A problem shared: Technology transfer and development in European integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA)

Aquaculture 473 (2017) 13–19

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aquaculture journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aquaculture

A problem shared: Technology transfer and development in European integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) AlexanderK.A. a,⁎, HughesA.D. b a b

Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 129, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia Scottish Association for Marine Science, Scottish Marine Institute, Oban, Argyll PA37 1QA, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 16 March 2016 Received in revised form 25 January 2017 Accepted 29 January 2017 Available online 31 January 2017 Keywords: Technology transfer Research collaboration Community of practice Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture

a b s t r a c t Technology transfer and development is a key requirement for many research funders, yet there is a real paucity of scientifically documented evidence on how this transition is made and how it can be made more effective. The study described here details the experiences of an informal ‘community of practice’ working across research and commercialisation to set up and run a number of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) systems (innovative food systems addressing environmental impacts of traditional aquaculture) across Europe. Interviews were undertaken with seven European aquaculture companies across six countries (Cyprus, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Norway and Scotland), each of which were involved with the IDREEM project (www.idreem.eu) which paired aquaculture businesses and research institutions in strategic partnerships to promote rapid implementation of IMTA. This study revealed three main shared experiences: the lack of an existing process for licensing IMTA sites and the temporal hold this put on obtaining a license; issues due to environmental constraints, including storms; and problems of drying and storing for those working with algae. Furthermore, three key lessons were learnt by those involved: the importance of choosing extractive IMTA species based on what is endemic to the area; identifying the correct system configuration may take a lot of trial and error, but simplicity is crucial; a key process was ‘learning by doing’ and a range of skills are required. We conclude that the development of a formal ‘community of practice’, a knowledge-sharing platform where all those engaging in IMTA can work together, would enable further unique insight and innovation in the process. Statement of significance: Communities of practice arise from collective learning by individuals or organisations in a shared domain. This paper describes the shared experiences and lessons learnt by one such community, composed of seven aquaculture SMEs implementing integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) systems. In doing so, it provides guidance to those wishing to develop commercial scale IMTA in Europe. © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The world has seen a rapid expansion of the marine aquaculture sector, largely due to constantly increasing concerns over food security (Naylor and Burke, 2005; Béné et al., 2015; Olsen, 2015), a development which has the potential to enhance resilience in the global food system (Troell et al., 2014). Indeed, according to figures from the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) between 1980 and 2012, world aquaculture production volume increased at an average rate of 8.6% per year (FAO, 2014). At the same time, farmers have seen increased pressure from media and non-governmental organisations regarding alleged negative environmental impacts (particularly in relation to salmon farming) (Tiller et al., 2012, Ertör and Ortega-Cerdà, 2015). The need for social acceptability, if conflict over environmental justice concerns is to be avoided (such as that described in Ridler and Hishamunda, ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (K.A. Alexander).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2017.01.029 0044-8486/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

2001; Stonich and Vandergeest, 2001), means that farms are under pressure to improve the environmental image, and practices, of their industry. One means by which this may be possible is through the development of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA). Modern western IMTA is an innovative method that, unlike conventional aquaculture which focuses upon the culture of a single species, involves the integrated cultivation of fed species (e.g. finfish) together with extractive species (marine invertebrates and/or algae). In an IMTA system, the extractive species feed on detritus and waste products from the fed species. It is a method which is thought to address key environmental impact concerns related to conventional monoculture such as nutrient loading (Barrington et al., 2009). IMTA itself is not a new practice; indeed China has been practicing IMTA for centuries (Troell et al., 2009). However, IMTA is relatively new to countries within Europe and the Americas where a number of IMTA systems are now operating in marine temperate waters, although mostly at a research or pilot scale. A great deal of research has already been published by Canadian researchers on IMTA (e.g. Ridler et al., 2007; Barrington

