The COEXIST project governance of fisheries and aquaculture for integrating management and science

The COEXIST project governance of fisheries and aquaculture for integrating management and science O Hagan, A.M. 1 and O Donnell, V. 2 1 Hydraulics & Maritime Research Centre, University College Cork, Pouladuff Road, Togher, Cork, Co. Cork, Ireland. Telephone: +353 21 4250015, Fax: +353 21 4321003, Email: a.ohagan@ucc.ie 2 Coastal & Marine Research Centre, Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork, Naval Base, Haulbowline Island, Cobh, Co. Cork, Ireland. Telephone: +353 21 4703118, Fax: +353 21 4703132, Email: v.odonnell@ucc.ie Abstract COEXIST is a broad, multidisciplinary EU FP7 project, with 13 partners from 11 countries, tasked with evaluating competing activities and interactions in European coastal areas. The ultimate goal of COEXIST is to provide a roadmap to better integration, sustainability and synergies across the diverse activities taking place in the European coastal zone. Currently, however, the desired balance between sectors which is required to meet environmental, social and economic targets is hampered by various conflicts. This paper presents the results of a stakeholder survey which assessed issues around interactions between sectors in six case study areas adjoining European waters. In all study areas awareness and prevalence of conflict was higher than it was for synergies. Stakeholder attitudes towards marine policy instruments such as the Common Fisheries Policy, Marine Strategy Framework Directive and Habitats Directive were also assessed. Certain stakeholders viewed their influence on decision-making as relatively weak while others felt considerably influential. This is of significance when formulating more integrated marine management and conflict mitigation strategies. The stakeholder survey was complemented by an analysis of the governance structure, management regime and policy frameworks in each case study area. Findings from that work illustrate the diversity of arrangements and issues that exist in marine resource management. Ultimately this work enables barriers to, and opportunities for, more efficient spatial management to be identified. This information will be synthesised and taken forward in future COEXIST work, culminating in best practice guidelines for spatial planning of fisheries and aquaculture with respect to other coastal interests. Introduction It is widely known that coastal areas are subject to an increase in competing activities and designations (Natura 2000, Marine Strategy Directive) and, as such, are a source of potential conflict for space allocation. The development and/or continuance of small scale coastal fisheries and aquaculture are highly dependent on the availability and accessibility of appropriate sites. Activities include not only fisheries and aquaculture, but also tourism, offshore energy installations, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) etc. There is good reason to believe that the competition for such sites will increase, emphasizing the need for improved management tools supporting policies for space allocation along the entire European coastline. The COEXIST project is a broad, multidisciplinary project which seeks to evaluate these interactions with the ultimate goal of providing a roadmap to better integration, sustainability and synergies among different activities in the coastal zone. The project brings together 13 partner institutions from 11 countries with expertise in fisheries, aquaculture, integrated coastal management and governance. The work occurring in the COEXIST project will centre on six case study areas (Figure 1). Here research will focus on individual processes as well as their interaction thereby representing the specific conditions and combinations of activities of European coastal areas of particular importance for aquaculture and coastal fisheries. Interactions between capture fisheries and aquaculture and 1

other coastal users will be assessed and the mutual benefits and potential sources of conflict evaluated. The project consortium will look at operational management in the six case study areas and utilise the experiences of local stakeholders, combined with the outcomes of existing international case studies, to evaluate the performance of current spatial management tools. This information will then be synthesised to produce guidelines for best practice in spatial planning for the fisheries and aquaculture industries with respect to other coastal interests for use by the European Commission and its policy makers as well as national decision makers thereby assisting in the implementation of the EU s Integrated Maritime Policy. 1. Hardangerfjord: Norway 2. Atlantic Sea Coast: (A) Ireland and (B) France 3. Algarve Coast: Portugal 4. Adriatic Sea Coast: Italy 5. Coastal North Sea: Denmark, Germany & The Netherlands 6. Baltic Sea: Finland Figure 1: Case study areas for the COEXIST project Governance work in COEXIST An elementary part of the COEXIST project centres on reviewing the existing governance framework for decision-making and management. One work package of the project is devoted to these aspects. The over-arching goal of this work is to review and document the current governance regimes applicable to the management of fisheries and aquaculture. Here the term governance is taken to encompass the whole decision-making process for management, how management decisions are made and enacted by government as well as other relevant mechanisms, institutions and stakeholders in an ecosystem-based management of this sector. The review work will culminate in a comprehensive baseline analysis of law, policy and institutional arrangements covering current approaches to interactions between aquaculture, fisheries and other sectors. 2

