Proceedings of the
2
nd
Annual Beaufort Marine
Socio-Economic
Workshop
Organised by SEMRU (Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit),
National University of Ireland, Galway in association with the
Marine Institute, Ireland
Proceedings of the 2nd Annual
Beaufort Marine Socio-Economic
Workshop
Wednesday, 17th November, SAC Room (CA
110), J.E. Cairns School of Business and
Economics, National University of Ireland,
Galway, Co. Galway
Organised by SEMRU (Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit),
J.E. Cairnes School of Business and Economics, National
University of Ireland, Galway.
Compiled by:
Stephen Hynes (SEMRU, National University of Ireland, Galway)
Copies can be downloaded from:
http://www.nuigalway.ie/semru/documents/beaufortworkshop2.pdf
Table of Contents
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 2
Stephen Hynes, SEMRU, NUI Galway
Quantifying the Value of the Marine Sector in Ireland............................................... 3
Karyn Morrissey, Stephen Hynes, Cathal O’Donoghue, SEMRU, NUI Galway
The Role of Marketing in Driving the Sustainable Consumption of Seafood............... 5
Ann Walsh, SEMRU, NUI Galway
Marine Biotechnology, Ireland and the European Bio-Economy. A complex pattern of
opportunities ............................................................................................................ 7
Ilaria Nardello*, The Marine Institute, Galway and Ryan Institute, NUIG
Neglect of the Maritime in Irish Culture and Society.................................................. 9
Jim Mac Laughlin, political geographer and author of “Troubled Waters: A Social
and Cultural History of Ireland's Sea Fisheries” Four Courts Press, Dublin.
Hedonic Valuation of Proximity to Coast and Beaches in Ireland ............................... 9
Seán Lyons, Karen Mayor, David Duffy and Richard Tol, ESRI, Dublin
Evaluating the Non-Market Value of Ecosystem Services Provided by Galway Bay .. 10
Daniel Norton and Stephen Hynes, SEMRU, NUI Galway
Agricultural Catchments Programme socio-economic analysis of farmer attitudes to
water quality regulations......................................................................................... 12
Cathal Buckley, Agricultural Catchments Programme, Teagasc
Estimating the Value of Water Bodies in Ireland Achieving “Good Ecological Status”
under the Water Framework Directive .................................................................... 14
Mavra Stithou, Stephen Hynes, Nick Hanley, University of Stirling, Scotland and
SEMRU, NUI Galway
An Economic Profile of the Irish Off-Shore Fishing Fleet 2006 -2008.................... 16
Patrick Gillespie and Stephen Hynes, SEMRU, NUI Galway
The Application of Portfolio Theory to the Management of Irish Fish Stocks ........... 18
Benjamin Breen and Stephen Hynes, SEMRU, NUI Galway
The Rise and Fall of the Irish Orange Roughy Fishery: An Economic Analysis ........... 20
Naomi Foley, Tom van Rensburg, and Claire Armstrong, SEMRU, NUI Galway
Collecting fishers’ knowledge: A chance for social scientists to become fisheries
scientists ................................................................................................................. 22
Edward Hind, School of Political Science and Sociology and SEMRU, NUI Galway
Annex 1 ................................................................................................................... 24
Annex 2 ................................................................................................................... 25
1
Introduction
Stephen Hynes, SEMRU, NUI Galway
Introduction
On Wednesday the 17th November, SEMRU (the
Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit) in
association with the Marine Institute held the
second annual Beaufort Marine Socio-Economic
Workshop. This annual workshop is an opportunity
for researchers and policy makers in the area of
marine socio-economics, working in Ireland, to get
together to meet and discuss their on-going work.
The J.E. Cairns School of Business and Economics,
NUI Galway hosted this year’s event.
The workshop was divided up into 3 sessions. The
topic of the morning session was “The Irish Ocean
Economy: National and Sectoral Perspectives”. The
second session was dedicated to “Water Quality
and the Environment” and the evening session was
entitled “Fisheries Management in Ireland”.
Speakers on the day discussed such diverse marine
socio-economic topics as the role of fishers in the
formation of scientific marine policy to the
valuation of the Irish Ocean Economy. There were
9 presenters on the day from academic institutions
across Ireland including University College Cork,
NUI Galway, the University of Ulster and the Rural
Economy Research Centre, Teagasc.
SEMRU and the Beaufort Socio-Economic Award
This annual workshop is held as part of the work
program of the Beaufort Socio-Economic Research
Award. SEMRU, based in NUI, Galway was set up
though the commitment in funding from the
Beaufort Award under the Marine Research SubProgramme of the National Development Plan
2007–2013. Personnel from a range of university
departments are actively involved in the Beaufort
Socio-Economic Research Award Work Program.
These include members of the Department of
Economics, the Department of Marketing, the
Department of Management and the Department
of Political Science & Sociology. Other research
institutes across Ireland and the UK also
collaborate on projects within SEMRU. These
include the Rural Economy Research Centre,
Teagasc, the Irish Marine Institute and the
Department of Economics, Stirling University,
Scotland. Three PhD students are currently funded
under the Award with a further 2 PhD students
within the Unit. There are currently 13 active
research projects within the unit.
The main research focus of the unit is on the
economic importance of coastal and off-shore
marine environments. This involves examining the
economic utility of the marine environment (e.g.
transportation, recreation) and ecological value
(e.g. fisheries, aquaculture) derived from the
productivity of associated ecosystems. The coastal
and contiguous marine environment surrounding
Ireland and the EU in general provides the
geographical focus for the research of the unit.
Consideration of the human dimension in the
management of marine ecosystems is also a
critical component of all research projects within
the unit.
Unit projects include the collection and monitoring
of socio-economic marine data for Ireland, the
estimation of participation rates and value of
marine-related recreation activities and an analysis
of market orientation, competitiveness and
innovation of firms in the Irish seafood sector. The
unit has also been successful in the last 12 month
in getting EU INTERREG IV and EPA funding to
carry out further research in the areas of marine
biotechnology and the economic valuation of
achieveing “good ecological status” under the
Water
Framework
Directive
(see
www.nuigalway.ie/semru for further information
on the activities of the unit).
Given one of the main aims of the Beaufort Award
is to build marine socio-economic research
capacity in Ireland, this second workshop was once
again a means of finding out what others in the
marine research community are working on. The
exchange of knowledge in the area of marine
socio-economics is of benefit not only to the
different research institutes but also marine policy
makers. In what follows, the presentations given
on the day of the workshop are reviewed in two
page summaries. The growth in SEMRU research
activity since last years workshop is reflected in
the number of papers presented by SEMRU team
members at this year’s event.
2
Quantifying the Value of the Marine Sector in Ireland
Karyn Morrissey, Stephen Hynes, Cathal O’Donoghue, SEMRU, NUI Galway
Introduction
2
Ireland’s ocean resource consists of 900,000km of
seabed and 1448km of coastline (Cooper, 2009).
Economically, Ireland depends heavily upon its
maritime transportation sector with 95% of the
value and 99% of its trade transported by sea
(Shields et al., 2005). To date, however, little
emphasis has been placed on the development of
the marine sector in Ireland. However, the
realisation that the world’s oceans play an
important role in climate regulation and many
territory activities, notably food production,
coupled with economic changes and the rapid
advancement in ocean technology have seen a
shift in the perception of the importance of the
marine resource.
Research on the economic value of the marine
sector in Ireland has been limited to date. This is
mainly due to the difficulties in empirically
measuring a multi-industry resource such as the
marine sector. The fragmented, cross sectoral
nature of the marine economy and the difficulty in
distinguishing between land-based and marinebased activities (Kildow and McIlgorm, 2010) has
meant that national economic datasets do not
explicitly contain a marine sector.
Thus, the aim of this paper is to define and
describe the marine sector in Ireland, to quantify it
according to economic parameters and to
establish its importance to Ireland. Following on
from the work by Shields et al., (2005) and
employing a new methodology an up-dated value
of the marine sector is estimated using four
different parameters: turnover, Gross Value Added
(GVA), employment and indirect GVA. These
parameters are in turn broken down across the
main commercial sub-sectors: marine services,
resources and manufacturing.
Methodology
Drawing on the 5 step methodology devised by the
National Oceans Economic Programme (NEOP) in
the US (Kildow and McIlgorm, 2010), this paper
aims to define and quantify the value of marine
sector to Ireland in 2007. The methodology may be
defined as:
1.
Define the industries that are part of the
marine economy
2.
3.
4.
5.
Identify publicly available economic data
Collect non-public data from alternative data
sources or a survey
Record the economic indicators of interest
Ensure consistency of data across different
data sources, compile the data and provide
sectoral and spatial breakdowns of the value
of the marine sector
Morrissey et al., (2011) provide a comprehensive
outline of the methodology and its application to
the Irish marine sector.
Table 1 Turnover, GVA and Employment in the
Irish Marine Sector in 2007
Turnover
€million
GVA
€million
Direct
Employment
Marine Services
Shipping &
889
Maritime
Transport
Water Based
944
Tourism
Cruise
45
High Tech
44
Services
Marine
100
Commerce
Other Marine
140
Services
Marine
2,162
Services Sub
Total
Marine Resources
Sea-Fisheries
251
Aquaculture
105
Seafood
396
Processing
Seaweed
18
Oil & Gas
197
Renewable
6
Energy
Marine
974
Resources Sub
Total
Marine Manufacturing
Marine
265
Manufacturing
Marine
265
Manufacturing
Sub-Total
Total
3,401
329
2,194
453
5,836
30
27
0
350
47
65
62
569
949
9,014
100
42
88
2,200
1,061
2,090
9
137
4
185
790
101
381
6,427
110
1,600
110
1,600
1,440
17,041
3
The Value of Ireland’s Marine Economy
This paper estimated that the marine economy
had a turnover of €3.4 billion in 2007, of which
€1.44 billion was attributable to GVA (Table 1). The
marine economy employed approximately 17,000
individuals in the same period. Ireland’s total
Gross Domestic Profit (GDP) in 2007 was €189.7
billion. Hence, 1% of GDP was derived by the
marine sector.
