Aquaculture &

Fisheries

Development Centre

COEXIST - towards sustainable integration of aquaculture and fisheries

ERI Day, October 2012

Kathrin Kopke - CMRC

Jeremy Gault - CMRC

Anne Marie O’Hagan - HMRC

Vicki O’Donnell - CMRC

Gavin Burnell - AFCD

Mike Fitzpatrick - MI/CMRC

Aquaculture &

Fisheries

Development Centre

Project Overview

13 partners from 11 European countries, coordinated by the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research

Funded by the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme

Project duration: 36 months, 2010-2013

Multidisciplinary project that aims to produce a roadmap for integration of aquaculture and fisheries with other activities in the coastal zone - characterising relevant European coastal marine ecosystems, their current utilisation and spatial management as well as evaluating spatial management tools for combining coastal fisheries, aquaculture and other uses, both now and in the future.

Aquaculture &

Fisheries

Development Centre

Project Overview

The Project centres around 6 case study areas which are examined through seven work packages:

WP1 Base line: identification of interactions, conflicts and management tools in coastal waters (marine ecosystem approach)

WP2 Legal, institutional and policy frameworks. WP3 Integration of models and processes. WP4 Evaluation of spatial management. WP5 Best practice: Synthesis of COEXIST Work Packages 1 to 4

and Case Studies. WP6 Dissemination, communication and Knowledge Transfer. WP7 Knowledge management: Supporting systems, processes

and methodologies. WP8 Project management.

Hardangerfjord: NorwayAtlantic Sea Coast: France,

Ireland & UKAlgarve Coast: Portugal Adriatic Sea Coast: ItalyCoastal North Sea: Denmark,

Germany & The Netherlands

Baltic Sea: Finland

Aquaculture &

Fisheries

Development Centre

UCC collaboration

Three UCC research centres are working together on COEXIST :

CMRC is leading WP2 Legal, institutional and policy frameworks: coordinating the stakeholder analysis and mapping exercise for all case study area, reporting on the development of indicators of best governance practice and on potential use of GIS and other scenario-based simulation

HMRC expertise is feeding into WP2 on legal, policy and institutional frameworks that cover the current approaches to interactions between aquaculture, fisheries and other sectors and identifying barriers to and opportunities for more efficient management on legal and policy issues

AFDC is providing expertise on aquaculture and fisheries with specific focus on the work undertaken under all Work packages in our case study area

Atlantic Sea Coast: Ireland & UK

Aquaculture &

Fisheries

Development Centre

Work Package 2

I would like to highlight some of the results from WP2 concerning :

Stakeholders perceptions on conflict and potential conflict resolution

Stakeholders attitudes to specific legislation and policy

Stakeholders outlook concerning potential future changes

Aquaculture &

Fisheries

Development Centre

Work Package 2

Stakeholders perceptions on conflict and potential conflict resolution

Common conflicts across the case study areas e.g. spatial conflicts, arrival of new industries such as wind parks

Common solutions proposed – ICZM, MSP and more use of technology

Aquaculture &

Fisheries

Development Centre

Case Study 2B – South Irish Sea (n=6)

83% of respondents were aware of conflicts.

Reasons for current conflict?Spatial conflict: between pots and mussel dredgers, scallop dredgers and herring trawlers - claims for loss of gear (pots) after being allegedly towed by the other gear types.

Whelk fishermen are concerned with aquaculture installations in areas that overlap with areas fished for whelk.

Lack of planning: developer-led planning, inadequate regulation and lack of proper political supervision.

How can current conflict be resolved?ICZM: communication between sectors, agreed measures should be formally adopted by relevant State departments/agencies and backed up/enforced

Foreshore licensing changes: need for independent review of foreshore leases granted and progressed as well as need for a robust Strategic Environmental Assessment, unconstrained by foreshore leases

Conflicts & Conflict resolution

Aquaculture &

Fisheries

Development Centre

Case Study 5 – North Sea – Germany (n=13)

100% of respondents were aware of conflicts.

Reasons for current conflict?

Spatial conflict: loss of fishing areas due to cables/pipelines/military and traffic separation schemes for windparks

Research: lack of surveying/knowledge

Pollution/Ecology: possible pollution oil/gas, cooling water discharge from power plant and dumping of sediment

How can current conflict be resolved?

ICZM, Research, Ecosystem specific management

Conflicts & Conflict resolutionCase Study 5 – North Sea - Denmark (n=5)

86% of respondents were aware of conflicts.

Reasons for current conflict?

Spatial conflict: no fishing areas due to military,

fishermen and shipping/transport (collisions, oils

spill risk and losses of gear), loss of fishing area due

to new windpark location.

Pollution/waste: old oil industry infrastructure

How can current conflict be resolved?

