Horizon 2020 AQUASPACE Ecosystem Approach to making Space for Aquaculture EU Horizon 2020 project grant no. 633476 Deliverable 5.1 Synthesis of the lessons learned from the development and testing of innovative tools to support ecosystem-based spatial planning to aquaculture Lead Beneficiary AZTI Deliverable authors Ibon Galparsoro, Arantza Murillas, Kemal Pınarbaşı, Ángel Borja, Anne Marie O´Hagan, Ellen MacMahon, Aline Gangnery, Richard Corner, Joao Ferreira, Rui Ferreira, Antje Gimpel, Adele Boyd, John Icely, Øivind Bergh, Callum Donohue, Hui Lui, Suzi Billing, Joxe Mikel Garmendia, Luis Lagos, Leire Arantzamendi Type of deliverable Report Dissemination level Public Delivery date in DoW 30 Actual delivery date 31/10/2017 Reviewed by Paul Tett (Coordinator) The research leading to these results has been undertaken as part of the AquaSpace project (Ecosystem Approach to making Space for Aquaculture, http://aquaspace-h2020.eu) and has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation under grant agreement n° 633476. Deliverable 5.1 Change log Version Date Author Reason for change 0.1 23/05/2016 I. Galparsoro Table of contents 0.2 31/06/2016 I. Galparsoro Revised table of contents 4 21/07/2017 I. Galparsoro First draft 5 18/08/2017 I. Galparsoro Incorporates coordinator’s comments Review log Version Date Reviewer Comments 4 24/07/2017 Ø. Bergh 4 28/07/2017 E. MacMahon 4 28/07/2017 L. Lagos 4 29/07/2017 H. Lui 4 04/08/2017 S. Billing 4 08/08/2017 C. Donohue 4 14/08/2017 A. Gimpel 4 15/08/2017 J. Icely 5 25/08/2017 A. Gangnery 5 8/09/2017 M. O´Hagan 5 12/09/2017 A. Boyd 5 28/08/2017 P. Tett Recommended Citation Galparsoro, I.; A. Murillas, K. Pinarbasi, Á. Borja, A. M. O´Hagan E. MacMahon, A. Gangnery, R. Corner, J. Ferreira, R. Ferreira, A. Gimpel, A. Boyd, J. Icely, Ø. Bergh, C. Donohue, H. Lui, S. Billing, J. M. Garmendia, L. Lagos and L. Arantzamendi. 2017. Synthesis of the lessons learned from the development and testing of innovative tools to support ecosystem-based spatial planning to aquaculture. Deliverable 5.1; AquaSpace: Ecosystem Approach to making Space for Aquaculture. EU Horizon 2020 project grant nº. 633476. 103 pp. All rights reserved Until 1 March 2018, this document may not be copied, reproduced or modified in whole or in part for any purpose without the written permission from the AquaSpace Consortium. In addition to such written permission to copy, reproduce or modify this document in whole or part, an acknowledgement of the authors of the document and all applicable portions of the copyright must be clearly referenced. From 1 March 2018 this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence. 2 Deliverable 5.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive summary ....................................................................................................................... 5 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 7 2. Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 9 3. AquaSpace approach ........................................................................................................... 10 3.1. Approach based on representative case studies ............................................................ 10 3.2. The Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture ....................................................................... 15 3.3. Main research topics ....................................................................................................... 16 4. Involvement of stakeholders ............................................................................................... 17 5. Observed issues hindering aquaculture development ....................................................... 21 6. Innovative tools developed and tested in AquaSpace ........................................................ 26 6.1. AquaSpace Tool ............................................................................................................... 26 6.2. Aquaculture Investor Index ............................................................................................. 28 6.3. Where can Aquaculture Thrive in EuRope (WATER) ....................................................... 30 6.4. Maritime and Environmental Thresholds for Aquaculture (META) ................................ 31 6.5. Implemented and tested tools and methods.................................................................. 33 7. Evaluation of tools and methods implemented and tested in case studies: a SWOT analysis .......................................................................................................................... 36 7.1. Strengths: advantages of the tools ................................................................................. 36 7.2. Weaknesses: room to improve tools .............................................................................. 37 7.3. Threats: external factors constraining tools and methods usability ............................... 39 7.4. Opportunities: new perspectives for the tools ............................................................... 40 8. Stakeholders´ vision for aquaculture growth and ecosystem-based spatial management 43 9. Needs and recommendations for improvement of tools to support the provision of new space for aquaculture growth under the EAA and spatial planning ............................... 45 10. Concluding remarks ......................................................................................................... 49 11. References ....................................................................................................................... 50 12. List of partners ................................................................................................................ 