Report of the first - Euroshell

1

Report of Euroshell first stakeholders’ meeting – November 27th and 28th at La Teste de Buch

Report of the first

stakeholders’ meeting of

Euroshell project

November 27th and 28th, La Teste de Buch

(France)

2


Attendees

NAME FIRST NAME ORGANIZATION COUNTRY PROFILE

Alcade Garcia Francisco Asociacion de Productores de Mexillon de Rianxo

Spain Industry

Alcaide Nunez Alfonso Consello Regulador D.O. Mexillon de Galicia (CRMG)

Spain Industry

Allday Joanne Scottish Association for Marine Science United-Kingdom Science

Arcangeli Giuseppe NRL Mollusc Italy Science

Badioli Giacomo Altomare SRL societa agricola Italy Industry

Barbosa-Solomieu Valérie IFREMER France Science

Barillé Laurent Université de Nantes France Science

Baud Jean-Pierre IFREMER France Science

Blachier Philippe Centre Régional d'Expérimentation et d'Application Aquacole (CREAA)

France Science

Brown Janet Shellfish Association of Great Britain (SAGB)

United-Kingdom Industry

Carboni Stefano ARDTOE United-Kingdom Science

Champeau Laurent Comité Régional de la Conchyliculture de Poitou Charente (CRCPC)

France Industry

Chantereau Sébastien Comité National de la Conchyliculture (CNC)

France Industry

De Rooij Jaap Producenten Organisatie van de nederlandse Mosselcultuur (POM)

Netherlands Industry

Dréano Alain Comité Régional de la Conchyliculture de Bretagne Sud (CRCBS)

France Expert

Eripret Mariella Comité National de la Conchyliculture (CNC)

France Industry

Fabas Isabelle Association pour le Développement des Métiers Maritimes (ADMM) – Axe 4 « Thau et son Lido »

France FLAG

Furones Nozal Dolors IRTA (Institut de Recherche de Catalogne)

Spain Science

Gargiulli Francesca Associazione Mediterranea Acquacoltori (AMA) - Compagnia Ostricola Mediterranea SCARL

Italy Industry

Gillet Anne-Catherine AC2G France Expert

Gomes Da silva Serge FARNET Belgium FLAG

Gorla Alessandro Associazione Mediterranea Acquacoltori (AMA) - Compagnia Ostricola Mediterranea SCARL

Italy Industry

Guillaumie Bruno Comité National de la Conchyliculture (CNC)

France Industry

Hiribarn Ludovic Ets Ludovic Hiribarn France Industry

Holstein Jaap Producenten Organisatie van de nederlandse Mosselcultuur (POM)

Netherlands Industry

Horsfall Sarah Shellfish Association of Great Britain (SAGB)


Jarrad David Shellfish Association of Great Britain (SAGB)


3


Kouwenhoven Angelo Ministère des Affaires Economiques, de l’Agriculture & de l’Innovation

Netherlands Expert

Laban Olivier Comité Régional de la Conchyliculture de Arcachon Aquitaine (CRCAA)

France Industry

Lane Alistair European Aquaculture Society (EAS) Belgium Science

Lecanu Aurélie Axe 4 Arcachon France FLAG

Lecart Marie-Claude Centre de Formation d’Apprentis (CFA) / Centre de Formation Professionnelle et de Promotion des Adultes (CFPPA)

France Expert

Legg Tony Jersey Sea Farms United-Kingdom Industry

Longa Portabales Angeles Consello Regulador D.O. Mexillon de Galicia (CRMG)

Spain Industry

Mendiola Diego

AZTI-TECNALIA/Marine research division

Spain Science

Monnier Martial Comité National de la Conchyliculture (CNC)

France Expert

O'Mahoney Maria Aquaculture and Fishery Development Center (AFDC) – University College Cork (UCC)

Ireland Science

Otero Lojo Alfredo Asociacion de Productores de Mexillon Illa de Arousa

Spain Industry

Pastres Roberto UNIVE - Universita Ca' Foscari Venezia Italy Science

Perez Marianne Centre de Formation Professionnelle et de Promotion des Adultes (CFPPA)

France Expert

Perraudeau Amélie Axe 4 - Marennes Oléron France FLAG

Pons Catherine European Aquaculture Technology and Innovation Platform (EATiP)

Belgium Expert

Populaire Yann AC2G France Expert

Prioli Giuseppe Associazione Mediterranea Acquacoltori (AMA)

Italy Industry

Prou Jean IFREMER La Tremblade France Science

Quimbert Erwann Sextant - IFREMER Brest France Science

Rambaldi Eraldo AMA - Compagnia Ostricola Mediterranea SCARL

Italy Industry

Renault Tristan IFREMER France Science

Romero Alesandro Agencia estatal Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC/IIM)

Spain Science

Roncarati Camerino

Alessandra Unicam (Université de Camerino) Italy Science

Ronsin Philippe Direction des Pêches Maritimes et de l’Aquaculture (DPMA) / Bureau de la Conchyliculture et de l'Environnement du Littoral (BCEL)

France Expert

Satra Le bris Catherine Sextant - IFREMER Brest France Science

Smaal Aad Stichting Dienst Landbouwkundig Onderzoek (DLO)

Netherlands Science

Strietman Wouter Jan LEI –WUR (Institut de recherche en économie agricole)

Netherlands Science

Turolla Edoardo Istituto Delta Ecologia Applicata Italy Science

Varsamos Stamatios DG RTD Belgium Expert

4


Vivier Florence Comité Régional de la Conchyliculture Arcachon Aquitaine (CRCAA)

France Industry

Wijsman Jeroen IMARES (Recherche en écologie marine stratégique et appliquée)

Netherlands Science

NB: in bold are the partners’ name

Contents (see program in annex 1)

A] General presentation of Euroshell project B] Link with EATIP vision for aquaculture C] Network animation and best practice for transfer D] Shellfish extension group E] Roundtables’ report F] Next steps

5


The meeting was introduced by Olivier Laban, President of the Comité Régional de la Conchyliculture Arcachon-Aquitaine.

A] Presentation of Euroshell project by Bruno Guillaumie, coordinator (See presentation in annex 2)

I/ Story In November 2010, during a meeting with the Directorate General for Research at the European Commission, the EMPA (European Mollusc Producers Association) learnt of a European research project on oysters’ mortality, entitled Bivalife. The European Commission thus required that the shellfish industry is integrated in this project, which was done in February 2011. The project was then signed with the EMPA. Following this event which revealed the lack of communication and coordination between scientists and shellfish farmers, the European Commission launched a call for proposals on the link research / industry. EMPA answered and won the bid with Euroshell project in February 2012. As EMPA is not a strong enough financial structure, it was decided to change coordinator. In May 2012, the Comité National de la Conchyliculture (CNC) (French national shellfish committee) becomes the project coordinator. After a period of negotiations from March to June 2012, a grant agreement was signed on September 20th 2012. The project officially started on October 1st 2012 for a period of 18 months. On October 10th 2012 was held the first meeting of the Administrative, Financial and Legal Cooperation Committee (AFLCC).

