Offshore Aquaculture Technology Platforms (OATP)

Offshore Aquaculture Technology Platforms (OATP)

Analysis of stakeholder questionnaire

Ireland and United Kingdom participant region

Marine Institute

August 2007

Offshore Aquaculture Technology Platforms (OATP)

Regional Questionnaire

Analysis of stakeholder questionnaire

Ireland and United Kingdom participant region

Compiled by:

Oisín Naughton

Aquaculture & Catchment Management Services

Marine Institute

Galway, IrelandExecutive Summary

The offshore aquaculture questionnaire was circulated to nearly 200 stakeholders in Ireland and the United Kingdom. These included finfish & shellfish producers, suppliers, processors and professional service providers associated with the aquaculture industry, environmental and community development NGO’s and policy representatives. Percentage returns were higher for the policy representatives and the finfish sector.

The most important concerns of respondents focused on environmental issues and the technology developments needed to support an offshore industry. Safety concerns, relating to personnel and navigational aspects, were considered of crucial importance.

Although environmental issues were considered a challenge, it was believed that moving offshore would mitigate many of the environmental concerns associated with aquaculture. The ethical issue of sustainability of feed sources for aquaculture species was still a concern for many respondents, particularly NGO’s. The other environmental concerns highlighted in the questionnaire were enrichment/nutrient loading in production locations and bio-security issues such as escapees and fish health. In addition, when asked what national monitoring programmes were important in the offshore context, fish heath monitoring was considered a key programme.

Many technology development needs were highlighted by respondents. Containment systems such as cages, moorings and fish nets were thought to need greatest development. Development of suitable boats to access and service offshore locations were also high on the priority list. From a farm management and self-monitoring perspective, the important development areas also focused around environmental parameters and remote monitoring (and communication in real time) of fish behaviour.

Both Irish and UK respondents were relatively unsure whether the legislative context existed for offshore aquaculture development. In terms of the licensing process, the length of time for processing was of particular concern. Participants would like to see development of more proactive approaches such as site designation or marine spatial planning, based on increased knowledge of the available resources. The extension of current management initiatives such as AMA’s, SBM and CLAMS to encompass offshore aquaculture was considered important in the conflict management and environmental management context.

Introduction

The EU Commission has awarded the Marine Institute, Ireland, CETMAR, Spain and SINTEF, Norway, funding under the 6th Framework to provide the Commission with a report outlining the way forward for offshore aquaculture in Europe.

This initiative is funded under EU project SSP 5A 2005 ‘Support to a technological platform on offshore aquaculture’. The objective of OATP is “To investigate the opportunity and usefulness for the aquaculture industry of promoting offshore aquaculture through a technological platform”. Achieving this objective requires the collection, validation and collation of data from a diverse range of sources on the opportunities and requirements of offshore aquaculture, in the European context, and it’s evaluation to assess the appropriateness of a technological platform as a suitable promotional vehicle.

The OATP project includes sixteen partners as direct members. The partners are from seven countries; Ireland, Norway, Spain, Italy, Malta, Belgium and the UK. The consortium includes service providers, manufacturers, aquaculture practitioners with offshore experience, research and development organisations and agencies from across the sector, operating in both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean and in many cases with operations or interests in the aquaculture sector outside of Europe. The OATP project will bring together the available knowledge and experience of offshore aquaculture from across Europe by the most efficient and practical methods available and ensure it is set in a global context. To this end all participants will be involved in the main project activities, of collecting and collating information by way of survey and questionnaire and participating in the main workshop and contributing to the final report.

This 14 month programme is comprehensive and far reaching. Work to be done includes survey of all members of the consortium in EU/EETA region, seminars in the key regions (Scandinavia, Ireland, Spain and Italy) will identify key areas for future discussions, and an international workshop for all partners and collaborators is planned. Finally a report with recommendations is to be produced setting out the key RTDI requirements for the sector going forward with planned work programmes. It is envisaged that this programme of European work will form the European node of the International Council for Offshore Aquaculture Development (ICOAD) and will offer the funding opportunity for effective communications, logistics and linkages for participants.

The Irish and UK regional seminar was held in Galway in July 2007, involving aquaculture experts from industry, professional services, policy and non-government organisations. In addition to information gleaned from the questionnaire, discussions were held under the three main thematic areas: Regulation & Planning; Environment & Monitoring; and Technology Requirements. It is through these consultation processes in this participant region and partner regions of Scandinavia, Spain and Italy, that information will feed into a final report to the EU Commission identifying research and development priority needs of the offshore aquaculture sector.

Analyses of questionnaire

1. Response from the different sectors

The questionnaire was circulated to almost 200 participants in Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England through email and post. These participants represented: finfish and shellfish producers; agency representatives with aquaculture, wild fisheries and conservation remits; specialists involved with the aquaculture and marine technology industries; veterinarians; representatives of other coastal user organisations; non-governmental organisations involved with environmental protection and coastal development. The percentage response from the various sectors can be seen in figure 1.

