Published on

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


  1. 1. Aqua By-Products 1-04 AL Joe McElwee IFA Aquaculture
  2. 2. Aqua By-Products 1-04 AL Joe McElwee Partners IFA Aquaculture Irish Farmers’ Association (IFA) Aquaculture – Lead CIMA – Centro de Investigacions Marinas NSL Norsk Sjombedrifters Landsforening
  3. 3. Aqua By-Products 1-04 AL Joe McElwee Objectives IFA Aquaculture To compile a databank of information on waste management suppliers, facilities and consultants to provide an electronic ”one-stop shop” for aquaculture and processing companies. to find appropriate outlets for by- products of their business,within national and EU regulations. The project aims to benefit both sectors by increasing awareness, communication and networking possibilities through the Internet over an economically and geographically diverse sector. Objective and targets: To optimise the range and volume of by-products from the aquaculture industry that are re-used or recycled by: ■ Increasing awareness among the industry of the potential outlets for its by-products ■ Increase awareness in the by-product processing sector of raw materials available ■ To encourage the development, improvement and dissemination of techniques and technology to re-use and recycle by products ■ To develop a trans-national and inter-regional network of raw material and solution suppliers via a central database which is updated regularly
  4. 4. “With the waste industry worth €1.2 ! Billion, coupled with new laws for recycling and product development, we should seriously examine all possible avenues of waste disposal and recycling/regeneration, including both Organic and Inorganic waste items.” Waste Meeting-Sunday Business Post -Jan 2006
  5. 5. “We have moved from a hump and dump ! industry to huge investment in new products, markets and technology. There is an increasingly sophisticated and technical approach to waste management, with a focus on compliance and regulation” Irish Waste Industry View Conference 2006
  6. 6. Has the website been successful ! Over 5,000 Hits Definite Irish Industry ! ! Interest From all around the world ! Quantification of Waste ! Huge European Interest ! necessary New Technology & ! Irish companies proposal ! information becoming for business with Partners available Government/Agency ! New Grant Aid Schemes ! support and vision from Irish Government Logistic’s & Management ! of waste
  7. 7. The way forward! Need to continue the successful web site ! Assess and quantify Irish Production of Waste ! This will require further significant funding for ! Administration and Operation of website Examine further “Partnership” projects/business with ! industry Waste Companies in Ireland Look at the future European developments in both ! regulatory and monetary implications with regards to waste Establish links with new industry/products that utilise our ! waste, ie Cosmetics & Plastics
  8. 8. Assess a project with significant business potential ! between the three partners Entice & encourage Waste company participation ! between the three partner countries Use the geographical diversity to develop the ! aquaculture waste byproduct industry We have achieved exposure, divested much ! knowledge, established many serious business contacts… lets take it to the next step!
  9. 9. Business on a real Scale
  10. 10. FORUM AquaReg May 2006 MODIFIED ATMOSPHERE PACKAGING FOR COLD CHAIN MODIFIED ATMOSPHERE PACKAGING FOR COLD CHAIN TRANSPORT OF FRESH MUSSEL OVER SHORT AND LONG TRANSPORT OF FRESH MUSSEL OVER SHORT AND LONG DISTANCES DISTANCES (Project ID: 2-05 AL, AquaGair) Participants Centro Tecnológico del Mar- Fundación CETMAR Centro Tecnológico del Mar- Fundación CETMAR (Galicia) (Galicia) Marine Research Institute IIM-CSIC (Galicia) Marine Research IIM-CSIC (Galicia) Letterkenny Institute of Technology LYIT (Ireland) Letterkenny Collaboration: OPMEGA (Galician Mussels Producers Association) Collaboration: OPMEGA (Galician Mussels Producers Association)
  11. 11. 1. Project Aims • Use of Modified Atmosphere Packaging (MAP) technologies to extend the shelf life of fresh mussels in hermetic packaging. •Design and optimization of in-pack gas atmosphere in order to obtain maximum survival of packed mussels. –active atmosphere modification, high barrier films, to achieve maximum benefits in a short time. –comparison of viability of MAP mussels to air packed mussels –the effect of different in-pack oxygen concentrations on mussels survival and determination of optimum in-pack gas concentrations –the effect of temperature on mussel survival •Transfer of optimised MAP system to other geographical varieties and to study the effect of MAP in Galician mussel (Mytillus galloprovincialis) and Irish mussel (Mytillus edulis), defining optimum survival conditions for both species. •Determine the effect of different MAP conditions on Quality Indices • Verify mussel survival rates and quality through the cold chain.
