32

Emergy Evaluation of Governmental Policies on Derelict Fishing

gears in South Korea
Sunwook Hong, Daeseok Kang and Jongmyoung Lee

ABSTRACT
Marine debris is a growing global marine environmental issue. It causes negative and serious impacts
on marine ecosystem, tourism, navigation safety, and fisheries. Derelict fishing gears (DFGs) have
been considered as one of the major sources of marine debris in the Korean seas. The Korean
government has implemented many policy measures to control DFGs since late 1990s. We compared
three representative policy measures of ‘Cleanup of floating or submerged DFGs (CL)’ using
specialized ships to collect DFGs year-round, ‘DFGs buyback program (BB)’ to purchase DFGs
collected by fishermen during fishing operations, and ‘Floating reception barge for DFGs (FB)’ to
provide a temporary storage place to fishermen who voluntarily collect DFGs. FB required the lowest
emergy investment of 8.80E+14 seJ/yr to collect one ton of DFGs. A total of 8.48E+15 seJ/yr was
required for CL to collect one ton of DFGs and 6.53E+15 seJ/yr for BB. The emergy investments for
CL and BB were 9.6 and 7.4 times higher than that of FB, respectively. CL and BB were more costly
options to collect marine debris even in economic terms, with 14.3 times more cost for CL to be
implemented and 7.8 times for BB than that of FB. These results suggest that FB could be the most
efficient option among the three policy alternatives.

INTRODUCTION
Marine debris is a growing global marine environmental issue. It is defined as ‘any manufactured
or processed solid waste material that enters the marine environment from any source’ (Coe & Rogers,
1997). It causes mortality or sublethal effects on marine animals through entanglement and ingestion
(Laist, 1987, 1997; Hong et al., 2013). It has affected tourism, navigation safety, economic loss in
fisheries, and reduction in aesthetic value of beaches (Takehama, 1990; Balance et al., 2000; Mouat et
al., 2010). Especially long-lasting derelict fishing gears (DFGs) such as plastic fishing nets, lines,
traps/pots, and other fishing equipment require urgent actions to reduce the impact at global, regional,
national, and local levels (Macfadyen et al., 2009).
Late 1990s, mass media began to remark underwater pollution by marine debris, which drew
attention of the public in South Korea. Sunken debris was recognized as one of the serious
environmental issues, consisting of DFGs. The central government started to assign budget up to 10
million US$ a year to remove DFGs. Cleanup programs for sunken and floating debris having different
titles but similar characteristics have been implemented for longer than a decade. However, there are
rare researches on efficiency or propriety of the ongoing cleanup programs, economic cost-benefit,
improvement of marine ecosystem or resources due to removal of debris, or negative impact probably
caused by collecting process itself, etc. The study aims 1) to calculate emergy costs and monetary costs
needed to collect one ton of DFGs through representative governmental measures and 2) to compare
their relative efficiencies. It can possibly contribute to improvement of DFGs management in the
country.