Figure 1: A breakdown of the percentage returns of the questionnaire from the different participant groups.

The greatest percentage of returns of the questionnaires were from representatives in Ireland, followed by Scotland, England and Wales. Some representatives in Cyprus also responded to the questionnaire. The percentage returns from the different geographic regions can be seen below:

Figure 2: Geographic areas consulted through the questionnaires

In terms of potential species for offshore culturing, the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) were the two species considered to have the most potential in Ireland and the UK. This was followed by the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Some seaweeds with potential include the Laminaria spp., Alari spp and Ulva latissima. Figure 3 details other potential species for consideration in offshore aquaculture as suggested by respondents.

Figure 3: Potential species for culturing in offshore operations in Ireland and the UK, as identified by participants.

2. Vision for the development of offshore aquaculture and ethical and safety issue pertaining to its development

When participants were asked if they thought offshore aquaculture could provide a solution to meeting increasing global seafood consumption demands, the answer was a resounding yes. The question was asked in the context of the F.A.O. predictions that global seafood consumption will be 180 million tonnes by the year 2030 with supply from capture fisheries expected, at best, to remain static at 95 million tonnes. Half the participants representing the suppliers and professional areas of expertise strongly agreed that offshore aquaculture could help meet these global demands. The NGO’s had mixed views on this issue, while the same small percentage of policy representatives strongly agreed and strongly disagreed. The majority of all other participants were in the agreed section (as can be seen in the figure 4 below).

Figure 4:Shows whether respondents agreed or disagreed that offshore aquaculture would help provide a solution to meeting global seafood demands by the year 2030.

There was quiet a mixed view on what participants considered the greatest challenges to the development of offshore aquaculture. When taken together, safety issues and weather conditions (exposure) were of great concern to respondents, particularly the finfish and shellfish producers. Environmental challenges were of most concern to the NGO’s, as well as the technology challenges and exposed nature of the sites. The professional services providers and suppliers considered research & development requirements and technological demands as the greatest concerns in the development of offshore aquaculture (figure 5). When asked more specifically what the greatest safety concerns associated with offshore aquaculture production were, the opinions varied quiet a bit between the actual physical infrastructure, personal training and navigational safety. All participants strongly rated personal training as an important factor in safety. The producers, policy & professional service representatives and NGO’s were concerned with cage, equipment and boat design. Accident & emergency issues were rated highly by suppliers and the shellfish sector. Other safety issues raised were navigation and safe passing, relative experience of workers on site and actual distance offshore of the sites (figure 6)

Figure 5: The greatest challenges to the development of offshore aquaculture, as considered by the participants.

Figure 6: The issues considered of greatest importance when it comes to safety, in the offshore industry.

When it came to the public’s perception of the aquaculture industry, most producers were concerned with the ethical issue of sustainability. Overall the greatest area where public confidence needs to be improved, according to respondents, was in the area of environmental impacts. The area of food safety was another area highlighted by producers and policy representatives. Bio-security issues, such as farmed-wild interactions, were lower on the priority list for all groups, compared with sustainability issues and environmental impacts. The need to promote the positive health benefits of eating seafood was not a high priority, (figure 7).

Figure 7: What areas the respondents thought required most attention to improve the public’s perception of the aquaculture industry.

3. Environmental concerns and the issues relating to bio-security in offshore aquaculture production

In the previous section, environmental issues were highlighted as a major challenge for the aquaculture industry. The most important environmental concerns, as highlighted by the participants, apply to the sustainability of feedstuffs, nutrient loading and bio-security issues such as escapees of cultured species. The producers identified the sustainability issue, nutrient loading, escapees and waste management as the most important potential impacts. The NGO’s highlighted the sustainability issue, nutrient loading, disease and impact on wildlife and the policy representatives also identified chemical usage and escapees as important environmental concerns. Disease and chemical usage was considered the most important by the suppliers, whereas, the sustainability issue was considered the most important by the professional service representatives (figure 8).

Figure 8: The thoughts of the participants on the major impacts of aquaculture on the marine environment.

When asked if they thought the development of aquaculture in offshore locations would mitigate many of the environmental issues listed above, most of the participants thought the development would have positive effects (figure 9). The policy respondents had mixed views on whether offshore aquaculture would or would not mitigate many of the environmental problems.

Figure 9: Response by participants on whether they thought the development of offshore aquaculture would mitigate many of the current environmental concerns associated with aquaculture.

On the specific bio-security issues, most of the respondents were concerned with disease related impacts. The finfish sector and shellfish sector were also concerned with escapees and genetic impacts from escapees. The national fish health monitoring programme was considered a key monitoring programme for the offshore aquaculture by most respondents (figure 10).The shellfish sector were more concerned with bio-toxin and nutrient monitoring. Benthic (seafloor) monitoring was also considered important by the NGO’s and policy representatives and the suppliers felt that benthic and biotoxin monitoring were among the more important state programmes.