Table 1 indicates that marine services accounted
for over two-thirds of total marine turnover. This
sub-sector is dominated by marine tourism and
maritime transport. The analysis further found
that companies involved in marine resources
(primarily marine food) are the second largest subsector and account for approximately 28% of total
turnover in the marine economy. The marine
manufacturing sector is the smallest sector,
contributing 8% to annual marine turnover.
A Comparison with Previous Estimates
Ireland’s economy grew substantially over the mid
part of the decade. It is therefore interesting to
examine if the same economic growth was
experienced in the marine sector. A comparison of
the GVA and employment for each sector in 2003
(the baseline year taken in Shields et al., (2005))
and 2007 was therefore undertaken. To ensure
comparability of estimates between 2003 and
2007 some methodological adjustments have been
made to the estimates presented in Shields et al.,
(2005). Morrissey et al., (2011) provide a detailed
overview of these adjustments.
Based on these adjustments it was found that the
marine sector grew from €0.865 billion in 2003 to
€1.4 billion in 2007. This represents a 66% increase
in GVA. Over the period, employment in the
marine sector increased by 7% from 15,924 to
17,041. During the same period GVA increased by
36% across the Irish economy and employment
increased by 17%. The marine sector therefore
grew at a higher rate than the wider Irish economy
during this period. Examining this growth across
the three main sub-sectors, this high level of
growth is mainly attributable to the marine
services sector, which experienced over a 100%
increase in GVA and 11% increase in employment
between 2003 and 2007. This substantial increase
in growth is mainly due to large increases recorded
in the marine transportation and marine tourism
sector.
Marine resources also increased its GVA from €338
million to €379 million. However, employment in
marine resources fell slightly from 6,962 to 6,427.
This decrease in employment is mainly due to
quota restrictions for sea-landings and the
resulting decrease in total fishing effort. The
knock-on effects of reduced sea-landings are also
apparent in the seafood processing sector, where
employment in the sector fell from 2,800 to 2,090
employees (-25%). The manufacturing sector is not
directly comparable due to methodological
differences between the two reference years
(Morrissey et al., 2011).
Conclusions
The value of the marine sector to the overall
national economy has been previously under
researched in Ireland. Traditionally seen as a
sector dominated by the seafood industry, a report
on behalf of the Marine Institute, by Sheilds et al.,
(2005) showed that two-thirds of the value of the
marine sector was derived from the service sector
in Ireland. Using a methodology that drew on
previous international studies (Kildow and
McIlgorm, 2010) and refining it meet the data
necessary to estimate the Irish marine sector; it
was found that the marine sector provided €1.4
billion (1%) in GVA to the Irish economy in 2007.
The sector employed over 17,000 individuals (FTE).
The analysis further found, that similar Shields et
al., (2005) and other international marine studies,
marine services provided the greatest share of
GVA, particularly water-based tourism and
shipping activities. The paper further found that
the economic growth experienced by the marine
sector from 2003 to 2007 (66% increase in GVA)
outperformed the wider Irish economy during the
same period.
References
Cooper, J.A.G. (2009). Coastal economies and
people, In Marine Climate Change Ecosystem
Linkages Report Card, (Eds.) Baxter JM, Buckley PJ
and Frost MT), Online science reviews, 18pp.
www.mccip.org.uk/elr/coasts
Kildow, J.T., McIlgorm, A. (2010). The Importance
of Estimating the contribution of the Oceans to
National Economies, Marine Policy, 34, 367-374.
Morrissey, K., Hynes, S. and O’Donoghue, C. (2011).
Quantifying the Value of Multi-Sectoral Marine
Commercial Activity in Ireland, SEMRU Working
Paper
Shields, Y., O’Connar, J. and O’Leary, J. (2005).
Ireland’s Ocean Economy and Resources, Marine
Institute, Renville, Oranmore, Co. Galway.
4
The Role of Marketing in Driving the Sustainable Consumption of
Seafood
Ann Walsh, SEMRU, NUI Galway
Introduction
The concept of sustainability is increasingly
being addressed theoretically by scholars and
practically by managers and policy-makers (Hult,
2011). Over the past ten months alone, three
leading marketing journals (Journal of Academic
Marketing Science; Journal of Macromarketing
and Journal of Consumer Behaviour) have
devoted special editions to the subject of
sustainability, with many more journals set to
release further special editions devoted to
sustainability in the coming months. Burroughs
(2010) reflects the views of many authors when
he states simply that the current system of everexpanding production and consumption is
unsustainable.
Literature Review
Thogersen (2010) states that there is a growing
consensus in society that altering consumption
patterns is one of humanity’s greatest
challenges in the quest for environmentally
sound and sustainable development. The extent
of the challenge is highlighted by the fact that
consumption is the means by which progress has
been achieved in Western societies over the last
century (Prothero et al. 2010). The orthodox
political perspective on “progress” continues to
equate social progress and the pursuit of
economic growth, with most economic growth
being derived from increased personal
consumption (Varey 2010). Consumption is a
central component of the dominant social
paradigm that prevails.
Consumerism is set to continue. Burroughs
(2010) warns that countries such as Brazil, Russia,
India and China are poised to join the global
consumer economy i.e. another three billion
individuals who want to participate as fully in
the consumer society as their Western
counterparts.
Meeting this demand, according to Jackson
(2009), would mean that the global economy
would need to be fifteen times larger than it is
today. Burroughs (2010) goes on to report that
attaining an economy of this size would require
sustained world-wide economic growth of about
7.2% annually. To put this in perspective, in
2007 (the year just before the global economic
meltdown), the worldwide economic growth
peaked at 4.9% (IMF 2008). Burroughs (2010)
claims we would have to start consuming
resources nearly 50% faster than we do now and
continue this pace almost indefinitely.
According to the Worldwatch report (2004),
while the US and Western Europe only represent
12% of the world’s population, these countries
account for 60% of the world’s consumer
spending. The report goes on to note that US
consumers, while only 5% of the world’s
population, consumes 26% of its oil, 25% of its
coal and 27% of its natural gas.
The Global Footprint Network (2008) claims that
humanity, in satisfying current levels of
consumer demand, is already using the
resources and services of 1.31 Earths, meaning
that humanity is using nearly one third more of
the earth’s capacity than is available, thus
undermining the resilience of the ecosystem
services on which humanity depends.
The
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), a
comprehensive review of scientific research that
involved 1,360 experts from 95 countries, found
that approximately 60% of ecosystem services,
including climate regulation, fresh water
provision, fisheries, and many other services
were either being degraded or used
unsustainably.
The Irish Seafood Industry perspective
In 1987 the World Commission on Environment
and
Development
defined
sustainable
development as being development that “meets
the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs”. From the perspective of the Irish
Seafood
Industry,
achieving
sustainable
development will indeed be a challenge given
that concern over declining fish stocks currently
dominates discussions.
5
Industry stakeholders are faced with the
inescapable fact that 75% of the fish stocks in
the waters around Ireland are harvested beyond
their safe biological limits, (Cawley et. al, 2006).
While the market for seafood is buoyant, EU
seafood consumption is already 74% dependant
on imported seafood (Cawley et. al, 2006).
A review of the marketing literature in recent
years reveals a converging view of sustainability.
The Centre for Sustainable Enterprise (2010)
defines sustainability as “a way of doing business
that creates profit while avoiding harm to
people and the planet.”
Hult (2011) goes further when he says that an
organisation
achieves
market-based
sustainability to the extent that it strategically
aligns itself with the market-oriented product
needs and wants of customers and the interests
of multiple stakeholders concerned about social
responsibility issues involving economic,
environmental, and social dimensions. Huang
and Rust (2011) see sustainability as the triple
bottom line of economic profitability, respect for
the environment and social responsibility.
Supply-side concerns, as in the case of the Irish
Seafood Sector, present unique challenges with
the result that several marketing authors are
focusing their attention on sustainability within a
supply chain context.
Conclusions
Closs et al (2011) state that sustainability
initiatives run the gamut from changing the
facade (advertising and packaging that promotes
green products/services) to radical changes in
business procedures (marketing focus, where
facilities are located, how products/services are
delivered, and how employees, customers,
suppliers and other stakeholders are treated
throughout the process). It is within this context
that the author will continue to investigate
sustainable consumption and development in
the Irish Seafood Sector.
References
Burroughs, James E (2010) Can Consumer
Culture be Contained? Comment on ‘Marketing
Means and Ends for a Sustainable Society
Journal of Macromarketing 30(2) 127-132
Cawley, N., Murrin and J., O’Bric, R. (2006)
“Steering a New Course: Strategy for a
Restructured, Sustainable and Profitable
Seafood Industry 2007 – 2013, Report of the
Seafood Industry Strategy Review Group”
Centre for Sustainable Enterprise (2010)
http://kenan-flagler.unc.edu/cse/cseoverview.cfm Accessed 22 December 2010
Closs, D. J., Speier, C., Meacham, N. (2011)
Sustainability to support end-to-end value chains:
the role of supply chain management Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 39:101-116
Global Footprint Network (2008) The ecological
footprint Atlas 2008 Oakland, CA: rev. Ed.
