Report of the Study Group on Socio-Economic Dimensions of Aquaculture (SGSA). 24-26 April 2012, Stockholm, Sweden
| Type | Report | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date | 2012 | ||||||||
| Language | English | ||||||||
| Ref. | ICES CM 2012/SSGHIE:10 | ||||||||
| Other localization | http://www.ices.dk/publications/our-publications/Pages/CM-documents.aspx | ||||||||
| Author(s) | ICES | ||||||||
| Contributor(s) | Perez Jose | ||||||||
| Note | ICES SGSA REPORT 2012 SCICOM STEERING GROUP ON HUMAN INTERACTIONS ON ECOSYSTEMS | ||||||||
| Abstract | The 2nd meeting of the Study Group on Socio-Economic Dimensions of Aquaculture (Chair: Gesche Krause, Germany) was held in Stockholm (Sweden) between April 24-26 and was attended by 9 participants from France, Germany, Norway, Spain, Swe-den and United Kingdom (Annex 1), among which was one representative from the FAO in Rome. The objective of the meeting was to work on the Terms of Reference that were decided upon at the last meeting of the SGSA in Bremen 2011. The ToRs were addressed separately within subgroups, followed by plenary sessions where subgroup activities were discussed by all members of SGSA. Since the issues raised in the SGSA are a rather novel topic to ICES that pulled together scientists with a wide range of different scientific backgrounds, the group agreed on a common scope and perspective which the SGSA will have in the future. These are summarized in a back-ground chapter in the beginning of this report (Chapter 3). ToR a) Develop, identify and evaluate methods on how to assess the direct and indirect socio-economic consequences of aquaculture operations and how they relate to an assessment frame-work Social science consists of a diverse set of disciplines with many associated theories, paradigms and methods. Thus, the assessment framework can be supported by mul-tiple methodological approaches and interpretations. Evidently, different disciplinary approaches may be necessary in different aquaculture assessments but it is important to take an integrated approach from within social science. Creative combinations of theories and methods are necessary to interpret complex scenarios of aquaculture. In this meeting, the group identified a preliminary list of methods, which could support an integrative assessment within a social-ecological framework. It is recommended to continue the ToR and to use the assessment framework to select an appropriate com-bination of methods (i.e. disciplinary and integrative) to address a specific case study. The group suggests rephrasing the ToR to “Identify individual and crosscutting, in-tegrative methods to support the evaluation of the direct and indirect socio-economic consequences of aquaculture operations and how they relate to the assessment framework” (Chapter 4). ToR b) Examine how inclusion and local ownership influence aquaculture There are several different stages and arenas where aquaculture management and governance is performed in ICES-countries. These include European policies such as the Marine Strategy Framework, ICZM – designation of sea areas for different uses, including aquaculture, during the application for location of an actual aquaculture plant and the setting of rules and regulations that govern aquaculture at different scales, e.g. national, regional or local, and affect aquaculture day-to-day operations. Stakeholders can be included in all the decision making processes above in various ways and to varying degrees. Different types of stakeholders will have different lev-els of influence in the aquaculture process depending on the respective institutional setting and national context. Stakeholder inclusion helps make sure that decisions are based on relevant and correct information that represents various interests and view-points. The acceptance of policies is facilitated by transparent participative proce-dures which help to ensure that scientific information is operational and responds to societal demands. Therefore it is recommended to establish knowledge bases for de-cision-making via stakeholder inclusion, for example through an environmental or social impact assessment. This ToR shall be continued in the next year and addressed The 2nd meeting of the Study Group on Socio-Economic Dimensions of Aquaculture (Chair: Gesche Krause, Germany) was held in Stockholm (Sweden) between April 24-26 and was attended by 9 participants from France, Germany, Norway, Spain, Swe-den and United Kingdom (Annex 1), among which was one representative from the FAO in Rome. The objective of the meeting was to work on the Terms of Reference that were decided upon at the last meeting of the SGSA in Bremen 2011. The ToRs were addressed separately within subgroups, followed by plenary sessions where subgroup activities were discussed by all members of SGSA. Since the issues raised in the SGSA are a rather novel topic to ICES that pulled together scientists with a wide range of different scientific backgrounds, the group agreed on a common scope