Search

The Norwegian integrated management plan for the Lofoten–Barents Sea areas (BSMP) was initiated in 2002 following an international push for implementing ecosystem-based management, as well as a national drive to make new areas available for petroleum exploitation.. Governance of the plan was achieved through an inter-ministerial steering group working through its underlying institutions that have been tasked to work together during both development and implementation. This has achieved a high degree of integration across sectors and between government levels. Having the dual objectives of sustainable exploitation and conservation gives rise to a conflict over whether or not to allow petroleum industry access to the ecologically most valuable and vulnerable areas. There was an attempt at resolving this conflict by acquiring more knowledge, but the conflict is fundamentally a value-based question, which is impossible to resolve by gathering empirical knowledge alone. Nevertheless, the BSMP has been a positive vehicle for increasing the legitimacy of the complex decisions a modern society has to take in the management of ocean resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The expansion of the Norwegian aquaculture industry has generated a need for balancing aquaculture with other societal interests in the coastal zone. The interactions, conflicts and synergies of different uses of a Norwegian coastal region heavily influenced by large-scale salmonid aquaculture was analyzed and mapped by means of systematic stakeholder participatory approach and a GIS-based spatial interaction analysis tool, SEAGRID. Our study focused on spatial conflicts/synergies, whereas non-spatial interactions were taken into account in order to elucidate the spatial effects. The questionnaire analysis showed that there was a large agreement across the respondents that aquaculture and fisheries compete for access to sea areas, which is also in agreement with the SEAGRID analysis. All but one of the interviewees thought that conservation issues will become more important in the future. We found that societal interests and infrastructure obstruct or displace private enterprises and economic interests, whereas environmental protection measures do so to a lesser extent; an exception are coral reefs which seem to be well protected against both fishing operations as well as new aquaculture facilities. Nature protection was not found to affect fisheries nor aquaculture to a large extent, with the exception of the single salmon fjord, which is protected from salmonid aquaculture, but otherwise open to other activities, such as fisheries, tourist fisheries and tourism in general. The restricted military areas had a limited extent, and were not viewed as a cause of conflicts. Stakeholder consultations, like our participatory GIS approach, combined with GIS-based tools for analysis of spatial conflicts/synergies may be useful in identifying areas where aquaculture production can increase with little increase in degree of conflict with fisheries, although some interactions are not strictly spatial. Our results indicated a certain degree of mistrust of management authorities since neither fishermen nor aquaculturists perceived that their own sector was given priority by management authorities, but thought the other sector was prioritized. • Conflicts and synergies in a Norwegian coastal region was analyzed. • Large agreement across the respondents (stakeholders) that aquaculture and fisheries compete for access to sea areas. • Nature protection was not found to affect fisheries nor aquaculture to a large extent. • A GIS-based spatial interaction analysis tool, SEAGRID was applied. • Neither fishermen nor aquaculturists said that their own sector was given priority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]