Presentation at the ESP, San Cristobal (Spain) 2018

1. Environmental Accounting
for assessing the Value for Money
of Torre Guaceto Marine Protected Area
Francesca Visintin
eFrame ltd
francesca.visintin@eframe.it
Authors: Francesca Visintin, Elisa Tomasinsig, Francesco Marangon, Stefania Troiano,
Maurizio Spoto, Francesco de Franco, Alessandro Ciccolella, Paolo Guidetti, Donatella Samec

2. Introduction
Methodology
Discussion and conclusion
Results
Discussion and conclusion
Results
Methodology
eFrame ltd ©

3. Progressive decreasing of public funding
Cutting funds for protected areas
Increasing demand for accountability
transparency and demonstrable ‘value for money’
Starting from money  demonstrate the value
– 2015: Italian MoE  EcoRendiconto Project
– Italian marine protected areas
eFrame ltd ©

4. Introduction
Methodology
Discussion and conclusion
Results
eFrame ltd ©

5. Cost Benefit Analys
Accounting for Environmental
Costs and Benefits in the Financial
Statement
Environmental Accounting Model
for Protected Areas
eFrame ltd ©
Methodology
Ecosystem Accounting Unit
– Marine Protected Area
CICES v4.3
– Classification of ES and related indicators
ISO 14044:2006
– International standards for Life Cycle Assessment

6. - Ecosystem asset
(structure and condition)
- ES Capacity indicators
as defined by CICES
- Fish abundance
- C sequestration potential
- ….
eFrame ltd ©
 = value produced / consumed by the PA
ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTING MODEL FOR THE PROTECTED AREA (PA)
Flow account
FLOW
Costs
- Economic
- Costs of PA
- Environmental
- Impact of PA authority
- Impact of activities
- Life Cycle Assessment
Benefits
- Economic
- Revenues of PA
- Environmental
- ES Flow and Benefit indicators
as defined by CICES
- Fish and shellfish sales (€/a)
- Market values of carbon (€)
- ….
Asset account
STOCK
Methodology
MARANGON F., SPOTO M., VISINTIN F. (2008), An Environmental Accounting Model for a Natural Reserve, in Schaltegger S., Bennett M., Burritt R.L., Jasch C. (eds),
Environmental Management Accounting for Cleaner Production, Series Eco-Efficiency in Industry and Science, Vol. 24, Springer Netherlands, p. 267-282, ISBN: 978-1-
4020-8912-1.

7. Introduction
Methodology
Discussion and conclusion
Results
eFrame ltd ©

8. eFrame ltd ©
Torre Guaceto Marine Protected Area

9. Torre Guaceto Marine Protected Area
eFrame ltd ©

10. - Ecosystem asset
(structure and condition)
- ES Capacity indicators
as defined by CICES
- Fish abundance
- C sequestration potential
- ….
eFrame ltd ©
 = value produced / consumed by the PA
ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTING MODEL FOR THE PROTECTED AREA (PA)
Flow account
FLOW
Costs
- Economic
- Costs of PA
- Environmental
- Impact of PA authority
- Impact of activities
- Organisational Life Cycle Analysis
- Carbon Footprint
Benefits
- Economic
- Revenues of PA
- Environmental
- ES Flow and Benefit indicators
as defined by CICES
- Fish and shellfish sales (€/a)
- Market values of carbon (€)
- ….
Asset account
STOCK
Benefits

11. Benefits
CICES v4.3
– 36 ES related to marine coastal water ecosystem
I. Wild animals and their outputs
II. Maintaining nursery populations and habitats
III. Global climate regulation by reduction of GHG gas
concentrations
IV. Experiential use of plants, animals and land/sea-scapes in
different environmental settings
V. Physical use of land/sea-scapes in different environmental
settings
VI. Scientific
VII. Educational
– Indicators
• [C] Capacity indicator  stock
• [F] Flow indicator  flow
• [B] Benefit indicator  economic value
eFrame ltd ©
Haines-Young R., Potschin M. (2013), CICES V4.3 –
Revised report prepared following consultation on
CICES Version 4, August-December 2012. EEA
Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003.