Huang, M. H., Rust, R. T. (2011) Sustainability and
consumption Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 39:101-116 39: 40-54
Hult, G. T. M. (2011) Market-focused sustainability:
market orientation plus! Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science 39: 1-6
International Monetary Fund (IMF) 2008 World
economic outlook update: An update of the key
WEO projections.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs Accessed on
30 December 2010
Jackson, Tim (2009) Prosperity without growth? A
transition to a sustainable economy. London, UK:
Sustainable Development Commission
Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (2005)
Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis
Washington, DC: Island Press
Prothero, A., Mc Donagh P., Dobscha, S. (2010) Is
Green the New Black? Reflections on a Green
Commodity Discourse Journal of Macromarketing
30(2) 147-159
Thogersen, John (2010) Country Differences in
Sustainable Consumption: The Case of Organic
Food Journal of Macromarketing 30(2) 171 - 185
Varey, Richard J. (2010) Marketing Means and
Ends for a Sustainable Society
Journal of
Macromarketing 30(2) 112-126
Worldwatch (2004) The state of consumption
today
Worldwatch – Institute Report.
http://www.worldwatch.org
Accessed on 5
January 2011
6
Marine Biotechnology, Ireland and the European Bio-Economy. A
complex pattern of opportunities
Ilaria Nardello*, The Marine Institute, Galway and Ryan Institute, NUIG
Introduction
Marine Biotechnology Ireland is the Irish National
Programme of Marine Biotechnology. It has been
established in 2008 to engage the national
community of researchers, industries and funding
agencies towards the development of innovative
research and market-oriented products from the
sustainable use of Ireland’s extensive marine
biological resources. As envisaged in the Marine
Research and Innovation Strategy for Ireland 20072013 -“Sea Change” (2006) [1], marine
biotechnology is targeted as a strategic area for
the country’s economic development.
Strategic investments in scientific research
complement our ecological and industrial
landscape, and have enabled the rapid
establishment of research capabilities in areas of
science that support marine biotechnology including genomics, bioprospecting, biomedical
sciences, biochemistry and bioinformatics, which
determine a huge potential for marine
biotechnology research to address the societal
“grand challenges” such as the sustainable
production of food, pharmaceuticals and energy.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology is a pillar of the European
Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy (KBBE). The sector
is expected to lead a new revolution in industrial
production through the application of our
knowledge of the sciences of life and our
technological ability to modify it to obtain new
products and processes fabricated sustainably.
Marine Biotechnology in Ireland
Ireland’s Marine Resources
Ireland’s underwater territory is vast and largely
unexplored, and is hosts to in excess of four
hundred different types of seaweeds, three
thousand animal species, and the largest European
representation of cold water corals (in the picture,
a remotely operated robotic arm is sampling
marine biota along the continental margins west
of Ireland, during a recent expedition on board our
national research vessel Celtic Explorer). Ireland is
also home to a consolidated life science industry
sector, in the areas of pharmaceuticals,
biotechnology, medical devices and diagnostics,
with nine out of ten of the world leading
companies present in the country (Industrial
Development Agency, Ireland; 2009).
Marine biotechnology is expected to be one of the
major technologies of the XXI century with a sector
global growth forecast at a compound annual rate
of
4.3%
over
the
period
2007-2012.
Pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products
are expected to take the largest share of the
markets, followed by consumer products such as
food, beverages, nutraceuticals, and cosmetics [1].
7
The main challenges for Marine Biotechnology
Ireland (www.marinebiotech.ie) are to understand
the product opportunities, leverage funding
towards strategic R&D initiatives, and stimulate
scientific excellence. To overcome the main
vulnerabilities of the sector -namely the natural
fragmentation of its infrastructures, capabilities
and interests as well as the present economic
situation, significant effort is being deployed in the
coordination of ongoing projects, including the
large inter-institutional research initiatives focused
on marine biodiscovery and marine functional
foods. A number of projects regarding the
coordination of the sector are also funded through
the European Commission (i.e. ShareBiotech,
Biotecmar, MG4U).
Conclusion
Marine Biotechnology Ireland will act as focal
point for marine biotechnology in Ireland, building
on the country’s strategically advanced position
and working towards harnessing the societal and
economic prospects of the sector.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Marine Institute of Ireland. 2006. Sea Change –
A Marine Research and Innovation Strategy for
Ireland 2007-2013”. Marine Institute, Ireland.
[2] ‘Marine Biotechnology – Worldwide Market
Trends Report’. BizAcumen, 2009An Irish fishery
targeting orange roughy began in 2001 and ended
shortly after, resulting in the boom and bust cycle
of many orange roughy fisheries.
Prior to 1999, Irish landings of deep-water, nonquota species were very limited due to the lack of
suitable vessels greater than 24m overall length
and 1000hp in the fleet (Nolan, 2004). Large highsea French trawlers targeted orange roughy in ICES
area VII from the late 1980s.
*Marine Biotechnology Ireland, Marine Institute,
Ireland.
Dr. Ilaria Nardello, Marine Biotechnology Ireland,
Marine Institute, Oranmore, Co. Galway, Ireland.
Phone: +353.(0)91.387200.
Email: inardello@marine.ie
8
Neglect of the Maritime in Irish Culture and Society
Jim Mac Laughlin, political geographer and author of “Troubled Waters: A Social and
Cultural History of Ireland's Sea Fisheries” Four Courts Press, Dublin.
This paper presented some of the findings from a study of the history of sea fishing in Ireland to date.
Much of the presentation is based on the authors recently published book “Troubled Waters – A
Social and Cultural History of Irish Sea fisheries”. The presentation charted the evolution of fisheries
from the earliest times, and discussed the historical importance of the coastal economy to the
country’s maritime communities. It demonstrated the significant roles played by inshore and deepsea fishing in the evolution of modern Irish society. The author argued that the general neglect of
Ireland’s sea fisheries by historians and social commentators is matched only by political
marginalisation of the country’s fishing industry. The presentation touched on topics that included the
archaeology of Irish fishing; the internationalisation of Irish waters in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries; the organisation of fish shambles and markets in coastal Ireland; the social world and
working lives of Irish fishing communities; and the ‘crowded shoreline’ of nineteenth-century Ireland.
Hedonic Valuation of Proximity to Coast and Beaches in Ireland
Seán Lyons, Karen Mayor, David Duffy and Richard Tol, ESRI, Dublin
Market transactions can be used to help value non-market amenities such as proximity to coasts and
bathing beaches. This presentation discussed how hedonic models can be used to value such
amenities and will presented results from two models covering different Irish regions and time
periods. One is based on house prices collected by an estate agency and the other from a mortgage
lender, but they give broadly consistent results. Proximity to coasts and beaches were shown to have
significant value that declined with distance. Being near a bathing beach attracted a higher premium
than proximity to the coast alone. These models also provided estimates of the values of many other
amenities and house characteristics.
9
Evaluating the Non-Market Value of Ecosystem Services Provided by
Galway Bay
Daniel Norton and Stephen Hynes, SEMRU, NUI Galway
Introduction
Coastal ecosystems such as beaches, saltwater
wetlands and coastal lagoons provide many unique
services due to their location at the interface
between land and sea. These habitats are under
increased pressure from development or are being
degraded through other means throughout the
world, despite the fact that they are known to
provide higher non-market ecosystem service
value flows per hectare than deep-sea and
terrestrial ecosystems (Brenner et al., 2010).
Valuing the benefits derived from these coastal
ecosystem services allows those managing coastal
zones (i.e. regional policy makers and related
stakeholders) to make more informed decisions.
While there has been great progress made in our
understanding of coastal ecosystem processes and
functions, and in the economics of developing and
applying non-market techniques for valuation,
there remains a gap between the two. In what
follows, we attempt to narrow this gap by using a
GIS benefit transfer to provide an estimate of the
non-market coastal ecosystem value flows within
the Galway Bay coastal zone.
Benefit Transfer (BT)
An alternative to the primary non-market
valuation methods such as revealed (e.g. travel
cost and hedonic valuation methods) and stated
(e.g. contingent valuation and choice experiments)
preference approaches is benefit transfer (BT).
Benefit transfer (BT) is a process of valuing a nonmarket good or service of a site (often called the
policy site) by using values estimated for similar
non-market services at another site (often called
the study site) and applying these values to the
policy site.
BTs other major advantage is that it can also be
applied on a scale that would be unfeasible for
primary research in terms of valuing large numbers
of services across multiple ecosystems. A recent
extension to the benefit transfer approach is to
use GIS (Geographical Information Systems) to
apportion ecosystem values on a geographic basis
to the study site (Wilson & Liu, 2008). The value
function approaches to BT were not suitable for
use in this study as they do not easily lend
themselves to the estimation of multiple services
across multiple ecosystems. For this reason we
opted for the unit transfer approach adjusted to
an Irish policy site by taking into account
differences between study and policy sites in
income, exchange rates and price levels over time.
Galway Bay – The Policy Site
The geographical area of the policy site was based
on coastal waters as defined by the Western River
Basin District (WRBD) under the Water Framework
Directive (WFD) (CEC, 2000). As shown in figure 1,
the study area comprised of 143,430 hectares of
water based habitats and 2,840 hectares of
terrestrial habitats. The study covered the Irish
coastline from Slyne Head in the Northwest of the
study area to Blackhead in the south of the study
area, a distance of 688 km along the Western
coastline of the main island of Ireland and with
offshore islands included this aggregates up to a
shoreline of 1161 km. The site encompasses a
variety of temperate coastal ecosystems,
represented in its salt marshes, rocky coasts,
beaches, intertidal flats, estuaries and coastal
lagoons. A significant area of the study site (49,460
km2, which is 34% of the study area) is also
protected under EU “Natura 2000” site designation.
Figure 1. The Galway Bay Coastal Zone with
Associated Ecosystems
Methodology
We follow a number of steps in estimating the
total non-market value of ecosystem services in
Galway Bay. These include selecting ecosystems
10
services to be valued; defining, using GIS, the
geographical area of the site; defining the land and
marine cover typologies; the search and analysis of
the valuation literature; the transfer of value
estimates and estimation of ecosystem values on a
per hectare basis and the calculation of the total
non-market value of ecosystem services at our
policy site.
Results
A total of 209 valuation studies on marine and
coastal ecosystem services were found, of which
193 valuation estimates could be used. Those
deemed unusable was mostly due to the lack of
data at the policy site (e.g. hedonic pricing
estimates for the value added to houses due to
proximity to the coast had to be dropped due to
lack of GIS data on the housing stock in the policy
site). The 193 valuation points were taken from
107 studies of which 71 were peer-reviewed
papers and the other 36 comprised of PhD theses,
university working papers and technical reports.