277
STUDY TARGET AND METHOD
Governmental policies on DFGs
We targeted only three DFGs removal programs among the governmental policy measures in
South Korea due to the lack of reliable data and information: ‘Cleanup of floating or submerged DFGs
using ships (CL)’, ‘DFGs buyback program (BB)’, and ‘Floating reception barge for DFGs (FB)’.
First, CL is to clean floating or sunken debris with using specialized ships year-round. Seven 15-
ton ships operated by Korea Fisheries and Port Association (KFPA) were selected, even though a total
of 140 ships participate in the governmental programs to retrieve DFGs as of 2013. No sufficient
information is available for other ships to be used in the evaluation. Each ship is operated by two
crews and equipped with a crane at the stern for deposited DFGs and a mesh scoop at the bow for
floating DFGs.
Second, BB is an incentive program to encourage fishermen to bring back DFGs that is netted
during their fishing operations and not to dump them into the marine environment (Cho, 2009).
Fishermen are paid for their efforts based on a fixed rate for each debris type: about 8 US$/100 liter for
fishing nets, ropes, and plastic bags or packages, 1 US$/10 ea for crab traps, and 2 US$/10kg for
styrofoam buoys. Styrofoam buoys, however, are rarely collected because they are light in weight and
large in volume. The program does not purchase garbage produced on board. During the period of
2009~2012, an annual average budget for the BB was 4.4 million $/yr to collect a total of 7,700 tons of
DFGs nationwide (J.Y. Jeong of Ministry of Ocean and Fisheries, personal communication). A local
municipality, Geoje City was selected for the evaluation in the study due to the lack of reliable data.
Third, FB is to provide a temporary storage place to fishermen who voluntarily collect DFGs. The
government provided an optimistic design and recommended its adaptation to local governments in
2009. In the end of 2011, 50 barges were set up in 16 local municipalities and more providing is
expected. During the period of 2010~2012, about 1,000 ton of DFGs were collected through FB (J.Y.
Jeong of Ministry of Ocean and Fisheries, personal communication). A case of Geoje City was
selected for the evaluation in the study.
The programs collect similar types of DFGs such as floating and deposited fishing nets, ropes, and
traps (mainly plastic), and styrofoam buoys in rare occasions. The debris collected is transported for
treatment facility (i.e. recycling, incineration or landfill). The processes after the collection are similar
to each other. Here we assume that the material composition of DFGs collected and the treatment
process after the collection are the same in three programs. We compared three programs in terms of
emergy investment for cleanup removal of the same amount of DFGs using emergy concept (Odum,
1996).

Emergy evaluation
To compare the three policies, we used emergy concept that different forms and units of energy,
materials and human services to support a system are converted to equivalents of one form of solar
energy (emergy) (Odum, 1996). Emergy reflects not only costs but also environmental services which
are normally considered free. The system boundary in the study is the Korean seas including beaches
(Fig. 1). Tourism, shipping, fisheries and aquaculture are major activities at sea and have high
potential to discharge marine debris to sea. Land-based debris delivered by river also enters the sea.
Debris at sea are floating and moving on the sea surface or in the water column, washed ashore or
deposited. Occasionally sunken debris is floated to the water column. Debris on beaches is transferred
to the sea or vice versa. Some of floating debris is drifted outside the territorial waters and some of
debris are broken down and disseminated into the water, not being detected or collected. Three
removal programs target mainly floating or sunken debris. The government supports the three
programs with budget. We compared emergies invested to collect one ton of DFGs through each
program and also costs to do the same. All data in the tables were calculated as in 2008 which is the
most recent year that data was were available for the evaluation.

278
Figure 1. Energy system diagram of governmental policy for removal of derelict fishing gears: F,
floating; B, beached; and S, sunken debris. The study targets cleanup (cleanup-using-ships), buyback
and reception barge programs to remove a part of marine debris.

RESULT
The cleaning ships for CL were built in 1994 and 1995 with 2.64E+08￦/yr (KFPA, 2004).
Collection and operation of the ships need 1.99E+09 ￦/yr. Their lifespan is 15 years. The ship
materials were considered only steel of 15 tons each because there are insufficient data on the other
material composition of ships. The electricity, fuel, equipment or human labor for building 7 ships is
included in building cost. Seven ships collected 988 tons of DFGs in 2008 spending 8.38E+18 seJ/yr
(Table 1). Renewable resources such as tide, wind and current are not included because there is little
information on the areas where the ships clean marine debris near the coast. Labors to operate the
ships was the main input and services for collecting DFGs and building ships were the second and
third emergy investment (Table 1).
In the buyback program, payment to fishermen who collected 35 ton of DFG/yr was 1.83E+07
₩/yr in local municipality (Geoje city). Temporary steel storage (1500kg, lifespan is 10 years) and
administrative labor were included in the calculation. A total of 2.29E+17 seJ/yr was calculated to
collect 35 ton of DFGs through the buyback program. Labors and services accounted for the most of
the emergy input (Table 2).
In the FB, the government provides floating barges only and fishermen collect debris during
fishing activities and bring back voluntarily. It consists of wood and steel drifted on expanded
polystyrene buoys. In the case of Geoje City, the emergy in FB was 6.34E+16 seJ/yr in total. Services
for building barges (12m x 6m x 1.84m) was the main input (Table 3).
FB, BB and CL spent 8.80E+14 seJ, 6.53E+15 seJ, and 8.48E+15 seJ respectively to collect one
ton of DFGs (Table 4). FB required the lowest emergy investment (Table 4). CL and BB were 9.6
and 7.4 times higher than that of FB. The monetary cost was invested in the same order. FB only
needed 1.60E+05 ₩ (160 US $) to collect one ton of DFGs. CL and BB were 14.3 and 7.8 times
higher than FB in the collection of same amount of DFGs.

