Proceedings of the
1st 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 1st Annual
Beaufort Marine Socio-Economic
Workshop
3rd November, 2009, the Marine Institute,
Rinville, Oranmore, Co. Galway
Organised by SEMRU (Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit), National
University of Ireland, Galway in association with the Marine Institute,
Ireland.
Compiled by:
Stephen Hynes (SEMRU, National University of Ireland, Galway)
Copies can be downloaded from:
http://www.nuigalway.ie/semru/documents/beaufortworkshop.pdf
Table of Contents
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Fishers: Scientists, Sociologists, Economists, Politicians and Marine Managers
Edward Hind, School of Political Science and Sociology, NUI Galway ..................... 2
Economic Recession: Good News for the Coast?
Andrew Cooper and John McKenna, Centre for Coastal and Marine Research
School of Environmental Sciences, University of Ulster, Coleraine BT52 1SA ......... 4
Is a Strong Local Fishing Culture a ‘Barrier’ to Contemporary Rural Development?
Áine Macken-Walsh, Teagasc (RERC); ICERTS, NUI Galway .................................... 6
Valuation of Marine Ecosystem Goods and Services and Man’s Impact on European
Seas
Helen Glenn, Premachandra Wattage, Simon Mardle , Thomas Van Rensburg,
Anthony Grehan, Naomi Foley............................................................................... 9
Defining Standard Statistical Coastal Regions for Ireland
Stephen Hynes, SEMRU, NUI Galway ................................................................... 11
The Economic Value of the Marine Sector in Ireland
Karyn Morrissey, SEMRU, NUI Galway ................................................................. 13
Applying Indicators to Aspects of Coastal Management in Ireland
Cathal O’Mahony, Coastal and Marine Resources Centre, UCC............................ 15
The socio-economic cost of jellyfish to Ireland?
Thomas K Doyle, CMRC, University College Cork.................................................. 17
Impact of Changing Personal Values on the Consumption of Seafood
Ann Walsh, Marketing, SEMRU, NUI Galway........................................................ 19
An analysis of regulatory constraints on the development of the marine economy
Benjamin Breen, SEMRU, NUI Galway ................................................................. 20
Tacit Knowledge of Fishers: Celtic Sea Cod Case Study
Emma Martin, Dept. Political Science and Sociology, NUI Galway........................ 21
Economic Evaluation of Marine Renewable Energy
Niall Farrell, SEMRU, NUI Galway......................................................................... 22
Annex 1 ................................................................................................................... 24
Annex 2 ................................................................................................................... 25
Introduction
Stephen Hynes, SEMRU, NUI Galway
Introduction
On Tuesday the 3rd November, SEMRU (the SocioEconomic Marine Research Unit) in association
with the Marine Institute held the first annual
Beaufort Marine Socio-Economic Workshop. The
idea behind the workshop was for researchers in
the area of marine socio-economics working on
the island of Ireland to get together to meet,
showcase and discuss their on-going work. The
Marine Institute in Oranmore, Co. Galway was the
venue for the event. 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.
Speakers discussed such diverse marine socioeconomic topics as the definition of standard
statistical coastal regions for Ireland, the socioeconomic impacts of jellyfish, how a local fishing
culture may act as a ‘barrier’ to contemporary
rural development and the use of indicators to
support improved coastal management in Ireland.
The target audience for the Beaufort Marine SocioEconomic Workshop was Irish researchers in
academic institutions or government agencies,
whose research interests are applicable to some
area of marine socio–economics.
The Beaufort Socio-Economic Award
This workshop was initiated 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 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 11 active
research projects within the unit (see
www.nuigalway.ie/semru for further information
on the activities of the unit).
The key objectives of the Beaufort Socio-Economic
Award are:
•
To carry out research which will underpin
the National Marine Research Strategy, Sea
Change, through describing, modelling and
analysing the current state of the marine
sector, simulating alternative scenarios and
proposing or recommending alternative
policy measures, thereby enhancing the
competitiveness of the marine sector.
•
To support and complement scientific
research projects through joining in project
proposals from other branches of marine
science, thereby providing economic
evaluation to marine science findings.
•
To attract research funding to support the
elaboration of the marine socioeconomic
research programme in Galway, including
future Irish funding and, in particular,
European Commission funding.
•
To train PhD students in Marine Socioeconomic Research so that they can
continue to sustain the socioeconomic
research effort. Through such knowledge
transfer to the marine industry SEMRU will
create innovative capacity and enhance
competitiveness.
Given one of the main aims of the Beaufort Award
is to build marine socio-economic research
capacity in Ireland, this inaugural workshop was a
means of finding out what others in the marine
research community are working on. The
workshop presented a means of highlighting the
gaps in current research, thus, allowing a
discussion on future projects and cross-institute
collaboration that may overcome these gaps. Such
research and collaboration would benefit not only
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 5 minute presentations
of the SEMRU PhD students are also contained
within this proceedings document.
1
Fishers: Scientists, Sociologists, Economists, Politicians and Marine
Managers
Edward Hind, School of Political Science and Sociology, NUI Galway
Introduction
For approximately 50 years, marine scientists have
collected data with the goal of producing models
that allow them to manage fisheries in a
sustainable fashion. Unfortunately, even in datarich fisheries, achieving sustainability has not
always been possible. The most famous example is
the collapse of the northern cod fishery of
Newfoundland in the early 1990s. In this fishery
local fisherman had warned since the 1970s that
the fishery was failing. However, their warnings
were ignored because their information was
deemed too colloquial and anecdotal. Studies
since have shown that these fishers did indeed
have unique ecological knowledge about the
fishery that they operated in and that this
information could have been used to help prevent
the collapse of the northern cod (Murray, et al.,
2005). This paper details the work of the Irish
Fishers’ Knowledge Project. The goal of this project
is to investigate whether Irish fishers have similar
knowledge to their Newfoundland counterparts
and if so, could their knowledge potentially be
utilised in Irish and European fisheries
management? This paper details the project’s
methods and details some preliminary results.
Fishers’ Information – This tends to be quantitative
in nature and includes data such with regard to
catch size. Although fishers can collect this data, it
is not exclusive to them as it can also be collected
readily by fisheries scientists.
Project Background: Fishers’ Knowledge
Johannes, et al., (2000) were amongst the first to
develop the concept of a “fishers’ knowledge”.
They detailed a number of case studies in which by
speaking to local fishers it had been possible to
identify ecological information that showed why a
fishery was failing. In some cases they were able to
detail how this ecological knowledge had been
utilised in fisheries management to improve
research methods and/or arrest fisheries
degradation. Since their publication a growing
body of literature has begun to evaluate fishers’
knowledge and its potential uses. Work such as
that by Murray, et al., (2005) focuses on the
ecological aspects of fishers’ knowledge. The
approach taken in the Irish Fishers’ Knowledge
project is slightly different in that it considers
fishers’ knowledge to be more than simply
ecological. The following are a few of the divisions
of knowledge identified and considered by the
project.
Landing Fishers’ Knowledge: Methodology
The Irish Fishers’ Knowledge project is targeting
fishers from various areas in Ireland. The fishers
are not targeted using a systematic or random
sample, but rather deliberately for their perceived
level of knowledge. Gatekeepers have been used
to identify the most experienced fishers in the Irish
fisheries. Further fishers have been identified
through snowballing, where targeted fishers are
then asked to name colleagues who they believe
would have excellent knowledge of a fishery.
Fishers’ Tacit Knowledge – This is knowledge that
all fishers have but it may be opaque, unrealised,
unconscious and/or embedded. It is the
knowledge fishers derive during their everyday
operations. This knowledge is exclusive to fishers
as it is knowledge that can only be gained through
operating as a fisher. It is often qualitative, but
could on occasions be quantitative.
Fishers’ Traditional Knowledge – This is knowledge
that the fishers have of the locale that they have
traditionally worked in. It includes tacit knowledge
but also a great volume of overt knowledge. It can
again be quantitative, but is most often qualitative
and is often narrative. Elder fishers often have the
most traditional knowledge as they have operated
in the fishery for the longest periods. A subdivision of this knowledge is Fishers’ Ecological
Knowledge, consisting of fishers’ experience of the
natural environment.
Sampled fishers and other respondents are
extensively interviewed using an open-ended
interview format, but some structural guidelines
make sure that all interviews cover the same
ground. Respondents are encouraged to describe
their history in the fishery and their experience
fishing various species. Respondents are also asked
to divulge their opinion on the status of the fishery
and the management of it. During interviews
2
respondents are encouraged to mark any relevant
information on maps of the region that they fish in.
Processing Fishers’ Knowledge: Results
The following results are preliminary and all taken
from a case study undertaken in the Galway and
Aran fishery. Moving beyond previous studies,
where results tend to be presented as solely
ecological, the results here are divided into
ecological, social, economic and political. Also
identified is the potential of fishers as marine
managers.
Fishers as Scientists – Fishers have a multitude of
knowledge about the behaviour and population
characteristics of the species they fish. For
instance, fishers were able to distinguish between
nephrops from different fishing grounds based on
their shell colouration. Some were also able to
note that nephrops ventured out of their burrows
at night when there was a bright moon as they
were more catchable during this period. Fishers
also had detailed knowledge of impacts of their
fishing activity and changes in their catch. A few
elder fishers were able to identify a change in the
nature of the main ground where they targeted
prawns. Ground that they described as undulating
in the 1960s was now flat. They knew this through
read outs from various instrumentation that they
used. Although they don’t always know the reason
for events they are able to identify key changes in
the fishery. Many fishers were able to collaborate
that they had not caught cod in commercial
numbers off the coast of the Aran Islands since the
late 1980s, but their reasons for this varied.
Fishers as Sociologists – Some fisheries
management policies treat fishers as operators
who modify their behaviour to maximise income.
However, the fishers of Galway and Aran often put
social concerns ahead of economic. Their histories
showed that many of their families had fished
since time immemorial and were prepared to
reduce their fishing effort if it meant their children
could continue to make a living in the fishery.
Fishers as Economists – By displaying knowledge of
the wider issues in the fishery, fishers were able to
show themselves to be strategists. Three groups of
fishers were identified amongst the larger boats of
the Galway and Aran fishery: Those who fished for
value by trading down their equipment and
reducing their effort; another group that fished for
volume. These were often heavily in debt and
found it hard to prioritise ecological concerns
ahead of economical survival; a final group of
fishers who could be described as ‘inbetweeners’.
These were often waiting for policy changes at a
European or Irish level before deciding whether to
continue fishing as they were, change fishing
strategy or withdraw from the fishery altogether.