14

K.A. Alexander, A.D. HughesAquaculture 473 (2017) 13–19

et al., 2008; Reid et al., 2011; Irisarri et al., 2013), and publications are also beginning to come out of Europe (e.g. Beltran et al., 2014; Alexander et al., 2015; Alexander et al., 2016a; Cubillo et al., 2016). As noted by Barrington et al. (2009), western countries are currently reinventing the wheel with research on integrated methods for treating mariculture wastes being initiated in the 1970s and interest only being renewed more recently. It may be that for IMTA to take a more fastpaced developmental approach, what is really required is the sharing of, and learning from, joint experiences in delivering these types of system. Whilst it is not easy to find or access published information regarding the Chinese experience (Barrington et al., 2009), the differences in goals between Chinese and modern western IMTA (i.e. nutrient mitigation not a key driver for Chinese IMTA) would render information inapplicable It is possible, however, to access published information regarding the more recent Canadian experiences, which share a common IMTA goal, and to compare this with European experiences. Effective sharing of experiences, knowledge and skills across organisations and also across countries is often believed to accelerate longterm industry development (Kumaraswamy and Shrestha, 2002). This can be done through what have been coined ‘communities of practice’ based on a social theory which explains how communities are formed by people who engage in a process of collective learning across a variety of work, organisational and spatial settings (Lave and Wenger, 1991). These communities are associated with finding, sharing and transferring knowledge, as well as making explicit “expertise”, or tacit knowledge, and are often found in fast-moving industries (Wenger, 1998). In the case of IMTA, given the current research and development/pilot scale focus in the West, it is likely that learning in action would occur through an ‘epistemic/creative knowing’ type of community as classified by Amin and Roberts (2008). IMTA is currently a collaborative endeavour between science and industry, and it is suggested that this offers an immense opportunity for innovation. The primary aim of this study was to work with an informal ‘community of practice’ arising as part of the European FP7 project IDREEM (www.idreem.eu) to identify areas of shared experience, and commonalities in lessons learnt, in relation to setting up and running an IMTA system in Europe. This community of practice was comprised of research and technology development organisations (RTDs) and small to medium enterprises (SMEs). A secondary aim was to compare these findings with research conducted in Canada, in an attempt to uncover potential for shared learning at the cross-continental scale. 2. Methods 2.1. Data collection: in-depth interviews In-depth interviews are a suitable method of accessing detailed qualitative information about opinions and experiences. Research interviews are used for four reasons: (i). to fill a gap in knowledge that other methods are unable to bridge, (ii). to investigate complex behaviours and motivations, (iii). to collect a diversity of meaning, opinions and experience, and (iv). to use a method which shows respect for and empowers those who provide the data (Hay, 2000). Despite such disadvantages as time and cost (amongst others), there are advantages to using the in-depth interview method, such as being able to untangle complex topics whilst also combining structure with flexibility. Interviews were undertaken with seven European SMEs across six countries (Cyprus, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Norway and Scotland), each of which were involved with the IDREEM project. These interviews were undertaken either by telephone or by Skype, using a topic guide (see S1). The guide was split into four sections. The first section asked respondents about the process involved with setting up an IMTA site. Section 2 investigated what was involved with the production component of an IMTA system. Section 3 focused upon issues relating to the harvesting of IMTA products. The final section queried difficulties relating to marketing and selling.

Interviews were undertaken between October and December 2015. Informed consent was obtained from the participants and interviews were recorded using an audio recorder.

2.2. Data analysis The analysis of qualitative data consists of three concurrent activities: data reduction, data display and conclusion drawing (Miles and Huberman, 1994). The first step in the data reduction process used in this study was to transcribe all interviews fully. These transcripts were then compiled, prepared and imported into QSR International's NVivo10 software (QSR International Pty Ltd., 2012), a computerassisted qualitative data analysis software which facilitates coding and retrieval, making the analysis process more efficient. Coding is a form of analysis which sorts, focuses and organises data; this software was used to code and compare the interview transcripts, thus allowing large amounts of qualitative data to be reduced into smaller ‘packages’. In this study, text relating to events, strategies, relationships, constraints and consequences was given a short code term (e.g. site constraints). The use of this coding process and software is common practice in social science research and has been used in other similar aquaculture-related research (e.g. Badiola et al., 2012; D'Anna and Murray, 2015; Alexander et al., 2016b). Data was then displayed in an organised and compressed format by entering codes into a meta-matrix (as described in Miles and Huberman, 1994), allowing codes to be clustered, enabling themes and patterns to be identified as well as comparisons and contrasts made, and thus conclusions drawn.

3. Results Those interviewed raised a number of considerations within each aspect of the IMTA process, many of which were experienced by at least two SMEs (Table 1). Each of these aspects of the IMTA process will be discussed in turn.

Table 1 List of topics raised by the interview participants. Aspect of IMTA process

Topics raised (by # SMEs)

Licensing

• • • • • •

System set-up

• • Accessing equipment & stock • • Production • • • • Drying & storing • • Processing • Marketing & selling • • • Knowledge/experience/skills • • • •

Application process non-existent (3) Slow planning process (3) Negative public perception (2) Lack of regulation (2) Species selection (6) Site constraints including storm event impacts (4) System design (5) Working with partner companies (3) Species availability (4) Equipment availability (2) Production cycle differences (4) Poor growth (4) Importance of getting timing of seeding right (2) Biofouling (3) Access to drying facilities (3) Storage locations and methods (4) Lack of processing infrastructure (3) Market considerations (5) Quality of product (2) IMTA is a ‘good story’ (4) No experience (6) Advice from others (4) Learning by doing (7) Need to be adaptable (4)