279
Table 1. Emergy evaluation of one ton of DFGs collection by ‘Cleanup-using-ships program’.
Item Raw data Units UEV (seJ/unit) Emergy (seJ/yr) Percentage (%)
Ship building
Steela 7.00E+06 g/yr 1.39E+10* 9.73E+16 1.2
b
Services 2.64E+08 ₩/yr 5.24E+09† 1.38E+18 16.5
Collection and Operation
Fuelc 1.69E+12 J/yr 1.81E+05* 3.06E+17 3.7
d
Ship repair 1.11E+08 ₩/yr 5.24E+09† 5.82E+17 6.9
Labore 8.65E+08 ₩/yr 5.24E+09† 4.53E+18 54.1
Servicesf 2.82E+08 ₩/yr 5.24E+09† 1.48E+18 17.6
Total 8.38E+18 100.0
a
The seven 15-ton ship material was assumed to be only steel having 15-year useful life. Annual use = 7.00E+06
g/yr.
b
Services are total costs for ship construction, including human services, fuel, electricity and material. Annual
use= 3.96E+09₩ / 15 years = 2.64E+08 ₩/yr. Data source: Information on the ships was from
http://clean.fishingport.or.kr/introduction/introduction03_02.htm and KFPA (2004). Inflation rate was from
Korean Statistical Information http://kosis.kr/wnsearch/totalSearch.jsp
c
Actual total fuel (light oil) for collection and operation was 4.78E+04 L/yr. Net heating value = 8.45E+03 kcal/L
(KEEI, 2011). Total energy = Total use for collection and operation x Net heating value x 4,186 J/kcal =
1.69E+12 J/yr.
d
Actual cost for ship repair was 1.11E+08 ₩/yr.
ef
Actual labor and services were 8.65E+08 ₩/yr and 2.82E+08 ₩/yr, respectively.
g
The quantity of DFGs collected in 2008 was 988 tons (www.fipa.or.kr/sea1.htm).
All the costs were adjusted for the currency value of 2008 and unit emergy values were adjusted for the emergy
baseline of 15.83x1024 seJ/yr.
* Brown et al. (2011)
†
Kang and Brown (2012)

Table 2. Emergy evaluation of one ton of DFGs collection by ‘Buyback program’.

Percentage
Item Raw data Unit UEV (seJ/unit) Emergy (seJ/yr)
(%)
Collection and Operation
Plastic (PE bags)a 6.67E+04 g/yr 5.30E+09* 3.53E+14 0.2
Equipment (Arm roll)b 2.14E+05 g/yr 1.39E+10* 2.97E+15 1.3
Laborc 2.47E+07 ₩/yr 5.24E+09† 1.29E+17 56.6
Servicesd 1.83E+07 ₩/yr 5.24E+09† 9.59E+16 41.9
Total 2.29E+17 100.0
a
Plastic bags to collect DFGs were 2.00E+04 g (JE Park, Geoje City, personal communication) having 0.3 year of
useful life. The annual use = 6.67E+04 g/yr.
b
A steel box for storage of the collected DFGs was used. Its annual use = 1.50E+06 g / 7 years = 2.14E+05 g/yr
c
Total cost for collection by fishermen = 7.35E+05 ₩/yr (S.K. Park, Fisheries Cooperatives, personal
communication). Total cost for operating by Fisheries Cooperatives = 2.40E+07. Annual input = 2.47E+07.
d
Total cost paid to fishermen = 1.83E+07 ₩/yr (S.K. Park, Fisheries Cooperatives, personal communication).
* Brown et al. (2011)
†
Kang and Brown (2012)