II/ Question and subject How to bridge the gap between science and producers to support the European marine mollusc production sector? The project is in link with:

1) The EU aquaculture strategy (EC, 2009): - More competitive, strong support for R&D, better spatial planning - Sustainability - Improving governance

2) The European Fisheries Fund priority axis 4 (FLAGs, 2007-2013):

- Territorial approach - Mobilization of all actors together - Animation and networking (learning from each other’s)

3) EATiP (European Aquaculture Technology and Innovation Platform) initiative (project

AQUAINNOVA, 2010-2012) which developed: - A vision for the European Aquaculture sector in 2030 - A Strategic Research Agenda to meet the objectives of the vision

III/ Consortium The project gathers 18 partners from 6 countries.

6


Leader: Comité National de la Conchyliculture (CNC)

At European scale: - European Mollusc Producers Association (EMPA) which represents the industry

- European Aquaculture Society (EAS) which represents the research community

At national scale: the most important organizations representing the industry on the one hand and

the scientific community on the other hand, from each country are partners of the project:

United Kingdom: - SAGB (Shellfish Association of Great Britain)

- ARDTOE (Viking Fish Farms Limited)

Netherlands: - POM (Producenten Organisatie van de nederlandse Mosselcultuur) - DLO (Stichting Dienst Landbouwkundig Onderzoek) -

Italy: - AMA (Associazione Mediterranea Acquacoltori) - UNIVE (Universita ca'foscari Venezia)

Spain: - CRMG (Consello Regulador D.O. Mexillon de Galicia)

- CSIC (Agencia estatal Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas) France : - CNC (Comité National de la Conchyliculture)

- IFREMER (Institut Français de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la MER) Ireland: -ISGA/IFA (Irish Salmon Growers Association Limited)

- UCC (University College Cork)

At regional scale in France: - Comité Régional de la Conchyliculture de Bretagne Nord (CRCBN)

- Comité Régional de la Conchyliculture de Poitou-Charentes (CRCPC)

- Comité Régional de la Conchyliculture de Méditerranée (CRCM)

Technical partner: AC2G

In these 6 member States, there are 7740 small and medium-sized enterprises, including 4643 in France, which are mostly very small businesses.

IV/ Approach and views From the shellfish farmer’s perspective, there are three approaches:

- Its product - Its territory and environment - Its market

These three approaches are three major working topics.

V/ Core objectives

7


- Enhance integration of knowledge into the production cycle of the main farmed species, by assessing current critical problems experienced by the sector that have a direct link to research and reviewing current knowledge and especially the extent of its uptake.

- Assess the current structural organization that links knowledge to practice in key European production countries and identify solutions that will address structural difficulties (where these exist) for shellfish SME’s to participate in RTDI initiatives.

- Identify future visions for the European shellfish sector by industry including the identification of gaps and research needs, so as to lay the basis for more effective methodology for future dialogue and integration of the sector into the EATIP.

VI/ Method: extension

The proposed method to meet these objectives is the transfer of knowledge, relying on: - Extension workers (profile, skill, training courses) who would make the link between

science and industry; - Tools: Vision / Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda/ Action Plan as a graphical

interactive tool (link to maps and knowledge database) - A network (best practices transfer, link with territories and actors)

VII/ Hypothesis

- FLAGs could host an extension network - “Extension” eligible to the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) as a new

mission for FLAGs

VIII/ Organization and work The work is divided into 5 work packages:

1. Project management 2. Concept, methods, templates, tools for knowledge transfer 3. Reviewing current knowledge (database) 4. Mapping the shellfish sector (production areas, research centers…) and roadmap for

research 5. This work will be validated during the regional workshop : one in each partner country and

three in France FLAGs who wish so could start to apply these tools and methods.

Presentation of Euroshell project by Bruno Guillaumie

8


B] Link with the EATiP vision for aquaculture, Alistair Lane, EAS director

(see presentation in annex 3) EATiP = European Aquaculture Technology and Innovation Platform EAS = European Aquaculture Society How Euroshell can be integrated into EATiP’s vision.

I/ Technology platform Technology platforms are structures led by the industry in a given area, which gathers stakeholders to define research priorities. Thus, research funding can be concentrated on areas that are relevant to the industry. They cover the whole value chain and mobilize public authorities at national and regional levels. They address technological challenges that contribute to key policy objectives for Europe’s future competitiveness.

II/ EATiP The EATIP brought together 400 stakeholders to develop a vision for aquaculture in 2030, to define strategic research goals and communicate its conclusions and proposals. Aquaculture and the consumer:

- product quality, consumer safety and health - sustainable feed production

Assuring a sustainable industry: - technology and systems - managing the biological life cycle - aquatic animal health and welfare

Aquaculture in society: - integration with the environment - knowledge management - socio-economics, management and governance

Consultations across Europe took place, one of which was on shellfish farming.

III/ Vision of the shellfish sector in 2030 - A production growth of 30% (=1.3% per year), initially for mussels and minor species - An increase in the shellfish demand - A natural, safe and sustainable sector - Activity diversification on-farm - Integrated multi-functional farms - Higher levels of offshore production

IV/ Challenges

9


- Increasing competitiveness - Access to clean waters - Assuring production in deeper waters - Improving knowledge on detection and quantification of pathogens - Developing disease-resistant stock

V/ Effects - 850,000 tons of shellfish produced - In the short term, an increase in the production of mussels mainly - € 1.4 billion of ex-farm value - Higher workforce level - skilled young people - 30,000 hectares of space needed - Hatchery production of spat

VI/ Action plan - Improved environmental governance (technologies and knowledge) - Planning tools for environmental governance and development - Assure consistent quality control for continued product safety - Access to new space and better use of existing sites - Genetic improvement for disease resistance and productivity - Increased hatchery supplies of spat - Diversify species profile at commercial levels Euroshell is an opportunity to refine this vision, to (re)define the key objectives and identify the best ways to achieve them.

C] Networking and best practices for extension, Serge Gomes da Silva, FARNET (see presentation in annex 4) FARNET = The European Fisheries Areas Network

I/ Overview

1) The Fisheries Areas Network

- Directorate General MARE, support Axis 4 of the European Fisheries Fund – 2009-215 - FARNET support unit is based in Brussels

– Permanent staff – Supported by experts

2) Fisheries Local Action Groups – the building blocks

– Local partnerships (public, private) – Public fundings (national-EFF budget) + private findings (sector, in-kind…) – Bottom up local development – Aiming for a majority of private-led actions

10


– Strengthening and integrating the local fisheries economy – Pulling all representative sectors together to achieve it

There are currently 303 FLAGs in the European Union. For the period 2007-2013, a total budget of € 600 million was allocated to these groups, representing 13% of the EFF. Each group received an average of 2.7 million, from € 100,000 to € 17 million.