ICZM, Legislation enforcement (EU Water

Framework Directive, United Nations Convention

on the Law of the Sea, Particularly Sensitive Sea

Area (PSSA) Directive. Habitat and Bird Directives)

Aquaculture &

Fisheries

Development Centre

Work Package 2

Stakeholders attitudes to specific legislation and policy

Policy awareness of issues varies between locations and by sector

Fairly even split between the desire for/against more/less regulation

Aquaculture &

Fisheries

Development Centre

Opposed Neutral Supportive NA No Comment0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Pere

cnt

Common Fisheries PolicyCFP is regarded by majority in a neutral manner – key legal frameworks for fisheries and aquaculture

Reasons why stakeholders are Supportive:- Creates a level playing field (Fisheries)- European fisheries cover such a large area that it has to be regulated on European level (Fisheries)- Promotes sustainability in the fishing industry (Government Agency)Reasons why stakeholders are Opposed:- Too many rules and restrictions (Aquaculture) - Rules created in Brussels are not applicable in our area (Fisheries)- It hasn't achieved anything positive (Aquaculture) - Existing legislation needs enforcement (NGO)

Attitude to Specific Law / Policy

Aquaculture &

Fisheries

Development Centre

Habitats DirectiveFairly balanced response towards the Habitats Directive

Reasons why stakeholders are Supportive:- Protecting the habitat where we produce is a good (Aquaculture)- Good for fishing management (NGO)- Nature conservation is fundamental for a better quality of life (Government Agency) Reasons why stakeholders are Opposed:- very restrictive for aquaculture activities (Aquaculture) - Need better balance between the society needs and the concerns to the nature (Aquaculture) - Lack of consultation related to activities in closed areas (Fisheries) - Not relevant too much policy instead of reality (Fisheries)

Opposed Neutral Supportive NA No Comment0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Perc

ent

Attitude to Specific Law / Policy

Aquaculture &

Fisheries

Development Centre

Water Framework Directive

WFD seen as good example of law as it encourages “good ecology status” - benefit to the aquaculture sector.

Reasons why stakeholders are Supportive:- Clean water essential for good product (Aquaculture) - Better water quality in coastal zones due to cleaner river water (Aquaculture) - Improves the marine environment and thus good for the fish (Fisheries) - The impacts (sea lice, escapes etc) from the aquaculture industry are not yet included in the Directive, but will be in the implementation of the next phase of the directive (NGO)

Reasons why stakeholders are Opposed:- The laws need to be adapted to the specificities of aquaculture; e.g. user-polluter principal must be followed (Research Centre)

Opposed Neutral Supportive NA No Comment0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Perc

ent

Attitude to Specific Law / Policy

Aquaculture &

Fisheries

Development Centre

Marine Strategy Framework

Directive

Given the novelty of the MSFD there is a lack of knowledge what the impacts could be on sectoral activities (including aquaculture / fisheries)

Reasons why stakeholders are Supportive:- Generally supportive but better relevant spatial planning is needed (Fisheries) - In essence MSFD is ok. However the Directive has too many details (Fisheries)- It’s an instrument to help to solve conflicts concerning conservation and space (Government Agency)

Reasons why stakeholders are Opposed:- Unproductive (Aquaculture) - In its current format it is too vague and difficult to implement (Government Agency)

Opposed Neutral Supportive NA No Comment0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Perc

ent

Attitude to Specific Law / Policy

Aquaculture &

Fisheries

Development Centre

Work Package 2Stakeholders outlook concerning potential future changes

Climate Change is seen as a cross-cutting future issue but there doesn’t appear to be any indication as to what the actual impact will be on the aquaculture sector e.g. sea level changes, temperature, storminess?

Despite the concern regarding climate change, adaptation or adaptation strategies wasn’t raised by any of the respondents

Emerging offshore energy are mainly viewed as a threat to aquaculture/fisheries sector increasing spatial conflict

Aquaculture &

Fisheries

Development Centre

Environmental /Biological/ChemicalClimate change e.g. extreme winter temperatures, increase in alien species, algae & toxinsAvailability of seed mussels Oil spills and disasters

GovernanceImplementation of restrictive laws

IndustrialIncrease in food prices Change in energy landscape Port development

Case Study 5 – North Sea - Germany

Environmental /Biological/ChemicalClimate change

GovernanceGovernment & EU safety related legislation Foreshore related legislation Lack of statutory awareness of potential of marine leisure activities to local economies EU legislation through the Habitats Directive Irish Offshore Renewable Energy Development Plan

IndustrialIf technical issues for wind energy were resolved, e.g. connection to the grid, then that could be a threat to future activities

Case Study 2A – South Irish Sea

Future Scenarios affecting status quo

Aquaculture &

Fisheries

Development Centre

Summary/Conclusiono Stakeholders in the case study areas felt that ICZM/MSP and use of more technology was an

appropriate solution to the issues experienced in CS areas.

o The emerging offshore renewable energy sector is viewed as a competitor and threat especially since coastal and marine management is still undertaken on a sectoral basis.

o Many of the legislative instruments used for management purposes conflict with each other: objectives of legislation/policies vary between promoting and developing exploration and exploitation of marine resources and conversely, protection and conservation of the marine environment.

o Pressure will continue to grow on our coastal and maritime space and resources – and any spatially based management system will require input from all relevant stakeholders

Aquaculture &

Fisheries

Development Centre

Thank you

For more information please visit: http://www.coexistproject.eu/

Or contact CMRC directly +353 (0) 21 470 3100

Jeremy Gault (j.gault@ucc.ie)

Kathrin Kopke (k.kopke@ucc.ie)