Demonstrating and debating how European RTD can respond to policy needs

1. Demonstrating and debating how European RTD can respond to policy needs www.profetpolicy.info

2. dissemination of European RTD …since 1998 • Original concept • RTD (Technical) Leaflets • Simple summary • results • relevance • application

4. four main objectives • Improve the flow of EU RTD results – showing relevance to policy development and application • source & summarise results in fisheries and aquaculture – show relevance to European policies • provide forums for exchange of views of stakeholders • identify research needs to support policy definition within the sectors

5. six partners • Federation of European Aquaculture Producers • European Aquaculture Society • International Council for the Exploration of the Sea • Eurofish • European Assoc. of Fisheries Producers Organisations • AquaTT www.profetpolicy.info

6. Clear focus on policy • European policy • market policy • research objectives • policy in aquaculture • policy in fisheries • Glossary of policy terms www.profetpolicy.info

7. nine trans-national workshops • presentation of policy - direction • presentation of research results • exchange of opinions • identify needs • make conclusions • formulate recommendations

8. nine workshops Aquaculture Fisheries • coldwater marine • Bergen • Mediterranean marine • Athens • continental freshwater • Warsaw • southern freshwater • Treviso • Baltic Sea fisheries • Vilnius • N. Atlantic fisheries • Dublin • Mediterranean fisheries • Marseille • North Sea fisheries • Copenhagen • Atlantic fisheries & aquaculture • Vigo • Review achievements, conclusions, recommendations • Brussels

9. Participation – Specifics • 70 participants per workshop (average) • 10 countries represented/workshop (average) • National majority usual • 2 Commission representatives • TRANSLATION – provided at 7/9 workshops • A definite requirement for stakeholder interest • Commission presence – VERY IMPORTANT! • Debate – stimulated by POLICY and interesting projects….that are applicable to the sector

10. Participation – Specifics • NGOs – on 4 occasions • Molluscs – with Vigo exception – absent • very little information and communication on project results from mollusc researchers/producers • Local Organisations/Government • Always responded for opening and welcome • Most local organisers found sponsorship • Post-event enthusiasm

11. Workshop structure • Regional development – Role of research • Policy & Regulatory Framework • RTD needs related to Policy • RTD needs and sustainable development • Support for development – FP7 promoted • Review of Aquaculture Strategy • Future [research] needs • Debate often went into parallel discussions on how the business would develop (more aquaculture than fisheries)

12. Research – Presentations • More than 70 presentations on individual projects – by coordinator or national rep • Sometimes problematic for ‘finished’ projects • Some difficulties for scientists to adapt to a broader audience • From Nov 2007, EATIP (Aquaculture Technology Platform) presented in all Profet ‘aquaculture’ • Vigo had 3 TP presentations (1 fish – 2 aq)

13. nine policy & thematic leaflet compilations • Aquaculture TLs • 122 published on web • Sorted by policy relevance • Fisheries TLs • 95 published on web • Sorted by relevance to CFP 24 Policy documents written - prepared on thematic basis TL selections agreed prior to each workshop – prepared as PDF – printing +/-2 days – sent by courier to local organiser

14. nine policy & thematic leaflet compilations

15. Achievements • The interpretation and understanding of sustainability as a guiding principle for both aquaculture and fisheries • Obtained an improved understanding of European legislation, hence the policies that drive legislation • Improving communication and finding the appropriate means to develop this, in real time, to policy-makers, stakeholders and the public • Profet Policy focused initially on dissemination issues for RTD, provided a platform for communication and debate on strategic issues of importance to fisheries and aquaculture • Conclusions on www.profetpolicy.info

16. Lessons learnt– Aquaculture • Advance publicity & regional support essential to assure good attendance • Local associations essential for organisation • Need centralised support for such European projects • Technical and managerial personnel attend • Communications on ‘finished’ projects difficult to organise • Research on operational improvements requested • Vs. Welfare, impacts… • i.e. more Collaborative projects

17. Dissemination actions – Fisheries • Challenge to reach stakeholders • RACs were efficient partners • Professional fishing sector often present • Environmental NGO’s not strongly represented • Challenge to find researchers that can communicate effectively • Research is seen as remote from sector’s priorities

18. Dissemination actions – Fisheries • Links between research and fishing sector often conflictual (more than in aquaculture) • Research associated with • stock assessment and hence reduction of fishing possibilities • Scrutiny and hence control • Low relevance for answering industry needs • But interest from sector increases as • Sector is under increasing pressure • Economic (oil prices, fish prices…) • Social (attractiveness of activities) • Environmental (impact of fishing activities)

19. Identification of Needs – Fisheries • Collaborative/cooperative research is seen as crucial • Improve the trust between research and stakeholders • More research is needed: • On socio-economic issues that the sector is facing • Topics where private sector can see benefits from • Away from just biological aspects

20. Lessons learnt – Fisheries • Need for more coordination on the fisheries level • Not enough coherence in the approaches • Need for research needs assesments to be fed into broader reflection process • Diversity in the fisheries sector is higher than in aquaculture • Interest for research is lower as most research is seen by the sector as « unproductive »

21. Common Recommendations • Improve communication at all levels • Explain why research is done and how it relates to • Policy (and which one!) • Improvement in operations • Effects on the sector • Get the best speakers (where possible) • Facilitate debate – otherwise a ‘quiet’ audience • Demonstrate how recommendations can be translated into actions

22. Supporting governance and multi-stakeholder participation in aquaculture research and innovation Activity call: Sustainable Production and management of biological resources from land, forest and aquatic environments

23. Project proposal • Prepared by FEAP, EAS and AQUATT for January 2009 call • Extension of PROFET POLICY project partners(aquaculture only) • Submitted by EATIP asbl (sole participant/legal entity) • Start date – 1 February 2010

24. Concept & Objectives (1) • Create an operational framework for dialogue, between • The aquaculture industry (value chain), • The research community and • The policy makers • based on best governance practices • Exploit the potential for innovation and technological development in the European aquaculture value chain

25. Concept & Objectives (2) • Actively promote the exploitation, dissemination and communication of Community aquaculture RTD • Improve how RTD & innovation knowledge is • managed, • disseminated and • transferred

26. Multi-Stakeholder Workshops • 4 Key events - covering • Coldwater aquaculture - Northern • Inland freshwater aquaculture – Central • Mediterranean & southern aquaculture • Shellfish aquaculture • 1.5-2 day workshops produce • Plan of Action for the Area covered • Recommendations for realisation

27. Implementation action plan • Completion-recommendations based on evaluation of • High ranking issues • Fundamental or Applied Research • Academic or Industrial • Collective/Cooperative • Available funding mechanisms • Public • Private/industry