stakeholder’s sector” (Tiller et al. 2013). During the workshop the participants
nominated Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) as an additional driver. They even
coined it a “super” driver, and felt it necessary as a pre-condition for the discussion
as a whole. The exercise Tiller et al. (2013) conducted was thus to explicitly
identify what attitudes and risk perceptions stakeholders have for offshore aquaculture. The concrete risks or effects they identified were, among others, related to
loss of income, to extra costs incurring due to loss of gear, and to being excluded
from the fishing grounds. All the effects they considered fit in the social typology
category of Negative effects of aquaculture production activities and conflicts with
other interests.
Forster (2008) sets out to tackle some broader issues related to offshore aquaculture, including how the potential of offshore aquaculture fit into the bigger
picture of global food supply, how the assessed long term potential of offshore
aquaculture may be important in evaluating current efforts to get it developed, and
how offshore aquaculture should be judged in comparison to other methods of food
production.
2 He looked into the anticipated future need and demand for food and
hence seafood, but also into other ways of making more productive use of the sea,
including for energy production and animal feed. He further discussed some of the
criteria to assess the sustainability of offshore aquaculture, as well as some of the
major substantial issues. Thus, his deliberations point out to the typology item
Effects on the wider economic and innovation system.
Lastly, a recent study by Ferreira et al. (2014) in southern Portugal investigated
interactions between inshore and offshore clam aquaculture through a modelling
framework. This enabled them to consider production volumes in the two contrasting aquaculture settings, as well as the environmental effects and disease
interactions between them. They could show that whilst the inshore aquaculture
activity targets clams of high value, a substantial part of the primary production
which is food for the clams originates from the offshore. The offshore area has one
of the world’s first offshore aquaculture parks, 3.6 nm from the coast. The park has
60 leases for aquaculture production, 70% for finfish cage culture and 30% for
bivalve longline culture, covers 15 km
2 and is at 30–60 m depth. Ferreira et al.
(2014) found that the bivalve offshore production has caused a decrease of clam
yields inshore. While this is replaced by the yields offshore, it is a source of
stakeholder conflict. The authors’ modelling of potential disease spread between the
offshore and inshore systems made it possible to develop a risk exposure map. The
authors argue that such quantitative models of interactions, including reduced yields
for inshore stakeholder, demonstrate a need for “strong governance to offset disease
risks”, and they stress “the need to go beyond the conventional spatial planning
toolset in order to ensure an ecosystem approach to aquaculture.” These findings fit
into the social typology categories of Direct benefits of aquaculture and their
distribution; Negative effects of aquaculture production activities and conflicts with
other interests.
2
He also considered legislative issues, as noted earlier.
8 The Socio-economic Dimensions of Offshore …
177
nominated Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) as an additional driver. They even
coined it a “super” driver, and felt it necessary as a pre-condition for the discussion
as a whole. The exercise Tiller et al. (2013) conducted was thus to explicitly
identify what attitudes and risk perceptions stakeholders have for offshore aquaculture. The concrete risks or effects they identified were, among others, related to
loss of income, to extra costs incurring due to loss of gear, and to being excluded
from the fishing grounds. All the effects they considered fit in the social typology
category of Negative effects of aquaculture production activities and conflicts with
other interests.
Forster (2008) sets out to tackle some broader issues related to offshore aquaculture, including how the potential of offshore aquaculture fit into the bigger
picture of global food supply, how the assessed long term potential of offshore
aquaculture may be important in evaluating current efforts to get it developed, and
how offshore aquaculture should be judged in comparison to other methods of food
production.
2 He looked into the anticipated future need and demand for food and
hence seafood, but also into other ways of making more productive use of the sea,
including for energy production and animal feed. He further discussed some of the
criteria to assess the sustainability of offshore aquaculture, as well as some of the
major substantial issues. Thus, his deliberations point out to the typology item
Effects on the wider economic and innovation system.
Lastly, a recent study by Ferreira et al. (2014) in southern Portugal investigated
interactions between inshore and offshore clam aquaculture through a modelling
framework. This enabled them to consider production volumes in the two contrasting aquaculture settings, as well as the environmental effects and disease
interactions between them. They could show that whilst the inshore aquaculture
activity targets clams of high value, a substantial part of the primary production
which is food for the clams originates from the offshore. The offshore area has one
of the world’s first offshore aquaculture parks, 3.6 nm from the coast. The park has
60 leases for aquaculture production, 70% for finfish cage culture and 30% for
bivalve longline culture, covers 15 km
2 and is at 30–60 m depth. Ferreira et al.
(2014) found that the bivalve offshore production has caused a decrease of clam
yields inshore. While this is replaced by the yields offshore, it is a source of
stakeholder conflict. The authors’ modelling of potential disease spread between the
offshore and inshore systems made it possible to develop a risk exposure map. The
authors argue that such quantitative models of interactions, including reduced yields
for inshore stakeholder, demonstrate a need for “strong governance to offset disease
risks”, and they stress “the need to go beyond the conventional spatial planning
toolset in order to ensure an ecosystem approach to aquaculture.” These findings fit
into the social typology categories of Direct benefits of aquaculture and their
distribution; Negative effects of aquaculture production activities and conflicts with
other interests.
2
He also considered legislative issues, as noted earlier.
8 The Socio-economic Dimensions of Offshore …
177