DOCSLIB.ORG

Small Business Impacts Associated with the 2010 Oil Spill and Drilling Moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Small Business Impacts Associated with the 2010 Oil Spill and Drilling Moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico Small Business Impacts Associated with the 2010 Oil Spill and Drilling Moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico by Impact Assessment, Inc. La Jolla, CA 92037 for under contract number SBAHQ-11-M-0210 Release Date: November 2013 This report was developed under a contract with the Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, and contains information and analysis that were reviewed by officials of the Office of Advocacy. However, the final conclusions of the report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Advocacy. Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ ii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iv List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. v List of Maps ................................................................................................................................... vi List of Acronyms .......................................................................................................................... vii 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Essential Background ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Goal and Objectives ................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Research Hypotheses ............................................................................................................ 3 1.4 The Study Counties, Parishes, and Communities ................................................................. 4 1.5 Research Methods ................................................................................................................. 5 1.6 Organization of the Report ................................................................................................... 7 2.0 Overview of Study Parishes, Counties, and Communities ....................................................... 9 2.1 Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana ............................................................................................... 9 2.1.1 Houma .......................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Lafourche Parish, Louisiana ............................................................................................... 14 2.2.1 Galliano ........................................................................................................................ 16 2.2.2 Golden Meadow ........................................................................................................... 16 2.3 Jefferson Parish, Louisiana ................................................................................................. 17 2.3.1 Barataria-Lafitte ........................................................................................................... 20 2.3.2 Grand Isle ..................................................................................................................... 21 2.4 Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana ........................................................................................... 22 2.4.1 Boothville-Venice ........................................................................................................ 25 2.4.2 Buras-Triumph ............................................................................................................. 27 2.5 St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana ............................................................................................. 28 2.5.1 St. Bernard ................................................................................................................... 30 2.6 Harrison County, Mississippi ............................................................................................. 31 2.6.1 Biloxi ............................................................................................................................ 33 2.6.2 Pass Christian ............................................................................................................... 34 2.7 Mobile County, Alabama .................................................................................................... 36 2.7.1 Bayou La Batre ............................................................................................................ 38 2.8 Baldwin County, Alabama .................................................................................................. 39 2.8.1 Bon Secour ................................................................................................................... 42 2.8.2 Orange Beach-Gulf Shores .......................................................................................... 42 3.0 The Oil and Gas Industry ........................................................................................................ 45 3.1 Small Business Activity and the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry in the Gulf of Mexico .... 45 3.2 Community-Level Engagement in the Region's Offshore Oil and Gas Industry ............... 48 3.3 Industry Trends Prior to the Spill ....................................................................................... 49 3.4 The Moratorium and Related Context ................................................................................ 50 ii 3.5 Effects of the Moratorium ................................................................................................... 52 4.0 The Commercial Fishing Industry .......................................................................................... 59 4.1 Commercial Fisheries in the Study Region ........................................................................ 59 4.2 The Seafood Processing and Distribution Sectors .............................................................. 66 4.3.1 Bayou La Batre, Alabama ............................................................................................ 70 4.3.2 Biloxi and Pass Christian, Mississippi ......................................................................... 70 4.3.3 Golden Meadow-Galliano, Louisiana .......................................................................... 72 4.3.4 Barataria-Lafitte and Grand Isle, Louisiana ................................................................. 