A.H.T. Shyam Kularathna
Prof. Ken Takagi
03rd Dec 2016

サステイナビリティ学グローバルリーダー養成大学院プログラム

Introduction

Methodology

Results & Discussion

Conclusion

1Research Background & Problem Identification
Research Hypothesis and Objectives

2

Problem - Japan’s MRE Projects & Acceptability• Most MRE Projects will be deployedin the ‘Common offshore sea areas’[Headquarters for Ocean Policy, (2013)]• Existing regulations & industrial
practices has to be adjusted in the‘offshore sea areas’ [Sakaguchi (2015)]

Sea areas with Common / Offshore area
Right to Fish with shared permissions
Fisheries & OtherExisting MarineIndustries

Restrictions to fishingmethods, navigation etc.

MRE Projects• Fisheries are concerned about thepotential(MRE- Marine Renewable Energy)• But not enough evidences on negative impacts to the fisheries• The practical way to improve their acceptability is to create
these MRE projects

out ofPolicy makers & project developers should search for ways toamong local stakeholders to reduce the conflicting interests andto enhance the social acceptability of the power project.
Introduction

Methodology

Results & Discussion

Conclusion

3

Strategies to Create Positive Local ImpactsStrategies used in previous projects or proposed in Literature
Monetary
compensation

Non Monetary
incentives✓✓

Cheap/Free
Electricity✓✓

Collaborative
Industry
Investment
Decision
opportunities Amalgamation
Making✓✓✓✓✓✓Co-location with Sharing Real time
Existing industries
Oceanographic Source : RIOE(2013), IEA Wind (2013),
Jobert et al., (2007),(Fisheries, Tourism etc. )Information✓✓✓✓✓✓

Incentives to stakeholders

à Essential for planning marine activities
à If the information can be obtained

Sharing of co-benefits

without having additional developments

If the information can be shared
High stakeholder engagement à among
all relevant stakeholders

Cost !∝ No. of beneficiaries

à Cost of sharing information is negligible
due to existing ICT infrastructure

Proposed ‘Oceanographic information sharing’ option satisfy all prerequisites
but has not been analyzed empirically for MRE projects
Introduction

Methodology

Results & Discussion

Conclusion

4

Concept of the Proposed Information Sharing System
Oceanographic
Information

Information Sources
Satellite Observation
Ocean Monitoring platforms

Stakeholders
Fishery
Shipping Authorities(GOOS, FINO, Argo & other buoys etc.)

Env. Monitoring orgs.

Dedicated monitoring Systems(VMS, AIS, Monitoring vessels etc.)

Researchers

User Specific ocean monitoring

Tourism

Offshore Power Plants

Data Processing &management layer

Coast Guard
SCADA system forpower plant
management

CMS of the powerplant

Source: DEIF wind power
technology

Source: IHI Corp, “Power Generation Using Kuroshio Current”

Hypothesis - Stakeholders’ information requirements can be fulfilledby the power plant’s Condition Monitoring System (CMS)Introduction

Methodology

Results & Discussion

Conclusion

5Research Objective
Analyze the possibility of creating positive impacts among
multiple stakeholders by an oceanographic information
sharing scheme (taking Japanese Ocean Current Power project

as a case study)

Research Questions (R.Q.)
1. What oceanographic parameters are requiredby stakeholders?
2. What oceanographic parameters can begenerated by the plant’s CMS?
3. What is the expected incremental costs andbenefits to the stakeholders?
Introduction

Methodology

Results & Discussion

Conclusion

6

Research Framework
Field Work (Data collection)
DS/AHP (Multi-Criteria Decision
Making model)

7Case study - Japan’s Ocean Current Power (OCP) Project• OCP Projectà A demonstration research of an ‘Underwater Floating Type
Ocean Current Turbine System’ to generate electricity from the Kuroshio
ocean current.

Shionomisaki, Wakayama

Source:IHI Corp,“Power Generation Using the Kuroshio Current”[5]Introduction

Methodology

Toshima, Kagoshima
Source: Headquarters for Ocean Policy, Japan 2014

Results & Discussion

Conclusion

8Outcomes Analysis

Data collection

RQs

Research Flow
(2) Plant’s data
(1) Stakeholders’data requirements generation capacity(3) Economic feasibility

Primary Data
Interviews

Primary Data
Interviews

Primary Data
Interviews+ MarketSecondary Data
EuroGOOS
survey results

Secondary Data

Secondary Data
Project estimatesSimilar project Datawith stakeholders

Parameterization

with developers Datawith developers

Similar observation
systems

Parameterization

Cost Benefit Analysis

Stakeholders’Potential information
information demand
supplyIntroduction

Methodology

Scenario
selection

DS/AHP
model

Feasible scenarios

Results & Discussion

Conclusion

9Data Collection

Primary Data – Key informant interviews andFocus group discussions with,
1. Government Officials(n=Number of Key informants)• Wakayama prefecture government officials (n=2)