Fishers as Politicians – Fishers were very aware of
the policies that controlled their activities. For
instance some had avoided policy they saw as
restrictive by downgrading their boat size to one
below 12m so as to avoid some fisheries legislation.
Fishers as Marine Managers – Far from showing
little knowledge of fisheries management, the
fishers had many ideas that in all likelihood would
be endorsed by ecological managers. One example
being that many fishers believed that the intensive
fishing practice of twin-rigging should be banned
as it caused physical damage to the benthos and
crushed nephrops and demersal fish species.
Discussion
Fishers possess a high volume of knowledge that
can be ecological, economic, social and political. It
seems that currently little of this knowledge is
used in mainstream fisheries management (a view
shared by the fishers). Fishers’ knowledge has
perhaps not entered the mainstream of fisheries
management in the past as it has been seen as too
informal and hard to access. However, the
preliminary results of the Irish Fishers’ Knowledge
project show that this knowledge is actually very
accessible, and even when anecdotal and
qualitative, has the potential to inform fisheries
management policy.
Acknowledgments
The Irish Fishers’ Knowledge Project is a
collaborative effort of the Irish Fisheries Science
Research Partnership (IFSRP). The project is
funded by the Irish Marine Institute. Thanks are
due to the fishers of Ireland and the wider fishing
community for their excellent contributions to the
project and their continuing participation in it.
References
Johannes, R., Freeman, M. and Hamilton, R. (2000).
Ignore Fishers’ Knowledge and Miss the Boat. Fish
and Fisheries, 1, pp. 257-271.
Murray, G., Bavington, D. and Neis, B. (2005). Local
Ecological Knowledge, Science, Participation and
Fisheries Governance in Newfoundland and
Labrador: A Complex, Contested and Changing
Relationship. In T. Gray, ed. Participation in
Fisheries Governance. Netherlands: Springer. Ch.
16.
3
Economic Recession: Good News for the Coast?
Andrew Cooper and John McKenna, Centre for Coastal and Marine Research
School of Environmental Sciences, University of Ulster, Coleraine BT52 1SA
Introduction
The ongoing global economic crisis and the
preceding boom have had profound impacts on
coastlines worldwide. In Ireland, the boom saw a
spate of coastal development on what was
formerly a predominantly natural coast. According
to the European Environment Agency, Ireland had
the highest rate of increase in area of urbanised
coastal land of any European nation between 1990
and 2000. (Cooper, J.A.G. and McKenna, J. 2009)
The Boom
The past decade has been a period of easy credit
that fuelled a massive growth in property
development. No other investment vehicle offered
returns on the scale available in property. The
coast has particular attractions, and throughout
Europe huge numbers of single and multiunit
dwellings were constructed for sale as holiday
homes. Demand outstripped supply and prices
rocketed, commonly increasing by 10%–20% per
year which encouraged even more coastal land
owners to sell. Easy credit, high returns and low
perceived risk to lenders combined to generate
rampant speculation by investors. The footprints
of buildings became more valuable than the
buildings themselves; consequently houses were
demolished and replaced with multiple units.
Aided by cheap flights, intensive property
development spread to the coasts of new EU
member states and eventually the credit-driven
property boom spread even further afield to the
coasts of the Cape Verde Islands, Brazil, Costa Rica,
Tanzania, Kenya, South Africa, Australia, and New
Zealand. In the Middle East, for example Dubai,
coastal property development for sale to foreign
owners drove the construction of massive
numbers of apartments and villas on land specially
reclaimed for the purpose. High property values
and limited land availability also encouraged highrise development.
Even on colder temperate coasts increased
demand for coastal property created a boom in
construction. In Ireland, any property on the
market was bought up by outsiders as second
homes, often with very low occupancy rates. The
effect wasn’t limited to existing dwellings—hotels,
pubs, and shops were demolished and replaced by
apartments because far more quick money could
be made through property development than in
these services.
Socioeconomic Impacts
While it lasted the boom was good for
construction and its ancillary services and created
employment in rural areas. For some coastal
communities, however, it had disastrous social
consequences. Elderly people, who had formerly
had a normal neighbourhood support system,
found their homes lost in a sea of unoccupied
apartment blocks. Local people found it impossible
to afford house prices in their home town. As the
social fabric decayed around them, rural
communities were engulfed by relatively wellheeled foreigners. In the Gaeltacht areas of
western Ireland, the influx of English-speaking
residents was seen to dilute the culture. In
developing countries the cultural norms of holiday
home owners often conflicted with those of the
host communities.
Service provision often did not keep pace with
residential development because the land was
more valuable for housing. By summer 2006 the
coastal town of Portballintrae in Northern Ireland
had 58% holiday homes, no Post Office, no shops,
no pub, and 1 hotel left out of 3. With shops and
hotels sold to developers, stable, long-term jobs
were lost, and services for local communities
diminished. Aspects of the tourism industry
suffered because second homes bring little longterm benefit to coastal economies, e.g. provisions
are often brought from home. Hotels and
guesthouses also declined as private property was
let to holidaymakers, and the potential revenue
and jobs advantage to the local community was
lost. Inevitably, and on a worldwide scale, the lure
of fast cash also encouraged rampant corruption.
This was hugely damaging to both the
environment and society. In Spain flagrant
breaches of the planning laws and the Ley de
Costas took place with illegal building of thousands
of houses on designated green belt coastal lands.
4
Environmental Impacts
Coastal development transforms the coast. The
development process itself can be destructive. In
Phuket, Thailand, two-thirds of the reefs have
been reportedly damaged by construction-derived
debris. Developers and owners on soft naturally
dynamic shorelines routinely demand armouring
to protect their investments. Coastal erosion is
seen as a problem rather than a necessary process
on a sustainable coast. Hard defences hold a
shoreline fixed against its natural and healthy
tendency to move. The consequences can include
loss of the beaches which are the coast’s most
attractive asset to many people. The increased
value of the property skews the cost-benefit
analysis in favour of some form of defence. Even
where local groups and NGOs protest against
environmental degradation, there is a grotesque
mismatch in financial (and usually political) muscle
between them and the powerful development
lobby.
Bust—the Bubble Bursts
In late 2007, the economic downturn that resulted
from the realisation that the boom was based on
unsustainable levels of credit had immediate
effects on the construction industry. By the
autumn of 2009, in the Republic of Ireland house
prices had fallen 25%+ from the Feb 2007 peak,
falling 11% in the first 9 months of the year alone.
During 2009 the price of development land
declined 15-25%. In Northern Ireland the average
house price was 35% below the 2007 peak.
In post-boom Europe many developments stand
empty or are half-finished. In Spain, an estimated
24,000 new builds stand empty on the Costa del
Sol. The natural environment has been degraded,
and coastal communities decimated, by tying up
scarce coastal space in investment property for a
non-resident population that doesn’t even use it.
Job losses in construction exposed the short-term
nature of the economic benefits of a property
boom. Central and local government now face a
shortfall of funding leading to a series of stringent
cutbacks. One advantage of this is that they are
much less likely to fund hard coastal defences.
However, there are downsides. During bad times
authorities will spend money only on their
statutory functions, so voluntary ICZM initiatives
may be suspended. Despite environmental
concerns, authorities may also feel obliged to
support any green shoots of economic
development.
Macroeconomics and Coastal Sustainability
A sustainable approach to coastal management
must take a temporal perspective of decades.
Coastal sustainability demands flexible shorelines;
development demands fixed shorelines. Climate
change increases the tension between these two.
A construction boom at a time of accelerating sea
level rise is like a head-on collision. The short-term
fix of coastal engineering simply stores up
problems for another generation as people strive
to protect ill-sited development. As access to the
coast becomes more difficult, a once-communal
resource becomes privatised and used for the
benefit of a few individuals rather than wider
society.
Coasts are damaged during economic booms. The
short-term economic gains through construction
are far outweighed by the costs to society at any
meaningful management or natural timescale.
Contrary to intuition, a general lack of money is
good for coastal sustainability. Historically, Ireland
could not afford to damage its coast, thus largely
preserving it in its scenic natural condition (Cooper
and McKenna 2008). One of the major lessons of
the period of rampant development during the last
decade is that current planning and coastal
management regimes are not up to the task.
References
Cooper, J.A.G. and McKenna, J. 2008. Social justice
in coastal erosion management: The temporal and
spatial dimensions. Geoforum, 39, 294–306.
Cooper, J.A.G. and McKenna, J. 2009 Boom and
Bust: The Influence of Macroscale Economics on
the World’s Coasts. Journal of Coastal Research
(editorial), Vol. 25, N9, 533–538.
5
Is a Strong Local Fishing Culture a ‘Barrier’ to Contemporary Rural
Development?
Áine Macken-Walsh, Teagasc (RERC); ICERTS, NUI Galway
Introduction
The contemporary rural development agenda
seeks to focus less on primary production in the
mainstream agriculture and fisheries sectors, and
more on innovation, diversification and the
creation of high value-added in the development
of ‘knowledge-based’ and ‘culture’ economies.
Contemporary rural development models employ
a governance-based approach in an effort to
harness the capacity of local stakeholders in
designing and implementing development
interventions (Ray, 2000). Rural areas like Iorras
Aithneach in South Connemara, Co. Galway, are
potentially valuable sites for enterprises selling
local ‘design value’ because they are laden with
cultural commodities (see Byrne et al, 1993).
However, entrepreneurial activities that are at the
core of the contemporary rural development
agenda – artisan food production, cultural tourism,
and the valorisation of natural resources – remain
peripheral to economic activity in Iorras Aithneach.
This paper draws from the findings of a larger
research project (see Macken-Walsh, 2009) that
explored the socio-cultural context of poor
engagement
with
contemporary
rural
development initiatives among members of the
fishing and farming communities. In this paper, a
brief overview is presented of local contextual
data and the results of primary qualitative
research conducted in Iorras Aithneach, with a
view to highlighting some of the key issues that
frame a context of low local engagement in
contemporary rural development initiatives.
Iorras Aithneach: a case study
Iorras Aithneach is a peninsula comprised of two
main town-lands, Carna and Cill Chíaráin. A District
Electoral Division (DED) within the peninsula is
identified in Galway’s Socio-Economic Profile
(2008) as an unemployment ‘blackspot’, indicating
a rate of unemployment in excess of 20%. There
are two main enterprise development agencies
operating in Iorras Aithneach: Meitheal Forbartha
na Gaeltachta (MFG) implements the EC LEADER
programme in Iorras Aithneach, and Údaras na
Gaeltachta, among a range of industry and
community supports, offers financial assistance to
support new enterprises. MFG allocated a total of
€12,891 to four projects in Iorras Aithneach during
the last LEADER programming period (2000-2006),
while Údaras na Gaeltachta, drawing from a
considerably larger budget, allocated a total of
€4,749,089 to enterprises in Iorras Aithneach over
the period 2000-2009 (see Macken-Walsh, 2009).
