Maritime Forum

Comments invited on draft report on size, nature and dynamics of blue economy

Published on: Fri, 23/12/2016 - 07:39
Table of Contents
    The study suggests indicators that provide an understanding of how the very diverse activities that make up the blue economy contribute to the EU's overall economy

    /maritimeforum/en/file/windpngwind.png

    installed offshore wind capacity

    The study was developed through five tasks:

    1. Common delineation of the maritime activities: a common definition of maritime activities was developed, by looking at literature, past studies and similar exercises carried our worldwide. A set of economic activities that make up the blue economy was selected based on the definition developed.
    2. Indicators for maritime activities: after defining the list of maritime activities to include in the study, two sets of indicators were chosen to measure them. Some basic common indicators are common to all activities and provide information on turnover, value added and employment for each activity. Other indicators are ‘sector-specific’, in that they were chosen based on the specificities of each economic activity, to capture phenomena that go beyond socio-economic performance.
    3. Identification of sustainable data sources: data sources were identified for each indicator and activity. Most data are sourced from Eurostat, but other sources were also identified when Eurostat did not have sufficient information.
    4. Collecting and processing the data: the data were then collected, processed and imported into a database.
    5. Peer review process: a peer-review group of external experts was set up to validate the findings of the research team. The peer-review group was made up of stakeholders from industry and academia, their expertise covering the different sectors of the blue economy.

    draft final report

    Comments can be provided through the forms below. If you have an EU login identifier, these will appear immediately. If not they will first be checked by the maritime forum administrators. despite our best efforts, we still get some spam :-(

     (ANSWERS TO COMMENTS NOW AVAILABLE)

    Comments

    • Iain SHEPHERD's picture

      A lot of work has gone into this and there are some useful insights. I have sent some detailed comments to EASME who are the contracting authority - in particular to make a little clearer the separation between intra-EU and extra-EU exports and imports in measuring indirect impact. I would also replace the first three paragraphs of the foreword with this

      This Study comes after a long series of studies that have attempted to define and measure the blue economy in the EU. These have provided some qualitative information but they largely reinforced what was already known from the first 2009 study[1] – that national statistical organisations are reluctant or unable to provide more detailed information than they already provide to the Commission.

      So the Commission has started to make its own calculations based on publicly available data from these reports – primarily Structural Business Statistics (SBS), input-output tables, tourism statistics, the Data Collection Framework for fisheries and the Labour Force Survey.

      This study aimed to cross-check these numbers and provide additional detail from other sources.

      [1] study in the field of maritime policy, “Approach towards an Integrated Maritime Policy Database”, Volume 1: Main Part Study for Eurostat Contract Reference 2007/S 179-218229 – Lot 1

    • Arjen Uytendaal Nederland Maritiem Land's picture

      There seems to be a large difference in figures between this study and the study from the Oxford Economics done on behalf of ECSA on shipping. Especially the indirect added value by shipping which is far less as in the Oxford study (€ 11 mld. versus € 61 mld!!). Same as for the employment figures (resp. 50.000 indirect jobs versus 1,1 mln. indirect jobs!!).

      From NML perspective we would like to propose that both consultants meet and sort out why there is such a huge difference!

      In the report some graphs mention ‘shipping’, later it mentions ‘maritime transport’. is there a difference?

      In figure 2 direct added value for ‘shipping’ is € 49 mld., but later in the figure it states direct and indirect added value for ‘maritime transport’ is € 43 mld., so less! difficult to understand what is under shipping and what under maritime transport. are the definitions also different from those used by Oxford Economics?

    • Karyn Morrissey's picture

      Comments on cogea’s blue Economy Report

       

       

      1. With regard to the long list of activities determined to be marine based by country, I produced a list but in a table form (which I believe is neater) for my new book,  ‘The Economics of the Marine: Modelling Natural Resources’, which will be out in February. See table below. I’m happy for you to use this format as I believe it is neater. Perhaps you can reference the book as well as the studies it draws on.

       

      Table 1.3 The Industries defined as part of the marine economy within International Studies

       

      Ireland

      Australia

      UK

      USA

      France

      New Zealand

      China

      South Korea

      Japan

      Canada

      Indonesia

      Maritime Transport

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

       

      Port & Maritime Logistics

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      Tourism

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

       

      High Tech Services

      X

       

      X

       

      X

      X

      X

      X

       

      X

       

      Commerce

      X

       

      X

       

      X

       X

      X

      X

       

       

       

      Other Services

      X

       

      X

       

      X

       X

      X

      X

       

       

      X

      Aggregates

       

       

      X

       

      X

       

      X

      X

      X

       

       

      Fisheries

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      Aquaculture

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      Seafood Processing

      X

       

      X

       

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      Seaweed

      X

       

      X

       

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

       

       