2. Fishery and Fishery Research Agencies• Fisherman outside the area (n=1)• Wakayama Higashi Fishery Union and local fishermen (n=6)• Wakayama prefecture fishery research and experimentstation (n=2) + pref. government officials (n=3)

3. Researchers (n=2)
4. Project Development Team Representatives (n=3)

Secondary Data – Literature, OCP Project Estimates & analysis
of other relevant projects, Market data
Introduction

Methodology

Results & Discussion

Conclusion

10

Alternatives

Criteria

Scenario Selection – DS/AHP Model
Decision hierarchy
What is the optimum
Information sharing level?

Stakeholder Inputs
Pairwise comparisonof Criteria

C1. Monetary Costs &Benefits
C2. Ocean observationimprovements

Favorability ofalternative(s) withrespect to each criteria

C3. Stakeholder
engagement
S1. No information
sharing system

Belief & Plausibility levelsof Stakeholder-wise
Alternatives Preferences[Beynon, M. J. (2005)]

Criteria Weights
Criteria wise probabilitiesof alternative(s)Final probabilities ofalternatives withrespect to all criteria

S2. Sharing all datarequired by stakeholders
S3. Sharing data obtainedfor operating the plantBelief & Plausibility levelsof GROUP Alternatives
A1 à Disapproves the Hypothesis
Preferences
A2 & A3 à Proves the Hypothesis
Introduction
MethodologyResults & Discussion

Conclusion

11

Stakeholders’ Oceanographic information requirements
Information generation potential of the CMS
Costs and Benefits of the proposed system
Preferred information sharing level

12R.Q.1 – Information Requirement
ERS = EuroGOOS Requirement Survey

Required Oceanographic Parameters

Mainly required by

Includes in ERS

Fisheries

Researchers

Top 10Top 201

Sea Surface Temperature (SST)

PPP-

2

Temperature distribution along the depthP-xx

3

Sea Surface Salinity (SSS)

-PP-

4

Ocean Current / Tidal velocity and direction

PPP-

5Wave Profile

PPP-

6Wind profile

PPxx

7

Phytoplankton & Zooplankton

PPP-

8

Underwater Video or the fish countP-xx

9Marine Mammal Observation

-Px

x

10

Nitrate & Dissolved Oxygen levels

-P-

P

11

Underwater noise & Passive acoustic monitoring

PPx

x

12

Suspended sediments

PP-

P

Secondary data from Europe
Primary Data from the Stakeholder interviews
13Introduction
Methodology
Conclusion
Results & Discussion

R.Q.2 – Information Generation potential
Existing applications
Availability
from the CMS Commercial R&D, Scientific
Ambient water temperature (at ~50 m depth)
PPParameters
Ocean/Tidal current velocity
PP
monitored
Wave heights
PPfor theAmbient noise levels
operation ofP
the power
Marine mammal observation
Pplant (Basic
Marine growth around the anchors
PCMS)
Underwater audio/videoP
Oceanographic Parameters which can bemonitored by the CMS

12
3
4567

8 Depth wise temperature distribution
9 Fish count
10 Salinity level & Dissolved Oxygen levels
11 Suspended sediments

by doing
incremental
changes tothe standardCMS

Primary Data from the developer interviews &Project design specifications
Introduction

Methodology

PP-PPP-P

Secondary data from existing
ocean monitoring systems

Results & Discussion

Conclusion

14

R.Q.3 – (Worst case) Incremental Costsx

10 kmxxxxxx

3 kmxxxxxxxxxxxx xx

Currentxxxx

x
xxx

x

Additional startup cost ≈ ¥ 132-193 mil.
Methodology

xxxxxxxxx

Plan view of turbine farm with proposed additional ocean monitoring devices

Introductionx

Source: IHI Corp, “Power Generation Using Kuroshio Current”

xxxxx

Required Sensors

x =CTDs
x =ADCPsx =Video,

Hydrophone
x =Fish detectors
x =Bio-chemicalsensors

Additional recurrent cost ≈ ¥ 160 mil./ yr.
Results & Discussion

Conclusion

15

R.Q.3 – Benefits
Potential benefits for fishery• Efficient fishing area selection• Damage reduction by accurate ‘Kyucho’ prediction• Reduced transportation costs from real time in-situ data
• More reliable simulation of fish migration patterns

Potential benefits for Researchers• Environmental impact monitoring• More efficient fish migration pattern simulation• Improvements in existing data sets used for modelling

Other indirect benefits• Potential for developing related industries (Forecasting etc.)
Source : Wakayama Prefecture Fishery Research Experiment Station

