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.

ChallengesThe 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 – DublinSummary of discussions

Planning Policy & Regulation

Chair: Rosa FernandezRapparteurs: Oisin Naughton & Frank Kane

Present:Ger O’Sullivan, Westpoint ShellfishJohn Power, John Power Trout Ltd/Silver King Salmon LtdHumphy O’Leary , Clare Island Seafarms/Marine Harvest IrelandLiam Doherty, Clare Island Seafarms/Marine Harvest IrelandPatrick Gallagher, Gallagher BrosRichie Flynn, IFA AquacultureKnut Hjelt, Norwegian Seafood FederationJose Carlos Marcias Rivero, Empresa Publica de Desarrollo Agrario y Pesquero Junta de AndaluciaMargerat Van VilsterenEva Maria Soto Rodriguez

Main overviewRosa Fernandez introduced this session by highlighting four main issues:

1) The need for a regulation framework2) 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 negative environmental 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 – DublinSummary 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 Definition of ‘Offshore’

Energy / exposure based?

Distance based?

Depth based?

Define on a regional basis?

Areas where current practices won’t work

Definition should vary according to species being farmed?

Remote from wild fisheries and other biological systems, SAC’s

“Remote” should be part of the definition

Always close to something, what synergies can be accommodates, creating

positive impacts, synergies with protected areas

Labelling very important for marketing purposes

Oceanic rather than coastal?

Guidelines for sustainable aquaculture published by the IUCN/FEAP (REF its

definition for offshore – see document)

Productivity / Capacity

Assimilative capacity

Bio – availability

Need to measure impacts both positive and negative, nutrient sources,

pollutants, eutrophication

Polyculture possibilities

Multiple tropic levels

Positive impacts - little agreement on this issue, it is not given enough

attention

Sustainability of food sources

More research required, also need to build on lessons learned and data

gleaned from inshore experiences

Modelling is required

Impacts can be managed

Need to balance focus of this process so that shellfish have equal priority

Shellfish have less environmental impact

Consumer demand for white fish exceeds that of shellfish

Acceptable environmental impact is the goal need to find what is ‘acceptable’

Food

Sustainability

To be sustainable or to be natural, ‘carnivorous fish don’t eat vegetable oils’??

Use of wild fish stocks – is this sustainable?

Farmed sources - sea sources, land sources, more investigations of these

sources and an scales required to fill demand

Driven by economics

Species Challenges

Biotoxins, HAB’s, density of plankton, productivity, more knowledge required

Collection of data: use of existing structures such as wind farms, test sites

Biological capability of stock

Other Challenges

Predators

Health and safety: people, training, equipment, Shipping / navigation

Health management :Vaccines, Treatments/application methods, Preventative

husbandry

Scale of operations and economics

Meeting market demands - consistency

Inshore / Offshore infrastucture facilities

Consideration of impacts on the following: Staff, Money, Stock, Engineering,

Environment, all these factors overlap

Use of protected areas

Monitoring effort : more , independent, open and transparent,in line with EU

directives, synergy of monitoring, consolidate monitoring effort, CZM

management framework

New technology

Biomass monitoring

Remote sensing/ telemetry

Mort retrieval system

Food retrieval system

Food

Organic only?

Risk assessment and crisis planning

Disaster management

Invasive alien species

OATP International Workshop – DublinSummary of discussions

Technology

Chair: Dr. Richard LanganRapporteurs: Dr. Arne Fredheim and Alan Drumm

Topics discussed

Safety: Staff safety is paramount and will be a huge challenge. The use of divers in submerged cages is a problem and we need to

look at ways to reduce the use of divers. Should be considered when designing cages. Should try to build in automation to avoid using divers.

Different diving regulations in different countries. Cost of divers can be very high. Greatest danger to a diver is inside the cage. ROV’s can be used to

examine moorings. System should be designed so that staff do not need to leave the

support vessel. There should be no need for staff to go on cages. Boats are currently not suitable for offshore and different vessels are

required for shellfish and finfish operations. By having suitable vessels it would reduce the amount of time spent at the sites.

New Zealanders would be world leaders in vessels for mussel industry. Should consider ‘tow cages’ for harvesting rather than well boats. The

fish could also be held in the tow cage for weeks if necessary. Some operators are using ROV’s for inspections and net washing

using high pressure.

Navigation issues: Commissioners of Irish Lights have grave concerns at any further

increase in Aquaculture projects in the absence of an enforceable means of properly marking the developments. Also concerned with the lack of compliance with existing licence conditions for marking of sites.

