Impact of large infrastructure facilities on sea-water landscapes based on the example of “Nord Stream 2”
Abstract
Subject. The article considers the influence of the “Nord Stream 2” pipeline on the ecosystem of the Baltic Sea. The ecosystem services of natural systems, in particular aquatic systems are expensive (according to some estimates, they exceed the global GDP). Their quality is rapidly deteriorating, especially in regions experiencing significant anthropogenic impacts. One of such regions is the Baltic Sea. The polluter-pays principle is becoming more popular in international relations. Evidence proving that the pipeline has no negative effect on the environment confirms the fact that there are no grounds for applying this principle to “Nord Stream 2”.
Purpose. To show that “Nord Stream 2” does not pose any significant threat to the sea-water landscapes and does not cause any significant degradation of their ecosystem services.
Methods. The study simulates the future state of aquatic ecosystems after the construction of the pipeline. It also analyses the structure of ecosystem services provided by the aquatic landscapes of the Baltic Sea based on available assessments of the ecosystem services of aquatic systems in other regions.
Results. For most ecosystem services provided by the aquatic landscapes of the Baltic Sea, the impact of the pipeline is insignificant and/or appears exclusively along its route and at the points of its entry (Ust-Luga) and exit (Greifswald, Germany). In some cases, this has both a negative and a positive impact, for example, when it comes to the living conditions of certain species or as a recreational service. A significant degradation of ecosystem services provided by the aquatic systems of the Baltic Sea and, as a consequence, a significant decrease in their cost is not expected to happen due to the impact of the “Nord Stream 2” pipeline.
Conclusions. The environmental conditions in the Baltic Sea arouse a lot of concern. Russia contributes to their deterioration, in particular, to the eutrophication of the sea. However, the “Nord Stream 2” pipeline has little to do with this. What is more, in some cases it has a positive direct or indirect impact on the sea-water landscapes.
Metrics
References
Bobylev, S. & Goryacheva, A. (2019) Identification and assessment of ecosystem services: the international context. International Organisations Research Journal. (1), 225–236. DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2019-01-13 (In Russian)
Gordeeva, S. M. & Malinin, V.N. (2014) Izmenchivost' morskogo urovnja Finskogo zaliva [Variability of the sea level of the Gulf of Finland]. Saint Petersburg.: RGGMU. (In Russian)
Zhiznin, S. Z. & Timokhov, V. M. (2019) Economic and geopolitical aspects of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. Baltiiskii region. Vol. 11 (3), 25–42. DOI: 10.5922/2079-8555-2019-3-2 (In Russian)
Matishov, G. G. & Titova, G.D. (2020) The development of scientific basis of marine natural resource use. Nauka juga Rossii. Vol.16 (4), 9–18. DOI: 10.7868/S25000640200402 (In Russian)
Mitina, N. N. & Harina, M. A. (2010) The Nord Stream project: environmental consequences of laying an offshore gas pipeline route along the bottom of the Baltic Sea: Budanov, M.A. (ed.) Public administration in the XXI century: traditions and innovations. Materials of the 8th International Conference of the Faculty of Public Administration of Lomonosov Moscow State University, 26–28 May 2010, Moscow, Russia. Moscow, MSU, pp. 330–337. (In Russian)
Mitina, N. N. & Korotaev, S. C. (2015) Analysis of the values of anthropogenic load on the Baltic Sea: Budanov, M.A. (ed.) Public administration: The Russian Federation in the Modern World. Materials of the 13th International Conference of the Faculty of Public Administration of Lomonosov Moscow State University, 28-30 May 2015, Moscow, Russia. Moscow, KDU, pp. 51–58. (In Russian)
Titova, G. D. (2014) Assessment of marine ecosystems services as a complex interdisciplinary problem: on a way to the decision. Vestnik of St. Petersburg State University. (3), 47–58. (In Russian)
Beaumont, N. J, Austen, M. C., Mangi, S. C. & Townsed, M. (2008) Economic valuation for the Conservation of Marine Biodiversity. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 56 (3), 386–396. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.11.013
Bontje, L. E & Slinger, J. H. (2017) A narrative method for learning from innovative coastal projects – Biographies of the Sand Engine. Ocean and Coastal Management. 142, 186–197. DOI: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.03.008
Boulton, A., Ekebom, J. O. & Mar, G. G. (2016) Integrating ecosystem services into conservation strategies for freshwater and marine habitats: a review: Ecosystem services in aquatic habitat conservation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 26 (5), 963–985. DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2703
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P. C., Van der, P. S., Anderson, S., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S. & Turner, R. K. (2014) Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change. 26 (1), 152–158. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002
Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., V. O'Neill, R., Paruelo, J., G.Raskin, R., Sutton, P. & den Belt, M. (1997) The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 387 (15), 253–260. DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00020-2
Drakou, E. G, Pendleton, L., Effron, M., Ingram, J. C. & Teneva, L. (2017) When ecosystems and their services are not co-located: oceans and coasts. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 74 (6), 1531–1539. DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsx026
Gissi, E., Menegon, S., Sarretta, A., Appiotti, F., Maragno, D., Vianello, A., Depellegrin, D., Venier, C. & Barbanti, A. (2017) Addressing uncertainty in modelling cumulative impacts within maritime spatial planning in the Adriatic and Ionian region. PLOS One. 12 (7), 1–30. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180501
Lillebø, A. I., Pita, C., Garcia Rodrigues, J., Ramos, S. & Villasante, S. (2017) How can marine ecosystem services support the blue growth agenda? Marine Policy. 81, 132–142. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.008
Mangos, A., Bassino, J-P. & Sauzade, D. (2010) The economic value of sustainable benefits rendered by the Mediterranean marine ecosystems. Plan Bleu Papers. (8), 20–50. Available from: cahier8_marin_en.pdf (medmpaforum.org) [Accessed 20th September 2021].
Maron, M., Mitchell, M. G. E, Runting, R. K., Rhodes, J. R., Mace, G. M., Keith, D. A. & Watson, J. E. M. (2017) Towards a threat assessment framework for ecosystem services. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 32 (4), 240–248. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.12.011.
Micallef, A. (2003) Towards integrated coastal zone management, with a special emphasis on the Mediterranean Sea: Introduction. Journal of Coastal Conservation. 9 (1), 2–4. DOI: 10.1652/1400-0350(2003)009[0002:TICZMW]2.0.CO;2
Österblom, H., Crona, B., Folke, C., Nyström, M. & Troell, M. (2017) Marine ecosystem science on an intertwined planet. Ecosystems. 20 (1), 54–61. DOI: 10.1007/s10021-016-9998-6
Russi, D., ten Brink, P., Farmer, A., Badura, T., Coates, D., Förster, J., Kumar, R. & Davidson, N. (2013) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Water and Wetlands. London, Brussels: IEEP; Gland: Ramsar Secretariat.
Wallace, K. J. (2007) Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biological Conservation. 139 (3–4), 235–246. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.015
Copyright (c) 2022 Sanin A.Yu., Kulakovskaya V.A.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
