27
9.344.259,67
Purchase of a workshop
1
173.290,85
Collective actions
1
90.464,00
Scrapping of vessels
Total
(FIVA, 2009)
9
7.667.590,00
38
17.275.604,52
Following projects have been allocated in 2009:
-
Modernisation of vessels: 16
-
Purchase of a workshop: 1
-
Scrapping of vessels: 9
-
Collective actions: 4
-
Funding of additional interests: 2
The total amount of FIFG-funding in 2009 was equal to 2.230.094,14 €.
Taking into consideration the annotations made in the introduction, not all funding should be
taken into account. The modernization of vessels and the purchase of a workshop can not
be considered as a subvention in favour of biodiversity.
European Fisheries Fund
The EFF is the new instrument for fisheries programming under the Financial Perspective for
the EU for the 2007 - 2013 period, replacing the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance
(FIFG).
53
This Regulation establishes a new European Fisheries Fund (EFF) for the period 2007-2013.
It sets the Fund's objectives and priorities plus the responsibilities under it and the financial
framework. It also sets out the arrangements for programming, managing monitoring and
following up the EFF. The new Fund provides financial assistance to help implement the
2002 reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP) and to support the restructuring that has
become necessary as the sector has developed.
The European Fisheries Fund (EFF) shall contribute to realizing the Common Fisheries Policy
(CFP) objectives, which specifically consist of ensuring the conservation and sustainable use
of marine resources. In order to achieve this, the Fund shall provide financial support aimed
at:
-
ensure the long-term future of fishing activities and the sustainable use of fishery
resources;
-
reduce pressure on stocks by matching EU fleet capacity to available;
-
promote the sustainable development of inland fishing;
-
help boost economically viable enterprises in the fisheries sector and make operating
structures more competitive;
-
foster the protection of the environment and the conservation of marine resources;
-
encourage sustainable development and improve the quality of life in areas with an
active fishing industry;
-
promote equality between women and men active in the fisheries sector.
Priorities
The EFF provides for five priorities:
1. Measures to adapt the EU fishing fleet: financial assistance can be granted to
fishermen and fishing vessel owners affected by the measures taken to combat
overfishing or to protect public health to help them temporarily or permanently lay
up fishing vessels and to train, re-skill and provide early retirement to fishermen.
Vessels that are permanently laid up, in addition to those already due for scrapping,
may be reused for other non-fishing activities or for the creation of artificial reefs.
The EFF may contribute to improving working conditions, the quality of products,
energy yield and catch selectivity. It may also contribute towards replacing engines,
providing non-renewable compensation to fishermen affected by permanent
cessation of fishing activities and for premiums for young fishermen to buy their first
fishing vessel. However, financial assistance may in no circumstances lead to an
increase in the catch capacity or the power of the fishing vessel's engine.
2. Aquaculture, inland fishing, processing and marketing: the EFF promotes the
purchase and use of gear and methods that reduce the impact of aquaculture
production on the environment and improve the quality of produce and conditions in
terms of human and animal health. Assistance will be limited to micro, small and
medium enterprises, as well as certain large enterprises with less than 750
employees or whose turnover is less than EUR 200 million. Priority is nevertheless
given to micro and small Enterprises.
3. Collective action: certain collective action could receive aid from the EFF on the
condition that they contribute to the sustainable development or conservation of
resources, to improving the services offered by fishing ports, to strengthening
54
markets in fishery products and to promoting partnerships between scientists and
operators in the fisheries sector.
4. Sustainable development of fishing areas: the EFF supports measures and initiatives
aimed at diversifying and strengthening economic development in areas affected by
the decline in fishing activities.
5. Technical assistance: the Fund may finance initiatives involving preparations,
monitoring, administrative and technical support, evaluation, audit and checks
needed to implement this Regulation.
Financial support
The EFF has originally contributed 26,26 million € to Belgium. In 2009, 39 projects have
received EFF-funding, equal to 7.924.870,23 €, corresponding to 30,18 % of the total
budget for 2007-2013. The total eligible costs are 13.233.618,83 €.
The majority or 5.731.285,95 € was attributed to the scrapping of vessels (measure 1.1.), as
a result of the re-organisation of the fishing fleet, according to the EU-regulation nr.
744/2008. Nine vessels were scrapped, from which 2 were replaced by two smaller vessels.
Under measure 1.3 ―investments on board and selectivity‖ 16 reports received EFF-funding,
equal to 1.256.118,78 €. Priority 3 ―collective actions‖ received 892.391,07 €. Finally, 6
reports with regard to ―technical assistance‖ (priority 5) were approved, receiving 45.074,43
€.
Table 5-8:
Financial support from EFF to projects per measure (2009)
Number of
submitted
reports
1. Measures for the adaptation of the
fishing fleet
Measure 1.1.
full or partial scrapping
Measure 1.3.
Investments on board and selectivity
3. Measures of collective importance
Measure 3.1.
Collective actions
Measure 3.2.
Protection and development of aquatic
biota
Measure 3.3.
Fishing harbours, places of landing and
anchor
Measure 3.4.
Development of new markets and
promotion campaigns
5. Technical assistance
Total
Budget for
2007-2013 (€)
7.561.648
Allocated
budget 2009
(€)
Eligible costs
(€)
6.987.404,73
11.258.179,12
9
5.731.285,95
7.614.429,29
16
1.256.118,78
3.643.749,83
892.391,07
1.885.290,85
2
172.250,00
344.500,00
1
36.391,07
173.290,85
3
566.500,00
1.133.000,00
2
117.250,00
234.500,00
6
45.074,43
90.148,86
7.924.870,23
13.233.618,83
9.488.352
39
26.261.648
(FIVA, 2009)
Taking into consideration the annotations made in the introduction, not all funding can be
taken into account.
55
6.
MARICULTURE
6.1
Sector description
Mariculture is the cultivation of marine organisms under controlled circumstances in their
natural habitats. Mariculture in Belgium can be considered as modest and small-scale. As the
Belgian North Sea does not dispose of bays, estuaries, etc. and the coast line is used for
recreative purposes and taken in by nature habitats and ports, the cultivation opportunities
are restricted.
Mariculture in Belgium is restricted to the cultivation of mussels. The technique used for
mussel cultivation is the suspended cultivation, using ropes attached in cages in sea. In
2005, a permit was granted by ministerial decree for the production of bivalve molluscs in
the four zones of the North Sea (see Figure 6-1). In the period 2006-2009 SDVO (Stichting
voor Duurzame Visserijontwikkeling) started the off-shore suspended cultivation of mussels,
with financial support from the Belgian government, European support by FIOV/FIVA and
scientific assistance from ILVO. The objective was the commercialization of the Belgian
suspended cultivation of mussels.
Figure 6-1:
Assigned zone for mussel cultivation
(MUMM/BMM/UGMM, 2011)
56
6.2
Due to significant progress concerning cultivating techniques, selection and genetics, the
Flemish Government aims to start projects in the mariculture sector. The projects concern
mussel cultivation in Nieuwpoort and near wind mills (Thornton bank,…), the cultivation of
soles and the promotion of more intensive production methods and diversification 27.
According to the National Strategic and Operational Programme 2007-2013, 2 mariculture
companies can be established, producing 1.500 ton per year, creating 20 job opportunities.
Finally, it needs to be noted that the cultivation offers an alternative for fishermen who left
the traditional fishery sector.
6.3
measures
EFF or FIFG have not contributed to the mariculture sector in 2009.
27
57
7.
WIND FARMS
7.1
Sector description
C-Power and Belwind are operational, having received a domain concession and an
environmental permit. Northwind (former Eldepasco) obtained as well a domain concession
and an environmental permit, but is not operational yet (2013). Two other companies,
Norther and Rental obtained a concession, but still have to apply for an environmental
permit. Figure 7-1 gives an overview of the projects within the designated zone.
C-Power is located on the Thornton bank, 27 km off shore, covering a surface of 18 km². In
2009, 6 turbines of 5,15 MW became operational. In the summer of 2013, in addition 48
Repower turbines of 6,15 MW or 295 MW will be installed. The total capacity of 54 turbines
will be 325 MW, corresponding to 10 % of the total capacity needed in order to attain the
target of 13 % energy production from renewable energy sources by 2020 (supra). The
annual energy production will be 986,1 GWH or approximately 1 TWh. The total investment
cost of the project is 1,289 billion €. The European Commission has granted a financial
support of 10 million €.
Belwind is built on Blighbank, 46 km off shore, covering a surface of 35,4 km². Phase 1 of
Belwind consists of 55 turbines of 3 MW, generating 165 MW. Belwind (phase 1) is
operational since December 2010. Phase 1 produces 0,55 TWh per year, providing electricity
to 175.000 households. The project aims to build 110 wind turbines, offering a total capacity
of 330 MW. The wind farm will produce 1,05 TWh per year, offering electricity to 350.000
households. Belwind provides 4,7 % (phase 1) and Belwind will provide after finalizing phase
2 9,4 % of the target that 13 % of the energy production should come from renewable
energy sources by 2020. The investment cost of phase 1 was 614 million €.
58
Figure 7-1:
7.2
Wind turbine zones and electricity export cables
Turnover
Only C-Power and Belwind are operational. Profit of C-Power was 52.014 € in 2008 and
increased to 150.399 € in 2009. Turnover of Belwind was in 2008 13.455.460 €, increasing
by ca. 250 % to 46.589.951 € in 2009.
7.3
Policy towards sustainability
In 1998, Belgium committed in the ―burden sharing‖ treaty to decrease 5 greenhouse gasses
by 7,5 % in 2008 – 2012, compared to the emission level in 1990. In order to achieve the
targets, the Federal Plan in Sustainable Development has been drawn up, stating that in
59
2010 3 % of the energy needs to come from renewable energy sources. Flanders opted to
gain energy by wind, using offshore wind turbines. In 2008 the European Commission set
for Belgium a target of 13 % energy production from renewable energy sources by 2020.
Legislative and regulatory framework
Every project needs to receive an environmental permit as well as a domain concession for
the proposed project area, according to the law on the protection of the marine environment
and two Royal Decrees. The Management Unit of the North Sea Mathematical Models
(MUMM) makes an environmental impact assessment (EIA), based on the environmental
impact study (EIS), submitted by the applicant. Based on the EIA and on the results of the
public consultation, the MUMM advises the federal Minister responsible for the marine
environment, who decides whether the environmental permit should be granted. Requests
for the domain concession are submitted to the CREG (Commission for the Regulation of the
Electricity and the Gas), advising the Minister of Energy. The concession is not valid until the
environmental permit is granted. There is also a permit procedure for the installation of the
cables (Royal Decree 12 March 2002). Requests are submitted to the FPS for Economic
Affairs, who advises the Minister of Energy.
The Royal Decree of 17 May 2004 assigned a zone for the production of electricity in the
Belgian Part of the North Sea. Three companies, C-Power, Belwind and Northwind received a
domain concession and an environmental permit. Two other companies, Norther and Rental
obtained a concession, but still have to apply for an environmental permit. In May 2009 six
gravity based foundation wind turbines from C-Power on the Thornton Bank became
operational. In December 2010 the first Belwind phase was operational as well.

Northwind will be built on the ―Lodewijkbank‖, 38 km off shore, covering a surface
of 14,5 km². The project will be operational by the end of 2013. Northwind will
consist of 72 wind turbines, producing 216 MW and generating 216 MW for 250.000
households.

Rentel will consist of 48 wind turbines of 6 MW, corresponding to a total capacity of
288 MW. The project will be able to procure electricity to 265.000 households.