73 4.3.5 St. Bernard Area, Louisiana ......................................................................................... 74 4.3.6 Bon Secour, Alabama .................................................................................................. 76 4.3.7 Buras-Triumph and Boothville-Venice, Louisiana ...................................................... 76 4.4 Regional Fisheries Trends and Conditions Prior to the Spill .............................................. 77 4.5 Initial Effects of the Oil Spill and Clean-up ....................................................................... 82 4.6 Common Adaptive Strategies ............................................................................................. 94 5.0 The Marine-Related Tourist Industry ................................................................................... 100 5.1 Marine-Related Tourism ................................................................................................... 100 5.2 Tourism and the Study Communities ............................................................................... 102 5.2.1 Grand Isle and Barataria-Lafitte, Louisiana ............................................................... 102 5.2.2 St. Bernard, Louisiana ................................................................................................ 103 5.2.3 Galliano and Golden Meadow, Louisiana.................................................................. 103 5.2.4 Houma, Louisiana ...................................................................................................... 104 5.2.5 Buras-Triumph and Boothville-Venice, Louisiana .................................................... 104 5.2.6 Orange Beach-Gulf Shores and Bon Secour, Alabama ............................................. 105 5.2.7 Bayou La Batre, Alabama .......................................................................................... 105 5.2.8 Biloxi and Pass Christian, Mississippi ....................................................................... 105 5.3 Regional Trends Prior to the Spill .................................................................................... 106 5.4 Initial Effects of the Oil Spill ............................................................................................ 108 5.5 Adaptive Responses to the Spill ....................................................................................... 112 6.0 Summary Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 116 6.1 Summary Overview of Pre-Existing Challenges .............................................................. 116 6.2 Summary Overview of Oil Spill and Moratorium Impacts .............................................. 117 6.3 Summary Overview of Adaptive Responses ...................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vocational Education and Fisheries S, N. Dwivedi & V. Ravindranathan
    Vocational education and fisheries Item Type article Authors Dwivedi, S.N.; Ravindranathan, V. Download date 24/09/2021 18:45:18 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/31676 Journal of the Indian Fisheries Association 8+9, 1978-79, 65-70 VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND FISHERIES S, N. DWIVEDI & V. RAVINDRANATHAN Central Institute of Fisheries Education Versova, Bombay-400 067. ABSTRACT The knowledge and skill of the poople are important tools for the development of natural resources and for the prosperty of any country. The quality of education is judged not only from the inquistiveness and knowiedge it can impart but also from it's usefulees in meeting the urgent economic problems of the country. Vocational Courses in fisheries are offered in four states. The technologies in fisheries developed offer good scope for Vocational training for self employment. There is an urgent need to have radical revision of the course content to make the students vocationaliy competent. FISHERIES EDUCATION — STATE OF ART : Recognising the need to study, assess and develop the fishery resources of the country, Govt. of India established the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI) Cochin; Central Inland Fisheries Risearch Institute (CIFRI) Barrackpore, Central Institute of Fisheries Technology (CIFI) Cochin and Deep Sea Fishing Station, Bombay soon after the Independence. Since then, the fish production trend in the country has been encouraing. The annual fish production has increased from 0.5 million tons in 1950, to 2.6 million tons in 1983. Although the rate of increase has been fairly good, the per capita consumption of fish, even now, is less than 5 kg/yr.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovation Management in Seafood Industry Sector
    Development of Innovation Capabilities in the New Zealand Seafood Industry Sector Andrew Jeffs Principal Scientist, National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, P.O. Box 109-695, Auckland, New Zealand Email: [email protected] Shantha Liyanage Associate Professor, Business School, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand Email: [email protected] Abstract: Most seafood industries around the world are founded on wild capture fisheries which have been facing a static or declining resource base due to over exploitation. Achieving growth with this restraint is a challenge that seafood enterprises have struggled with globally for more than 20 years. Innovation efforts in this industry have focused on developing new sources of raw material, increasing financial returns through value-adding, increased efficiency of production and management integration. An early change in the management regime for wild fish stocks is identified as the key factor in encouraging innovation in the New Zealand seafood industry. The greater certainty in raw material supply provided by the management regime has enabled seafood enterprises to shift their attention from competing to secure sufficient raw material toward increasing their returns from the raw materials they know will be available to them. This paper examines the dynamics of innovation capability building and provides management directions for enhancing innovation capability in this industry. Overall, it is hoped that this study may help to act as an exemplar for encouraging innovation in other national or regional seafood industries, and for other industries based on renewable natural resources. Keywords: seafood; innovation; Quota Management System; innovation capability, New Zealand; aquaculture; biotechnology; national innovation system.