  12. 12. 2. Results: Effect of O2 concentration and temperature 60 50 % Mortality 65% 40 75% 30 85% 20 Air 10 0 1 3 6 8 10 Storage Time (Days) Mortality rates of bottom mussels stored at 7-8°C 4 65% % Mortality 3 75% 85% 2 Air Sample 1 0 1 3 6 8 10 Storage Time (Days) Mortality rates of bottom mussels stored at 2-3°C
  13. 13. 2. Results: The effect of O2 concentration on rope mussels 6 65% 5 75% % Mortality 4 85% 3 Air 2 1 0 2 5 7 9 Storage Tim e (days) Mortality Rates of rope mussels stored at 2-3°C
  14. 14. 2. Results: The Effect of Cold Transport Irish mussels 40 Air 35 MAP 30 Air transport MAP transport 25 % mortality 20 Galician mussels 15 40 10 Air 35 5 MAP Air transport 30 0 MAP transport 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 25 Days % mortality 20 15 10 5 0 % mortality after cold % mortality cold 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Days transport (storage 2°C) transport (storage 2°C)
  15. 15. 2. Results: The Effect of TemperatureTransport 35 Control w ithout transport 6ºC Transport 3,5 ºC 30 Transport 10ºC 25 20 % mortality 15 10 1ºC 5 Galician mussels 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Days
  16. 16. 2. Results: Quality Organoleptic Characteristics: Mussels stored in high oxygen and low temperature performed better than mussels stored in air and higher temperatures. Microbiological Quality: Tests: VRBA at 44°C and 32°C, PCA at 4°C and 35°C In general microbiological quality seems to improve with MAP, however results are inconclusive
  17. 17. 3. Conclusions: •Mussels stored at lower temperatures have longer shelf lives. •Mussels stored under high oxygen concentrations have a longer shelf life than those stored in air, as reflected by better sensory ratings and lower mortality rates. •Mussels stored at 85% oxygen have a longer shelf life than those stored at lower oxygen concentrations, as reflected by better sensory ratings and lower mortality rates. •Rope mussels react at least as well to high oxygen MAP as bottom farmed mussels. •Mussels stored under MAP conditions are suitable for cold-chain transport •Microbial analysis of high oxygen MAP mussels is inconclusive.
  18. 18. BIOPURALG: reducing the environmental impact of land based aquaculture through cultivation of seaweeds Stefan Kraan Irish Seaweed Centre, Martin Ryan Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland SINTEF, Fisheries and Aquaculture, NO-7465 TRONDHEIM, Norway Oyster Creek Seafoods Limited, Maree, Oranmore, County Galway, Ireland
  19. 19. Introduction • Discharge of nutrients from land based finfish and shellfish culitivation systems. • Major concern everywhere. • Marine algae can act as bio-filters and remove pollutants producing a clean waste water effluent. • The principle is to direct effluent water from rearing ponds into tanks in which unattached seaweeds are maintained in permanent motion using aeration. • This allows for the production of value added seaweed biomass • Sources for cosmetics, pharmaceutical, fine chemicals, biomedicines, food and animal feed
  20. 20. • Protein is the principal source of nitrogenous pollution in fish and shellfish aquaculture, either from excess feed or excretions and reaches the water, mainly as dissolved ammonia • The removal of this pollution is possible using marine algae as bio-filters. • The SME partners in this project is concerned of the levels in his discharge water from the oyster holding units. • Introduction of a seaweed bio-filter can resolve his problem while producing another value added product, i.e., seaweed biomass.