K.A. Alexander, A.D. HughesAquaculture 473 (2017) 13–19

3.1. Licensing process A number of interviewees noted the lack of an existing process for licensing IMTA sites. In all cases it was the first time that an IMTA license had been requested. “It was initially clear to us that there wasn't any design, any format for such an application. So we had to use the one that had been developed for salmon farming.” (Respondent 1) The lack of an existing process led to many questions and clarifications from licensors, potentially due to a lack of knowledge and understanding of IMTA. It is possible that this contributed to further slowing an already often slow planning process. “So the initial application went in and a number of months passed and they came back with some queries, queries that could have been clarified over the phone within minutes of the initial submission. So it could have been, it was submitted by email, it could have been by response ‘you are missing this, this and this’ and that could have been provided. So we resubmitted it with those details and those niggly little amendments and requests for information, they went on for four years.” (Respondent 2) It was, however, also reported that in Scotland and Norway the process took only six months from the start of the application to acceptance. In a couple of instances, SMEs noted that negative public perception was an issue when it came to licensing. In one country, a negative public perception of aquaculture in the locality has meant that the municipality is holding back approval, pending further monitoring data to be undertaken by an independent body. In another country, environmental groups objected to development of the IMTA site, also slowing down license approval. One company, however, did not have this problem, perhaps due to the fact that they engaged with all stakeholders in advance of the application even though it was not required. “So initially we had talks with them and even though it wasn't going to be a major application the first thing was to engage with stakeholders, that was the advice that I was given so I went ahead and did that and went round all the rurals and talked to the different community councils… just to tell people what we were doing really. The advice was: be upfront and tell people what you are doing — so we did that.” (Respondent 3) 3.2. System set-up 3.2.1. Environmental constraints SMEs had to consider a number of constraints when setting up their IMTA systems. Firstly, site constraints included issues such as hydrodynamics and other users. “The constraints, the technical constraints are mostly linked to the hydrodynamic conditions of the area and the waves and the oligotrophic conditions.” (Respondent 4) Several of the companies experienced storm events in early 2014, many of which had quite large impacts on the IMTA systems, in several cases destroying them altogether. In one country, a storm led to two finfish cages being flipped, damaging the cages beyond repair and simultaneously destroying the algal lines. In another, a large storm caused the whole farm to be moved by 80 m meaning that the cages collided, broke completely and 90% of mussel lines were lost. In yet another, finfish cages were completely destroyed by large waves and invertebrate baskets were lost entirely. The land-based site also experienced storm events where the greenhouse in which the IMTA system was situated was flooded and lost its plastic cover. Interviewees noted that in the future, IMTA sites should be located in as sheltered a site as possible. Changes to system design due to storm event impacts were identified. “Any zoning that is being done, it should be very carefully done in terms of the more fragile structures, I'm thinking in terms of a cost benefit analysis, you know? The more fragile ones on the inside and the more rugged ones on the more exposed side.” (Respondent 2) “We have good observations that some of the mussel socks, they were wrapped around the longline in a spiral formation and they seemed to

15

have endured the storm, so we said ‘that's a good idea if we want to do it in the future, we'll not do the longlines with mussel socks hanging but we'll actually wrap them around’.” (Respondent 5) One company, after discussion with the RTD, made the decision to no longer produce the IMTA species in the same locality as the finfish, but rather to pump the effluent into onshore tanks. “At the same time we had a bit storm and we decided that if we do any IMTA we are not going to have any underwater structure. Just because it was too risky for us. The net pens, you know if there is a slight chance that you will damage the regular operation of the farm, it's not worthwhile.” (Respondent 6) 3.2.2. Species considerations The companies worked with the research organisations to consider which species to culture, and factors which influenced this included physical aspects, such as bottom depth, and environmental factors such as oligotrophic conditions. A number experimented with a variety of species before settling upon the final IMTA species. Indeed, one partner has still not finalised the species to be cultured. A key piece of advice shared between the interviewees was to choose species which grow naturally in the location. “…when we first started we had great ideas of abalone and all these other things that, it comes down to what grows best in your waters I think. Don't try and be too ambitious.” (Respondent 3) “That was a problem I think, the fact that we didn't focus on locally abundant species.” (Respondent 5) “The main points to choose the species was that we have an easy access to them; that we could grow them all year around and that have any kind of commercial value or are useful to feed another species that has any commercial value. Those were the points that we were looking for in our species.” (Respondent 7) 3.2.3. System design Companies also had to consider system design before any equipment/species were installed. In the case of one company, a custombuilt mooring system required designing to deal with the hydrodynamic conditions. “They were all tied together to a single mooring on the bottom. The system was designed in order to be less moved, shaken by the waves. So they placed the buoyancy buoy, you know the balancing buoys underwater, not on the surface to reduce the shaking.” (Respondent 4) Some of the companies tried several configurations of system design before deciding upon the final system. One company decided to re-design the mooring system to have three rows instead of the traditional two-row system allowing for improved water flow through the system and more space between rows for additional species. One has maintained the underlying grid system throughout, but experimented with zig-zag lines before returning to a simpler rope system. Another company, which was dealing with a land-based system, changed tank and raceway configurations three times over the period of the project. A third company also changed the system design a number of times, experimenting with growing mussels inside fish cages. “We decided to deploy them this time in cages… we also had to face some problems that we deployed the mussels around the cage. In the seabream all the mussels were found dead and some of the shells bitten, so it appears the seabream… the seabream actually messed with them… The sea bass however is a completely different story. The sea bass, they are not concerned, behaviour-wise, they don't mess with them; they can co-exist. The mussels that got detached from the sea bass they are actually now growing on the net, so they formed mussel beds, so this is interesting because this was inspiration.” (Respondent 5) Interviewees agreed that simplicity of design is key to establishing an IMTA system. Several companies initially planned to grow a larger number of species than were eventually settled upon. Also, the simple system designs were believed to be the best, particularly for farm operation purposes.

