The fisheries sector from the outset faces a different situation: while the offshore
wind energy sector is privileged with stable and outspoken political commitments
and to-date exclusive user rights for vast ocean areas, the fisheries sector is losing
ground. This development however has not resulted in any noticeable efforts of the
fisheries sector to diversify into marine farming so far. In fact, local fishermen
appear rather reluctant to the idea of engaging with marine farming (Wever et al.
2015; Michler-Cieluch 2009). Neither do they possess the specific knowledge of
marine farming, nor the sufficient investment capital, nor do they seem to be willing
to move away from their original profession. By some fisheries representatives, the
efforts to engage fishermen into alternative occupations are perceived as lip service
to avert from the fact that the expansion of offshore wind energy goes hand in hand
with the closing of fishing grounds, thus threatening the very existence of the
fisheries sector.
Earlier stakeholder efforts focused on the potential role of nearshore aquaculturists, in particular mussel farmers, in offshore mariculture operations
(Michler-Cieluch and Kodeih 2008). Similarly to the fishermen, the local mussel
farmers also generally appeared reluctant to the idea of expanding their businesses
into offshore waters. Here again the disbeliefs in economic efficiency and technical
feasibility, and a generally low readiness to assume risks were identified as the main
causes for a sceptical attitude towards offshore mariculture. Moreover, offshore
mariculture was found to be perceived as “intruder” that could displace traditional
ways of fishing from the Wadden Sea. The fisheries sector thus felt as a “two-fold
loser” that is threatened not only by the loss of fishing grounds due to the expansion
of offshore wind farms, but also the loss of their occupational identity if forced into
offshore farming in order to secure income. Table 11.5 displays selected supportive,
as well as opposing statements from fisheries and offshore wind energy
representatives.
These results seem surprising, as both fisheries and nearshore aquaculture sectors
possess developable equipment as well as valuable skills and knowledge to work in
open waters, and both sectors, for different reasons, are confronted with the need to
extend and diversify their businesses. They reveal the Achilles heel of socioeconomic studies so far: the lack of a clearly identified target group. It is not yet clear
who would actually be willing and capable to develop and operate a marine
aquaculture facility in offshore waters. In fact, due to the remoteness of offshore
installations, operations would have to rely heavily on automated processes.
Stakeholders have repeatedly raised their worries that the technology would be
attractive only to large, possibly foreign investors and would hardly generate any
income or employment effects to the region (Wever et al. 2015). It is also not clear
under what kind of arrangement the two very heterogeneous actor groups (wind
farm operators and aquaculture operators) with substantially different interests and
concerns could be brought together in a co-management scheme. Financial and
operational benefits from sharing a common facility and space may only be attained
when a high degree of cooperation between the co-users is achieved, not only
326
B.H. Buck et al.
wind energy sector is privileged with stable and outspoken political commitments
and to-date exclusive user rights for vast ocean areas, the fisheries sector is losing
ground. This development however has not resulted in any noticeable efforts of the
fisheries sector to diversify into marine farming so far. In fact, local fishermen
appear rather reluctant to the idea of engaging with marine farming (Wever et al.
2015; Michler-Cieluch 2009). Neither do they possess the specific knowledge of
marine farming, nor the sufficient investment capital, nor do they seem to be willing
to move away from their original profession. By some fisheries representatives, the
efforts to engage fishermen into alternative occupations are perceived as lip service
to avert from the fact that the expansion of offshore wind energy goes hand in hand
with the closing of fishing grounds, thus threatening the very existence of the
fisheries sector.
Earlier stakeholder efforts focused on the potential role of nearshore aquaculturists, in particular mussel farmers, in offshore mariculture operations
(Michler-Cieluch and Kodeih 2008). Similarly to the fishermen, the local mussel
farmers also generally appeared reluctant to the idea of expanding their businesses
into offshore waters. Here again the disbeliefs in economic efficiency and technical
feasibility, and a generally low readiness to assume risks were identified as the main
causes for a sceptical attitude towards offshore mariculture. Moreover, offshore
mariculture was found to be perceived as “intruder” that could displace traditional
ways of fishing from the Wadden Sea. The fisheries sector thus felt as a “two-fold
loser” that is threatened not only by the loss of fishing grounds due to the expansion
of offshore wind farms, but also the loss of their occupational identity if forced into
offshore farming in order to secure income. Table 11.5 displays selected supportive,
as well as opposing statements from fisheries and offshore wind energy
representatives.
These results seem surprising, as both fisheries and nearshore aquaculture sectors
possess developable equipment as well as valuable skills and knowledge to work in
open waters, and both sectors, for different reasons, are confronted with the need to
extend and diversify their businesses. They reveal the Achilles heel of socioeconomic studies so far: the lack of a clearly identified target group. It is not yet clear
who would actually be willing and capable to develop and operate a marine
aquaculture facility in offshore waters. In fact, due to the remoteness of offshore
installations, operations would have to rely heavily on automated processes.
Stakeholders have repeatedly raised their worries that the technology would be
attractive only to large, possibly foreign investors and would hardly generate any
income or employment effects to the region (Wever et al. 2015). It is also not clear
under what kind of arrangement the two very heterogeneous actor groups (wind
farm operators and aquaculture operators) with substantially different interests and
concerns could be brought together in a co-management scheme. Financial and
operational benefits from sharing a common facility and space may only be attained
when a high degree of cooperation between the co-users is achieved, not only
326
B.H. Buck et al.