  21. 21. Main objectives • Design and set up seaweed biofilter system for land based fin- fish hatchery and for Oyster and mussel holding unit • Optimum species evaluation • Testing the ability of the chosen species to strip N and P from (discharge) waters • Measuring protein levels in cultivated species and comparisons with similar species from pristine areas • Measuring biomass of the cultivated seaweeds • Screen cultivated seaweed species for bioactivity against fish and human pathogens • Explore applications of the harvestable algal biomass for the development of food, animal feed and pharmaceuticals
  22. 22. What species? • Choice of species • 13 of 29 recent investigations have used Ulva as the experimental seaweed in integrated systems. The only commercial scale seaweed-based integrated fish & abalone farm in operation uses Ulva as a biofilters to remove nutrients from the water and also as feed for the Abalone. However, other algae may be better candidates, both as biofilters and as a value-added secondary product. • Experience with Palmaria and Asparagopsis • The red alga Porphyra was chosen for the first trials in this project.
  23. 23. Pros and cons Pros • High production and nutrient accumulation • Valuable pigments • Excellent Abalone and Urchin feed • Different species available at different times Cons • Seasonality • Temperature sensitivity • Loss of tissue with onset of reproduction
  24. 24. Methods • Seaweed Biofilter system • A cascading tank system (3m3 – 2m3 – 1m3) was supplied with UV-treated effluent water from the fin-fish hatchery at MRI Carna • Seaweed tanks were stocked with field collected Porphyra at a density of ~0.5 kg m-³ (1.5, 1 and 0.5 kg resp.) • Thalli were kept in motion by vigorous aeration. Biomass was removed from the tanks weekly and the wet weight measured. Tanks were restocked at the original stocking density after measurement. • Water temperature and light intensity were continuously monitored using in-situ dataloggers. .
  25. 25. • A second larger system established at Oyster Creek New design of Bio-filter tanks: Two tank-systems installed • Total capacity of biofilter 24 m3 • Header tank 120 m3 • Stocking densities 5,1.5 and 1 kg
  26. 26. Nutrient measurements • Ammonia, Nitrate, Nitrite and Phosphate • Chemical reaction and measured spectrophotometrically • Protein (Kjeldahl)
  27. 27. Antibacterial activity • Antibacterial activity of biofilter species • Bacterial inhibition was evaluated as growth inhibition of specific test bacteria by the agar diffusion method. • Two bacteria isolated from diseased cod juveniles; Listonella anguillarum (HI610) and Marinomonas sp. Were used. • Sterile 6 mm paper discs were treated with 2 x 25 µl of seaweed- extract or solvent (negative control) and allowed to dry between each addition. • Discs were thereafter applied to agar plates seeded with 100 µl of 24 h culture of test bacteria and incubated (20°C). Inhibition zones (radius from discs in mm) were registered after 24 hours.
  28. 28. Results • Initial results have shown that Porphyra can be used successfully as a biofilter for removing excess nutrient from Irish land-based aquaculture operations. • A significant reduction in ammonia, phosphate and nitrate has been achieved in the initial trial. • Yields of up to 34 gFW m-2 day-1 were achieved but this decreased as the temperature rose. • Therefore over summer months Ulva as biofilter
  29. 29. Nutrient reduction in mg/l 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 NH4 in NH4 out NO2 in NO2 out NO3 in NO3 out PO4 PO4
  30. 30. -2 -1 Average Monthly Yield Ulva (gFW m day ) 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 2 R = 0.3373 5.00 0.00 july aug sept oct nov
  31. 31. Tank 1 Tank 2 Tank 3
  32. 32. Nutrient reduction in mg/l 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 NH4 in NH4 out NO2 in NO2 out NO3 in NO3 out PO4 PO4
  33. 33. Average nutrient removal using Porphyra and Ulva 100 Ulva Porphyra 80 60 40 20 0 NH4 NO2 NO3 PO4
  34. 34. Average nutrient removal using Porphyra and Ulva per unit yield of algae 7 Ulva Porphyra 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NH4 NO2 NO3 PO4
  35. 35. Bioactivity of crude extracts
  36. 36. Initial Protein results • Protein levels increased slightly with an average of 5-10% • Ulva around 30% of dry weight compared to 20- 25% in species from pristine sites • Porphyra around 35% compared to 25-30% in wild species • More samples to be analysed