16

K.A. Alexander, A.D. HughesAquaculture 473 (2017) 13–19

“…the best learning process was actually to come down from this and say ‘we can do a lot of things, but we need to know what is applicable, what the farm is capable of and what the people on the farm are capable to operate’… It needs to be simple and profitable for the farm to upscale and continue.” (Respondent 6) Indeed, working with partner finfish companies was an issue discussed by a number of those interviewed. All found that the partner companies were co-operative and often helpful and noted the need to be considerate in co-existing with the daily activities of the finfish farms. As much as possible, the companies tried to not impact farm staff with IMTA. The only issue raised related to difficulties in sharing workboats, particularly at times of heavy production or monitoring. “I would take my boat whenever I would go out but personnel would have to see are the divers of the nets checking the nets today, then ok we can go out. Are they feeding today, ok we can go. So they had to find the time that was available for them to go out to do this extra outside their normal operations.” (Respondent 5) “Something that highlighted, it was one of the sticking points really, is while they were more than helpful, if there's going to be two companies, the second, both companies need their own workboat.” (Respondent 2) 3.3. Accessing equipment and stock Accessing equipment and stock caused some difficulties for a few of the companies. Some equipment was easily available on the market, on other occasions the equipment needed to be imported. This differed between countries. Species availability was by far the larger issue. In the Mediterranean countries, hatcheries were often not available for the species required for the IMTA system. “The only problem was… we don't have a good hatchery for sea urchins, we have a small hatchery that actually produce this species only for experiments so the costs… It is quite expensive, very expensive.” (Respondent 6) “One of the limitations during the bibliographic review, we researched into hatcheries, we contacted [project] partners, they sent us lists, we contacted the hatcheries, there were not many species that were available that were abundant here.” (Respondent 5) For the Atlantic companies, access to hatcheries was not an issue particularly in cases where the RTD had hatchery facilities available. For some of the species used in the IMTA systems, wild spat was collected; particularly in the case of mussels, queen scallops, sea urchins and some algae. However, one interviewee felt that this would not be appropriate should the SME move forward with IMTA. “So, if we collected some from the wild, and then it was successful and then the project ends then still the SME would not be able to take up on this technology on this. So we decided to just try with species that are produced in hatcheries.” (Respondent 5) 3.4. Production process A number of issues arose regarding the production aspect of an IMTA system. One such issue relates to differences in the production cycles. Different production cycles can make the process more complex in terms of monitoring and harvesting. Also, some of the species used have a much longer grow-out time, particularly sea urchins. “‘How many sea urchins have you got?’ and then ‘not many’ and then they ask ‘when will you have them’ and we say ‘it'll be three to four years or four to five years from now’ — it's that expectation and that dents peoples' enthusiasm a bit.” (Respondent 3) Some companies experienced problems with growth. In many cases this was due to a lack of knowledge on how to grow new species, or possibly not growing species appropriate to the environment. “…she got around and produced seedlings which we deployed and they didn't grow for a few months and we were really concerned about this. So we thought we had killed them off by handling them too harshly or something like that? So we spent lots of time thinking about alternative ways

of getting the seeded ropes into the sea without handling, without touching the ship. Suddenly they started growing!” (Respondent 1) “The person who sold us the spats, we sent him some data regarding growth, and he said that they were not doing too well compared to the [other coast] but of course this coast is completely different.” (Respondent 4) The interviewees also identified the importance of deploying spat etc. at the correct time. In one country it was noted that algae seeds should be deployed between late October and early November and brought in between late April and early May. However, when seeded string was deployed and/or harvested at the wrong time, this had impacts relating to epiphyte growth. One SME-RTD pairing laboriously learnt lessons regarding the correct time to deploy mussel spat and the stress caused by deployment into a hot oligotrophic system. Biofouling when using nets, lanterns and baskets for IMTA species was an issue for a number of those interviewed. In one country particularly, the impact of removing fouling was substantial. “When we changed the baskets, the growth it went more steep, the growth rates, so it was like this for example, the last two measurements were like — zoom. Oysters are growing. So there we had to face, yeah these issues with delays, biofouling, delays in us changing the baskets in time, lack of knowledge you could say.” (Respondent 5) Some interviewees also noticed that if they didn't keep on top of biofouling, it could allow other wild species like crabs and starfish to enter the structures and predate upon the IMTA species. “There's been a couple of times when things have got away from us, pearl nets, queenies and pearl nets too long and starfish come in and then you find you've got even more time to pull up the pearl nets and pull off all the sea squirts, inch them out and take out all of the starfish which will be eating the queen scallops, and it can be quite demoralising when you've seen this happen and you just learn and you learn that you must keep all of your structures really on top of biofouling.” (Respondent 3) All of the points raised above can be recognised as general lessons in the cultivation of species and a lack of knowledge in this area, a point which will be discussed later.

3.5. Drying and storing Drying and storing was an issue for those interviewed who were dealing with algae production. Generally, SMEs did not have easy access to a drying facility. “What we found was that it is difficult working with a third party because the capacity for them to dry it was limited. So suddenly we would say ‘right we want to harvest it and we want to get it out now’ and then it gives them a problem.” (Respondent 3) Furthermore, drying appeared to be particularly difficult in temperate regions. A number of experiments were undertaken in attempting to dry algae including poly-tunnels and air drying. A problem with using poly-tunnels was that during the day the algae would dry, and then at night the algae would soak moisture back up. Those attempting to use air drying found that there was too much rope to handle, and although frames had been set up, not enough preparation had been undertaken. One SME suggested that a way around this may be to develop a platform where algae growers can meet up, share ideas and share infrastructure. Another suggested that freezing algae may be the way forward. “If you have a blast freezer available, that's probably the way to go if you ask me… it doesn't decrease the quality of it in any great sense but some markets will require it not dried… Now, I've never done a cost analysis on freezing versus drying, but I'd say it probably comes out relatively well. Again, it probably comes out quite well if you are doing it in conjunction with other products that are being frozen anyway, which is quite normal for food products anyway.” (Respondent 2) Storage of algae was viewed by many as a bottleneck. “But you know, whatever you do, the fact that we stored it in our office space just demonstrates really clearly that we hadn't thought these things through. We had the storage facility in all fairness we were planning to