      Biotechnology

      X

       

       

       

       

       

      X

      X

       

       

       

      Oil & Gas

      X

      X

      X

       X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      Renewable Energy

      X

       

      X

       

      X

       

      X

      X

       

       

       

      Boat Building

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      Construction

      X

       

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

      Engineering

      X

       

      X

       

      X

      X

      X

      X

      X

       

       

      Manufacturing

      X

       

      X

       

       

       

       X

       X

      Seawater Utilisation

       

       

       

       

       

       

      X

       

       

       

       

      Defence/Government

       

       

      X

      n/a

      X

       

       

       X

       

       X

       

      Research & Education

       

       

      X

       

      X

       

       

       X

       

       X

       

      Coastal & marine environmental protection

       

       

       

       

      X

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

      2. Can you please provide the NACE codes along side the definitions of each NACE classification in Table 1. This would be most helpful to future researchers.

       

      3. In table three a number of sector specific indicators are available for Other marine renewable energy sectors such as the price of electricity, etc. However I suggest that other marine renewable use indicators similar to Blue Biotechnology, see list below.

       

      1. Percentage of biotechnology R&D (NACE Rev2 M 72.11)

      2. Number of national institutes working on marine biotechnology; % of total

      3. No of researchers involved in marine biosciences

      4. Public funding of research

      5. Number of publications

      6. Patent applications/granted patents

      7. Translational companies based on marine bio-resources

       

      The two sectors are research intensive, capital intensive and embryonic and as such the indicators listed for Blue Biotechnology are the same as other renewable marine energy.

       

      4. Should the Shipbuilding category in Table 3 be divided into civilian and nanavl to match the further analysis provided for this sector on page 35. 

       

      5. The document needs to be proof read and the text made more concise. 

      (Karyn Morissey - University of Exeter))

    • Paolo Bolsi's picture

      Dear all,

      I have read the draft final report and I do not have any particular comment to make, except that maybe it would be better for DG MARE colleagues if the consultants could eventually prepare, as an additional annex, an easy-to-use step by step guide to reupdate the database, calculate the estimated quantities and the activities which are not 100% maritime, and especially to calculate the indirect effects. Although the annex 1 shows how to calculate the maritime proportion for each activity, I put myself in the shoes of the colleague who will have to repeat these calculations and it does not seem an easy task. I also agree on the need for proofreading mentioned by Karyn.

      Paolo

    • Amaya VEGA's picture

      1. Coastal tourism
      o No clear indication of the spatial allocation of estimates for this sector at the LAU2 level. The approach is in line with previous efforts by DGMARE to estimate coastal tourism, but the lack of spatially disaggregated data for this sector is still unresolved. Concerns arise from the aggregation of values for coastal tourism in the case of countries for which data is not available at the coastal area level, i.e. Ireland. This value is likely to be overestimated. The method used for the spatial allocation of country-level values should be explained in detail.
      o Estimates for expenditure on marine recreation activities are not included.
      o The discrepancy in the dominant definition of tourism which is coastal rather than marine should be emphasised more. A true marine related tourism definition is still a gap in the analysis of the size of the blue economy

      2. Marine/maritime retail
      o While these values tend to be small, estimates for marine retail activities are missing.

      3. It would be desirable to add the value for Marine/Maritime Education. Estimates have been published for Ireland by SEMRU [see link here: http://www.nuigalway.ie/semru/documents/semru_marineeducation_training_r...]. We would be happy to share our experience with the research team.

      4. Regarding shipping and floating structures - Potential problems with double-counting re- public sector expenditures

      5. Regarding the indirect multiplier analysis, the source used in the report for indirect/multiplier effects for Ireland is obsolete. Please see an up-to-date publicly available analysis of indirect effects of Ireland’s ocean economy as part of the BIO Economy model (Grealis and O’Donoghue, 2016) [see link here: http://www.nuigalway.ie/semru/documents/bioeconomy_input_output_model_v8...]

      5. We welcome the idea of making the database public and interactive, as SEMRU and partners did for the MARNET project

      6. As a suggestion on how to overcome the limitations of Structural Business Statistics regarding emerging sectors, SEMRU has developed a methodology to collect relevant qualitative/quantitative data from stakeholders operating in emerging sectors. This is regularly reported as part of our report series on Ireland’s Ocean Economy. Again, we would be happy to share our experience with the authors of this report.

      7. On p 4, Ireland’s definition (from the linked document) should read “11.Ireland (“Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit, Ireland’s ocean economy, December 2010”)12:
      "Economic activities which directly or indirectly use the sea as an input as well as any economic activity that produces an input for use in a sea-specific activity”. An example of the latter would be navigation equipment for use in shipping.
      Also the reference here should be 11.Ireland (“Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit, Ireland’s Ocean Economy, Reference Year 2012”)

      8. Finally, one small thing, authors might use commas rather than full stops to indicate thousands in the pie charts (and tables) and also add euro signs for these figures where relevant.

