Carmen Arguedas, AERNA Newsletter Editor
Dear AERNA colleagues and friends,
It is my great pleasure to introduce the contents of the fifth issue of our AERNA Newsletter (July 2016). This issue contains the traditional sections on Institutional Highlights and Research Highlights, followed by information on job opportunities, upcoming conferences and the list of our institutional members in 2016. (read more ⇓)
The section on Institutional Highlights starts with a note about cooperation as an instrument or culture from our president Antoni Riera , and follows with information about the upcoming AERNA Conference, which will take place in Aveiro (Portugal) on September 2016. As you all know, AERNA conferences take place once every two years, and we are very much looking forward to our next scientific meeting, which will be the seventh in the history of AERNA.
In the Research Highlights section, you will find three very interesting articles. The first one, coauthored by José María Da Rocha, Javier García – Cutrin and María José Gutiérrez, discusses recent advances on optimal fishing harvesting. The second article is a contribution by Sonia Quiroga and Pablo Martínez - Juarez on the unattended role of biodiversity, co-benefits and equity in EU environmental poolicies. Finally, the third one is a note by our past AERNA president, Emilio Cerdá, on the Circular Economy.
As you know, everyone in AERNA is very welcomed to write brief notes on Environmental and Resource Economics problems for our Newsletter. I particularly invite contributions from PhD students and young scholars in our field, as a means of increasing their visibility. Everyone in the Association can participate, so please, send me your proposals for the next issue before December 1, 2016 at firstname.lastname@example.org
I want to finish this introduction by thanking all the authors of this issue for their availability and effort in providing interesting contents, and also Esther Blanco and Iván González for their great help on designing and maintaining the Newsletter look.
Please enjoy, and see you in Aveiro!
Antoni Riera, President of AERNA
The need to find solutions to global problems that threaten the viability and safety of our planet increasingly calls to the cooperation. Perhaps for this reason, gradually, we are coming out of a cycle dominated by competitiveness as logic of the social and economic system and entering in a new cycle characterized by the premise 'cooperating to compete'. (read more ⇓)
This new cycle has forced researchers to move from individuality to the formation of research groups and to deepen in the collaboration between groups from different institutions and countries. While these forms of organization of research have always been present, many indicators attest the growing trend towards increasingly complex organizational forms such as the establishment of research networks, heterogeneous in composition and transient in time.
Perhaps the best way to illustrate this evolution is to point out the difference between considering cooperation as an instrument in the process of R+D+I or consider it as a culture in the scientific and technological community.
Initially cooperation, according to the Royal Spanish Academy, is defined as action to cooperate and work with others for the same purpose. Scientific and technological cooperation includes, then, a set of activities that are constructed from the interactions and collaborations among heterogeneous actors to achieve mutual goals. This conceptualization of cooperation emphasizes its instrumental character because allow joining efforts, capabilities and funding to achieve goals and outcomes that would not be possible or would be in a lesser degree.
However, the question for the future is to transform this instrumental nature of cooperation in a culture that will be able to permeate the whole system. This evolution, which a few years ago could be anecdotal, is based today on the need for complementing capabilities. Firstly, by the increasing specialization of research groups and the multidisciplinary nature of scientific approaches. Secondly, by the progressive fusion of scientific fields in new technologies and heterogeneity of innovation processes. Thirdly, for the benefits of complementarity in terms of increased productivity, visibility and improving the quality of the process and the results. To sum up, for the improvements in the competitive capacities of institutions, businesses and individuals and the positive impacts on their internationalization.
This is probably the scenario that we are going, although this will require still overcome a lot of the obstacles arising from the own interests, motivations, aspirations and prejudices of individuals and, more and more, understand and assimilate the cultural differences that exist between people and organizations throughout trust and partnership.
The difficulties of culture of cooperation become more evident when we descend to operative ground because it forces to manage the complex relationship between competitiveness and cooperation. Both ingredients are inevitable and necessary in the future society. Both bring creativity and add value. The question is what will be the force that will dominate. Or, in other words, if society will develop by adding and sharing or if will grow excluding. The culture of cooperation seems to better guarantee equity, cohesion and social integration.
