energy facility. Furthermore, it has the potential to make wild harvest fisheries more
productive if mariculture areas act as nurseries for wild fish (Mee 2006). Indeed,
multi-use layering of economic activities can maximize the value of offshore
resources while reducing conflict between stakeholder groups. Since regulators
have already shown they are comfortable with using legislation to spur growth in
the offshore wind energy industry, such type of legislative promoting a multi-use
concept would not be an uncommon step. Indeed, a clear, coherent, and stable
regulatory framework is a bare minimum when firms make financial decisions in
the inherently risky offshore marine environment. Managers need to be able to
predict with some certainty the expected outcomes of changes in strategy, be it an
internal decision or the decision to form an external alliance. To the contrary,
fragmentation in the structure of State decision making is shown to lead to more
elaborate and costly inter-organisational networks (Carroll et al. 1988). However,
the decision to actively foster cooperation on a multi-use concept should largely be
dependent on market conditions, which must be somewhat accommodated for by
the legislation. The latter may be driven by the recognition of the potential social
benefits available from multi-use facilities. Williamson (1981) stated that “there are
so many different types of organisations because transactions differ so greatly and
efficiency is only realized if governance structures are tailored to the specific needs
of each type of transaction.” The legislative ownership discussion this far have
attempted to frame the potential cooperation in a multi-use setting in the context of
the broader social, political, and economic spheres. Next, the discussions also
acknowledge and illuminate the perceptions and characteristics of the particular
industries themselves. It appears clear that uncertainty and risk are large components of this discussion. These were reinforced and frequently voiced by the survey
respondents in the German case study. It can be expected that the likelihood and
form of collaboration in the near future will be shaped by how well this risk and
uncertainty is addressed.
11.8 Regulation of Aquaculture Within the German Bight
The EEZ is a special area—it is not a state territory even if a coastal state has there
sovereign rights and jurisdiction. This is an area where three legal systems come
together: international law, law of the European Union and national law (Buck et al.
2003). There are no commercial aquaculture operations in the German EEZ and no
approval procedure has been completed so far. Additionally, some sites are not
suitable for aquaculture, especially because of nature conservation and shipping.
11 The German Case Study: Pioneer Projects of Aquaculture …
339
productive if mariculture areas act as nurseries for wild fish (Mee 2006). Indeed,
multi-use layering of economic activities can maximize the value of offshore
resources while reducing conflict between stakeholder groups. Since regulators
have already shown they are comfortable with using legislation to spur growth in
the offshore wind energy industry, such type of legislative promoting a multi-use
concept would not be an uncommon step. Indeed, a clear, coherent, and stable
regulatory framework is a bare minimum when firms make financial decisions in
the inherently risky offshore marine environment. Managers need to be able to
predict with some certainty the expected outcomes of changes in strategy, be it an
internal decision or the decision to form an external alliance. To the contrary,
fragmentation in the structure of State decision making is shown to lead to more
elaborate and costly inter-organisational networks (Carroll et al. 1988). However,
the decision to actively foster cooperation on a multi-use concept should largely be
dependent on market conditions, which must be somewhat accommodated for by
the legislation. The latter may be driven by the recognition of the potential social
benefits available from multi-use facilities. Williamson (1981) stated that “there are
so many different types of organisations because transactions differ so greatly and
efficiency is only realized if governance structures are tailored to the specific needs
of each type of transaction.” The legislative ownership discussion this far have
attempted to frame the potential cooperation in a multi-use setting in the context of
the broader social, political, and economic spheres. Next, the discussions also
acknowledge and illuminate the perceptions and characteristics of the particular
industries themselves. It appears clear that uncertainty and risk are large components of this discussion. These were reinforced and frequently voiced by the survey
respondents in the German case study. It can be expected that the likelihood and
form of collaboration in the near future will be shaped by how well this risk and
uncertainty is addressed.
11.8 Regulation of Aquaculture Within the German Bight
The EEZ is a special area—it is not a state territory even if a coastal state has there
sovereign rights and jurisdiction. This is an area where three legal systems come
together: international law, law of the European Union and national law (Buck et al.
2003). There are no commercial aquaculture operations in the German EEZ and no
approval procedure has been completed so far. Additionally, some sites are not
suitable for aquaculture, especially because of nature conservation and shipping.
11 The German Case Study: Pioneer Projects of Aquaculture …
339