There are differences in the type of enterprises
that tend to be supported by MFG and Údaras na
Gaeltachta. Of its total budget, the majority of
total MFG funding (70%) was allocated for the
development of rural tourism (no rural tourism
project was located in Iorras Aithneach) while a
small proportion (.17%) was allocated to the
category of ‘Mariculture and Agriculture Products’.
By contrast, the majority of grants administered by
Údarás na Gaeltachta (66%) in Iorras Aithneach
were allocated for the development of ‘Natural
Resource & Marine Enterprises’ while the category
of service-based enterprises, under which tourism
falls, accrued a comparatively smaller proportion
(4.42%). The largest proportion of Údarás financial
assistance to ‘Natural Resource & Marine
Enterprises’ (€3,137,418) was allocated to ten
large fish processing and fish farming companies,
yet the largest number of individual grants in
Iorras Aithneach (48) were issued through a
scheme to support small-scale fishers. This scheme
was discontinued, however, in 2003 due to its
infringement of EC fishing regulations (see
Macken-Walsh, 2009).
Iorras Aithneach: a strong local fishing culture
Qualitative research exercises, involving interviews,
focus groups and participant observation, were
conducted in Iorras Aithneach at various stages
throughout the period 2006-2008 to explore the
socio-cultural context of low engagement with
new rural enterprise supports. The research
exercises found that despite the local small-scale
fishing industry having gone into relative decline, a
strong local fishing culture remains in Iorras
Aithneach. A strong local fishing culture in the area
is also observed by Duggan (2004, p.10) who notes
that fishing represents a “distinct and coherent
collective occupational identity” in Carna, despite
only half of the 400 households at that time having
a full-time or regular fisher. It was also found that
references to a loss of local fishing culture and/or
threats to the maintenance of this culture featured
6
prominently in discussions of ‘rural development’.
By contrast, references to the types of rural
economic activities, which are at the core of
contemporary rural development initiatives, were
largely absent in the qualitative data collected for
this study. What is more, inhabitants interviewed
for this study gave evidence of being notably
disinclined towards establishing service-based and
processing enterprises, such as in the tourism and
artisan foods sectors.
Scored according to demographic profile; social
class composition; and labour market situation
DEDs in Iorras Aithneach range from
‘disadvantaged’ to ‘extremely disadvantaged’
(Galway Socio-Economic Profile, 2008). In a
context where there is a reliance social welfare
and medical benefits, willingness and capacity to
make capital investments in new enterprises is low.
Tenacity & Resistance
Tenacity in defending local fishing culture is
acknowledged to be a characteristic of small-scale
fishing communities internationally (McGoodwin,
2009). A strong local fishing culture is understood
as representing a way of life not only in economic
terms, but in social and cultural terms. Arguably,
the numerous campaigns in Iorras Aithneach to
protect local fishing culture, which involved
concerted local collective action on the part of the
whole community, have traditionally represented
the lynchpin of collective action in the area, thus
serving as the locus where the identity of the local
community has been defined (see Duggan, 2004;
Macken-Walsh, 2009). This strong identity and
associated forms of social capital have been
strongly rooted in fishing culture and now have
been to a significant extent immobilised. Current
‘threats’ to local fishing livelihoods are no longer
presented in ways that are tangible to the local
community, contemporaneously taking the form
of external, locally unmanageable forces. The
result is a disempowered community and from a
local development perspective, this has serious
repercussions for participatory forms of
contemporary rural development that rely on
strong community-based collective will (Bryden,
1991).
Iorras Aithneach: deserving of a ‘New Paradigm’?
In addition, the economic activities that have
emerged at the centrefold of contemporary rural
development activity are estranged from primary
small-scale fishing activities (see Macken-Walsh,
2009). Cultural tourism, artisan foods production
and recreation and leisure enterprises are often
centred on processing and service-based activities.
Small-scale fishing practices, on the other hand,
are driven by different forms of occupational
practices and skills. Reflecting the core
occupational fishing identity in Iorras Aithneach,
unique place-specific forms of shared knowledge
exist in the area, which are closely tied with
characteristics of the local physical environment
(local landscape and seascape) and with local
social culture. The variety of forms of place-based
local knowledge in Iorras Aithneach (ranging from
mariculture, to boat-building, to the arts),
correspond ideally with the cultural commodities
specified in the literature as central assets for
contemporary rural development. All of these
forms of social and cultural capital, however, have
failed to link up with the supports of contemporary
rural development initiatives, which are celebrated
in the literature as representing a panacea to the
development problems of marginalised yet
culturally-rich areas like Iorras Aithneach (see
Lowe et al, 1998).
‘New Paradigm’ Rural Development
A ‘new’ discourse has emerged in rural
development circles, one which acknowledges and
indeed criticises the estrangement that has arisen
between traditional enterprises in fishing and
agriculture and contemporary rural development
culture. This new discourse, called ‘New Paradigm’
Rural Development, argues for a ‘transformation
of the roles of agriculture [and fishing] in rural
development, moving them from peripheral and
dying to central activities in rural places’ (see
Tovey, 2006, p.173). Tovey (2006, p.173) argues in
favour of New Paradigm rural development as a
way of “restating rights and possibilities of rural
inhabitants to generate a livelihood for themselves
from a sustainable use of the natural, cultural and
social resources specific to their own rural locale”.
The New Paradigm policy model argues for a recentring of local primary food production at the
core of how rural development initiatives are
designed, and by such it ensues that policy
initiatives have the capacity to be more adoptable
on the part of the people who are expected to
operationalise / implement it (see Macken-Walsh,
in press; 2009). The ways in which ‘New Paradigm’
can be realised must be discovered through a
comprehensive appraisal of local resources as well
as drawing experience from international
examples where similar initiatives have become
operational (see Macken-Walsh, 2009).
Conclusion & Summary
Small-scale fishers in Iorras Aithneach are not
engaging with contemporary rural enterprise
supports and supports to small-scale fishers are
minimal/discontinued. Particular to small-scale
7
fishing culture is a remarkable tenacity that
prioritises social and cultural forms of capital,
making it resilient to policy stimuli that implicate a
change in occupational identity. However, the
emerging policy model of ‘New Paradigm Rural
Development’ presents new realisations of what a
strong local fishing culture has to offer to the
development of areas like Iorras Aithneach.
Ray, C. (2000), The EU LEADER Programme: rural
development laboratory, Sociologia Ruralis,
Volume 40, No. 2, pp. 163-171.
Tovey, H. (2006) New movement in old places?
The alternative food movement in rural Ireland, in
eds Connolly, L. and Hourigan, N. Social
Movements and Ireland, Manchester University
Press
References
Bryden, J.
(1991) A Rural Development
Perspective, North-West Scotland European
Heritage Area, Sabhal Mor Ostaig.
Galway Socio-Economic Profile, (2008), Galway
County Council.
Byrne, A., Edmondson, R., Fahy, K. (1993) Rural
Tourism and Cultural Identity in the West of
Ireland, in Barbara O’Connor and Michael Cronin
(eds) Tourism in Ireland: a Critical Analysis, Cork,
Cork University Press.
Duggan, C. (2004) Resistance to Globalisation in
the Context of Pluri-Activity, More Opportunities
or More Constraint? Paper delivered to the
Congress of the International Rural Sociology
Association (IRSA), July 25th-30th, Trondheim,
Norway, 2004.
Lowe, P., Ray, C., Ward, N., Wood, D., Woodward,
R. (1998) Participation in Rural Development: a
Review of European Experience, Centre for Rural
Economy (CRE), Research Report, University of
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, February 1998. ISBN: 1898655-44-8
Macken-Walsh, A. (in press), Governance, Rural
Development & Farmers’ Participation in Local
Food Movements: an Irish case-study, in eds. Torre,
A., Traversac J.B., Territorial Governance, Rural
Areas and Agrofood Systems, Springer, Spring
2010.
Macken-Walsh, A. (2009) Barriers to Change: a
sociological study of rural development in Ireland,
Teagasc,
ISBN:
1-84170-542-X.
http://www.teagasc.ie/research/reports/ruraldeve
lopment/5574/eopr-5574.pdf
Macken-Walsh (2009b) Governance, the Culture
Economy and the Problem of Authenticity, paper
presented to the XXII Congress of the European
Society of Rural Sociology, Vaasa, August 2009.
A., Traversac J.B., Territorial Governance, Rural
Areas
and
Agrofood
Systems,
Regional
Development Series, Springer, Spring 2010.
McGoodwin, J., (2001) Understanding the Cultures
of Fishing Communities: A Key to Fisheries
Management and Food Security, Food and
Agriculture Association (FAO) of the United
Nations, Fisheries Technical Paper 401, Rome 2001,
ISBN: 92-5-104606-9
8
Valuation of Marine Ecosystem Goods and Services and Man’s Impact on
European Seas
Helen Glenn, Premachandra Wattage, Simon Mardle , Thomas Van Rensburg,
Anthony Grehan, Naomi Foley
* Paper presented at the SEMRU seminar by Tom
van Rensburg
particularly, choice experiments is a critical part of
pre-project evaluation.
This paper presents the findings of an economic
assessment of the value of Marine Protected Areas
(MPAs) created to protect newly discovered deepsea corals off the coast of the Republic of Ireland.
Deep-water corals (DWC) have high intrinsic value
as an outstandingly example of European natural
marine heritage. In addition, they have an
important role in providing: spawning grounds and
refugia for juvenile fish of commercially important
fish species, a major source/sink of carbonate, a
potential paleo-climate indicator for global climate
change, a marine equivalent of rainforests (with
over 1300 species), a source of novel biocompounds for use in medicine and the
pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries.
Choice experiments were chosen over the
alternatives, reflecting their value added benefits,
notably their strong theoretical basis and the
ability to test different management scenarios and
elicit societal values. A survey was undertaken
using Discrete Choice experiments targeted at
measuring the (a) preferences of the Irish general
public for the protection of deep-sea cold water
corals using various possible scenarios of MPA and
(b) their willingness to pay.
Coral ecosystems are slow growing, fragile and
vulnerable to deep-water fisheries and offshore
development. It has been estimated that between
one third and a half of known deep-water coral
habitat in Norwegian waters has already been
impacted by trawling. Calls have been made for
the urgent implementation of conservation
measures.