II/ Missions a. Technical, thematic, tailor-made support b. Animation of the network - Through interactive events & workshops - Focusing on projects, processes and participation - A network of animators with LEADER and URBACT experience c. Projects, processes and participation: - Building a community of good practices (on-line, on paper, In Real Life) - Analyzing the processes: from partnership building to delivery; at multiple levels: FLAGs, NNs, MAs - Fostering Participation: strong interpersonal relationships; building trust; involving all and valuing efforts

III/ Actions

- Examples of tools and action - In real Life: events, focus groups, outreach

Animation skills transfer to & between FLAG managers.

- On “paper”: guides, good practices, newsletter, videos - On line – the community (Facebook, Linked In…) - Activating information/GP exchange - Building up the momentum of specific events - Continuing the experience on-line in dedicated WGs

IV/ FARNET and Euroshell Number of FLAGs in each country: Italy = 38 Spain = 29 United Kingdom = 23 France = 11 Netherlands = 6 Ireland = 6

1) FLAGs and shellfisheries: - From « light » to « heavyweight » support - Communication: outreach and promotion campaign - Skills, capacity building: course for women shellfish pickers (Spain and Italy) - Adding value: transformation (Spain), storage (Denmark) - Environmental management: water quality (France) - Pilot studies: rope mussels processing (Denmark)

11


- Heavy investments: integrated aquaculture (Netherlands) The common strand between all projects:

- Strong participation of professionals in the decision making - Commitment of FLAGs to inform and involve them from early stages - The objective to (re)create and strengthen links with the other sectors of the area

2) FLAGs for Euroshell

- a resource of actors - a local animation experience - a pool of projects to mutualize - an entry point in local development strategies - a hub for dissemination & research/professional bridging

3) Euroshell for FLAGs

- An EU wide recognition and increased empowerment of local actors - a network of good practices - a privileged access to scientific knowledge - an opportunity to coordinate strategies at member state/EU level - an opportunity for FLAG cooperation

D] French shellfish extension group, Alain Dréano, secretary-general of CRC Bretagne-Sud (see presentation in annex 5, in French) Like the extension groups in agriculture, young shellfish farmers wanted to implement extension groups in the shellfish industry in order to brainstorm to "control" their future. Extension groups are groups of professionals where expert speakers intervene to help them to better understand the business environment and regulations, to improve business practices and take place in professional bodies. After two years of discussion, the shellfish extension group was created in 1996. Alain Dréano, while working in a training center of the Ministry of Agriculture, accompanied the group in its implementation. He has held technical workshops and training on: the marketing of shellfish products, the quality of water, the institutional environment, communication and public speaking. It was imperative that the interventions of experts are understandable and that there is an opening on the outside (what happens in other sectors such as fisheries, agriculture...). Some results have been observed: The group has acquired knowledge; the profession has become more credible and is more involved; a network of exchanges between members and experts was created. But in late 1997, the structure was not yet independent and activity fell gradually after the departure of Alain Dréano. This shows that beyond the tools, what is needed is time spent closer to the professionals, in the field, so that they acquire the knowledge base, and structures to formulate the right questions to the right people.

12


Tools and structures exist: why does not it work in the shellfish area? Problems: - If there is no request for extension, there will be no implementation of actions. - To create demand, one has to be on the ground. - It is important to recognize the empirical knowledge at the same level as scientific knowledge. - We need to adopt the same language for better understanding. - Extension activities must be permanent and constant. - The time scale of the industry is not the same as the scientific one. => All this requires time and a state of mind. After the plenary presentations, participants were divided into six groups. Each group participated in turn to a round table.

E] Roundtables

WP2: Extension and knowledge transfer

1) Knowledge transfer (Aad Smaal, DLO-IMARES and Wouter Jan Strietman, DLO-LEI) Workpackage 2 of Euroshell specifically looks at the transfer of knowledge within the European shellfish sector. We define knowledge transfer as the means by which expertise, knowledge, skills and capabilities are transferred in both directions from the knowledge-base (for example, a research institute, a university but also experienced practitioners) to those in need of that knowledge. Critical is the idea of exchange between different parties. The transfer of knowledge is an essential ingredient to innovation. Since the purpose of knowledge transfer is to catalyse and facilitate innovation, improving the way that knowledge is transferred and shared can be an important step in accelerating innovation and sustainable development within the European shellfish sector. Within the European shellfish sector, innovation usually focusses on one or more of the following themes:

Reducing or mitigating the ecological impact of shellfish farming;

Shellfish cultivation;

Product development;

Market development. Across Europe, the situation of knowledge transfer differs from one country to another. In some countries, there are many structures and tools, while there is none in others. How can we make the link between producers from different countries? During the roundtable sessions we discussed the opportunities and constraints in transferring knowledge between producers, scientists and other experts and the best-practices to overcome these constraints. The experiences in transferring knowledge between producers, scientists and other experts or stakeholders were discussed as follows:

13


- Define known projects (throughout Europe) that aim at transferring knowledge between shellfish producers, scientists and other experts or stakeholders;

- Discuss projects or ideas that are best suited to provide solutions to a more effective transfer of knowledge;

- Discuss the constraints that prohibit the efficient transfer of knowledge between producers, scientists and other experts or stakeholders. This could be both within those groups (for example: producers from one region do not share knowledge with producers in other regions) or between them;

- Write down the names (on post‐its) of projects or activities aimed at more effective transfer of knowledge;

- Decide upon their effectiveness and suitability for implementation on a larger scale (by later on adding these post‐it to a sheet of paper on the wall)

a) Knowledge transfer activities and projects in Europe

Italy

Courses for producers on legislation (per region) have recently been developed.

Most interaction between science and sector concern veterinary issues. Transfer occurs among producers, not with scientists.

There is a need for knowledge to improve the market.

FLAGs have just started.

A new society (SIRAM: www.siram-molluschi.it) was setup. It organizes meetings where scientists and representatives of producers and some producers meet. The meetings are paid by sponsors. Outputs of conference are public proceedings.

There are no magazines for the Italian shellfish industry.

Sometimes exchanges of knowledge on a national scale are organized through trips.

In Italy, there is no national shellfish organization but there are various regional organizations and the main one, AMA (Associazione Mediterranea Acquacoltori), represents Italy within the EMPA.

France

There are differences between regions. In some areas the industry has its own technical center such as SMIDAP in the region of Nantes and CREAA in Marennes-Oléron, that specifically aims at transferring knowledge.

A certain percentage that the producers pay for their quota to their organizations is used to fund innovation projects. In this way, producers have direct influence on what is on the research agenda.