Margarita Robaina, President of the Organizing Committee
The VII Conference of the Spanish-Portuguese Association of Natural Resources and Environmental Economics (AERNA) will be held on Aveiro, organized by the Department of Economics, Management and Industrial Engineering and Tourism (DEGEIT) and the Research Center in Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policy (GOVCOPP) from September 5th to September 7th, 2016. (read more ⇓)
So far the organization is very pleased because we had more than 100 submitted and 60 accepted papers, all of very good quality. Up until now we have 50 registered authors from 10 different countries (Portugal, Spain, Brazil, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Canada), most of which (60%) Portuguese and Spanish.
The Conference will have two plenary sessions with very interesting keynotes, Professor Sjak Smulders (Tilburg University) and Professor Xavier Labandeira (University of Vigo) respectively with the following topics: "Growth, Degrowth and the Environment" and "25 years of European Climate Policies".
The scientific work will be spread over 10 sessions with different topics: Social and Economic Issues, Air and Water Resources, Fisheries and Marine Resources, Environmental Valuation and Climate Change, Agricultural Economics, Forestry Economics, Theory Game and Strategic Behavior, Energy Policies, Environmental Policies and Renewable Energy.
A special session will be organized by the Portuguese Association of Energy Economics - APEEN with the thematic of “Research and Innovation at the service of a Sustainable and Resilient Economy.
AERNA will assign two awards in Aveiro, one for the best article published and another for the best article presented at the Conference.
The Organizing Committee will gift the participants with a rich social program which includes a visit to the Museum Santa Joana, a Moliceiro trip, a Welcome Reception on the city center and a Conference Diner, where participants will enjoy the interesting and beautiful city of Aveiro.
We are still accepting registrations! For more information consult the Conference website: www.ua.pt
We are looking forward to meet you in Aveiro!
José María Da Rocha (Universidade de Vigo e Instituto Tecnológico de México), Javier García-Cutrin (Universidade de Vigo) and María-José Gutiérrez (University of the Basque Country)
Fisheries economics have addressed most of their relevant issues applying biomass models (also known as lumped-parameter or surplus-production models) that abstract from the age-structured behind the biological dynamics of fish populations. Since the pioneer articles by Gordon (1954) and Scott (1955), there have been a huge number of contributions based on biomass models in a variety of topics. Wilen (2000) points out this fact when surveying the developments and advances in fisheries economics and fisheries policy over the second half of the twentieth century. (read more ⇓)
However, age-structured population models have been the centrepiece of fisheries management for long time. From Baranov’s seminal article (1918) to subsequent developments by Beverton and Holt (1957), Ricker (1975) or Shepherd (1982), there has been a vast amount of literature showing the advances of this approach in fishing population models. In real practice, the vast majority of contemporary stock assessments that attempt to reconstruct population biomass for marine species are based on age-structured models (Punt et al., 2013).
With respect to optimal harvesting issues, during years many bioeconomists have considered that models with explicit age structure were very convenient for practical management problems but intractable from the analytical point of view. This has changed recently and more and more authors agree that age-structured models are more appropriated than biomass models for studying the complexity of the real fish stocks (Quinn and Deriso, 1999; Hilborn and Walters, 2001, Walters and Martell, 2004). Moreover, some studies show that optimal harvesting decisions may be different if age-structured information is ignored and optimization is based on conventional biomass variables (Tahvonen, 2009; Skonhoft et al. 2012).
The analysis of optimal harvesting based on age-structured models has found that in many circumstances the optimal solution takes the form of pulse fishing (also called periodic fishing). This means that the optimal exploitation paths consist of periodic cycles of fishing followed by fallow periods to enable stocks to recover. Pulse fishing as an optimal management strategy emerges for the first time in Hannesson (1975) and Clark (1976). After that many other articles have found, by using numerical methods, that pulse fishing is the optimal policy in some fisheries modelled with age-structured populations when the objective is to maximize the present value of the yield or the profits (Bjørndal and Bjørndal et al. 2004; Stage 2006; Da Rocha et al. 2012a). However, the first analytical results for extended scenarios were only recently derived. Tahvonen (2009) proves that in a 2-age structured fisheries model with endogenous recruitment and harvesting costs, the optimal exploitation paths consists of pulse fishing under specific conditions such as nonselective gear. Steinshamn (2011) extends age-structured models by incorporating density dependence growth and finds that pulse fishing seems to become less and less economically profitable as we move from uniformly distributed fish to schooling species. Skonhoft et al. (2012), derive the optimal harvesting when the fleet can choose different fishing gears with different fishing selectivity by paying different costs. Da Rocha et al. (2013) show that optimal management with any number of age classes and imperfect selectivity is equivalent to finding the optimal fish lifespan by chosen fallow cycles.