There is a large literature which investigate
monetary valuation of goods and services
associated with shallow water corals (see for
example: Arin and Kramer, 2002; Park et al, 2002;
Bhat, 2003). There have been no such studies on
DWC. This study represents the first valuation
study to be conducted on DWC.
As part of PROTECT a Choice Experiment survey
was undertaken to help determine the economic
benefits of MPAs for deep-water corals. As in this
case study, the resources protected by MPAs often
have a potentially larger non-use value than use
(market) value. This non-use value requires
determination to help balance the costs and
benefits of MPA implementation. Reference to
environmental
valuation
techniques
and
The survey evaluated 3 attributes each with 3
levels –the level of fishing ACTIVITY allowed in the
MPA, the spatial extent of the MPA in terms of the
AREA of coral protected and the COST in terms of a
personal additional yearly tax to be paid by the
Irish public (€0, €1, €10). A full-factor design with
27 possible combinations of attributes and levels
reduced to 9 for presentation to recipients was
adopted using an orthogonal main effects design.
A postal questionnaire including contextual,
validation and socio-economic questions alongside
the choice experiment was piloted and sent out in
the summer of 2007. The response rate of over
500 gave a margin of error of < 5%. The
9
Conditional LogitPHREG procedure and a
Multinomial Logitmodel (the former models choice
relative to the attributes and levels of the good,
while the latter also takes onboard the personal
characteristics of the respondents) were utilised to
analyse the data.
Results indicate that the preferred combinations of
attributes were in order, to: (1) ban trawling in an
MPA that would include all areas where corals are
thought to exist with no personal tax imposed, (2)
ban trawling in an MPA covering all known corals
with a personal tax imposed of €1 p.a., (3) to ban
all fishing in an MPA covering all areas where
corals are thought to exist with a personal tax
imposed of €1 p.a. The findings of this study
provide advocates of coral MPAs stated
endorsement of their actions. They also enable
policy makers to estimate the level of support for
different management options and potentially use
the results as controls within a modelling context.
Acknowledgments
The research has been undertaken as part of the
EU 6th Framework funded project –“Marine
Protected areas as a tool for ecosystem
conservation
and
fisheries
management”
(PROTECT).
Figure 1: Irish cold water corals: estimates of attribute importance
10
Defining Standard Statistical Coastal Regions for Ireland
Stephen Hynes, SEMRU, NUI Galway
Introduction
The coastal regions of Ireland have been subject to
increasing pressures from the country’s rapid
economic development in recent years. This
development has consequent economic and
environmental implications for present and future
generations of Irish citizens and for Irish coastal
communities in particular. In order to develop a
policy framework for improving a national
approach to the management of coastal regions
one first needs to be able to define what is meant
by ‘a coastal region’ in an Irish context and
secondly be able to quantify how the socioeconomic characteristics of Irish coastal
populations and regions differ from a national
perspective.
This paper contains a range of official socioeconomic statistics, from a range of existing
statistical domains, compiled for the first time in
terms of Irish coastal regions. These coastal
regions are defined at a number of alternative
levels of spatial aggregation. The compilation of
such data is also important when one considers
the recommendations of the European Council and
Parliament concerning the implementation of
Integrated Coastal Zone Management and the
requirements of policies such as Integrated
Maritime Policy (IMP) for the European Union and
the EU Marine Framework Strategy Directive.
Definitions of a Coastal Region
The definition of the inland boundary of a coastal
region however can range from those that include
any area with a maritime climate no matter what
distance inland, or those that that include entire
watersheds to those that simply include the
immediate strip of shoreline adjacent to the coast.
As highlighted by Lamacchia and Bartlett (2003)
and adopted for use on coastal boundaries within
the EU-Demonstration Programme on Integrated
Coastal Zone Management 1997-1999 coastal
boundary criteria can be organized in to 3 main
categories: (i) geometrical-linear criteria, (ii) legaladministrative criteria (iii) and ecological-natural
system criteria. Utilitarian and perception based
boundary definitions could also be added to this
list.
An alternative definition of a coastal region that
might be used is that of Eurostat. Eurostat defines
EU coastal regions as standard statistical regions
(NUTS level 3), which have at least half of their
population within 50 km of the coast (Eurostat,
2009). The inland boundary of a country’s coastal
region or economy could also simply be confined
to some arbitrary distance from the coast. For
example, in a major report by the European
Environment Agency on the changing face of
Europe’s Coastal Regions, 10 kilometres is taken as
the inland boundary of the coastal zone. However,
as the EEA report points out, depending on the
distance used to classify a coastal zones extent
inland, estimates of coastal population and
economy statistics may differ substantially.
Defining Irelands Coastal Regions: Methodology
and Data
Following the spatial approach of the National
Ocean Economics Program (NOAP, 2007), the
definition of Ireland’s Coastal Region and Coastal
Economy is drawn up on the basis of a tiered
approach of the geography extending inland from
the shorelines of the oceans and seas surrounding
Ireland, as shown below.
Irish Coastal Regions Defined
Jurisdictions Extending Inland
by
Political
European NUTS III Coastal Region
Irish
Ocean
and
Seas
Coastal County
Shoreline
Electoral
Districts
Coastal Definition extending inland
A lot of data is collected in Ireland based on these
different administrative and political jurisdictions.
There is a large amount of socio-economic data
that is available in existing data portals in Ireland
that can be extracted at the different levels of
coastal spatial aggregation. Much of this data is
collected by the Irish Central Statistics Office and
published on an annual basis in its numerous
statistical releases. Other sources include the
Census of Population 2006 which provides data on
population, employment, principle economic
11
status, occupation and housing growth. The census
of agriculture classifies farms by physical size,
economic size, economic type and geographical
location. Other datasets that allow for the possible
extraction of coastal statistics down to the
Electoral District (ED) level include the Failte
Ireland’s tourism related data, An Post Geo
Directory and the National Farm Survey. In terms
of household income statistics and regional GDP
figures the data is only available down to the
coastal county and NUT 3 levels respectively.
In terms of regional income and GDP data, at the
level of the Coastal EU regions, the Dublin region
had the highest disposable income per person
(€23,226), being 12.3% above the State average in
2006. The GDP (valued at market prices) of the
Coastal EU regional economy in Ireland (€170,234
million) accounts for 96% of all production activity
in the state. Although not readily available from
any data portal, one can still produce estimates of
the value of the coastal economy at lower spatial
scales.
Socio-Economic Characterisation of Coastal
Regions in Ireland
The population density in coastal regions of Ireland
changes depending on what definition of the Irish
coast one uses. At the Irish EU coast (NUTS3) level
of aggregation the population density is 59
inhabitants per km². At the coastal county
definition it is 73 inhabitants per km² while at the
shoreline ED level it is 79 inhabitants per km².
The value of the coastal county economy can be
estimated based on the share of the value added
in production by the labour located in the coastal
counties. For example, in order to estimate a
coastal county’s share of the GDP valued at market
prices of the Coastal EU regional economy, the
proportion of the GDP for a given county could be
also be calculated based on the proportion of total
NUTS 3 wages and salaries paid in that county.
Since wages and salaries accounted for 58% of
GDP at factor cost in Ireland in 2006 (European
Commission, 2007), this method is seen as
providing a reasonable approximation of coastal
counties’ contribution to the relevant NUT3 GDP.
Based on this methodology we calculate the value
of the coastal county economy to be €149,371
million while the equivalent estimate of value of
the Shoreline ED economy is €44,394 million.
It is interesting to note that the unemployment
rates for males and females does not vary
dramatically either across coastal definition or
from the nation average for total EDs, counties or
NUTS 3 region. A similar story can be told in terms
of the percentage of people with third level
education and in the occupational categories of
higher and lower professionals and semi and
unskilled manual workers. As can be seen in figure
2 however, they do vary in terms of the spread of
the distribution of each variable across the regions
within the alternative spatial scales.
Conclusions
Scientists, regulators and commercial bodies need
reliable data if they are to contribute towards the
sustainable development of the Irish coastal and
maritime economy. Availability and easy access to
a wide range of natural and human-activity data
on the oceans and coastal regions of Europe is the
basis for strategic decision-making on coastal and
maritime policy. The paper describes on the
development of an information system that could
be used as a regulating, management and decision
making tool vis-à-vis development activities along
the coastal stretches of Ireland.
References
Eurostat (2009) Statistics in Focus – Agriculture
and Fishing, European Commission Report
47/2009.
Lamacchia, M. and Bartlett, D. (2003). Potential of
GIS in Coastal Boundaries Detection, CoastGIS
2003: Integrating Information on Coastal
Management. Genova , Italy , 16th – 18th October
2003.
12
The Economic Value of the Marine Sector in Ireland
Karyn Morrissey, SEMRU, NUI Galway
Introduction
Ireland has traditionally depended heavily on its
natural resources, particularly those related to the
agricultural sector. However, within this context
one sector has largely been neglected. Ireland’s
marine location and marine resources represent
an under-utilised asset-base that may be linked to
a broader spectrum of interlinked sectors across
the wider economy.
In 2005, the Marine Institute published Ireland’s
first economic report on the marine sector and it
estimated that the Irish marine economy was
worth €3 billion and supported approximately
22,000 full time equivalent jobs. The majority of
which are located in rural and coastal Ireland.
While the report was able to examine the national
level impact of the marine sector, data was not
available which would allow a socio-economic
review of the marine sector at the community
level. As such, little is known about the current
socio-economic
and
community-level
characteristics of the marine sector in Ireland.
Nearly two thirds of the total annual turnover of
the marine sector was contributed by marine
service companies (primarily shipping and
maritime transport firms) in 2003. Companies
involved in marine resources (primarily fishing,
aquaculture and seafood processing firms)
constituted the second largest sector. From Table
1, one can see that this sector accounted for more
than a quarter of total annual marine turnover.
Finally, a wide variety of marine manufacturing
companies generated approximately €116 million
in combined turnover and comprised the third
largest marine sector.
Given this background, the main objectives of this
paper is to outline a methodology which will
produce up-to-date estimates of the economic
contribution of the marine sector and its various
sub-sectors at the national level. Once a national
level value has been attributed to the marine
sector, the objective becomes one of estimating
and understanding the impact of the marine sector
at both the small area and individual level.
In February 2007 the government formally
adopted Sea Change: A Marine Knowledge
Research and Innovation Strategy for Ireland 20072013. This strategy aims to drive the development
of marine resources in Ireland in a manner that
contributes to the knowledge economy. As part of
Sea Change, research was funded thought the
Marine-NDP to examine the socio-economic
impact of the marine sector in Ireland. This paper
aims to outline the methodology that will be
employed as a means of placing an economic value
on the marine sector in Ireland at the national,
sub-sectoral and small area level.