Norther will produce 1.135 GWh, offering electricity to 330.000 households. The
construction will start in 2014 the soonest. The investment cost is 1,2 billion €.
Future developments
The area for renewable energy is 2.100 km². Considering that the designated area would be
converted to a wind farm with a capacity density of 10 MW/km², this would result in an
installed wind energy capacity of 21 GW. However, the current electricity network can not
process more than 0,5 GW. This means that the electricity grid would need to be expanded
and amplified28.
Technological evolution: more efficient turbines
Technological evolution has increased the capacity of the wind turbines and the cables,
making the investment more efficient and more profitable. More efficient turbines make it
possible to install less wind turbines. C-Power e.g. has decreased its number of wind
turbines from 60 to 54, as a result of wind turbines with a higher capacity.
28
(Simoen & Jacobsen, 2009)
60
Electric point at sea („Stopcontact op zee‟)
An ‗electric point‘ at sea gives the possibility to use less cables to land (instead of one cable
per wind park), offering environmental and economic benefits.
North Sea Offshore Grid
The North Sea Offshore Grid, officially the North Seas Countries Offshore Grid Initiative
(NSCOGI), is a collaboration between EU member states and Norway to create an integrated
offshore energy grid which links wind farms and other renewable energy sources across the
northern seas of Europe.
Financial support: renewable energy certificates
Producers of renewable energy have the opportunity to receive renewable energy
certificates from the Flemish Regulator of the Electricity and Gas market (VREG). The
certificates represent 1.000 kWh renewable energy. Producers of renewable energy sources
can choose to sell renewable energy certificates to the electricity operator ELIA for a legally
required minimum price:
-
107 €/MWh for electricity, gained from installations as a part of a domain concession
and for the production until 216 MW of the installed capacity;
-
90 €/MWh for electricity, gained from installations as a part of a domain concession
and for the production above 216 MW of the installed capacity.
7.4
measures
Two types of costs have been identified:
Environmental Impact Assessment
Costs related to the Environmental Impact Assessment are born by the private sector.
Costs of dismantling
After the concession period the concession site needs to be restored to its original state. So
the wind turbines need to be dismantled, discarded and recycled. The cables need to be
removed and the foundation piles cut off at a depth of 3 meters. The cost of dismantling
equals 4 % of the total cost (including investment, exploitation, maintenance and revision
costs)29.
29
(Simoen & Jacobsen, 2009)
61
8.
AGGREGATE EXTRACTION
8.1
Sector description
Extracted sand is used for three purposes, construction (concrete), as beach supplements to
suppress erosion of the Belgian coast and for land reclamation. Figure 8-12 shows the
quantity extracted sand for coastal defence purposes and beach supplements in 2010.
Sand extraction - and to a lesser extent gravel extraction - is carried out in the Belgian
Continental Shelf. According to the law of June 13, 1969, amended by the law of January
20, 1999 and the law of April 22, 1999, the exploration and exploitation of sand and gravel
is restricted to certain areas. Four control zones have been defined, divided into sectors, for
which a concession can be granted (see Figure 8.1):

Sectors 1a (Thorntonbank), 2c and 3a are all year long open for exploitation,

Sector 1b (Gootebank) is open for exploitation in March, April and May,

Sectors 2a and 2b are open for exploitation alternately for a period of 3 years
(Kwintebank, Buiten Ratel and Oost Dyck),

Sector 3b is closed for extraction, as long as the sector remains a dumping site for
dredging material,

Sectors 4a, 4b, 4c and 4d are all year long open for exploitation,

In the framework of exceptional projects, concessions can be granted outside the
existing control zones.
Continentaal Plat from the federal public service Economy is responsible for a sustainable
management of sand and gravel extraction on the Belgian Continental shelf. Permits need to
be obtained in order to exploit sand and gravel, by submitting a concession demand and an
Environmental Impact Study (EIS). The concession demand needs to be directed to the
public service Continentaal Plat, who is responsible for the treatment of concession
demands. Meanwhile, the EIS needs to be handed in by the Management Unit of the North
Sea Mathematical Models (MUMM), who makes an evaluation of the activity on the marine
environment. MUMM transmits an EIA to the Minister of marine environment, which informs
the Minister of Economic Affairs of his legally binding decision.
Extraction activities as well as the environmental consequences are monitored. In order to
determine whether the conditions of the concession are respected, each vessel needs to be
equipped with a black box, and registers need to be filled in. The monitoring is performed by
the public service Continentaal Plat, in cooperation with the Institute of Agricultural and
Fisheries research ILVO and MUMM.
62
Figure 8-1:
Extraction zones
(FOD Economie – Dienst Continentaal Plat)
Figure 8-2 shows the evolution of aggregate extraction in the BNPS. As a result of the
depletion of existing sand quarries on land, an increasing amount of sea sand is noticed.
Moreover, the increase is due to a growing interest and demand in sand and gravel, as its
varied usage purposes. Compared to other European countries, the extraction of marine
aggregates is rather modest.
In 1976 29.000 m³ sand and gravel was extracted, increasing to ca. 2 million m³ in 2009.
Until 1988 extraction was constant at ca. 0,5 million m³, increasing steadily since. In 1997
almost 3,9 million m³ was extracted, due to the installation of new gas pipelines
Interconnector and NorFra in the BPNS. The peak in 1991 was also due to the construction
of submarine pipelines for gas.
63
3,86
4,00
3,50
3,00
2,27 2,18
1,96
2,50
2,00
1,50
1,40
1,38
0,58
0,58
0,48
Figure 8-2:
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
0,03
1976
0,00
1,44
1,22
1,00
0,50
1,92
1,75
1977
Extracted volume in millions of m³
4,50
Aggregate extraction in Belgian marine waters (1976 – 2010)
(FPS Economy, SMEs, Self-employed and Energy – Quality and Safety – Quality and Innovation – Continental Shelf)
8.2
Turnover
Following figures are dated, covering the period 1998 – 2002. However, according to Zeegra
30
, the sector has remained stable. In the period 2002-2010, two new terminals were
established in Ostend. Nevertheless, this did not lead to an increase in aggregate extraction,
as it can be considered as a shift.
Figure 8-3 gives an overview of the turnover of 19 companies in 1998 – 2002. In 2002
turnover was ca. 265 million €. In this period turnover grew by 45,4 %. 63 % of the
companies realized a turnover of more than 10 million € (Figure 8-4).
Turnover (x 1.000 euro)
300.000
250.000
200.000
219.658
241.092
251.065
264.931
182.163
150.000
100.000
50.000
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Turnover (x 1.000 euro)
Figure 8-3:
Turnover (1998 – 2002)
(Zeegra, 2004, p. 14)
30
(Zeegra, Luc Van De Kerckhove)
64
2.500.000 - 5.000.000
14%
18%
5.000.000 - 10.000.000
10.000.000 - 15.000.000
18%
13%
15.000.000 - 20.000.000
14%
> 20.000.000
23%
NA
Figure 8-4:
Number of companies, divided per turnover category (2002)
(Zeegra, 2004, p. 14)
8.3
Added value
Added value is realized through:
-
concession rights,
-
mooring and embankment dues, per ton,
-
excise duties on fuel,
-
VAT-revenues and fees31.
Figure 8-5 shows the added value in 1998 – 2002 from 22 companies. In 2002 added value
was 31,2 million €, or an increase of 74,4 % compared to 1998.
31
(Zeegra vzw, 2002)
65
Added value (x 1.000 euro)
35.000
30.000
31.088
31.872
31.245
2000
2001
2002
26.611
25.000
20.000
17.919
15.000
10.000
5.000
0
1998
1999
Figure 8-5: Added value (1998 – 2002)
(Zeegra, 2004)
8.4
Employment
Aggregate extraction generates direct employment as well as indirect employment, such as
subcontractors, transporters, crew ships, pilotage, customs, shipment repair and the building
sector32. Figure 8-6 shows that employment has risen by 18,5 % from 249 employees in
1998 to 295 in 2002. In 2008 the majority (39 %) was employed in East-Flanders, 26 % in
West-Flanders and 27 % in Antwerp. By 2002, there was a shift to West-Flanders with 39
%, while the employment in East-Flanders decreased to 26 %, and Antwerp stayed stable at
28 %. Figure 8-7 and Figure 8-8 illustrate the number of companies and of employees in
2004.
90%
284
289
300
289
295
80%
280
70%
270
60%
50%
40%
290
260
249
250
30%
240
20%
230
10%
0%
Number of employees
100%
220
1998
East-Flanders
1999
West-Flanders
2000
Antwerp
2001
Limburg
2002
Flemish Brabant
Figure 8-6: Employment per province (1998 – 2002)
Own elaboration based on (Zeegra, 2004)
32
(Zeegra vzw, 2002)
66
Figure 8-7:
Companies per jurisdiction (2002)
(Zeegra, 2004)
67
Figure 8-8:
Number of employees per jurisdiction (2002)
(Zeegra, 2004)
In the period 1998 – 2002 the size of the companies has increased (Figure 8-9 – Figure
8-11). In 1998 50 % of the companies were small (< 5 employees), employing 8 %,
whereas in 2002 this was 36 %, employing 6 %. In 2002 5 % of the companies were large
(≥ 50 employees), employing 25 %.
160
140
10
120
8
100
6
80
60
4
40
2
20
0
0
< 5 employees 5 - 9 employees
1998 Companies
Figure 8-9:
Number of employees
Number of companies
12
10 - 19
employees
2002 Companies
20 - 49
employees
1998 Employment
≥ 50 employees
2002 Employment
Number of companies and of employees per company size (1998 and 2002)
68
2002
5%
14%
18%
1998
0%
< 5 employees
36%
5 - 9 employees
18%
14%
10 - 19 employees
50%
20 - 49 employees
≥ 50 employees
18%
27%
Figure 8-10:
Number of companies per size in percentage terms (1998 and 2002)
6%
0% 8%
25%
14%
< 5 employees
13%
5 - 9 employees
16%
63%
2002
17%
1998
10 - 19 employees
20 - 49 employees
≥ 50 employees
37%
Figure 8-11: Number of employees per company size in percentage terms (1998 and 2002)
8.5
Coastal defence
There is a growing demand for sand for coastal defence purposes. In the next 10 years 20
million m³ will be extracted for sand suppletion purposes within the master plan for Flanders
future coastal safety (Figure 8-13). Figure 8-12 shows a map with quantities extracted sand
in 2010 for coastal defence purposes and beach supplements.
69
Figure 8-12: Quantity of extracted sand for coastal defence purposes and beach supplements (2010)
Demand for sand
Another element influencing the future development is demand for sand due to large
infrastructural and/or land reclamation projects.
According to stakeholders (workshop) there are no alternatives for sand extracted from sea.
So, they do not expect a shift to other materials.
Future developments
Coastal Division has granted a concession for the extraction of 1.650.000 m³ sand in zone
2c for the period 01/01/2010 – 31/12/2012. Table 8-1 gives an overview of the requested
amount of marine aggregates in the period 2010 – 2020. The total requested amount over a
period of 10 years is 35 million m³ or on average 3,5 million m³ annually. The last two
columns show the maximum amount that could be extracted over a period of 3 years and
per year. In 2010 – 2020, 20 million m³ or 57 % is requested by Coastal Division (Flemish
government), 12 million m³ or 34 % by Zeegra vzw and 3 million m³ or 9 % by Maritime
Access Division (Flemish government). Figure 8-13 shows the historical evolution (1976 –
2010) and an estimate of a possible evolution from 2011 until 2020, based on the average
extraction.
Table 8-1:
Overview of the future requested amount of marine aggregates (2010 – 2020)
Total (m³) (10
years)
Average (m³) (per
year)
Maximum (m³) (3
years)
Maximum (m³)
(per year)
Coastal Division
20.000.000
2.000.000
10.000.000
4.000.000
Zeegra vzw
12.000.000
1.200.000
4.200.000
1.500.000
3.000.000
300.000
2.000.000
1.000.000
35.000.000
3.500.000
16.200.000
6.500.000
Maritime Access Division
Total
(IMDC & TTE , 2010, p. 4)
70
Extracted volume in millions of m³
4,50
4,00
3,50
3,00
2,50
2,00
1,50
1,00
0,50
2020
2018
2019
2017
2016
2014
2015
2013
2012
2010
2011
2009
2007
2008
2006
2005
2003
2004
2002
2001
1999
2000
1998
1997
1995
1996
1994
1993
1991
1992
1990
1989
1987
1988
1986
1985
1983
1984
1982
1981
1979
1980
1978
1977
1976
0,00
Figure 8-13: Future developments of aggregate extraction in Belgian marine waters (2011 – 2020)
8.6
measures
Following costs have been identified:
Environmental Impact Assessment
Two Environmental Impact Assessments have been made in the recent past:

2004 – 2005 regarding zone 1 and 2: 66.278 € born by the private sector Zeegra,
and 20.000 was financed by the public sector;

2008 - 2010 regarding zone 4: 900.000 €. This cost was born by the private and
the public sector.
Governance costs
Governance costs are born by the public sector Continentaal Plat from the federal public
service Economy. The cost comprises the management of concessions (processing extraction
requests, determining extraction volumes and authorizing the prolongation of concessions).
Monitoring
Monitoring is executed by Continentaal Plat, ILVO and the Management Unit of the North
Sea Mathematical Models (MUMM). Continentaal Plat monitors the shape of the sea bed and
the composition of sediments. Continentaal Plat has a contract with ILVO for monitoring the
effects on benthos.
This cost is born by the public sector Continentaal Plat from the federal public service
Economy and does not take into account costs incurred by MUMM, representing ca. 70% of
the total monitoring cost.
Inspection of extraction activities
Processing data from the black boxes is performed by MUMM. The cost is born by
Continentaal Plat.
71
72
9.
DREDGING AND DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
9.1
Sector description
Two types of dredging activities exist: capital dredging activities for construction, deepening
and broadening of ports and second, maintenance dredging in order to maintain the
required depth to maritime access routes and Flemish coastal ports (Zeebrugge, Ostend,
Nieuwpoort and Blankenberge). Maintenance dredging is executed all year long by 3 to 4
trailing suction hopper dredgers. Maintenance dredging in fishing harbours and marinas is
taking place before and just after the coastal tourist period. Dredging in the BPNS is the
responsibility of the Flemish Region (Maritime Access Division).
Dredging activities are carried out in these locations:

Pas van het Zand,

Central part of the new outer harbour of Zeebrugge,

Harbour and outer harbour of Zeebrugge,

Scheur Oost,

Scheur West,

Access channel to Oostende,

Harbour of Oostende,

Access channel to Blankenberge.
Most of the dredged material is dumped back at sea. When the dredged material contains
mainly sand (50.000 – 100.000 TDS per year), the sand can be used for beach nourishment,
i.e. ―beneficial use‖.
Dredged material disposal is dumped on these particular sites:

S1,

S2,

Bruggen en Wegen Zeebrugge,

Bruggen en Wegen Oostende (Martens, 2011)

Nieuwpoort.
The federal government is responsible for the monitoring of the effects of dumped dredged
material. On 12 June 1990, a cooperation agreement was signed between the Belgian State
and the Flemish Region in order to safeguard the North Sea from the environmental effects
of dumping dredged material at sea. The management of dredged material is fully in line
with international obligations, as a result of the (regional) OSPAR Convention and her
worldwide equivalent, the London Convention.
According to the law of January 20, 1999, authorization is required to dump dredged
material at sea. The Management Unit of the North Sea Mathematical Models (MUMM)
(MUMM) is authorized to reach out dumping permits in the BPNS.
73
Millions
Figure 9-1 shows the evolution of quantities of dredged material dumped at sea. The
quantity of dumped dredged material decreased by 38,1 % from 36,6 million m³ in 1991 to
26,5 million in 1996. Since, the quantity is further declining to 7,9 million TDS in 2005.
Figure 9-2 shows graphically the dredging and disposal intensity in the BPNS in 2008.
14,9
16
12,9
14
12
6,6
10
TDS
12,8
11,4
3,2
3,0
8
1,6
6
4
7,5
6,0
2
5,0
8,1
1,4
2,6
5,6
4,6
11,3
11,2
3,7
3,6
1,1
3,0
9,1
5,7
6,1
1,8
1,8
0
1997
TDS
7,2
S1
S2
1998
1999
2000
Br&W Zeebrugge Oost
2001
2002
Br&W Oostende
2003
Nieuwpoort
2004
R4
7,9
3,0
1,2
3,0
2005
S3
from April to March.
Figure 9-1:
Quantities of dredged material dumped at sea in TDS (1997 – 2006)
(MUMMM/BMM/UGMM, 2011)
Figure 9-2:
Dredging and disposal intensity (2008)
(ILVO, Flemish government Coastal Division, Flanders hydraulics research, 2009)
Figure 9-3 shows the evolution of dredged quantities in the BPNS from 2000 to 2008.
Dredging quantities vary from ca. 7,2 million TDS in 2004 to ca. 16,1 million TDS in 2006. In
74
Millions
2008 10,2 million TDS was dredged. According to the Maritime Access Division (Martens,
2011) maintenance dredging quantities account for on average 8 million TDS. Capital
dredging is project-related, varying every year.
16,1
16
14
12,8
11,3
12
11,2
10,3
TDS
10
8,1
8
7,2
8,5
7,9
6
4
2
0
2000 *
2001 *
2002 *
2003 *
2004 *
2005 *
2006 *
2007
2008
* from April to March.
Figure 9-3: Dredged quantities per ton dried substance (TDS) in the BPNS (2000 – 2009)
(Martens, 2011)
9.2
Turnover
Turnover in the Belgian part of the North Sea and its coastal ports can be estimated by the
budget for capital and maintenance dredging. Figure 9-4 shows the evolution from 1991 to
2000. In 2000 – 2001 turnover was ca. 57 million €. Turnover has increased due to
additional capital dredging. The average budget is 68 million € per year 33.
Millions
Figure 9-4:
Turnover (1991 – 2000)
70
60,7
60
50
50,6
45,8
46,0
44,5
42,9
48,5
43,3
45,8
19,9
56,8
8,9
40
30
40,7
20
47,9
10
0
1991
1992
1993
1994
Maintenance dredging
1995
1996
1997
Capital dredging
1998
1999
2000
Total
(Prof. Dr. Maes et al. , 2002)
33
(Martens, 2011)
75
9.3
Added value
No data available.
9.4
Employment
Dredging activities in the BPNS create jobs mainly in the private sector. In 1984 - 2005
dredging activities were carried out by the Temporary Union of dredgers ―Noordzee en
Kust‖, comprised of Dredging International NV, Jan De Nul NV and Decloedt & Zonen NV.
Since, dredging activities are being called for tenders.
The union is an important source to estimate employment. However, two remarks need to
be made. First, companies carry out other activities than dredging, such as aggregate
extraction and other additional activities. Second, companies do not only operate in the
BPNS. This means that employment, generated by dredging activities, can not be correctly
estimated.
Prof. Dr. Maes et al. (2002) estimated employment by a formula, used by the Flemish
Government. The annual budget depends on 4 factors, the (S) wage cost (37 %), the (G)
price of fuel (18 %), the (I) Index (32 %) and a constant value, representing depreciation.
This formula used is:
The formula results in 560 employees in 2000 – 2001.
Moreover, a survey with dredging companies, operating on the Belgian part of the North
Sea, was performed. The survey resulted in 240 employees, from which 65 % work on
board and 35 % are staff officers, employed in the workshop or on shore.
9.5
The average dredged quantity for maintenance purposes will be 8 million TDS per year.
There are no concrete plans for capital dredging. However, as the share of container ships is
increasing, dredging activities for broadening the access channels can be expected in the
future34.
9.6
measures
Anti-turbidity systems
It is a system that reduces the amount of air entrained in hopper dredge effluent. The
system reduces the dispersion of turbid water following a dredging operation. This is a
private cost.
34
(Martens, 2011)
76
Permits for dumping dredged material at sea
In accordance with the law of January 20, 1999, authorisation is required to dump dredging
material at sea. The procedure to obtain authorisation for dumping dredged material from
activities undertaken by the Flemish Region at sea is laid down in the Royal Decree of March
12, 2000 defining the procedure for authorising the dumping of certain substances and
materials in the North Sea. At the moment there are five authorisations for dumping
dredged material at sea in force. Dumping permits are issued for a period of two years.
During the licensing period 1st January 2010 – 31st December 2011, 7 permits were granted
for dumping at sea of dredged material. Dredged material to be dumped at sea has to fulfill
the sediment quality criteria (SQC) defined in the permits35.
Monitoring and research programmes
Dumping permits are granted with the condition of carrying out monitoring and research
programmes. MUMM‘s research focuses on the sediment dynamics, the identification of
environmental changes in the Belgian nearshore area and the implementation of monitoring
strategies to identify environmental changes induced by dumping activities. The biological
monitoring programme of ILVO focuses on the effects of changes in the contaminants in the
sediment and fauna at the dumping sites, the effects of the dumping activity on the benthic
organisms and the effect of the influx of organisms from the dredging areas on the native
fauna and the disposal sites.
Besides these continuous research and monitoring
programmes, every ten years, a large monitoring programme is set up to evaluate the
quality of the material to be dredged: samples are taken from all areas in which dredging is
taking place36.
35
36
77
10.
COMMERCIAL SHIPPING
10.1
Sector description
General shipping patterns
Commercial shipping is bound to specific routing systems (West-East bound) (Figure 10-1):
I.
Noordhinder Traffic Seperation Scheme: used by ships travelling from and to
European ports in the southern part of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, entering or
leaving the North Sea via the English Channel.
II.
Westhinder Traffic Seperation Scheme: used by ships travelling from and to ports in
Belgium and ports along the Westerscheldt estuary. This main shipping lane is
situated north of the Oostdyck sublittoral sandbank and also covers a refuge area in
the north. The TSS finds its origin at the end of the Strait of Dover, adjacent to
Dunkerk, and leads all the way into the Belgian territorial sea. 91 % of the voyages
head towards the Scheldt (or opposite direction). Other destinations are the harbour
of Ostend and the Netherlands cover a small fraction.
III.
Shortsea shipping37 (south of the Westhinder TSS) and cross channel shipping (incl.
ferry traffic) between Belgian ports and the UK. Fishing boats or recreational vessels
are not considered under this category. [Nieuwe kaart]
37
Shortsea or coastal shipping is the transport of goods and/or passengers along a route which at least in part
consists of the sea or the ocean, but on which the ocean isn‘t crossed.
78
Figure 10-1: Navigation routes and anchorage area
Belgian fleet
The merchant fleet flying the Belgian flag totals a GT in excess of 4 million and a DWT
of over 6.5 million, giving it a position within the top 35 of the IMO Member States. The
Belgian controlled fleet accounts for 12,5 million DWT.
The ranking for the belgian controlled fleet is well within the top 25 of maritime nations
with a total dwt of over 12.5 million i.e. 1.08% of the world seaborne trade capacity. The
flag state-linked industry and maritime cluster employs more than 12,100 people and
creates an annual revenue of 4,204 million €.
Belgium considers itself fortunate to contribute substantially to worldwide seaborne trade
with a very large volume of goods loaded and unloaded in its sea ports cluster.
The ports of Antwerp, Gent, Zeebrugge and Ostend constitute the Belgian North Sea
ports cluster Antwerp, Gent, Zeebrugge and Oostende fall within a radius of 50 km, which
provides one of the most important bridgeheads for maritime trade links between all the
continents worldwide and the European hinterland. In 2010, a total of nearly 260 million
tons of goods were loaded or unloaded within this cluster.
79
The multi-continent nature of Belgian seaborne trade is illustrated by the following figures:
in 2010 for the 2 largest Belgian ports, maritime traffic with Asia totaled 54 million tons,
with N- & S-America it amounted to over 40 million tons, with Africa over 16 million tons
and with Oceania 1.25 million tons.
These volumes indicate that the Belgian North Sea ports cluster can be found within the
top 10 seaports of the world. Furthermore, with a total container throughput figure of just
over 11 million TEU in 2010, the cluster positions itself in the top 10 for developing
seaborne trade.
In short, the volume and the geographical spread of the goods handled through the
Belgian ports demonstrate that Belgium is an important contributor to seaborne trade
spanning all the continents worldwide.
In 2008, Belgium as a port state boasted a direct added value of 15,316 million € and an
indirect added value of 13,157 million €, and the direct employment of 107,940 people
and indirect employment of 137,255 people for the ports industry.
Maritime traffic
Millions
Total maritime traffic has increased by 30,7 % from 204,2 million ton in 2003 to 266,9
million ton in 2008. The port of Antwerp generates the largest share: 71 % or ca. 189
million ton in 2008. In 2008, the port of Zeebrugge contributed 16 % or 42 million ton, the
port of Ghent 10 % or 27 million ton and the Port of Ostend 3 % or 8,5 million ton.
300
250
Ton
200
150
258,1
266,9
42
8
25
42
9
27
216,6
224,6
32
8
25
35
8
22
40
8
24
143
152
160
167
183
189
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
204,2
31
7
24
100
50
238,8
0
Antwerp
Ghent
Ostend
Zeebrugge
Figure 10-2: Total maritime traffic in ton (2003 - 2008)
10.2
Turnover
Port of Ostend
Turnover of the port of Ostend has increased every year from 5,9 million € in 2004 to 7,6
million € in 2008. In 2009 – 2010, turnover collapsed to 5,6 million € and 5,7 million €
respectively.
80
Millions
7,6
8,0
7,0
7,0
6,2
5,9
6,1
2004
2005
6,4
6,0
5,6
5,7
2009
2010
5,0
4,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
0,0
2003
2006
2007
2008
Figure 10-3: Turnover in the port of Ostend (2003 – 2010)
(Nationale Bank België, 2003-2010)
Port of Zeebrugge
Millions
Turnover of the port of Zeebrugge has risen every year from 33,4 million € in 2003 to 61
million €, corresponding to an increase by 45,2 %.
70
60
53,4
57,9
2008
2009
61,0
47,6
50
40
58,1
33,4
36,9
39,4
30
20
10
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2010
Figure 10-4: Turnover in the port of Zeebrugge (2003 – 2010)
(Port of Zeebrugge, 2003-2010)
81
Port of Antwerp
Millions
Turnover of the port of Antwerp has increased by 26 % from 227 million € in 2003 to ca.
307 million € in 2010.
332,2
350
276,3
300
250
302,3
287,7
323,0
297,1
306,9
2009
2010
227,0
200
150
100
50
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Figure 10-5: Turnover in the port of Antwerp (2003 – 2010)
(Haven Antwerpen, 2003-2010)
Port of Ghent
Millions
Turnover of the port of Ghent has increased every year from 19,2 million € in 2003 to 30,4
in 2009. This corresponds to an increase of 36,8 %.
35
30,4
27,9
30
23,2
25
20
19,2
20,8
20,7
2004
2005
25,2
26,5
15
10
5
0
2003
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Figure 10-6: Turnover in the port of Ghent (2003 – 2010)
Total turnover
Total turnover peaked in 2008 with 416,6 million €. As a consequence of the financial and
economic crisis, turnover decreased in 2009 by 7,6 % to 387,1 million €. In 2010, total
turnover recovered to 404 million €.
82
Millions
450
416,6
395,8
400
342,5
350
300
387,8
364,9
387,1
404,0
285,8
250
200
150
100
50
0
2003
2004
2005
Antwerp
2006
2007
Zeebrugge
Ostend
2008
2009
2010
Ghent
Figure 10-7: Total turnover (2003-2010)
10.3
Added value
Port of Ostend
Added value in the Port of Ostend has increased by 46,6 % from 638,3 million € in 2003 to
935,7 million € in 2008. In 2008, direct and total added value accounted for 0,1 % and