and perspective which the SGSA will have in the future. These are summarized in a back-ground chapter in the beginning of this report (Chapter 3). ToR a) Develop, identify and evaluate methods on how to assess the direct and indirect socio-economic consequences of aquaculture operations and how they relate to an assessment frame-work Social science consists of a diverse set of disciplines with many associated theories, paradigms and methods. Thus, the assessment framework can be supported by mul-tiple methodological approaches and interpretations. Evidently, different disciplinary approaches may be necessary in different aquaculture assessments but it is important to take an integrated approach from within social science. Creative combinations of theories and methods are necessary to interpret complex scenarios of aquaculture. In this meeting, the group identified a preliminary list of methods, which could support an integrative assessment within a social-ecological framework. It is recommended to continue the ToR and to use the assessment framework to select an appropriate com-bination of methods (i.e. disciplinary and integrative) to address a specific case study. The group suggests rephrasing the ToR to “Identify individual and crosscutting, in-tegrative methods to support the evaluation of the direct and indirect socio-economic consequences of aquaculture operations and how they relate to the assessment framework” (Chapter 4). ToR b) Examine how inclusion and local ownership influence aquaculture There are several different stages and arenas where aquaculture management and governance is performed in ICES-countries. These include European policies such as the Marine Strategy Framework, ICZM – designation of sea areas for different uses, including aquaculture, during the application for location of an actual aquaculture plant and the setting of rules and regulations that govern aquaculture at different scales, e.g. national, regional or local, and affect aquaculture day-to-day operations. Stakeholders can be included in all the decision making processes above in various ways and to varying degrees. Different types of stakeholders will have different lev-els of influence in the aquaculture process depending on the respective institutional setting and national context. Stakeholder inclusion helps make sure that decisions are based on relevant and correct information that represents various interests and view-points. The acceptance of policies is facilitated by transparent participative proce-dures which help to ensure that scientific information is operational and responds to societal demands. Therefore it is recommended to establish knowledge bases for de-cision-making via stakeholder inclusion, for example through an environmental or social impact assessment. This ToR shall be continued in the next year and addressed in more detail (Chapter 5). It is recommended to include stakeholders and their sup-porting values in the decision-making process. Using case study approaches, a re-view and development of indicators for the assessment of stakeholder inclusion and ownership and its effects on aquaculture shall be conducted at the next meeting. ToR c) Identify how social, economic, governance and environmental framing conditions influ-ence aquaculture development Many aquaculture assessments focus primarily on the impacts of the activity without enough consideration of the framing conditions that are driving those impacts or that influence how the impacts are managed. Understanding the local context (social, political, environmental, economic) is critical to the effective evaluation and man-agement of aquaculture scenarios. This is especially pertinent with respect to socio-economic framing conditions which are often overlooked in scientific studies. There-fore, it is recommended to carry out a systematic identification of framing conditions of aquaculture as a key step towards informing management measures that will en-able aquaculture to realize its full potential. Tools for the assessment of these framing conditions need to be identified. Potentially amenable tools include Rapid Rural Ap-praisal (RRA), Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) (e.g. Brugère et al. 2010) and New Institutional Economics (NIE). It is recommended to develop this ToR at the next meeting further and to identify the salient social framing conditions and associ-ated indicators. (Chapter 6) ToR d) Identify new emerging issues of socio-economic aspects of aquaculture This ToR proved useful to raise critical points within the SGSA that need to be con-sidered in the future. One issue was found to be of high importance here were the socio-economic implications of certification schemes. It was felt however, that prior to addressing this issue in more detail in this group, we will focus on the operationalisa-tion of the developed assessment framework on real-world cases, as else these issues would stretch capacities of this small group (Chapter 7). |
||||||||
| Full Text |
|