K.A. Alexander, A.D. HughesAquaculture 473 (2017) 13–19

use, but we let it out to another company and that was during this phase when we thought everything had died you know?” (Respondent 1) Difficulties of handling algae were also noted, including the need to be careful with temperatures to prevent decomposition, and the importance of not crushing algae given that it is delicate once dried. 3.6. Processing A main limitation related to the lack of processing infrastructure in the company locations. For some interviewees, the inclusion of additional new species would be problematic due to the requirement for different rooms for processing and packing along with different permissions, as well as the need for different shipping systems. “So you need more facilities to do that also, you will need a process unit or something to clean the, wash the sea urchins, open them, extract the gonads and also learn how to preserve those gonads, maybe in any kind of salt water. So we will need to get license to do all that because you are now working with the final product that you are going to sell for human consumption, so you are going to have to spend more money, I don't know, to set up all the things that you need.” (Respondent 7) One SME was able to bypass this problem as they already had access to a processing plant and experience in working with shellfish species. 3.7. Marketing and selling Those interviewed identified a number of market considerations. There is the question of whether to sell the product fresh, dried or frozen, and whether to sell it for human consumption, pharmaceutical, nutraceutical or biomass purposes. There is also the question of having a singular buyer or a number of smaller customers. These are questions which all aquaculture operations must address. For many IMTA species, such as urchins, there may not be an existing market for them within the country of origin. Should the species require export to another market, this requires further investment in terms of transport and licenses. Finally, there is the question of whether an IMTA system can provide enough of any one species to supply a particular market. “I asked the owner, because they buy Ulva for the fish feed, and he said that he is very interested and I gave him a sample. But I didn't produce enough for him; it is not enough what I produce in order to sell him.” (Respondent 6) One interviewee suggested that if you are working on a small scale, it may be that the only available market is small local restaurants. 3.8. Knowledge/experience/skills Nearly all of those interviewed raised the point that prior to setting up the IMTA systems, they had no experience of growing many of the species included within their systems. “Well, of course, the learning curve is very steep because we didn't know anything. I mean, we were basically just in the same position as the bureaucrats, you know, we had absolutely no experience.” (Respondent 1) “The sea cucumbers and the urchins, everything was new for me.” (Respondent 6) “Well, we've got staff that are experienced in mussel farming and oyster farming, but they had no experience in seaweed or sea urchins or queen scallops. It's a really steep learning curve I suppose. You don't know one day to the next whether the animals are going to land as spat, you do a lot of things with trial and error, you read scientific papers and you learn, I suppose as you go along.” (Respondent 3) The idea of ‘learning by doing’ was one which arose frequently. Some interviewees pointed out that this is common in aquaculture, which involves a lot of ‘on-the-job’ training. In many cases this was combined with obtaining advice from experts, particularly the RTDs, but also those who provide equipment or work in hatcheries. “I actually would find whoever was the expert on the topic that I could ask… With the Ulva I brought here an Ulva expert… I asked for a

17

consultation because I thought that again I can study, but they know it better so they have an immense amount of knowledge, you know? In three or four days I can sit with them, so I actually asked for a consultation from them.” (Respondent 6) Several interviewees also noted the need to be adaptable. A range of skills are needed for an IMTA production and it was suggested that there is not always the luxury of having staff that can do everything which is required. “It's ok for us where we have a range of skills and we can build it up, but if you are trying to sell this to an ordinary finfish farmer, they haven't got the experience of working with urchins or working with seaweeds or working with whatever, so they have to learn all that and it's complicated. It's quite difficult when you try to sell it to salmon farmers and they say ‘we're not seaweed farmers, we're salmon farmers’. So that's a bit of an obstacle to cross I think.” (Respondent 7) 4. Discussion This study described, for the first time, the exchange of knowledge between research and technological development (RTD) organisations and a small to medium enterprise (SME) within the European seafood industry and between SMEs. This study revealed three main experiences shared between project partners although not, to the best of the authors' knowledge, identified in published Canadian studies. Most partners identified the lack of an existing process for licensing IMTA sites and the temporal hold this put on obtaining a license. Several partners experienced issues due to environmental constraints, particularly in relation to storm events. Drying and storing was an issue for those working with algae. In a number of aspects, experience was clearly different and likely site- and species-specific, particularly those relating to production. The partners also identified three key lessons learnt, some of which were identified in published Canadian studies. Firstly, it is important to choose extractive IMTA species based on what is endemic to the area and grows well. Secondly, identifying the correct system configuration may take a lot of trial and error, but simplicity is key. Finally, most companies were ‘learning by doing’ and identified the need for a range of skills. Although environmental remediation is sometimes cited as a primary driver for the development of IMTA (Chopin et al., 2012), the efficacy of this was not a major concern for the respondents. This might reflect the industry focus of the group, and the pre-occupation with operational matters. It also highlights the need to include the nutrient remediation aspects of IMTA in the economic calculations to ensure that there is a better alignment of drivers between regulators and producers for the development of IMTA across Europe. 4.1. Shared experiences It is unsurprising that most SME partners experienced delays caused by the lack of an existing process for licensing IMTA sites, given that we are in the early stages of establishing the practice within Europe. An earlier study by Alexander et al. (2015) suggested that the regulatory frameworks within partner nations were complex and extensive and that this may be a barrier to IMTA. This appears to have been substantiated in a majority of the countries included in this study, with one partner still not having received a full permit after three years. It has been suggested that within Europe, the more Atlantic-based countries such as Norway, Denmark and Germany tend to be regarded as ‘pioneers’ when it comes to environmental regulation, whereas the Mediterranean countries such as Greece, Italy and Spain tend to be ‘laggards’ (Vogel, 2003), and this appears to hold true in relation to the licensing of IMTA systems also. Rulemaking is generally a slow process; it takes time to write, pass and implement regulation. Whilst there are no criteria for how long it can take, there is a general consensus that it takes too long, often due to influences such as complexity of subject matter, bureaucratic elements and political pressures (Kerwin and Furlong, 1992). As noted in the paper by Alexander et al. (2015) the

