Dr. Alyne Elizabeth Delaney:

It is my great pleasure to be here. As members may know, I am an anthropologist who has worked in fisheries management and coastal community development in Europe for approximately ten years. I am also a scientific expert for the European Commission's scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries.

In my research, I approach this from the aspect of an anthropologist who is interested in people and culture and who is also interested in trying to find ways to get social science data into the management process. I must offer my apologies. We have had some IT security issues so my presentation is not available on the screen but we have made some photocopies so, hopefully, the members will be able to follow it.

Basically, in much of my work I am very interested in social sustainability. When I think of society and the social aspects, I think of communities and people. As one finds with biological diversity, it is the richness and diversity of the communities that help make the society strong. The committee might have requested my presence today due to one of the reports I wrote with some people in Arranmore. In that report I talked a good deal about how a number of EU policies and directives now call for integrated management. In the past, much of the management carried out was very much on a sectoral basis, such as fisheries and transport. At European Union level and in many places in the United States there is a movement towards integrating that. It is not just fisheries or economics, for example, but economics, social and the environmental aspects integrated together. The work I am trying to do is concerned with social, economic and environmental sustainability. In the report we talked about Arranmore. It is an island community and we discussed how there are policies and conventions which call for a special consideration of island communities.

With regard to policy and the concept of social sustainability, some of the specific policies I have worked with and researched include the marine strategy framework directive, the integrated maritime policy and the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, which is currently being revised. Hopefully, there will be a final outcome soon. These directives and the CFP try to integrate the conservation of the fish stocks with sustainable communities. It is a priority of the maritime policy to integrate economic and social well being in a sustainable way. For somebody like me who is conducting research into communities and social sustainability, one issue is how to go about achieving sustainability goals. One way to look at it is through impact assessments. The principles of impact assessment often help policy makers avoid unintentionally creating some inequities among various sub-groups. When one looks at island and coastal communities, for example, people from the outside might think of fishermen or the shore side sector. There are numerous sub-groupings. A decision that might impact the pelagic fisheries is different for the coastal fisheries. When I carry out community profiles and social impact assessments, one of the key things I focus on is understanding who all the relevant sub-groups are and not to miss any of them, so one can at least be informed when one makes a decision and not indirectly impact a group simply out of ignorance because one did not know it was there and how it might be impacted.

A social impact assessment is a systematic appraisal of the quality of life of the persons and the communities whose environment might be affected by the policy changes it is planned to make. When one talks about the quality of life, one looks at the daily way in which the people live, work, relate to each other, organise to meet their needs and basically just cope as members of the society. It is a question of how the policy impacts them in their daily lives. Often, when one hears about social impact assessments one hears about socio-economic impact assessments. A socio-economic impact assessment is pretty much an economic impact assessment although they are not the same. I do not know if Dr. Hynes will talk about this but he can tell how economic impact analyses address how efficiently investments of capital and resources are returned in present and future benefits to society. They focus on resource supply and demand, prices and jobs. When I conduct a social impact assessment I am also interested in employment and jobs, so there is some overlap, but there is a considerable difference in the focus and sometimes the approaches and methods.

When I conduct a social impact assessment, and this is an example of ways to get the social and community aspects into the management process, I look at the demographics, ethnic character, family structure and community organisation and try to figure out how vulnerable or resilient these communities and people are. As I mentioned earlier, it is important to look at the recreational anglers, for example, and how they will be impacted versus the small scale fishers versus the trawlers. It is really important to examine the social structure. That includes various organisations and businesses. There are also various management and political considerations.

Why do we do this? It is to try to avoid inequities among the different groups, and to try to include them in the decision making process. There are five critical issues on which one must focus. One looks at vulnerability, including economic vulnerability. One tries to understand the existence of alternatives at community level, for example, one might be looking at alternatives in fishing such as other species or methods. One also considers outside the fisheries and whether there are other policies that can be put forward to help people innovate and branch out into other industries. That is the issue of alternatives. One also looks at two related concepts, resilience and adaptability. Are there structures in place that enable them to recover from the change? For example, a salmon ban might have hit a community quite hard but at least they can fish for something else. Then one looks at cumulative impacts. There might be a salmon ban and a closed area. Suddenly, after five or six different policies, they are not able to adapt. They cannot bounce back from so many changes. When one is making policies it is important to look at not just one specific policy and issue but at what else is happening that also impacts them. One ban might not have a huge negative impact, but if it is coupled with other things it might. There is also the issue of community support, such as whether there are Structural Funds available for them.

These are the five critical ideas I tend to focus on when I look at communities and try to understand how they will be impacted. Basically, I focus on the business, economy and the various sectors that are impacted, such as the shore sector. Obviously, numerous jobs are tied into certain industries on the islands. As an anthropologist, I focus a good deal on people and society. I carried out an impact assessment in the Netherlands, where many ship owners and people had to leave the fishery. There was a specific age group, from 35 years to 50 years, in which the people did not have higher education and whose wives, due to their cultural and religious beliefs, left school at the age of 16 years. This group was particularly hard hit. People aged 35 years and under tended to have more education and, perhaps, other opportunities. However, the specific age group I mentioned would have the most difficulty in adapting to the change. That is also an example of looking at demographics. It is not just different ethnic groups one might uncover but also different segments of the population who would be impacted differently.

As an anthropologist, I consider heritage and quality of life very important. I have worked in Europe and around the world. I have seen that once one starts to lose certain ways of life, one does not get them back. That is a shame because including the different groups adds to making a society healthy.

A final point is about my work with the European Commission.

With regard to my work with the European Commission, it is difficult because we do not have the data, especially at the social end of things. In much of the work I do, what would really be useful at the scientific end and the community end would be opportunities for collaborative research, because the locals have a lot of ecological knowledge and they know what is going on. By including people in the process, we ensure they buy into it and feel more strongly about it. Not only do we learn from them, but it helps to build rapport. When proposals and derogations come in the European Commission asks for our advice, but we do not have the data. It is difficult for me as the social scientist to comment when I do not have the data. One thing that would really be useful would be finding ways to do collaborative research with local people. That could help or hurt their cause but, either way, it would result in data, which would help scientists and managers to make decisions.