12. Benefits – I. Wild animals and their output ES
[F] Commercial and artisanal fish and shellfish landing (t/a)
[B] Fish and shellfish sales (€/a)
eFrame ltd ©
Common name Captures
(kg/a)
Market price IN
(€/kg)
Market price OUT
(€/kg)
Benefit IN
(€/a)
∆ price
IN/OUT
Sarago maggiore 350 25 18 8.750 39%
Pagello fragolino 210 25 18 5.250 39%
Leccia 350 3 - 1.050
Triglia di scoglio 560 25 18 14.000 39%
Polpo 700 9 6 6.300 50%
Mostella 70 10 6 700 67%
Corvina 105 25 18 2.625 39%
Ricciola 140 3 - 420
Orata 105 25 18 2.625 39%
Seppia 840 6,5 - 5.460
Cefalo 5.600 1,5 1,5 8.400 0%
Serra 2.800 2,5 - 7.000
Scorfano rosso 350 25 16 8.750 56%
Total 12.075 71.330 41% (average)

13. Benefits – I. Wild animals and their output
Reserve Effect
eFrame ltd ©
Guidetti P., Bussotti S., Pizzolante F., Ciccolella A.
(2010), Assessing the potential of an artisanal
fishing co-management in the Marine Protected
Area of Torre Guaceto (southern Adriatic Sea, SE
Italy), Fisheries Research 101 (2010) 180–187
IN OUT
IN OUT

14. Benefits – II. Maintaining nursery populations ES
[F] Juvenile fish density (abundance/m2), foraging efficiency
for fish, recruitment
eFrame ltd ©
Scientific name Juvenile fish
(n)
Lenght
(cm)
Adult weight
(g)
Adult biomasse
(kg)
Market price
(€/kg)
Coris julius 232.690 20 89 20.709 6,50
Dicentrarchus labrax 26.215 50 1.282 33.608 8,05
Diplodus annularis 25.677 13 32 822 6,40
Diplodus puntazzo 10.421 30 376 3.918 10,00
Diplodus sargus 28.171 22 145 4.085 14,52
Diplodus vulgaris 55.724 22 149 8.303 13,06
Mullus surmuletus 86.472 25 207 17.900 10,94
Oblada melanura 18.481 20 105 1.940 1,80
Sarpa salpa 17.034 30 376 6.405 2,22
Spondyliosoma cantharus 26.356 30 376 9.910 8,31
Symphodus tinca 15.035 25 161 2.421 5,08
* Ismea market price
DI FRANCO A., DI LORENZO M., GUIDETTI P. (2013), Spatial patterns of density at multiple life stages in protected and fished conditions. An example from a Mediterranean
coastal fish. Journal of Sea Research 76 (2013) 73–81

15. Benefits – II. Maintaining nursery populations ES
[B] Price of commercial fish species (€/a)
eFrame ltd ©
Habitat Surface
(ha)
Benefit
(€)
Biocenosis of coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents 75 82.271
Coralligenous biocoenosis 111 140.162
Biocenosis of the infralittoral photophilic algae 22 77.929
Biocenosis of the Posidonia Oceanica meadow 23 49.809
Mosaic of biocenosis of infralittoral photophilic algae and Posidonia oceanica meadows 444 146.619
Mosaic of biocenosis of coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom
currents and P. oceanica meadows
Mosaic of coralligenous biocoenosis and biocenosis of coarse sands and fine gravels
under the influence of bottom currents 462 165.043
Mosaic of facies in dead rhizomes and biocenosis of coarse sands and fine gravels under
the influence of bottom currents
Mosaic of facies in dead rhizomes and Posidonia oceanica meadows
Posidonia oceanica meadows 239 263.690
Total 925.523

16. Benefits – III. Global climate regulation ES
[F] Primary Production (gC/m2/a)
[B] Market values of carbon (€)  Social Cost of Carbon
eFrame ltd ©
Carbon SINK Area Minimum Maximum Average
ha t C t C t C
Posidonia oceanica meadows 106 6,4 185,8 96,1
PP Benefit
(tC/anno) (€)
Posidonia oceanica meadows 96,1 13.021
PERGENT G., BAZAIRI H., BIANCHI C.N., BOUDOURESQUE C.F., BUIA M.C., CLABAUT P., HARMELIN-VIVIEN M., MATEO M.A., MONTEFALCONE M., MORRI C., ORFANIDIS S.,
PERGENT-MARTINI C., SEMROUD R., SERRANO O., VERLAQUE M. (2012), Mediterranean Seagrass Meadows: Resilience and Contribution to Climate Change Mitigation, A
Short Summary / Les herbiers de Magnoliophytes marines de Méditerranée: résilience et contribution à l’atténuation des changements climatiques, Résumé. Gland,
Switzerland and Málaga, Spain: IUCN.
EPA (2016)