18

K.A. Alexander, A.D. HughesAquaculture 473 (2017) 13–19

aquaculture focus should be moved from the single species approach to incorporate bi-culture and poly-culture. The way in which this is done by the ‘pioneering’ countries should then be communicated across the EU through mechanisms such as the EU Aquaculture Advisory Council, in order to speed up the process for the ‘laggards’. Environmental pressures were also a problem for some of the partners. One partner already operates in an exposed site with very dynamic conditions (where waves can be up to 6 m), and for this reason had to create a custom-built structure to deal with the high hydrodynamics. Furthermore, several partners had to deal with destruction due to storm events. The sites which experienced storm damage varied greatly in terms of their characteristics (e.g. Mediterranean and Atlantic sites, in harbour protected sites and those situated in coastal bays, different IMTA systems and species. This would suggest that storm damage can potentially affect any site. It should be noted however, that the partner already dealing with an exposed site did not suffer from problems due to storm events. This would suggest that when planning for an IMTA site, issues of exposure and hydrodynamics require in-depth consideration. Whilst storm damage can affect any aquaculture system, it is crucial to understand the impact that addition of IMTA species within an existing site has upon that site's resilience to severe weather events. There is a clear articulation of not only the risks involved with the addition of infrastructure in relation to storm events, but also the opportunities that it might offer in mitigating these risks to the whole aquaculture site. It has been suggested that there is potential for IMTA in marine offshore systems, but that considerations are required such as whether extractive species can withstand the prevailing hydrodynamic forces, and that orbital motion may be a factor critical to the design of the system (Troell et al., 2009). The findings presented here would suggest that the potential for damage due to storms should also be considered. As noted by one partner, it may be as simple as placing the more fragile species on the inside and the more rugged species on the more exposed side, however decisions will likely depend on which species within the system are most valuable. With the potential for increasing extreme weather events in Europe (Beniston et al., 2007), this should be a key consideration. The drying of algae is perceived to be one of the main bottlenecks in algae culturing (Aziz et al., 2013). Drying decreases the water content of algae which ultimately retards microbial growth, helps to conserve quality and reduces the storage volume. Conventionally, algae drying is done by solar drying, by hanging or spreading the algae over a net or tarpaulin; oven drying and freeze drying are also used (Gupta et al., 2011), particularly in more temperate regions. However, as many of the Atlantic-based SMEs noted, access to driers was problematic. Either driers were not locally available, or not available at the time required (e.g. at harvesting). One of the SMEs suggested that freezing algae in a similar method to freezing other seafood could be a suitable way in which to deal with the drying and storing problem. Freezing has been used as a method for long-term storage of cultured Undaria pinnatifida (Wakame) with no significant loss of quality compared to fresh U. pinnatifida (Choi et al., 2012) indicating that this may indeed be a potential solution, although further research may be required. Alternatively, another partner suggested establishing a joint platform within the industry to enable shared access to facilities. 4.2. Lessons learnt Much research has focused upon candidate species for IMTA such as sea cucumbers (Nelson et al., 2012), shellfish (Sarà et al., 2012; Cranford et al., 2013) and a variety of macroalgae (Skriptsova and Miroshnikova, 2011; Kang et al., 2014) but many of these have involved experiments undertaken in laboratory conditions or modelling studies. Several of those interviewed experimented with a number of species before settling upon their final choice; indeed, one company has still not finalised the species to be cultivated. In most cases experience suggested that growing species that were not only endemic to the general area, but

actually found growing at the site, were likely to be the best option. This makes ecological sense; species which live there already have an established niche with abundant resource availability. The difficulty arises when determining if there is a market for such extractive species and this will likely have an impact on decisions upon which extractive species to use in an IMTA system. Interviewees identified that establishing the correct system design took trial and error, but that simplicity was crucial to the final design chosen. A study by Reid et al. (2011) noted that “The implementation of IMTA practices, where all extractive ‘niches’ are facilitated, will require a complete re-designing of aquaculture sites and their operational grid”. In the European case, system design was important for two main reasons: to deal with physical conditions and constraints at the site (as detailed in Section 4.1 above), and also to make the system easier for the SME employees to work with. The concept of simplicity links in to the fact that a range of skills are required for running an IMTA system. Farm workers may be required to develop a variety of complex knowledge and know-how, and to manage a number of different species in a variety of system design. In the IDREEM project, the range of expertise required has been possible with the inclusion of the research partners, but yet it has still led to a “trial and error” type of learning approach, an approach which Canadian counterparts also progressed through (Reid et al., 2011). This development of ‘know how’ may be a key constraint or limiting factor on the development of IMTA. Fish farming is a highly technical and skilled profession, as is shellfish and algae farming. For small companies to encompass both of these skill sets may be initially highly challenging, not just on a technical level, but also within the culture of the organisation. One of the most successful developments of IMTA within the IDREEM project occurred when a finfish company bought in expertise directly from the shellfish industry. While this may be an option for a larger operator, for smaller SMEs it may not be practical. In such a case a partnership and co-location model of finfish and shellfish farmers may be more appropriate. However, when undertaking a commercial scale IMTA operation, obtaining the required skills will be a key consideration, be it through additional training, working in collaboration with other companies, or bringing in expert advice.

