place multi-use governance systems that can address these complex issues vertically
and horizontally can help stakeholders to consider ways of dealing with anticipated
risks.
However, a wide range of organizational and social challenges related to the
collective use of a defined ocean territory have to be taken into account and
preferably during the infancy of a new sector. Governance frameworks can help
define responsibilities and duties thus supporting cross-sectoral management
associated with offshore co-management that integrates the different demands and
practices of the involved parties. It can be postulated that policy drivers will change
over time and inform management actions for the future, thus complexity in
decision-making is likely to increase where there are demands from multiple users
of ocean space. Concomittant changes to the natural, marine, and social ecosystems
should ideally be considered in advance of offshore aquaculture developments so
that governance systems can be developed to tailor the context-specific needs of
different locations. The trajectory of anticipated changes identified through policy
workshops (Fig. 7.2) could result in offshore aquaculture businesses providing a
more vibrant, innovative, marine economy with compatible management measures
supported by appropriate governance systems. 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’, then one approach could be to implement national policy cycle workshops to identify the relevant stakeholders and get their buy-into co-develop
effective multi-use governance arrangements that will support social, economic and
environmental development of the offshore aquaculture sector.
References
Apt, J., & Fischhoff, B. (2006). Power and people. The Electricity Journal, 19, 17–25.
Araujo, M., Acosta, A., Linan, A., & Saiegh, S. (2004). Political institutions, policy making and
policy outcomes in Ecuador: Latin American research network. Inter-American Development
Bank.
Buck, B., Krause, G., & Rosenthal, H. (2004). Extensive open ocean aquaculture development
within wind farms in Germany: The prospect of offshore co-management and legal constraints.
Ocean and Coastal Management, 47, 95–122.
Brugère, C., Ridler, N., Haylor, G., Macfadyen, G., & Hishamunda, N. (2010). Aquaculture
planning: policy formulation and implementation for sustainable development. FAO Fisheries
and Aquaculture Tech. Paper No. 542. Rome: FAO.
Cicin-Sain, B., & Knecht, R. W. (1998). Integrated coastal and ocean management, concepts and
practices. Washington: Island Press.
Dalton, T. M. (2006). Exploring participants’ views of participatory coastal and marine resource
management processes. Coastal Management, 34, 351–367.
Duarte, C. M., Marbá, N., & Holmer, M. (2007). Rapid domestication of marine species. Science,
316, 382–383.
EU. (2001). European Governance – A white paper. COM (2001) 428 final. Brussels.
160
G. Krause and S.M. Stead
and horizontally can help stakeholders to consider ways of dealing with anticipated
risks.
However, a wide range of organizational and social challenges related to the
collective use of a defined ocean territory have to be taken into account and
preferably during the infancy of a new sector. Governance frameworks can help
define responsibilities and duties thus supporting cross-sectoral management
associated with offshore co-management that integrates the different demands and
practices of the involved parties. It can be postulated that policy drivers will change
over time and inform management actions for the future, thus complexity in
decision-making is likely to increase where there are demands from multiple users
of ocean space. Concomittant changes to the natural, marine, and social ecosystems
should ideally be considered in advance of offshore aquaculture developments so
that governance systems can be developed to tailor the context-specific needs of
different locations. The trajectory of anticipated changes identified through policy
workshops (Fig. 7.2) could result in offshore aquaculture businesses providing a
more vibrant, innovative, marine economy with compatible management measures
supported by appropriate governance systems. 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’, then one approach could be to implement national policy cycle workshops to identify the relevant stakeholders and get their buy-into co-develop
effective multi-use governance arrangements that will support social, economic and
environmental development of the offshore aquaculture sector.
References
Apt, J., & Fischhoff, B. (2006). Power and people. The Electricity Journal, 19, 17–25.
Araujo, M., Acosta, A., Linan, A., & Saiegh, S. (2004). Political institutions, policy making and
policy outcomes in Ecuador: Latin American research network. Inter-American Development
Bank.
Buck, B., Krause, G., & Rosenthal, H. (2004). Extensive open ocean aquaculture development
within wind farms in Germany: The prospect of offshore co-management and legal constraints.
Ocean and Coastal Management, 47, 95–122.
Brugère, C., Ridler, N., Haylor, G., Macfadyen, G., & Hishamunda, N. (2010). Aquaculture
planning: policy formulation and implementation for sustainable development. FAO Fisheries
and Aquaculture Tech. Paper No. 542. Rome: FAO.
Cicin-Sain, B., & Knecht, R. W. (1998). Integrated coastal and ocean management, concepts and
practices. Washington: Island Press.
Dalton, T. M. (2006). Exploring participants’ views of participatory coastal and marine resource
management processes. Coastal Management, 34, 351–367.
Duarte, C. M., Marbá, N., & Holmer, M. (2007). Rapid domestication of marine species. Science,
316, 382–383.
EU. (2001). European Governance – A white paper. COM (2001) 428 final. Brussels.
160
G. Krause and S.M. Stead