A specific aspect of knowledge transfer concerns education. In France there are various secondary schools - Lycée de la mer (25 throughout France) – that provide training for aquaculture and fisheries. Producers have the obligation to follow courses/get diplomas at these schools to receive permits.

Like the UK, France also has projects that involve PhDs and the transfer of knowledge. These projects are co-funded by the industry (through FLAGs and CNC).

There are various types of annual regional meetings organized by Ifremer, CRC and CNC about specific topics.

There are various magazines specific for shellfish culture (“Cultures marines” for example). The Netherlands

The Netherlands developed a structured policy to drive innovation in the fisheries and aquaculture through projects and networks such as the Fisheries Innovation Platform, the Fisheries Knowledge Groups, Blueports and FLAGs.

14


For the different sectors in the industry there are specific knowledge groups such as for oyster culture, and these groups discuss about main knowledge gaps and priorities for solutions.

The shellfish industry organizes annual seminars (http://www.wageningenur.nl/en/Expertise-Services/Research-Institutes/imares/Projects/PRODUS-Sustainable-shellfish-culture.htm) and biannual symposia (www.schelpdierconferenties.nl).

The industry participates in research and funds various PhD projects and a chair on sustainable shellfish culture at Wageningen University.

There is a weekly magazine for fishery and aquaculture (Visserijnieuws). Ireland

BIM (Irish Sea Board) has training courses;

There are exchanges with farmers from France;

Funds are allocated to farmers to attend workshops and conferences abroad; Spain

Ad hoc regional meetings are organized (there are usually more scientists than producers that attend them);

Forums/technical committees are organized to establish research priorities, at regional and national levels;

There are MSC courses on aquaculture;

There are secondary education aquaculture training courses (not compulsory);

One of the organizations is now hiring a scientist (on veterinary issues);

Study trips are organized for students but not for producers;

There is a shellfish magazine. UK

Transfer of knowledge is made through organizations;

There are incidental funding for consultancy by scientists;

The Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS) develops courses;

In some projects, PhD/Master’s students are asked to answer specific problems that producers have. They learn to apply their knowledge, and teach the producers how to approach a problem scientifically.

Knowledge transfer partnership association: 30% paid by industry and 70% paid by the government.

There are various magazines for shellfish (“Shellfish News”, “The Grower”).

b) SWOT analysis of structures for knowledge transfer between science and industry

The second part of the workshop was dedicated to a discussion on the constraints and opportunities

relating to the transfer of knowledge within the European shellfish sector. The discussion focused

specifically on knowledge transfer in terms of direct contact between producers, scientists and other

experts or stakeholders, where knowledge transfer can be both within certain groups (for example,

producers from one region sharing knowledge with producers in other regions) or between

producers and scientists or other experts.

Participants in the first 2 round tables were asked to identify the main elements for the SWOT

(Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis on the basis of a list of issues that was

prepared by WP 2. When it showed that the list was considered relevant by the participants, the

following round tables were asked to give points to the different items by distributing 10 stickers

http://www.schelpdierconferenties.nl/

15


according to their priority. Participants were free to distribute their stickers as they liked. The color of

the sticker corresponded to their profile as stakeholder (producer, researcher, expert, FLAG). The

conveners ordered the priority according to the number of stickers per item.

Strengths

The participants of the roundtable sessions were asked to discuss the strengths within the shellfish

sector that provide the building blocks for the efficient transfer of knowledge between producers,

scientists and other experts or stakeholders. Below is a list of the strengths mentioned by the

participants, prioritized on the basis of the discussions and voting procedure.

1 Level of organization within the industry

2 Strength of industry network (“one family”)

3 Expertise within the industry

4 Expertise of scientists

5 Existing structures for communication

6 Trust among industry participants

7 Trust of industry – science partners

8 Willingness to share knowledge

9 Critical mass of producers potentially willing to participate

10 Role of intermediaries in the transfer of knowledge

Weaknesses

The participants were asked to discuss the weaknesses that prohibit the efficient transfer of

knowledge between producers, scientists and other experts or stakeholders. Below is a list of the

constraints mentioned by the participants, prioritized on the basis of the discussions and voting

procedure.

1 Lack of funding for knowledge transfer (not in all European member states)

2 The cost of research to the sector (private vs. public)

3 Lack of capability to match the needs of the sector and what science has to offer (matching

science and practice); available knowledge may not be applied enough

4 Lack of practical applicability research outcomes (fundamental vs. applied research; short-

term versus long-term research); scientists need to be working closely together with

producers to listen carefully what the research needs are or could be in the future

5 Lack of training/education within the sector

6 On a European level, little or no structured knowledge exchange is taking place between

producers of different countries who share the same challenges

7 Regional differentiation/geographical focus – no general solutions

16


8 Research as a funding tool, not a tool to solve problems facing the sector

9 The complexity in transferring scientific knowledge: -> scientists may lack communication

tools and skills to build a bridge between the results of scientific knowledge and the needs of

the sector. Example: producers may not be confident with graphs and texts, in which case it

is better to give a demonstration

10 Language and culture thresholds (ability to communicate with colleagues in other European

countries)

11 Lack of trust among participants/lack of willingness to share knowledge because of economic

reasons

12 Direction of knowledge exchange (top down vs bottom-up)

13 Role of intermediaries in the transfer of knowledge (sometimes acting as a barrier between

producers and knowledge providers)

Opportunities

The participants were asked to discuss the opportunities that may pave the way for the efficient

transfer of knowledge between producers, scientists and other experts or stakeholders. This could be

both within those groups (for example: producers from one region sharing knowledge with

producers in other regions) or between them (for example: scientists sharing knowledge with

producers). Below is a list of the opportunities mentioned by the participants, prioritized on the basis

of the discussions and voting procedure.

1 Within the new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, the transfer of knowledge is a central

element. This provides funding opportunities for the shellfish sector;

2 Throughout Europe, several best-practices exist that can act as examples to the rest of the

sector (for example, the Fisheries Knowledge Groups and FLAGs);

3 The appointment of people who can work as intermediaries between producers, scientists

and other experts or stakeholders (local/regional/national/international);

4 Producers defining the research agenda (i.e. Aquainnova, Fisheries Knowledge Groups);

5 Pilot projects on knowledge transfer on a European scale: producers, scientists and other

experts from different regions sharing knowledge and experience on common themes

(knowledge exchange/study visits and shared projects); FLAGs/ Fisheries Knowledge Groups.

FLAGs have cooperation budgets which they can use to exchange knowledge with FLAGs in

other regions;

6 Developing indicators for the transfer of knowledge; defining benchmarks for success ->

example: the UK government checks the difference in profit before and after a project

through tax data;

7 Producers should define the research priorities together with the public authorities.

17


Threats

The participants were asked to discuss the threats that the shellfish sector is facing in terms of

successful transfer of knowledge. Below is a list of the threats mentioned by the participants.