The work carried out to date in the case study areas is presented here. This focuses on two specific elements. Firstly results from a stakeholder analysis and mapping exercise are outlined. Secondly, results from a preliminary institutional analysis are put forward so as to identify and clarify what Government departments and other regulatory agencies are involved in the management of fishery and aquaculture activities at this time. These discrete pieces of work together allow potential areas of overlap, gaps and/or opportunities to be identified which in turn can inform the project team as to how to streamline management requirements. The institutional analysis work complements the stakeholder mapping work by identifying if, where and when other stakeholders and the public are involved in the decision-making process. Full results from both pieces of work are available in the related project reports. Stakeholder mapping A stakeholder analysis and mapping exercise was carried out in each of the case study areas. This took the format of a questionnaire which was circulated to pre-identified stakeholders and interested groups in the case study areas. This sought to identify and clarify: 1. who the relevant stakeholders are; 2. the interrelationships between stakeholders and between stakeholders and the issues, and 3. the mechanisms, mediums and levels of stakeholder engagement in the decision making process. The mapping exercise is a term given to the identification and analysis of stakeholders, rather than the identification of geographic locations for stakeholder operations. However, geographic locations of activities were requested during the consultation process but results proved uninformative due to a high number of responses that identified whole case study areas as operational sites. In total, 78 stakeholder surveys were completed. Respondents were asked to allocate themselves within the categories of government agency, industry or non-governmental organisation (NGO). Within these categories respondents could select the most appropriate sub-category for themselves. In light of the integrated approach advocated by various international agreements and indeed by the European Commission, it was necessary to examine the management of other relevant activities (e.g. tourism, management plans based on Natura 2000, recreational fishing, offshore energy etc.) in the same coastal areas. Consequently, the interests of the respondents varied from aquaculture and fisheries to conservation and ocean energy. Twenty-five surveys were returned from government agencies that have various remits from aquaculture and fisheries to conservation and planning. Twenty-two respondents came from industry, primarily from the aquaculture and fisheries sectors, but also from ocean energy and tourism/leisure. Thirty-one surveys came from NGOs, primarily from those with an interest in tourism/leisure, fisheries or conservation. For the purposes of this work, the term NGO is taken to mean a legally constituted organisation that operates independently from any government. The term usually applies to organisations that strive for some wider social and/or environmental aim(s) that has political features, but do not permit political representatives as members of the organisation. Well known environmental NGOs would include Greenpeace and WWF. Some industry associations could also be considered as NGOs as their main aim may be to campaign for change indirectly through influencing of the political system. Examples would include Fish Producers Organisations but for the purposes of this work such organisations have been assigned to the industry category and not NGO, primarily because their primary role relates to promoting and marketing the industry. A breakdown of the total respondents is presented graphically in Table 1. 3

Table 1: Responses by sector from case study areas CS1 Hardangerfjord CS2a - Atlantic - Irish Sea CS2b - Atlantic - Brittany CS3 - Algarve CS4 - Adriatic CS5 - North Sea - Denmark CS5 - North Sea - Germany CS5 - North Sea - The Netherlands CS6 - Baltic All Case Studies SECTOR SUB SECTOR Total Government Agency Aquaculture 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 Fisheries 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 Fisheries/Aquaculture 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 Conservation 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 6 Ocean Energy 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 Planning 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 5 Research 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 Industry Aquaculture 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 1 4 11 Fisheries 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 7 Leisure/Tourism 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Ocean Energy 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 NGO Aquaculture 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 4 Fisheries 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 7 Fisheries/Aquaculture 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 Conservation 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 7 Leisure/Tourism 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 10 Ocean Energy 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Total 9 6 3 9 5 7 13 5 21 78 Each case study area had one or more issue in relation to interactions between fisheries and aquaculture. A key issue may be species (e.g. mussel seed) or sector (e.g. ocean energy) specific. Conflicts and potential solutions Respondents were asked to identify conflict activities, the reasons for the conflict and how such conflicts could be resolved or avoided in future. All of the respondents were aware of conflicts within their case study area. In the main the key conflicts identified were spatial in nature. Table 2 gives further details of these spatial conflicts. 4