5. Conclusions: moving forward with IMTA The IDREEM project bridges the gap between laboratory research and commercial development. Although this process of technology transfer and development is a key deliverable of national and international research funders, there is a real paucity of scientifically documented evidence on how this transition is made and how the process can be made more effective. The practice of technology transfer is rarely systemically documented across multiple companies, indeed, it has never been done in relation to the European seafood sector to the knowledge of the authors, and as such offers unique insights into the process. It is apparent that no matter how much experimental research and advance preparation is undertaken prior to setting up an IMTA system, at this early stage there are still likely to be many problems identified and lessons learnt. This study has highlighted that in the move from a mono-culture to poly-culture system a number of issues must be considered, particularly relating to the initial set-up of the system. These considerations will be indispensable when it comes to moving forward with commercial scale operations. • There is no existing process for licensing IMTA sites, when this is established for the IDREEM pilot countries, this should be communicated across the EU through mechanisms such as the EU Aquaculture Advisory Council. • Events caused by a changing global climate, such as storms, may be problematic in exposed areas and it may be prudent to consider placement of species on the site to reflect this prospect.

K.A. Alexander, A.D. HughesAquaculture 473 (2017) 13–19

• The drying of algae is a bottleneck in algae culturing; freezing may be a potential solution, or alternatively, establishing a joint industry platform to enable shared access to facilities. • When choosing which extractive species to culture, species which are not only endemic to the general area, but actually found growing at the site, are likely to be the best option. • Simplicity is crucial to the final design chosen for the IMTA system, and to achieve this, obtaining the required skills will be a key consideration. In order to facilitate further shared learning on the Western experience, particularly at the international level, it would be beneficial to undertake a study, similar to that undertaken in Europe and described here, with pilot scale operations in Canada. Indeed, it would be most beneficial to develop a formal ‘Community of Practice’, a knowledgesharing platform where all those engaging in IMTA can work together to enable further innovation. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank those who were interviewed for this research. The research leading to these results was undertaken as part of the IDREEM project (Increasing Industrial Resource Efficiency in European Mariculture, www.idreem.eu) and has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement no. 308571. The funding source played no role in the research. References Alexander, K., Angel, D., Freeman, S., Israel, D., Johansen, J., Kletou, D., Meland, M., Pecorino, D., Rebours, C., Rousou, M., 2016a. Improving sustainability of aquaculture in Europe: stakeholder dialogues on Integrated Multi-trophic Aquaculture (IMTA). Environ. Sci. Pol. 55, 96–106. Alexander, K., Potts, T., Freeman, S., Israel, D., Johansen, J., Kletou, D., Meland, M., Pecorino, D., Rebours, C., Shorten, M., 2015. The implications of aquaculture policy and regulation for the development of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture in Europe. Aquaculture 443, 16–23. Alexander, K.A., Angel, D., Freeman, S., Israel, D., Johansen, J., Kletou, D., Meland, M., Pecorino, D., Rebours, C., Rousou, M., 2016b. Improving sustainability of aquaculture in Europe: stakeholder dialogues on Integrated Multi-trophic Aquaculture (IMTA). Environ. Sci. Pol. 55, 96–106. Amin, A., Roberts, J., 2008. Knowing in action: beyond communities of practice. Res. Policy 37 (2), 353–369. Aziz, M., Oda, T., Kashiwagi, T., 2013. Enhanced high energy efficient steam drying of algae. Appl. Energy 109, 163–170. Badiola, M., Mendiola, D., Bostock, J., 2012. Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) analysis: main issues on management and future challenges. Aquac. Eng. 51, 26–35. Barrington, K., Chopin, T., Robinson, S., 2009. Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in marine temperate waters. Integrated mariculture: a global review. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 529. FAO, D. Soto. Rom, pp. 7–46. Barrington, K., Ridler, N., Chopin, T., Robinson, S., Robinson, B., 2008. Social aspects of the sustainability of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture. Aquac. Int. 18 (2), 201–211. Beltran, A.M., Guinée, J., Schenck, R., Huizen, D., 2014. Goal and scope definition for life cycle assessment of integrated multi-trophic marine aquaculture systems. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2014), San Francisco, California, USA, 8–10 October, 2014. Center for Life Cycle Assessment, American. Béné, C., Barange, M., Subasinghe, R., Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Merino, G., Hemre, G.-I., Williams, M., 2015. Feeding 9 billion by 2050 — putting fish back on the menu. Food Sec. 7 (2), 261–274. Beniston, M., Stephenson, D.B., Christensen, O.B., Ferro, C.A.T., Frei, C., Goyette, S., Halsnaes, K., Holt, T., Jylhä, K., Koffi, B., Palutikof, J., Schöll, R., Semmler, T., Woth, K., 2007. Future extreme events in European climate: an exploration of regional climate model projections. Clim. Chang. 81 (1), 71–95. Choi, J.-S., Lee, B.-B., An, S.J., Sohn, J.H., Cho, K.K., Choi, I.S., 2012. Simple freezing and thawing protocol for long-term storage of harvested fresh Undaria pinnatifida. Fish. Sci. 78 (5), 1117–1123.