17. Benefits – IV. Experiential use ES
[F] Annual number of recreation trips and visitors
eFrame ltd ©
Recreational activities Visitors
(n)
Beaches (free) not available
Beaches 151.336
Boating not allowed
Diving 2.066
Snorkeling 342
Sailing 420
Recreational fishing 149
Visitor center 469
Guided excursions 1.173
Guided bike excursions 264
Guided train excusions 2.076
Events 883
Total 159.178

18. Benefits – IV. Experiential use ES
[B] Willingness to pay
eFrame ltd ©
Recreational activities Visitors
(n)
Sample
(n)
Statistic
unit
WTP Economic
value
(€)
Market
value
(€)
Benefit
(€)
(n) (n) (n) (€) (€) (€) (€)
Beaches (free) 151.336 319 43.239 5,50 225.886 225.886
Beaches n.d. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Diving 2.066 21 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Snorkeling 342 15 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Recr. fishing – WTP 149 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Recr. Fishing – captures 4.506 4.506
Visitor center 469 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Guided excursions 1173 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Guided bike excursions 264 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Guided train excusions 2076 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Events 883 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Total 159.178 225.886 4.506 230.392

19. Benefits – V. Physical use ES
[F] Number of beach concession, diving and nautical clubs
[B] Employment rate, tourist spending
eFrame ltd ©
Economic
operators
Employees
full time
(n)
Employees
part-time
(n)
Employees
seasonal
(n)
FTE
(n)
FTE
impact (1,71)
(n)
Beaches 5 n.a. n.a. n.a. 2,1 3,6
Other 3 1,4 0,0 1,9 3,3 5,6
Total 8 5,4 9,2
Expenses Expenses
(€/person)
Tourist expenses
(€)
Benefit
Economic impact (1,89)
(€)
Food (restaurant) 15,00 28.470
Food (picnic) 4,15 364.225
Accomodation 91,46 3.037.295
Travel (public transport) 25,33 72.089
Travel (private transport) 63,94 4.671.392
Parking 1,42 185.256
Local products 8,47 345.568
Other 2,14 183.758
Total 8.888.053 16.798.419

20. Benefits – VI. Scientific ES
[B] Employment rate, projects budget
eFrame ltd ©
Contract Part/full
time
Degree FTE
(n)
Temporary-occasional worker 2 PT Environmental biology 1,0
Temporary-occasional worker 2 PT Natural sciences 1,0
Temporary-occasional worker 1 PT Environemtal technologies 0,25
Temporary-occasional worker 1 PT Literature 0,25
Temporary-occasional worker 1 PT Biology 0,25
Advisor 2 PT Marine Biology 1,0
Advisor 2 PT Graduate 1,0
Advisor 1 PT Natural sciences 0,5
Advisor 2 PT Biology 1,0
Advisor 1 PT PhD Marine Biology 0,5
Advisor 1 PT Graduate – ornithologist and guide 0,5
Fixed-term contract 1 FT Publi relation 1,0
Fixed-term contract 1 PT Comunication sciences 0,5
Fixed-term contract 1 PT PhD Environmental Biology 0,5
Fixed-term contract 1 FT Biology 1,0
Total 20 10,25
Number Budget
(n) (€)
Projects n.a. n.a.

21. Benefits – VII. Educational ES
[F] Number of guided visits, publications, projects
[B] Employment rate, budget
eFrame ltd ©
GUIDED VISIT 2012 2013 2014
Events (n) 157 163 143
Visitors (n) 3.140 3.251 2.853
GUIDED VISIT 2012 2013 2014
Revenue (€) € 18.840 € 19.506 € 17.118
LABORATORIES 2012 2013 2014
Events (n) 38 28 14
Visitors (n) 887 485 411
LABORATORIES 2012 2013 2014
Revenue (€) € 4.435 € 2.452 € 2.055

22. Environmental Benefits – Total
eFrame ltd ©
BENEFITS (€)
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
Wild animals 71.330
Nursery 925.523
Climate regulation 13.021
Experiental use 230.392
Physical use 16.798.419
Scientific n.a.
Educational 18.156
TOTAL 18.056.841