1 Competition at national and international level hampers knowledge transfer

2 The industry usually does not identify pre-competitive knowledge explicitly

3 Public funding for shared research projects between producers and scientists usually means

that the results are also publicly available. Not all those involved would like this kind of

knowledge to be shared because of aspects related to competition.

4 There is a lack of communication between science and industry as they speak different

languages

5 Due to the financial crisis, governments are cutting down on research budgets aimed at

scientific research for the shellfish sector.

2) Extension priorities (Sarah Horsfall, SAGB and Giuseppe Prioli, AMA)

One of the main goals of the project Euroshell is to create an efficient methodology to facilitate the transfer of knowledge between the various actors in this field, and first among the producers and researchers.

Shellfish farming is a complex task, closely tied to the quality of the environment and the social and economic context in which it is exercised. The shellfish farmer sees his/her business under three complementary approaches:

1. The shellfish company: its territory / environment

Its activity is carried out on land or at sea, but we should consider as a single territory all the space where shellfish activity is practiced. This is why the management of the water must not be limited to only quality of the marine environment but to consider overall including control of hydraulics, from the watershed to the sea.

2. The company and its market

Meet current and future market needs by improving both qualitative and quantitative European production currently essentially positioned on fresh markets,

See all the possibilities of creation of added value by upgrading the current production in other markets and by the definition of new products,

Diversification and definition of new products (new species, parts of products, molecules from the products…) taking into account the opinion, request and trends of the consumers.

3. The company: its products / production

Lifecycle and biology of cultivated species, including breeding and genetics,

Technology and innovation,

Shellfish health and pathologies,

Shellfish quality, consumption and human health.

A serious policy of development and consolidation of shellfish farming can therefore only take place following a serious and thorough analysis of all issues related to the sector. Starting first from the knowledge of the individual production areas and a subsequent phase of confrontation.

18


The purpose of this first meeting was to encourage direct comparison between their different skills, such as those of production and research, based on common points of discussion. With the aim to promote the dissemination of knowledge not just one‐way: from scientific community to producers. It is also necessary to identify, analyse, enhance and disseminate empirical knowledge of shellfish farming.

To facilitate the comparison with similar projects and experiences such as Euroshell, AquaMed or Aquainnova, as a starting point to define the main topics under discussion, it is appropriate to consider thematic areas identified by EATIP (European Aquaculture Technology and innovation Platforms) in a “Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda”, a list of which is given in table 1, as much as possible the key goals and sub goals. By entering more shellfish elements and screening of the references specifically related to breeding, as all linked to administration of food and medicinal, prophylactic and their consequences for the environment and consumers.

Table 1 - The 8 thematic areas identified by EATiP

1. Product Quality, Consumer Safety and Health

2. Technology and Systems

3. Managing the biological life cycle

4. Sustainable feed production (not considered)

5. Integration with the environment

6. Knowledge Management

7. Aquatic animal health and welfare

8. Socio‐economics and management

Participants in the round tables have shared the opportunity to base the comparison starting from

EATIP issues, highlighting the goals and sub goals priority at the end of the discussion. They have also highlighted the need to integrate the themes of EATIP’s vision with other more specific ones for shellfish, such as those identified by EMPA, emphasizing the strong dependence of the conditions of the shellfish farming with the environment.

The results of the consultations are presented following the order of presentation on the “Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda”.

Product Quality, Consumer Safety and Health

It is considered as a priority the goal 2 : “Ensure the continuing safety of aquaculture products”, especially with regard to sub-goal 1: “Identify, manage and eliminate existing and potential physical, chemical and biological new hazard and emerging risks; including virus, bacteria, toxins, persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and other toxic substances” and sub-goal 2: “Make available to producers of aquaculture products user-friendly methods to monitor and control the safety of the production, targeting known and emerging hazards”.

It stresses the need to improve the exchange of information on the state of water quality among farmers and the inspection bodies.

Technology and System

It is considered as a priority the goal 2: “Meet the demand for aquaculture products in Europe by the development of efficient technologies to support continued growth”, with the sub-goal 1: “Develop technology and systems for best aquaculture site selection”, sub-goal 3 : “Develop farming equipment and operational procedures for off-shore sites” and sub-goal 5: “Develop production systems for new aquaculture products (e.g. new species, premium class and/or certified products) for changing markets”. Is below goal 3: “Ensure the profitability of the aquaculture industry by developing improved management systems and technology”, sub-goal 4: “Develop technologies for

19


improved quality of seed for all present and future production systems”. With reference to the technologies used for hatchery.

It stresses the importance of testing technologies in developing small pilot projects on shellfish farms.

Managing the Biological Lifecycle

It is considered as a priority the goal 2: “Genetic improvement of productive, health and animal welfare traits”, sub goal 2 “Develop efficient tools (genetic, molecular, genomics) or adapt existing tools from other sectors, to introduce disease resistance in breeding programmes and obtain robust animals, resistant to disease, stress, changing environment”. Is below goal 4: “Manage the lifecycle of carefully selected “new” species that have high economic importance”.

It emphasizes the need to investigate the issue of the use of triploid oysters and any risks that this might entail, for example with respect to the emergence of diseases.

Integration with the Environment

It is considered as a priority the goal 5: “Develop or adapt tools and measures in support of appropriate environmental governance for aquaculture (Tools for environmental governance)”, sub-goal 1: “Develop new planning tools and adapt existing tools used for site selection, based on ecosystem assimilative capacity and spatial planning for further aquaculture development” and sub-goal 4: “Develop techniques and procedures for quantification of environmental and ecological services provided by aquaculture farms and encourage voluntary farmer-based contributions to environmental management”.

It emphasizes that shellfish, in most cases, suffer the effects that the environment determines on it and not vice versa.

Knowledge Management

Are considered as priorities goal 2: “Ensure the availability and efficient use of aquaculture research infrastructures across all boundaries to benefit the industry” and goal 4: “Foster and build the human capital of the European aquaculture sector”.

Aquatic animal Health and Welfare

It is considered as a priority the goal 2: “Apply epidemiological principles to minimise the threat of

existing, emerging and exotic diseases”. Especially in relation to the emergence of new diseases due

to the introduction into the wild of alien pathogens through trade or the ballast water of ships. Also

important is the understanding of diseases that could be due to the effects of climate change.

Socio-Economics, Management & Governance

It is considered as a priority the goal 3: “Understand better the social and economic dimensions of

aquaculture at different scales”, is below goal 1: “Promote effective governance - establishing a

‘level playing field’ for aquaculture within and outside Europe”, and goal 2: “Establish an enabling

environment for innovation and growth to allow aquaculture to realise its full potential”. All three

goals are considered important, but it is believed that it should start from a study of the socio-

economic dimension of shellfish farming in the various production sites.

Meanwhile, the participants discussed the transfer of knowledge in itself.

20


It is recalled that knowledge can be transferred in many directions, from scientists to producers but also from producers to scientists.