53 13. List of AquaSpace deliverables ........................................................................................ 54 14. Annex. Case studies outcomes ........................................................................................ 55 14.1. Shellfish culture in Emilia-Romagna, Adriatic Sea ....................................................... 56 3 Deliverable 5.1 14.2. Algarve Coast ............................................................................................................... 59 14.3. Basque Country ........................................................................................................... 62 14.4. Békés County ............................................................................................................... 64 14.5. Carlingford Lough ........................................................................................................ 66 14.6. Great Bay, Piscataqua ................................................................................................. 69 14.7. Houtman Abrolhos Islands .......................................................................................... 72 14.8. Long Island Sound ....................................................................................................... 75 14.9. Mediterranean Sea Multinational (Multiple EEZ) ....................................................... 78 14.10. Normandy / Cancale .................................................................................................... 81 14.11. German Case Study ..................................................................................................... 84 14.12. Norwegian Coast ......................................................................................................... 87 14.13. Nova Scotia Bays ......................................................................................................... 89 14.14. Sangou Bay .................................................................................................................. 91 14.15. Argyll............................................................................................................................ 93 14.16. Zhangzidao Island ........................................................................................................ 96 14.17. Pelorus Sound, New Zealand ....................................................................................... 98 4 Deliverable 5.1 Executive summary This document synthesises the process, results and main outcomes obtained in the project entitled “Ecosystem Approach to making Space for Aquaculture (AquaSpace)”. AquaSpace is funded by the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (Horizon 2020; Grant agreement nº: 633476); corresponding to the research topic of optimizing space availability for European Aquaculture (SFS-11a-2014). The central goal of the AquaSpace project is to optimise and increase the available area for aquaculture, in both marine and freshwater environments, by adopting the Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture (EAA), and spatial planning for aquaculture in the wider context of the most relevant European legislation and policies: Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (MSP Directive), Water Framework Directive (WFD), Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), Birds and Habitats Directives, Integrated Marine Policy (IMP) and other policy mechanisms. AquaSpace aims to contribute to: (i) increased production; (ii) employment opportunities; and (iii) economic growth of the aquaculture sector. This report is Aquaspace Deliverable 5.1, a synthesis of the key project results and outcomes from four project workpackages: 1. The identification of industry-wide issues and options presented as the key points constraining or strengthening the growth of aquaculture in Europe (WP2). 2. Mapping a wide variety of tools and methods against the constraints identified in WP2 and testing and development of tailored tools (WP3). 3. Tools validation working collaboratively with stakeholders, in 17 aquaculture case study sites spanning a variety of scales, species, different trophic levels and different environmental interactions, and most importantly, with a range of key space-related development constraints as defined by local stakeholders (WP4). 4. Evaluation of tested tools and recommendations based on lessons learned and development of guidance (WP5). The main outcomes of AquaSpace are based on cross case study comparison and experiences gained during the implementation of tools and methods supporting ecosystem-based spatial management of aquaculture (EB-SMA). The present synthesis document assesses current issues, needs and recommendations to spatial planning for aquaculture in Europe, along with Norway, the United States of America, Canada, China, and Australia, leveraging the AquaSpace partnership and the Galway Statement.1 The analysis covers both marine and freshwater 1 Galway Statement on Atlantic Ocean Cooperation Launching a European Union – Canada – United States of America Research Alliance. 