Table 2: Spatial conflicts identified by stakeholders in case study areas Case study area Hardangerfjord, Norway Atlantic Sea coast (a) Irish sea, Ireland (b) Brittany coast, France Algarve, Portugal Adriatic coast, Italy Coastal North Sea (a) Denmark (b) Germany (c) The Netherlands Baltic Sea Spatial conflicts identified Between fisheries, aquaculture and tourism sectors Between pots (whelk) and mussel dredgers, pots (lobster and crab) and scallop dredgers and pots (lobster and crab) and herring trawlers. Between cargo vessels, military, fisheries and aquaculture sectors. Between tourism, aquaculture, fisheries and recreational traffic within a designated area. Between tourism, fisheries, aquaculture and extraction (dredging) activities. Between fisheries, shipping/transport, military and offshore wind energy developments. Between fisheries, aquaculture, military, offshore wind. Between offshore wind, fisheries, oil & gas, conservation and tourism. Between recreational use, aquaculture, tourism, fisheries, dredging, offshore wind development Conflicts other than those related to competing uses were also identified by respondents. In Hardangerfjord, for example, impacts of aquaculture activities on other species; and cable laying activities and with tourism and conservation activities were also highlighted as conflict areas. In the Irish Sea part of the Atlantic Sea case study area, conflicts related primarily to administrative structure with a noted lack of accountability and lack of strategic planning identified as a source of conflict by the stakeholders. Over-lapping jurisdiction and/or management competencies were also identified as an area of conflict in the Algarve case study area, where the case study area is part of the Ria Formosa Natural Park. In the Baltic Sea area respondents stated that planning tended to ignore the local level and therefore local concerns. In the French part of the Atlantic Sea case study area concerns were expressed on the potential impact of agriculture on water quality which has subsequent consequences for aquaculture activities. In the Adriatic case study area, identified with spatial conflicts relating to fisheries, aquaculture and dredging activities, were conflicts resulting from pollution and dumping of ropes, nets etc. from aquaculture farms. In both the Danish and German parts of the North Sea case study area, the oil/gas industry has been accused of creating waste and pollution problems. In the Baltic Sea there were also concerns over pollution and water quality with eutrophication being attributed to aquaculture activities. Respondents stated that further research on the impacts of aquaculture was needed to address this conflict area. In the Danish part of the North Sea aggregate extraction has also been identified as a possible source of destruction to fish habitats. In the German part of the North Sea, noise created as offshore wind farms are deployed is a source of conflict. Here a lack of monitoring and/or coordinated surveying was identified as a conflict area, specifically post-aggregate extraction activities and the impacts this has on protected habitats. In the Baltic Sea respondent stakeholders stated that protection of natural resources (e.g. energy) is lacking. Diminishing commercial fisheries in the deeper bays are causing fishermen to move into the inner bays which in turn cause conflict with the established activities occurring in those areas. 5

Interestingly there was general agreement on the possible solutions to conflict put forward by the stakeholder respondents. Implementation of Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) was identified as a possible solution in all of the six case study areas. Better planning was also highlighted as a potential solution to conflicts. Certain stakeholder respondents specifically identified Maritime Spatial Planning as a requirement in this regard but this was not something put forward by all stakeholders or in each case study area. Clearer, and in some cases stricter, legislation and better enforcement of existing legislation were identified as possible solutions by respondents in the Irish part of the Atlantic Sea, in the Adriatic, the Danish part of the coastal North Sea and the Baltic Sea case study areas. Stakeholders from the Hardangerfjord, Algarve, the German and Dutch parts of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea case study areas suggested that more scientific research and technological measures as a solution to conflicts in their respective areas. In the Algarve and Baltic Sea case study areas better information and more public awareness / outreach activities were put forward as a possible solution. Attitudes of stakeholders to specific laws and policies While there may be some national and regional variation in law and policy of relevance to the management of fisheries and aquaculture, broadly speaking the legal framework is effectively derived from EU law and its associated Directives and Regulations. As part of the stakeholder mapping exercise stakeholders were asked for their opinions on the most pertinent EU legislative instruments. Specifically included were the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), Habitats Directive, Water Framework Directive, Marine Strategy Framework Directive and Shellfish Waters Directive. The results from this series of questions are presented in Table 3. No comment implies that the respondent did not answer the question. NA implies that the question is not applicable to the respondent; this was added as free text by a small number of respondents. Table 3 Stakeholder group opinions on various EU instruments Legal instrument Supportive Opposed 1. Common Fisheries Policy 2. Habitats Directive - Creates a level playing field (Fisheries) - European fisheries cover such a large area that it has to be regulated on European level (Fisheries) - Promotes sustainability in the fishing industry (Government Agency) - Obligation to protect the habitat where we produce is a good thing (Aquaculture) - Good for fisheries management (NGO) - Nature conservation is fundamental for a better quality of life and protection of living resources (Government Agency) - Too many rules and restrictions (Aqua.) - Rules created in Brussels are not applicable in our area (Fisheries) - It hasn't achieved anything positive (Aquaculture) - Existing legislation needs enforcement (NGO) - It is very restrictive on aquaculture (Aqua) - More balance needed between society needs and nature concerns (Aqua.) - Lack of consultation on closed areas (Fisheries) - Based on policy instead of reality (Fisheries) 6

