Summary Report from the International Workshop on Offshore Aquaculture

Dublin,

24th September 2007.

OATP

Evaluation of the promotion of Offshore Aquaculture Through a Technology Platform

SSP8

Contract Number 044290

International Offshore Aquaculture Workshop

Following the Regional Workshops which were held in Ireland, Spain and Norway a major international workshop and foresight exercise – “Offshore Aquaculture in Europe-The ‘Next Steps’” ─ took place on Monday 24th September in the Crowne Plaza Hotel, Dublin, to coincide with the World Seafood Congress. It was opened by Sean O’Neachtain, MEP and attended by almost 70 delegates from all over the world.

The Workshop, which was funded under the EU 6th Framework Programme, was designed to provide anyone with an interest in Offshore Aquaculture the opportunity to submit their thoughts on the next steps for future development. The themes for the workshop Technology, Planning Policy and Regulation and Biological Considerations were identified at the Regional Workshops as areas, which required further discussion. During his opening speech Sean O’Neachtain MEP pointed out the benefits and challenges to aquaculture:

Benefits of Aquaculture - EU

Aquaculture in the EU has many benefits, such as:

  • a strong market for seafood
  • a long tradition of freshwater and marine fish
  • advanced research and world class technology
  • qualified and trained entrepreneurs and fish farmers
  • suitable climatic conditions and appropriate sites for the majority of farmed species.

Challenges

The Aquaculture sector also faces a number of challenges, which impact production such as:

  • space limitation
  • low quality water in certain locations
  • high standards on public health and environment imposed by the EU.

He continued by stating, “taking into account both our assets and constraints is paramount when competing with third country producers, in particular Asia and South America. That is why we in Europe must develop a clear strategy, which delivers the best possible growth potential for the aquaculture industry”.

Mr O’Neachtain was followed by Dr. Richard Lagan, Director of the University of New Hampshire Open Ocean Aquaculture Project. Dr Langan’s presentation focused on the importance of offshore farming to the US and it’s current status. He paid particular attention to his own universities public funded project. This project focuses on engineered systems, operational methodologies, biological research and oceanography and environment. The project has grown summer flounder, cod, haddock, halibut and mussels in the site 10 km from shore. Main findings were that finfish and shellfish systems can be installed, maintained and operated in open ocean. However, this type of aquaculture will be technology driven in order to achieve the scale required. He also pointed out the need for regulatory, social, political and economic changes.

Ms.Patricia Daly BIM (Irish Sea fisheries Board) gave a presentation on the Irish experience in moving mussel production offshore. She first outlined the reasons for the Irish industry to look offshore. Many of the established bays are now overcrowded and growth rates have declined. The Irish coastline offers many opportunities should the move prove successful. Ms Daly spoke about the various trials that had been carried out to date and concluded that the results were disappointing. This was mainly due to the failure of the equipment to withstand the harsh environment. However, with the development of new systems there will be a place for mussel production in Irish offshore waters.

Mr Michael Mulloy, Blackshell Farm Ltd. continued with this theme and informed the workshop of his experiences since 1982. He also spoke of his study trips to Canada and New Zealand. He suggested that there is a need for more results from existing offshore operations, a need to rationalize existing inshore operations and a need to assess the demand for product before investing offshore.

‘The Experiences in the South of Spain’, were then presented by Mr.Francisco Padilla, Cofradia de Pescadores de Conil de la Frontera. He outlined the three stages of projects between 2000 – 2007. The first stage involved testing technologies i.e. cage trials in exposed sites. The second and third stages involved the culture viability of new species and transfer of technology to the aquaculture sector, respectively. He then went on to point out the advantages of going offshore:

  • No visual impact
  • Less environmental impact
  • Submerged structures decrease maintenance
  • Greater currents allow increased cultivation loads and decreased growth time for molluscs
  • Stable environment for cultivation.

He concluded by saying that the funding of technology development is a problem. Many equipment companies do not have the resources and the ones that do are not interested in developing technologies unless there is sufficient demand.

Mr.Jose Carlos Macias, Junta de Andalucia, then took the second part of the ‘Spanish presentation Planning, Regulation and Management in offshore aquaculture: experience in South of Spain’. He focused on the current regulatory framework, which is quite complicated. He proposed that: there should be specific consideration given to offshore aquaculture; ‘Experimental Project Licences’ should be available; GIS and other tools should be used to identify the most suitable sites; and that Management Plans for these sites should be designed and implemented.

Ms.Karin Dubsky, Coastwatch Europe outlined her groups environmental concerns. She began by asking how far off shore is offshore and for how much of the life cycle will the sites be used? She then focused on the life cycles of mussels and salmon and the scale of impact derived from production of both species. She produced a rough impact range table, which showed the lesser impact mussel production has on the environment. Ms Dubsky called for more research and monitoring of sites, more control to minimise impacts and better reporting to inform decision-making.