The development of this methodology will provide
new insights into the performance of the marine
sector as a whole. Using an Input-Output/CGE
methodology, one can estimate the strength of the
linkages the marine sector has with other sectors
in the Irish economy. The impact of the marine
sector on output, income and employment will be
measured through the use of traditional inputoutput multipliers. This will provide a national
level estimate of the marine sector in Ireland.
Further analysis will be provided through detailed
sub-sector studies, which will further provide a
stand alone analysis for each of the sub-sectors.
The Marine Economy in Ireland
The marine economy may be divided into four
principal sectors. These sectors include; Marine
Resources, Marine Services, Marine Manufacturing
and Marine related Education & Research. These
four sectors may be further sub-divided into a
number of sub-sectors. The principal sectors and
the sub-sectors which they are comprised off are
provided in Table 1. Also included in Table 1 is the
economic turnover of each of these sectors and
sub-sectors.
Secondly, linking the national level input-output
model to a spatial microsimulation model will
produce micro-level estimates of the effect the
marine sector has at the individual and/or small
area level. Thus, the proposed methodology will
provide an insight into the marine sector that was
previously unattainable at both the national and
local level. Figure 1 provides a graphical overview
of the proposed methodology. This paper provides
an introduction to the first step of the proposed
methodology, through the introduction of inputoutput analysis.
13
Table 1: Turnover for each Sector and Sub-sector
of the Irish Marine Sector in 2003 (Sheilds et al.,
2005)
Sub-Sector
Sector
Irish Turnover 2003 (€m)
Services
1,275
Marine Tourism
Services
566
Ports
Services
-
Cruise Industry
Services
66
Auxiliary Services
Services
Shipping
TOTAL
-
Survey
Marine Sector
Input-Output Table
FTE Employment
Aggregate Net Impact of the Marine Sector/
Marine Sub-Sectors
Income
2,028
Offshore Oil & Gas
Resources
115
Seafood Processing
Resources
366
Fishing
Resources
210
Aquaculture
Resources
117
Seaweed
Resources
9
Renewable Energy
Resources
18
TOTAL
857
Other Marine Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Shipbuilding
Manufacturing
20
Marine IT
Manufacturing
69
Marine Biotechnology
Manufacturing
TOTAL
Education & Research
Education & Training
Education & Research
Purchases
CGE Model: calibrate I-O Tables within a
general equilibrate framework to reflect changes in prices, etc
Overcome Static Nature of I-O Table
Marine Wage &
Employment Distribution
Across space
Spatial Microsimulation Model
27
116
R&D
TOTAL
Figure 1: Graphical Overview of proposed
Methodology
3,001 Billion
Data Requirements
Previously, the main hindrances in providing an
analysis such as the one we hope to provide in this
paper, was the non-availability of data on the
marine sector in Ireland. The ability to develop
both a national and sub-national analysis of a
sector depends wholly on the level of data
available for that sector and/or sub-sector. With
regard to the marine sector, data is available
nationally at an aggregate 2-digit NACE level for a
number of sub-sectors (e.g. boat building and
water-based transport).
In other cases, (e.g. energy production, with
regard to natural gas), data at the four digit NACE
level is required. However, with a number of subsectors, even a four-digit NACE code is insufficient
(e.g. net production) as the products produced are
also used as inputs or outputs in other non-marine
sectors. A second issue that exists when for a
specific sector is that economic activity specific to
that sector may be only a portion of the outputs or
sales of a firm. With regard to the marine sector,
hotels for example may provide services to tourists
who solely use the beach, or tourists who are
attracted by other amenities in the area. Thus, the
marine component of the output of the hotel
cannot be distinguished from other sectors.
Data availability is therefore central to the
development of an I-O analysis. Generally, there
are three different data types that one may use in
the construction of an I-O table for a specific
industry.
Type I data is data which is available to the general
public. With regard to the marine sector this data
is generally confined to those sectors whose
connection to the sea/marine economy is clear
(e.g. boat building). Type II data is data set at a
level of detail that is not generally available to the
general public. Such datasets are usually
maintained by a country’s central statistics office
and access to this data requires special permission
(e.g. natural oil production). Type III data is data
that is not available in the public (or private)
domain. Therefore, data collection through survey
techniques is required (e.g. marine insurance).
This project will use each of the three data types
indicated above. Data on a number of sectors are
publicly available through the CSO at the two-digit
NACE level. Data on further sectors will be made
available at the discretion of the CSO at the fourdigit NACE level. However, with regard to a
number of sub-sectors, particularly the smaller
sub-sectors such as seaweed and renewable
energy, survey work will need to be carried out.
Conclusions
This paper proposes a methodology that will allow
policy-makers examine the impact of the marine
economy at both the national and local level. It
further allows an in-depth analysis of marine subsectors & the potential for the development of
niche markets. This may be achieved through the
development of a coherent impact analysis of
various sub-sectors (through an I-O/CGE
Framework). Such a framework will provide stakeholders with the relevant information regarding;
potential returns from investment, future
regulations requirements, R&D requirements and
importantly and the impact of the Marine sector
on the economy and across space.
14
Applying Indicators to Aspects of Coastal Management in Ireland
Cathal O’Mahony, Coastal and Marine Resources Centre, UCC
Introduction
The use of indicators to support improved coastal
management is established practice at the
European level, and follows international practice
in the design and use of indicator sets and
indicator-based information to measure progress
in relation to sustainable development. This
workshop paper introduces the European
dimension of indicator development for coastal
management, and summarises to what extent
indicators have been used in the context of coastal
management. In Ireland, integrated coastal zone
management (ICZM) has been (and continues to
be) delivered on a project basis; and it follows that
much of the associated research on indicator use
has been delivered in a similar manner. Drawing
upon the experiences of past projects and
appropriate case study material, the use of
indicators in Ireland for the purposes of
(integrated) coastal management will be outlined.
Experiences to date suggest that indicators are a
valuable tool for delivering a message on the state
of our coastal environments; however, limitations
of indicator sets can exist and they should also be
clearly understood. Issues and challenges in the
use of indicators for aspects of coastal
management are introduced, as well as
suggestions on potential actions to improve the
situation within scientific and practitioner
communities in Ireland.
Development of ICZM Indicators in Europe
The outcomes of the European Commission’s
Demonstration Programme on ICZM, which ran
from 1996 to 1999 (European Commission, 1999),
contributed to the publication of the
Recommendation concerning the implementation
of integrated coastal zone management in Europe
(European Parliament and Council, 2002), the most
significant policy instrument supporting ICZM in
Member States to date. Parallel to the publication
of the Recommendation was the formation of an
EU ICZM Expert Group (comprising representatives
from each Member State). Under the mandate of
the Expert Group, a Working Group on Indicators
and Data (WG-ID) was established in 2002 to
advise on methods of assessing progress towards
the strategic goal of a more sustainable future for
Europe’s coastal zones. In response, two indicator
sets were developed:
• An indicator measuring progress in the
implementation of ICZM (the ‘progress indicators’);
and,
• A set of 27 indicators of sustainable
development of the coastal zone (the
‘sustainability indicators’).
These two indicator sets were to form the basis for
measuring the extent to which European Member
States plan and manage their coastal resources in
a sustainable and integrated manner.
Through the activities of European organisation’s
such as the European Environment Agency (EEA),
coupled with the work programmes of a range of
projects, (e.g. Coastal and Research Policy
Integration - COREPOINT, Développement Durable
des Côtes Européennes - DEDUCE, Schéma
d'Aménagement Intégré du Littoral - SAIL) the
‘progress’ and ‘sustainability’ indicator sets were
trialled and tested with a view to identify issues
outstanding in relation to their application.
Simultaneously, a range of other research
initiatives were investigating the application of
indicators coastal activities in Europe. For example,
the Coastal Practice Network (CoPraNet) focused
on developing indicators for sustainable tourism in
coastal environments (O’Mahony et al., 2009).
Other examples include the EUROSION (indicators
linked to coastal erosion) and the VASAB
(indicators for spatial planning) projects. Much the
work on indicator trialling and testing had an Irish
component, incorporated through participation of
Irish partners, and inclusion of Irish based study
sites, in some of the collaborative projects in
question (e.g. COREPOINT and CoPraNet). This
corpus of investigation resulted in a range of key
issues being identified in relation to use of
indicators
for (integrated)
coastal zone
management at pan-European to local / study site
levels.
Issues – Indicators and Coastal Management
Whether indicator sets were intended for panEuropean, national, or sub-national use, or for the
purposes of integrated or sectoral coastal
management, a number of common issues
became evident. These can be broadly categorised
under the following headings:
15
• Scale – can the temporal and spatial
requirements be met to ensure the robustness of
the indicator-based assessment in question?
• Semantics – an important fulfilment of
indicators is that they deliver a clear message; are
we communicating a common message in a
coherent manner?
• Standards – in relation to data collection, and
data used to underpin the application of a
particular indicator set; have metadata standards
been incorporated?
• Scrutiny – are indicator sets revisited to
establish if they are still fulfilling the purposes for
which they were originally intended?
The issue of scale (spatial and temporal) can
present a challenge to those utilising indicators as
a tool for coastal planning and management.
Datasets can vary in spatial and temporal extent,
which can pose difficulties for specific sites as well
as for comparisons across multiple sites, i.e. as
part of a regional, national or European initiative.
For local scale assessment it can often be
problematic obtaining data for certain indicators at
the local level, due to data not being recorded
/absent in the first instance, or as a result of the
regional amalgamation of datasets whereby the
local identity is lost.
Further difficulties can arise when attempting to
scale up/down data; as well as the implications of
using a short time series data set to illustrate a
trend or progress. Therefore, when indicatorbased assessments are used as a means to: 1)
monitor progress in sustainable development; and
2) communicate this progress to stakeholders, it is
important that the scale of the indicator(s) being
used is clearly defined and the message being
conveyed is framed in a temporal context
(O’Mahony et al., 2009).
Indicators for Coastal Management in Ireland
While the aforementioned issues are also relevant
to the use of indicators for coastal management in
Ireland, (e.g. data (environmental and socioeconomic) availability remains poor in certain
instances), there are also a number of country
specific issues that pose challenges, and may need
to be considered.