3. Water Framework Directive 4. Marine Strategy Framework Directive 5. Shellfish Waters Directive - Clean water is essential to good produce (Aqua.) - Better water quality in coastal zones due to cleaner river water (Aqua.) - Improved marine environmental condns. (Fisheries) - Impacts (sea lice, escapes etc.) from aquaculture are not yet fully reflected in WFD - Generally supportive but better, more relevant spatial planning is needed (Fisheries) - In essence MSFD is ok. However the Directive has too many details (Fisheries) - It s an instrument to help to solve conflicts concerning conservation and space (Government Agency) - Good water quality is vital for aquaculture (Aqua.) - We have to support legislation that regulates monitoring of shellfish water quality, also needed is better enforcement so that water quality improves (Aqua.) - Public health issues are important (Aqua.) - Good from a food safety perspective (Government Agency) - National laws are presently more than adequate (Gov. Agency) - The laws need to be adapted to the specificities of aquaculture; e.g. user-polluter principal must be followed (Research Centre) - Loss of fishing areas, concentration of effort in remaining areas (NGO) - Unproductive (Aqua) - In its current format it is too vague and difficult to implement (Government Agency) - Extremely bureaucratic and causes a lot of extra work for our members. Should be simplified and implemented via MSP (Aqua.) - Increases costs and too restrictive (NGO) What is interesting to note here is the way in which the CFP is viewed by stakeholders being predominantly neutral but widely supported by respondents, contrary to what would be expected. Of the legal instruments put forward, the Water Framework Directive is the most supported by stakeholders. It is not clear why this is the case but from the comments received there is a widely held view that is has improved water quality which would be supported by specific sectors such as fisheries and aquaculture, government agencies and NGOs alike. As the WFD is implemented on a river basin level / hydrographic unit, and not according to the usual administrative boundaries, it could also be the case that responsibilities are more clearly defined and consequently better implementation. Arguably over time these stakeholder views should also apply to the Marine 7

Strategy Framework Directive which has the same structure and similar objectives to the WFD, but applies further offshore to the 200M limit. Questions on other applicable legal instruments, namely, those that operate at a national, subnational and/or local level, were also contained in the stakeholder questionnaire but it is beyond the scope of this paper to explore those responses here. They will be utilised in the over-arching review of governance to be produced later in the COEXIST project. Stakeholder perceptions of themselves Different sectoral respondents were asked to gauge their local influence as part of the stakeholder mapping exercise. Government agencies and NGOs felt that they have a low local influence, whereas half of the respondents from industry feel that they have a medium influence. Different sectoral respondents were also asked to gauge their power to influence decision making and policy. The majority (44%) of those working in government agencies felt that they have a high influence on decision making whereas 56% of those from NGOs feel that they have low power to influence decision making. Results from the individual case study areas are shown in Table 4. From these results it is clear that there was a higher percentage of medium to low power to influence policy making across the case study areas. No respondents from Ireland felt that they have high power to influence policy or decision making. A high percentage of respondents in the Baltic felt that they had a medium to low influence. Table 4: Power to influence decision-making and/or policy by case study area Institutional analysis Governance questionnaires were circulated to all case study leaders in March 2011. The objective of this questionnaire was to analyse the governance structure, management regime and policy framework in the COEXIST case study areas. In a number of these areas it was necessary to garner a response from the different jurisdictions making up that case study area. In the coastal North Sea for example, responses were received from Danish, German and Dutch respondents. Elsewhere case study leaders supplemented their own knowledge by contacting experts in the field of governance or those directly involved in management of the case study area. Given the relatively small number of respondents to the Governance questionnaire, it is not possible to perform statistical analyses on the responses received. Information presented in this report is of a qualitative nature and helps provide a snapshot of the multiple governance regimes that pertain to 8