Dr. Arne Fredheim, SINTEF, Norway, provided a summary of the FP6 Offshore Aquaculture Technology Platform Regional Workshops. These workshops were aimed at all stakeholders and the themes focused on the issues raised from the results of a questionnaire. He pointed out the need for aquaculture to fill the gap between the demand for seafood and the supply. He pointed out that 91% of workshop participants felt that offshore aquaculture offered a possible solution. The main challenges to development identified were:

  • Technology
  • Safety
  • Cost efficiency

The main challenges to improve public perception were:

  • Sustainability
  • Environmental impacts
  • Food safety.

He also pointed out the need for the development of Marine Spatial planning and development of planning tools to assist proper site selection.

The final speaker was Mr. Donal Maguire, BIM (Irish Sea Fisheries Board) who gave an overview of where the offshore initiative is currently. He suggested that the offshore debate was limited by an inability of participating countries to make meaningful comparisons and that there was a tendency for “jurisdictional” issues to dominate the discussion. He then focused on the interest in Ireland to go offshore. He pointed to a core theme of a recent Irish government strategy to unlock the potential for aquaculture development by: improving the public’s perception; making the regulatory regime more commercially sensitive; and introducing an intergrated development programme. He then focused on the International dimension of the Offshore Aquaculture Technology Platform (OATP) and the International Council for Offshore Aquaculture Development (ICOAD). He identified the various tasks for ICOAD:

  • Develop a common definition for what we mean by ‘offshore’, based on common parameters measure in the same way.
  • Comparison of sites and prospective locations in a meaningful way.
  • Encourage investment.
  • Learn lessons from existing sector
  • Communicate, Communicate, Communicate!

“ He who will not sail until all dangers are over, will never put to sea”

Thomas Fuller

The Workshop then divided into three Breakout Sessions with the following themes:

  1. Planning Policy and Regulation.
  2. Biological considerations.
  3. Technology

The following is a summary of the discussions from the Breakout sessions:

OATP International Workshop – Dublin

Summary of discussions

Planning Policy & Regulation

Chair: Rosa Fernandez

Rapparteurs: Oisin Naughton & Frank Kane

Present:

Ger O’Sullivan, Westpoint Shellfish

John Power, John Power Trout Ltd/Silver King Salmon Ltd

Humphy O’Leary , Clare Island Seafarms/Marine Harvest Ireland

Liam Doherty, Clare Island Seafarms/Marine Harvest Ireland

Patrick Gallagher, Gallagher Bros

Richie Flynn, IFA Aquaculture

Knut Hjelt, Norwegian Seafood Federation

Jose Carlos Marcias Rivero, Empresa Publica de Desarrollo Agrario y Pesquero Junta de Andalucia

Margerat Van Vilsteren

Eva Maria Soto Rodriguez

Main overview

Rosa Fernandez introduced this session by highlighting four main issues:

1)The need for a regulation framework

2)Could CZM be main solution for improvement and enlargement of aquaculture?

3)What are the insurance requirements for operating in offshore areas?

4)Is the market prepared for increased production from offshore aquaculture?

Discussion points

  • The regulatory framework should largely evolve from the current framework inshore, with the necessary tweaks and conditions. Developing a whole new regulatory framework will unnecessarily delay the process. We don’t need a whole new suite of legislation.
  • The current licensing situation for experimental/trial facilities is no use (currently 12 month licenses). License duration should be for at least 3 generations.
  • In Norway in applying for lease, whether it is 5 miles or 15 miles offshore, you need to be able to prove you have the necessary equipment to deal with the condition and adequate internal control systems to ensure sound animal welfare and bio-security.
  • In Norway many sites around inner islands are high-energy sites. Is this considered offshore? In other instances, for example Japan, producers operate in international waters using large boats.
  • Different regions have different criteria for developing aquaculture. The EU Commission now has the potential to put on the desk the key questions on aquaculture development in Europe.
  • The 2001 Recommendations on Aquaculture are currently being updated by DG Fisheries. Public consultations have already been completed (with 40+ submissions). There is an opportunity in this process to define offshore aquaculture and develop a standard across Europe, so that we are all on the same level.
  • Standardisation won’t apply to license fees. Levies differ between regions. In Spain producers are charged on actual production tonnage, in Ireland the charge is on capacity.
  • Conflict with other users varies between regions. In the Mediterranean there is a strong emphasis on tourism and priorities lie with the development of this sector. Outside 50m depth contour there is less competition for space. In some areas this depth contour is close to shore and there may be issues with visual impacts and tourism.
  • There is also potential conflict with traditional pot and trawl fishermen. How do you solve this conflict? There needs to be a proactive site designation approach.
  • In Ireland aquaculture activities cannot take place in traditional fishing areas.
  • Currently, designation occurs through the E.I.S. process and is done by confrontation.
  • The best potential sites for aquaculture should be identified and designated as such. Mapping of these areas is already occurring in many regions.
  • Current technological advances such as seabed mapping, predictive modelling, data buoy networks, etc., should provide better knowledge of the resources and should provide important marine spatial planning tools for coastal planners.
  • These tools should provide a better understanding to current spatial planning approaches than, for example, prior attempts at designation in the 80’s in Ireland.Spatial planning and CZM must be dynamic and flexible to be able to change as technology and situations change.
  • Test sites/pilot sites in offshore aquaculture should be initiated with the collection of baseline datasets important in full scale, commercial operations. These test sites should involve public-private partnerships.
  • There is a need to engage fishermen in developing offshore aquaculture. In the context of declining fishing resources, their local knowledge and expertise could be harnessed in developing offshore aquaculture.
  • The opportunity for farming different species isn’t great. Producers need to be 100% fully committed to the current venture. Half-hearted efforts at other ventures could lead to failure and financial difficulties.
  • With regard insurance for offshore operations, are the risks the same as for inshore locations?
  • Offshore operations involve larger scale with greater potential for larger losses and potential for negativeenvironmental and genetic pollution effects, etc.
  • Risk control is the most important aspects. This will depend on the monitoring environment. But who will pay for this monitoring?
  • If monitoring relates to stock and better performances then the cost should be carried by industry. If it relates to physical characterisation of the sites and long term environmental trends then the cost should lie with the state.
  • There should be greater involvement and training of industry in monitoring programmes and this could be carried out in the framework of current management initiatives such as SBM, AMA’s, etc. These management approaches will also be very relevant in the offshore context in developing Codes of Practice (COP’s), contingency plans for escapees, etc.
  • Communication within and around the aquaculture sector needs to be improved.
  • Aquaculture should have better communication with the administrators, planning works best with dialogue and better communication could shorten the licensing process.
  • Currently aquaculture facilities have no protection from other users at sea. Standardised marking, safety zones and designation should be adapted across Europe.
  • Public perception is very important.
  • Regulation for offshore sites should develop in tandem with trial sites, knowledge of the resource must be gathered before effective regulation can be formulated.
  • Government backing is needed, in support of experienced operators, to trial sites off shore.

