established activities such as fishing, transport, leisure boating, aggregate extraction, power and communication cabling and defense, as well as the more hard to
quantify services such as scenic amenity and nature conservation.
The current system of licensing marine aquaculture in England operates on a
case by case basis where there is essentially a presumption against development and
each proposal has to justify its application in terms of how it will either not affect
existing activities or how it would be an improvement on existing activities. This
has led to the alternative idea that licensing should be determined by marine plans
with predetermined zones where there is a presumption for each activity.
Both of these approaches have their advantages and disadvantages and for the
inshore zone where the needs of aquaculture are well defined and understood, either
of these approaches can be made to work. However for the offshore zone, aquaculture is still in its infancy and the techniques, equipment, management practices
and economics are not well developed and are likely to evolve over coming years.
This means that the criteria by which offshore aquaculture is presently judged
against other activities are likely to change and the rationale for placing aquaculture
in a particular zone may prove to be inadequate in future years.
Co-location is often presented as a solution to this problem and there have been
proposals and trials to co-locate aquaculture with a number of different activities
worldwide. These include; the co-location and integration of different types of
aquaculture at different trophic levels; co-location with reconstructed oyster reefs to
enhance fisheries and biodiversity; co-location with structures such as marina
pontoons, shore defenses or artificial reefs; and co-location with renewable energy
installations or redundant oil and gas rigs. All of these have potential but all of them
require an in-depth understanding of the individual needs of each activity before
co-location could become a practicality.
Offshore mussel farming using suspended cultivation is regularly cited as a
potential candidate for co-location with renewable energy structures, but currently
there are no commercial examples in operation. The reasons for this are: partly
because of the lack of an economic driver; partly because the technology of offshore
mussel production is new and undeveloped; and partly because of the lack of a clear
regulatory framework and operational protocols that would provide security for
both of the co-location partners.
The economics of offshore mussel farming become more challenging the further
offshore the farm is situated. The advantages are that the potential space resource
for production increases, growth rates can improve, and diseases and anthropogenic
pollution can decrease. The disadvantages are the increased cost of storm resistant
equipment, the distance from shore base, the need for large expensive seagoing
vessels and the lack of access during bad weather coupled with the difficulty of
maintaining markets that require regular service. The production economics can
also be rapidly altered by changes in markets for the mussels or changes in major
costs such as fuel.
The technology of offshore mussel production is relatively simple in terms of
equipment with most installations around the world consisting of a simple longline
anchored at both ends and buoyed up to, or near to, the surface. The chief
222
J.S. Corbin et al.
quantify services such as scenic amenity and nature conservation.
The current system of licensing marine aquaculture in England operates on a
case by case basis where there is essentially a presumption against development and
each proposal has to justify its application in terms of how it will either not affect
existing activities or how it would be an improvement on existing activities. This
has led to the alternative idea that licensing should be determined by marine plans
with predetermined zones where there is a presumption for each activity.
Both of these approaches have their advantages and disadvantages and for the
inshore zone where the needs of aquaculture are well defined and understood, either
of these approaches can be made to work. However for the offshore zone, aquaculture is still in its infancy and the techniques, equipment, management practices
and economics are not well developed and are likely to evolve over coming years.
This means that the criteria by which offshore aquaculture is presently judged
against other activities are likely to change and the rationale for placing aquaculture
in a particular zone may prove to be inadequate in future years.
Co-location is often presented as a solution to this problem and there have been
proposals and trials to co-locate aquaculture with a number of different activities
worldwide. These include; the co-location and integration of different types of
aquaculture at different trophic levels; co-location with reconstructed oyster reefs to
enhance fisheries and biodiversity; co-location with structures such as marina
pontoons, shore defenses or artificial reefs; and co-location with renewable energy
installations or redundant oil and gas rigs. All of these have potential but all of them
require an in-depth understanding of the individual needs of each activity before
co-location could become a practicality.
Offshore mussel farming using suspended cultivation is regularly cited as a
potential candidate for co-location with renewable energy structures, but currently
there are no commercial examples in operation. The reasons for this are: partly
because of the lack of an economic driver; partly because the technology of offshore
mussel production is new and undeveloped; and partly because of the lack of a clear
regulatory framework and operational protocols that would provide security for
both of the co-location partners.
The economics of offshore mussel farming become more challenging the further
offshore the farm is situated. The advantages are that the potential space resource
for production increases, growth rates can improve, and diseases and anthropogenic
pollution can decrease. The disadvantages are the increased cost of storm resistant
equipment, the distance from shore base, the need for large expensive seagoing
vessels and the lack of access during bad weather coupled with the difficulty of
maintaining markets that require regular service. The production economics can
also be rapidly altered by changes in markets for the mussels or changes in major
costs such as fuel.
The technology of offshore mussel production is relatively simple in terms of
equipment with most installations around the world consisting of a simple longline
anchored at both ends and buoyed up to, or near to, the surface. The chief
222
J.S. Corbin et al.