  37. 37. Other achieved outputs • New linkages and enterprise contacts: Contact made with other land-based aquaculture operations interested in the technology (e.g. Abalone producers) • Planning for related proposal with current and other international partners • New design of Bio-filter tanks: Two tank-systems installed and being tested • New products : ! Bio-active compounds, Bioactive properties identified in crude extracts ! High protein abalone and urchin feed
  38. 38. Major problems encountered • Planning permission – 1.6 year delay for Oyster Creek • DHL – Samples for Sintef (frozen seaweeds) stuck in customs. Happened twice (10 days and 31 days) with winter and spring samples
  39. 39. Conclusions • Porphyra dioica is a suitable species for use as a biofilter under Irish conditions • A consistent harvest of excess material was obtained, although the yield dropped as temperatures increased. This fall off in biomass production would suggest that this species is not the most suitable during the summer • Trials using the green alga, Ulva lactuca, has proven to be suitable over the summer and autumn period • Ulva proved to be a good nutrient scrubber and a consistent harvest of excess material was obtained. The potential benefits of using other species is also being considered • Cultivated seaweed biomass can be used for other products • Ammonia and nitrate can be stripped from the water using the dual species system at rates varying from 60% up to 90% of the nutrient input and Phosphate at 40% removal
  40. 40. Conclusions • Antibiotic activity against fish and human pathogens has been observed in both Ulva, Palmaria and Porphyra extracts. • The results show that seaweed biofilters can be used in land based aquaculture systems to clean waste water streams while providing a value added product. • Under Irish conditions it is suggested to use a biofilter system with Porphyra from October to April and Ulva from May to September for the highest rate of nutrient removal from land-based aquaculture waste water streams.
  41. 41. Challenges • Proving feasibility at commercial scale • Ensuring economic viability of the technology • To do this we need the opportunity to test the large system at Oyster Creek (extension?)
  42. 42. Thank you for your attention
  43. 43. CARRASEA Approach to a sustainable exploitation of carrageen seaweed resources in Galicia and Ireland Assesing the state of populations of the carrageenan producing red algae in Galicia and Ireland comparing the population dynamics of exploited and unexploited populations •LPP D.X .Recursos Mariños (Galicia) •PP CETMAR (Galicia), USC (Galicia), Irish Seaweed Centre (MRI-NUIG) (BMW) AQUALINK
  44. 44. Background Similarities Galicia: !Carrageenan extraction industry !Carrageen industry !Decline in harvest (1200 T in 70s !Poor knowledge about resource to 225 T in 2005) !Resources are under exploited !Harvesting unchanged BMW: !Decline in harvest !Health food markets and !Demand higher than supply. seavegetable sector !Decline in harvest (300 T in 60s to 40 !Sustainability?? T in 2005) Main goal: Development of resource management knowledge to support the sustainable exploitation of carrageen moss.
  45. 45. Main activities: !Assessment of the current state of the carrageen harvesting sector in Ireland (Galway-BMW) and Galicia. !Assessment of the impact of harvesting activity on the population of seaweeds of interest (recovery and productivity). !Study of the dynamics of the carrageenophyte populations. !Quantitative and qualitative analysis of carrageen production. !Study of the genetic variability.
  46. 46. Assessment of the current state of the carrageen harvesting sector 1) Carragen harvesting laws: BMW: Foreshore Act. Galicia: Ley Pesca; Decreto 423. 2) Harvesting licence requirements: BMW: Seaweed harvesting- Foreshore licence (DoC,M&NR). Galicia: “Explotation plain” (CPAM). 3) Profile of Harvesters: BMW: Mostly people over 40. Galicia: Mostly people over 40. 4) Main activity of harvesters: BMW: farmers or inshore fishermen. Galicia: shellfishers or farmers. 5) Harvesters number: BMW: 100? Galicia: 500? 6) T/year harvested: BMW: 40 T/year DW (2005). Galicia: 225 T/year DW (2005). 7) Main markets: BMW: Sea-vegetable / healthfood market, cosmetic. Galicia: Carrageen extraction 8) Price/kg: BMW: 2.5 to 3.2 €/kg (DW). Galicia: 0.75 €/kg (DW). 9) Level of organization: BMW: Individual and occasional activity, co-op formation encouraged. Galicia: Fishermen association and harvesters ` commissioned by processing industry
  47. 47. Threats ! Lack of harvesters. ! Lack of interest in younger generations. ! Lack of business diversity. ! Low price. ! Cheap imports and competition. ! Pollution. ! Impact of invasive species.
