TOO BIG TO FAIL? EVALUATING LEGAL ADAPTIVE CAPACITY FOR INCREASING AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION IN EU-FINLAND

Transcription

1 TOO BIG TO FAIL? EVALUATING LEGAL ADAPTIVE CAPACITY FOR INCREASING AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION IN EU-FINLAND DR. NIKO SOININEN (GU/UEF) PROF. JUKKA SIMILÄ (ULAPLAND) PROF. ANTTI BELINSKIJ (SYKE/UEF)

2 Contents Drivers for growing aquaculture Social ecological limitations of growth Adaptive capacity for sustainable aquaculture: nutrient compensation

3 Real-world drivers for growing aquaculture Global food security (FAO: 17 % of annual global protein intake from fish) The state of marine fish stocks (FAO: 89,5 % of fish stocks overfished or fully-fished)

4 Policy drivers for growing aquaculture EU Blue Growth strategy and Finnish Bioeconomy strategy and Aquaculture strategy Goal: filling the gap between EU consumption and production of seafood in a way that is environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. COM (2013) 229 final

5 Nutrients and ecological carrying capacity

6 EU Water Framework and Marine Strategy The end of traditional aquaculture? EU-WFD obligations in the coastal zone (within 1 nm from the baseline) Weser-case (C-461/13): Not possible to increase production if even one ecological quality criteria drops, and no excemption from protection is granted Limited possibilities to excempt activities from the WFD objectives EU-MSFD obligations at sea (outside the 1 nm limit) MSFD sets a similar obligation to WFD in terms of good ecological status Is the Weser ruling analogically applicable at sea? Linkage between EU law and Finnish law

7 Adaptive capacity for sustainable aquaculture Avoiding and minimising nutrient output Aquaculture in the open sea less ecological harm and looser legal criteria Aquaculture on land transitioning into closed loop technology (case of Varkaus) Ecological compensation Compensatory fish fodder or other compensatory measures (e.g. algae or shell fish absorbing nutrients) Nutrient trading schemes (similar to carbon trading)

8 Concept of nutrient compensation Nutrient compensation aims to neutralise adverse impact of nutrient load caused by economic activities It supports sustainable blue growth The level of allowed nutrient load and compensation measures are defined in an environmental permit

9 Basic principles Mitigation hierarchy: avoid minimise compensate Additionality (additional nutrient reduction) Timing: compensation should take place either in parallel with or before pollution Spatial dimension: pollution and compensation should take place in the same water body

10 Forms of compensation Compensation by the polluter (fish farm) Sea food for aquaculture (e.g. Baltic herring) Fishing of fish with no economic value The problem of costs Compensation by a third party Cultivating shellfish or algae Higher abatement by other polluters Restoring / building wetlands Extra action in point sources Pooling A group of fish farmers cooperate

11 Nutrient compensation an emerging issue No specific legislation No administrative practice Nutrient compensation referred to in many policy documents Research and development projects

12 Compensation by polluter Environmental permit regulation provides sufficient legal basis Compensation would only require a new permit condition Practical challenges E.g. is right kind of food stuff available in the market for the whole period of permitting activity

13 Compensation by a third party Information problem: how to find a third party Uncertainty: does compensation action provide benefits for the whole permitting period Without new regulation this compensation by a third party is possible only in rare cases WFD Programme of measures could be used to identify service providers (potential third parties) Full scale trading scheme calls for new regulation to ensure legal certainty and equal treatment (middleman, roles and responsibilities)

14 Compensation pooling Umbrella permit defined for a larger area total size of aquaculture amount of allowed pollution compensatory measures fish farms may join the enterprise by buying shares Otherwise works as a permit for a single installation New regulation needed Currently environmental permits are granted for each installation separately Principal agent problem (moral hazard)

15 Conclusions WFD (Weser ruling) is likely to hamper blue growth without new regulatory innovations Nutrient compensation provides potential for increasing legal adaptive capacity Compensation by a third party or pooling requires new regulation

16 DR. NIKO SOININEN (GU/UEF) PROF. JUKKA SIMILÄ (ULAPLAND) PROF. ANTTI BELINSKIJ (SYKE/UEF)