OATP International Workshop – Dublin

Summary of discussions

Biological considerations

Chair: Dave Jackson

Rapporteurs: Pauline O’Donohoe, Ayesha Power

Present:Paul Casburn, Karin Dubsky, Declan Quigley, Greg Forde, Richard Bates, Javier Ojeda, Andrew Storey, John Power, Richie Flynn

Questions posed:

  • What is the definition of offshore aquaculture?
  • How do you address the issue of sustainable food sources? (This is an important issue highlighted by a number of NGO’s).
  • What are the potential solutions to address bio-security issues, particularly fish disease and escapees? In terms of escapees what are the solutions (sterile fish, local stock, better pens, contingency plans). In the case of disease how do you minimise the impact?
  • How can integrated Health Management Plans help minimise these impacts?
  • How significant is nutrient loading from aquaculture and will moving offshore mitigate the associated problems? How much more significant is municipal sewage and runoff and how can this affect shellfish producers?
  • How will the Water Framework Directive affect offshore operations? How proactive can the aquaculture industry be in developing the Marine Strategy Directive?
  • How does the Habitats & Birds Directives, Bathing Water Directives affect offshore aquaculture? Can aquaculture activities occur in designated areas under these directives (SAC’s, SPA’s, Natura 2000,
  • etc.). Can there be mutual benefits between nutrient levels and aquaculture, diversity and aquaculture, etc?
  • What are the potential species for offshore culture? What shellfish species will have potential? What are the similarities and differences in potential species between the participant regions? What areas will technology transfer be useful between the regions?
  • What potential exists for co-location or polyculture? Does it require legislative changes?
  • Discuss the relevance of current state monitoring programmes (benthic, sea-lice, fish health, audit of operations, biotoxin)? Will self monitoring is required offshore? What additional monitoring is required, (navigation/mooring checks, equipment, safety checks, disease/parasite levels, etc)
  • What additional biological challenges is perceived in the offshore context?
  • Do we need further research into the cause of phytoplankton and zooplankton blooms? How economically important are these events?
  • What are the waste management issues and what are the potential solutions?
  • What is the potential for organic production?
  • What technological development is needed and in what monitoring areas: feed barge, automatic food administration (shut off sensors), environmental monitoring (dissolved oxygen & temperature, fluorescence), underwater cameras, communication systems, net/equipment cleaning, etc.)
  • How will the current regulatory framework deal with these issues offshore?

How can we improve our knowledge of the resource? How can developing technological approaches such as predictive modelling, seabed mapping and the use of GIS be applied to aid the planning process?

  • Specifically how can this technology be used to find optimum locations in terms of temperature, currents, nutrient loading, etc.? How can it feed into the marine spatial planning process (as planning tools)?
  • How can it deal with the benthic impact issue and stocking densities? Is it as much an issue offshore?
  • How can the improved technology be used to characterise sites for offshore aquaculture? How can it be utilised to obtain real time monitoring data?
  • How can existing management initiatives such as Co-ordinated Local Aquaculture Management Systems (CLAMS), Area Management Agreements (AMA’s) and Single Bay Management (SBM) provide integrated husbandry and environmental management advice? Through Codes Of Best Practice, etc?
  • How can public relations issues be addressed – stakeholder frameworks, publication of COP’s, monitoring results through GIS?

Topics Discussed