5 Deliverable 5.1 environments, which benefit from integration because, on one hand, more useful information is provided to policy-makers and managers through the analysis of countries as a whole; and on another, there is a mutual learning process resulting from the comparison of the two environments. In Section 1, the main context and drivers for spatial management under the Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture is presented; which in turn was used to define the objectives of AquaSpace (Section 2). In Section 3, a brief description of the 17 case study areas is presented regarding the location, environment for aquaculture development, production system and cultivated species; as well as the local relevance and trends in production. Moreover, current progress in the implementation of Spatial Planning and the Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture is given. The main research topics tackled in AquaSpace within the case studies are summarised at the end of this section. The engagement of regional and local stakeholders has been pursued from the very beginning of the project. During AquaSpace, 43 communication actions were undertaken with aquaculture-related stakeholders, which has allowed the project to reach up to 665 people (Section 4). This enabled the identification of the main issues that the stakeholders are facing related to aquaculture activity (Section 5). AquaSpace has developed new and innovative tools to try to overcome some of those issues and to contribute to spatial management of aquaculture. The detailed description of four new tools, together with a review of previously existing tools, are described in Section 6. An evaluation of existing tools and methods was performed by their implementation and testing in case studies (Section 7). The solution capacity and existing gaps for ecosystem-based spatial management of aquaculture are given. The lessons learned during the previously described process, allowed the AquaSpace consortium to provide the vision and recommendations for further growth of aquaculture from stakeholder perspectives (Section 8) and the present and future needs and recommendations regarding the further development of tools and methods, to support the implementation of the EAA and develop spatial planning for increased production (Section 9). Finally, conclusions that have been extracted from AquaSpace are given in Section 10. A set of Case Study fact sheets is annexed as Section 14. 6 Deliverable 5.1 1. Introduction Currently, the EU aquaculture sector produces about 1.2 million tons of fish and shellfish with a total value of around EUR 4 billion (EC, 2016a). This is little over 1% of the global aquaculture production. The sector is composed almost entirely of micro-enterprises and provides employment to approximately 85,000 people (EC, 2016b). The EU demand for fish is met by EU aquaculture (10%) and EU fisheries (30%), with the remaining 60% of wild and farmed fish consumed imported from third countries. The estimated projection for aquaculture production in 2020 is an increase of over 300,000 tons (25%) to a total of more than 1.5 million tons (EC, 2016a). At present, the most important farmed species in the EU are mussel, oyster, salmon, trout, carp, seabass and seabream (EC, 2016a), using various techniques such as e.g. on-bottom as well as off-bottom (rafts and long-lines) cultures for shellfish farming. Relatively small quantities of other species are also produced in freshwater (EC, 2016a). The Strategic Guidelines for Aquaculture produced by the European Commission (EC, 2013) identified the need to increase aquaculture across Europe, and considered development of spatial planning for aquaculture as a key enabler of that activity. The reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP; Regulation (EU) 2015/812) places an increased emphasis on the sustainable development of aquaculture; including rules on aquaculture and stakeholder involvement. Thus, recognising that sustainable solutions should be achieved through integrating the social, economic and environmental dimensions. In general terms, and as common conditions for aquaculture expansion globally, aquaculture requires access to sufficient space to fulfil favourable operational characteristics; minimise conflicts with existing or planned uses, including protected areas, and utilise locations that could support maximum production within acceptable limits of environmental impact. Hence, spatial planning for aquaculture is receiving increased attention globally, due to the need to optimise the use of space in the context of other uses—the aim is to increase global production of aquatic products, while maintaining environmental sustainability. It is recognised that the allocation of new space and the increase of aquatic products, in both marine and freshwater environments, while maintaining environmental sustainability, requires adopting the Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture (EAA), and spatial planning for aquaculture in the wider context of Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP), as required by the new Directive 2014/89/EU (European Union, 2014). Moreover, the spatial management of aquaculture should be developed under the framework of other environmental legislation such as the Water Framework Directive (WFD; 2000/60/EC) (Boyes et al., 2016; Katsanevakis et al., 2011). In 2009, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) launched a strategic initiative on area-based science and management to examine the linkages between MSP and the ecosystem approach to management (Cormier et al., 2015). 