19

Chopin, T., Cooper, J.A., Reid, G., Cross, S., Moore, C., 2012. Open-water integrated multitrophic aquaculture: environmental biomitigation and economic diversification of fed aquaculture by extractive aquaculture. Rev. Aquac. 4 (4), 209–220. Cranford, P.J., Reid, G.K., Robinson, S.M., 2013. Open water integrated multi-trophic aquaculture: constraints on the effectiveness of mussels as an organic extractive component. Aquac. Environ. Interact. 4, 163–173. Cubillo, A.M., Ferreira, J.G., Robinson, S.M.C., Pearce, C.M., Corner, R.A., Johansen, J., 2016. Role of deposit feeders in integrated multi-trophic aquaculture — a model analysis. Aquaculture 453, 54–66. D'Anna, L.M., Murray, G.D., 2015. Perceptions of shellfish aquaculture in British Columbia and implications for well-being in marine social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 20 (1). Ertör, I., Ortega-Cerdà, M., 2015. Political lessons from early warnings: marine finfish aquaculture conflicts in Europe. Mar. Policy 51, 202–210. FAO, 2014. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Gupta, S., Cox, S., Abu-Ghannam, N., 2011. Effect of different drying temperatures on the moisture and phytochemical constituents of edible Irish brown seaweed. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 44 (5), 1266–1272. Hay, I., 2000. Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography. Irisarri, J., Fernández-Reiriz, M.J., Robinson, S.M., Cranford, P.J., Labarta, U., 2013. Absorption efficiency of mussels Mytilus edulis and Mytilus galloprovincialis cultured under integrated multi-trophic aquaculture conditions in the Bay of Fundy (Canada) and Ría Ares-Betanzos (Spain). Aquaculture 388, 182–192. Kang, Y.H., Kim, S., Lee, J.-B., Chung, I.K., Park, S.R., 2014. Nitrogen biofiltration capacities and photosynthetic activity of Pyropia yezoensis Ueda (Bangiales, Rhodophyta): groundwork to validate its potential in integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA). J. Appl. Phycol. 26 (2), 947–955. Kerwin, C.M., Furlong, S.R., 1992. Time and rulemaking: an empirical test of theory. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2 (2), 113–138. Kumaraswamy, M.M., Shrestha, G., 2002. Targeting ‘technology exchange’ for faster organizational and industry development. Build. Res. Inf. 30 (3), 183–195. Lave, J., Wenger, E., 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 1994. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills. Naylor, R., Burke, M., 2005. Aquaculture and ocean resources: raising tigers of the sea. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30 (1), 185–218. Nelson, E., MacDonald, B., Robinson, S., 2012. The absorption efficiency of the suspensionfeeding sea cucumber, Cucumaria frondosa, and its potential as an extractive integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) species. Aquaculture 370, 19–25. Olsen, Y., 2015. How can mariculture better help feed humanity? Front. Mar. Sci. 2. QSR International Pty Ltd, 2012. NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software. Reid, G., Haigh, S., Jeans, T., Foreman, M., 2011. Hydrodynamic considerations for spatial modelling of Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA). Bull. Aquac. Assoc. Can. 109 (2), 31. Ridler, N., Wowchuk, M., Robinson, B., Barrington, K., Chopin, T., Robinson, S., Page, F., Reid, G., Szemerda, M., Sewuster, J., 2007. Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA): a potential strategic choice for farmers. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 11 (1), 99–110. Ridler, N.B., Hishamunda, N., 2001. Promotion of Sustainable Commercial Aquaculture in Sub-Saharan Africa: Policy Framework. Food & Agriculture Org. Sarà, G., Reid, G., Rinaldi, A., Palmeri, V., Troell, M., Kooijman, S., 2012. Growth and reproductive simulation of candidate shellfish species at fish cages in the Southern Mediterranean: Dynamic Energy Budget (DEB) modelling for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture. Aquaculture 324, 259–266. Skriptsova, A.V., Miroshnikova, N.V., 2011. Laboratory experiment to determine the potential of two macroalgae from the Russian Far-East as biofilters for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA). Bioresour. Technol. 102 (3), 3149–3154. Stonich, S., Vandergeest, P., 2001. Violence, environment, and industrial shrimp farming. Violent Environments, pp. 261–286. Tiller, R., Brekken, T., Bailey, J., 2012. Norwegian aquaculture expansion and Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM): simmering conflicts and competing claims. Mar. Policy 36 (5), 1086–1095. Troell, M., Joyce, A., Chopin, T., Neori, A., Buschmann, A.H., Fang, J.-G., 2009. Ecological engineering in aquaculture—potential for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in marine offshore systems. Aquaculture 297 (1), 1–9. Troell, M., Naylor, R.L., Metian, M., Beveridge, M., Tyedmers, P.H., Folke, C., Arrow, K.J., Barrett, S., Crépin, A.-S., Ehrlich, P.R., Gren, Å., Kautsky, N., Levin, S.A., Nyborg, K., Österblom, H., Polasky, S., Scheffer, M., Walker, B.H., Xepapadeas, T., de Zeeuw, A., 2014. Does aquaculture add resilience to the global food system? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111 (37), 13257–13263. Vogel, D., 2003. The hare and the tortoise revisited: the new politics of consumer and environmental regulation in Europe. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 33 (04), 557–580. Wenger, E., 1998. Communities of practice: learning as a social system. Syst. Think. 9 (5), 2–3.