Better Off Blue Event #2: Launch of the SUBMARINER Aquaculture Working Group
Launch of the SUBMARINER Aquaculture Working Group
On 18th March 2021, SUBMARINER hosted an event to form a multi-disciplinary working group consisting of industry experts, researchers, investors, SMEs, public authorities, regulatory bodies and of course SUBMARINER members from across the region.
Three presentations were given:
1) Angela Schultz-Zehden // SUBMARINER Network:
Angela gave an overview of the SUBMARINER Network, its members and focus areas including past and ongoing projects. Presentation available here.
2) Barbara Janker // Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC):
Barbara is the Regional Manager for Europe at ASC and provided an overview of their certification programme, with emphasis on RAS and the necessary steps and long-term benefits of certification, including recent examples of Jurassic Salmon and Pure Salmon in Poland. Presentation available here.
3) David Bassett // European Aquaculture Technology and Innovation Platform (EATIP):
David is the General Secretary for EATIP and presented an overview of EATIP's background, its work at the European level and the role of Mirror Platforms (MiPs) within its network. It was suggested that SUBMARINER is very well placed to represent Baltic states as a whole, as the European Commission is moving towards a sea-basin approach for future frameworks. Presentation available here.
This was followed by a brief exchange and a survey to gather feedback on the role, structure, members and first steps of the working group. Find a breakdown below or see the full results here.
Which 5 topics do you feel are the most important for Baltic countries to cooperate on?
- Tech transfer
- Sustainable Feed
- Legislation/Lobbying + Environmental Remediation
- Market Development
What do you envisage the scope of the working group to include?
- Sustainable Feed
- Offshore aquaculture
Which Baltic states should be represented in the Working Group?
How should the working group focus its efforts?
Alternating / no specific focus area
Should the working group be divided into subgroups with focus on specific areas (e.g. shrimp)?
Do you see an EATIP Mirror Platform as a beneficial structure?
What benefits/incentives would you hope to gain from a transnational working group on shrimp & fish aquaculture?
- Networking, Ideas & Communication
- Market access
- Tech providers
- Startup support
- Joint Proposals/Projects
- International visibility & impact (lobbying)
- Identification of synergies
- Knowledge transfer
- Cooperation & collaboration
Where do you see gaps in representation of sustainable Baltic aquaculture?
- Environmental authorities
- Business sector
- Harmonised legislation
- Marketing / Public awareness
Where do you see potential for transnational collaboration?
- Regulation e.g. organic certification
- Knowledge transfer & research
- Basin approach to common issues e.g. MSP, IMTA, environmental impacts etc.
- Marketing, public awareness & social acceptance
- Joint market access
- Technology transfer (e.g. from DK/FI)
- Educational platform e.g. internships
In which direction do you think Baltic aquaculture should go?
- Feed production
- Develop existing and new technologies
- Depends on country
- Uniform standards / regulation
- Inland or coastal RAS / IMTA / aquaponics in combination with mussels / algae / renewable energy
- Collaborative, regional approach
- Based on market/product trends
- Tech & innovation across value chain
- High environmental & production standards
- Demonstration sites, training & education
- Compensation schemes
- Holistic production-protection approach
- Decentralised production based on country profiles
- RAS for new species
- Regenerative aquaculture
Where do you see potential synergies between the aqua- and agriculture sectors?
- Compensation / nutrient exchange quotas
- Aquaponics + side streams
- Rural development or re-purposing of infrastructure (agriculture > aquaculture)
- Retraining farmers / skills exchange
- Nutrient recovery
- Local production
- Water management
- Heat management
- Circular bioeconomy
- Protein production
- Food processing
- Formal structuring of the group as broad as possible - i.e. to ensure that no one area is excluded. Even if activities / thematic areas considered remain quite specific it is often better to leave other areas unreferenced rather than excluded (even if unintentionally). Similarly, focus areas and operational methodology can be decided on a flexible basis as the working group grows, evolves, and priorities change.
- At some seminars it could be relevant to have ie. Species specific break outs