There are numerous examples of successful
application of indicators for coastal management
in Ireland, e.g. the Blue Flag Programme for
assessment of bathing water quality, use of
indicators as a means of ensuring compliance with
the EU Water Framework Directive and OSPAR
Convention for the Protection of the Marine
Environment of North East Atlantic. However,
national application of indicators for integrated
coastal zone management remains elusive,
possibly due to absence of policy / regulatory
regime for ICZM. As is the case for many indicator
sets, the availability and accessibility of data is
influenced by the presence or absence of a
regulatory regime that requires collection of such
data for the purposes of compliance and
enforcement.
Recommendations
Investigation of the use of indicators for
(integrated) coastal zone management via
research and project-based initiatives, coupled
with the expertise of organisations compiling
datasets, (e.g. Marine Institute, Environmental
Protection Agency) offers real potential for
developing robust indicator sets for application to
aspects of coastal management in Ireland.
Challenges for coastal management and planning
remain; emerging challenges such as climate
change will require robust data collection for
monitoring of impacts, thus there is a clear role for
indicators. Where our understanding (or data to
support understanding) is deficient, should act as a
catalyst for exploring opportunities for closer
collaboration across scientific disciplines, and
between scientific, practitioner and policy
communities.
References
European Commission (1999). Lessons from the
European
Commission’s
Demonstration
Programme on Integrated Coastal Zone
Management (ICZM). Office for Official
Publications European Communities, Luxembourg.
European Parliament and Council (2002).
Recommendation of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 30th May 2002 Concerning the
Implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone
Management in Europe (2002/413/EC). Official
Journal of the European Communities, 2002:24-7.
O’Mahony C, Ferreira M, Fernandez-Palacios Y,
Cummins V, and Haroun R. (2009). Data availability
and accessibility for sustainable tourism: An
assessment involving different European coastal
tourism destinations. Journal of Coastal Research,
Vol. SI 56, 1135 – 1139.
Pickaver AH, Gilbert C, and Breton F. (2004). An
indicator set to measure the progress in the
implementation of ICZM in Europe. Ocean and
Coastal Management, Vol. 47, 449-462.
16
The socio-economic cost of jellyfish to Ireland?
Thomas K Doyle, CMRC, University College Cork
Introduction
Jellyfish are one of the most conspicuous members
of our coastal fauna. Once considered unimportant,
they are now known to play increasingly significant
roles in coastal ecosystems and processes. This
shift in awareness has been driven by the
propensity of jellyfish to cause nuisance blooms,
with potentially severe negative impacts on the
tourism, fishery and energy sectors. Examples of
such impacts abound and include; 21,000 people
being stung and treated on the beaches of
Catalonian in 2006; a population explosion of giant
jellyfish caused severe damage to fisheries in
Japan in 2003 and 2004, clogging and bursting
fishing nets; and in California during 2008, a bloom
of jellyfish forced operators of a nuclear power
station to take one reactor offline and reduce the
other to half power. Such dramatic socio-economic
impacts are mirrored in our own waters and are
reviewed here.
Figure 1: The Barrel jellyfish © Thomas Doyle
1. Painful stings of jellyfish. Jellyfish stings can
cause discomfort and often require treatment by
local GP or may occasionally require
hospitalisation of patient.
2. Beach closures. In Irish waters the closure of a
beach as a result of jellyfish is a rare occurrence,
but it has happened twice (1995 and 2005). During
the latter event beaches from Dun Laoghaire to
Wicklow were closed for a period of at least a
week when enormous numbers of the Lion’s Mane
jellyfish were found in coastal waters causing
numerous bathers to be stung and several
hospitalised.
3. Avoidance of beach. Bathers may avoid or
cancel a trip to the beach because of
misinformation generated by the media. For
example, in 2005 large numbers of the Compass
jellyfish (Chrysaora hysoscella) washed up on
Banna Strand, Co. Kerry. The media reported this
event as ‘killer jellyfish arrive on Kerry coasts via
the Gulf Stream’. Such headlines create fear that it
is dangerous to swim in coastal waters, particularly
amongst parents who are concerned about their
children swimming.
4. Cancelation of open water races. Open water
swimmers can cancel/postpone swimming races if
large numbers of the Lion’s Mane jellyfish are
spotted in the Dublin area. At other times, large
numbers of open water swimmers can be stung
during a race.
Jellyfish impacts on fisheries
Jellyfish can impact directly on the fish (e.g.
predation of fish larvae) or may impact directly on
fishermen and their gear.
Jellyfish impacts on tourism/recreation
The most obvious negative impact of jellyfish is
their ability to sting bathers. Although all jellyfish
can sting, only certain species are capable of
injuring humans. In Irish waters there are
principally three really venomous species: the
Portuguese Man-O-War (Physalia physalis), the
Lion’s Mane (Cyanea capillata), and the Mauve
Stinger (Pelagia noctiluca) (in order of most
venomous first). Economically, the Lion’s Mane is
the most important as it indigenous and is locally
abundant in the Dublin area. Such venomous
jellyfish can impact on the economy by:
1. Predation. Many jellyfish species feed on the
eggs and larvae of commercially valuable fish
species. For example, one individual Aurelia aurita
was found to have 68 individual herring larvae in
its gut (Moller, 1984).
2. Competition for food. Indirectly, fisheries may
suffer because jellyfish compete with fish for the
same food (zooplankton).
3. Increased labour and physical damage to fishing
gear. Large catches of jellyfish may clog and even
burst nets. Such nets need to be repaired. The Irish
Nephrops fishing industry in the Irish Sea and in
Galway Bay often experience large catches of
jellyfish in their trawls that result in increased
17
labour (e.g. removing jellyfish from nets) and often
lead to loss of their valuable catch.
4. Painful stings of jellyfish. Fishermen get stung in
the hands/eyes when hauling in nets or pots. Some
fishermen have reported taking eye drops to
alleviate the pain during peak jellyfish abundance.
5. Avoidance of fishing grounds. Fishermen can
avoid favoured fishing grounds because jellyfish
can be so abundant there.
Jellyfish impacts on aquaculture
Jellyfish may have large socio-economic impacts
on the aquaculture industry. For example, in 2007,
Northern Ireland’s only salmon farm was closed
when its entire fish stock was killed by a bloom of
jellyfish. However, there are many other less
obvious impacts on the aquaculture industry:
1. Finfish mortalities. Jellyfish can cause gill
problems or skin lesions in farmed finfish that may
result in large mortalities e.g. 250,000 salmon
were lost in Northern Ireland in 2007 (estimated
cost was £1 million) (Doyle et al 2008); jellyfish are
also thought responsible for the major fish kill in
2003 off Donegal where over 1 million salmon died.
2. Biofouling. Growth (biofouling) of jellyfish
hydroids (benthic stage) on finfish cages may be
associated with gill problems, and may cause
decreased flow rates of water through the cages.
3. Stimulate red tides. Rhizostome jellyfish that
occur in eutrophic waters may increase the
prevalence of red tides (Pitt et al 2007). Red tides
can then cause the temporary closure of mussel
and oyster farms. For example, the barrel jellyfish
(a rhizostome species) occurs between Rosslare
and Wexford Harbours in close proximity to a large
mussel industry.
Jellyfish impacts on the energy sector
Although very rare, the closure of nuclear power
station in Scotland in 1992, and the shutting down
of a nuclear reactor in America in 2008, highlights
the threat of jellyfish to the energy sector.
1. Closure of power stations. Although there are
no nuclear power stations in Ireland, there are
many coastal industries and electrical generating
power stations that could suffer down time and
associated costs if their cooling systems were
blocked by jellyfish.
Impacts of invasive species
There are many examples of invasive jellyfish
species causing detrimental impacts to coastal
economies.
The
invasive
comb
jellyfish
Mnemiopsis caused major impacts on the Black
Sea ecosystem, particularly on the fisheries (Kideys
2002). It was recently found in the North Sea and
is present right across the Mediterranean. Some
experts consider that it’s only a matter of time
before Mnemiopsis is introduced into Irish waters
via ballast waters.
A jellyfish industry in Ireland?
A few large jellyfish species are an important food
item in Asian. These jellyfish are also considered to
have medicinal benefits (cure for arthritis) and to
be a good diet food. Ireland has one rhizostome
species, the barrel jellyfish (Rhizostoma octopus),
that grows up to 35 kg wet weight. The barrel
jellyfish is found in high densities between
Rosslare and Wexford harbours. Whether it is
sustainable to fish and economically viable to
export to Asian is unknown.
Figure 2: Lion’s Mane jellyfish ©Patricia Byrne
Conclusions
Although it is difficult to estimate the cost of
jellyfish impacts on the Irish economy, these
impacts are very real. Unfortunately, with
continued over-fishing, increased eutrophication
and warming seas, the likelihood is that the
frequency and severity of such jellyfish bloom
events will continue to increase – as will their
subsequent socio-economic impacts.
References
Doyle, T. K. and others 2008. Widespread
occurrence of the jellyfish Pelagia noctiluca in Irish
coastal and shelf waters. Journal of Plankton
Research 30: 963-968.
Kideys A. E. 2002. Fall and rise of the Black Sea
ecosystem. Science 297
Moller, H. 1984. Reduction of larval herring
population by jellyfish predator. Science 224: 621622.
Pitt, K. A., Kingsford, M. J., Rissik, D. & Koop K.
2008. Jellyfish modify the response of planktonic
assemblages to nutrient pulses. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 351: 1–13.
18
Impact of Changing Personal Values on the Consumption of Seafood
Ann Walsh, Marketing, SEMRU, NUI Galway
Introduction
Generating total annual revenues of over €702
million and providing direct employment for some
11,665 people, the Irish seafood industry is a vital
indigenous industry, making a significant
contribution to the economy in terms of output,
employment and exports.
This sector is
enormously important to the regional and local
development in remote rural coastal communities
(Cawley et al 2006).
Concern over declining fish stocks currently
dominates
discussions
among
industry
stakeholders, 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. According
to “Steering a New Course, Strategy for a
Restructured, Sustainable and Profitable Irish
Seafood Industry 2007 – 2013” (Cawley et al 2006),
the shortage of raw material and access to imports
will be critical in determining the potential growth
of this sector.
Need for Marketing Strategies, Innovation & NPD
According to Cawley et al (2006), marketing is a
key weakness within the Irish Seafood Sector, one
that holds the sector back significantly. In an era of
declining quotas and strict compliance, the key
challenge facing the Irish seafood industry, is to
develop sales and marketing strategies which will
enable the maximum possible value to be derived
from each tonne of fish landed (Cawley et al 2006).
While this will require critical supply chain
weaknesses to be addressed, the strategy goes on
to state that there is a greatly enhanced need for
innovation and new product development
performance (Cawley et al 2006).