It can be done at several levels: European, national, regional and local.

Knowledge cannot always be shared, especially when it comes to private research. However, when it comes to projects funded with public money, the results are public.

Roundtable on extension priorities, led by Giuseppe Prioli

WP3: Reviewing current knowledge

This work package within EUROSHELL has the principal objective of assessing the outputs of past and

on-going research projects and other information sources that can have a direct impact on the key

challenges that the sector is facing.

It was the subject of two round tables within the meeting: one looking at various information sources

that contribute to knowledge in the shellfish sector, with a view to summarizing them and making

them and their principal products or outputs available in an online database (the subject of this

report) and the second, to identify indicators to characterize the usefulness of knowledge for the

European shellfish industry.

The expected result of the work package is a web-based knowledge portal with a focus on the

outputs of the studies that is available to all and specifically targeted towards shellfish producers

(EUROSHELL Deliverable 3.5). These primary end-users can then ‘rate’ the usefulness of the outputs

by using the indicators developed.

The final EUROSHELL best practice will include recommendations to RTD organizations to continue to

update this information after the duration of the project, this providing a common repository for

knowledge as a key part of the extension network that EUROSHELL will propose.

21


3) Summarizing knowledge (Alistair Lane, EAS)

The main objectives of this round table were to:

Identify knowledge sources

Make suggestions on how to “validate” the usefulness of knowledge in grey literature

Validate the list of knowledge outputs

Validate the template for summarizing knowledge (the template is Deliverable 3.1)

Make suggestions on how the knowledge can best be presented online.

Participants were asked to review the proposed information, comment and identify missing

information and finally validate the tools that will be the basis for the construction of the web-based

knowledge portal.

Knowledge types and sources

The proposed knowledge sources are summarized in the table that follows, and which also gives

indicators of their abundance and who is responsible for sourcing them.

Initially, it was proposed that a full or partial summary might be made, so that the EUROSHELL EDC1

could then approve the document, prior to it being made into a full summary. However, the general

opinion resulting from discussion was that the EUROSHELL RTD partners would be empowered to

make this decision themselves and directly produce a full summary.

Furthermore, discussion on the meaning or definition of ‘grey literature’ implied that rather than

looking to source information from non peer-review articles or press items, the focus should be on

non published articles, i.e. those that are not in the public domain (cannot easily be accessed) and

including technical and other reports that may be sub-contracted by industry or policy makers.

Other sources of knowledge identified during the round table included:

Generic knowledge summaries or compilations. For example IFREMER has produced

summaries on the outputs of research in polyploidy, hatchery production, pathogens…

1 The Euroshell Executive and Drafting Committee (EDC), chaired by EMPA and composed of the leaders of each work

packages (CNC, EMPA, EAS, IFREMER and DLO).

Knowledge type Abundance Identification & source Summary level

EU shellfish RTD projects Low WP coordinator (EAS) Full

National shellfish RTD projects

Medium Euroshell RTD partners Partial, then full if approved

Other RTD projects High Euroshell RTD partners Partial, then full if approved

Grey literature (articles, news, …)

High All Euroshell partners Partial, then full if approved

22


Patents – often giving detailed information on precise knowledge outputs and their potential

impact, for example the European Patent Office http://www.epo.org

“Hands on” knowledge – from producers and gained through years of production experience.

In gardening or horticulture, this is often called “green figure” knowledge; maybe in

aquaculture, it should be “blue finger” knowledge.

Databases of grey literature. For example Archimer http://archimer.ifremer.fr/ or Bibliomer

http://www.bibliomer.com in France.

Other databases of national research summaries and outputs, such as the Centro

Interdipartimentale di Ricerca Ambiente (CIRAM) in Italy.

The proposed template for knowledge summaries The template that was proposed to round table participants is provided below and is based upon the

one developed during the AquaInnova2 project, as described in the EUROSHELL Description of Work.

The finalised template is provided as stand-alone deliverable of the EUROSHELL project – D 3.1.

This template is based on summaries of EU and national research projects. Only certain sections/sub-

divisions will apply to grey literature articles…

Section/sub-division Explanation

Headline information This section provides the main information on the project or article

Project logo Where applicable

Project headline title A ‘news’ headline type heading to

Full title The full (often scientific and long) title

Acronym For reference

Key words Ideally set up a list from which multiple key words can be selected (to enable searching)

Challenge and objectives

Challenge A short paragraph that puts the research into context

Core objective A short paragraph stating the principal or core objective

Sub-objectives/Key points More objectives (as a bullet point list)

Outputs

Output name (see list) Report/product/guidelines, etc….

Short description of output 2-3 lines to describe the output

Primary end user E.g. producers, scientific community, policy makers…

Secondary end users Other stakeholders for which this may be of use/relevance

Output availability Public, IP protection, available on web…

Project information

Contract number For reference

Project duration and end date E.g. 3 years to 2011

Project website www….

Coordinator Coordinator name, institute and contact details

Partners Total number, number of RTD partners; number of SME

2 http://eatip.eu/default.asp?SHORTCUT=100

http://www.epo.org/

http://archimer.ifremer.fr/

http://www.bibliomer.com/

http://eatip.eu/default.asp?SHORTCUT=100

23


partners; number of ‘other’ partners (e.g. for dissemination, communication)

Countries Number (and name) of countries involved

Financing Name of principal financing body; Total spend (or budget); amount of that total provided by financing body; amount from other bodies (where relevant); self or auto financing; % of self-funding

Feedback on the template during the round table

Most participants agreed and validated the template, with addition comments as summarized below:

It should be very clear what type of summary is presented – i.e. EU project, national RTD

project, technical report…or other source.

The template should be structured in four main parts, making it easy for producers to see its

relevance to their activities – their environment, their products and their markets. These

parts should be i) headlines – including summary title, full title, logo, and a set of key words;

ii) Challenges and outputs – showing what the project was addressing and its core objectives,

with a list of key outputs with their impact and IPR status; iii) Project information – who did

the work, when, how it was financed and who took part; and finally iv) Other useful

information with cross-references and links.

Several participants commented on the fact that financial data may be ‘sensitive’, while

others agreed that it showed some idea of ‘scale’.

Knowledge outputs A long list of knowledge outputs was proposed – also based on those used for the AquaInnova

project. It is shown here, with short descriptions of each:

Book/Review

o A book, chapter or scientific review to update knowledge in a specific area - this

would include Workshop Proceedings.

Report

o A document which presents information/project findings – and would include

Brochures/Press releases etc.

Scientific Publication

o A peer reviewed journal article.

Software/Modeling tool

o A program designed to accomplish a specific task, for example in modeling or for

management.

Case Studies

o Studies that show use/application/cost - benefit of new technology or methodology.

Prototype

24


o Prototype or pilot product or piece of equipment for use by scientific community or

industry.