DISCUSSION
FB was evaluated to be the most efficient measure among three options (CL, BB, and FB) in terms
of both emergy and money cost. The central and local governments invest 50:50 of the cost for
manufacture and installation of barge and local government is in charge of its treatment and
management. And it has been conducted on the basis of fishermen’s voluntary participation to collect

280
Table 3. Emergy evaluation of one ton of DFGs collection by ‘Floating reception barge program’.
Item Raw data Unit UEV (seJ/unit) Emergy (seJ/yr) Percentage (%)
Barge construction
EPS buoysa 4.41E+05 g/yr 5.30E+09* 2.34E+15 3.7
b
Wood 6.49E+05 g/yr 2.60E+05* 1.69E+11 -
Steelc 5.74E+04 g/yr 1.39E+10* 7.98E+14 1.3
Servicesd 1.15E+07 ₩/yr 5.24E+09† 6.03E+16 95.1
Total 6.34E+16 100.0
a
Annual use of EPS buoys = 2.21E+06 g / 5yrs lifespan = 4.41E+05 g/yr. Data source of information on barge:
Geoje City (unpublished)
b
Annual use of wood = 6.49E+06 g / 10yrs lifespan = 6.49E+06 g/yr.
c
Annual use of steel = 8.61E+05 g / 15 yrs lifespan = 5.74E+04
d
Annual use of services = 1.15E+08 ₩ (JE Park, Geoje City, personal communication) / 10 yrs lifespan =
1.15E+07 ₩/yr.
* Brown et al. (2011)
†
Kang and Brown (2012)

Table 4. Comparison of emergy and monetary costs to collect one ton of DFGs through three
programs.
Collected Total
Total costa Emergy Cost Ratio Ratio
Program DFGs Emergy
(₩/yr) (seJ/ton) (₩/ton) (Emergy) (Cost)
(ton/yr) (seJ/yr)
Cleanup-using-ships (CL) 988† 8.38E+18 2.26E+09 8.48E+15 2.29E+06 9.6* 14.3*
Buyback (BB) 35‡ 2.29E+17 4.38E+07 6.53E+15 1.25E+06 7.4* 7.8*
Floating reception barge (FB) 72‡ 6.34E+16 1.15E+07 8.80E+14 1.60E+05 1.0 1.0
a
Cost of each program was sourced from KFPA (2004) and Geoje City (unpublished)
†
DFGs collected by CL (KFPA, seven ships nationwide).
‡
DFGs collected by BB and FB in local area (Geoje City)
*
Ratio of CL and BB to FB

DFGs, which needs no extra services or materials investment. Floating barges are located in the small
harbors where fishermen easily transfer the debris collected onboard on the barge. To treat the debris
on the barge is rather easier than to do the same on land for fishermen, which may induce more
voluntarism. The barge occasionally needs to be transported to a designated area for proper treatment
or sheltered from storms or typhoons. The process was not considered in this study. The lifespan of
EPS buoys is 5 years, which might cause material and cost consuming in the program operation.
BB lies between FB and CL both in emergy and cost money investment. While materials are
invested in a very limited amount, services and labor account for most of input values (Table 2). The
cost is shared by central and local governments. The management is consigned to a fishermen
organization by local government. This program has been controversial among various stakeholders
because it provides potential polluters economic incentives, which is against Polluter’s Pay Principle in
solid waste management on land. It pays money per weight and occasionally number of DFGs
collected during only fishing operation. Household waste can be included into the debris bags, which
is hardly distinguished during the process. This makes the strict application of the rule difficult and its
effectiveness has been questioned.
CL required the highest emergy and monetary costs to collect the same amount of DFGs. The
effectiveness has faced very high uncertainty in restoration of marine ecosystem or resources by
removal of DGFs. Nonetheless, it has been implemented by an organization committed by
government for longer than a decade. The result shows this program needs to be significantly
improved or fundamentally reviewed.