      9. Whole document needs a good proof read.

      Amaya Vega and Stephen Hynes
      Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit (SEMRU)
      National University of Ireland, Galway.

    • SEA Europe's picture

      The Study doesn´t show the real value and size of the maritime equipment industry.

      Due to the unavailability of statistical information about the maritime equipment industry, the EC (DG GROW) commissioned a Study to Balance Technology Consultancy which was published in 2014 “Competitive position and future opportunities of the European marine supplies industry”. That Study offers an exhaustive overview of the maritime equipment industry in Europe, accounting an average annual turnover of aprox. € 60bn. The study identifies more than 22.000 companies in the sector in Europe, which supply about 50% of the global maritime equipment.
      In the Study on the value of the Blue Economy, a very limited part of the equipment industry is considered (just “navigation equipment”!!!) , and therefore, the value shown do not reflect the real size, employment and turnover of the industry. Actually, from the results of the study it seems that the newbuilding industry is bigger than the equipment manufacturing side, but actually it is the opposite.
      From the European Shipyards and Marine Equipment industry (SEA Europe) we do not find the results of the study representative of the real size and importance of the European marine equipment supplies companies. We understand that due to the importance of this Report, the figures about the Equipment industry should be revised and modified according to the real values.

    • SEA Europe's picture

      it seems that the consultants have based their appraisal of “oil&gas offshore activity” from the production of such offshore oil&gas in EU-countries, which has little to see, as in countries like France, there is no production offshore (and nearly no hydrocarbon production at all) but a strong offshore-oil&gas related industry.
      In fact, the “oil&gas extraction” approach gives high values related to the value of the hydrocarbons extracted in a country, wich has little to see with the “local national offshore oil&gas industry”. Only the latter has a true interest for appraisal of “maritime economy”.

    • SEA Europe's picture

      Few comments on Table 3:
      Page 16:
      - The table shows CESA as source of information. It should just mention SEA Europe (SEA Europe = merge between former CESA & EMEC)
      - Ship Repair –SEA Europe provided at that time 2014 data on the turnover and employment coming from SEA SMRC Working Group.
      2014 SMRC turnover: € 3.5 bln with fixed: 28.800 employees

      Page 17:
      - “Equipment Exports of marine navigation equipment Prodcom / Comext”
      We would encourage to use Balance´s Study to assess the value of the full indsutry.

    • Heini Ahtiainen & Heidi Tuhkanen (HELCOM)'s picture

      The topic of the report is very interesting, and developing economic indicators for marine uses and activities is a timely exercise. Here are some comments:

      General

      1. The purpose of the study is to “provide ready-to-use information to collect and process data on the maritime economy across the European Union, in order to make available a consistent set of data on the maritime economy in Europe, its size, growth rates, employment levels and related trends. Furthermore, it is in the remit of this work to propose improvements (recommendations and / or suggestions) to the current system of accounting of the maritime economy.“ Also, it is stated that the definition of the blue economy should support the monitoring of “performance“ of the blue economy.

      However, none of the indicators selected take into account the environmental sustainability. The environmental sustainability can in the long run impact even the economic performance of the blue economy and thus should be considered in the data used to monitor the sectors making up the blue economy. Thus, we support the recommendation to take into account ecosystem services, as proposed on p43. The inclusion of environmental considerations alongside Growth potential in the Annex 1 – Framework for Data collection is a start to ecosystem approach thinking. However, it should be made clear that these considerations can also impact the growth potential of the economic activities.

      2. A general concern is how to separate between sea-based activities contributing to blue economy and other activities. As the GVAs and the values of the other indicators are not wholly attributable to marine/coastal areas, they do not really measure the size of the blue economy. This is discussed in chapter 5, but perhaps it would be good to mention this also when presenting the results, as the pie charts and figures can give the idea that these are actual appropriate estimates for the blue economy. Has there been any attempt to identify the portion of the e.g. GVA/employment for the activities that would really be attributable to the sea/blue economy?

      It would be very useful to have a country-based estimate of the “maritime proportion“ of given economic activities (classified according to NACE) where it is currently not available, and having a short-term solution (using “tags“) would be helpful, even if the data is not as rigorous as statistics (as long as it is clearly marked). Additionally, figures related to specific marine bodies (seas) would also be useful for EU MS reporting for the MSFD and Regional Sea Conventions, as some MS have coasts along two different seas.

      3. It would be useful to have a concise assessment of data availability for each activity. Which activities are well covered with current statistics/data sources? Which are especially difficult? Why? Also, it might make sense to evaluate the reliability of the presented figures in measuring the size of the blue economy.