Product

o A 'finished' product/piece of equipment for use by industry.

Training Activities/Learning Modules

o Specifically for educational purposes - teaching material, online/distance learning,

training course - would include the holding of workshops.

Services/Tools

o Includes Database/Directory, Networks of excellence, datasets, GIS, reference

materials, mapping tools etc.

Guidelines/Standards

o Contribute to streamlining/harmonizing of process, methods, materials, system.

RTD Protocols/Technical Manuals

o Communication designed to assist in experiment design or to assist in the use of

tools/systems.

Multimedia

Feedback on knowledge outputs during the round table

Most participants agreed and validated the list of knowledge outputs, with addition comments as

summarized below:

The list is too long, and should be sub-divided into sections that can form the basis of ‘drop-

down’ lists on the web portal. These sub-divisions should be i) technology and

demonstration; ii) science (need better title – maybe empirical knowledge?); iii)

communications and user community; iv) support to policy and v) learning, with an

emphasis on education and training.

Conference session summaries and other generic or compiled information should also be

included (under book/review?).

Multimedia could also include blogs or vlogs (video blogs or video collections).

Patents are also valid outputs (could be included as an IPR status on prototypes, products,

but also in protocols or methodology….).

Web portals or thematic discussion groups or other online communities could also be

considered as outputs (but not individual project web sites).

Summary of the round table and next steps The participants in the round table provided valuable feedback to allow the development of the

template and the validation of the web knowledge portal. This is important, and many of the industry

participants will be the primary users of such information.

25


Within EUROSHELL, it is now important to

1. Finalize the online template and develop the database, with clear instructions to the project

RTD partners on how to use it.

2. Give partners 2-3 months to identify information and populate the database, understanding

clearly that with the resources (person, months) available within EUROSHELL, it will not be

possible to summarize all available knowledge, but select most important outputs that are

considered relevant to the profession and hence provide the extension network model that

EUROSHELL is developing.

3. Focus on the physical presentation of the portal, making it simple to search, with clear text

and photos where possible and possibly linked to the mapping exercise being developed as

part of work package 4.

4. Reach the milestone of having a functioning web portal on the EUROSHELL and EMPA

websites that can be mirrored by national and regional producer organizations.

4) Defining indicators for studies (Angeles Longa Portabales, CRMG)

This round table looked to identify and determine indicators that characterize scientific studies and

highlight their relevance to the European shellfish industry. To do so, a list of potential indicators was

presented, and was then supplemented, validated and prioritized by the participants.

General question What indicators are relevant to characterize scientific studies in accordance with the interests of the

European shellfish sector?

Main objectives - To validate and prioritize the main indicators, - To validate the list of outputs for each one, - To identify new important indicator that is missing and its list of outputs.

Questions asked in this work table

- How many indicators? 5 or 10

- Missing indicators? Yes / no; if yes, which ones?

- Priority level? Scoring indicators from the list according to priority

- List of outputs appropriate for each indicator?

Participants were first informed that the aim of the work table was to identify a simple set of

indicators on which to assess the interest, for the shellfish sector, of the different research projects.

Such identifiers must demonstrate the main features of the project, allowing shellfish farmers to

rapidly determine if a project has interest to their activities and addresses the problems that they

face.

26


Participants were then asked to determine the appropriate number of indicators. They agreed on 10

indicators. Several indicators were suggested and participants discussed briefly about the relative

importance of each.

Table 1.- Proposed indicators by the table work

coordinator.

1. Who is the promoter?

2. Is Industry committed to the project?

3. What is its territorial scope?

4. How is Industry associated?

5. What time is applicable for the sector?

6. What are the species?

7. What kind of study?

8. What enterprises’ facet is affected?

9. What is the field of knowledge covered?

10. What type of result is generated?

11. Who are the end users?

Participants were reminded that, as part of Euroshell project, a database will be made with

detailed information on the projects and that simple tool would be required that allows the primary

end users to assess the projects in accordance with the interests of the European shellfish sector.

It was also noted in all the tables that it would be appropriate that indicators allow us to

assess both completed and on-going or even future projects. This caused surprise in one of the

participant groups, commenting that the indicators used to evaluate completed projects and project

proposals are totally different. However, none of the other five participant groups raised this issue.

From the discussions in the various tables, new potential indicators were identified and listed

in the following table.

Table 2.- New indicators proposed by the

participants.

12. Is this project necessary for the industry?

27


13. Can the project results be used by the industry?

14. What impact has the project?

15. Does the project generate an economic return?

16. What is the current state of development?

17. Are the results reported to the industry?

18. What was the size of its funding?

All participants voted on the proposed indicators list. To make the vote, 10 stickers of

different colors, depending on their professional category [science - yellow; industry - red; expert -

green; FLAG - blue] were provided to participants and they wrote the numbers from 1 to 10, in

increasing order of priority.

Below is the total result of the vote and the result by professional category.

Figure 1.- Results of all votes. The list of indicators is detailed in the tables 1 and 2.

The five main indicators were rated in order of priority: 11, 2, 10, 4 and 6 (all over 200

points), and it generally has to do with the involvement of industry in the project. The following 5

best indicators (9, 1, 7, 3 and 8) mainly concern the nature of the study and the facet of the company

that it affects. From the initial list, the indicator that won fewer votes is the number 5 which refers to

the time frame in which the project's results are applicable to the sector. Finally, new indicators

identified by the participants had fewer votes because they could not be voted on by all participants.

Evaluation of the indicators

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

nº indicator

po

ints

28


Figure 2.- Results of the vote by professional category. The list of indicators is detailed in

the tables 1 and 2.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

po

ints

nº indicator

science

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

po

ints

nº indicator

industria

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

po

ints

nº indicator

expert

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

po

ints

nº indicator

FLAG

29


After the vote, participants validated the outputs for all the identified indicators. The list is shown

below:

1. Who is the promoter?

Academic / shellfish industry / other aquaculture industry / administration / others

2. Is Industry committed to the project?

No / from its origin / invited by scientists / invited by the administration / invited by the

other partners / participation was requested

3. Which is its territorial scope?

National / European / third countries

4. How Industry is associated?

Not involved / active partner involved in the study / results receiver

5. What time period may be applied by the sector?

Short / medium / long term

6. Species?

Oysters / Mussels / Clams / Scallops / Others

7. What kind of study?

Academic / applied / twice

8. What facet of the enterprise is affected?

Environment‐territory / product or production / market

9. What is the field of knowledge covered?

Human health / food security / animal health / socioeconomic / market / environment / zoo

technical aspects / zoogenic aspects / processing / management / technology and system

10. What type of result is generated?

(This list was analyzed in the table “Summarizing knowledge”)

11. Who are the end users?

Shellfish Industry / other aquaculture Industry / Policy Makers‐Decision Makers / Scientific