From a farm management perspective, the monitoring of fish health status/fish behaviour was identified as the most important in routine farm monitoring (figure 11). Fish feeding rates was also considered important and for the shellfish sector, nutrient monitoring was highlighted. NGO’s, particularly, identified monitoring of the sourcing of stock as important

The potentially economically important diseases in offshore production are highlighted in figure 12 below.

Figure 10: The key state monitoring requirements thought important in the regulation of offshore aquaculture.

Figure 11: The areas considered important for ongoing farm monitoring as part of farm management plans.

Figure 12: Potential economically important diseases associated with offshore aquaculture species

4. The Regulation and Planning Framework

There was a mixed response from participants on whether they thought the legislative framework was in place for the development of offshore aquaculture (figure 13). This applied to respondents from the different geographic regions. Many didn’t know the legislative context for offshore aquaculture development, including 11% of the policy representatives and up to 40% of other representatives. When it came to the licensing process however, there was a clear belief that the current licensing application process was not adequate to deal with offshore aquaculture production (figure 14).

Figure 13: How participants responded when asked if they thought the legislative context was in place for the development of offshore aquaculture.

Figure 14: Participants views when asked if they thought the current licensing application process was adequate to allow for offshore aquaculture development.

On the specifics of the licensing process, the greatest concern was with the length of time for processing license applications (figure 15). This was identified as the greatest problem with the licensing procedure by producers, suppliers, professional service providers and rated highly also by the policy respondents. The lack of marine spatial planning or site designation was also highlighted by the policy, professional service providers and NGO’s, as areas of the licensing process that need attention. The suppliers and finfish sector also brought attention to the duration of licenses and the shellfish sector thought the feedback process could be improved. The environmental impact statement (EIS) process also appeared on the radar of all sectors.

In the Marine Spatial Planning process, there was mixed opinion as to what major factors must be taken into account in the planning of offshore operations (figure 16). Environmental considerations and better knowledge of the resources were highlighted by the NGO’s and suppliers. The shellfish sector felt that better knowledge of the resources was amongst the most important issue in spatial planning. The finfish sector and profession service providers felt that policy co-ordination and one-stop-shop approaches were important. Public participation and consultation frameworks as well as marine safety were highlighted as important factors to take into consideration when planning activities around the coast. The majority of respondents felt that current management frameworks such as Area Management Agreements, Single Bay Management and Co-ordinated Local Aquaculture Management Systems should be extended to encompass offshore aquaculture, to provide a dynamic information exchange forum and help to resolve conflicts (figure 17).

Figure 15: Areas of the licensing process that most needs attention, in the opinion of the respondents.

Figure 16: The major factors that must be taken into account in the designation/spatial planning for offshore aquaculture.

Figure 17: Should current management frameworks such as AMA’s, SBM, CLAMS be extended to encompass offshore aquaculture?

5. Technology requirements

The key areas on the technology side where development is required are: infrastructure such as cages and moorings; road access, hatchery facilities, R& D facilities and storage facilities; communication equipment; monitoring equipment; safety equipment; and professional service provision. The most important development area, identified by all respondents, was on cage, nets and mooring systems (figure 18). The next most important development area identified was on the communication, remote monitoring and remote access side. This applies to in situ fish and environmental monitoring equipment, remote visuals for fish behaviour and radio communicating equipment. Marine service provision such as veterinary services and maintenance services was also considered important as well as improvements to road, pier and boat access to sites. Research facilities dealing with new species & disease research as well as funding for field trials was also highlighted.

a) / Equipment (cages, nets moorings, etc.)
b) / Infrastructure (piers, roads, boats, processing plants, etc.)
c) / Technology (communications, monitoring, remote access, etc.)
d) / Marine services to offshore operators (veterinary, servicing & maintenance)
e) / New species development and disease research
f) / Funding for field trials

Figure 18: Broad areas where greatest development is thought to be required to move aquaculture production offshore.

On the specific area of equipment needs, cage design is considered the most important development area, followed by moorings and net design. Feed barge and well boat design & availability, buoys and fish handling equipment (for harvesting, grading, etc) were also rated highly by respondents and to a lesser extent cage lighting, mussel long-line systems, stock monitoring equipment and anti-predator equipment (figure 19). Figure 20 highlights the perceived requirements to infrastructure such as road access, piers, navigation, processing and storage facilities, etc. The producers, professional service providers and policy representatives identified boats to access sites/service boats as the most important requirement to access offshore locations. The provision of aquaculture research facilities was also considered important, particularly by the NGO’s. Piers and slipway development was highlighted by producers and by the supplier group. Communication systems, environmental monitoring equipment and early warning systems are other areas in need of improved technology (figure 21). Cameras for remote monitoring of stock behaviour was highly rated by producers, NGO’s and professional service providers. Finfish and shellfish producers identified harvesting technology as an important development area. Mortality management, feeding systems, communication systems, automated cleaning systems and mortality management equipment were also considered important. Reflecting the emphasis on the need for cage development and design, the most important service provision highlighted was cage installation and maintenance. Safety and training was also a highly rated service as well as monitoring services and EIS services (figure 22).