0,3 % of Gross National Product.
935,7
1.000
900
800
700
600
638,3
500
215
400
90
300
200
100
0
689,4
196
140
747,3
788,3
835,1
316
242
275
124
136
121
226
141
238
296
299
334
362
256
78
116
101
112
104
117
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Direct: maritime cluster
Direct: non-maritime cluster
Indirect: maritime cluster
Indirect: non-maritime cluster
Figure 10-8: Added value in the Port of Ostend (2003 – 2008)
(Nationale Bank België, 2010)
83
Port of Zeebrugge
Added value in the Port of Zeebrugge has increased by 43,1 % from 1,4 billion € in 2003 to
2,1 billion € in 2008. In 2008, direct and total added value accounted for 0,3 % and 0,5 %
of Gross National Product.
2.500
2.081,7
2.000
1.500
1.000
500
0
1.618,4
1.754,0
1.454,4
1.498,5
1.540,1
357
381
357
385
344
308
371
376
463
504
478
503
507
290
306
335
355
407
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
387
453
404
417
533
728
2008
Figure 10-9: Added value in the Port of Zeebrugge (2003 – 2008)
Port of Antwerp
Added value in the Port of Antwerp has increased by 35,8 % from 14.007,6 million € in 2003
to 19.026,3 million € in 2008.
20.000
18.000
16.000
14.007,6
14.000
12.000
10.000
8.000
6.000
4.000
2.000
0
4.277
2.397
5.379
18.619,8
19.026,3
5.560
5.691
3.253
3.336
6.261
6.619
5.973
17.277,2
17.589,3
5.020
5.552
2.921
2.942
6.385
15.523,1
4.662
2.635
5.804
1.955
2.423
2.951
2.835
3.189
4.027
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Figure 10-10: Added value in the Port of Antwerp (2003 – 2008)
84
Port of Ghent
Added value in the Port of Ghent has increased by 19,7 % from 5,9 billion € in 2003 to 7,1
billion € in 2008.
12.000
9.909,8
10.000
8.000
5.925,1
6.000
4.000
2.000
3.071
6.837,1
7.554,7
3.331
3.078
3.168
2.827
6.987,9
7.093,5
3.401
6.267
2.599
3.137
2003
2004
3.328
3.605
3.122
2006
2007
2008
0
2005
Figure 10-11: Added value in the Port of Ghent (2003 – 2008)
Total added value
Figure 10-12 gives an overview of total added value in 2003 – 2008. Total added value has
grown by 32,3 % from 22 billion € in 2003 to 29,1 billion € in 2008, corresponding to an
annual average increase of 5,5 %.
35.000
29.474
30.000
25.000
22.025
24.548
26.984
28.764
29.137
2007
2008
20.000
15.000
10.000
5.000
0
2003
2004
2005
Ostend
Zeebrugge
2006
Antwerp
Ghent
Figure 10-12: Total added value (2003 – 2008)
10.4
Employment
Port of Ostend
Employment at the Port of Ostend has increased by 20,5 % from 8.505 in 2003 to 10.252 in
2008.
85
12.000
10.000
8.505
8.725
8.747
9.127
9.260
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
10.252
8.000
6.000
4.000
2.000
0
2008
Figure 10-13: Employment at the Port of Ostend (2003 – 2008)
Port of Zeebrugge
Employment at the Port of Zeebrugge has increased by 17,2 % from 21.710 in 2003 to
25.445 in 2008.
30.000
25.000
21.710
22.078
22.034
2003
2004
2005
23.498
24.389
25.445
2006
2007
2008
20.000
15.000
10.000
5.000
0
Figure 10-14: Employment at the Port of Zeebrugge (2003 – 2008)
Port of Antwerp
Employment at the Port of Antwerp has increased by 10,3 % from 140.864 in 2003 to
155.327 in 2008.
86
180.000
160.000
140.864
143.273
147.423
150.976
154.030
155.327
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
140.000
120.000
100.000
80.000
60.000
40.000
20.000
0
Figure 10-15: Employment at the Port of Antwerp (2003 – 2008)
Port of Ghent
Employment at the Port of Ghent has increased by 6,4 % from 64.591 in 2003 to 68.752 in
2008.
80.000
70.000
64.591
66.590
64.750
64.598
66.461
68.752
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
60.000
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0
Figure 10-16: Employment at the Port of Ghent (2003 – 2008)
Total employment
Total employment has risen by 10,2 % from 235,7 thousand in 2003 to 259,8 thousand in
2008, corresponding to an annual average growth of 1,7 %. The Port of Antwerp accounts
for the largest share: 60 % in 2008. In 2008, the Port of Ghent contributed 26 %, the Port
of Zeebrugge 10 % and the Port of Ostend 4 %.
87
300.000
250.000
240.666
242.954
248.199
254.140
259.776
235.670
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
200.000
150.000
100.000
50.000
0
Ostend
Zeebrugge
Antwerp
Ghent
Figure 10-17: Total employment (2003 – 2008)
10.5
Economic growth
The most important single influence on the demand for sea transport is the world economy.
The relationship is however not simple or direct and is determined by the business cycle and
the trade development cycle38.
Legislative and regulatory framework
The legislative and regulatory framework with regard to maritime safety, the protection of
the marine environment, etc. influence the future development of the sector.
10.6
measures
Introduction of non-indigenous organisms through ships‟ ballast water
Non-indigenous organisms can be introduced through ships‘ ballast water and associated
sediments. Ships use ballast water to provide stability and maneuverability during a voyage.
Water is taken on at one port when cargo is unloaded and usually discharged at another
port when the ship receives cargo. Because organisms (such as bacteria, microbes, small
invertebrates, eggs, cysts and larvae of various species) are taken on board with ballast
water, there is a potential for the introduction of non-native organisms into the port of
discharge. Non-indigenous species can have adverse impacts on ecosystems or human
health. Costs incurred to prevent the introduction of invasive species are related to (1)
ballast water treatment facilities on board and (2) ballast water facilities in ports.
Introduction of non-indigenous organisms through fouling
38
(Stopford, 2009)
88
Non-indigenous species can as well be introduced through fouling on ships hulls and sea
chests (slowing down the ship and increasing the fuel consumption). In the early days of
sailing ships, lime and later arsenic were used to coat ships' hulls, until the modern
chemicals industry developed effective anti-fouling paints using metallic compounds. These
compounds slowly "leach" into the sea water, killing barnacles and other marine life that
have attached to the ship. But the studies have shown that these compounds persist in the
water, killing sealife, harming the environment and possibly entering the food chain. One of
the most effective anti-fouling paints, developed in the 1960s, contains the organotin
tributylin (TBT), which has been proven to cause deformations in oysters and sex changes in
whelks39.
Discharge and disposal of wastes from ships including sewage and litter: port
reception facilities
Directive 2000/59/EC obliges the masters of ships to deliver their
to provide facilities to treat this waste. All Member States and
MARPOL Convention as port States should fulfill their treaty
adequate reception facilities for litter. All ships must contribute
treating and disposing of the waste and residues.
waste and Member States
particularly Parties to the
obligations on providing
to the costs of receiving,
Pollution and physical impact through loss of ships and cargo
The ship owner or the captain has the obligation to remove a vessel that grounded or sunk,
including its cargo that sunk or came into the water, to a destination designated by the
authorities. Applicable rules concerning clearing of dangerous or hazardous substances have
to be applied and the authorities can set time limits to those obligations. Wrecks, pieces of
wrecks or sunken material from the vessel in the territorial sea has to be removed too (art.
13 Law of 1989; art. 29 § 4 Royal Decree of 1981). Wrecks, pieces of wrecks, sunken
material from the vessel, cargo and other hazardous substances or material from the vessel
has to be removed under the same obligations if there are risks for potential pollution of the
marine environment of the territorial sea or the EEZ or if there are safety risks for shipping,
unless the abandonment of ship and/or cargo is permitted by an environmental permit under
the Law of 1999 (art. 13 Law of 1989).
In case the ship owner, charterer, operator or the captain do not comply with their duty to
remove the vessel, cargo, etc. … or in case those persons are not yet known due to the
urgency of the situation, the Belgian authorities will take over this duty on behalf of the ship
owner, charterer, operator or liable person.
The costs undertaken by the authorities under article 14 shall be paid by the one liable for
the sinking or grounding of the vessel. If no one is liable, the costs will be recovered from
the ship owner, charterer, operator or their insurers. These claims are privileged (art. 16
Law of 1989; see also art. 29 § 6 Royal Decree of 1981) 40.
Oil spill: double hulls in tankers
After a series of accidents with large amounts of oil spilt, the IMO and the EU have
implemented legislation to prevent future oil spills. In order to prevent or minimize spillage
39
(IMO, 2011)
40
(Maes, De Meyer, & Calewaert, s.d.)
89
in case of a grounding or collision, tankers with double hulls (double bottom and double
sides) will become obligatory. Therefore all single hulls tankers will be phased out by 2015
according to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships or
MARPOL Convention. This is a private cost.
Pollution by oil and hazardous or toxic substances from incidental, operational
and illegal discharges: oil spill control
Each spill involves a unique set of circumstances that determine the cleanup cost. Factors
such as oil type, total spill amount, timing of the spill, sensitive areas affected or threatened
etcetera can profoundly influence costs41. Costs may include, but are not limited to salvage
and lightering, containment and protection of sensitive areas, recovery, shoreline recovery,
waste disposal, wildlife rehabilitation (reception, taking care of, and releasing wildlife)42. Civil
protection and DG Environment cooperate in controlling pollution by oil spills since 2003.
Since 2005, the control management has expanded by the Coast Guard. Civil protection
provides a team and logistic assistance, while DG Environment supplies pollution control
materials (located at Jabbeke). The pollution control materials include floating dams,
specialized pumps in order to separate the oil of the water, containers in order to store and
remove polluting substances, etcetera. The investment cost was 3 million €. In 2008, 84
interventions were carried out, from which 54 took place in Belgium 43.
The Tricolor incident
On the 14th of December 2002, the car carrier Tricolor collided with the containership Kariba
in the Channel, and sank in French waters, 37 km off coast and 8 km outside Belgian marine
waters. Five weeks later, on the 22nd of January 2003, approximately 170 tonnes of fuel
leaked from the wreck of the Tricolor during salvage operations. Thousands of seabirds were
fouled with oil. At the Belgian coast 9.177 birds of 32 different species were collected. A little
over half of these were still alive at the time of the stranding. The total cost of the incident
was 2.458.788 €, carried by the federal government (DG Environment, Defence, Internal
affairs, and Science) and by the coastal communities.
41
(Dagmar Schimdt Etkin, 1999)
42
(Helton & Penn, 1999)
43
(Kustwacht, 2008)
90
Figure 10-18: Location of the Tricolor incident
Other pressures
Cold ironing or shore power is a power source from land used to power marine vessels
when they are in a harbour. Some of the reasons for using shore power are saving fuel,
eliminating emission of toxic fumes as well as CO2, and reducing noise level.
Technological evolution in order to (1) be more energy-efficient, i.e. improved propulsion
systems, installation of a fuel-efficient motor and (2) to reduce sulphur, nitrogen and CO2emissions, i.e. low sulphur fuel, installation of a filter (reducing SOx-emissions).
Emission control measures
The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has set emission and fuel quality standards,
defined in MARPOL Annex VI. The North Sea SECA (Sulphur Emission Control Area) came
into effect on 11 August 2007. In 2008, the IMO adopted a revised MARPOL annex VI,
outlining stricter regulation of air pollutant emissions from ships. The regulation came into
force on 1 July 2010. According to the revised MARPOL Annex VI, the North Sea and the
Baltic Sea will become ECA‘s (Emission Control Areas). ECA means to unite SECA with
incorporation of NOX emission as requirements. In the Annex, two sets of requirements coexist: global requirements and more stringent requirements applicable to ships in Emission
Control Areas (ECA) (see Table 10-1). NOX reduction from 17gkWh-1 to 14,4 g/kWh is
mandatory for engines constructed after 2011. After 2016 3,4 gkWh-1 maximum is allowed
for new ships. IMO also requires the modification of old engines built in 1990-2000, to be
conform to the existing NOX limits of 17gkWh-1.
The regulation with regard to Emission Control Area will lead to additional investments and
operational costs for shipping companies. Governmental institutions will as well face extra
costs from the monitoring of ships compliance with the SECA and NECA requirements.
91
Table 10-1:
MARPOL Annex VI fuel sulphur limits
Date
Sulphur limit in fuel (% m/m)
Sox ECA
Global
2000
1,5%
07/2010
1,0%
2012
4,5%
3,5%
2015
0,1%
2020 or 2025
0,5%
Governance costs
Agency for Maritime Services and Coast (MDK)
The Agency for Maritime Services and Coast (MDK) of the Flemish government aims to
ensure the safe and efficient transit of shipping traffic to and from the Flemish ports. It is
also responsible for integral coastal zone management. MDK consists of:

DAB Pilotage: safe and efficient piloting of vessels to ports and back to sea;

Shipping Assistance Division: guides vessels from the sea to the ports and back
together with Dutch colleagues. The Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre is the first
point of contact for incidents at sea;

The Coast division: protects coastal population and property from the violence of the
sea and supports safe and smooth shipping using its Flemish hydrographical data.
Coast guard
The Coast Guard is responsible for the cooperation between the partners authorised for the
North Sea. The Coast Guard is made up of 2 branches: an administrative branch and an
operational branch (this is the coast guard centre). The coast guard centre exists out of the
MRCC in Ostend and the MIK (Maritime Information Junction) located on the Naval Base
Zeebrugge. There are three complementary administrative bodies working together: the
policy-making body, the consultation body and the secretariat.
Maritime Rescue and Coordination Centre (MRCC)
The Maritime Rescue and Coordination Centre (MRCC) in Ostend is the first point of contact
for incidents at sea, eg: persons and vessels in distress, accidents and oil pollution.
After an emergency call, the MRCC starts up the dispatching of several tasks to the different
coast guard partners.
The Search And Rescue SAR- activities are coordinated from the MRCC Ostend:

Coordination of SAR operations and deployment of support units;

Coordinate the implementation of medical evacuations and assistance;
92

Reporting and coordinating the implementation of removal of marine pollutants;

Monitoring the emergency frequencies for shipping;

Continuously monitor and ensure maritime safety;

Register, report and evaluate SAR or other actions.
The operational Search And Rescue (SAR) area of MRCC Ostend is the entire Belgian
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
Maritime Information Junction (MIK)
The Maritime Information Junction (MIK or Maritiem Informatiekrruispunt) underwrites law
enforcement in the Belgian marine waters. MIK is operational since medio 2008, with
assistance of customs authorities (Maritime Brigade), the navigation police and Defence 44.
44
(Agentschap Dienstverlening en Kust - Scheepvaartbegeleiding, 2011)
93
11.
TOURISM
11.1
Sector description
The Belgian coastline offers housing, restaurants, shopping, attractions and musea, soft
recreation (walking, (mountain)biking, horse riding), golf and MICE-tourism45,... Figure 11-1
gives an overview of touristic-recreative attractions at the Belgian coast.
Figure 11-1: Touristic-recreative attractions
(Coördinatiepunt Duurzaam Kustbeheer, 2011)
Touristic accommodation
The Belgian coast offered in 2009 a total housing capacity for approximately 580.000
persons. Figure 11-2 shows the offer of housing per type of accommodation.
45
MICE is used to refer to a particular type of tourism in which large groups planned usually well in advance are
brought together for some particular purpose.
94
Hotels
2,7%
Fixed place of residence
on campings
16,0%
Housing with commercial
purposes only
8,3%
Individual holiday housing
71,0%
Holiday housing on parks
4,8%
Guest rooms
0,1%
Social tourism for adults
1,1%
Youth accommodation
1,0%
Camping
2,6%
Rental housing
0,8%
Figure 11-2: Capacity (number of beds) per type of accommodation at the Belgian coast (2009)
(Westtoer, 2009)
In 2009, there were 5 million arrivals and 31,4 million overnight stays. Figure 11-3 shows
the number of overnight stays per type of accommodation in 2009. The majority (39,7 %)
consists of holiday housing. The average stay equals 6,2 nights. The number of day tourists
was in 2009 18.607.480. 36,3 % comes to the Belgian coast in July and August 46.
Direct renting
15,9%
Renting via housing agents
15,8%
Commercial housing (excl.
renting)
17,1%
Holiday housing
39,7%
Holiday housing
51%
Fixed place of
residence on
campings
11,5%
Figure 11-3: Long-stay tourism (in number of overnight stays) per type of accommodation at the
Belgian coast (2009)
(Westtoer, 2009)
46
(Westtoer, 2009)
95
Expenditures
Millions
Expenditures from short- and long-stay tourism at the Belgian coast decreased from 2,7
billion € in 2007 to 2.534,5 million € in 2009 (Figure 11-4).
€ 3.000
2.731,1
€ 2.500
711,4
€ 2.000
€ 1.500
12,5
957,9
2.534,5
639,0
12,5
Yacht basin
924,2
Long-stay tourism
Commercial housing
€ 1.000
€ 500
Short-stay tourism
total
1.049,3
958,8
2007
2009
€0
Figure 11-4: Direct expenditures from short- and long-stay tourism at the Belgian coast, in constant
prices of 2009 (2007 – 2009)
(Westtoer, 2009)
The majority of the expenditures are made by tourists staying in commercial housing
(37,8 %) and holiday housing (36,5 %). Day tourism accounts for 25,2 % of total
expenditures at the Belgian coast (Figure 11-5).
25,2%
37,8%
Commercial housing
Long-stay tourism
0,5%
Marina
Short-stay tourism
36,5%
Figure 11-5: Direct expenditures from short- and long-stay tourism at the Belgian coast per type of
tourism (2009)
(Westtoer, 2009)
The average expenditures per day tourist is 34,29 €. Direct turnover from day tourism at the
Belgian coast is in 2009 equal to approximately 630 million €. The gross of expenditures
96
come from restaurants (38,9 %), regular shopping (26,6 %) and terraces, tea rooms, pubs
and snacks (20,9 %).
Table 11-1:
Direct turnover from day tourism at the Belgian coast (2009)
Turnover from day tourists (million €)
Restaurant
245,0
Terrace, tea room, pubs and snacks
131,3
Food and drinks
22,7
Regular shopping
167,7
Transport
43,3
Entrance fees
7,4
Rental of sports material
12,2
Total
629,6
(Westtoer, 2009)
Entrance fees
1,2%
Regular shopping
26,6%
Transport
6,9%
Rental of sports material
1,9%
Food and drinks
3,6%
Terrace, tea room, pubs
and snacks
20,9%
Restaurant
38,9%
Figure 11-6: Direct turnover from day tourism at the Belgian coast (%) (2009)
(Westtoer, 2009)
97
Touristic-recreational and cultural activities
The number of attractions has increased from 29 to 32. The majority are historical
attractions (10) and parks (9).
Table 11-2:
Evolution of the number of attractions with more than 5.000 visitors47 at the Belgian
coast (2004-2009)
Touristic-recreational activities
Parks (a)
Nature
Cultural activities
Other
Arts
History
Crafts
Total
2004
9
3
3
4
7
3
29
2005
9
3
3
4
7
3
29
2006
9
3
2
3
8
3
28
2007
9
3
2
3
8
3
28
2008
9
3
2
3
9
4
30
2009
9
3
3
3
10
4
32
(a) ZOO, animal park, theme park, amusement park, water leisure park
(Westtoer, 2009)
Table 11-3
Evolution of the number of visitors of attractions with more than 5.000 visitors at the
Belgian coast (2004-2009)
Touristic-recreational activities
Parks (a)
Nature
Other
Cultural activities
Arts
History
Crafts
Total
2004
1.644.648
204.832
75.500
74.742
283.435
56.346
2.339.503
2005
1.598.899
188.688
64.028
71.066
310.363
60.222
2.293.266
2006
1.598.039
170.788
49.756
123.880
351.800
56.819
2.351.082
2007
1.726.076
178.134
49.758
2008
1.622.958
173.196
44.451
2009
1.772.385
180.992
43.344
92.549
289.615
57.519
2.393.651
63.092
275.204
83.992
2.262.893
85.683
327.241
91.983
2.501.628
(a) ZOO, animal park, theme park, amusement park, water leisure park
(Westtoer, 2009)
47
Only the attractions with more than 5.000 visitors who have participated to the attraction barometer are taken
into account.
98
11.2
Catering industry and retail industry
The number of companies in the catering industry has decreased from 2.488 in 2004 to
2.385 in 2008. This corresponds to a decrease by 4,3 %. The number of companies in the
retail industry has fallen as well by 3 % to 2.696 in 2008.
3.000
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
500
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Catering industry
2.488
2.486
2.441
2.426
2.385
Retail industry
2.777
2.752
2.713
2.700
2.696
Figure 11-7: Evolution of the number of companies in the catering and retail industry48 at the Belgian
coast (2004 - 2009)
(Westtoer, 2009)
Turnover in the catering and retail industry
Turnover in the catering industry has decreased from 1,46 billion € in 2004 to 1,2 billion € in
2008. Turnover in the retail industry has as well decreased from 640 million € in 2004 to
590,6 million € in 2008.
48
Centralised figures. Number of companies based on principal seat of the undertaking for Nacebel codes 55 and
52.
99
Millions
1.460,3
€ 1.600
1.322,8
1.315,4
1.307,6
640,0
634,8
651,0
651,9
2004
2005
2006
2007
€ 1.400
1.200,0
€ 1.200
€ 1.000
€ 800
590,6
€ 600
€ 400
€ 200
€0
Catering industry
2008
Retail
Figure 11-8: Turnover of the catering and retail industry at the Belgian coast, in constant prices of
2009 (2004 - 2008)
(Westtoer, 2009)
Investments in the catering and retail industry
Millions
Investments in the catering industry has decreased from 65,6 million € in 2004 to 60,8
million €, whereas investments on the retail industry increased from 45 million € to 48,6
million € in this period. The total investment in 2008 equaled 109,4 million €.
€ 80
65,6
€ 70
63,9
62,4
52,2
51,4
2005
2006
67,7
60,8
€ 60
€ 50
€ 40
45,0
47,9
48,6
2007
2008
€ 30
€ 20
€ 10
€0
2004
Catering industry
Retail
Figure 11-9: Investments in the catering and retail industry at the Belgian coast, in constant prices of
2009 (2004 – 2008)
(Westtoer, 2009)
11.3
Water recreation
Water recreation can be divided into three sub activities:

Non-motorised recreation: water activities where no engine is involved like
windsurfing, kite-surfing, sailing, wave surfing, rafting, sea kayak/canoe;

Motorised recreation: water activities where the intensive use of an engine is
involved, further subdivided into:
-
speed navigation (speed boats, water-ski, jet-ski);
-
recreational navigation (sailing yachts, tour boats);
100

Angling at sea: recreational fishery from a boat.
In 2009 the coast counts 26 water sport clubs of which 19 are beach clubs offering a
diversity of water- and beach activities like windsurfing, kite surfing, parasailing, catamaran
and sailing.
Marina
The Belgian coast counts 12 yacht clubs, offering approximately 3.356 mooring places
located in 4 marinas at Nieuwpoort, Ostend, Blankenberge and Zeebrugge in 2009. The
marina in Nieuwpoort, offering 2.000 mooring places, is the largest port in Belgium and the
second largest in north-west Europe (after La Rochelle in France).

The turnover per mooring berth is on average 552 €. So the total turnover can be
estimated at ca. 1.852.512 €.

The (direct and indirect) added value per mooring berth in a marina is 8.119 € per
year. The indirect added value equals 7.900 € and direct added value 220 €. So the
total added value can be estimated at ca. 27.250.720 €.