Avg. WTP of a fishery Union ≈ ¥ 0.1 - 0.5 mil./fisherman/yr. Sensitivity analysis
shows WTP is reliable if 1% - 5% improvement occurs in the mentioned benefits
Introduction

Methodology

Results & Discussion

Conclusion

16

CRITERIA WEIGHT %Stakeholder wise preference
60
50
40

47.2

44.42

54.67

52.47

47.2
44.43

38.44

33.38

30
20
8.37

10Ocean observation
improvements

14.16

8.37

6.89Stakeholder
engagement

0

Belief Level
Plausibility
Level

Alternative preference %Researchers(CR= 0.003)

Fishermen(CR= 0.003)

Fishery Union(CR= 0.046)

70Developer(CR= 0.094)

65.9

60

63.5

56.1

50

41.2

4030

30.82

20
100

Researchers (4.18%)

2.74

Fishermen (3.98%)
Fishery Union (3.82%)

38.3

45.1

59.5

46.5

53.6

21.8
9.73
11.7
1.37

18.9

CR = Consistency Ratio

Based on interviews & focus
group discussions with,

73.9
62.4

24.1

7.4

Monetary Costs &Benefits

28.9• Local fishery research agency& related researchers (n=5)• Fishermen from the area (n=4)• Fishery Union (n=2)• Developers (n=3)

26.6

17.7
10.97

S3.
Sharing Information
S2.
Developer (6.10%)
Sharing all the information obtained for operating theUncertainty orS1.
plant (by the standard CMS)
level of unawarenessNo information sharing required by stakeholders
Introduction

Methodology

Results & Discussion

Conclusion

17

Summary of Results

18

Results Summary• Most of the physical oceanographic parameters which are in highdemand, can be obtained from the CMS of the OCP power plantwith minimum additional cost.
• Most of the biochemical parameters also possible with incremental
changes to the standard CMS.
• At least 50% of the additional annual cost can be covered by thefishery Union’s WTP, even for the second scenario.
(¥0.1 mil./yr./fishermen * 800 fishermen = ¥80 mil./yr. à 50% of ¥160 mil.)• Significant difference exists in stakeholder wise criteria weightings.
• Despite the criteria weighting differences, all the stakeholders
preferred the proposed information sharing scheme as per the thirdscenario.

Introduction

Methodology

Results & Discussion

Conclusion

19References• Adams, R., Brown, M., Colgan, C., Flemming, N., Kite-Powell, H., McCarl, B., … Weiher, R.(2000). The Economics ofSustained Ocean Observations : Benefits and Rationale for public funding. Retrieved fromhttp://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/worldsummit/pdfs/isoos.pdf• Chiabai, A., & Nunes, P. A. L. D. (2006). Economic Valuation of Oceanographic Forecasting Services: A Cost-Benefit Exercise• MayGen(2011), Environmental Statement MayGen Tidal Energy Project and EIA - Scoping Document (Phase 1)• Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining theprinciple of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.
• Sakaguchi, T. (2015), Marine spatial planning for an ocean current power farm : A case study of Tokara, Japan. GPSS-GLI• NEDO (2014), Renewable Energy White Paper - Chapter 6- Ocean Energy , 2nd edition• Prime ministers Headquarters for Ocean Policy in Japan. (2013), Various regulations and administrative procedures, etc.
related to the demonstration field selection requirements• Prime ministers Headquarters for Ocean Policy in Japan. (2014), The selection result of ocean renewable energy
demonstration fields• RIOE (2013), Recommendations on fisheries cooperation in offshore wind power -fishery cooperative menu plan
• IEA Wind (2013). Expert group summary on recommended practices - Social acceptance of wind energy projects• Fischer, J., & Flemming, N. . (1999). Operational Oceanography: Data Requirements Survey”, EuroGOOS Publication No. 12,Southampton Oceanography Centre, Southampton.
• Beynon, M. J. (2005). A method of aggregation in DS/AHP for group decision-making with the non-equivalent importanceof individuals in the group . Computers & Operations Research, 32(7), 1881–1896.
• IEA-OES(2015), International Levelised Cost Of Energy for Ocean Energy Technologies• Jobert, A., Laborgne, P., & Mimler, S. (2007). Local acceptance of wind energy: Factors of success identified in French andGerman case studies. Energy Policy, 35(5), 2751–2760.
• Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service. (n.d.). Retrieved June 30, 2016, from http://marine.copernicus.eu/• CORMP. (n.d.). Coastal Ocean Research and Monitoring Program. Retrieved June 30, 2016,from
http://www.cormp.org/index.php

Introduction

Methodology

Results & Discussion

Conclusion

20

THANK YOU !