Community / Environmental monitoring agencies / others

12. Is this project necessary for the industry?

Yes / No

13. Can the results be used by the industry?

Yes /No

14. What impact has the project?

Important / medium / low / null

30


15. Does the project generate an economic return?

Yes / No

16. What is its state of development?

Proposed /in progress / finished

17. Are the results reported to the industry?

Yes / no / partially

18. What was the size of its funding?

Less than half a million Euros / between half a million and one million Euros / between 1 and

2 million Euros / over two million Euros

WP4 : Extension tools

5) Mapping the sector (Catherine Satra-Lebris et Jean Prou, IFREMER)

The round table “Mapping the sector” concerns the Work package 4 “Tools for an extension network” which aims at mapping the sector by linking the producers and users of knowledge on interactive maps. The participants had 45 minutes to exchange on some key points related to the mapping. Shellfish production areas, shellfish farmer's organizations, research bodies, technical centers, FLAGs have to be mapped. Questions The first question relates to the degree of geographical precision that has to be reached and how to define it. European (EU), national (countries), regional (regions), local (cities) levels are well known by all partners but some (biologists, farmers' organizations) use environmental level as bays, rivers, sounds, rias, lagoons, etc. How to deal with these two ways for mapping? Is this question relevant? Are shellfish producers more comfortable with one view? Is it necessary to establish links between the two? The second question relates to how to define each mapped object. Shellfish farmers, research bodies, developers have their own properties which permit to relate them together in order to identify links or gaps. What are for each partner the more relevant characteristics to be included in the database?

Shellfish farms: size, cultivated species, rearing technology, market (local, to export).....

Shellfish farming production areas: number of farms, pollution or sanitary constraints, number of hatcheries, number of technical centers, fishing activity...

Shellfish farmers' organizations: area concerned, number of farms, public funding...

Technical centers (knowledge transfer and technology development): concerned area, species, technologies, public/private...

Applied and academic research : size, studied species, scientific disciplines, knowledge transfer programs, fundings (EU, national, regional, private/public)…

31


The third question relates to the WP2 (validation of methodology, knowledge transfer through an extension network) and identifies the way to map the « structural difficulties » encountered along the continuous line from knowledge production to knowledge use, from knowledge producers to knowledge users. The forth question relates to the availability and property of the data. What is the degree of precision of data or maps that you are able to deliver and what is the availability in term of property (private, public...)? Is the owner of the data or maps clearly identified? Minutes The degree of geographical precision of the different maps has been debated in each group and the following remarks were made:

Administrative and geomorphological levels are the most relevant. A bay, a ria, a loch, an estuary seem to be important for both scientists and producers in order to complete the administrative level. The geomorphological level seems also to be the most suitable to connect coastal and watershed characteristics.

The degree of precision is also constrained by the type of official data that must be implemented by each country (location of each farm)

The groups emphasized their needs for very precise data but did not highlight precisely what data are relevant in the frame of the project Euroshell. It reveals the large demand for geographic information on the sector.

It is suggested that the GIS will document first the European and national level The second question concerns the type of requested geographic information.

The same conclusion comes out: producers need a lot of information concerning economic data but also the quality of the environment and regulations. The same question arises: what type of data is relevant in the frame of the project? The following text illustrates this high need for information with a priority on real-time information on water quality :

32


The data concerning research institute necessitates a simple language which can be easily understood by producers in order to link their needs and the research results A continuous line between academic research and empirical knowledge has to be drawn in order to take into account the diversity in knowledge features. The following graph illustrates this debated point.

33


The question relating to the mapping of the structural difficulties has been no longer documented by the groups. The gap is well identified but its mapping is difficult to imagine. Distance between research centers and producers could be taken into account. The following step of the project could offer the opportunity to go forward on this topic.

The forth question about the availability of the data relies to the question of what data are made compulsory by Europe or each country. For the other data, restricted access would be needed for entering the GIS.

In addition to these questions, participants evoked the mapping of the training centers.

6) Visual roadmap for research, (David Jarrad, SAGB)

This round-table aimed at defining a visual roadmap of research. This graphical user interface is based on the Strategic Research Roadmap and Innovation Agenda of EATIP/AQUAINNOVA which establishes eight thematic areas: product quality, consumer safety and health ; technology and systems ; managing the biological lifecycle ; integration with the environment ; knowledge management ; socio-economics and management. The first question relates to the type of entry in the graphical user interface. The first screen would ask what the user is interested in. The participants were asked to define the main topics they would like to explore on this first screen:

position (farmer, scientist, investor, representatives, state, NGO…)

species (mussel, oyster…)

country (SP, IT, FR,…)

thematic area (Product quality, Consumer Safety & Health, …)

34


Done, to be done (present, future…)

Key goals

else…..

The second question relates to the type of user. Who can access to the roadmap? (scientists, farmers, organizations, state representatives, education, market, …).

General comments

Scientists do not know what producers want to know and producers do not know what scientists are

working on. This roadmap will therefore conciliate supply and demand of knowledge.

Furthermore, it is important that physical meetings are organized between producers and

researchers to facilitate communication.

Producers do not need to know all the details of the study. The focus must be done on the key points

and conclusions of research in a visual form, so that producers can easily and quickly understand the

results of the study.

In addition, the results should be explained in a clear and understandable language. Who could make

this simplification? In the world of research, the more a study is complicated, the more it is

recognized. The more the language used is complex, the more the scientist is valued.

An effort should be made to provide key elements that are production-oriented, relevant to the

industry.

The translation of studies in order to disseminate them beyond the borders will be a problem. Only

the summary could be translated.

Can issues be transposed from one place to another? A study is often valuable to a given time and

place.

How to access the information? Internet, publications, mobile platforms, newsletters? Or RSS feeds

that offer the possibility to select the information one needs.

For some specific cases, it is important to go into the field to see how the producers work.

Research projects’ titles could be listed on the Internet platform and each week for example,

producers could vote for the information they need.

F] Next steps, Bruno Guillaumie

WP2 (validation of the methodology, knowledge transfer through a network extension) will create models and methodology that will identify best practices in terms of knowledge transfer, and make final recommendations to be transferred to shellfish stakeholders.

35


WP3 (reviewing current knowledge) will seek to compile RTD projects by thematic area and include them in the online database. WP4 (extension tools) will collect data to map the area and define the roadmap for research. Meanwhile, as part of WP5, regional forums will be organized in each partner country: three in France, one in Ireland, one in Spain, one in Italy, one in the Netherlands. These forums will bring together local shellfish stakeholders (producers, scientists, extension workers, administrative representatives ...) to discuss the tools, to define a common vision for the sector and to discuss on the implementation of an extension network. A collaborative tool is set up to allow partners to share their work. In addition, a website is created specifically for the project: www.euroshell-fp7.eu

Attendees to Euroshell’s first stakeholders’ meeting

http://www.euroshell-fp7.eu/

Documents

Report of the first - Euroshell