fisheries and aquaculture management and issues related to this in selected areas around Europe. The questionnaire circulated consisted of ten questions comprised of a number of additional subquestions or prompts designed to garner the maximum amount of information possible from the respondent concerned. Not all of the results will be presented in this paper but these are available from the associated COEXIST report. Legal framework for the issue under consideration in the case study area As can be seen from the stakeholder mapping responses presented above there are different issues of concern in the different case study areas. Certain issues of concern may be addressed by a specific piece of legislation or policy whilst others are not specifically addressed at this time. Table 5 presents the results from the question on whether there is a national policy / law for the issue under consideration in the case study area and the goals of such a law/policy instrument. In the majority of case study areas a specific law or policy applies. The majority of these laws/policies have sustainable development as their key goal balancing economic development with environmental protection. Only in Ireland and the Danish part of the North Sea was a no response received. In the case of Denmark management is carried out on a case by case basis. In Ireland the issue of most concern, seed mussel dredging, is regulated by fisheries legislation and not aquaculture legislation which would be more appropriate in the view of many of the stakeholders concerned. Table 5: Results from the question Is there a national law and/or policy framework for the issue you are considering? Case Study Area Response Goals of legislation/policy Hardangerfjord Yes Develop fisheries and aquaculture; maintain environmental quality Atlantic Sea coast FR: Yes IRL: Yes & No FR: the goal is management of exploitable marine resources and protection of marine biodiversity IRL: regulation of seed mussel dredging is controlled through fisheries legislation, not aquaculture. Algarve coast Yes Specific legislation for aquaculture activity in the case study area Adriatic Sea coast Coastal North Sea Yes DK: No DE: Yes NL: Yes A variety of European and national legislation is applied Management carried out on a case-by-case basis Policy and law for sustainable development of German North Sea TS and EEZ Policy/law based on economic and ecological sustainability Baltic Sea Yes Land use planning instruments for sustainable development and fisheries policy for sustainable use of fish resources Respondents were also asked about the institutions responsible for developing and implementing law/policy. These are presented in Table 6. From these it would seem that in the majority of case study areas central government tends to be responsible for law/policy development. In some case study areas the regional level of government also has a role in policy development. In contrast, implementation of law and policy is much more devolved with central government department representatives or their agencies operating at the local level. From the responses to the governance questionnaire, it would appear that sub-national government tend to have limited planning powers regarding fisheries and aquaculture management. This raises issues regarding how future maritime 9

spatial planning would work in practice if there is limited coastal local authority involvement in the planning regime currently operational. Table 6: Responsibilities for law/policy development and/or implementation Case Study Area Development Implementation Hardangerfjord Central government County Governor s Office (regional) for environmental legislation; also local authorities and municipalities Atlantic Sea coast Algarve coast Adriatic Sea coast Coastal North Sea FR: Central and regional government, regional and local fishery committees IRL: Central government and State agencies Central government; Algarve Region Hydrographic Administration (ARH); Directorate for Fisheries & Aquaculture Central government (Min. of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries), regional authority (Dept. of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries) Environmental Protection DK: Danish Directorate of Fisheries, also EPA DE: number of State and Federal ministries NL: Central government ministries, some overlap FR: All these organisations play an active role in managing fisheries and aquaculture in the area, also local management rules apply IRL: State agencies and Naval Service National Institute of Biological Resources complement and assist both of these organisations in practice Specific consortia at local level for bivalve and small-scale fisheries work in association with regional authority (devolved responsibility). Also national and local fishermen organisations DK: municipal implementation of EU law, environmental legislation implemented locally or regionally by Nature Agency staff DE: federal agencies associated with federal ministries NL: Central government, local authorities and some involvement from producer organisations Baltic Sea Central government Regional State Administrative Agency grant permits for aquaculture; Fisheries Regions, Water Owners grant a proportion of fishing licences In most case study areas there is clear division of responsibility and no duplication of management effort. Any tensions that arise were stated to be as a result of competing institutional goals and objectives e.g. development v. conservation. In most case study areas, the respondents stated that there are strong inter-organisational relationships between management authorities with good involvement of the relevant industry associations. This is a positive finding and could suggest that there is some integration in the management approaches adopted. Further responses indicate, however, that there is no functional management coordinating body (inter-ministerial/intersectoral) which is responsible for coordinating the management of all marine activities. 10

