However, the “social embeddedness” (Granovetter 1985) and the role of discreet
informal social networks must also be considered alongside formal governance
mechanisms to address the probability of collectively concerted action in the offshore realm. Indeed, if viewing offshore aquaculture as a common-property activity
within a common-pool resource system, then two issues commonly need to be
addressed:
1. cost/benefits and challenges of managing exclusion or the control of access to
potential users, and;
2. if each user is capable of subtracting from the welfare of all other users, then to
what extent are marine resource users willing to trade-off negative impacts with
potential benefits?
In the context of offshore aquaculture, if we consider Hardin’s (1968) quote that
“this dilemma of the tragedy of the commons has no technical solution”—then in
debating our hypothesis we should look more into the social dimensions of offshore
aquaculture in a multi-use setting. Therefore, to fully address our hypothesis
—‘before the offshore aquaculture sector can optimise production regardless of the
target species and technology employed, a better understanding of the links
between governance structure and offshore management implementation is
required’—in practice, workshops should be conducted in each country with an
interest in offshore aquaculture. These events should be stakeholder-led and seek to
identify the efficacy of current governance processes and governance reform needed
to improve sustainable development of this sector.
Focussed workshops of this kind can help governments identify likely structural
issues associated with current governance arrangements and determine reforms
needed for policy and associated management measures to meet identified constraints for future development of the offshore aquaculture sector (Wever et al.
2015). To address the respective technical, economic, social, and political challenges of offshore as well as established inshore aquaculture production, governance processes must also include the relevant stakeholders in a triple-loop manner
as proposed by Pahl-Wostl (2009) over time (Fig. 7.3).
Increasing use of ocean territory demands from the respective actors that they
move beyond the narrow focus of business entrepreneurship and consider a more
complex picture of the multiple-use challenges. In this sense, comprehensiveness
implies to take a wider scope of competing demands on multiple marine resources
and stakeholders potentially develop a holistic view of all issues, including those of
the other parties involved. Marine spatial planning can be helpful in ensuring
information from different sectors and actors is assimilated, which goes beyond a
single individual or organizations’ priorities. Additionally, an insight into the
existing underlying offshore aquaculture sector ideas, competing interests and
normative considerations has to be generated to understand complex problems and
to overcome misunderstandings. This demands governance processes that are either
more results-oriented (e.g. for integrating technical knowledge of the participating
sectors) or more process-oriented (e.g. for establishing new linkages between
158
G. Krause and S.M. Stead
informal social networks must also be considered alongside formal governance
mechanisms to address the probability of collectively concerted action in the offshore realm. Indeed, if viewing offshore aquaculture as a common-property activity
within a common-pool resource system, then two issues commonly need to be
addressed:
1. cost/benefits and challenges of managing exclusion or the control of access to
potential users, and;
2. if each user is capable of subtracting from the welfare of all other users, then to
what extent are marine resource users willing to trade-off negative impacts with
potential benefits?
In the context of offshore aquaculture, if we consider Hardin’s (1968) quote that
“this dilemma of the tragedy of the commons has no technical solution”—then in
debating our hypothesis we should look more into the social dimensions of offshore
aquaculture in a multi-use setting. Therefore, to fully address our hypothesis
—‘before the offshore aquaculture sector can optimise production regardless of the
target species and technology employed, a better understanding of the links
between governance structure and offshore management implementation is
required’—in practice, workshops should be conducted in each country with an
interest in offshore aquaculture. These events should be stakeholder-led and seek to
identify the efficacy of current governance processes and governance reform needed
to improve sustainable development of this sector.
Focussed workshops of this kind can help governments identify likely structural
issues associated with current governance arrangements and determine reforms
needed for policy and associated management measures to meet identified constraints for future development of the offshore aquaculture sector (Wever et al.
2015). To address the respective technical, economic, social, and political challenges of offshore as well as established inshore aquaculture production, governance processes must also include the relevant stakeholders in a triple-loop manner
as proposed by Pahl-Wostl (2009) over time (Fig. 7.3).
Increasing use of ocean territory demands from the respective actors that they
move beyond the narrow focus of business entrepreneurship and consider a more
complex picture of the multiple-use challenges. In this sense, comprehensiveness
implies to take a wider scope of competing demands on multiple marine resources
and stakeholders potentially develop a holistic view of all issues, including those of
the other parties involved. Marine spatial planning can be helpful in ensuring
information from different sectors and actors is assimilated, which goes beyond a
single individual or organizations’ priorities. Additionally, an insight into the
existing underlying offshore aquaculture sector ideas, competing interests and
normative considerations has to be generated to understand complex problems and
to overcome misunderstandings. This demands governance processes that are either
more results-oriented (e.g. for integrating technical knowledge of the participating
sectors) or more process-oriented (e.g. for establishing new linkages between
158
G. Krause and S.M. Stead