Values and Consumption
Being market oriented centres on having an indepth understanding of the customer, in order to
meet or exceed the needs of the target market
better than the competition (Moloney et al, 2005).
A person’s set of values plays a very important role
in their consumption activities, since many
products and services are purchased because (it is
believed) they will help us to attain a value-related
goal (Solomon et al 2010). The pervasive role of
values in all aspects of human life has motivated
empirical investigations in a number of social
science disciplines including sociology, psychology,
anthropology and marketing. This is because
values are both a powerful explanation of and
influence on human behaviour (Homer and Kahle,
1988).
Sustainability: A New Core Value
Solomon et al (2010) acknowledge ‘Sustainability’
as a new core value. Sustainability has been
characterised as meeting the needs of the current
generation without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their needs (Kilbourne,
2008). Marketers in the US point to a segment of
consumers who actively practice ‘lifestyles of
health and sustainability (LOHAS) Solomon et al
(2010). One organisation that tracks this group
estimates that they make up about 16% of the
adults in the US, or 35 million people and rising.
This study aims to assess the impact of
Sustainability as a core value, on food
consumption patterns with a focus on seafood
consumption. The investigation into sustainability
will be in the context of the field of marketing
relating specifically to Consumer Behaviour.
Ultimately the author will attempt to describe the
relevance of changing values to those involved in
marketing, innovation and NPD in the Irish
Seafood Sector.
References:
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”
Homer, Pamela M. and Kahle, Lynn R. (1988) “A
Structural Equation of the Value-AttitudeBehaviour Hierarchy” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54(4) 638-646
Kilbourne, William E. (2008) ‘Editorial’ Journal of
Macromarketing 28(3), 308
Moloney, S., Fahy, J. and McAleer S. (2005) Market
Orientation: A Study in the Irish Context. Irish
Management Institute, 41 - 60.
Solomon, M., Bamossy, G., Askegaard, S., Hogg, M.,
Consumer Behaviour A European Perspective (2010)
th
4 Ed. Prentice Hall.
19
An analysis of regulatory constraints on the development of the
marine economy
Benjamin Breen, SEMRU, NUI Galway
Introduction
Investigating the affect of alternative regulation
strategies on the development of the marine
sector in Ireland and addressing ways of mitigating
any negative impacts is the principal thrust of this
work programme. Notably, given the social and
economic importance of the fishing industry in
Ireland, it will be featured as a core focus of the
study.
Many fisheries scientists believe that world
fisheries are in crisis. In addition, the shortcomings
of single species models for predicting fish stock
dynamics are now heavily documented. This has
lead marine scientists to stress the need for
ecosystem based approaches to fisheries
management and also, given the difficulties
associated with modelling complex marine
ecosystems, a Precautionary Approach in deciding
optimal exploitation levels of fish stocks. These
approaches are part of a trend in fisheries science
to acknowledge the need for a greater
consideration of risk in managing fisheries.
These calls are controversial due to their failure to
treat any socio-economic factors in determining
the objectives and impacts of protective legislation.
Such omissions can greatly reduce the likelihood
that policies will achieve their stated goals because
they ignore fisher behaviour, incentives and
responses to such stimuli. Additionally, strict
approaches focused on resource protection alone
ignore the economic hardships imposed upon the
fishing community, and therefore, have be
identified a risks to the fishing community.
Consideration of Risks through Portfolio Theory
Framework
Numerous
studies
have
suggested
or
demonstrated an application of portfolio theory to
fisheries management scenarios as a risk
management tool. Many of these studies focused
on one specific type of risk, for example, whether
the risks jeopardized the resource or the fishing
community. The intention of this study project is
to use the portfolio framework to take steps
towards integrating the various objectives, such as
more
precautionary
measures,
increased
consideration of risks to fishing communities and
an ecosystem approach.
Example: main intended application of Portfolio
Theory
One example of how portfolio theory may be
applied is by treating individual fish species
targeted by Irish fishermen as assets, and
observing how fluctuations in catches and prices
are inter-related over time. In financial asset
management, the historical inter-relatedness of
financial assets is used to create the portfolio with
the lowest risk profile relative to return.
Observing how the portfolio of fish stocks are
affected by fishing effort and legislation as
opposed to looking at species in isolation is a step
towards considering policy and fishing strategy
from a multi-species perspective, and may deliver
insights into how different fish assets can be
targeted differently to increase revenues and
reduce risk in the long run. This will be particularly
true for species which have an ecological
relationship such as predator-prey or food
competition, and for species which are caught
using the same harvest technologies and gear.
Findings may have connotations for subjects
already highly relevant and current to fisheries and
natural resource management. For example, if
benefits can be shown, how do we create
incentives for fishermen to comprehend the long
term value of the assets such that exploitation
intensity might be reduced voluntarily? The topic
of rights based management, which makes fishers
the beneficiaries of forfeiting current exploitation,
is therefore an important one which will be woven
into considerations of portfolio approaches to
fisheries. Also, legislation which unnecessarily
curtails fishing effort or prevents fishers from
diversifying their risks will also be scrutinised. For
example single species licensing prevents such risk
management behaviour in fishers, and has also
been shown to exacerbate overexploitation of
targeted fish species because it removes the ability
of fishers to target something less scarce.
20
Tacit Knowledge of Fishers: Celtic Sea Cod Case Study
Emma Martin, Dept. Political Science and Sociology, NUI Galway
Introduction
This PhD commenced in September 2009 as part of
the project ‘The establishment and application of
protocols to capture, collate and integrate the
tacit knowledge in the fishing industry for use in
the scientific assessment, advisory and fisheries
management process’, funded by the Marine
Institute via the NDP Marine Research SubProgramme 2007-2013.
Edward Hind has also been conducting a PhD as
part of this project for the past year. The abstract
of his case study of the Nephrops fishery in Galway
outlines the basic rationale; that fishers have
substantial knowledge of the systems in which
they work and this could and should be used in
management, and we need to continue developing
ways in which it can be collated and utilised (see
page ?).
Celtic Sea Cod Case Study
This second case study focusing on the cod fishery
in the Celtic Sea is particularly relevant because
fishers and scientists hold quite divergent views on
the status of the stocks. Scientific advice has
consistently recommended reductions in fishing
mortality, which has resulted in progressive
reductions in cod quota, and the Scientific,
Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries
(STECF) has classified the stock as being ‘outside
safe biological limits’. In contrast, fishers
organisations maintain that the stocks are more
abundant than this and widespread.
There are issues to be aware of when considering
these two narratives. In terms of the scientific
advice, a certain level of uncertainty is
acknowledged, due mainly to poor quality landings
data; it is known that a high level of discarding,
underreporting and area misreporting of catches
occurs in the Celtic Sea, biasing the data. In terms
of fishers’ knowledge, it has been suggested that
their sense that cod is abundant may be due to a
phenomenon known as hyper-aggregation. This is
when remaining stocks become concentrated in
particular areas so that local densities increase,
while the actual overall biomass of the stock is
decreasing, and it has been hypothesised as a core
reason behind the collapse of the cod stocks in
Newfoundland (Rose and Kulka 1999).
The divergence of these narratives is particularly
pertinent because it has been proposed to either
include the Celtic Sea in the recovery plan for cod
operating in the Irish Sea, or at the least develop a
formal management plan for the stock. In order
for management to be effective, arguably there
needs to be a resolution between the two
viewpoints. The scientific viewpoint is quite well
understood, but the opposing narrative of the
fishers remains systematically unexplored.
Documentation of their knowledge may facilitate
better dialogue and understanding between the
two narratives and perhaps reveal ways to map a
middle ground.
In addition, documentation of fishers’ knowledge
is considered important because the project
rationale hypothesises that fishers may have some
new and interesting knowledge, which could be
relevant to the assessment of the stock and
contribute in a concrete way to the development
of an effective management plan.
Methodology and Work Plan
Semi-structured interviews and maps will be used
to elicit a greater amount and depth of knowledge
and record spatial information. The data will
mainly be qualitative, but it is hoped some
quantitative data can be obtained, e.g. on catch
quantities and fish length.
Fishers operating in the relevant métier, fishers
identified as being particularly knowledgeable and
older fishers will be actively targeted to gain a
representative and as in depth as possible picture
of the fishery over time.
As the Celtic Sea is such a large area the initial aim
is to comprehensively cover the fishing activity of
Irish boats. Some interviewing has begun in
Dunmore East, Waterford, and will continue along
the south coast over the next 5-6 months. Fishers
based in other locations around Ireland, and
eventually the UK, will be targeted at a later stage.
References
G. A. Rose and D. W. Kulka (1999). Hyperaggregation of fish and fisheries: how catch-perunit-effort increased as the northern cod (Gadus
morhua) declined, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56
(Suppl. 1): 118–127.
21
Economic Evaluation of Marine Renewable Energy
Niall Farrell, SEMRU, NUI Galway
Introduction
In order for Ireland to achieve a sustainable
electricity supply, taking advantage of its marine
resource will be of great importance. It is the
purpose of this research to analyse the extent to
which offshore wind, wave and tidal generation
can efficiently contribute to Ireland’s renewable
electricity goals. At the individual investor level,
financial and institutional requirements have
created barriers which may hinder development.
Furthermore, it is unknown how the deployment
of offshore installations may affect the economy at
a regional level. It is through the process of
creating a spatial microsimulation of the Irish
electricity market that an analysis of these issues
may be carried out.
Primary Objective of Research
The primary focus of this research is the
development of a spatially disaggregated
microsimulation model of the Irish electricity
market. This is carried out by augmenting the
Teagasc Spatial Microsimulation of the Irish Local
Economy (SMILE) model to incorporate the
demand and supply of electricity. This model
creates a geo-referenced, attribute-rich profile of
individuals and households at ED (Electoral District)
level. This particular project will generate
electricity consumption data within the SMILE
dataset to create a profile of household demand
for energy at the small area level. This demand
profile will be a key in creating a profile of required
levels of electricity supply. The proposed model of
electricity supply will comprise of conventional
thermal generation along with onshore and
offshore renewables. The disaggregation of
offshore renewables will be given particular
attention and will be coupled with an analysis of
investment prospects under uncertainty.
Analysis of Investment
A traditional assessment of investment decisions
would assume that volatilities related to project
cash flows are constant. It has been suggested,
however, that this may not be the case for longlived assets, as discussed by Black and Scholes
(1973, p. 652). Uncertainties in relation to future
policy, financing, application procedure, grid
connection and the adequacy of future returns are
amongst the volatilities which have influenced the
deployment of offshore renewables to date. This
research will analyse the affect that these barriers
are having on the deployment of offshore
renewables, by incorporating uncertainty on
returns into the investment decision.