Questions relating to public involvement in the decision-making and management process reveal that this tends to take the form of formal public consultation requirements under specific processes such as Environmental Impact Assessment. In the Irish part of the Atlantic Sea coast case study area, for example, there are institutional mechanisms that facilitate the inclusion of people s views but these are weak and depend largely on an individual s influence within a mainstream industry representative organisation such as a Fish Producers Organisation. Even with a strong influence at that level, the input to policy decisions is at best advisory or more usually weakly consultative. Outside of that individuals resort to lobbying political representatives. In the Adriatic Sea coast, there is no specific mechanism for public involvement in decision-making relating to fisheries and aquaculture. Conversely, however, public consultation is a key part of environmental planning where decisions are being made on, for example, the establishment of Marine Protected Areas or impacts caused by planned industrial developments. Responses from all case study areas indicate that conflict resolution tends to happen on a case-by-case basis. Conclusions and implications for management While the sample groups utilised for completion of the stakeholder mapping and institutional analysis questionnaires were small and, arguably, not representative of the situation across Europe the findings are informative for observing general trends. There are common conflicts across all the case study areas in the COEXIST project. Predominantly these relate to spatial conflicts as a result of competing uses and the arrival of new industries. A key finding from this work is the desire for Integrated Coastal Management. This is timely given that the European Commission, through DG MARE and DG Environment, are currently conducting a review of the EC ICZM Recommendation ((2002/413/EC), with a view to a follow-up proposal by the end of 2011. An impact assessment is in the final stages of completion. This explores the need and options for future EU action and assesses the potential social, economic and environmental consequences that any new initiative may have. Responses from the stakeholder mapping exercise indicate that there is a fairly even split between the desire for/against more/less regulation. Findings from this also suggest that the current level of regulation is balanced between EU and national levels. In relation to existing conflicts and proposed solutions, and linked to the aforementioned role of ICZM, is the development of Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP). Around Europe this seems to be put forward by most actors as a solution to almost all marine conflicts. From the responses received during the course of this work, MSP got only a limited mention. This could be attributed to the lack of operational MSP as yet with many countries, and indeed the European Commission, continuing to work on what format a common MSP framework should take. There is a clear desire from the stakeholders in the COEXIST case study areas to have more involvement in the decision-making and management process as it applies to fisheries and aquaculture. In the current institutional system participation tends to be limited to formal consultation mechanisms. This will need to be addressed in any future MSP system. The next stage of the COEXIST project will evaluate the efficiency of spatial management tools (zoning, closed areas, etc) currently used to promote different forms of coastal aquaculture and fisheries at different scales (e.g. local, regional). This work will also look at the potential to exploit mutual opportunities (e.g. artificial reefs, protected areas, wind farms, tourism etc) within a context of competition for space by multiple users. Through intensive discussion and involvement with stakeholders in each case study area modifications to existing management tools will be investigated while simultaneously addressing the differences in public acceptance of such modifications and activities (fisheries, aquaculture, and other uses of the coastal zone) by society. Through the above actions, and future work outlined, the COEXIST project will support the EU s Integrated Maritime Policy and concomitant spatial planning of coastal areas. 11

Acknowledgements The COEXIST project (Sustainable use of seas and oceans: integration of aquaculture and fisheries in the coastal zone) is funded under the EU FP7 programme (KBBE-2009-1-2-15). The project commenced in April 2010, will run until March 2013 and has 14 partners from ten countries: Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Anne Marie O Hagan acknowledges the Charles Parsons Award from Science Foundation Ireland (Grant number 06/CP/E003) which has facilitated work in this area and associated contribution to the COEXIST project. 12