  48. 48. TARGET SPECIES Common name: Irish/carrageen moss, “liquen” Chondrus crispus Mastocarpus stellatus
  49. 49. Life cycle of Chondrus crispus Carposoporphytes Exploited phases: Male Gametophyte Gametophytes and Female Tetrasporophytes. Gametophyte Carpospores Tetraspores Mastocarpus stellatus Only gametophyte phase is Tetrasporophyte exploited. Tetrasporophyte is a microscopic encrusting thallus. Life cycle of Chondrus from Chen and Mc Lachlan (1972)
  50. 50. SAMPLING AREAS 4 sites around Galway bay with different wave exposure. For 3 sites: on the North (Cantabric Sea), each site, 2 spots, upper and lower shore. Middle (Costa da Morte) and South of Galicia.
  51. 51. Assessment of the impact of harvesting activity on the population of seaweeds of interest (recovery and productivity). Chondrus crispus Laxe Total denudation Cut December 2004 before harvesting December 2004 after harvesting March 2005 June 2005 September 2005 January 2006
  52. 52. Time series of Finavarra Denude regrowth Jan 05-Jan 06 January 2005 March 2005 May 2005 September 2005 November 2005 January 2006
  53. 53. Successional studies related to exploitation techniques based on the percentage of the plot area covered by carrageenan seaweeds Chondrus crispus Mastocarpus stellatus % % 100 100 80 80 60 60 MOUGÁS 40 40 20 20 0 0 N04 D J05 F M A M J J A S O N04 J06 N04 D J05 F M A M J J A S O N04 J06 % % 100 100 Control 80 80 Pick up 60 60 LAXE Cut 40 40 20 Denudation 20 0 0 N04 D J05 F M A M J J A S O N04 J06 N04 D J05 F M A M J J A S O N04 J06 % % 100 100 80 80 SAN ROMÁN 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 N04 D J05 F M A M J J A S O N04 J06 N04 D J05 F M A M J J A S O N04 J06
  54. 54. Assessment of the impact of harvesting activity on the population of seaweeds of interest (recovery and productivity): Galicia and BMW. ! After one year, the areas where the algae were hand picked or cut, recovered their initial status for both species (C. crispus and M. Stellatus), reaching values close to those of the control areas. ! In the case of total denudation, the rate of recovery was lower, although differences related to the locations were observed.
  55. 55. Dynamics of the carragenophyte population analysis (size classes)
  56. 56. Sizing of Chondrus samples
  57. 57. Chondrus crispus recruitment (% number of fronds < 5 cm) Mougás Laxe San Román 100 100 100 90 < 5 cm 90 90 > 5 cm 80 80 80 70 70 70 60 60 60 50 50 50 40 40 40 30 30 30 20 20 20 10 10 10 0 0 0 De c _04 F e b_05 Apr J un Aug Oc t J a n_06 De c _04 F e b_05 Apr J un Aug Oc t J a n_06 De c _04 F e b_05 Apr J un Aug Oc t J a n_06
  58. 58. Seasonal changes of gametophytes and tetrasporophytes in Chondrus crispus populations (% N) Laxe (Galicia) % 100 80 60 40 20 0 Dec Feb_05 Apr Jun Aug Oct Jan_06 Braizon (BMW) 90 80 % average for site 70 60 Gametophyte 50 Tetrasporophyte 40 30 20 10 0 5 5 05 5 5 05 5 05 06 5 5 5 5 l-0 g-0 p-0 ct-0 -0 -0 b-0 -0 r-0 pr- v- ec- an- y n n u a a No Ja Ju Fe Au Se J O A J M D M
  59. 59. San Román (Galicia) % 100 80 60 40 20 0 Dec Feb_05 Apr Jun Aug Oct Jan_06 Black Head (BMW) 90 80 % average for site 70 60 Gametophyte 50 Tetrasporophyte 40 30 20 10 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 ul pr ct ov eb Mar ug un ay an ec an ep J J J F A O J N A S D M
  60. 60. Seasonal changes in fructified fronds of Chondrus crispus (% N ) Gametophyte Tetrasporophyte % % 25 25 20 20 San Román San Román Laxe Laxe Mougás 15 15 Mougás 10 10 5 5 0 0 Dec_04 Feb_05 Apr Jun Aug Oct Jan_06 Dec_04 Feb_05 Apr Jun Aug Oct Jan_06
  61. 61. Dynamics of the carrageenophyte populations !Recruitment of juvenile fronds was observed during the year for both species in the two regions. !Temporal and spatial variation in the recruitment rate were observed. !The growth rate of the C. crispus fronds was more or less uniform along the year for the three Galician sites. In BMW, some differences were recorded between sheltered and exposed sites. ! Differences in the proportion of gametophytic and tetrasporophytic fronds of C. crispus were observed among locations. Also, there were seasonal variations among and between populations. !The growth rate of the M. stellatus fronds reached the maximum values in summer for the three Galician sites. !The maximum percentages of fructified fronds were recorded in autumn and winter in both regions.