    [Show full text]
  • Critique of PPI Study on Shale Gas Job Creation Prepared by Jannette M
    Critique of PPI Study on Shale Gas Job Creation Prepared by Jannette M. Barth, Ph.D. Pepacton Institute LLC January 2, 2012 Supporters of shale gas drilling in New York State frequently reference a report issued by The Public Policy Institute of New York State, Inc. (PPI) titled “Drilling for Jobs: What the Marcellus Shale Could Mean for New York,” July 2011. As with the other industry-funded studies on this subject, this PPI report is one- sided and self-evidently crafted with the sole purpose of supporting the gas industry. Independent academic research not funded by the gas industry reaches vastly different conclusions than do these industry-funded studies. The PPI report does not mention the independent research. Some examples of conclusions made by independent researchers are that areas that once had thriving extractive industries end up suffering the highest rates of long-term poverty (Freudenburg and Wilson); and counties that have focused on energy development underperform economically compared to peer counties with little or no energy development (Headwaters Economics). Independently researched studies include the following: • “Fossil Fuel Extraction as a County Economic Development Strategy: Are Energy-focusing Counties Benefiting?”, Headwaters Economics, September 2008 (Revised 7/11/09). • “Mining the Data: Analyzing the Economic Implications of Mining for Nonmetropolitan Regions,” William R. Freudenberg and Lisa J. Wilson, Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 72, Fall 2002, 549-75. • “The Economic Impact of Shale Gas Extraction: A Review of Existing Studies,” Thomas C. Kinnaman, Ecological Economics, 70 (2011) 1243-1249. • “Hydrofracking a Boom-Bust Endeavor,” Susan Christopherson, August 14, 2011. • “The Local Economic Impacts of Natural Gas Development in the Valle Vidal, New Mexico,” Thomas Michael Power, January 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • Technological Modernization and Its Impact on Agriculture, Fisheries And
    Publications 2017 Technological Modernization and Its Impact on Agriculture, Fisheries and Fossil Fuel Utilization in the Asia Pacific Countries with Emphasis on Sustainability Perspective Rajee Olaganathan Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, [email protected] Kathleen Quigley Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/publication Part of the Agriculture Commons, Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, Oil, Gas, and Energy Commons, and the Sustainability Commons Scholarly Commons Citation Olaganathan, R., & Quigley, K. (2017). Technological Modernization and Its Impact on Agriculture, Fisheries and Fossil Fuel Utilization in the Asia Pacific Countries with Emphasis on Sustainability Perspective. International Journal of Advanced Biotechnology and Research (IJBR), 8(2). Retrieved from https://commons.erau.edu/publication/839 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. International Journal of Advanced Biotechnology and Research (IJBR) ISSN 0976-2612, Online ISSN 2278–599X, Vol-8, Issue-2, 2017, pp422-441 http://www.bipublication.com Research Article Technological modernization and its impact on Agriculture, Fisheries and Fossil fuel utilization in the Asia Pacific Countries with emphasis on sustainability perspective Olaganathan Rajee* and Kathleen Quigley College of Arts and Sciences and College of Business Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Worldwide, 75 Bukit Timah Road, #02-01/02 Boon Siew Building, Singapore. 229833 * Corresponding Author E-mail: [email protected]; Phone: +1 626 236 2254 ABSTRACT Modernization is a process that moves towards efficiency. This affects most of the fields such as agriculture, fisheries, forestry, urban planning, policy, fossil fuel usage, manufacturing, technology, economic growth etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges and Opportunities of the US Fishing Industry
