Scenario ComparisonWhich are the most effective scenarios for

the BE-AWARE project regions?

BE-AWARE II Final Conference, 18-19 November, Rönneby, Sweden

Co-financed by the EU – Civil Protection Financial Instrument

Concept for analytical scenario comparison

Concept for analytical scenario comparisonCosts are given as order of magnitudes and include investment cost, lifetime, maintenance and running costs

Concept for analytical scenario comparison

Introducing two key terms:

1) Effectiveness (regarding damage for a given scenario compared to the 2020 reference scenario)•In brief: "How much is the env. and soc.-eco. damage reduced in a sub-region by introducing a given scenario?"•In brief brief: "How much does it help"

2) Cost-efficiency(regarding damage for a given scenario compared to the 2020 reference scenario)•In brief: "How much reduction in env. and soc.-eco. damage is achieved per invested EUR in a sub-region by introducing a given scenario?"•In brief brief :"How much do I get per EUR"

Concept for analytical scenario comparison

Environmental and socio-economic damageEffectiveness expressed by env. and soc.eco damage is qualitatively confirmed by effectiveness expressed by thee independent parameters

BE-AWARE Sub-Regions

Sub-Region 1: Irish Sea and Atlantic

Ireland and UK

Effectiveness in reducing damage impact

Sub-Region 1: Irish Sea and Atlantic

Sub-Region 1: Irish Sea and Atlantic

Cost-efficiencyin reducing damage impact

Cost-efficiency: Ranking of scenarios regarding reducing damage

Sub-Region 1: Irish Sea and Atlantic

Summary Sub-region 1(first 3 ranks are colored)

Sub-Region 1: Irish Sea and Atlantic

*) Spill-over effect from neighbouring sub-regions

Sub-Region 2: Northern North Sea

Norway and UK

Effectiveness in reducing damage impact

Sub-Region 2: Northern North Sea

Sub-Region 2: Northern North Sea

Cost-efficiencyin reducing damage impact

Sub-Region 2: Northern North Sea

Cost-efficiency: Ranking of scenarios regarding reducing damage

Sub-Region 2: Northern North Sea

Summary Sub-region 2(first 3 ranks are colored)

*) Spill-over effect from neighbouring sub-regions

Sub-Region 3: Eastern North Sea/Skagerrak

Denmark, Germany, Norway and Sweden

Sub-Region 3: Eastern North Sea/Skagerrak

• Effectiveness in reducing damage impact

Sub-Region 3: Eastern North Sea/Skagerrak

Cost-efficiencyin reducing damage impact

Cost-efficiency: Ranking of scenarios regarding reducing damage

Sub-Region 3: Eastern North Sea/Skagerrak

Sub-Region 3: Eastern North Sea/Skagerrak

Summary Sub-region 3(first 3 ranks are colored)

Sub-Region 4: Southern North Sea

Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands and UK

Sub-Region 4: Southern North Sea

• Effectiveness in reducing damage impact

Sub-Region 4: Southern North Sea

Cost-efficiencyin reducing damage impact

Sub-Region 4: Southern North Sea

Cost-efficiency: Ranking of scenarios regarding reducing damage

Sub-Region 4: Southern North Sea

Summary Sub-region 4(first 3 ranks are colored)

Sub-Region 5: Channel

France and UK

Sub-Region 5: Channel

• Effectiveness in reducing damage impact

Sub-Region 5: Channel

Cost-efficiency: Ranking of scenarios regarding reducing damage

Sub-Region 5: Channel

Summary Sub-region 5(first 3 ranks are colored)

*) Spill-over effect from neighbouring sub-regions

Concept for analytical scenario comparison

Environmental values at stake:

Sub-region 1: 2.500 (tonnes oil weighted)

Sub-region 2: 2.500 (tonnes oil weighted)

Sub-region 3: 18.000 (tonnes oil weighted)

Sub-region 4: 80.000 (tonnes oil weighted)

Sub-region 5: 6.000 (tonnes oil weighted)

Concept for analytical scenario comparison

Concept for analytical scenario comparisonCosts are given as order of magnitudes and include investment cost, lifetime, maintenance and running costs

Questions?

Thank you

beaware.bonnagreement.org