Therefore, there is strong analytical and empirical evidence in favour of pulse fishing as the optimal harvesting policy on many circumstances when dynamic age-structured bioeconomic models are considered. Nevertheless, pulse fishing represents a type of solution far away from the smooth trajectories advocated by practitioners and regulators. So, under which circumstances can the pulses be rule out as optimal solution for fisheries management? Da Rocha et al. (2012c) show numerically that the pulses could be eliminated as the optimal solution by maximizing the logarithm of the catches instead of just the catches. This result is reinforced in Da Rocha et al. (2013) where it is shown analytically that the concavity properties of the management objective function are essential to remove optimal pulse fishing under imperfect selectivity. In the context of schooling fisheries, Tavhonen et al. (2013) also show that using nonlinear harvesting costs that guarantee the concavity of the manager’s objective function generates smooth optimal paths toward the steady state. Finally, Da Rocha et al. (2016) show that a the combination of using a CES utility function in the management objective function and non constant discount factor, guarantees that smooth and non-overfishing exploitation paths can be supported as optimal response for age-structured fisheries that have to return to the maximum sustainable yield level.
Summarizing, pulse fishing emerge as the optimal solution in many circumstances when age-structured models are considered. However, these situations can be reduced if the objective function shows concavity properties.
Baranov, F.I. 1918. On the question of the biological basis of fisheries. In Institute for Scientific Ichthyological Investigations. Proceedings 1(1), 81–128.
Beverton, R.J.H. and Holt S.J. 1957. On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish Populations. Fishery Investigations, Series II, 19. Republished by Chapman and Hall, 1993, London.
Bjørndal, T., Gordon, D., Kaitala, V., Lindroos, M. 2004. International management strategies for a straddling fish stock: a bio-economic simulation model of the Norwegian Spring-Spawning Herring Fishery. Environmental Resource Economics 29, 435–457.
Clark, C.W. 1976. Mathematical Bioeconomics: the Optimal Management of Renewable Resources. Pure & Applied Mathematics Colection. Vol 4. Jon Wiley & Sons. New York.
Da Rocha, J.M., García-Cutrin, J., Gutiérrez, M.J., Touza, J., (2016). Reconciling yield stability with international fisheries agencies precautionary preferences: the role of non constant discount factors in age structured models. Fisheries Research 173, 282-293.
Da-Rocha, J.M., Gutiérrez, M.J., Antelo, L.T. 2013. Selectivity, pulse fishing and endogenous lifespan in Beverton-Holt models. Environmental Resource Economics 54(1), 139-154.
Da Rocha J.M., Gutiérrez M.J., Antelo L.T. 2012a. Pulse vs optimal stationary fishing: The Northern stock of Hake. Fisheries Research, 121–122: 51–62.
Da Rocha, J.M., Gutiérrez, M.J., Cerviño, S., Antelo, L.T. 2012c. logMSY and optimal harvesting control rules: New tools for the implementarion of the European Common Fisheries Policy. Ocean Coastal Management 70, 48-53.
Gordon, H.S., (1954). Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fisheries. Journal of Political Economy 62, 124-142.
Hannesson, R. 1975. Fishery dynamics: a North Atlantic cod fishery. Canadian Journal of Economics 8, 151–173.
Hilborn, R. and Walters, C.J. 2001. Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment: Choice, Dynamics and Uncertainty. Chapman & Hall, Inc. London.
Punt, A.E, Huang, T.C., Maunder, M.N. 2013. Review of integrated size-structured models for stock assessment of hard-to-age crustacean and mollusc species. ICES Journal of Marine Science 70(1), 16–33.
Quinn, T.J. II and Deriso, R.B. 1999. Quantitative Fisheries Dynamics. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Ricker, W.E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish population. Bulletin of the Fisheries. Research Board of Canada, 191.
Scott, A.D. 1955. The fishery: The objectives of sole ownership. Journal of Political Economy 63, 116-124.
Shepherd, J.G. 1982. A versatile new stock-recruitment relationship for fisheries and the construction of sustainable yield curves. ICES Journal of Marine Science 40(1), 67–75.
Skonhoft, A., Vestergaard, N., Quaas, M. 2012. Optimal harvest in an age structured model with different ﬁshing selectiviy. Environmental Resource Economics 51(4), 525–544.