    Advancing Opportunity, Prosperity, and Growth WWW.HAMILTONPROJECT.ORG What’s the Catch? Challenges and Opportunities of the U.S. Fishing Industry By Melissa S. Kearney, Benjamin H. Harris, Brad Hershbein, David Boddy, Lucie Parker, and Katherine Di Lucido SEPTEMBER 2014 he economic importance of the fishing sector extends well beyond the coastal communities for which it is a vital industry. Commercial fishing operations, including seafood wholesalers, processors, and retailers, all contribute billions of dollars annually to the U.S. economy. Recreational fishing— Temploying both fishing guides and manufacturers of fishing equipment—is a major industry in the Gulf Coast and South Atlantic. Estimates suggest that the economic contribution of the U.S. fishing industry is nearly $90 billion annually, and supports over one and a half million jobs (National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] 2014). A host of challenges threaten fishing’s viability as an American industry. Resource management, in particular, is a key concern facing U.S. fisheries. Since fish are a shared natural resource, fisheries face traditional “tragedy of the commons” challenges in which the ineffective management of the resource can result in its depletion. In the United States, advances in ocean fishery management over the past four decades have led to improved sustainability, but more remains to be done: 17 percent of U.S. fisheries are classified as overfished (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2014), and even those with adequate fish stocks may benefit economically from more-efficient management structures. Meeting the resource management challenge can lead to improved economic activity and better sustainability in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Benefits of the Bristol Bay Salmon Industry
    ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE BRISTOL BAY SALMON INDUSTRY PREPARED BY WINK RESEARCH & CONSULTING JULY 2018 PREPARED FOR RESEARCH CONDUCTED FOR This project was commissioned by the Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development Association, Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation, and Bristol Bay Native Corporation. These organizations are committed to developing regional salmon resources for the benefit of their respective stakeholders. RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY Wink Research & Consulting, LLC provides economic research and consulting services. Research and study findings contained in this report were conducted by Andy Wink. Mr. Wink has extensive experience researching markets for Bristol Bay seafood products and is an expert on economic benefits provided by the Alaska seafood industry. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Glossary of Terms & Abbreviations ............................................................................................ 4 Chapter 1. Resource Profile............................................................................................................. 6 Chapter 2. Supply Chain & Market Profile ................................................................................... 13 Chapter 3. Value of Resource & Assets .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 and the U.S. Seafood Sector
    COVID-19 and the U.S. Seafood Sector September 21, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46535 SUMMARY R46535 COVID-19 and the U.S. Seafood Sector September 21, 2020 The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has reduced demand for many seafood products and disrupted seafood supply chains. Food service purchasers, such as restaurants, Harold F. Upton cafeterias, and schools, have either closed or operated at reduced capacities, and the risk of Analyst in Natural coronavirus transmission in public settings has affected consumer behavior. Loss of food service Resources Policy sales are especially harmful to the seafood sector, because these sales account for approximately two-thirds of consumer expenditures on seafood. In addition, decreases in consumer demand, health risks to workers, and restrictions on businesses have disrupted domestic and international supply chains. Supply chains refer to the movement of seafood from fishers and fish farmers to processors and wholesalers that supply retail markets and food services, where consumers purchase seafood products. These disruptions, as well as lower economic activity in the United States and other countries as a result of the pandemic, have contributed to decreased trade in seafood products. In some cases, businesses have adapted to these disruptions and reduced some of the early impacts of the coronavirus. However, disruptions to the seafood sector are likely to continue until the virus can be contained and restrictions on dining and social gatherings are relaxed. Section 12005 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136) authorized $300 million for assistance to fishery participants, including commercial, charter, tribal, and subsistence fishermen, and processors.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Structure Alaska Seafood Processing Industry