Several of the relevant ecosystem services across
the different ecosystems could not be assigned a
value as there was not sufficient information or
values to ascertain what the value of that
ecosystem service was.
Table 1. Total ecosystem value flow for Galway
Bay, GDP Adjusted Values
EcosystemType
Beaches, Dunes, Sand
Salt Marshes
Intertidal Flats
Coastal Lagoons
Estuaries
Sea
Seagrass and Kelp
Total
Hectares
691
279
1584
400
3976
139386
1622
146316
EcosystemServices Value Flow(€2007)
€127,645,497
€29,844,306
€3,233,222
€77,693,166
€63,594,411
€327,033,130
€5,798,427
€634,842,160
The highest ecosystem values per hectare (shown
in Figure 2) was found to be for coastal lagoons
(€194,233) which is mainly due to their value in
regards to eutrophication mitigation (€142,890). A
cautious view needs to be taken with regard to
this eutrophication mitigation value estimate as it
is based on only two contingent valuation studies.
The next highest value on a per hectare basis was
for beach, dunes and sand (total non-market
ecosystems service value of €127,645,497) and
this is in common with many other studies which
found that beaches are the most valued coastal
ecosystem type often gaining high values due to
their recreational value. This is the case here with
recreation being worth €110,610. Beaches were
also associated with high service values for
sediment retention, pollution control, aesthetic
value and the legacy of nature.
The sea has low service values when compared to
the other ecosystems on a per hectare basis (Table
2) due to the large area it covers (95% of the study
area), but at €327,033,130, the aggregated area of
the sea provides the highest total ecosystem value
in 2007. This represents half of the total value of
the non-market ecosystem services flow of the
Galway Bay coastal zone (Table 3).
The highest values associated with the sea
ecosystem measured here are for eutrophication
mitigation and primary production. Estuaries are
similar to sea in regards to the type and level of
the services they produce. Similar to sea, the
highest valuation of any ecosystem service within
the estuaries is eutrophication mitigation.
Estuaries are also unique in this study as they have
a cost (or negative benefit) associated with the
atmospheric regulation ecosystem service (-€91).
This carbon production of estuaries was found to
outweigh the aggregated value of carbon
sequestering in the sea, salt marshes and
seagrasses.
Conclusion
Our estimate of the total value of the non-market
ecosystem service flows per year is most likely a
conservative estimate due to data gaps and
coarseness of some of the study area data. Further
research on the valuation of coastal ecosystem
goods and services is recommended, particularly in
areas which currently could not be valued such as
resilience and cultural heritage.
References
Brenner, J., Jiménez, J.A., Sardá, R. and Garola, A
(2010) An assessment of the nonmarket value of
the ecosystem services provided by the Catalan
coastal zone, Spain. Ocean Coast Manage 53: 27–
38.
CEC (2000) “Directive of the European parliament
and of the council 2000/60/EC establishing a
framework for community action in the field of
water policy”, Official Journal of the European
Communities (2000) L 327/1.
Wilson M, Liu S. (2008) Evaluating the non-market
value of ecosystem goods and services provided by
coastal and nearshore marine systems. In:
Patterson M, Glavovic B. (eds). Ecological
Economics of the Oceans and Coasts. Edward Elgar.
Northampton, MA.
11
Agricultural Catchments Programme socio-economic analysis of farmer
attitudes to water quality regulations
Cathal Buckley, Agricultural Catchments Programme, Teagasc
Introduction
The 1991 European Nitrates Directive is one of the
earliest pieces of EU legislation aimed at
controlling and improving water quality. The
Directive aims to minimise surplus phosphorus (P)
and nitrogen (N) losses from agriculture to the
aquatic environment.
Nutrients in fertilisers
(principally nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium)
promote plant growth but application in excess of
plant
requirement
can
cause
negative
environmental externalities such as eutrophication
(EPA, 2008). The Nitrates Directive requires each
member state to introduce a programme of
measures through a National Action Plan (NAP).
However, these NAPs have not met with universal
acceptance by farmers across the EU. None more
so than is the Republic of Ireland where there was
considerable political opposition. The Irish NAP
was not transposed into legislation until 2006
through the Good Agricultural Practice (GAP)
regulations (S.I. No. 378 of 2006).
The GAP regulations in the Republic of Ireland are
implemented on a whole country basis and in
operational terms limit nutrient application
according to soil P status, crop type and livestock
intensity and restrict chemical and organic
fertiliser spreading and ploughing to periods of the
year with typically lower exposure of nutrients to
runoff and leaching. The regulations also require
buffer zones between fields and water courses
when applying organic or chemical fertilisers. An
upper base limit for livestock manure loading of
170 kg ha-1 organic N also prevails except where a
specific derogation to 250 kg ha-1 is sought based
on farm conditions.
Farmers in the Republic of Ireland have voiced
opposition to operational elements of the GAP
regulations (Brosnan, 2004). Farmer acceptance of
the legitimacy of the measures is a key element of
compliance (Barns et al., 2009). The efficacy of the
NAP measures is being evaluated holistically in the
Republic of Ireland by an Agricultural Catchments
Programme through intensive bio-physical and
socio-economic monitoring in six representative
small scale river catchments dominated by
moderate to high intensity grassland and arable
enterprises across Ireland (see Fealy et al., 2010).
This paper aims to investigate the attitude of
farmer stakeholders towards implementation of
the GAP regulations using Q methodology.
Data and Methodology
Q methodology is a technique first pioneered by
Stephenson (1935) and encompasses a distinctive
set of psychometric and operational principles that
when combined with the statistical application of
factor analysis provides the researcher with a
systematic and robust means of examining human
subjectivity. Q methodology is expressly aimed at
identifying different patterns or shared ways of
thinking on a topic that is relatively independent of
the researcher. The experimental design of the Q
methodology reduces any potential researcher
bias and pre-specification of concepts by the
researcher. Brown (1980) describes it as the
‘science of subjectivity’ where the goal is to extract
patterns of similarity between the responses of a
small respondent sample which represent the
spectrum of views among the targeted population.
The technique is not designed to have results
scaled up to draw conclusions about the relevant
whole population. However, where there is
considerable diversity among respondents it is
feasible to make assumptions about the wider
target population.
Implementing a Q methodological study typically
involves 6 main stages (Addams and Proops, 2000).
The first step is to identify the discourse of interest
and relevant population. In this instance farmers
opinion on the implementation of the EU Nitrates
Directive through the GAP regulations. Second
stage implementation involves collection of a full
concourse of statements on the discourse by the
relevant population.
A questionnaire was
developed with a number of open ended
questions designed to educe statements on the
implementation of the EU Nitrates Directive in the
Republic of Ireland as implemented through the
GAP regulations. The questionnaire was delivered
to 6 farmer discussion groups during the summer
of 2009. A total of 51 farmers across a range of
12
farming systems completed this scoping
questionnaire and 556 statements emerged.
However, there was a large degree of repetition
among statements generated such that the final
concourse of statements totalled 120 statements.
The statements were either positive, negative or
neutral across a number of thematic areas
including farm management, environment, farm
profitability, information provision and equity of
implementation. Each of the statements was
assigned to a relevant box in a matrix depending
on the thematic area and orientation.
The third stage of Q methodology implementation
involves reducing the concourse of statements
down to a representative manageable number, or
a Q set. A Q set typically range between 30 and
50 statements. Brown (1993) suggests that in line
with sampling procedures the main goal in
selecting a Q set is to provide a miniature that is
representative of the larger population. The
concourse is usually around three times the size of
the Q set (Stainton Rogers, 1995). In this
application of the Q methodology a total of 30
statements were chosen to be representative of
the full concourse.
The fourth stage of implementation involves
selecting participants and instructing them to rank
or ‘sort’ the selected statements from most agree
to most disagree normally following a forced
quasi-normal distribution structure. The Q sort
were administered to a representative sample of
farmers across the agricultural catchments
programme (N=50). Respondents were instructed
to sort the statements on a 7 point scale from -3
(most disagree) to +3 (most agree).
The fifth stage of statistical analysis involves the
extraction of a few ‘typical’ sorts which are
representative
of
distinct
attitude
or
understanding of an issue or policy. This involves
Q sort correlation, factor analysis and rotation to
reduce the data to a limited number of defining
factors which define different views on the
discourse. The penultimate stage was undertaken
using the PQMethod. In Q methodology the
individual farmers are the defacto variables, hence
there could be N different discourses if each
farmer ranked the 30 statements in a statistically
different manner. Factor analysis determines if
there are a smaller number of families of Q sorts
that represent a discourse pattern among the
participants (Sweden. 2006).
A principal components analysis was conducted to
identify a small number of heavily loaded factors
(groupings of farmers). Varimax rotation was then
used to rotate factors to find the simplest
structure in the data that can explain the greatest
amount of variability.
Results
After considering several different iterations it was
decided that 3 farmer typologies represented the
most logical and robust representation of opinion
on the implementation of the EU Nitrates Directive.
The 3 farmer groups were labelled “Constrained
Practitioners”, “Benefit Rejecters” and “Benefit
Libertarians”.
“Constrained Practitioners” will accepting some
beneficial elements to the regulation were more
occupied by restrictions on their freedom to farm
and seem to take issue with how the regulation
dictates farm management practices they deem to
be counter productive and which negates their
land stewardship experience. “Benefit Rejecters”
which sharing a lot in common with “Constrained
Practitioners” seem to refute that the regulations
as implemented are leading to any environmental
benefit. Finally, “Benefit Libertarians” while taking
issue with some element of the regulation
generally accept its relevance and environmental
benefits.
References
Barns, S.A., Willoughby, B.E., Kaine, G., Lourey, R
and Murdoch, H., 2009. How can marketing
theory be applied to policy design to deliver on
sustainable agriculture in England? The 83rd
Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economics
Society, Dublin.
Brosnan, D., 2004.