Information
Sharing System

Ocean
Monitoring

Industrial
Development
ViableEnvironment

Sustainable

Economic

Equitable

Bearable

SocialStakeholder
Engagement

Introduction

Methodology

Results & Discussion

Conclusion

21

What is Marine Renewable Energy (MRE)?
ØRenewable energy sources harnessed from ocean areas such as,• Wave Energy• Tidal & Ocean
Current Energy
http://www.aquaret.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=203&Itemid=344&lang=en• Ocean Thermal
Energy Conversion
http://hawaiienergyoptions.blogspot.jp/

Introduction

Methodology

Results & Discussion

Conclusion

22

Stakeholder Identification
Power

Prime minister’s
Headquarters
for Ocean Policy,
Coast Guard,

Fishery,
Tourism & Shipping
Industries

Legitimacy

Residents,
Property Owners,

Regulators & Policy
makers, Regional Fishery Project
Union
Developers,Researchers,
Other onshore
Environmentalists
industries
Manufacturers, Suppliers, Investors,
Tourists, Fishermen outside the area,
Electricity users
Urgency

Introduction

Methodology

Stakeholder map createdaccording to Mitchell et al., (1997)

Results & Discussion

Conclusion

23

Marine Renewable Energy in Japan

Source: Japan Coast Guard

Source: IHI Corp, “Power Generation Using the Kuroshio Current”• Japan has world’s sixth largest
Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ)• ‘Kuroshio Current’ flows near the coastal
areas of Japan stably throughout the year

Japan can generate 5% of its domestic electricity demand if 10% of theestimated power can be extracted from the Kuroshio Current.
Introduction

Methodology

Results & Discussion

Conclusion

24

Examples from the Japan’s history• Protests against the Offshore windfarm development in Yasuoka,
Shimonoseki.
• Large compensation for fisheries aswell as restrictions on rocket launching
period for ‘Tanegashima Space Centre’,
JAXA

http://www.spacedaily.com/spacenet/text/fish.html

Introduction

Methodology(http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2010/07/20
100729_tnsc_j.html)

Results & Discussion

Tanegashima Space Center, JAXA.

Conclusion

25

Prefectural Government
Concerns raised by the Wakayama Prefecture Government officials

1

Potential Benefits or key drivers

Potential Costs or key barriers

Improved the efficiency and safety ofoffshore operations

Additional financial costs to the OCP
project development and deployment

Opportunity for new local industries
2 such as monitoring & forecasting,suppliers etc.

Difficulty to coordinate with all thepossible stakeholders

3

Better resource management &planning

Potential data management issues

4

Effective in gaining the stakeholder
support for project development

Potential over exploitation of naturalresources

5

Potential for local economic
development by other indirect means

Potential impacts to the local andtraditional socio-economic activities

Introduction

Methodology

Results & Discussion

Conclusion

26

Decision hierarchy
What is the optimum
Information sharing level?

Criteria

C1. Researchers (n=5)
C2. Fishermen (n=4)

Scenario Preference %Group Preference80706050403020100Belief %Plausibility %76.75

22.350.12

Uncertainty level = 0.001%
77.52

23.120.13

S1.
S2.
S3.
No information sharing Sharing all the information Sharing information
required by theobtained for operating thestakeholders
plant (by standard CMS)

C3. Fishery Union (n= 2)

All Stakeholders

C4. Developers (n=3)(Weight Based on Group Size)

S1. No information
sharing system
S2. Sharing all datarequired by stakeholders

Scenario Preference %Alternatives

All Stakeholders (Equal Weights)

80706050403020100S3. Sharing data obtainedby the standard CMS

Belief %Uncertainty level = 0.021%

Plausibility %

70.61

25.55
0.68

73.45

28.42

1.08

S1.
S2.
S3.
No information sharing Sharing all the information Sharing information
required by theobtained for operating thestakeholders
plant (by standard CMS)

Information sharing according to the third scenario is preferred by all stakeholders
Introduction

Methodology

Results & Discussion

Conclusion

27

Sensitivity analysis
2006-2012 Avg.

Annual Figures
per fisherman

Potential
to have
ImpactAnnual benefits per fisherman(¥ millions)¥% of(mil.) Income
Fishery Income
6.28✓
Fishery cost
4.00
Labor Cost
0.48 11.90%xEquipment Cost
0.32 8.08%
x
Repair Cost
0.28 6.91%✓Fuel Cost
0.78 19.42%✓Sales Commissions
0.39 9.68%x
Depreciation
0.64 15.91%✓Others
1.12 28.10%✓Fishery Net Earnings 2.28 36.22%
Non FisheryNet
Sensitivity of total 0.13
annual fishery benefits per fisherman
3.00
Earnings
2.50

Income imrovements
Total benefits

Cost reductions
WTPmax

2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
02.5
5
Introduction

7.5

1015
17.5
20
22.5
Methodology

12.5

Improvement %25

27.530Results& Discussion

Conclusion

28