    AKU-T-79-004 C. 3 MARKET STRUCTURE uf the ALASKA SEAFOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY by V. L. Orth 3. A. Richardson S. Mj. Piddle I! niver~ity of Alack t gaea ~rant Report 7H - 10 Bee entber 1979 Alaska Sea Grant Program University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 MARKET STRUCTURE OF THE ALASKA SEAFOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY Volume I Shellfish by Franklin L. Orth James A. Richardson Sandra M. Pidde Sea Grant Report 78-10 November 1979 CONTENTS PAGE FIGURES vij TABLES. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. XVi i CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION Background and Scope of the Study. Data Resources ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 15 3 Organization. Structural Elements of the UPS. Seafood Processing Industry: A Literature Summary. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 Alaska Fishing Industry: Regulatory Environment.. 9 Federal 9 State.. 13 CHAPTER II. ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF THE ALASKA SEAFOOD PROCESSING SECTOR AND DETAILED SHELLFISH PROCESSING INDUSTRIES. ~ 15 Introduction. Structural Parameters of the Alaska Seafood Processing S ector.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 16 Geographic Distribution of Production Facilities........ 16 Aggregate Concentration.. 19 Diversification. 31 Turnover.... 36 Vertical Integration ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 4 40 Other Company-Specific Information 41 Structural Parameters of Individual Seafood Markets: Shellfish 45 Market Concentration ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 47 Plant Size Characteristics............ 52 Summary 56 CHAPTER III. THE HISTORY OF THE KING AND TANNER CRAB FISHERIES IN ALASKA 65 Development of the Alaska King Crab Fishery 65 The Foreign Fishery. 65 The U.S. Fishery ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 72 Development. of the Alaska Tanner Crab Fishery. 76 Foreign Fishery: Japan....... 76 Foreign Fishery: USSR... ~ 77 T he U.S. Fishery 81 CONTENTS continued! PAGE CHAPTER IV. THE CRAB RESOURCE. 83 King Crab. 83 World Catch........... 83 Expansion Potential of the King Crab Fishery...........
    [Show full text]
  • Fishing Tourism As an Opportunity for Sustainable Rural Development—The Case of Galicia, Spain
    land Article Fishing Tourism as an Opportunity for Sustainable Rural Development—The Case of Galicia, Spain Rubén C. Lois González and María de los Ángeles Piñeiro Antelo * Department of Geography, Faculty of Geograpy and History, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 7 October 2020; Accepted: 6 November 2020; Published: 8 November 2020 Abstract: The functional diversification of coastal fishing communities has been a central objective of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) since the early stages of its implementation. A large part of the initiatives financed throughout Europe have been linked to the creation of synergies between the fishing sector and tourism. This paper analyses the opportunities for the development of fishing tourism at the regional level, considering the investments of European and regional funds on the development of fishing tourism in Galicia. Special attention is given to the incorporation of the territorial perspective and Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) for the sustainable development of fishing areas. The results show limitations of this form of tourism in terms of employment and income, especially those developed by fishermen, despite the significant support of the regional government for this activity. This situation allows a critical reflection on the opportunity to convert fishermen into tourist guides, based on the need to diversify the economy and income of fishing communities. Keywords: fishing tourism; European fishing funds; Galicia (Spain); sustainable rural development 1. Introduction Local development is a generalised paradigm in order to initiate processes of socioeconomic progress in peripheral areas, in an attempt to respond to productive restructuring and economic crises, as stated by [1–5].