The average expenditure per sailing day is 70 € per boat per day (with 3 to 4
passengers)49.
11.4
According to UNEP (2009) the growth of tourism in general, and in coastal areas in
particular, is related to three main factors:
1. increased personal incomes and leisure time,
2. improvements in transportation systems,
3. greater public awareness of world destinations due to improved communications.
Today‘s tourists seek a variety of experiences including cultural and natural attractions,
gastronomy, sports, etc. all this in a well-preserved and distinctive natural environment. At
the same time, people living in traditional tourist destinations are increasingly aware of and
concerned about their natural, historic and cultural heritage 50.
According to an opinion poll, carried out in Germany in 2002, following environmental factors
are important choosing the next holiday destination:
49
(Hendriks, s.d.)
50
(CoastLearn, 2009)
101
Table 11-4:
Results of a poll about which environmental factors are important choosing the holiday
destination (UNEP, 2009)
64,5%
Clean beaches and water
59,1%
No rubbish in the resort or the surrounding area
50,0%
No urbanization of rural areas
45,8%
Good nature protection in the holiday destination
51,0%
No noise pollution
35,1%
Minimal traffic and good public transport in the destination
29,0%
Possibility of reaching the destination easily by bus or train
41,8%
Environmentally-friendly accommodation
Finding environmentally-friendly accommodation in tour operator or travel agents‘ catalogues
18,7%
14,2%
Easy access to information on offers with verified environmentally-friendly accommodation (ecolabels)
11.5
measures
Marine litter
Coastal communities organize additional cleaning up actions of the beaches in the summer
period. Following table gives an overview for four coastal communities.
Table 11-5:
Coastal
community
Oostende
Overview of cleaning actions and collected waste in four coastal communities (Oostende,
Nieuwpoort, Bredene and De Panne)
On a daily basis 15 June – 15 September
Mechanical
cleaning
If necessary
No information
Nieuwpoort
On a daily basis in the summer months
If necessary
No information
Bredene
On a daily basis in July - August
De Panne
3 times per day in June – August51
Not used
15 June – 15 August
every two days;
once per month
20.000 kg
3,08 ton (July-Sept ‗10)
27,99 ton (May – July ‗11)52
Manual cleaning
Waste
Besides, several actions are organized by the coastal communities in order to clean up the
beach. Examples are communication and sensibilisation campaigns, educative games,
expositions, workshops as brochures. One action occurring every year is the ‗Lenteprikkel‘.
51
One day equals 5 hours.
52
This number includes 80 % of sand.
102
„Lenteprikkel‟
In 2004, the Coordination Centre for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (Coördinatiepunt
Duurzaam Kustbeheer) and the coastal communities started a spring cleaning of the beach,
called ‗Lenteprikkel‘. This event has been organized in the period 2004 – 2008. Table 11-6
shows the evolution (2004 – 2008) of how many people collected how much marine litter
(kg) over which distance of coastline (km). Figure 11-10 shows the evolution (2004 – 2008)
of the collected waste per kilometer. The most garbage was collected in 2007 with 422,9
kg/km.
Table 11-6: Collected marine litter (kg), distance (km) and number of volunteers in
‗Lenteprikkel‘ (2004 - 2008)
Year
Waste (kg)
Distance (km)
Number of volunteers
2004
1405,63
6,4
350
2005
1537,4
6,5
more than 200
2006
1828,9
11
362
2007
2380
9,9
776
2008
956,6
4,9
253
Figure 11-10: Waste in kilogram per kilometre collected in ‗Lenteprikkel‘ (2004 – 2008)
Figure 11-11 shows the type of waste (%) found on the Belgian coastline (as a result of
Lenteprikkel, organized in 2008). The majority consists of wood (43 %), plastics (20 %) and
residual waste (18 %).
103
6,0%
12,9%
43,4%
17,8%
19,9%
Wood
Plastics
Resiudal waste
Rope and textile
Other (glass, rubber, paper, cans)
Figure 11-11: Type of waste (%) collected in ‗Lenteprikkel‘ (2008)
Table 11-7 shows a cost estimation of Lenteprikkel. The cost is estimated at ca. 14.000 €.
Table 11-7:
Cost estimation of ‗Lenteprikkel‘
Guides
Type of cost
Number
20,0
Unit price
99,50
Total (€)
1.990,00
Poster
1.000,0
0,14
138,47
120,0
32,26
3.870,96
Notice board
10,0
200,00
2.000,00
Flags
Employees Coördinatiepunt Duurzaam
Kustbeheer
25,0
22,13
553,25
170 hours
30 €/hour/person
5.100,00
Report Lenteprikkel
Employees coastal communities
Total
13.652,68
104
12.
OTHER ACTIVITIES AND FUNCTIONS RELATED TO THE SEA
12.1
Research
In the frame of the Joint Programming Initiative 'Healthy and productive seas and oceans'
(www.jpi-oceans.eu) a mapping of the expenditures on marine research has been
conducted.
12.1.1 Institutions
In 2009, 106 groups or 1.420 persons performed marine and coastal research. The largest
share of research is executed by universities. Table 12-1 gives an overview per institution.
Table 12-1: Overview research potential (November 2009)
Institution
Number of groups
Number of persons
Flemish universities
57
750
Flemish research institutes
12
300
French-speaking universities
26
240
Federal research institutes
11
130
Total
106
1420
Flemish administrations
15
160
Federal administrations
5
45
(Janssen, 27-11-2009)

Flemish universities include: University of Antwerp, Hasselt University, Vrije
Universiteit Brussel, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven and Ghent University;

The French speaking universities include: Centre interuniversitaire de Biologie
marine, Umons – ULB, Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), Université de MonsHainaut (UMH), Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), University of Liège (ULg);

Flemish research institutes include: VITO, INBO, Waterbouwkundig Laboratorium,
VMM, VIOE, KMDA, ILVO;

Federal research institutes include: Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences
(RBINS) incl. the Management Unit of the North Sea Mathematical Models (MUMM),
Royal Museum for Central Africa (RMCA) and Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI).
Additional to the institutions summarized in Table 12-1, +/- 28 entities in Belgium are
operational as international of European institutes (IODE Project Office, Marine Board, …),
as NGO‘s or intergovernmental cooperation programmes in the field of marine and coastal
research and support, with educational purposes. Moreover, 16 formal courses such as
Maritime Sciences, Maritime Academy,… and more than 60 private companies operate in this
field.
Operational support
Scientific research is performed by two vessels: ‗R/V Belgica‘ and ‗R/V Zeeleeuw‘.
105
R/V Belgica
The oceanographic research vessel Belgica belongs to the Belgian State and comes under
the responsibility of the Belgian Science Policy Office (BELSPO). The management of the
vessel and its scientific equipment falls under the responsibility of the Mathematical Unit of
the North Sea Mathematical Models (MUMM), which is also responsible for planning and
organising scientific campaigns at sea. The Belgian navy provides the crew and takes care of
the operational aspects as well as the moorage in Zeebrugge, the Belgica's home port.
This all-purpose research vessel, which spends around two hundred days a year at sea, both
monitors the quality of the marine environment and undertakes numerous expeditions for
scientific research.
The Belgica monitors the quality of the North Sea by constantly collecting all sorts of data on
the biological, chemical, physical, geological and hydrodynamic processes which take place
there. In addition to this, the vessel is a floating laboratory for researchers from the
universities and scientific institutes of Belgium in their search for a better understanding of
the structure and working of the ecosystem of the North Sea.
Thanks to its all-purpose nature and special equipment together with its versatile
oceanographic instruments, the Belgica not only meets the needs of the Belgian teams
working in the field of marine sciences, but also those of foreign teams with whom there is
close co-operation in the context of European research programmes.
However, the scientific activities on board can suddenly take a totally different turn. As soon
as reports come in of a shipwreck involving a dangerous load or an oil spill, the Belgica
changes course immediately if necessary and makes its way to the site of the catastrophe.
In this case, its task is primarily to examine the impact of the incident on the sea
environment by taking regular water samples and measurements. If necessary, the
scientists, students and technicians make way for experts in the relevant field. In the
meantime, the Management Unit of the North Sea Mathematical Models (MUMM) modellers
examine the spread of the products harmful to the marine environment using mathematical
models. Fortunately, such major catastrophes at sea occur only sporadically. The Belgica
operates in the North Sea, from Brest (France) to Aberdeen (United Kingdom). In cases of
international co-operation the Belgica leaves Belgian waters. (MUMM/BMM/UGMM, 2011).
Figure 12-1 shows the themes of campaigns in 2009 and 2010, in terms of percentage. 60
percent of R/V Belgica‘s activities are geophysical research and monitoring of the marine
environment.
106
Campaigns in 2009
5%
Monitoring of the marine environment
16%
23%
Research on ecosystems
13%
Geophysical research
Research on fisheries
Other research themes
43%
Campaigns in 2010
15%
Monitoring of the marine environment
31%
Research on ecosystems
12%
Geophysical research
Research on fisheries
12%
30%
Other research themes
Figure 12-1: Number of campaigns of R/V Belgica by theme (%) (2009 and 2010)
16
90
14
80
70
12
60
10
50
8
40
6
30
4
20
2
10
0
Number of days
Number of campaigns
Figure 12-2 shows the number of planned and effective number of days R/V Belgica
operated in 2010. In 2010 the research vessel had 32 campaigns. Belgica operated 161 of
the 186 planned days or ca. 87 %.
0
Monitoring of the
marine environment
Research on
ecosystems
Number of campaigns
Geophysical research Research on fisheries
Number of planned days
Other research
themes
Number of effective days
Figure 12-2: Number of campaigns and of planned and effective number of days by R/V Belgica
(2010)
107
R/V Zeeleeuw
The Fleet Division (Waterways and Marine Affairs Administration, Environment and
Infrastructure Department of the Ministry of Flanders) and the Flanders Marine Institute
(VLIZ) cooperate in order to perform scientific research with the Zeeleeuw and other vessels
in Belgian coastal waters and the Westerschelde estuary. The Fleet Division owns the
Zeeleeuw, bears operational costs and provides the crew, whereas VLIZ decides on the
cruise schedule and manages the collective used research equipment and infrastructure
(Cattrrijsse, 2010).
Since 2001 the Zeeleeuw performs on a monthly base scientific monitoring. Since 2008 an
increase in monitoring can be noted due to the Water Framework Directive and the
monitoring the environmental impact of wind farms on the Thornton and Bligh sandbanks.
250
2500
200
2000
150
1500
100
1000
50
500
0
Number of hours
Number of cruises
In 2009 the Zeeleeuw executed 166 of the 192 planned cruises (or 86 %). The research
vessel operated 1.690 hours of the 2.372 requested number of hours (or 71 %).
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Number of planned cruises
Executed number of cruises
Requested number of hours
Number of effective hours
2009
Figure 12-3: Research by the Zeeleeuw (2009)
Figure 12-4: Scientific monitoring by R/V Zeeleeuw (2001 – 2009)
108
Figure 12-5: Tendered monitoring by R/V Zeeleeuw (2001 – 2009)
12.1.2 Budget
Belgium is a federal country composed of 7 federated authorities: the Federal State, the
three regions and three communities. Each authority has competence in research and
innovation.
The total Belgian contribution to marine research is estimated at 51,69 M€ per year.
Federal
At federal level the Belgian Science Policy Office (BELSPO) is funding research programmes
on different themes. The major marine related programmes are: the Research programme
"Science for a sustainable development - SSD" with sub programmes on the North Sea,
Biodiversity, Climate and Atmosphere and Antarctic and polar regions; and the Research
programme for Earth Observation (STEREO).
Within the "Science for a sustainable development - SSD" 22 marine related projects are
funded for a total budget of 17 M€. Within the Earth Observation programme STEREO II 9
marine related projects are funded for a total budget of 3 M€. The yearly budget for
competitive marine research projects at BELSPO is around 5-6 M€. The institutional funding
for marine research (Federal Research Institutions, maintenance Belgica, ...) is estimated
around 8 M€.
Other Federal administrations such as de FPS Environment, Ministry of Defence, FPS
Economy, funds marine related research but figures are missing.
Flanders
In Flanders, the department of Economy, Science and Innovation (EWI) has no dedicated
research programmes as such. The Government of Flanders decided to fund Research and
Innovation through 4 main funding lines.
109
1. The Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen): Flanders research foundation is
funding mainly basic and cutting edge research. FWO provides PhD-grant and post-doc
grants on the basis of excellence. Several of them are related to marine topics.
2. Flanders Innovation & Technology agency (IWT): the agency supports a lot of strategic
and applied research. IWT provides yearly also +/- 300 grants in applied research fields,
some of them are dealing with marine related topics (biotechnology, aquaculture, marine
technology).
3. Strategic research centres: these can be considered as dedicated research programmes:
IMEC: micro-electronics, nanotechnology, VIB: Flanders Biotechnology Institute; VITO:
Flanders Environmental technologies; IBBT: Institute for Broad Band Technologies.
4. BOF: Special Research Funds: These research funds are provided to the universities in
order to develop their own research policy and support their own flagship research priorities.
EWI is also financing a dedicated service, data and information platform for the
marine/maritime research community, i.c. the Flanders Marine Institute (VLIZ).
The spending on marine and maritime related research projects adds up to an average of
11.7 million Euro a year, not taken into account the institutional funding for monitoring and
logistic support costs of about 11.4 million Euro per year.
French speaking community
The Fund for Scientific Research - FNRS has the exclusive support competence for the
French-speaking Community of Belgium (Brussels and Wallonia). On a general note, the
FNRS fosters research in all scientific fields, following a bottom-up approach of investigatordriven research. The Fund supports individual researchers on the basis of the criterion of
excellence by offering temporary or permanent positions; funding to research projects;
grants and credits for international collaboration and scientific prizes. The Fund‘s annual
budget amounts to ~150 M EUR.
Marine and maritime research is mainly funded by the following instruments:
1. Support to individual researchers at all levels (salaries and fellowships), accounting for 2/3
of the total budget of FNRS
2. Support to bottom-up research projects (accounting for 1/3 of the budget)
3. Support to medium and large scale research infrastructures
4. Support to researchers‘ mobility
Regarding the research projects (both individual and collaborative) honored in 2008, it is
estimated that 10 - 20 projects in the field of marine and maritime sciences were funded
accounting for approx. 2 M EUR or 4-5% % of all honoured research projects in 2008. These
include mainly research projects related to interactions between oceans and climate as well
as marine biodiversity.
110
12.1.3 Employment
Figure 12-6 shows the distribution of research potential in number of persons. The blue
share represents research groups of universities and Flemish and federal research institutes,
whereas the grey part represents other groups (such as Marine Board ESF, IODE Project
Office, etcetera). In addition (but not taken into account in this figure), the sector generates
indirect employment, i.e. financial service, secretary employees, etcetera.
Figure 12-6: Distribution of research potential in number of persons
(Janssen, 27-11-2009)
Figure 12-7 and Figure 12-8 show the distribution of research potential in number of persons
per discipline. The map only represents university groups, in particular:

Biological research (aquaculture, fishing, marine biology,…): 46%,

Chemical research (toxicology, analytical chemistry,…): 14%,

Earth sciences (geology, sedimentology,…): 14%

Physical research (meteorology, water engineering,…): 10%

Engineering sciences (hydraulics, coastal defence,…): 9%

Maritime sciences (maritime history, harbor economics,…): 7%
111
7%
9%
Biological research
Chemical research
10%
46%
Earth sciences
Physical research
Engineering sciences
14%
Maritime sciences
14%
Figure 12-7: Share (%) of persons per discipline (universities)
(Janssen, 27-11-2009)
Figure 12-8: Distribution of research potential in number of persons per discipline (universities)
(Janssen, 27-11-2009)
12.1.4 Factors influencing the future development of the sector
Future evolutions and developments depend to a large extent on the (EU) legislation and
regulation with regard to the marine environment, requiring additional research in specific
112
fields. Examples are the Waterframe Directive, OSPAR, the Common Fisheries Policy, or the
Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Another aspect influencing the development of the
research sector is innovation (i.e. mariculture initiatives in wind farms) and the need for
knowledge (i.e. the development of new sensors, biotech, renewable energy, etcetera).
12.1.5 Cost of degradation based on costs of current environmental
measures
The pressure of the sector research can be considered as minor. The pressure on the marine
environment comes in a large extent from operations by vessel.
12.2
Military exercises
Military exercises are held on land (beach) and at sea, covering a large part of the BPNS.
The exercises can be categorized into different sub-uses according to the zone in which they
are executed and to the military component that is responsible for them. The most
important military exercises taking place in the marine environment are:

Shooting exercises direct seawards from land (responsible authority: Army)
Shooting exercises direct seawards from land are held in Nieuwpoort – Lombardsijde. These
exercises comprise testing new ammunition or weapons and second, training staff by
simulating air attacks. The shooting area is divided in three parts: small (K), medium (M)
and great (G), depending on the caliber of the ammunition used. There are no limitations on
the number of shooting exercises per year. However, no exercises can be held in the
summer school holiday and in weekends, reducing the maximum shooting days to 175.

Shooting exercises at sea at floating targets (responsible authority: Navy)
Shooting exercises at sea at floating targets is executed from the southern limit in northern
direction, during day or night. The exercising zone can be used all year long.

Amphibian exercises to train survival performance of Air Force Pilots (responsible
authority: Army/Navy/Air Force)
Amphibian exercises consist of testing survival capacities of Air Force pilots, dropped at sea.
These exercises take place on average 3 times per year, with a maximum of 5 times per
year.

Detonation of war ammunitions (mining exercises) (responsible authority: Navy)
Detonation exercises are held north of the anchor area Westhinder since 2001. As
detonation of mines during training is prohibited, training mines are being used. Real
ammunitions that need to be swept, are brought to this area to be detonated. There are no
limitations on the number of detonations per year and the area can be used all year long.
After exercising, mines are swept. Mining exercises can be divided into two categories:
-
Defensive mining, simulating a war situation whereby a strategic place needs to be
defended against enemies.
-
Offensive mining, simulating a war situation whereby enemies try to put mines by
the enemy. Mines can also be dropped by aircraft of small fishing boats.
113
Once per 2 years NATO holds extensive international large-scale naval exercises. The
defensive or offensive mining exercises consist of placing mines and in a second stage,
locating and sweeping mines53.
Figure 12-9: Military exercise zones in the BPNS
Following figures give an overview of the use of military ships in the BNPS, especially:
-
the evolution (2001 – 2010) of the use of Ready Duty Ships for fisheries
surveillance;
-
the evolution (2000 – 2010) of the use of BNS Belgica for hydrographical research;
-
the evolution (2000 - 2010) of the use of military ships in MOST 54 military training
areas,
-
and the evolution (2000 - 2010) of the use of ships from the navy.
53
(Maes, Frank et al., 2005)
54
Mine countermeasure vessels Operational Sea Training
114
According to Defence the military use of the BNPS will remain stable.
Fisheries surveillance by Ready Duty Ships
90
80
Number of days
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Figure 12-10: The evolution of the use of Ready Duty Ships for fisheries surveillance (2001 – 2010)
(Defensie - Gianni Vangaever, 2011)
Hydrographical research by BNS Belgica
200
180
Number of days
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Figure 12-11: The evolution of the use of BNS Belgica for hydrographical research (2000 – 2010)
115
MOST military training area
250
18
16
Number of ships
300
240
18
14
185
12
13
10
200
135
14
12
155
13
180
175
13
135
12
150
12
170
125
10
8
200
13
150
10
100
6
4
Number of days
20
50
2
0
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Figure 12-12: The evolution of the use of military ships in MOST military training areas (2000 - 2010)
Naval Component
18
Number of ships
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
MFF
2004
FFG
2005
CMT
2006
AUX
2007
2008
2009
2010
RDS
Figure 12-13: The evolution of the use of ships from the naval component (2000 - 2010)
12.3
Historical ammunition zone: the Paardenmarkt
In 1919, after the First World War, the Belgian Government decided to dump ca. 35.000 ton
German military ammunition in the BPNS. For a period of 6 months, the ammunition was
disposed on a daily basis on the sand flat ‗the Paardenmarkt‘, circa 1 km offshore, near
Duinbergen. Since ‘70 it is forbidden to fish or to anchor in this area, first corresponding to
1,5 km² and then to 3 km² in ‘80 when the area was enlarged, indicated by a pentagon in
Figure 12-15.
The exact number of ammunition is not known. It is estimated that about 35.000 ton was
dumped. The number of toxic ammunitions, containing yperite (60 %), (di)phosgene (20 %)
and clark (11 %), is estimated at 20 to 30 %. Most of the ammunition is buried under
116
sediment, mainly due to the construction of the outer port of Zeebrugge, and does not pose
a danger. Therefore the Government has decided that the ammunition will remain at place.
Figure 12-14 shows ammunition dumping areas as a result of World War I and II. More than
100.000 ton of ammunition was dumped in the North Sea, Baltic Sea and North East Atlantic
Ocean.
Figure 12-14: Ammunition dumping areas in the North Sea and in the North East Atlantic Ocean.
Red bullet: conventional munitions, yellow bullet: toxic munitions, blue bullet: unknown munitions
(OSPAR Commission - 2004 - revised (BMM))
117
Figure 12-15: The Paardenmarkt
12.4
Anchorage area and places of refuge
Places of anchorage are designated places where ships are able to anchor, while waiting for
a pilot or a permission to enter a port. Places of refuge are areas where ships can refuge in
case of heavy storms at sea or in case of leakage (Maes, Frank et al., 2005).
The Westhinder Anchorage area is determined as the place of refuge. NE Akkaert Anchorage
and AZ Anchorage are emergency anchorage areas, in case Westhinder anchorage would
not be available. Ostend en Zeebrugge are two ports of refuge. These ports can only
118
welcome smaller vessels without significant damage, due to the limited capacity, without dry
docks and given its limited depth55. Other destinations are Flushing, Dunkirk or Rotterdam.
Figure 12-16: Places of anchorage
(Frank Maes, s.d. )
12.5
Cables and pipelines
Cables are used for telecommunication and energy purposes and pipelines for gas
transportation.
The total length of telecommunication cables is 914 km: 16 cables are being used (718 km),
and 11 cables are not in use (196 km). There are 3 gas pipelines on the BPNS with a total
length of 163 km:

55
Interconnector: between Bacton on the southern coast of the United Kingdom and
Zeebrugge;
(Frank Maes, s.d. )
119

Zeepipe: between the Sleipner area on the Norwegian continental shelf and the
Distrigaz terminal in Zeebrugge;

Norfra or Franpipe: between the Norwegian continental shelf and Dunkirk on the
northern coast of France.
Figure 12-17: Communication cables, electricity export cables and gas pipelines
12.6
Activities considering the sea as a sink: wrecks and wreck
salvage
Ship wrecks, other vessel wrecks and sunk loads spread along the entire Belgian part of the
North Sea, as a consequence of shipping accidents and other disasters at sea and their
removal. The BPNS counts many ship wrecks and it is likely that shipping accidents will occur
in the future.
http://www.vlaamsehydrografie.be/wrakkendatabank.htm gives an overview of the detected
wrecks in the BNPS.
120
13.
NATURE CONSERVATION
Nature conservation includes all coastal and marine areas that have received or could
receive a protection status.
13.1
International biodiversity policy
This paragraph gives a brief overview of international legislation with regard to biodiversity.
1971: Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl
Habitat;
1979: Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 30 November 2009) on the conservation of wild birds;
1979: Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Convention on
Migratory Species or Convention of Bern). Two agreements are important in the BNPS:

ASCOBANS: Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and
North Seas

AEWA: African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement
1979: Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats;
1992: The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild
flora and fauna;
1992: Convention on Biological Diversity or Convention of Rio;
2001: EU Summit in Göteborg to halt the decline of biodiversity by 2010;
2002: World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg to protect 10% of marine
ecological regions by 2012 and to create of a network of marine protected areas;
2003: OSPAR-HELCOM meeting in Bremen on the creation of a network of marine protected
areas by 2010.
13.2
Relevant legal decisions under federal legislation for nature
conservation in the BPNS
The “MMM” act
The "MMM" act (act of 20 January 1999 on the protection of the marine environment in sea
areas under Belgian jurisdiction) changed by the act of 17 September 2005 (Belgian Official
Journal of 13 October 2005) establishes the legal basis for the protection of the Belgian part
of the North Sea against sea-related pollution and for the conservation, restoration and
development of nature.
The general principles of environmental law are summarised in this important act:

The prevention principle: prevention is better than cure;
121

The precautionary principle: preventive measures must be taken if there are
grounds for concern regarding pollution;

The principle of sustainable management: human activities must be managed in
such a way that the marine ecosystem remains in a condition which ensures the
continued use of the sea;

The polluter pays principle: the costs of measures to prevent and fight pollution are
to be borne by the polluter;

The principle of restoration: if the environment is damaged or disrupted, the marine
environment must be restored to its original condition as far as is possible;

The principle of objective liability is also established: in the event of any damage to
or disruption of the environment in sea areas as a result of an accident or an
infringement of the law, the party having caused the damage to or disruption of the
environment is obliged to remedy this, even if they are not at fault.
In addition, the basis is established for creating marine reserves. There are 3 categories of
marine reserves:

In integral marine reserves no activities are allowed;

In directed marine reserves, activities will be exceptionally allowed;

In special protection zones and the special zones for nature conservation, activities
are generally allowed but some activities may be forbidden.
The areas will only be designated when the destination is already known. Further more,
there will be agreements with the communities that are active in the area. These
agreements have been established.
A general obligation is established, as regards activities for which a permit is required in
advance, to prepare a report on the environment effects (at the initiative of the applicant)
and to undertake environmental assessment before and during these activities (carried out
by the government).
The MMM act modifies a number of provisions in the law of 6 April 1995 implementing the
MARPOL convention. For instance, different penalties are imposed depending on whether
merchant navy ships, pleasure boats or fishing vessels are involved and provision is made
for the possibility of an amicable settlement. There is an obligation to draw up emergency
plans in the event of oil pollution on board ships.
The MMM acts also forms the basis on which compulsory navigation courses can be
established to safeguard protected areas against shipping accidents or disruption by
pleasure boats. Government action in the event of an accident posing the threat of pollution
is also defined.
So far the following implementing decrees have been issued in the context of the MMM act:

Royal Decree of 12 March 2000 on the procedure for dumping certain substances
and materials in the North Sea (Belgian Official Journal of 4 April 2000);

Royal decree of 21 on December 2001 the protection of species (Belgian Official
Journal of 14 February 2002) ;

Royal Decree of 7 September 2003 on the procedure for permits required for certain
activities in sea areas (Belgian Official Journal of 17 September 2003);
122

Royal Decree of 9 September 2003 on the assessment of environmental effects
(Belgian Official Journal of 17 September 2003);

Royal Decree of 8 July 2005 on the simplified procedure for assessment of
environmental effects (Belgian Official Journal of 14 July 2005);

Royal decree of 14 October 2005 on the installation of special protection areas and
special zones for nature conservation (MPAs) (Belgian Official Journal of 31 October
2005);

Royal Decree of 14 October 2005 on the conditions for community agreements
concerning special protected marine areas (Belgian Official Journal of 31 October
2005).
13.3
Site protection
At this moment marine protected areas have been established (or are currently in the
process of being established) in the BPNS.
Figure 13-1: Current and future MPAs in the BPNS
Special Protection Areas (Birds Directive)
The EU Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds) was adopted in 1979 by the
123
Member states of the Union, as a result of declining wild bird populations due to pollution,
loss of habitats and unsustainable use.
The objective is the conservation of all species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state in the
European territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies. It covers the protection,
management and control of these species and lays down rules for their exploitation.
Member States shall take the requisite measures to maintain the population of the species
referred to in Article 1 of the Directive at a level which corresponds in particular to ecological,
scientific and cultural requirements, while taking account of economic and recreational
requirements, or to adapt the population of these species to that level.
In 2005, three zones have been designated as Special Protection Area (Royal Decree of 14
October 2005): SBZ 1 (Koksijde- 110,01 km²), SBZ 2 (Oostende- 144,80 km²), SBZ 3
(Zeebrugge- 57,71 km²).
Special Areas of Conservation (Habitats Directive)
The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora
and fauna) was adopted on 21 May 1992 and complements and amends the Birds Directive.
The purpose is to ensure biodiversity by means of the conservation of natural habitats and
of wild fauna and flora in the European territory of the Member States and in particular to
maintain or restore the habitats and species at a favorable conservation status in their
natural range.
In 2005, two zones have been designated as Special Areas of Conservation (Royal Decree of
14 October 2005): H1 Trapegeer-Stroombank (181,00 km²) and H2 Vlakte van de Raan
(19,17 km²).
In 2010 the future SAC ―Vlaamse Banken‖ was notified to the European Commission. This
site was selected for the protection of the habitat type ―1110-Sandbanks which are slightly
covered by sea water all the time‖ and ―1170 - Reefs‖ and for the following species: Phoca
vitulina (common seal) and Alosa fallax (twaite shad). This site with an area of ca 1000 km²
extends the current SAC ―Trapegeer Stroombank‖.
NATURA 2000
All areas that are protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives form an ecological
network, known as NATURA 2000. NATURA 2000 is comprised of Special Areas of
Conservation (SAC) under the Habitats Directive, and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under
the Birds Directive.
Ramsar sites
The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl
Habitat is an intergovernmental treaty, signed in 1971 in Ramsar, Iran and came into force
in 1975. Member countries should maintain the ecological character of their Wetlands of
International Importance and plan for their ―wise use‖, or sustainable use. The Convention
on Wetlands came into force in Belgium on 4 July 1986.
Ramsar site ―Vlaamse Kustbanken‖ established for the protection of the common scoter
(Melanitta nigra).
124
Table 13-1:
Overview Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation
Name
Surface
Habitat type and/of species
SBZ 1
110,01 km²
Little Gull (Larus minutus - dwergmeeuw),
SBZ 2
144,80 km²
Great-Crested Grebe (Podiceps cristatus - fuut)
SBZ 3
57,71 km²
Sandwich Tern (Sterna sandvicensis – grote
stern), Common Tern (Sterna hirundo - visdief)
Trapegeer Stroombank (H1)
181,00 km²
Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea
water all the time; mudflats and sandflats not
covered by seawater at low tide.
Vlakte van de Raan (H2)
19,17 km²
Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea
water all the time
(Cliquet & Decleer, s.d.)
125
14.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agentschap Dienstverlening en Kust - Scheepvaartbegeleiding. (2011). Shipping Assistance
Division.
ARCADIS. (2010). Inventory of the socio-economic activities affecting the Belgian marine
waters and the related developments within the European Marine Strategy Framework
Directive 2008/56/EC. FPS Health, Food Chain Safety & Environment – DG Environment
Marine Environment Service.
Cattrrijsse, A. (2010). Jaarverslag Zeeleeuw 2009. Oostende: Vlaams Instituut voor de Zee
(VLIZ).
Cliquet, A., & Decleer, K. (s.d.). Natura 2000 in de Belgische Noordzee: meer dan een
'papieren' bescherming? De Levende Natuur - jaargang 108.
Coördinatiepunt Duurzaam Kustbeheer. (2011). Ruimtelijke situering. Retrieved 04 2011,
from De kustatlas Vlaanderen-België: http://www.kustatlas.be/nl/
Dagmar Schimdt Etkin. (1999). Estimating cleanup costs for oil spills.
Decloedt, S. (2006). De economische haalbaarheid van de Belgische visserijsector.
Defensie - Gianni Vangaever. (2011, January 19). Data met betrekking tot het gebruik van
het Belgisch deel van de Noordzee door Defensie.
Departement Landbouw en Visserij, a. L. (2008). Strategische Milieubeoordeling van het
Nationaal Operationeel Programma voor de Belgische visserijsector, 2007-2013.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2007). An introductory guide to
valuing ecosystem services.
European Commission - Fisheries. (2011). The EU system for fisheries controls.
European Commission DG Environment. (2010). Scoping study on the requirements for
economic assessment in the Marine Strategic Framework Directive. European Commission.
European Commission. (2010). Working Group on Economic and Social Assessment.
Economic and social analysis for the Initial Assessment for the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive: A guidance document.
Europese Visserijfonds. Operationeel Programma in uitvoering van het Nationaal Strategisch
Plan voor de Belgische visserijsector: 2007-2013. Investeren in duurzame visserij.
FIVA. (2009). Activiteitenverslag 2009.
Frank Maes, P. D.-B. (s.d. ). Safety at sea. Maritime Institute - Ghent University.
GAUFRE: Towards a spatial structure plan for the Belgian part of the North Sea. (2005).
Haven Antwerpen. (2003-2010). Financieel verslag Haven van Antwerpen.
126
Helton, D., & Penn, T. (1999). Putting response and natural resource damage costs in
perspective.
Hendriks, S. (s.d.). Economische-geografische analyse van jachthavens en toerisme op de
binnenvaart.
ILVO. (2011).
ILVO, Flemish government Coastal Division, Flanders hydraulics research. (2009).
Syntheserapport over de effecten op het mariene milieu van baggerspeciestorten
(vergunningsperiode 2008-2009).
IMDC & TTE . (2010). MER zandextractie Noordzee milieueffectrapport - Niet technische
samenvatting.
IMO. (2011). Anti-fouling systems.
ir. Jan Adriansens . (2009). Vissen met quota - Belgische Zeevisserij. Departement
Landbouw en Visserij - Afdeling Monitoring en Studie.
Janssen, C. M. (27-11-2009). Schets van het zeewetenschappelijk landschap in Vlaanderen.
VLIZ.
Kustwacht. (2008). Beleidsversnippering hindert bestrijding milieuvervuiling op zee niet .
Maes, F., De Meyer, P., & Calewaert, J.-B. (s.d.). Safety at sea - situation in the region of
Flandres. Maritime Institute - Ghent University.
Maes, Frank et al. (2005). GAUFRE: Towards a spatial structure plan for the Belgian part of
the North Sea.
Martens, C.-M. T. (2011, 01 17). Aanvraag data socio-economische anayse. (e-mail,
Interviewer)
MUMM / BMM / UGMM. (n.d.). Zand- en grindexploitatie. Retrieved March 14, 2011, from
MUMM
/
BMM
/UGMM:
http://www.mumm.ac.be/NL/Management/Seabased/sandgravel.php
MUMM/BMM/UGMM. (2011). Beheerseenheid van het Mathematisch Model van de Noordzee:
Monitoring. Retrieved 05 2011, from De Belgica: een dienstverlenend oceanografisch
onderzoeksschip: http://www.mumm.ac.be/NL/Monitoring/Belgica/index.php
MUMM/BMM/UGMM. (2011). http://www.mumm.ac.be/. Retrieved from Management Unit of
the North Sea Mathematical Models .
MUMMM/BMM/UGMM. (2011). Dredging material. Retrieved 03 16, 2011, from
MUMMM/BMM/UGMM: http://www.mumm.ac.be/EN/Management/Sea-based/dredging.php
Nationale Bank België. (2010). Economisch belang van de Belgische havens: Vlaamse
zeehavens, Luiks havencomplex en haven van Brussel - Verslag 2008. NBB.
Nationale Bank België. (2003-2010). Jaarrekening Haven Oostende. NBB.
Port of Zeebrugge. (2003-2010). Jaarverslag. Port of Zeebrugge.
127
Prof. Dr. Maes et al. . (2002). Beoordeling van mariene degradatie in de Noordzee en
voorstellen voor een duurzaam beheer. Universiteit Gent.
Simoen, H., & Jacobsen, R. (2009). Vergelijking van onshore and offsre windparken in
België. Universiteit Gent Faculteit Economie en Bedrijfskunde .
Stopford, M. (2009). Maritime Economics.
UNEP. (2009). Sustainable coastal tourism. UNEP.
Visserijfonds, E. Nationaal Strategisch Plan voor de Belgische visserijsector: 2007-2013.
Vlaamse overheid - Beleidsdomein Landbouw en Visserij. (2009). Jaarverslag 2009. Land- en
tuinbouwer
als
voedselproducent.
Retrieved
from
http://lv.vlaanderen.be/nlapps/data/docattachments/jaarverslag2009.pdf
Vlaamse Overheid, Departement Landbouw en Visserij, Afdeling Landbouw- en
Visserijbeleid, Zeevisserij. (2009). De Belgische Zeevisserij. Aanvoer en besomming 2009.
Vlaamse Overheid .
Westtoer. (2009). Trendrapport KiTS Kust 2004-2009.
Zeegra vzw. (2002). Nota over het belang van de Belgische zandwinning op zee.
Zeegra, Luc Van De Kerckhove. (2011, 06 17). E-mail Data privé zandextractie in het
Belgisch Continentaal Plat.
Zeegra, v. (2004). Het economisch belang van de sector van zandwinning op ee in België -
eindrapport.
Zeevisserij, Vlaamse overheid - Departement Landbouw en visserij - Afdeling Landbouw- en
Visserijbeleid -. (2009). De Belgische Zeevisserij - uitkomsten 2009.
128
COLOPHON
This document is a translation of the two official documents:
French version :
État belge, 2012. Analyse économique et sociale de l‘utilisation des eaux marines belges et
du coût de la degradation du milieu marin. Directive-cadre stratégie pour le milieu marin –
Art 8, paragraphe 1c. Service Public Fédéral Santé publique, Sécurité de la Chaîne
alimentaire et Environnement, Bruxelles, Belgique, 129 pp.
Dutch version :
Belgische Staat, 2012. Socio-economische analyse van het gebruik van de Belgische mariene
wateren en de aan de aantasting van het mariene milieu verbonden kosten. Kaderrichtlijn
Mariene Strategie – Art 8, lid 1c. Federale Overheidsdienst Volksgezondheid, Veiligheid van
de Voedselketen en Leefmilieu, Brussel, België, 137 pp.
Contact:
If you have questions, or if you wish to receive a digital copy of this report, please send an
email to [email protected] (Director Marine Affairs) or
[email protected] (Expert Marine Affairs).
July 2012
129

Offertetemplate TRITEL recto

Transcription

Similar documents

Yereme Sylla / BEL - Activities Eurohandball

Saturday, October 17 Port Administration Main Dock, Fagatogo

R. Lee Ermey served 11 years active duty with the US Marine Corps

MFCU Scholarship Application - Marine Federal Credit Union

ECOMARE - Oceano XXI

Deks Olie - Robin Alys Roberts

PDF - Monterey Boats

Mariner 25HP - Morgan Marine

INSPIRE SENIOR: Session 2

Exxon Mobil STS - Fendercare Marine Ltd