Acronym NA
Category
Aquaculture
Title Lokalitetstilgang for havbruk - Locality access for aquaculture Programme National Programme
Instrument (FP6)
Contact Type (FP7)
Strand (Interreg)
NA
Theme (FP7)
Activity Area (FP6)
Regional Area (Interreg)
Action (COST)
NA
Specific Programme (FP7)
NA
Funding source National Coordinator Otto Andreassen Coordinator email otto.andreassen@nofima.no
Coordinator institution
NOFIMA - Norwegian Institute of Food, Fisheries and Aquaculture Research (Norway)
Institutions involved
NTNU - Norwegian University of Science and Technology (Norway) ,
RURALIS - Ruralis; Department of Rural and Regional Research (Norway) ,
SINTEF-SFH - SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture (Norway) ,
UiT-NFH - The Arctic University of Norway; Norwegian College of Fishery Science (Norway) ,
Start year 2013 End year 2014 Funding (€) € 400,107 Website https://www.fhf.no/prosjekter/prosjektbasen/900911/ Summary Access to good locations will be a decisive factor for further growth in the aquaculture industry. The industry is excluded in whole or in part from attractive site resources as a result of protection measures, other business activities, military activity, etc. Political decisions on the disposition of coastal areas are often made with somewhat limited knowledge of the effects it can have, positively or negatively. Although this is largely an area for the public administration network research, the aquaculture industry will benefit from obtaining documentation and conducting research aimed at the industry's needs. If the aquaculture industry is to have an impact on increased use of coastal areas, it is dependent on mapping the needs. Based on the reverse burden of proof that follows from the precautionary principle, it will largely be the aquaculture industry's own responsibility to produce and present knowledge about economic and social conditions (cf. the principle of sustainability in several dimensions). Demands for equal treatment and common guidelines will most often lead to the strictest requirements having to be taken into account, which could obviously lead to more restrictions on land access, especially in the north. Ecosystem considerations will also mean that different areas along the coast must be treated differently, ie with a certain element of political and administrative discretion. The development of supervisors is an important instrument when it comes to defining the framework for the use of administrative discretion and ensuring a certain degree of equal treatment. The current supervisor for the County Governor's processing of farming cases (A-1653) from 1999 is one of the supervisors who undoubtedly needs updating. Guides for impact assessments (KU) for aquaculture measures in sea areas need to be updated and further developed. Here, it is important that appropriate criteria are prepared for impact assessments, both at the initiative level (site applications) and the plan level (area plans). It is particularly important that the KU requirements here are coordinated so that a KU for a larger planning area is assumed to cover part of the information that is otherwise included in a KU for a locality. There is a need to gather experience and to develop more knowledge about epidemiology and infection hygiene operating models related to land use. Today, the industry's own land use (as a result of distance requirements) is one of the biggest limitations when it comes to further expansion in a number of coastal areas. Today's aquaculture industry could produce more if operations are coordinated within appropriate zones with “firebreaks”. The responsibility for ensuring that this is carried out lies primarily with the fish farmers, although the Norwegian Food Safety Authority will be able to function as a rice behind the mirror. In the coastal zone, it should be planned for larger areas, e.g. based on ecosystem considerations. The municipalities, which today have the main responsibility for land management in the coastal zone, are individually too small for this. The solution may be inter-municipal co-operation, but experience so far indicates that these co-operation projects have not been able to come up with finished plans within a reasonable time. The aquaculture industry is today subject to extensive laws and regulations that fall under several ministries. Much of this can be simplified and coordinated. For example, even minor adjustments in the positioning of cages, anchors and feed rafts will trigger a completely new procedure and associated procedures. It must also be possible to coordinate inspections from various agencies. The use of distance zones outside protected areas should be re-evaluated and specified. The aquaculture industry should recognize that coastal land resources at sea are considered national property, subject to central and municipal management. The challenge will then be to create a framework for negotiations that provides predictability both for the aquaculture industry and for other user interests, and which is as fact-based as possible.
Keywords
Guidelines;
Salmon;
Aquaculture industry;
Open sea aquaculture;
Fish;
Spatial planning;
Aquaculture development;
Cage aquaculture;
Marine Region
41
Norwegian Sea (27.IIa)
1
Marine Region Map