  62. 62. Quantitative and qualitative carrageenan analysis. Extraction Homogenization Concentration and filtration Precipitation Coagulation Freeze dried Crude extracts Filtration
  63. 63. Quantitative analysis of carrageenan production Galicia Chondrus crispus tetrasporophytes % % Chondrus crispus gam etophytes 70 Crude carrageenan content Crude carrageenan content 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 San Román 20 San Román Laxe Laxe 10 10 Mougás Mougás 0 0 DEC_ 0 4 FEB_ 0 5 APR_ 0 5 J UN_ 0 5 AUG_ 0 5 OCT_ 0 5 J AN_ 0 6 DEC_ 0 4 FEB_ 0 5 APR_ 0 5 J UN_ 0 5 AUG_ 0 5 OCT_ 0 5 J AN_ 0 6 M astocarpus stellatus gam etophytes % Crude carrageenan content 70 60 50 40 30 20 San Román Laxe 10 Mougás 0 DEC_ 0 4 FEB_ 0 5 APR_ 0 5 J UN_ 0 5 AUG_ 0 5 OCT_ 0 5 J AN_ 0 6
  64. 64. M astocarpus stell atus gam etophytes Crude carrageenan content % DW Galicia BMW 60,00 47,79 50,00 38,1 36,8 34,2 40,00 34,9 33,58 30,81 30,00 20,00 10,00 0,00 al án n xe ad ra s o gá d ar La om he iz id ou av ra Sp ck R nn B M la n Fi B Sa
  65. 65. Qualitative carrageenan analysis 1H NMR spectra of commercial carrageenan (Sigma – Aldrich) λ-carrageenan κ-carrageenan ι-carrageenan Chemical shifts referred to acetone 2.225 ppm
  66. 66. Qualitative carrageenan analysis Seasonal changes in carrageenan composition of Chondrus crispus gametophytes % 80 70 60 ν 50 ι µ 40 κ 30 20 10 0 12-04 03-05 06-05 09-05 12-04 03-05 06-05 09-05 12-04 03-05 06-05 09-05 Laxe Mougás San Román
  67. 67. Qualitative carrageenan analysis Seasonal changes in carrageenan composition of Mastocarpus stellatus gametophytes % 80 70 60 ν 50 ι µ 40 κ 30 20 10 0 12-04 03-05 06-05 09-05 12-04 03-05 06-05 09-05 12-04 03-05 06-05 09-05 Laxe Mougás San Román
  68. 68. Qualitative analysis of carrageenan production. FT-IR carrageenan spectra Ch. c. TEF Ch.c. GF M. s. GF
  69. 69. Quantitative and qualitative carrageenan analysis !The crude carrageenan extracts for both species fluctuated between 20 and 50% of the dry weight in the two regions. !The highest values of carrageenans for C. crispus and M stellatus gametophytes were observed in San Román – Galicia (values higher than 60% were observed). !Regarding the tetrasporophytes, differences among locations were not observed. !There were seasonal differences in carrageenans quantities: •Maximum values in summer and minimum values in early spring in Galicia (C. crispus and M. stellatus). •Maximum values in late autumn and the minimum in summer in BMW (M. stellatus).