In doing so, a real options approach will be applied.
‘Real Options’ have been defined as the collection
of options which allow management to revise
future actions due to uncertain future conditions.
A real options approach trades off in continuous
time the Present Value of immediate investment
with the respective costs, incorporating the value
of ‘waiting to invest’ in this decision. By employing
this methodology, a timeline of when each
prospective project becomes economically
attractive may be approximated. By combining this
with a scenario analysis, the affect that different
policy conditions may have on the investment
decision may be gauged.
Analysis of Downstream Socio-Economic Effects
Once a timeline of investment has been
approximated, the resulting affects on the local
economy will be assessed. Incorporating the inputoutput analysis which is currently being carried out
by my colleague Karyn Morrissey, the downstream
impacts of each policy scenario will be assessed.
This will be carried out at a local level, utilising the
spatial framework of SMILE. Using the SMILE
framework one can examine the socio-economic
impact of marine renewables at both the
individual and small area level. The constituent
parts of this project therefore combine to form an
analysis of the economic and social contribution of
offshore renewables at the firm, individual and
community level.
Conclusion
This project provides a comprehensive assessment
of how offshore renewable energy may contribute
to the development of the Irish economy. In doing
so, both the role it may play in achieving stated
policy targets, along with regional downstream
affects, will be assessed. Furthermore, a
framework is created which will allow for future
renewable energy related policy analysis.
References
Black, F., Scholes, M., 1973. The pricing of options
and corporate liabilities. Journal of Political
Economy, 81, pp.637–659.
22
Exploring the Social Sustainability of Aquaculture.
Peter Cush
Introduction
Aquaculture has been cited as one of the only long
term employment alternatives outside of
agriculture for the coastal communities of the
west of Ireland. In terms of rural development
Phyne (2009) suggests that the sustainability of
aquaculture is dependent on the balance of three
variables. The first refers to environmental
integrity where aquaculture industries must
ensure that the resource is not over exploited or
depleted. Secondly aquaculture must provide a
certain degree of local employment if it is to be
perceived of as viable. It is also important that
local people are given the power to develop
aquaculture themselves through small scale
enterprises. This is to ensure that aquaculture
remains within the paradigm of bottom-up
balanced local development. Thirdly an
aquaculture industry must be able to up-skill and
meet the demands of the market. This study will
examine such issues through an ethnographic
study of mussel farming in Killary harbour, North
West Connemara.
Mussel Farming
This project will apply the literature on common
pool resource management to the case of Killary.
This will be used to examine whether farmers have
managed to sustain the local resource. As with
many natural resources mussel farming requires
an appreciation of the vulnerable nature of the
local ecology. Shellfish rely on natural settlements
of phytoplankton from the sea and detritus
provided by the surrounding rivers and lakes.
Consequently mussel farming in such a delicate
natural environment must be controlled and
managed in a sustainable fashion.
The difficulty with managing local resources in
North West Connemara is that the area has had an
historical association with rural poverty and outmigration (Byrne 1991). Mussel farming is
considered an ideal source of local employment
and micro business due to the low barriers of entry.
It is believed that entry in to the industry should
be done on the basis of social equity where each
interested local party is given an opportunity to
develop their own mussel farm. However such an
interest must be matched by an equal
consideration of the sustainability of the resource.
Such a balance can be a difficult process.
On top of striking a balance between
environmental integrity and social equity, mussel
farmers must also pay significant attention to the
nature of the global food market. There is much
suggestion in the literature that the food market is
structured in an oligopolistic fashion by a vertical
supply chain. In this chain the large scale retailers
and processors sit to the fore of the chain while
the small scale producers exist on the bottom. The
literature argues that the large scale retailers and
processors act as executive governors setting
standards on price, quality and increasing amount
of food safety laws. This vertical supply chain
forces the small scale producers in to a dependent
relationship where they must consistently up-skill
to meet the standards set by the larger retailers
(Larner and Heron 2004).
This means that on top of balancing environmental
integrity and social equity, small scale mussel
farmers must survive in an increasing globalised
market where the guys at the top set the
standards for those at the bottom. The purpose of
this research project is to tease out such issues
and examine the real effect this has on people
whose livelihoods depend on aquaculture. This is
all to be considered in the wider debate of
understanding whether aquaculture is a
sustainable industry for many of those on the
margins in rural Ireland.
References
Byrne, A. (1991). “North West Connemara: A
Baseline Study of Poverty” Letterfrack: Report to
FORUM (North and West Connemara Rural Project
Ltd).
Larner, W. and R. Le Heron. (2004) "Global
benchmarking: participating ‘at a distance’ in the
globalizing economy." In: Larner, W., Walters, W.
(Eds.), Global Governmentality: Governing
International Spaces. Routledge, London, New
York, pp. 212–232
Phyne, J. (2009). “Exploring the Social
Sustainability of Irish Aquaculture” In McDonagh,
J., Varley, T. and S. Shortall (Eds) A living
Countryside: The Politics of Sustainable
Development in Rural Ireland. Burlington: Ashgate
Publications.
23
Annex 1
Beaufort Marine Socio-Economic Workshop Agenda
Registration
9.15 -9.45
Session 1.
9.45 - 10.00
10.00 - 10.30
10.30 - 11.00
11.00 - 11.30
11.30 - 11.45
Session 2.
11.45 - 12.15
12.15 - 12.45
12.45 - 1.15
1.15 - 2.15
Session 3.
2.15 - 2.45
2.45 - 3.15
3.15 - 3.45
3.45 – 4.00
Registration
Chairperson: Dr. Michael O’Toole
Introduction and overview of Beaufort Socio-Economic Marine
Research Award
- Professor Michael Cuddy, NUI Galway
Defining Standard Statistical Coastal Regions for Ireland
- Dr. Stephen Hynes, SEMRU, NUI Galway
Fishers: Scientists, Sociologists, Economists, Politicians and Marine
Managers
- Edward Hind, Depart. of Political Science & Sociology, NUI Galway
Is Fishing Culture a ‘Barrier’ to Contemporary Rural Development?
- Dr. Aine Macken Walsh, RERC Teagasc
Tea/Coffee
Chairperson: Professor Michael Cuddy
The Economics of the Marine Sector in Ireland
- Dr. Karyn Morrissey, SEMRU, NUI Galway
Applying Indicators to Aspects of Coastal Management in Ireland
- Dr Cathal O'Mahony, Coastal & Marine Resources Centre, University
College Cork
PhD work program in SEMRU
PhD students: Benjamin Breen, Peter Cush, Niall Farrell, Emma Martin
and Ann Walsh
Lunch
Chairperson: Geoffrey O’Sullivan
The Socio-Economic Impacts of Jellyfish in Ireland
- Dr. Thomas Doyle, Coastal & Marine Resources Centre, University
College Cork
Valuation of Marine Ecosystem Goods and Services and Man’s
Impact on European Seas
- Dr. Tom van Rensburg, Department of Economics, NUI Galway
Economic Recession – Good News for the Coast?
- Dr. John McKenna, School of Environmental Sciences, University of
Ulster
Open Discussion on Marine Socio-Economic Research In Ireland
24
Annex 2
Workshop Participants
Name
Organisation
Email
Trevor Alcorn
Marine Institute
trevor.alcorn@marine.ie
Fergal Barry
Seamus Breathnach
NUI, Galway
Bord Iascaigh Mhara
f.j.barry@gmail.com
breathnach@bim.ie
Peter Cush
Michael Cuddy
NUI, Galway
NUI, Galway
p.cush2@nuigalway.ie
michaelcuddy@eircom.net
Thomas Doyle
Maeve Edwards
University College Cork
NUI, Galway
t.doyle@ucc.ie
maeve.edwards@nuigalway.ie
Richard FitzGerald
Brendan Flynn
NUI, Galway
NUI, Galway
richard.fitzgerald@nuigalway.ie
brendan.flynn@nuigalway.ie
Norman Graham
Edward Hind
Marine Institute
NUI, Galway
norman.graham@marine.ie
e.hind1@nuigalway.ie
John Hyland
Stephen Hynes
NUI, Galway
SEMRU, NUI, Galway
john.hyland@nuigalway.ie
stephen.hynes@nuigalway.ie
Emmet Jackson
John Joyce
Bord Iascaigh Mhara
Marine Institute
jackson@bim.ie
john.joyce@marine.ie
Sarah Kraak
Aine Macken Walsh
University College Cork
RERC, Teagasc
sarah.kraak@marine.ie
Aine.MackenWalsh@teagasc.ie
Emma Martin
John McKenna
NUI, Galway
University of Ulster
e.martin1@nuigalway.ie
J.McKenna@ulster.ac.uk
Caroline Moran
Karyn Morrissey
NUI, Galway
NUI, Galway
C.Moran9@nuigalway.ie
karyn.morrissey@nuigalway.ie
Daniel Norton
Frank O'Brien
NUI, Galway
Marine Institute
d.norton1@nuigalway.ie
frank.obrien@marine.ie
Vera O'Donovan
Ann Marie O'Hagan
Bord Iascaigh Mhara
University College Cork
odonovan@bim.ie
A.OHagan@ucc.ie
Jenny O'Leary
Cathal O'Mahony
Marine Institute
University College Cork
jenny.oleary@marine.ie
c.omahony@ucc.ie
Geoffrey O'Sullivan
Michael O'Toole
Marine Institute
Marine Institute
geoffrey.osullivan@marine.ie
michael.otoole@marine.ie
Margaret Rae
Yvonne Shields
Marine Institute
Marine Institute
margaret.rae@nuigalway.ie
Yvonne.shields@marine.ie
Oliver Tully
Peter Tyndall
Marine Institute
Bord Iascaigh Mhara
oliver.tully@marine.ie
tyndall@bim.ie
Tom van Rensburg
Ann Walsh
NUI, Galway
SEMRU, NUI, Galway
thomas.vanrensburg@nuigalway.ie
ann.t.walsh@nuigalway.ie
Michael Neylon
Caitriona NicAonghusa
Clare County Council
Marine Institute
MNeylon@clarecoco.ie
caitriona.nicaonghusa@marine.ie
Paul Gaughan
Macdara O'Cuaig
Marine Institute
Marine Institute
paul.gaughan@marine.ie
macdara.ocuaig@marine.ie
Ciaran O' Donnell
Ben Breen
Marine Institute
SEMRU, NUI, Galway
ciaran.odonnell@marine.ie
B.BREEN1@nuigalway.ie
25