This is due to the fact that aquaculture acts as “secondary newcomer”, since the
current momentum of moving activities offshore stems from the political will to
enforce renewable energy systems in the first place (Buck et al. 2003). Therefore,
the typical site-selection criteria catalogue applicable for aquaculture can usually
not be implemented. Hence criteria for the selection process must be tailored to
capture the relevant local parameters of the conditions around and within an offshore wind farm. Offshore equipment will need to be adapted to co-exist with the
other uses to which the platforms may be put. For instance in the case of aquaculture, equipment has been developed for more benign environments and as such
is still in the redesign-phase for harsher conditions. It must be noted that several
projects are working to realize offshore aquaculture farm designs independent of
renewable energy production facilities. In Norway the problems of salmon lice in
the fish farms and their transfer to wild salmon populations are also a strong
incentive to enable offshore aquaculture. In other parts of the world independent
offshore aquaculture farms have been in operation for some time, i.e. in the
Caribbean also in real open ocean environments (Ryan et al. 2004).
Additionally, and maybe most importantly, the socio-economic framing conditions must be assessed. They can either promote or hamper such offshore multi-use
concepts. While the density and variety of stakeholders and interests affected by
inshore aquaculture in general seems much higher than offshore aquaculture could
be in the relatively near future, it would be naïve to assume that socio-economic
issues can be ignored when going offshore. Inshore as well as offshore aquaculture
production activities are subject to dispute and conflict when management regimes
have not been established properly, as the participating stakeholder groups have
different and sometimes opposing interests (Krause et al. 2011; Wever et al. 2015).
Additionally, the flow of costs and benefits and end-consumer preferences vary a lot
from place to place (Griffin et al. 2015). This can change an initial local acceptance
to strong opposition against the instalment of aquaculture in coastal rural landscapes. Resolving this requires additional input from social, economic and political
sciences (Michler-Cieluch and Krause 2008). This has over the years lead to an
increasing awareness to the social dimensions of aquaculture production (Krause
et al. 2015).
Marine Spatial Planning (MSP), which now has expanded out to offshore areas,
as for example in Norway’s Integrated management plans for the Barents Sea, the
North Sea, and the Norwegian Sea (Anon 2008–2009; Anon 2010–2011; Anon
2012–2013), attempts to combine governance of stakeholders and their interests
with the needs and limitations inherent in ecological sustainability. So far, stakeholder participation in marine spatial planning has been less than in typical integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) processes, but the ecosystem component
of MSP management appear to be stronger—the current EU Efforts to define and
reach “Good Environmental Status” of Marine Waters by 2020 (Marine Strategy
Framework Directive) is a case in point. However, with increasing interest for the
use of offshore areas, marine spatial planning must include socio-economic aspects
and stakeholder participation to a stronger degree to be successful.
8 The Socio-economic Dimensions of Offshore …
165
current momentum of moving activities offshore stems from the political will to
enforce renewable energy systems in the first place (Buck et al. 2003). Therefore,
the typical site-selection criteria catalogue applicable for aquaculture can usually
not be implemented. Hence criteria for the selection process must be tailored to
capture the relevant local parameters of the conditions around and within an offshore wind farm. Offshore equipment will need to be adapted to co-exist with the
other uses to which the platforms may be put. For instance in the case of aquaculture, equipment has been developed for more benign environments and as such
is still in the redesign-phase for harsher conditions. It must be noted that several
projects are working to realize offshore aquaculture farm designs independent of
renewable energy production facilities. In Norway the problems of salmon lice in
the fish farms and their transfer to wild salmon populations are also a strong
incentive to enable offshore aquaculture. In other parts of the world independent
offshore aquaculture farms have been in operation for some time, i.e. in the
Caribbean also in real open ocean environments (Ryan et al. 2004).
Additionally, and maybe most importantly, the socio-economic framing conditions must be assessed. They can either promote or hamper such offshore multi-use
concepts. While the density and variety of stakeholders and interests affected by
inshore aquaculture in general seems much higher than offshore aquaculture could
be in the relatively near future, it would be naïve to assume that socio-economic
issues can be ignored when going offshore. Inshore as well as offshore aquaculture
production activities are subject to dispute and conflict when management regimes
have not been established properly, as the participating stakeholder groups have
different and sometimes opposing interests (Krause et al. 2011; Wever et al. 2015).
Additionally, the flow of costs and benefits and end-consumer preferences vary a lot
from place to place (Griffin et al. 2015). This can change an initial local acceptance
to strong opposition against the instalment of aquaculture in coastal rural landscapes. Resolving this requires additional input from social, economic and political
sciences (Michler-Cieluch and Krause 2008). This has over the years lead to an
increasing awareness to the social dimensions of aquaculture production (Krause
et al. 2015).
Marine Spatial Planning (MSP), which now has expanded out to offshore areas,
as for example in Norway’s Integrated management plans for the Barents Sea, the
North Sea, and the Norwegian Sea (Anon 2008–2009; Anon 2010–2011; Anon
2012–2013), attempts to combine governance of stakeholders and their interests
with the needs and limitations inherent in ecological sustainability. So far, stakeholder participation in marine spatial planning has been less than in typical integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) processes, but the ecosystem component
of MSP management appear to be stronger—the current EU Efforts to define and
reach “Good Environmental Status” of Marine Waters by 2020 (Marine Strategy
Framework Directive) is a case in point. However, with increasing interest for the
use of offshore areas, marine spatial planning must include socio-economic aspects
and stakeholder participation to a stronger degree to be successful.
8 The Socio-economic Dimensions of Offshore …
165