Stage, J. 2006. Optimal harvesting in an age-class model with age-specific mortalities: an example from Namibian line fishing. Natural Resource Modelling 19, 609–631.
Steinshamn, S.I. 2011. A conceptional analysis of dynamics and production in bioeconomic models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93(3), 803–812.
Tahvonen, O. 2009. Economics of harvesting age-structured fish populations. Journal of Environmental Economic Management 58, 281–299.
Tahvonen, O., Quaass, M.F., Schmidt, J.O., Voss, R. (2013). Optimal harvestin of an age-structured schooling fishery. Environmental Resource Economics 54, 21-39.
Walters, C.J. and Martell, S.J.D. 2004. Fisheries Ecology and Management, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Wilen, J.E. 2000. Renewable resource economist and policy: What differences have we Made? Journal of Environmental Economics Management 39, 306-327.
Sonia Quiroga and Pablo Martínez-Juárez, Department of Economics, Universidad de Alcalá
Public effort on environmental policies has been growing in the last years, and with it, the attention put over its effectiveness, efficiency and impact over equity. One of the sources of problems is the excessive rigidness of top-down approaches in ecosystem preservation and regulation. For example, the compensatory measure 224 stated in the Common Agricultural Policy to be applied over the Natura 2000 sites is programmed in less of the 20% of the eligible areas (Sarvašová et al. 2016). A possible approach towards dealing with this excessive rigidness is the diversification of the objectives. (read more ⇓)
The creation and constant development of a wide and diverse range of measures would ease the task of broadening the view and letting policy makers and other stakeholders to find those solutions that fit best. Innovation is the key of this approach, but creativity in problem solving is discouraged. Constant identification of societal needs is also basic, as needs and resources will fluctuate period by period.
Another problem arises from the failure in finding all these objectives. While issues such as biodiversity, ecosystem conservation or provisioning ecosystem services are highly regarded, some other services, particularly cultural ecosystem services, provided to society are often forgotten. This generates an important problem as cultural ecosystem services such as the ascetic value of an urban park or its educational and recreational values must be considered when implementing policies. The same is true for forests and multiple other ecosystems (Živojinović et al. 2015). Ecosystem services affect livelihood in different ways, sometimes in a measurable manner, some others in more indirect forms.
Forgetting that ecosystems are valuable also because of the subjective inclination of societies towards greener environments is a cause of the excess of attention that has been paid to policies such as grey infrastructures. While their positive impact as adaptive measures is undeniable, their cost efficiency may not be as clear as it should. Soft adaptation measures such as Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) has been showing encouraging results, even taking just into account their ability to fulfil their direct role (New York City Department of Environmental Protection 2008).
While clear and varied objectives are important, unexpected benefits arising from different measures, or co-benefits, must also be considered. Co-benefits from ecosystem improvement and conservation may affect wellbeing in different manners. Different authors have addressed this issue and have shown that different explanations may drive to this conclusion, such as environmental and atmospheric regulation. An example is their impact over health (Martinez-Juarez et al. 2015). Green environments have been associated not only with stress reduction, but also with lower prevalence rates in different illnesses and health problems (Maas et al. 2009). It has also been suggested that green neighbourhoods reduce health inequalities, providing better health to both high and low income areas, but improving health conditions more strongly in economically deprived areas (Mitchell and Popham 2008). This subject will be of growing importance as climate change affects the income structure both within countries and among them. There is still much to be analysed on the issue of the potential reduction of socioeconomic inequalities through environmental policies (Quiroga and Suárez 2016).
Maas, J, R A Verheij, S de Vries, P Spreeuwenberg, F G Schellevis, and P P Groenewegen. 2009. “Morbidity Is Related to a Green Living Environment.” Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 63 (12): 967–73.
Martinez-Juarez, Pablo, Aline Chiabai, Tim Taylor, and Sonia Quiroga. 2015. “The Impact of Ecosystems on Human Health and Well-Being: A Critical Review.” Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 10 (July): 63–69.
Mitchell, Richard, and Frank Popham. 2008. “Effect of Exposure to Natural Environment on Health Inequalities: An Observational Population Study.” Lancet 372 (9650). Elsevier Ltd: 1655–60.