      4. However, lack of data seems like an insufficient reason to leave activities out completely from the activity lists – it can be stated that these are important activities, but their (correct) assessment is challenging/impossible with the current data. In the future, data collection and statistics can be improved to include additional/more specific measures of marine uses. This is especially true as the aim of the study is to set up a framework for data collection.

      Indicators

      5. It is not described what the sources of information for the basic common indicators are. What is the justification for selecting these over others (availability, etc)?

      6. Gross value added at factor cost is listed as an indicator in the indicator set common to all activities, but it is also listed also as an indicator in some of the sector-related indicator sets (2nd set). The reason for including it two times should be explained. E.g. in Shipbuilding activities, Turnover, GVA, and employment related indicators are present.

      7. Gross value added at factor cost is listed as an indicator in the indicator set common to all activities. Eurostat SBS Statistics use Value added at factor cost. How do the two differ and what is the source for GVA at factor cost?

      Recreation and tourism

      8. Handling of coastal and marine recreation in the report seems insufficient. The use of coastal and marine areas for leisure and recreation is much broader than “tourism”, and an important part of activities that take place in the marine environment and use the sea as an input (comp. the definition on p. 9). Many of the blue economy activity lists mentioned in the report explicitly include recreation, but it is basically left out from the report’s list of activities as only tourism in included (Tables 1-2). Also, the argument that tourism and recreation are not economic activities is somewhat unconvincing, as people use money specifically to get to the coast and sea, and they can be thought to “consume” the coast and the sea for their benefit. Tourism and recreation are major uses of the sea, and they are interesting because they are often in conflict with the other uses. This issue warrants some discussion in chapter 5, and is linked to ecosystem services mentioned in chapter 6.

      9. P. 13: As the bullet point on tourism hints at, an important consideration is how to separate between coastal and marine recreation and other types of recreation – i.e. how we can assign the correct proportion of the turnover/value added and other economic indicators appropriately to marine and coastal areas. The report could be more specific about this, as well as how it takes this into account in presenting the results. As the definition of coastal tourism is very broad (“tourism in coastal municipalities”), the presented figures are likely overestimates.

      10. Lack of appropriate data is evident especially for tourism. Based on the framework for data collection described in Annex 1, it seems rather unclear what the coastal tourism statistics presented actually measure. Thus, it might make more sense to find other data sources or develop new indicators.

      Other specific comments

      11. P. 8: What do you mean by “Ensuring that the system be reliable in such a way that it will not be confronted with negative reactions from stakeholders.”? Perhaps rephrase or clarify? Different people/stakeholders are likely to have different reactions to the definition despite its content, as they have different points of view and opinions.

      12. P. 9: It would be good to explain what the NACE classification is right after you mention it, especially as the link that is provided in the footnote goes to a page that only has a title and is empty otherwise (and does not even include the word NACE). So either a definition or a link to where NACE is explained when NACE is introduced.

      13. Having the statistical classification system take into account the blue economy would provide standard figures for Member states reporting for several marine related EU directives and plans, e.g. MSFD, as well as regional reporting to Regional Sea Conventions such as HELCOM.

      14. The important notes starting on p12 are helpful, but some could be explained in more detail. For example, it is not clear why freshwater aquaculture or inland water transport IS by some countries considered a part of the blue economy. Such an explanation would help people using cross-country data to understand the discrepancies, especially when they are not necessarily logical.

      15. It would be useful to single dredging out as a separate sector, as it also can take place separate from port activity.

      16. On p23 (section 4), it states that the “The database with the full results of the study is attached to this report“. However, it is unclear what is meant by the “attached to the report“. A link to the location is needed.

      17. Indicators measuring direct and indirect contribution, as well as public sector contribution to the economy would be useful.

      18. As coastal tourism indicators (p70) are calculated using a different method, it would be good to provide more detail about how the expenditure-based calculations are used to calculate the common set of indicators.

      19. The expert group for blue economy data should link with working groups dealing with the Economic and Social Analyses related to maritime policies, e.g. the WG POMESA.

      20. In the Annex 1 Framework, 10.1 C 28.11 on page 62, Maritime proportions are listed for a handful of countries. What is the situation for the countries not listed? It should be stated why they are not listed (data not available?).

      21. For the calculation of the maritime proportion of Cruise Tourism (p72), it was not clear what is meant by class amount or the source of this figure in the text „by calculating the class amount * number of coastal passengers (passengers l (excuding cruise passengers) mar_mp_am_cft)/ country level passengers embarked and disembarked in all ports [mar_mp_aa_cph].“ It is also not apparent why cruise passengers are excluded in this formula.

      Heini Ahtiainen & Heidi Tuhkanen
      HELCOM

    Add new comment

    It is not necessary to be logged in to provide comments but in that case comments will need to go through a moderator.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.