Draft National Action
Programme under the Nitrates Directive.
Brown, S.R., 1980. Political Subjectivity:
Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science.
Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 355 pp.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2008.
Ireland’s State of the Environment Report 2008.
Fealy, R. M., Buckley, C., Mechan, S., Melland, A.
Mellander, P. E., Shortle, G., Wall, D. and Jordan, P.,
2010.
The Irish Agricultural Catchments
Programme: catchmentselection using spatial
multi-criteria decision analysis. Soil Use and
Management, 26, 225–236.
Stainton Rogers, R., 1995. Q methodology.
Rethinking methods in psychology.
Stephenson, W., 1935. Correlating persons
instead of tests. Character Pers. 4, 17–24.
13
Estimating the Value of Water Bodies in Ireland Achieving “Good
Ecological Status” under the Water Framework Directive
Mavra Stithou, Stephen Hynes, Nick Hanley, University of Stirling, Scotland and
SEMRU, NUI Galway
Introduction
The aim of the Water Framework Directive (WFD)
(2000/60) (WFD) is “to establish a framework for
the protection of inland surface waters,
transitional waters, coastal waters and ground
waters”. The Directive calls for integrated
catchment management plans to be prepared for
all river basins in order to achieve ‘good ecological
status’ (GES) in all EU waters by 2015. This concept
is a broader measure of water quality than the
chemical and biological measures, which were
previously dominant. As such the Directive aims at
a minimum for a ‘good’ and ‘non-deteriorating
status’ for surface, underground and coastal
waters and sets common approaches and goals for
water management in the EU Member State
countries.
An important element of the Directive is that it
calls for a consideration of the economic costs and
benefits of improvements to ecological status in
catchment management plans, along with the
introduction of full social cost pricing for water use.
Hence, benefits play an important role in the
assessment of the proportionality of costs in the
implementation of the WFD.
By observing and modelling how respondents
change their preferred option in response to the
changes in the levels of the attributes using
random utility based modelling approaches, it is
possible to determine how respondents tradeoff between the different choice options. By
including price/cost as one of the attributes of
each option, the monetary welfare impact of
moving from the status quo policy today to an
alternative water management policy with
attribute levels set to be representative of what
would result under alternative management
strategies can be calculated.
The Study Sites and Survey
The rivers that were chosen for the study are the
Boyne and Suir. The first belongs to the Eastern
River Basin District while the second to the
South Eastern River Basin District. Figure 1
presents the geographical location of the
Hydrometric Areas (HAs) or catchment areas of
Boyne and Suir showing that they belong to
different River Basin Districts (RBDs).
Figure 1. The Boyne and Suir Catchments
Ireland is somewhat behind in terms of measuring
the economic value of achieving “good ecological
status” under the WFD across catchments. This
paper aims to fill this gap in the research by
exploring the use of choice experiments in placing
a value of achieving this main objective (good
ecological status) of the WFD across 2 water
bodies in Ireland.
Choice Experiments (CE)
In a Choice Experiment framework, choices are
broken down into component attributes, which
are presented to respondents normally as set
combination of the attributes. Respondents are
then presented with a sequence of these choice
sets, each containing alternative descriptions of
the choices, differentiated by attributes and levels.
Respondents are then asked to state their
preferred alternative within the choice set.
In this study, deciding on the selection of the
relevant attributes of the non-market good,
which is the quality of surface inland rivers, two
main criteria were considered. On the one hand,
people’s preferences for a river’s ecological
status, and on the other hand attributes that can
be impacted by the implementation of the WFD.
Hence, in this study the aim is to use indicators
14
of ecological status, which ordinary people see
as important, but which are also consistent with
regulator’s expectations about the scientific
interpretation of this concept. The attributes
chosen and their levels are shown in table 1.
Table 1. River Attributes and Levels
Attribute
Description
River life:
Composition and abundance of
fish, insects, plants
biological elements
Condition of river
banks
Water appearance
Levels
1. Poor, 2. Moderate, 3. Good
Level of erosion and presence 1. Visible erosion, needs repairs
of vegetation and animals
Clarity, plant growth, visible
pollution, noticeable smell
activities
Number of activities available
1. No improvement
2. Some improvement
3. A lot of improvement
2. No swimming
3. All available (walking,
boating, fishing, swimming)
Cost
Annual household taxation for
10 years.
Results
Table 2 reports the implicit prices (marginal
values of attributes) estimated using the results
of the Random Parameter Logit (RPL) model.
2. Natural looking banks
1. No fishing and swimming
Recreational
The marginal value of a unit change in an
attribute of the management option can be
calculated as can the value of a package of
attributes that make up alternative policy
options. This model generalizes the standard
conditional logit by allowing the coefficients of
observed variables to vary randomly over people
rather than being fixed.
Table 2. Implicit Prices (€/person/year)
Attribute
Moderate Improvement in River Life
Good Improvement in River Life
Some Improvement Water Appearance
Alot of Improvement Water Appearance
Most Recreational Activities Possible (bar swimming)
All Recreational Activities Possible
Natural Looking Banks
Mean WTP
45.13
23.18
18.15
34.49
16.48
20.71
18.53
€0, 5, 10, 20, 40, 80
The final survey consisted of 502 individuals living
in the Boyne and Suir catchments and was
conducted between July and August 2009. A quota
controlled sampling procedure was followed to
ensure that the survey was representative for the
population aged 18 years and above.
Methodology
In the CE, respondents were informed about the
WFD and acquainted with the attributes employed
to
describe
river
improvements.
When
respondents had familiarised themselves with
these attributes they were shown an example of a
choice card with three options and were told that
it represented improvements to happen in their
local river. The interviewer talked through the
choices in order to explain better the choice card
and then asked from the respondent to make a
choice so as to test that she understands it
properly. Following this the respondent was
presented with 8 choice cards and asked to choose
their preferred option on each.
The data on choices made is then used in a
decision making discrete choice model where the
respondent’s choice is estimated as a function of
the attribute levels using a random parameter logit
model.
Table 3 shows the levels of each attribute
associated with the status quo on each river and
the levels associated with a policy that achieves
“good ecological status” in each river.
Table 3. The WFD Policy Scenario
Attribute
Improvement in River Life
Improvement Water Appearance
Recreational Activities Possible
Recreational Activities
River Banks
Business as Usual
Poor
None
None
Most Possible
Visible Erosion needing Repair
Policy Change
Good
A Lot
Most
All Possible
Natural Looking Banks
Using the coefficients from the model
corresponding to the policy attribute levels in
table 3 and the Hanemann Log Sum Formulae
the value of the policy change is estimated to be
€57.90 per person per year with a 95%
confidence interval of (€37.98, €77.84).
Conclusion
Given than no major valuation exercises on
water quality in Ireland have been conducted
previously, this study will help shed light on the
possible monetary value of achieving “good
ecological status” under the WFD. Further
research will be crucial for estimating
benefit/cost ratios across a wide range of Irish
water bodies, in order to identify cases of
disproportionate costs for which derogations
can be sought. Benefit transfer techniques may
need to be used to estimate benefit across a
wide range of sites given the cost involved in
primary single catchment valuation exercises.
15
An Economic Profile of the Irish Off-Shore Fishing Fleet 2006 -2008
Patrick Gillespie and Stephen Hynes, SEMRU, NUI Galway
Introduction
This paper presents an analysis of 5 segments of
the Irish fishing fleet, drawing on volume and price
data on landings and days at sea provided by the
Sea Fisheries Protection Authority (SFPA), which
collects data on every active vessel in the Irish
fleet. The SFPA collects and analyses data on fish
landings and fishing activity by all Irish vessels and
foreign vessels landing into Ireland. This data
includes information on the quantity, value, and
location of fish caught, together with effort data
and details of fishing methods used.
The data collected by the SFPA from the log sheets
(such as landing weights, details of days at sea,
vessel descriptors, etc.) and the sales notes (prices
per kg per species per landing) are an important
source of data for fishery scientists to conduct
stock assessment and population modelling. In
addition however, this data relating to fishing
activity and catch value can be used to assess the
economic status of the fishing industry from year
to year. This is important information given that
this industry forms a vital part of the economy of
many rural coastal areas. As such, this paper fills a
gap in the use of the log sheet and sales note data
by using it to present, for the first time, a microlevel analysis of the earnings of the different
fishing segments in the Irish fishing fleet.
2006 we used CSO data on the change in value per
kg of fish stocks between 2006 and 2007. Using
this index we adjusted the 2007 prices from the
sales notes to be representative of the price per
species per port per month for 2006.
One other issue that had to be dealt with was the
fact that the log sheets specifies the quantities of
fish species landed as ‘estimated live weight’ so we
had to adjust these figures using conversion
factors to calculate the gutted or tailed value of
the fish species. This is important as most species
of fish are gutted or tailed on board and when
presented for sale, yet skippers are instructed to
record catch values must in the operational
section of the logbook in “kg LIVE WEIGHT”. If our
analysis simply used the live weight figures we
would be grossly overestimating the value of most
species landed in Irish ports. For example, the ratio
of live weight to gutted weight for monkfish is 1.23:
1. BIM Species Conversion Factor Tables were used
to covert from live weight to sales (gutted or tailed)
weight.
Data and Methodology
Due to data available this report only analyses
what is referred to as the coastal and off-shore
Irish fleet. The coastal fleet we define as vessels
between 10 and 18 metres while the off-shore
fleet is defined as all vessels greater than 18
metres. Data on the inshore fleet which we define
as vessels of less than 10 metres was not available
from the SFPA. market will have its negative effect
on portfolio return dampened by the uncorrelated
outcomes of alternative, non affected sectors.
In order to calculate earnings per month for each
vessel in the dataset we then had to multiply the
landings by species by port for each vessel in each
year from the logbook data by the price for each of
the species by month by year by port from the
sales note data. In some instances a species would
be recorded as landed at a particular port in a
particular month in the logbook but no entry
would exist for that species for that month at that
port in the sales note data. In these instances we
used the price per species per month per port area.