New York City Department of Environmental Protection. 2008. “NYC Green Infrastructure Plan.” Vasa, 8. medcontent.metapress.com/index/A65RM03P4874243N.pdf
Quiroga S., Suárez C. (2016). Climate change and water scarcity effects on the rural income distribution in the Mediterranean: A case study for Spain. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science. Spetial Issue on Climate change, extreme events and hazards in the Mediterranean region. (In press)
Sarvašová, Z, Ali, T, Ilija Djordjevic, Lukmine, D, Quiroga, S, Suárez, C, Hrib M. "Understanding the drivers for Natura 2000 payments in forests: a Heckman selection analysis". Forest (Submitted).
Živojinović, I., Weiss, G., Lidestav, G., Feliciano, D., Hujala, T., Dobšinská, Z., Lawrence, A., and U. Nybakk, E., Quiroga, S., Schraml. 2015. Forest Land Ownership Change in Europe. COST Action FP1201 FACESMAP Country Reports, Joint Volume. Vol. C.
Emilio Cerdá Tena, Instituto Complutense de Estudios Internacionales, Universidad Complutense de Madrid
The concept of Circular Economy (CE) appears for the first time in the book Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment by Pearce and Turner (1989). The title of chapter 2 is “The circular economy”. The authors explain the shift from the traditional open-ended economic system to a circular economic system as a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics that dictate matter and energy degradation. This idea has evolved over time and in the last years has acquired more and more importance both from the point of view of research and implementation in the real economy. (read more ⇓)
In 2015 some important publications about CE have appeared and we would highlight the book by Webster and that of Lacy and Rutqvist, the research reports by EMF and McKinsey on the one hand and Wijkman and Skanberg on the other, referring to Europe, and the report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation, centered on the U.S.A. Coara established “the definitive guide to the CE for business”. Moreover, in December 2015 the European Commission published Closing the loop – An EU action plan for the circular economy, a new strategy that aims to support the transition to a CE in the EU. The action plan sets out a large number of initiatives that address all stages of the life cycle, combined with concrete targets on waste and the development of a monitoring framework in cooperation with the European Environment Agency (EEA, 2016).
In the National Conference of the Environment (CONAMA 2016), to be held in Madrid from November, 28 to December, 1, the CE appears as one of the main environmental challenges in Spain. Moreover, from next November 15 to 17, a European summit about CE will take place in Barcelona.
The mission of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) is to accelerate the transition to a CE. Its web page contains a lot of interesting information, including relevant publications on the subject. The concept of CE is characterized, more than defined, as an economy that is restorative and regenerative by design and aims to keep products, components, and materials at their highest utility and value at all times, distinguishing between technical and biological cycles. The CE rests on three principles: 1) Preserve and enhance natural capital by controlling finite stocks and balancing renewable resource flows. 2) Optimise resource yields by circulating products, components, and materials at the highest utility at all times in both technical and biological cycles. 3) Foster system effectiveness by revealing and designing out negative externalities (EMF, 2015).
Ghisellini et al. (2016) review 1031 papers about CE, published from 2004 to 2014. The literature search was performed in all Web of Science databases and Sciencedirect.
Coara (2015). The Definitive Guide To The Circular Economy for Business.
EC (2015). Closing the loop. An EU action plan for the Circular Economy (COM(2015) 614/2 of 2 December 2015).
EEA (2016). Circular economy in Europe. Developing the knowledge base. EEA Report No. 2/2016, European Environment Agency.
EMF (2015). Towards the circular economy. Business rationale for an accelerated transition. Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
EMF and McKinsey Center for Business and Environment (2015). Growth within: A circular economy vision for a competitive Europe. Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey Center for Business and Environment.
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C. and Ulgiati, S. (2016). “A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems”. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114, 11-32.
Lacy, P. and Rutqvist, J. (2015). Waste to Wealth. The Circular Economy Advantage. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Pearce, D. W. and Turner, R. K. (1989). Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. Hemel Hempstead, Harvester Wheatsheaf, London.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation (2015). Achieving a Circular Economy: How the private sector is reimagining the future of business. Washington DC.
Webster, K. (2015). The circular economy. A wealth of flows. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Isle of Wight.
Wijkman, A. and Skanberg, K. (2015). The Circular Economy and Benefits for Society. Jobs and Climate Clear Winners in an Economy Based on Renewable Energy and Resource Efficiency. A study report at the request of the Club of Rome with support from the MAVA Foundation.