23. - Ecosystem asset
(structure and condition)
- ES Capacity indicators
as defined by CICES
- Fish abundance
- C sequestration potential
- ….
eFrame ltd ©
 = value produced / consumed by the PA
ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTING MODEL FOR THE PROTECTED AREA (PA)
Flow account
FLOW
Costs
- Economic
- Costs of PA
- Environmental
- Impact of PA authority
- Impact of activities
- Organisational Life Cycle Analysis
- Carbon Footprint
Benefits
- Economic
- Revenues of PA
- Environmental
- ES Flow and Benefit indicators
as defined by CICES
- Fish and shellfish sales (€/a)
- Market values of carbon (€)
- ….
Asset account
STOCK
Costs

24. Environmental Costs – Total
eFrame ltd ©
COSTS CO2 eq
(kg/a)
SCC
(€)
ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS
Protected area management 62.292 2.300
Professional fishing 21.666 800
Beaches 362.563 13.386
Diving n.a. n.d.
Sailing 3.470 128
Recreational fishing n.a. n.d.
TOTAL 449.991 16.6134
Social Cost of Carbon 36,92 €/t Co2 (EPA, 2016)

25. - Ecosystem asset
(structure and condition)
- ES Capacity indicators
as defined by CICES
- Fish abundance
- C sequestration potential
- ….
eFrame ltd ©
 = value produced / consumed by the PA
ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTING MODEL FOR THE PROTECTED AREA (PA)
Flow account
FLOW
Costs
- Economic
- Costs of PA
- Environmental
- Impact of PA authority
- Impact of activities
- Organisational Life Cycle Analysis
- Carbon Footprint
Benefits
- Economic
- Revenues of PA
- Environmental
- ES Flow and Benefit indicators
as defined by CICES
- Fish and shellfish sales (€/a)
- Market values of carbon (€)
- ….
Asset account
STOCK
Value produced

26. Net benefit
eFrame ltd ©
COSTS (€) BENEFITS (€)
ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS 16.614 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS 18.056.842
Protected area management 2.300 Wild animals 71.330
Professional fishing 800 Nursery 925.523
Beaches 13.386 Climate regulation 13.021
Diving n.a. Experiental use 230.392
Sailing 128 Physical use 16.798.419
Recreational fishing n.a. Scientific n.a.
Educational 18.156
Wild animals
ECONOMIC COSTS 1.089.031 ECONOMIC REVENUES 961.764
Ordinary activity 265.172 Trasferimenti ad AMP 338.847
Environmental protection 144.052 Gestione servizi turistici 608.153
Valorization 35.000 Fee 14.765
Cultural heritage conservation 7.653
Comunication 11.667
Sustainable development 12.000
Tourist services 613.488
TOTAL COSTS 1.105.645 TOTAL BENEFITS 19.018.606
NET BENEFIT 17.912.961

27. Introduction
Methodology
Discussion and conclusion
Results
eFrame ltd ©

28. Discussion – Value produced
eFrame ltd ©
EMPLOYMENT FTE
Tourism service 5,4
Scientific activity 10,3
Total (direct) 15,6
Totale direct/indirect/induced 26,7
Indicator Unità di misura Valore
kg CO2 / kg fish (n) 1,8
Benefit / Cost (n) 17,2
Net Benefit / ha €/ha 7.833
Environmental Benefit / ha €/ha 7.895
Employment / ha Fte/ha 0,004
Employment / environmental benefit (million of €) Fte/€ (milioni) 0,568
Employment / NB (millioni of €) Fte/€ (milioni) 0,572
Net Environmental Benefit / public funding (n) 7,7
Net Environmental Benefit / MPA public funding (ordinary) (n) 52,9
Storage / C emission (n) 0,8
Self-financing (Fee) /Revenue (%) 1,5%
Self-financing (Tourist service) /Revenue (%) 63,2%
Fee (€) 14.765
Tourist service Punta Pennagrossa (€) 608.153
Fee / Entrance (%) 2%
Tourist service Punta Pennagrossa / Entrance (%) 63%
TOTAL CO2eq EMISSION 450,0 tCO2eq/a
Fishing 21,7 tCO2eq/a
Catchment (professional fishermen) 12 t/a
Catchment (recreational fishermen) 770 kg/a
Marine protected area 2.287 ha
Carbon sequestration 352,7 tCO2eq/a

29. Conclusion – Value4money
Biodiversity has a value in itself
Economic resourses spent for nature have a value
in terms of benefits perceived by the community
Benefits repay the public funding
Net environmental benefits are 7,7 times the
public funding (ordinary management)
Integration with ecological approach is required
eFrame ltd ©

30. THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
Francesca Visintin
eFrame ltd
francesca.visintin@eframe.it
eFrame ltd ©