The port areas refer to groupings of ports along
the coast that serve particular regions or fleets
though a central port office as defined by the SFPA.
If this price was still not available we used the
price per species per month as the next best
alternative price for the landing of the species in
the port in question.
In using the SFPA data we had to combine the
Sales Note data and the Logbook landings data.
The data in the Logbook gave the monthly landings
by species by landing port by vessel while the sales
note data provided the average monthly price by
species by port but not by vessel. Only the log
book data was available for 2006 so in order to
calculate the price per kg of alternative species in
Once we had a price per species per port allocated
for all months in the years 2007 and 2008 we
multiplied this price by the equivalent landings
(sales weight) from the logbook data to calculate
the earnings per species per port per vessel per
month per year. Aggregating across species per
month per vessel gave us the monthly earnings per
vessel while aggregating the monthly earnings by
16
vessel for the year allowed us to calculate the total
earnings of each vessel per year. In terms of our
analysis every coastal and off-shore vessel active in
2006, 2007 and 2008 was allocated into one of 5
segments. The segment classifications are Beamer,
Pelagic, Polyvalent General, Polyvalent Potting and
Specific.
Results
The Irish coastal and offshore fleet can be broken
down into five segments, Pelagic, Beamer,
Polyvalent General, Polyvalent Potting and the
Specific segments. Polyvalent General had a 58.7
percent share of total coastal and off-shore fleet
earnings in 2006. It then rises to 60 percent in
2007 only to fall back to 50 percent in 2008.
It should be noted that the total number of vessels
remain constant over the 3 year period for the
Pelagic segment whilst the Specific segment nearly
doubles its number from 15 to 29 vessels.
Effort can be measured both in terms of physical
characteristics such as length or engine size, and
also in terms of activity measures (e.g. days at sea).
An interaction between these variables is often
calculated to arrive at units of effort, and we have
followed this methodology in our calculations.
Specifically, our measure of effort is simply the
engine size of a given vessel in kilowatts (kW) of
power multiplied by the days at sea for a particular
entry.
Figure 2 - Earnings per vessel per unit of effort
Meanwhile, the Pelagic segment’s share falls
slightly in 2007, but then it increases by 4
percentage points to 39 percent in 2008. The
Specific segment’s gain is the most noticeable
difference as it goes from a quite small 1.9 percent
of earnings to a more sizeable 7 percent. Finally,
the Beamer segment joins Polyvalent General in
giving ground to the other segments over the
reference period while Polyvalent Potting remains
largely unchanged.
23
Pelagic
33
33
6.3
Specific
31
44
5.2
Polyvalent General
8.5
8.9
3.3
4.7
6.1
Beamer
13
Polyvalent Potting
An examination of Figure 1 helps to explain the
growth or contraction of the different segments.
The most striking element of the figure is the
disproportionate level of yearly earnings per vessel
exhibited by the Pelagic segment. However, when
looking beyond this feature one may detect a
pattern of substantial increases in earnings per
vessel taking shape in both the Pelagic and Specific
segments.
Figure 1 - Average earnings per vessel per year
1.7
2.8
Pelagic
Specific
Polyvalent General
3.2
.2
.26
.65
.28
.41
.36
.32
.43
.32
Beamer
Polyvalent Potting
0
.087
.098
.081
1
2
Million euro
2006
2008
3
2007
4
22
17
0
10
20
30
40
Euro
2006
2008
2007
In a time period as short as the one for which we
were able to conduct this analysis, characteristics
such as engine size and vessel length tend to be
fixed (i.e. they change very little, if at all), so
although our measure of effort includes engine
size it is really the number of days at sea that
determine the changes to the level of effort from
year to year. This being the case, a snapshot of
days at sea will go a long way in telling the effort
story within each segment, whereas engine size
becomes more important for cross segment
comparisons.
The return for a unit of effort (i.e. that measure
which accounts for engine size) is depicted in
Figure 2. This figure highlights the growth in
earnings per unit effort in the Pelagic and Specific
segments as well as the diminishing Polyvalent
General segment. The explanation lies in the
higher earnings per unit of effort.
17
The Application of Portfolio Theory to the Management of Irish Fish
Stocks
Benjamin Breen and Stephen Hynes, SEMRU, NUI Galway
Introduction
Ecosystem based fisheries management (EBFM) is
a fisheries management initiative which has
received increasing focus in recent years, in both
the marine science literature and from a policy
perspective (Botsford et al., 1997; Pikitch et al.,
2004; Hall and Mainprize, 2004). The idea is to
take major ecosystem components and services
into account in managing fisheries and embrace a
multispecies perspective. One of the major
challenges to multispecies considerations of
marine biological stock dynamics however, is the
data restrictions with which researchers are
presented; marine ecosystems are complex
structures which are difficult to observe and
understand. There is also little guidance in the
literature on how such an empirical approach to
EBFM should be constructed.
This research applies portfolio theory to Irish
fisheries data as an empirically based form of
EBFM which may complement traditional
bioeconomic and ecosystem structural models. Its
strength lies in its capacity to make use of already
existent fisheries data (historical dockside
revenues by species), and through the
construction of portfolio’s of species, represent
the economic and biological gains of embracing
diverse species considerations in fisheries practice
and policy, the idea being that species diversity is
desirable not just from a social and ecological
perspective, but also for its ability to reduce
fisher’s revenue volatility.
commodities. Within each of these asset classes,
investments may be spread out across alternative
sectors. For example, equities may be made up of
alternative industry types, bonds will relate to
different countries’ and companies’ debt issuances
and commodities may be made up of copper, gold
etc. By directing resources into diverse asset
classes and industry sectors, the overall volatility
of return can be controlled or reduced. A collapse
of one asset class, industry sector or commodity
market will have its negative effect on portfolio
return dampened by the uncorrelated outcomes of
alternative, non affected sectors.
The formal objective of portfolio theory then is to
estimate (on the basis of historical trends) the
“optimal percentage of investment weights”
among alternative investment opportunities which
minimize the trade off between expected return
and expected variance. Optimization techniques
are employed to calculate these weights, which
provide an asset manager’s best estimate of the
optimal allocation of resources, such that for any
desired level of portfolio return, expected portfolio
variance will be the lowest possible.
Portfolio Theory Methodology
The intuition behind portfolio theory is that
financial risk can be diversified by directing
resources/investments/effort into a large number
of uncorrelated or negatively correlated outcomes.
Financial asset manager’s spread their investments
over different asset classes and industry types. For
example, an asset manager may have the overall
investment amount of the portfolio allocated
across asset classes such as equities, bonds and
18
The output of the optimization process, conducted
using the averages/estimates of historical asset
returns, variances and asset covariances, is what is
referred to as the mean-variance efficient frontier
of investment options. At any point along the
efficient frontier, no combination of asset weights
will lead to a better estimate of the trade off
between risk and return.
Portfolio Theory as Applied to the Management
of Irish Fish Stocks
Of course, there are major differences between
financially traded assets and wild fish stocks. An
application of the methodology therefore needs to
be adapted to reflect fishery management
objectives. We follow the methodology of
Sanchirico et al. (2008). The core objective of this
research is to employ the methodology to achieve
greater biodiversity, and determine areas of the
ecosystem where species inter-relatedness may
benefit from adaptations to fishing effort. Also
however, it may be possible that by redirecting
resources and effort in the correct way, Irish
fisher’s can achieve further revenue diversification
without reducing revenues. This redirection of
effort may have potentially positive ecosystem
outcomes, and is desirable from a socioeconomic
perspective under the assumption of risk-averse
economic agents.
Using historical data on the catch quantity and sale
price of target commercial species (available from
the Central Statistics Office) we estimate future
quantity catches, sale prices and therefore average
dockside revenues. Using the historical annual
revenues we also attain the variance covariance
matrix for all species for which there is data. This
information allows us to determine the optimal
percentage allocation of species in a target
portfolio. Species inter-relatedness, or revenue
correlations, will arise from either ecosystem
relationships or market price relationships.
Through the optimization of various portfolios of
species, useful information may be generated to
ascertain which management strategies or
approaches may yield both economic and
ecosystem gains. The results of the analysis will
have connotations for determining optimal quotas
for individual species, and also insights into drivers
behind fisher’s incentives in their economics
decision making.
Conclusions
The analysis is a novel approach and despite the
data limitations which multispecies fisheries
analysis is plagued by, may hold productive
insights into fishing management options under a
mixed species framework. Further work may also
allow the methodology to reflect various
objectives which fishery managers wish to achieve,
such as determining Total Allowable Catches
across species, and incorporating exogenous
precautionary Maximum Sustainable Yield
constraints to restrict the potential weights of
certain key species in the portfolio, while
increasing others to compensate fishers, from a
revenue perspective. Currently, which species
should feature as part of the portfolio selection is
something that is being reviewed. Increased
scientific and industry considerations will allow for
more realistically and usefully tailored alternative
target species options.
References
Pikitch, E.K., Santora, C., Babcock, E.A., Bakun, A.,
Bonfil, R., Conover, D.O., Dayton, P., Doukakis, P.,
Fluharty, D., Heneman, B., Houde, E.D., Link, J.,
Livingston, P.A., Mangel, M., McAllister, M.K., Pope,
J., Sainsbury, K.J., 2004. Ecology: ecosystem-based
fishery management. Science 305, 346–347.
Botsford, Louis W., Castilla, Juan Carlos, Peterson,
Charles H., 1997. The management of fisheries and
marine ecosystems. Science 277, 509–515.
Sanchirico, J.N., Smith, M.D., Lipton, D.W. (2008).
An empirical approach to ecosystem-based fishery
management. Ecological Economics, 64, 586-596.
