Colin Adams
(University of Glasgow Scottish Centre for Ecology & the Natural Environment): "Introduction to IBIS" mailto:[email protected] |
|
Geoffrey O'Sullivan
(Marine Institute): "EU funding opportunities for ocean observation, modelling and prediction in the North Atlantic Area" mailto:[email protected] |
|
Fred Whoriskey
(Dalhousie University, Canada): "Creation of a new biological global ocean observing system on the movements and survival of aquatic animals: The role of the Ocean Tracking Network (OTN)" mailto:[email protected] |
|
Richard Vallée
(VEMCO, Bedford, Nova Scotia, Canada): "New technology developments for understanding spatial and temporal activity patterns of fish in nature" mailto:[email protected] |
|
|
John Armstrong
Donna-Claire Hunter (Marine Scotland): "Research requirements in the context of offshore renewables" mailto:[email protected] mailto:[email protected] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
WORKSHOP OUTCOMES
As may be seen from the presentations, the workshop brought together a wide range of experience and expertise in the area of ocean tracking. This spanned a wide range of programmes from trans-ocean initiatives to localised, near shore, bay or estuarine programmes. It was clear from the presentations and the detailed discussions, that the technology has reached a point where it can now be used to tackle some of the more apparently intractable problems relating to migration patterns and factors influencing marine mortality of fish at sea.
From a salmon perspective it was suggested that we should aim for a dual-track approach to tracking, with NASCO co-ordinating larger scale, high seas arrays and smaller scale projects covering in-shore areas and estuaries. It will be important to have a range of small-scale projects to complement the larger scale work.
While an array designed to cover only salmonids, would probably produce the best results, multi-species arrays, covering fish and cetaceans, are likely to be more cost-effective, and easier to fund. It will, however, be important for systems to be designed from the outset to cover the full range of species and for all involved to participate in the design. Adding coverage of a species to an array designed for another species is likely to be less effective.
Good co-ordination with all those potentially interested in tracking systems is essential. Plymouth University has a Biotelemetry Group, which should be contacted. Overall co-ordination is probably best done through EuroGOOS, so that tracking becomes part of an integrated oceanic observation system. CEFAS (England) and the Marine Institute (Ireland) are members, and this could be explored through their representatives.
The costs and scale of data analysis should not be underestimated, and this needs to be taken into account at the project design stage. This could be a particular issue for small scale projects (which will still produce a large amount of data). A mechanism is needed to integrate data from small scale projects with that acquired from larger scale programmes.
It will be important to ensure that adequate training in tracking techniques and familiarisation with tracking technologies is made available. As well as short-term training for those actively involved in tracking projects, training should be included in relevant under- and post-graduate courses and further education courses (e.g. Institute of Fisheries Management) to ensure a supply of trained personnel in the future. Training will also be needed on the surgical implant techniques for tags (which must be carried out under an appropriate licence).
Marine renewables programmes represent major opportunities for tracking projects, both as a source of funding and as bases for receivers. These opportunities need to be explored as a matter of urgency.
Small scale projects will present particular challenges. We should develop a comprehensive list of possible partners and projects, with contact details. We should also consider ways of encouraging schemes; one problem might be high capital costs for what might be short term projects.
In terms of sourcing EU or other national / international funding it was recommended that those seeking funding should:
As may be seen from the presentations, the workshop brought together a wide range of experience and expertise in the area of ocean tracking. This spanned a wide range of programmes from trans-ocean initiatives to localised, near shore, bay or estuarine programmes. It was clear from the presentations and the detailed discussions, that the technology has reached a point where it can now be used to tackle some of the more apparently intractable problems relating to migration patterns and factors influencing marine mortality of fish at sea.
From a salmon perspective it was suggested that we should aim for a dual-track approach to tracking, with NASCO co-ordinating larger scale, high seas arrays and smaller scale projects covering in-shore areas and estuaries. It will be important to have a range of small-scale projects to complement the larger scale work.
While an array designed to cover only salmonids, would probably produce the best results, multi-species arrays, covering fish and cetaceans, are likely to be more cost-effective, and easier to fund. It will, however, be important for systems to be designed from the outset to cover the full range of species and for all involved to participate in the design. Adding coverage of a species to an array designed for another species is likely to be less effective.
Good co-ordination with all those potentially interested in tracking systems is essential. Plymouth University has a Biotelemetry Group, which should be contacted. Overall co-ordination is probably best done through EuroGOOS, so that tracking becomes part of an integrated oceanic observation system. CEFAS (England) and the Marine Institute (Ireland) are members, and this could be explored through their representatives.
The costs and scale of data analysis should not be underestimated, and this needs to be taken into account at the project design stage. This could be a particular issue for small scale projects (which will still produce a large amount of data). A mechanism is needed to integrate data from small scale projects with that acquired from larger scale programmes.
It will be important to ensure that adequate training in tracking techniques and familiarisation with tracking technologies is made available. As well as short-term training for those actively involved in tracking projects, training should be included in relevant under- and post-graduate courses and further education courses (e.g. Institute of Fisheries Management) to ensure a supply of trained personnel in the future. Training will also be needed on the surgical implant techniques for tags (which must be carried out under an appropriate licence).
Marine renewables programmes represent major opportunities for tracking projects, both as a source of funding and as bases for receivers. These opportunities need to be explored as a matter of urgency.
Small scale projects will present particular challenges. We should develop a comprehensive list of possible partners and projects, with contact details. We should also consider ways of encouraging schemes; one problem might be high capital costs for what might be short term projects.
In terms of sourcing EU or other national / international funding it was recommended that those seeking funding should:
- Prepare a one to two page summary of what needs to be done in the tracking area and the resources / infrastructure required: e.g. research, infrastructures, networking, coordination/cooperation, etc
- Review in detail available funding opportunities and programmes (national/EU): e.g. the next round of the Ireland /Wales INTERREG Programme is currently being planned and researchers should send a summary of relevant tracking topics to, for example, Regional Authorities (BMW/S&E) with respect to INTERREG, outlining the topic(s) to be addressed (referencing relevance to Integrated Marine Policy, Atlantic Action Plan, the EU Blue Growth initiative); seek relevant information from the national authorities who administer the EU LIFE Programme, referencing relevance to the EU Integrated Maritime Policy, Atlantic Action Plan, Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Water Framework Directive)
- In the case of the Horizon 2020 applications, consider bringing in (a) partner to carry out socio-economic assessments on impacts and (b) a partner to assist with dissemination / technology transfer. All applications will need an SME / industry partner. It is a great advantage to have a number of national delegates to support / promote your theme within the relevant EU Commissions.
- If your project has particular needs in relation to data analysis you might consider recruiting PhDs/Post-docs to analyse the data. In this context consider a Marie Curie Training Programme Grant to recruit/train and relocate the trainees between the participating Research/Training Centres.
- If your project has a commercial partner who needs to up-grade/ improve some technical equipment and one of your research partners feels they have the expertise to this, you might seek funding under the Research for the Benefit of SMEs initiative.