281
 In CL emergy evaluation, we didn’t consider the area of ship building and operating at sea and
pre-operation survey process. If those are included, the value cost will be increased. The ratios of CL
and BB to FB were calculated conservatively. It means the result may be not seriously affected even
though we add more detailed input value. CL was in nationwide scale whereas FB and BB were
considered in local municipality level. The cost and emergy evaluation of FB and BB can be variable
in other local municipalities. CL includes complicated processes in ship building, pre-operation survey
and actual operation which are not simplified in this study. Further study on local cases will result in
more sophisticated comparison.

CONCLUSION
The result is the first comparison of DFGs policy measures in terms of emergy investment and
monetary cost. FB to provide a temporary storage place could be the most efficient option among the
three policy alternatives. It has been operated on the basis of fishermen’s voluntary participation to
collect DFGs during fishing activities without significant input of extra labors, fuels or materials. CL
requires very large emergy and monetary costs to collect the same amount of DFGs. The result shows
this program needs to be significantly improved or fundamentally reviewed. BB is relatively lower
efficiency in both emergy and money. It pays money per weight or volume and occasionally number
of DFGs collected during only fishing operation. The strict application of the rule is difficult and its
effectiveness has been controversial. It is against Polluter’s Pay Principle and induces the concerns
about moral hazard. The result can contribute to improvement of at-sea collection of DFGs in more
efficient way.

REFERENCE
Balance, A., P.G. Ryan, & J.K. Turpie, 2000. How much is a clean beach worth? The impact of litter
on beach users in the Cape Peninsula, South Afrika. South African Journal of Science 96, 210-213
Brown, M.T., G. Protano, S. & Ulgiati, 2011. Assessing geobiosphere work of generating global
reserves of coal, crude oil, and natural gas. Ecological Modelling 222, 879–887.
Cho, D.O., 2009: The incentive program for fishermen to collect marine debris in Korea. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 58: 415-417.
Coe, J.M. & Rogers, D.B., 1997. Marine Debris: Sources, Impacts and Solutions. Springer, New York.
Kang, D. & M.T. Brown, 2012. Environmental accounting of the resource basis of the Korean
economy. Unpublished manuscript.
Korea Energy Economics Institute, 2011. Yearbook of Energy Statistics. pp. 339.
Korea Fisheries Infrastructure Promotion Association (KFPA), 2004. Report on dues of cleanup ships
for marine litter.
Laist, D.W., 1997. Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marine debris includinga
comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In: Coe, J.M., Rogers, D.B.
(Eds.), Marine Debris––Sources, Impacts and Solutions. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 99–139.
Macfadyen, G. , T. Huntington, & R. Cappell. 2009. Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing
gear, UNEP, FAO, pp. 139.
Mouat, J., R.L. Lozano & H. Bateson, 2010. Economic impacts of marine litter. KIMO, Pp. 117
Odum, H.T., 1996. Environmental accounting: Emergy and environmental decision making. John
Wiley & Sons, New York, 377pp.
Takehama, S. 1990. Estimation of damage to fishing vessels caused by marine debris, based on
insurance statistics. In: Shomura, R.S., Godfrey, M.L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second
International Conference on Marine Debris, Honolulu, Hawaii, 27, April, 1989. US Department of
Commerce, pp.792-809 (NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154).

282