19
The Rise and Fall of the Irish Orange Roughy Fishery: An Economic
Analysis
Naomi Foley, Tom van Rensburg, and Claire Armstrong, SEMRU, NUI Galway
Introduction
An Irish fishery targeting orange roughy began in
2001 and ended shortly after, resulting in the
boom and bust cycle of many orange roughy
fisheries. Prior to 1999, Irish landings of deepwater, non-quota species were very limited due to
the lack of suitable vessels greater than 24m
overall length and 1000hp in the fleet (Nolan,
2004). Large high-sea French trawlers targeted
orange roughy in ICES area VII from the late 1980s.
In 2000 a programme to develop an Irish
deepwater fishery began in ICES area VII with the
support of grant aid from the Whitefish Renewal
Programme (Shephard et al., 2007). Levels of
capital grant aid provided under the programme
included up to 40% of the eligible costs of new
vessels (Nolan, 2004). Conditions of the grant aid
included specification that a percentage of target
species should be non-quota.
The exploratory fisheries were run with Irish Sea
Fisheries Board (BIM) and some commercial
fishermen. Of the deep water species harvested
during the exploratory period, orange roughy
fisheries appeared to be the most valuable and
offer the largest returns (Nolan, 2004). There was
a directed fishery for orange roughy, but other
species targeted by the deep-water trawl fleet
included blue ling, black scabbard and roundnose
grenadier (Gordon et al., 2003).
makes these vessels extremely sensitive to fuel
price increases (Tyedmers et al., 2005; Sumaila et
al., 2010). Landings declined markedly in 2003 and
2004, as shown in Figure 1 with several vessels
being forced out of the fishery (Shephard and
Rogan, 2006). In 2001 the average price per tonne
was at its highest at €3,138 but by 2003 price had
dropped 41% to €1,285 per tonne. Mellett (Mellett,
2009) reports that the market was flooded, and
with the price collapse, large quantities of orange
roughy were sold for fishmeal. All this resulted in
several vessels being forced out of the fishery
(Shephard et al., 2007).
There is a growing literature on subsidies and
fisheries (Gianni, 2004; Sumaila and Pauly, 2006).
The Irish orange roughy fishery began with the
assistance of government grant aid to update or
purchase vessels. Many argue that global deep sea
fishing could not be possible without subsidies
(Pauly et al., 2003; Gianni, 2004; Sumaila et al.,
2010). This analysis on the Irish orange roughy
fishery applies a bioeconomic model to assess the
influence of grant aid on the establishment of the
fishery. In the first case we consider the fishery as
it was i.e. with the subsidy included in the total
costs. In the second case the subsidy is removed
from the model and the change in open access
conditions is analysed.
Results
Data
Landings data suggests pulse landings; the first
occurred in 1992 when over 3,000t were landed
and the second in 2002 (ICES, 2007). In 2003, a
total allowable catch (TAC) of 1,349 tonnes was set
on the orange roughy fishery in ICES area VII, of
which Ireland received 300 tonnes (Shephard et al.,
2007).
In addition to a rapid drop in landings, fuel prices
increased during the short period of the fishery
and the average prices per tonne dropped. The
large fuel consumption of deep water trawling
The results of our bioeconomic analysis are
interesting for two reasons (1) the calculated open
access effort and harvest are significantly lower
than the estimated MSY levels, i.e. the costs are so
high that even under open access, the effort is low,
and (2) through the analysis it has been shown
that even in the presence of grant aid total costs
would have been too high for a sustainable fishery
of any size to take place. In essence the
government’s grant aid was a subsidy for mining
the Irish orange roughy stock. The analysis with no
subsidy suggests that on average the costs were
too high, and the prices too low to support entry
20
into the fishery. For a fish stock with a low growth
rate relative to the market discount rate, there is
the incentive to mine the stock and invest the
profits in other sectors (Sumaila and Pauly, 2006).
It is better, according to capital theory, to harvest
the stock and invest it in a sector that offers a
higher a rate of return.
Gordon, J.D.M., O.A. Bergstad, I. Figueiredo, and G.
Menezes. 2003. Deep-Water Fisheries of the
Northeast Atlantic: I. Description and Current
Trends. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., 31: 137-150.
ICES. 2007. Report of the Working Group on the
Biology and Assessment of Deep-Sea Fishery
Resources (Wgdeep). ICES CM 2007 / ACFM:20,
ICES: 486.
Mellett, M. 2009. Ecosystem Based Ocean
Governance - the Sustainable Management of Cold
Water Corals (Cwc) and Associated Biodiversity a State’s Property Rights Approach. Faculty of
Political and Social Science. Galway, NUI Galway.
Doctor of Philosophy.
Conclusions
Though mining of orange roughy can be defended
on capital theoretic terms, when resource rent is
optimally taxed and reinvested, the trawling after
orange roughy can be expected to impose
significant external effects in terms of future user
costs to the fishery as well as heritage and
existence values (Glenn et al., In Press). There are
additional costs of harvesting species such as
orange roughy, namely the potential loss of deep
water habitats such as cold water corals which can
be considered a negative externality caused by the
trawling industry. The external costs of deep water
trawling include the loss of spawning grounds and
the amenity value associated with CWC habitat.
For a fishery such as orange roughy, where
biological and stock data is limited and where the
external costs have yet to be itemised and valued
a precautionary approach is well advised.
Nolan, C.P. 2004. A Technical and Scientific Record
of Experimental Fishing for Deepwater Species in
the Northeast Atlantic, by Irish Fishing Vessels, in
2001. Fisheries Resources Series. Dun Laoghaire,
Ireland, Bord Iascaigh Mhara (Irish Sea Fisheries
Board): 172pp.
Pauly, D., J. Alder, E. Bennett, V. Christensen, P.
Tyedmers, and R. Watson. 2003. The Future for
Fisheries. Science, 302(5649): 1359-1361.
Shephard, S., P. Connolly, N.-R. Hareide, and E.
Rogan. 2007. Establishing Stakeholder Connections
for Management of the Irish Orange Roughy
Fishery. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 64(4): 841-845.
Shephard, S., and E. Rogan. 2006. Seasonal
Distribution of Orange Roughy (Hoplostethus
Atlanticus) on the Porcupine Bank West of Ireland.
Fisheries Research, 77(1): 17-23.
References
Sumaila, U.R., A. Khan, L. Teh, R. Watson, P.
Tyedmers, and D. Pauly. 2010. Subsidies to High
Seas Bottom Trawl Fleets and the Sustainability of
Deep-Sea Demersal Fish Stocks. Marine Policy,
34(3): 495-497.
Gianni, M. 2004. High Seas Bottom Trawl Fisheries
and Their Impacts on the Biodiversity of
Vulnerable Deep-Sea Ecosystems: Options for
International Actions. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN.
Sumaila, U.R., and D. Pauly. 2006. Catching More
Bait: A Bottom-up Re-Estimation of Global
Fisheries Subsidies. Fisheries Centre Research
Reports, 14(6): 114.
Glenn, H., P. Wattage, S. Mardle, T.V. Rensburg, A.
Grehan, and N. Foley. In Press. Marine Protected
Areas--Substantiating Their Worth. Marine Policy.
Tyedmers, P.H., R. Watson, and D. Pauly. 2005.
Fueling Global Fishing Fleets. AMBIO: A Journal of
the
Human
Environment,
34(8):
635-6
21
Collecting fishers’ knowledge: A chance for social scientists to become
fisheries scientists
Edward Hind, School of Political Science and Sociology and SEMRU, NUI Galway
Introduction
Despite extensive collection of ecological data by
fisheries scientists, fisheries managers are often
still unable to make management decisions for
some fisheries, because the information they need
is unavailable. It would be assumed then that
scientists and managers would be keen to
supplement their knowledge with complimentary
sources of data in an effort to address these
shortcomings, but this seems not always to be the
case. A number of publications have shown that
fishers have a detailed socio-ecological knowledge
of the fisheries in which they operate that often
prove novel when compared to findings of
research done by state-employed biologists (e.g.
Murray, et al., 2006). However, fishers’ knowledge
has not been recognised widely as complimentary
to traditional fisheries science and has rarely been
used to inform management policy.
Using examples from the commercial fishery of
Galway Bay and the Aran Islands in Ireland, this
study firstly shows how fishers’ knowledge differs
from traditional science and then how fishers’
knowledge could be harnessed to help improve
fisheries management. Finally, it concludes how
fishers’ knowledge can be best discovered and
mobilised by social scientists.
Why fisheries scientists should embrace fishers’
knowledge
Detailed life histories of fishers in the Galway Bay
and Aran region were uncovered using the
methods described by Hind (2009). Analyses of
these histories reveals that fishers have much
knowledge that could either compliment existing
fisheries science or expand the breadth of
scientific understanding through the introduction
of previously undiscovered information.
The first thing to note is that the content of
knowledge differs from fisher to fisher. Previous
research has generally considered fishers’
knowledge to be purely ecological. Results in this
case study though show that fishers’ knowledge is
a socio-ecological construct and that the lifeworld
they operate in is equally influenced by social,
economical, legislative and operational factors as it
is by ecological ones.
Chart 1: Percentage of interview by time during which fisher
expressed various types of knowledge.
The above chart shows this diversity of knowledge.
Content analysis of interviews with three fishers
from the sample shows that each has a very
different knowledge. Fisher A has a similarly
natured knowledge as Fisher B, except socioeconomically where A is more knowledgeable. The
transcript shows that this is perhaps down to
Fisher A controlling an onshore fish retail
operation, where B simply sells his catch at the
dock. Fisher C has little policy and management
knowledge compared to A and B. This can be
attributed to the fact that he is retired and has
little experience of operating in the more heavily
regulated present.
Regarding content, another variation between
fisheries science and fishers’ knowledge should be
considered. Fisheries science is generally geared
up to quantifiably record specific and predetermined data. Fishers’ knowledge however
does not necessarily fit this template of data
collection. As quotes from fishers in Hind (2010)
show they use different units of quantification
such as boxes of fish. More importantly, most of
their knowledge is not quantitative, but qualitative.
