21. The experts at the meeting agreed that the Terms of Reference (TORs) for the EAM should include the following:
Provide recommendations and advice to the GFCM, through CAQ, following task-oriented and problem-solving approaches.
Support existing networks with information and integration of aquaculture environmental issues management outputs throughout the region.
Support and enhance aquaculture within integrated coastal zone management activities (e.g.on site selection and on socio-economic benefit assessment).
Improve the image and perception of aquaculture-environment interactions at institutional and public levels through strategic approaches.
22. Following extensive discussions, the experts further agreed that the following were among the relevant issues to be included in the mandate of EAM:
harmonization of legal frameworks for aquaculture;
integrated EIA, monitoring and information management system;
integrated coastal zoning for aquaculture;
enhancement of the image of aquaculture.
23. On this basis, experts discussed options for the most effective institutional set-up for EAM, taking into account its role within the framework of the Commission. The following three options were identified:
EAM remains within the Commission and is coordinated by CAQ. Under this option there would be no need for an intergovernmental institution to ensure the coordination of EAM activities; this task would be assumed by the GFCM Secretariat.
EAM is developed as a network and coordinated by an appropriate partner institution. Under this option, the criteria (including the range of financial and organizational support) for identifying such partner would need to be delineated.
EAM is established as an independent network with its representatives participating in the GFCM and CAQ meetings as observers. Under this option, the fulfilment of the (second) terms of reference of the mandate of CAQ, i.e. the monitoring of interactions between aquaculture development and the environment would not necessary be secured.
24. The review of these options generated considerable debate, especially with regard to technical, scientific and financial backstopping that will be required to support EAM. The Meeting fully agreed that EAM should be re-established as a formal subsidiary body of the GFCM CAQ, either as a working party, sub-committee or else. The experts concurred that this was the best option to ensure an efficient, immediate and realistic functioning of EAM. Furthermore, it was also stressed that EAM should actively cooperate with all stakeholders at large including fish farmers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other relevant international and regional organizations. Indeed, it was agreed that EAM should incorporate in its activities existing international and regional agenda issues relevant to Mediterranean aquaculture development.
25. The experts discussed practical, technical and operational aspects related to the activities to be addressed and with the understanding that EAM should be organized around ad hoc working groups focusing on the topics listed inparagraph 22, with issues b) and c) to be dealt together by a single working group. It was felt that this modus operandi and recommended set-up would be more efficient than the previous EAM structure.
26. Following extensive discussions among the experts, the major issuesand initial activities to be handled by EAM ad hoc working groups were reviewed and decided. It was further agreed that the timeframe for the activities should not exceed three years, unless otherwise recommended by the Commission. The following, short-and medium-term (1–3 years) activities and outputs were identified:
Topic 1 : Harmonization of environmental legislations and standards related to aquaculture | ||
| • | Activity 1.1 | Collection and compilation of relevant texts. |
| • | Activity 1.2 | Comparative analysis of hard and soft laws, including using the FAO National AquacultureLegislation Overviews (NALOs) and other studies on aquaculture legislation and regulations. |
| Main outputs :Formulation of a set of recommendations for common rules and harmonization; production of comparative analysis for main topic at regional level; maintenance and upgrading of a database on environment and aquaculture related legislation, standards and guidelines. | ||
Topic 2 : Scaling aquaculture-environmental interactions, including monitoring risk of impacts to biodiversity | ||
| • | Activity 2.1 | Operational synthesis on studies and results from notably transnational research on aquaculture and environment. |
| Main outputs : Production of Mediterranean common standards for Environmental Impact Assessment/Strategic Environmental Assessment (EIA/SEA) and monitoring (including information listing standards, values, protocols, indicators, etc.); guidelines for monitoring activities;guidelines for best management practices. | ||
Topic 3 : Integrating aquaculture within a Coastal ZoneManagement framework | ||
| • | Activity 3.1 | Zoning of aquaculture. |
| • | Activity 3.2 | Site selection criteria. |
| • | Activity 3.3 | Interactions between aquaculture and fisheries. |
| Main outputs : Production of guidelines for aquaculture site selection; guidelines for best management practices. | ||
Topic 4 : Supporting the development of a proper public perception of aquaculture in relation to environment, including product quality and human health aspects | ||
| • | Activity 4.1 | Identification of main issues and criticisms to aquaculture. |
| • | Activity 4.2 | Devising strategies, in cooperation with private sector organizations, to rehabilitate the image of aquaculture in the Mediterranean. |
| Main outputs : Provision of relevant scientific information to devise strategy to enhance the image of aquaculture, to policy makers and the public at large. | ||
27. The experts acknowledged the importance that the EAM ad hoc working groups should closely interact with the other CAQnetworks, particularly with SELAM on Topic 4 above and SIPAM with respect to maintaining and distributing the products of databases.
28. Other aspects concerning the modus operandi of EAM were reviewed. Experts emphasized the need for national focal points (NFPs) to be nominated by each GFCM Member and that focal points are endowed with proper terms of reference. The NFPs should be identified based on technical competences and institutional backing capacity. It was suggested to invite the CAQ Focal Points to eventually identify EAM National Focal Points.
29. The experts agreed that each working group should have an appointed Coordinator as in the case of the GFCM sub-committees of the Scientific Advisory Committee. The coordinators would act as facilitators to ensure that the best expertise and institutions will participate in the working group'sactivities. In this respect, TORs would need to be developed.
30. A call was made for the Commission to earmark seed funding from the autonomous budget for further developing the ad hoc working group proposals bearing in mind that all CAQ activities are implemented over a two-year period, and that a budget for 2006 should be available to launch EAM activities. It was further agreed that TORs of the working groups could be further developed by the Secretariat for reviewing and endorsement by CAQat its fifth session.
31. The budget and description of the initial activities, along with a time plan, for each of the ad hoc working groups as developed by the experts are detailed in Appendix F. The initial forecast of expenditure for each working group in 2006 was estimated to be between 15000 to 30000 Euros.
32. Finally, the experts agreed that the proposal for the re-establishment of EAM be presented to the Commission at its thirtieth session (Istanbul, Turkey, 24–27 January 2006), for consideration and possible endorsement in principle, in order to initiate the activities of the working groups. The report of the present meeting would also be presented and discussed at the fifth session of CAQ.
33. The Secretariat thanked all participants for their active contribution in the discussions and welcomed their future involvement with the development of EAM and implementation of future activities.
34. The present report was finalized by the Secretariat and circulated to all the experts attending the meeting for their comments and approval.