  70. 70. RAPD comparison bettween individual and bulked methods RAPD patterns obtained from individuals (lanes 1-10) and bulked genomic DNA samples (lane B), with primer OPA-03 for Chondrus crispus and with primer OPA-10 for Mastocarpus stellatus M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 B M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 B M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 B Chondrus crispus Mastocarpus stellatus Mastocarpus stellatus San Román, Galicia, gametophytes Laxe, Galicia, gametophytes Spiddal, Co. Galway, gametophytes M: molecular weight marker
  71. 71. Chondrus crispus gametophytes Comparison among RAPD patterns obtained from bulked samples containing genomic DNA from 10 individuals in four Galician populations MWM SR L M PSP MWM SR L M PSP 3000 bp 2000 bp 1000 bp 250 bp OPA-03 OPA-02 MWM SR L M PSP MWM SR L M PSP 3000 bp 1000 bp 250 bp OPA-13 OPA-19
  72. 72. Mastocarpus stellatus gametophytes Comparison among RAPD patterns obtained from bulked samples containing genomic DNA from 10 individuals in Galician populations and 8 individuals in Irish populations SR L M B F S BR MWM SR L M B F S BR MWM SR L M B F S BR MWM OPA-03 OPA-02 OPA-04 MWM SR L M B F S BR MWM SR L M B F S BR SR L M B F S BR MWM OPA-18 OPA-20 OPA-13 MWM: molecular weight marker Galician populations- SR: San Román; L: Laxe; M: Mougás Irish populations- B:Blackhead; F:Finavarra; S:Spiddal; BR:Brezon
  73. 73. Genetic variability The results till now obtained show that: ! Strong genetic differences ocurred within Galician Chondrus crispus populations ! Strong genetic differences ocurred within and between Galician and Irish Mastocarpus stellatus populations
  74. 74.
  75. 75. Recommendations Future collaboration, exchange of information, and experience between Galicia and BMW to foster development of LOW VOLUME-HIGH VALUE SECTORS. • Skills development / training. • Marketing development and consumer awareness • Results with potential use to provide scientific basis for sustainable harvesting and resource management. • Expansion of the sampling period is advised to clarify seasonal variation of population dynamic and carrageenan content. • R&D of aquaculture of carrageenophytes
  76. 76. Interreg Community Initiative Programmes AquaReg Forum, Galway, May 23rd 2006
  77. 77. Presentation overview Interreg Programmes in Ireland ! Features & Challenges of Interreg 2000-2006 ! Future of Interreg post 2006 !
  78. 78. Interreg Programmes 2000-2006 1. Interreg IIIA Cross Border Ireland/Northern Ireland Ireland/Wales 2. Interreg IIIB Transnational Atlantic Area North West Europe 3. Interreg IIIC Interregional
  79. 79. Cross Border regions of Europe
  80. 80. INTERREG IIIA CROSS BORDER PROGRAMMES IN IRELAND Ireland/Wales IIIA Programme Ireland/N.Ireland IIIA Programme
  81. 81. Interreg IIIB - Transnational
  82. 82. Interreg IIIC - Interregional North: Rostock, Germany East: Vienna, Austria South: Valencia, Spain West: Lille, France North East South West
  83. 83. Interreg – Common themes Polycentric development/Spatial Devlpt. ! Accessibility & Transport infrastructure ! ICT & the Knowledge Economy ! The Environment, Maritime & Natural Resources ! R & D, Innovation, Technology Transfer ! Culture, Tourism & heritage ! Business Linkages ! Local development strategies !
  84. 84. Main Beneficiaries Universities & Research Centres ! ! Local & Regional Authorities ! Leader Groups ! Semi state bodies ! Community & Voluntary bodies ! BICs ! Private sector
  85. 85. What Interreg is worth to Ireland – some examples Interreg IIIA Ireland/Wales €28m Interreg IIIB Atlantic Area €15m Interreg IIIB North West Europe €17m Interreg IIIC (All Zones) €7.4m
  86. 86. The BMW Regional Assembly & Interreg National contact point for Interreg IIIB ! Atlantic Area Programme ! Member of PSC and PMC of Atlantic Area ! PMC member of Interreg IIIA Ireland/Northern Ireland Programme ! PSC & PMC member of Interreg IIIC (West Zone) programme
  87. 87. Benefits of INTERREG Co-operation The overall aim of the INTERREG initiatives has ! been, and remains, that national borders should not be a barrier to the balanced development and integration of European territory. Although the single market and EMU have been ! strong catalysts for change, the scope for strengthening co-operation to the mutual advantage of border areas throughout the Community is considerable. The challenge is all the greater when the enlargement ! of the Community is considered, as this has increased the number of the EU’s internal borders and has shifted the Community’s external borders eastwards
  88. 88. Benefits of INTERREG – contd. INTERREG is seen to be making a significant ! contribution towards balanced development and is helping social and economic cohesion. INTERREG is seen to be making a significant ! contribution to domestic policies. It is also seen to be a demonstration of the benefits of sharing experiences and best practices. Studies across the Community show respondents to ! be keen about the added value from innovative projects and joint investment.