    [Show full text]
  • Industrial Ocean Fish Farming
    Industrial Ocean Fish Farming quaculture is one of the fastest growing food production sectors. More A than half of seafood consumed globally is now farmed, and aquaculture recently surpassed global beef production.1 Unfortunately, one of the most prevalent forms of marine aquaculture is fraught with environmental and social havoc. What is Industrial Ocean Fish Farming? Industrial Ocean Fish Farming – sometimes referred to as open ocean or offshore aquaculture – is the mass breeding, rearing, and harvesting of seafood in areas of the ocean that are beyond coastal influence. Mainstream, industrial offshore aquaculture practices are essentially underwater factory farms with devastating environmental and socio-economic impacts. The most popular (and most risky) method of industrial ocean fish farming occurs in underwater net pens, pods, and Photo by NOAA National Ocean Service cages. The raising of finfish, such as salmon and yellowtail, in these difficult-to-manage atmospheres is most problematic because the nets and cages allow for free and unregulated exchange between the farmed fish and the surrounding ocean environment. As detailed below, this open exchange allows for fish escapes and spills, heightened threats to native wildlife, and the introduction of non-native pests and diseases, among numerous other harms. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration currently considers industrial ocean fish farming as a fishing activity under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. Simply because fish are removed from the industrial farm’s nets at time of harvest does not mean the activity is the same as fishing. Indeed, these activities are farming – just as a chicken or pig is raised for human consumption on a land-based farm – and should be regulated as such.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic Impact of the Sea Empress Spillage
    THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE SEA EMPRESS SPILLAGE Stephen Hill and Jane Bryanj Welsh Economy Research Unit Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/iosc/article-pdf/1997/1/227/2351652/2169-3358-1997-1-227.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 Cardiff Business School University of Wales, Cardiff 66 Park Place CardiffCF1 3AS United Kingdom ABSTRACT: The Sea Empress oil spillage has had a substantial by oil spills in terms of welfare losses within a community (Hausman impoverishing effect on what was already a poor part of a poor region. etal, 1995). The major negative impact has been on the local tourism industry, Methodological issues. There are definitional issues surrounding the although the much smaller local fishing industry was also badly hit. concept of "economic loss" (Wall, 1993). This remains a gray area in However, the cleanup operation did provide a much needed, albeit tem- the legal context of claims for oil pollution and other damages resulting porary, injection of local spending. The Sea Empress spillage has also from environmental accidents. One fundamental difficulty in the oper- colored local attitudes to other environmentally sensitive projects, with ation of an oil pollution liability and compensation system has been that long-term consequences that may dwarf the direct effects of the oil of the actual meaning of "pollution damage" itself. spillage. There is little difficulty in establishing a causal relationship between oil spilled and direct damage caused to agricultural land, houses, fishing boats or nets, the fish in fish farms, or any other owned property. How- ever, when there is no direct effect on property and when the physical damage is caused to resources that are not owned, the precise meaning On the evening of February 15,1996, the oil tanker Sea Empress ran and extent of pollution damage in relation to economic loss become aground on the approaches to Milford Haven, spilling over 70,000 tons unclear—particularly for the indirect economic effects of oil spillage.
    [Show full text]
  • Transnational Organized Crime in the Fishing Industry
    TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME IN THE FISHING INDUSTRY Focus on: Trafficking in Persons Smuggling of Migrants Illicit Drugs Trafficking UNITED NATIONS Vienna, 2011 The description and classification of countries and territories in this study and the arrangement of the material do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries, or regarding its economic system or degree of development. © United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2011 This document was not formally edited. Acknowledgements The present publication was prepared by Eve de Coning (consultant) under the supervision of Alexia Taveau of the Human Trafficking and Migrant Smuggling Section at the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Special gratitude is extended to Celso Coracini, Ian Munro, Morgane Nicot, Ric Power, Riikka Puttonen, and Fabrizio Sarrica at UNODC, Vienna. We would like to express our appreciation to the experts attending the expert consultation in Vienna 8-9 March 2011: Kresno Buntoro (the Indonesian Navy); Duncan Copeland (Sea Change Consulting); Alexander Dalli (Frontex); Shaun Driscoll (the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)); Annette Hübschle (Institute for Security Studies (ISS)); Kristiina Kangaspunta (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI)); Paola Monzini (independent expert); Barbara Salcher (International Organization for Migration (IOM)); Gunnar Stølsvik (Norwegian National Advisory Group against Organized IUU Fishing); as well as Beate Andrees and Brandt Wagner (International Labour Organization (ILO)) via telecom. The author would also like to thank Stephen Cederrand (Community Fisheries Control Agency), Douglas Guilfoyle (University College London), and Gail Lugten (University of Tasmania) for their comments on excerpts of earlier drafts of this study.
    [Show full text]