It can be lengthy, anecdotal and hard to
summarise, but can give excellent insight into a
fishery including a diverse range of information,
from how trawls are performed to when species of
fish migrate (Hind, 2010).
22
Secondly, the extent of fishers’ ecological
knowledge is not always captured by fisheries
science. This study found that fishers were actually
fairly poor at measuring their whole catch, or
individual specimens within it, quantitatively. Their
estimates and recollections were vague and varied
too much between fishers to meet the rigorous
criteria that would be needed for the stock
assessments of fisheries since. However, it was
found that they could provide novel historical
trend data for fish species where scientific data did
not exist (e.g. for periods before records
commenced, where species were non-commercial).
For instance scientific measurement of cod stocks
in the West of Ireland started in 1988, but fishers
in this study identified changes in cod population
as far back as the 1950s. Fishers also gave detailed
anecdotal descriptions of events such as species
extinctions and of fishery features like spawning
grounds. In this case they identified a local
commercial extinction of cod in the late 1980s and
the presence of a significant herring spawning
ground near their home port of Rossaveal.
Thirdly, and little considered to this point is the
discovery that fishers have strategies which dictate
how they fish. Fisheries scientists may argue that
we already know how fishers fish, but what is
lesser known is why they fish this way. If this were
known it would show possible future levels of
fishing intensity for certain fishery species as well
as any prospective change in the spatial
distribution and activity of the fleet. This would
allow fisheries management to become a preemptive science, where currently it is almost
always reactive. An example of this is the change
in usage of fishing gear within the Galway and
Aran trawl fishery for nephrops. Quantitative data
collected during the research showed that a
majority of fishing skippers had upgraded their
boat engines significantly from the late 1980s to
early 1990s to allow them to pull a two net twinrig setup, rather than the single net they had used
to date. This would have lead to a dramatic
increase in fishing pressure on nephrops. The
strategy behind this for a few fishers was to
maximise their catch and profits, but it was found
that for many they hadn’t necessarily wanted to
make this upgrade and they had just followed suit,
as it was the only way to keep pace in the fishery.
They would rather have stayed with the smaller
boats, which exerted less fishing effort. Indeed a
small number of fishers had already returned to
shorter boats. A number of other skippers wanted
to do the same, but economic conditions and
regulation were preventing this. This shows that
with bespoke changes in management it may be
possible to reduce fishing intensity in this nephrop
fishery, which would greatly increase the potential
for a permanently sustainable fishery.
How social scientists can mobilise fishers’
knowledge
The traditionally biological scientists of fisheries
science have little training in discovering or
understanding the often qualitative, anecdotal and
socio-economic data that characterises fishers’
knowledge. Applied social scientists such as
sociologists, economists, political scientists and
geographers could be employed in fisheries
science to discover this underutilised data and the
fishers’ strategies, which could importantly inform
more efficient and sustainable fisheries
management.
Conclusions
Wider mobilisation of social scientists in fisheries
science practice should allow for the collection of
more diverse ecological recordings. It would also
open up whole new data fields that are unique to
fishers’ knowledge, including additional socioeconomic information and fishing strategies.
Inclusion of these new findings would surely result
in more informed fisheries management at the
same time as providing the bonus benefit of a
more connected relationship between fishers and
fisheries scientists.
Acknowledgments
This project is a collaborative effort with the Irish
Fisheries Science Research Partnership. The
project is funded by the Irish Marine Institute.
Thanks are due to the participating fishers and the
fishing community for their excellent contribution.
References
Hind, E. (2009). Fishers: Scientists, Sociologists,
Economists, Politicians and Marine Managers.
Proceedings of the 1st Annual Beaufort Marine
Socio-Economic Workshop. SEMRU, NUI Galway.
Publication,
downloadable
at
http://www.nuigalway.ie/semru/documents/beau
fortworkshop.pdf
Hind, E. (2010). Fishers: The Forgotten
Scientists. Working Paper 10-WP-SEMRU-11.
SEMRU, NUI Galway. Publication, downloadable at
http://www.nuigalway.ie/semru/documents/h_10
_semru_wp11.pdf
Murray, G., Neis, B. and Johnsen, J. (2006).
Lessons Learned from Reconstructing Interactions
Between Local Ecological Knowledge, Fisheries
Science, and Fisheries Management in the
Commercial Fisheries of Newfoundland and
Labrador, Canada. Human Ecology, 34, pp. 549-571.
23
Annex 1
Beaufort Marine Socio-Economic Workshop Agenda
8.45 -9.25
Registration and Tea/Coffee
Welcome and Overview of Days Proceedings – Professor John McHale
Session 1.
The Irish Ocean Economy: National and Sectoral Perspectives
Chairperson: Dr. Stephen Hynes
9.30 - 9.55
9.55 - 10.20
10.20 - 10.45
10.45 – 11.15
11.15 - 11.35
Session 2.
A Profile of Ireland’s Ocean Economy
The Role of Marketing in Driving the Sustainable
Consumption of Seafood
Marine Biotechnology, Ireland and the European
Bio-Economy. A complex pattern of opportunities
Neglect of the Maritime in Irish Culture and
Society
- Karyn Morrissey and Stephen Hynes,
SEMRU, NUI Galway
- Ann Walsh and Declan Fleming, Depart. of
Marketing and SEMRU, NUI Galway
- Ilaria Nardello, The Marine Institute,
Galway and Ryan Institute, NUIG
- Jim Mac Laughlin, political geographer and
author of “Troubled Waters: A Social and
Cultural History of Ireland's Sea Fisheries”
Four Courts Press, Dublin.
Tea/Coffee
Water Quality and the Environment
Chairperson: Dr. Michael O’Toole
11.35 – 12.00
12.00 - 12.25
12.25 - 12.50
12.50 - 1.15
1.15- 2.00
Session 3.
2.00 - 2.25
2.25 - 2.50
2.50 - 3.15
3.15 - 3.35
Hedonic Valuation of Proximity to Coast and
Beaches in Ireland
Evaluating the Non-Market Value of Ecosystem
Services Provided by Galway Bay
The Agricultural Catchment Programme – A
Socio-Economic Analysis of Attitude to Water
Quality Measures
Estimating the Value of Water Bodies in Ireland
Achieving “Good Ecological Status” under the
Water Framework Directive
Lunch
- Seán Lyons, Karen Mayor, David Duffy
and Richard Tol, ESRI, Dublin
- Daniel Norton and Stephen Hynes,
SEMRU, NUI Galway
- Cathal Buckley, RERC Teagasc
- Mavra Stithou, Stephen Hynes, Nick
Hanley, University of Stirling, Scotland
Fisheries Management in Ireland
Chairperson: Professor Michael Cuddy
An Economic Profile of the Irish Off-Shore Fishing
Fleet 2006 -2008
An Application of Portfolio Theory to the
Management of Irish Fish Stocks
The Rise and Fall of the Irish Orange Roughy
Fishery: An Economic Analysis
Collecting Fishers’ Knowledge: A Chance for
Social Scientists to Become Fisheries Scientists
Close of Workshop
- Patrick Gillespie and Stephen Hynes,
SEMRU, NUI Galway
- Benjamin Breen and Stephen Hynes,
SEMRU, NUI Galway
- Naomi Foley, Tom van Rensburg, and
Claire Armstrong, SEMRU, NUI Galway
- Edward Hind & Brendan Flynn, Political
Science & Sociology, NUI Galway
24
Annex 2
Workshop Participants
Name
Organisation
Email
Mick O'Toole
Dave Reid
Geoffrey O'Sullivan
Marine Institute
Marine Institute
Marine Institute
motoole@marine.ie
david.reid@marine.ie
gosullivan@marine.ie
Trevor Alcorn
Patrick Tyndall
Marine Institute
Bord Iascaigh Mhara
talcorn@marine.ie
tyndall@bim.ie
Sean Lyons
Cathal Buckley
Economic and Social Research Institute
Teagasc
sean.lyons@esri.ie
cathal.buckley@teagasc.ie
Naomi Foley
Lava Yadav
University Tromso
National University of Ireland, Galway
naomifoley@gmail.com
lava.yadav@gmail.com
Stephen O'Neill
Ilaria Nardello
National University of Ireland, Galway
Marine Institute/NUIG
stepheno_neill_1999@yahoo.com
inardello@marine.ie
Michael Cuddy
Anthony Keohone
SEMRU, NUI, Galway
SFPA
michealcuddy@eircom.net
anthony.keohane@sfpa.ie
Emmet Jackson
Conor Nolan
Bord Iascaigh Mhara
Bord Iascaigh Mhara
jackson@bim.ie
cnolan@bim.ie
Colm Lorlan
Oliver Tully
Marine Institute
Marine Institute
colm.lorlan@marine.ie
oliver.tully@marine.ie
Ben Breen
Ed Hind
SEMRU, NUI, Galway
SEMRU, NUI, Galway
B.BREEN1@nuigalway.ie
Ed.hind1@nuigalway.ie
Will Maclennan
Kevin Kilcline
Natural England
National University of Ireland, Galway
willmaclennon@hotmail.com
kevinkilcline@gmail.com
Patrick Gillespie
Natasha Evers
SEMRU, NUI, Galway/Teagasc
National University of Ireland, Galway
patrick.gillespie@teagasc.ie
natasha.evers@nuigalway.ie
Paul Ryan
Meadbh Seoighe
National University of Ireland, Galway
Udaras na Gaeltacht
paul.ryan@nuigalway.ie
meadbh.seoighe@udaras.ie
Ann Walsh
Jim MacLaughlin
National University of Ireland, Galway
N/A
Thomas van Rensberg
John McHale
National University of Ireland, Galway
National University of Ireland, Galway
ann.walsh@nigalway.ie
N/A
thomas.vanrensburg
@nuigalway.ie
john.mchale@nuigalway.ie
Amaya Vega
Brian O'Toole
National University of Ireland, Galway
National University of Ireland, Galway
amaya.vega@nuigalway.ie
N/A
25