7 Deliverable 5.1 Ehler and Douvere (2009) describe MSP as “a public process of analysing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that are usually specified through a political process”. The EU define maritime spatial planning as: “…the planning and regulating all human uses of the sea, while protecting marine ecosystems" (European Union, 2014). The overarching scope is that the marine or maritime spatial planning should contribute to the effective management of marine activities and the sustainable use of marine and coastal resources, by creating a framework for consistent, transparent, sustainable and evidence-based decision-making (European Union, 2014). Thus, to promote the sustainable growth of maritime economies, the sustainable development of marine areas and the sustainable use of marine resources, the aforementioned European policies promote the adoption of an ecosystem-based approach. Therefore, increasing and choosing optimal spaces for aquaculture usually faces many issues or constraints, given that they are understood as risks to full development and good management of aquaculture. One such constraint is the lack of space in coastal areas due to existing maritime activities, thus there has been a conscious move to explore moving aquaculture further offshore. This will have implications for implementation and compliance with the framework of Ecosystem-based Maritime Spatial Planning (Ansong et al., 2017; Katsanevakis et al., 2011). Most EU Member States highlight the need to improve spatial planning for aquaculture, and some propose how this might be achieved, e.g. through better mapping, use of technologies such as GIS, and undertaking studies to identify potential new areas. Few (if any) countries commit to increasing the amount of space allocated to aquaculture in any definitive way. The EAA is defined as “a strategy for the integration of the activity within the wider ecosystem such that it promotes sustainable development, equity and resilience of interlinked socio- ecological systems” (FAO, 2010; Soto et al., 2008). The EAA is viewed as the main instrument for guiding the planning of aquaculture. There is compatibility between the current approaches of the EU and the more global approaches advocated by EAA through the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), but there remains a significant amount to do in terms of implementation. In supporting the application of the EAA and spatial planning, spatially explicit methods and tools are needed to assess both, the environmental risks and benefits of management options with aquaculture (Aguilar-Manjarrez et al., 2017; Stelzenmüller et al., 2013). Due to this, attention is presently turning to the processes, methods and tools that allow practical implementation of the EAA (Aguilar-Manjarrez et al., 2010) and spatial planning (Pınarbaşı et al., 2017); as many of the steps in spatial planning and the EAA processes require or are facilitated by the use of software tools or other well-defined spatially-explicit methodologies (collectively referred to as “tools”) (Ehler and Douvere, 2009). 8 Deliverable 5.1 2. Objectives The central goal of the AquaSpace project is to optimise the available area for aquaculture, in both marine and freshwater environments, by adopting the EAA, and spatial planning for aquaculture, within the wider context of European legislation, such as the Marine Spatial Planning, Water Framework, and Marine Strategy Framework, Directives, and policies like the Integrated Marine Policy. The core objectives of AquaSpace are to: (i) support increased production; (ii) provide employment opportunities; and (iii) promote economic growth of the aquaculture sector. The project therefore set out to: 1. Identify key space-related development constraints experienced by aquaculture development as defined by regional and local stakeholders in a wide range of contexts and aquaculture types. 2. Review existing tools and methods supporting the implementation of the EAA and spatial planning and, the evaluation of tools capacity to overcoming some of the highlighted constraints. 3. Develop new tools to assist management plans and overcome key space-related development constraints. 4. Implement and test identified tools and newly developed ones across 17 case studies. 5. Provide lessons learned from case studies (across scales, socio-economic contexts, environmental conditions, and aquaculture types). 6. Develop guidance to assist specific user types (e.g. planners, farmers, public) in the selection of the tools most appropriate to their needs. 7. Develop an interactive web-based platform to provide access to the tools. 8. Establish an effective knowledge exchange to maximise the impacts of the project outputs. 9 Deliverable 5.1 3. AquaSpace approach The AquaSpace project approach relies on four main pillars: (i) a detailed identification of the main issues highlighted by regional and local stakeholders, related to aquaculture activity from a multi-sectoral perspective; (ii) the implementation and testing of existing and newly developed tools in order to try and solve or partially overcome such issues; (iii) the evaluation of such tools to assess their capacity to partially/totally overcome these issues, the remaining gaps in functionalities, and the identification of good practice; and, finally, (iv) establish guidance and good practices for users and practitioners. Figure 1 shows the project Work- Package (WP) structure set to work on these topics. Figure 1. AquaSpace project approach towards the identification of increased space for aquaculture under EAA and Spatial Management. WP: Work Package; D: Deliverable; MS: Milestone The remainder of this section describes the Case Study approach, briefly describes the Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture (EAA), and summarises the main research topics studied during Aquaspace. 3.1. Approach based on representative case studies Within AquaSpace a cross-case study comparison methodology was used for the identification of commonalities and differences regarding the observed issues, the evaluation of solution capacity of implemented and tested tools and the identification of the remaining unsolved issues, together with guidance on good practices. Importantly, the adopted methodology includes qualitative knowledge (“soft” information) coming from stakeholders involved in aquaculture activities (mainly, private companies, administrations, and research bodies). The 10