Transponders could be fitted to all structures. This will be a requirement in Norway in the near future. Zonation for aquaculture operations could assist with navigation. Problems with navigation charts not being up dated quickly. Also some

vessels do not purchase the up dated charts. In busy traffic areas farms are fitted with transponders, radar reflectors,

lights, etc but many collisions have occurred due to no one being on watch on vessels.

Development of Equipment: Some felt that cages were already suitable but no turnkey solution

available. Netting needs to be thin yet strong but not rigid. Every type of cage needs a different type of netting. Better communication is required between the cage manufacturer and

the net producer. Size of cages is an issue. Many good designs exist but are not large

enough. The industry itself does not have the resources to develop large cages.

This is a fundamental problem to the development of an offshore industry.

Farmers fed up with being used as test sites for equipment. It’s time that there were publicly funded sites available for testing of equipment.

Test farms will need to be run to a commercial scale, otherwise not informing the industry.

Escapees: Better methods for continuous estimation of cage biomass are required

for early warning of escapees. Intelligent nets required. Early warning of break of mesh structure. Why are some species biting the nets? Hunger or boredom? Will escapees of sea bass/bream become an issue?

Feeding Systems: Should the feed be introduced from the bottom up i.e. floating feed? Fixed platform allows for feeding during bad weather. However, the

structure depends on the site situation and environment. Single point mooring systems require a greater area.

Communication systems: Critical to understand what id going on out on the site at all times.

Environmental monitoring: Good monitoring of feed input should assist in monitoring

environmental impacts. Need to consider automatic feeding systems which shut down when

currents increase, temperature increases etc. Most of this technology already exists but the farmers need to be

aware of what parameters they should be monitoring. Demo farms could test equipment.

Mortality management: Currently most are using divers for mortality removal. Larger cages with larger stocking densities will lead to greater logistical

problems.

Harvesting: Biggest concern for many farmers is how do we grade and harvest? Some using a small cage inside the large cage but this requires divers. Some join cages underwater and divers flush fish into the harvest

cage. Holding facilities for harvest fish require during periods of bad weather.

Grading: Massive problem. Depends on species.

Supply of juveniles: May need larger juveniles if going offshore so how will the hatcheries

cope? Will still need the inshore sites to hold stocks until large enough to

stock offshore. Need to integrate the inshore and offshore sites. Important to have both inshore and offshore production.

Facilities: Site clustering to aid sharing of shore facilities. Governments may assist in providing facilities if shared.

Services: Vets – monitoring of fish behaviour is vital, taking of samples will be

difficult. Remote technology should assist with the monitoring of the stocks.

Moorings: Plan installation of cages to avoid issues of bad weather.

EIA’s: Should be made a simple as possible to carry out. Still problems in Ireland regarding what is an ‘appropriate’ assessment. There are problems with all food production activities and aquaculture

is one of least impact. We need to promote this. Also need to quantify the EIA verses Social impact. Is the impact

justified?

Training: Employer’s liability is very much a grey area. Require both classroom and field work training Need to establish what the industry requires in training. Salaries and wages need to match the qualifications. Already EU legislation requiring the employer to ensure that the

employees are suitably trained to carry out their job. Demonstrations farms could supply training. Will engineers for offshore sites.

Need for a Forum to continue the communication, which has started, at this workshop. Farmers need to be part of the process.

General comments: Large multinationals will be the ones to invest offshore and the smaller

ones will target the niche markets. However, they will want turnkey operations. But who will supply these? Suggestion that the large companies should set up a research fund

and develop technology for the offshore. 70% - 80% grant aid is required from the EU towards new technology

research, rather than the 40%. Socio economic impact of the small operations being forced offshore is

a major issue e.g. Turkey.

This information will now be included in a comprehensive report outlining the way forward for the European aquaculture industry and submitted to the European Commission in February 2008.

The objective of the EU project OATP that funded the Workshop is to investigate the opportunity and usefulness for the aquaculture industry of promoting offshore aquaculture through a “technological platform” – a consortium of international experts and stakeholders.

Achieving this objective requires the collection, validation and collation of data from a diverse range of sources on the opportunities and requirements of European offshore aquaculture and it’s evaluation to assess the appropriateness of a technological platform as a suitable promotional vehicle.

The “Offshore Aquaculture Technology Platform” (OATP) project includes sixteen partners 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. These partners operate in both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean and in many cases have operations or interests in the aquaculture sector outside of Europe. All participants are involved in the main activities of this 14 month project: collecting and collating information by way of survey and questionnaire, participating in the main workshop and contributing to the final report, to be submitted to the EU Commission in February 2008.