The European Job Market for Environmental and Resource Economists aims to offer the two sides of the market - institutions with open positions and candidates looking for a job - both a virtual and a physical place to meet and look for the best match. Candidates, universities, public and private institutions, and corporations are invited to apply to participate in the Job Market.
For additional information, consult www.eaere.org
Econ Job Market (EJM) is a nonprofit organization that facilitates the flow of information in the economics job market by providing a secure central repository for the files of job-market candidates (including papers, reference letters, and other materials) accessed on line. EJM is run by a group of academic economists who mostly volunteer their time and effort.
For additional information, consult www.econjobmarket.org
The chair of econometrics at the University of Mannheim, Germany, is looking for a PostDoc researcher to enlarge its team in the area of Impact Evaluations in Developing Countries.
Application Deadline: September 30, 2016.
For additional information, consult https://inomics.com/postdoc-impact-evaluations-developing-countries-tv-l13-position-mannheim
The University of Aveiro will host the 7th edition of the conference of AERNA.
Detailed information has been provided in the Institutional Highlights section of this issue of the Newsletter. Also consult the conference webpage www.ua.pt/degei/aerna2016/page/20650?ref=ID0EKCA.
Specific information about the conference will soon be announced on the AERE web page, www.aere.org
The 23rd edition of the Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists is organized by the International Centre for Research on the Environment and the Economy (ICRE8), in collaboration with Athens University of Economics and Business, the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and ATHENA Research and Innovation Center.
Plenary speakers: Graciela Chichilnisky (Columbia University), Maria Damanaki (The Nature Conservancy), Karine Nyborg (University of Oslo) and Jeffrey Sachs (The Earth Institute).
Co-chairs of the Scientific Program Committee are Phoebe Koundouri and Sir Partha Dasguppta.
For additional information, consult the conference webpage www.eaere-conferences.org/index.php?y=2017
The World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists is jointly organized by the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (AERE), the East Asian Association of Environmental and Resource Economics (EAAERE), and the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (EAERE). The 6th edition of this event will be held in Gothenburg, Sweden, from June 25th to June 29th, 2018. The Congress will be organized by the University of Gothenburg, with Prof. Thomas Sterner chairing the Local Organizing Committee. More information about the conference will soon be announced.
Researchers from the respective Groups of Environmental and Resource Economics from IPP-CSIC, UCM, UPM and CIFOR-INIA organize since 2010 a series of seminars about Environmental and Resource Economics in Madrid (Madrid Environmental Economics Seminars, MEES). The seminars are organized approximately once each two months around two presentations, with rotating venues at UPM, UCM, IPP-CSIC and CIFOR-INIA. Usually, one presentation is given by a PhD student and the other one is given by a senior researcher, although there can be exceptions to this rule depending on the circumstances. PhD students are especially encouraged to participate, since this can constitute an excellent opportunity to present their work previous to their Dissertation defense. Participation by foreign students and researchers is also encouraged.
The specific dates and venues of future seminars will be announced in advanced at the MEES web page sites.google.com/site/madenvecosem/mees.
Recent speakers have included, among others, Giles Atkinson (London School of Economics), Pablo Campos (IPP-CSIC), Alejandro Caparrós (IPP-CSIC), Pere Mir (Universidad de Lleida), Elena Ojea (BC3), Diego Broz, (FCF-UNaM), Sergio Álvarez Gallego (ETSI Montes-UPM), Jesús Barreal (Universidade de Santiago de Compostela), Michael Finus (Universidad de Bath) and Luis Miguel de Castro (UCM).
The Technology Center of Marine and Food Research.
To imagine the future is a challenge that motivates and excites us everyday: To meet the demands of innovation and development in the marine and food industries. Together, we have no limits.
The BC3 is a Research Centre based in the Basque Country which aims to contribute to long term research on the causes and consequences of climate change in order to foster the creation of knowledge in this multidisciplinary science.
Factor CO2 is a global company that provides ideas and services to tackle climate change from innovative perspectives through our international network of offices. We have developed more than 900 projects for more than 380 clients in 30 different countries.
The Complutense University of Madrid (UCM) is an institution with a long history and broad social recognition. UCM aspires to be among the foremost universities in Europe, and a reference centre for Latin America.
Public and private institutions are invited to support the Association to further its aims by joining AERNA as institutional members. Incomes from institutional membership fees are used exclusively and completely to further the aims of the Association.
Consult our fees, and join us!