  89. 89. Overall INTERREG’s cross-border, transnational, and inter-regional programmes are perceived to be delivering added value with potential for more.
  90. 90. Challenges for the future Greater use of INTERAct by partners & ! other EU technical support networks ! Greater State involvement in projects ! Financial Management of projects ! Greater Industry/Academia collaboration ! Greater private sector involvement ! More research by organisations into potential partnerships ! Projects led from Ireland ! Greater sustainability of projects
  91. 91. Structural Funds Post 2006 In Dec 2005 in Brussels EU Leaders reached ! agreement on an EU Budget of 1.045% of EU GNI (€862 billion) EU Leaders agreed a structural funds budget of ! €308 billion for the 2007 – 2013 period. Three priorities which will be funded through the ! ERDF and the ESF.
  92. 92. Three Cohesion Policy Objectives Objective 1 - Convergence ! Objective 2 - Regional Competitiveness ! and Employment Objective 3 - Territorial Co-operation !
  93. 93. Objective One : Convergence This concerns Member States and regions whose per ! capita GDP is less than 75% of the Community average. The key objective is to promote growth-enhancing ! conditions and factors leading to real convergence. Funding agreed of 81.9% or € 252 billion of ! Structural Funds. No Irish regions will be eligible !
  94. 94. Objective Two : Regional Competitiveness and employment This will focus on the more developed Member States and ! regions and will: a. consist of development programmes designed to ! help regions to anticipate and promote economic change by strengthening their competitiveness and attractiveness; and b. interventions aimed at creating more and better jobs ! by adapting the workforce to economic change. Funding agreed of 15.7% or € 48.4 billion. Ireland’s indicative ! allocation is €811m (which covers objectives 2 & 3)
  95. 95. Objective Three European Territorial Co-operation. This objective is intended to support co- ! operation between regions at cross-border, transnational, and inter-regional level in order to further develop the harmonious and balanced integration of the Union’s territory. Funding agreed of €7.5bn !
  96. 96. Objective 3 The ‘new’ INTERREG INTERREG is to be an Objective in its own right. ! It will have slightly increased funding as the ! agreed allocation between 2007 - 2013 is €7.5bn (2.4% ). This compares to 2.5% or €5.8 billion of ! Structural Funds in the current period.
  97. 97. Objective 3 - continued Co-financing of 50% likely in most programmes ! Decentralisation : there will be a stronger role ! for the regions and local players Legal Basis : there will be a new regulation – ! the ‘European Grouping of Cross-Border Co- operation’ ( EGCC)
  98. 98. Objective 3 – Eligibility & Priorities ! Eligibility will not be based on MS levels of GDP ! The whole of the European Union territory will be eligible for financing of European co-operation and exchange networks ! Priorities will be: - Innovation, R & D, Technology Transfer - Environment / risk prevention/ Maritime safety/coastal mgt - Accessibility, ICT, Transport systems - Culture, education
  99. 99. Objective 3 – Three Elements Cross-border co-operation ! Transnational co-operation ! Programmes for networks and exchange of ! experience
  100. 100. Objective 3 – Financial Allocations (current) Cross Border €5.8bn ! Transnational €1.4bn ! Interregional €300m !
  101. 101. CROSS BORDER area 2007-2013
  102. 102. Irish participation in Interreg 2007-2013 Continuation of Ireland/Wales cross border ! programme Possible extension of Ireland/N. Ireland cross ! border programme to include western Scotland Atlantic Area Transnational continuation ! NWE transnational continuation ! Potential involvement in new Northern Periphery ! programme Interreg Interregional programme continuation !
  103. 103. Contact Details BMW Regional Assembly, The Square, Ballaghaderreen, Co. Roscommon. Phone: 094-9862970 Fax: 094-9862973 e-mail: